Who is a bigger Superstar? Gaga or Beyonce?

[Didymus 34,379]

2 minutes ago, StrawberryBlond said:

However you choose to interpret it, she's not much of a creator and that's just a fact.

Never did I disagree with that. In fact I explicitly agreed with that pages ago. I really don't understand why you keep bringing that up.

3 minutes ago, StrawberryBlond said:

I don't know how you could possibly deny the idea of "less writers = more personal involvement." What, so you believe in the opposite? How does that make any sense?

LMFAO

Beyoncé could "co-write" an entire album with just one dude, that doesn't mean they each did 50% of the work. For all we know, the other guy could've written 90%. How does it make sense to, without even knowing how the writing process went, conclude, as you do, that the amount of writers is directly relevant to the amount of input Beyoncé has? Are you stupid?

4 minutes ago, StrawberryBlond said:

Thing is, I have to bring up this stuff so that people can find my opinion more valid. It's hopeless trying to make Beyonce fans understand why her music is mediocre at times. You explain and they don't accept it, they just say you're pressed. So, you have to bring up other stuff like how there are people making this type of music better and aren't getting the praise for it or she didn't even really create the work that they're claiming came from her, etc.

But bitch, this isn't even a Beyoncé forum This wasn't even a thread that had so many Beyoncé fans, generally, people don't even like her on this place

You keep imagining you're talking to some pressed fan when in reality, I don't give a **** about the extra **** you have to come up with to make your opinion more valid, you were already 100% off-topic from your second sentence in your first post Jesus. Maybe try to get the context straight before you start firing off at imaginary enemies.

6 minutes ago, StrawberryBlond said:

Part of the reasons she slays Y&I live is because she plays piano. Beyonce can't play an instrument, so she can't truly bring the authenticity of DL because she can't play guitar. People who are doing covers of that song right now on YouTube are more authentic than her. Most country artists can play at least one instrument, so when you sing a country song without instrument playing, it takes down your authenticity.

Cackling.

I guess Tina Turner should never have been allowed to make rock music because she didn't play the electric guitar either. Get over yourself, girl, nobody cares about your delusional authenticity claims. This is 100% your opinion and, frankly, everyone can see your arguments are way off from a mile away.

And btw, I'm waiting for your explanation as to why Gaga made a country version of her track while not being able to play the guitar (she didn't play piano there so don't come with the instrument **** - how does that even matter, Beyoncé plays the most important instrument in any genre you could have: vocals).

9 minutes ago, StrawberryBlond said:

Yet, its taken Beyonce 13 years to take a proper risk. That just strikes me as someone who thought being experimental is trendy now so she may as well try it.

Note how now you're saying her last albums were experimental when you've been saying they were basic, derivative and bland throughout this whole thread.

10 minutes ago, StrawberryBlond said:

I think my criticisms of Beyonce's inability to pull off mutiple genres with ease (and without help), her lack of involvement in the creation of her work and her shady business tactics to get sales are 100% relevant to judging if she's a superstar or not.

Then why did you say Beyoncé was the biggest superstar?

14 minutes ago, StrawberryBlond said:

And for goodness sake, stop saying it's what a Gaga hater would say - I've seen that phrase thrown around here so often and it means nothing because we're talking about 2 different artists. Obviously, I don't agree with the criticisms of Gaga and believe these criticisms do not apply to her. But do these same criticisms apply to other artists? Of course! So, how is it a double standard?

Except you already brought her up in your second sentence of your first post. And it's a double standard because of the examples I have used this whole time: you thinking there's a difference between Gaga and Beyoncé selling tickets in advance of their album, you thinking there's a difference between two pop artists incorporating different genres into their work,... and it's all based on your blatant bias instead of actual arguments rooted in objective reality, that's what a double standard is

17 minutes ago, StrawberryBlond said:

I did that yesterday concerning Beyonce stealing If I Were A Boy and you brushed me off. But I found your opinion unfair, weird and invalid, so why didn't you want to entertain a different way of looking at things? You don't seem so keen to have your opinion critiqued like you claim.

Erm, I told you your version of the story was 100% false and I couldn't even find anything about Beyoncé falsifying credits anywhere online, so I'm guessing you heard that from some flop pop forum or whatever.

Besides, I thought I already had made a good counterargument (to someone else): there's not much of a difference between what Beyoncé did and what Gaga did with Infected Mushroom. Sure, Gaga wrote a vocal melody to go on top, but does that make her main writer when everything else was just bought and cropped? Why is she even a producer on that track? For cutting out the good parts? For singing on top of it (same argument you brought with Beyoncé's vocals/production). Plus she ignored the wishes of the artist and just smacked money on the table so they'd agree with her demands. But Gaga's the creator, sure.

20 minutes ago, StrawberryBlond said:

and I do think it's very interesting if you bring up some insider knowledge.

*Wikipedia knowledge

21 minutes ago, StrawberryBlond said:

Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's unfair and BS. I've found that a lot of Beyonce fans get angry when you present them with the truth because deep down, they know it's true and they can't stand it because it topples their idea of stanning for an impossible goddess who does everything right. Like I said, I'd happily go into an indepth analysis of Lemonade but now isn't the time. I did post a review of it when it came out, though.

Erm, my first reply was very kind, thoughtful and I just presented you with some good counterarguments to what I thought were exaggerations. But you just kept slamming on things that didn't have anything to do with my post, just in order to bring Beyoncé down no matter what. Which is when I got agitated.

So don't twist the story. You came in here trying to prove Beyoncé was nothing more than a trickster and Gaga was an artist with artistic integrity, unlike her. If that's saying something we know deep down is true (it's not, for the record) that is gonna topple our paradigm, then I suggest you try a bit harder.

I've been entirely consistent with my criticism: false or vaguely construed facts are never to be used to back up your opinion to make it look better (and don't pretend I haven't countered them throughout this whole conversation - if you don't remember that, then read back) and I think your posts are better without it. And I have repeated over and over again that I am not a Beyoncé stan and I'm only getting angry because you keep avoiding the necessary jump off the pedestal: you opinion is just as irrelevant as everyone else's.

Note how I haven't even brought my own opinion to the table except for a few times as illustrations (ex. I don't like the Beyoncé video's, as proof that not everyone is even watching those things in the first place and is thus not distracted from the quality of the music - you felt the need to counter that with a hilariously fabricated "fact", which is exactly what I mean: you constantly feel the need to walse over everything and anything that doesn't fit your point of view, lavishly decorated with a false frame of objectivity). I've only tried to cut through the bs layers around your, if I'm honest, very simple opinion: I don't like her last new albums, I think she has no artistic integrity, and I don't think she should be getting as much praise as she gets for doing half of what better pop stars are doing. How is that so hard to say without bringing up "objective" data?

[StrawberryBlond 14,460]

@Didymus

I only keep bringing it up because you keep bringing it up. We're just replying to each other. Want to stop talking about it? Do just that.

No, it doesn't mean it was all 50/50, but there's a much higher liklihood that it was, given the circumstances. The more people there are, particularly if it's a really short, basic song, means they can only be writing one line or so each. This isn't being stupid, it's being logical.

This place is filled with Beyonce fans, hence all the talk about her album recently. I'm shocked that you'd think it was any different. Talking about the superstardom credentials of each one was completely relevant, not off-topic at all. And you sure are coming off as an obsessed stan, considering you've argued with me so passionately and won't let it drop.

Tina Turner wasn't a creator either - she never wrote a song in her life. But that doesn't mean she shouldn't be allowed to do rock, just that she was hardly an authentic rockstar, considering that she didn't write or play, 2 essential components to be a rockstar. She made up for that with singing and performance ability. You can do any genre you want, just be aware of how authentic you are at it. Who cares if Gaga made a country version of a song - it was just made to gain some extra sales by tapping into a different market, no different to releasing a dance remix to get EDM fans in. I'm not talking about cover versions but original songs intended to be a specific genre. And I don't regard vocals as an instrument. I know not everyone agrees with this, not even professional musicians, but this is just my opinion. Speaking as a singer myself, I think considering vocals as an instrument is ludicrous because a voice is an inate thing that comes from within and to a certain extent, you can't be taught to be better - it's just a natural talent that can only go so far, especially in regard to what vocal style you have (a bass can't do high tenor notes, sopranos can't do low contralto notes and so on). With an instrument, it's outside the body, an inanimate object, outwith your control in lots of ways and with enough practice, you can achieve the greatest level. Completely different. I think calling the voice an instrument is an insult to actual instrument players. I would walk across hot coals to be able to play an instrument, but it's just a talent I don't possess. To suggest that I'm on the same level as those who do have that talent just because I can hold a note that came from my own body is ridiculous.

No, I said Lemonade was experimental (well, some of it, anyway), nothing else was.

I said Beyonce was the biggest superstar at the current moment. But when I said that, I was talking about it purely in the superficial sense of the word, which is looking at sales - Beyonce's albums sold more than AP and C2C and her tours pulled in more money, so she appeared to be at the top on a surface level. The next 2 long paragraphs were about the deeper elements of being a superstar, which I felt Beyonce was surprisingly lacking in. Go back and look at what I wrote with this in mind. I had just found out that Lemonade had debuted in the UK with fewer opening week sales (pure album sales) than AP, so I was naturally questioning if Beyonce really is as much of a superstar as we think if she can't even get a 6 figure opening week in her 2nd biggest market, despite playing for nearly 400k people in this country less than 2 years ago. When Gaga debuted with AP in the UK with 67k, she was called a flop. Yes, she had a whole week of sales and Beyonce didn't, but still, I think Adele's first week UK sales have proved that you can sell 100k, and more, in less than a week here if you are a major star. I mean, Beyonce's self-titled sold just under 68k in 2 days. 2 and a bit years later, she can't even sell 68k in 5 days.

When Gaga puts out tickets before her next album goes on sale, I'll criticise her for it. But TFM was a completely different thing. I've explained why several times, I'm not going to go into it again. And I think Gaga pulls off other genres because she's a natural artist and creator whereas Beyonce is not. I do base these thoughts in objective reality, thank you.

No, I did not hear the story from "some flop pop forum." This is a genuine story I got from some sort of official source about Beyonce being on songwriting credits for changing one word. And I remember once seeing a YouTube video once showing the official credits booklet with Beyonce's name on the credits, but it's gone now. Using the Aura example is quite valid, but nowhere near what Beyonce did. Buying an instrumental and putting words on it is completely different. Gaga didn't sing on top of it, she added lyrics to it that weren't there before, no changing lyrics, supplying lyrics that didn't exist. Zedd also added in extra production and she obviously did something too. Obviously, she wasn't the only creator on that track, but the way she went about it was completely above board. Besides, Infected Mushroom have been going since 1996 and released many albums, they're doing fine. BC Jean, on the other hand, was all set to record this song for her debut album as an unsigned artist and this song was her baby and what was going to put her on the map, but then Beyonce waltzed in and decided she was going to take it and put her name on the credits despite changing one word. I think that's very different.

No, not just Wiki knowledge. This knowledge is gained from all different sources.

I gave you answers and you didn't like them - that simple. You kept the argument going when I just wanted to end it. And if you don't think I proved anything, that's your issue and your opinion. Oh, you've certainly countered everything I've said, but I think you're the one with false and vaguely construed facts. Isn't that a funny thing? Don't worry, I'm under no delusions, I know my opinion's irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. It's just nice to get it out, even if it's into an essentially empty room. I didn't say that everyone was overexaggerating the quality of the songs based on the videos, just that a lot do. Not all, just a lot. My opinion is just the same as anyone else's, I just like to inject some facts into it wherever possible. Most of the time, I find out facts and base my opinion around them, I try not to judge much based on rumour, but only on what I know for sure. But there's nothing wrong with coming up with a theory for why someone does something, based on the things they did in the past and their personality (this is the part of me that wanted to. I'm sick of people around here saying that I'm wrong for doing that. I don't claim to speak the truth on everything, but why is it so wrong to just be interested in the way that other humans think and what drives them? I didn't bring up this "simple opinion," because that's not what the thread was about. But I bring up objective data because that is very valid in some cases. There is a certain layer of objectivity to a song, for example, things like tone of the beat, quality of vocals, etc. so I use this kind of stuff to explain why I'm baffled as to why a certain song is getting so much praise as it doesn't appear to be doing anything right that appeals to the average ear.

[Azor Ahai 18,861]

Who the fck votes Beyonce , this is a LADY GAGA  forum , she wins every poll thank you.

[johnpe 916]

https://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=beyonce%2C%20lady%20gaga&cmpt=q&tz=Etc%2FGMT-3

bye

 

[johnpe 916]

15 hours ago, StrawberryBlond said:

@Didymus

I only keep bringing it up because you keep bringing it up. We're just replying to each other. Want to stop talking about it? Do just that.

No, it doesn't mean it was all 50/50, but there's a much higher liklihood that it was, given the circumstances. The more people there are, particularly if it's a really short, basic song, means they can only be writing one line or so each. This isn't being stupid, it's being logical.

This place is filled with Beyonce fans, hence all the talk about her album recently. I'm shocked that you'd think it was any different. Talking about the superstardom credentials of each one was completely relevant, not off-topic at all. And you sure are coming off as an obsessed stan, considering you've argued with me so passionately and won't let it drop.

Tina Turner wasn't a creator either - she never wrote a song in her life. But that doesn't mean she shouldn't be allowed to do rock, just that she was hardly an authentic rockstar, considering that she didn't write or play, 2 essential components to be a rockstar. She made up for that with singing and performance ability. You can do any genre you want, just be aware of how authentic you are at it. Who cares if Gaga made a country version of a song - it was just made to gain some extra sales by tapping into a different market, no different to releasing a dance remix to get EDM fans in. I'm not talking about cover versions but original songs intended to be a specific genre. And I don't regard vocals as an instrument. I know not everyone agrees with this, not even professional musicians, but this is just my opinion. Speaking as a singer myself, I think considering vocals as an instrument is ludicrous because a voice is an inate thing that comes from within and to a certain extent, you can't be taught to be better - it's just a natural talent that can only go so far, especially in regard to what vocal style you have (a bass can't do high tenor notes, sopranos can't do low contralto notes and so on). With an instrument, it's outside the body, an inanimate object, outwith your control in lots of ways and with enough practice, you can achieve the greatest level. Completely different. I think calling the voice an instrument is an insult to actual instrument players. I would walk across hot coals to be able to play an instrument, but it's just a talent I don't possess. To suggest that I'm on the same level as those who do have that talent just because I can hold a note that came from my own body is ridiculous.

No, I said Lemonade was experimental (well, some of it, anyway), nothing else was.

I said Beyonce was the biggest superstar at the current moment. But when I said that, I was talking about it purely in the superficial sense of the word, which is looking at sales - Beyonce's albums sold more than AP and C2C and her tours pulled in more money, so she appeared to be at the top on a surface level. The next 2 long paragraphs were about the deeper elements of being a superstar, which I felt Beyonce was surprisingly lacking in. Go back and look at what I wrote with this in mind. I had just found out that Lemonade had debuted in the UK with fewer opening week sales (pure album sales) than AP, so I was naturally questioning if Beyonce really is as much of a superstar as we think if she can't even get a 6 figure opening week in her 2nd biggest market, despite playing for nearly 400k people in this country less than 2 years ago. When Gaga debuted with AP in the UK with 67k, she was called a flop. Yes, she had a whole week of sales and Beyonce didn't, but still, I think Adele's first week UK sales have proved that you can sell 100k, and more, in less than a week here if you are a major star. I mean, Beyonce's self-titled sold just under 68k in 2 days. 2 and a bit years later, she can't even sell 68k in 5 days.

When Gaga puts out tickets before her next album goes on sale, I'll criticise her for it. But TFM was a completely different thing. I've explained why several times, I'm not going to go into it again. And I think Gaga pulls off other genres because she's a natural artist and creator whereas Beyonce is not. I do base these thoughts in objective reality, thank you.

No, I did not hear the story from "some flop pop forum." This is a genuine story I got from some sort of official source about Beyonce being on songwriting credits for changing one word. And I remember once seeing a YouTube video once showing the official credits booklet with Beyonce's name on the credits, but it's gone now. Using the Aura example is quite valid, but nowhere near what Beyonce did. Buying an instrumental and putting words on it is completely different. Gaga didn't sing on top of it, she added lyrics to it that weren't there before, no changing lyrics, supplying lyrics that didn't exist. Zedd also added in extra production and she obviously did something too. Obviously, she wasn't the only creator on that track, but the way she went about it was completely above board. Besides, Infected Mushroom have been going since 1996 and released many albums, they're doing fine. BC Jean, on the other hand, was all set to record this song for her debut album as an unsigned artist and this song was her baby and what was going to put her on the map, but then Beyonce waltzed in and decided she was going to take it and put her name on the credits despite changing one word. I think that's very different.

No, not just Wiki knowledge. This knowledge is gained from all different sources.

I gave you answers and you didn't like them - that simple. You kept the argument going when I just wanted to end it. And if you don't think I proved anything, that's your issue and your opinion. Oh, you've certainly countered everything I've said, but I think you're the one with false and vaguely construed facts. Isn't that a funny thing? Don't worry, I'm under no delusions, I know my opinion's irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. It's just nice to get it out, even if it's into an essentially empty room. I didn't say that everyone was overexaggerating the quality of the songs based on the videos, just that a lot do. Not all, just a lot. My opinion is just the same as anyone else's, I just like to inject some facts into it wherever possible. Most of the time, I find out facts and base my opinion around them, I try not to judge much based on rumour, but only on what I know for sure. But there's nothing wrong with coming up with a theory for why someone does something, based on the things they did in the past and their personality (this is the part of me that wanted to. I'm sick of people around here saying that I'm wrong for doing that. I don't claim to speak the truth on everything, but why is it so wrong to just be interested in the way that other humans think and what drives them? I didn't bring up this "simple opinion," because that's not what the thread was about. But I bring up objective data because that is very valid in some cases. There is a certain layer of objectivity to a song, for example, things like tone of the beat, quality of vocals, etc. so I use this kind of stuff to explain why I'm baffled as to why a certain song is getting so much praise as it doesn't appear to be doing anything right that appeals to the average ear.

is he defending beyonce with his last energy again :toofunny:

 

[Snow 1,582]

@StrawberryBlondDon't care about this topic anymore, but I really have to point out one thing out of many of your erm interesting opinions. And trust me, thats what they are eventhough you keep trying so hard to convince ppl you're somekind of expert or professional. You just are not.

But The thing I have to say is. "You as a singer" blaah blaah "voice is not an Instrument" is The biggest joke I have ever heard here and tells everything about your true knowledge of The subject. It IS an instrument. You can treat it as almost any other instrument and work on it accordingly. Please get educated and stop telling amateur opinions as truth. Oh and acompaning yourself whilst singing does not give you some deeper connection to it that what you couldnt achive without it (well maybe to some amateurs whos abilities as musicians are somewhat limited, but no its not necessary). Oh and another side note, most educated singers "can" pretty much sing from alto to soprano, they are just usually using The "best" and most suited range for their voice and tonality.

[Didymus 34,379]

15 hours ago, StrawberryBlond said:

No, it doesn't mean it was all 50/50, but there's a much higher liklihood that it was, given the circumstances. The more people there are, particularly if it's a really short, basic song, means they can only be writing one line or so each. This isn't being stupid, it's being logical.

No it is being stupid, because I already told you you had to subtract the writers of the songs she sampled

A run-down of how many (real) writers are on Lemonade for you (and don't bring me the "samples count too" argument because if you listened to the album carefully, you'll know that the samples aren't integrated as contributing to the main structure of the song and serve as heavily edited sonical details):

Spoiler

01. Pray You Catch Me (3 writers, Beyoncé incl.)
02. Hold Up (7 writers, Beyoncé incl.)
03. Don't Hurt Yourself (3 writers, Beyoncé incl.)
04. Sorry (3 writers, Beyoncé incl.)
05. 6 Inch (7 writers, Beyoncé incl.)
06. Daddy Lessons (4 writers, Beyoncé incl.)
07. Love Drought (3 writers, Beyoncé incl.)
08. Sandcastles (4 writers, Beyoncé incl.)
09. Forward (2 writers, Beyoncé incl.)
10. Freedom (6 writers, Beyoncé incl.)
11. All Night (8 writers, Beyoncé incl.)
12. Formation (5 writers, Beyoncé incl.)

That's 7 out of 12 tracks below 5 writers, Beyoncé included. Dangerously in Love had 10 out of 15 songs below 5 writers (and, yes, I took care not to count the sampled artists and interpolations, and I didn't count The Closer I Get to You for obvious reasons) so the ratio is exactly the same.

16 hours ago, StrawberryBlond said:

To suggest that I'm on the same level as those who do have that talent just because I can hold a note that came from my own body is ridiculous.

Except nobody said that singing and playing an instrument qualifies as being on the same level. I don't understand your authenticity claims because we're not talking about rock artists, we're talking about rock stars. I find it odd that you'd discredit legendary rock stars like Morrissey, Bruce Dickinson, Ozzy Osbourne, Robert Plant, Mick Jagger, Rob Halford, Ronnie James Dio, Jim Morrison and Michael Stipe to name a few just because they didn't do anything else but sing. And yes I know that Mick can in theory play piano and guitar but if you don't do it on stage I don't see how that magically restores your idea of rock star authenticity.

I also find it odd that you apparently don't see any discrepancy in praising Gaga for taking on a genre like jazz, which obviously requires vocal interpretation (which in my personal opinion is an artform) more than anything else. Would you say Gaga would not qualify as a jazz singer because she doesn't play piano on stage? And what about vocal icons like Aretha Franklin, Céline Dion, Lisa Gerrard,... are they all inauthentic music stars just because they only had their voice to work with?

16 hours ago, StrawberryBlond said:

When Gaga puts out tickets before her next album goes on sale, I'll criticise her for it. But TFM was a completely different thing. I've explained why several times, I'm not going to go into it again.

Well I also explained several times why your logic didn't apply, so this is really a non-answer.

16 hours ago, StrawberryBlond said:

And I think Gaga pulls off other genres because she's a natural artist and creator whereas Beyonce is not. I do base these thoughts in objective reality, thank you.

Well, earlier you said that in other genres Beyoncé looks like an amateur and Gaga like a pro. So what would you say of this performance?

Alone on stage. Working a jazz rendition of her song. No "help" needed like you said. Why is she an amateur who can't pull this off?

And why is this genius:

Completely overpowered by what I guess I should call an "authentic" country artist versus Gaga who's just playing some chords and not bringing it vocally.

Why does it have to be black and white? Beyoncé is not an amateur when it comes to holding her own in various styles of music, neither is Gaga (though she obviously can't compete with an "authentic" country artist, something you claimed she could because of her "natural artist and creator" self. I don't see what that has to do with anything. Gaga won't be able to sing Respect like Aretha [neither won't Bey], so why do we have to bring authenticity into it at all? Vocal interpretation can be impressive enough.).

16 hours ago, StrawberryBlond said:

Oh, you've certainly countered everything I've said, but I think you're the one with false and vaguely construed facts. Isn't that a funny thing?

Why? I haven't even been claiming anything. Other than the fact that your objective data is either wrong or biased to a degree that's fine when you present an opinion, but not when you present an opinion "based in objective reality" like you're saying again now.

And I didn't say I countered everything. But I definitely countered some things, such as your early claim that Gaga never sold tickets for a tour that preceded an album release, or your claim that Beyoncé used the same strategy for Beyoncé and Lemonade, or your claim that the Mrs. Carter Tour was also a fan rip-off, or your claim that Beyoncé was only impressive when you looked at the visuals simultaneously, or your claim that her new albums prove she's not as involved as she was back in the day.

But if you wanna end the conversation, fine. I don't care either way, I just think it's sad that you have to keep grounding your very personal opinion into what you think is "objective reality", especially when you come into a thread just to criticize someone.

[StrawberryBlond 14,460]

5 hours ago, Snow said:

@StrawberryBlondDon't care about this topic anymore, but I really have to point out one thing out of many of your erm interesting opinions. And trust me, thats what they are eventhough you keep trying so hard to convince ppl you're somekind of expert or professional. You just are not.

But The thing I have to say is. "You as a singer" blaah blaah "voice is not an Instrument" is The biggest joke I have ever heard here and tells everything about your true knowledge of The subject. It IS an instrument. You can treat it as almost any other instrument and work on it accordingly. Please get educated and stop telling amateur opinions as truth. Oh and acompaning yourself whilst singing does not give you some deeper connection to it that what you couldnt achive without it (well maybe to some amateurs whos abilities as musicians are somewhat limited, but no its not necessary). Oh and another side note, most educated singers "can" pretty much sing from alto to soprano, they are just usually using The "best" and most suited range for their voice and tonality.

I never said I was an expert or professional. This is what other people are putting on me.

There are professional musicians who don't regard the voice as an instrument and those who do. It's a difference of opinion, that's all. I judge making sounds with inanimate objects to be instrument playing, I regard making noises with your mouth to be singing and I think that's perfectly reasonable. An instrument can be replaced if you irreparably damage it, a voice cannot. An instrument has always referred to an inanimate object, so that's just the way I percieve it. It's not an amateur opinion as it's not just amateurs who think this way. There are 2 schools of thought on the concept of the voice as an instrument. And I didn't say you needed to play an instrument to be closer to the music (though it can help), just that it improves your authenticity in certain genres (rock and country, mainly).

 

@Didymus

I'm just going to only speak about your points that'll actually go somewhere as this argument as gone on too long and I'm bored with it.

If you think singing and playing an instrument are one and the same, then yes, you are claiming them to be on the same level. And I'm not saying the rock artists you listed are inauthentic, just that their authenticity could be improved by playing an instrument, considering that this is a major part of the rockstar philosophy - making lots of noise with instruments, smashing them, etc.

No, I wouldn't disqualify Gaga as a jazz singer because she doesn't play piano on stage (which she does, including for jazz songs). There are jazz players and jazz singers. The ones who only play instruments and the ones who only sing. There are some that do both but most do one or the other. Different genres approach authenticity differently and some don't require instruments at all (pop). Of course you're not inauthentic because all you can do is sing, but in certain genres, doing more gives you extra credibility points.

I would hardly call Beyonce's jazz rendition of her song genius. The scatting at the beginning sounded good, but then it got really weird after at 1:22 and it didn't sound that good to me. Ultimately, she's just doing a different version of one of her own songs, which is a different thing. I've seen other videos of Beyonce singing jazz standards and she's better. But I already said she can do RnB and soul best, so jazz ties in somewhat to that. My argument was that she can't do country authentically. Show me her singing rock or country authentically, then we're talk. I mean, even when she did We Will Rock You for the Pepsi ad, the beat changed to RnB and she sang it in an RnB way because she can't pull off rock.

Gaga was not overpowered, she just had a different voice and she did play the piano the same way she always has for that song. They did a great performance together, I don't know what you're talking about. Although I think the live performances of it from her tour are the most genius ones. She plays the piano with her feet, plays her guitarist's guitar with her teeth, runs down a catwalk and throws herself on the ground, all the while not caring about how pretty she looks. If that's not authentic rock and roll, I don't know what is. This is what gets me about Beyonce - she focuses too much on looking pretty and perfect. Even her "loose" moments are perfectly choreographed. She can't truly let herself go and be a slave to the music.

Well, for one thing, I dislike how you're bringing Gaga down to make Beyonce look better. You can do that anywhere else, but not on a Gaga fan forum. I wouldn't be here if I didn't think Gaga was amazing and worth defending, so don't be surprised when I come up with a lot of stuff that makes her better than Beyonce in my view. Yet, you are cobbling together whatever you can to boost Beyonce, even if it involves bringing your fave down. And you're defending Beyonce and trying to reach for ways in which she can be defended. That's what I call unfair and BS. Your claim that Beyonce didn't use the same strategy for her last two albums is laughable (no, it wasn't exactly the same but it was about 90% the same - it still stands).

We're not going to agree, so why are we wasting our time here? I'm wanting to end the conversation, but you keep on extending it and I reply because that's just my way. But I've had enough now. Can we just end it?

[Snow 1,582]

1 hour ago, StrawberryBlond said:

I never said I was an expert or professional. This is what other people are putting on me.

There are professional musicians who don't regard the voice as an instrument and those who do. It's a difference of opinion, that's all. I judge making sounds with inanimate objects to be instrument playing, I regard making noises with your mouth to be singing and I think that's perfectly reasonable. An instrument can be replaced if you irreparably damage it, a voice cannot. An instrument has always referred to an inanimate object, so that's just the way I percieve it. It's not an amateur opinion as it's not just amateurs who think this way. There are 2 schools of thought on the concept of the voice as an instrument. And I didn't say you needed to play an instrument to be closer to the music (though it can help), just that it improves your authenticity in certain genres (rock and country, mainly).

 

@Didymus

 

Well, first of no, you don't make voice with your mouth. Like at ALL. Its way more complicated thing. And no, its not really "two schools" or matter of opinion (see there again, you tried to put yourself and your view in a higher authority or whatever by starting to invent obscure "schools"). In this context voice is an instrument with what you Express your musical vision and musicality, you train it in The same way etc. It is an instrument to make music. It doesnt really matter that it isn't a object you can remove or replace in this context (thats more semantics and limiting The word only to an object, it can be abstract too, I.e wisdom can be an instrument) but thats not what The point Here is. Its ALL about making music. ALL of them require equal amount of work to master truly. ALL to express music. None are " higher" or "better" than The other. And no, no singer is more limited or less authentic if they don't accompany themselves. Thats ridicilous. 

Where you really really went wrong though was with, voice comes from Inside. Erm yeah physically and The sound comes from Inside The piano. However music and expressin always comes from The Inside of The musicians soul. The physical tool I.e instrument doesnt matter. And then you can absolutely train voice very very much. Your natural talents actually take you only so far. Just like with any instrument and their technical mastety (as a tool to express music). So no, you are quite wrong there too.

I have never ever met a Fellow Professional in My Life (regardless that Im a pianisti) anywhere in The world that doesnt regard their voice as their instrument with what they work, make music and train. Totally equally to us that play piano, or violin or whatnot. And I have met hundreds of Professional singers over The years. So no, your view of two schools doesnt really exist itrw.

Maybe you should go study The next 20 years on The matter and then work, let's then discuss your view.

But this is not The place to discuss this. Just try to learn a bit humility and not try to argue everything.

And im not saying you don't have good views and arguments too.

Edit. Forgot to point one last Fault in your logic. IF singer looses voice, it cant be replaced. This May be due damage to vocal chords or other "machinary" needed. However you say that a violin can be replaced IF damaged? Sure but not The same thing. In similar situation musicians (i.e violin player)would loose a finger or something as a result of trauma or something and looses The ability to use "The tool" to make music. Now thats not replaceable either. So thats faulty argumentti on your part. Singer doesnt loose voice aby more than player a finger. Result is The same.

[StrawberryBlond 14,460]

25 minutes ago, Snow said:

Well, first of no, you don't make voice with your mouth. Like at ALL. Its way more complicated thing. And no, its not really "two schools" or matter of opinion (see there again, you tried to put yourself and your view in a higher authority or whatever by starting to invent obscure "schools"). In this context voice is an instrument with what you Express your musical vision and musicality, you train it in The same way etc. It is an instrument to make music. It doesnt really matter that it isn't a object you can remove or replace in this context (thats more semantics and limiting The word only to an object, it can be abstract too, I.e wisdom can be an instrument) but thats not what The point Here is. Its ALL about making music. ALL of them require equal amount of work to master truly. ALL to express music. None are " higher" or "better" than The other. And no, no singer is more limited or less authentic if they don't accompany themselves. Thats ridicilous. 

Where you really really went wrong though was with, voice comes from Inside. Erm yeah physically and The sound comes from Inside The piano. However music and expressin always comes from The Inside of The musicians soul. The physical tool I.e instrument doesnt matter. And then you can absolutely train voice very very much. Your natural talents actually take you only so far. Just like with any instrument and their technical mastety (as a tool to express music). So no, you are quite wrong there too.

I have never ever met a Fellow Professional in My Life (regardless that Im a pianisti) anywhere in The world that doesnt regard their voice as their instrument with what they work, make music and train. Totally equally to us that play piano, or violin or whatnot. And I have met hundreds of Professional singers over The years. So no, your view of two schools doesnt really exist itrw.

Maybe you should go study The next 20 years on The matter and then work, let's then discuss your view.

But this is not The place to discuss this. Just try to learn a bit humility and not try to argue everything.

And im not saying you don't have good views and arguments too.

I'm just saying "with your mouth" to avoid writing too much and make it simple. I don't know if it's a language barrier, but "2 schools of thought" is a common English expression to mean "2 different opinions." It's not an expression to state one's importance, it's just a way of speaking.

I'm not saying that singing requires no work, but it is extremely different from playing a physical instrument. I know where I am with my own voice, I'm lost when an instrument is in my hands because it's a foreign object outwith my control. I can't get my soul out with an instrument like I can with my voice. And I certainly can't do both at once. Maybe it's different for you because you can play an instrument. But for someone who isn't talented in that way, you may find it difficult to understand how polar opposites singing and playing are. The reason why I wasn't keen on Music at school was because it relied 100% on instrument playing (which I could barely do) and several teachers seemed to act like if you struggled like there was something wrong with you. If singing and instruments are one and the same, why did I feel so alienated and lost when it came to instruments? People who can play really can't seem to understand anyone who can't.

Sure, to  a singer, your voice is your career, your source of income, your bread and butter. So you must take care of it. But that's not the same as it being an instrument, at least not to me.

I'm not trying to lack humility. I'm just bringing my down-to-earth opinion to the table. I'm not trying to offend, this is just what I see as someone who can sing like it's a second nature but is completely lost with a physical instrument in front of me. For me, it's a different ball game. As someone who respects those who have the talent to play an instrument, I don't feel humble by putting myself on their level just because I can sing.

[Snow 1,582]

16 minutes ago, StrawberryBlond said:

I'm just saying "with your mouth" to avoid writing too much and make it simple. I don't know if it's a language barrier, but "2 schools of thought" is a common English expression to mean "2 different opinions." It's not an expression to state one's importance, it's just a way of speaking.

I'm not saying that singing requires no work, but it is extremely different from playing a physical instrument. I know where I am with my own voice, I'm lost when an instrument is in my hands because it's a foreign object outwith my control. I can't get my soul out with an instrument like I can with my voice. And I certainly can't do both at once. Maybe it's different for you because you can play an instrument. But for someone who isn't talented in that way, you may find it difficult to understand how polar opposites singing and playing are. The reason why I wasn't keen on Music at school was because it relied 100% on instrument playing (which I could barely do) and several teachers seemed to act like if you struggled like there was something wrong with you. If singing and instruments are one and the same, why did I feel so alienated and lost when it came to instruments? People who can play really can't seem to understand anyone who can't.

Sure, to  a singer, your voice is your career, your source of income, your bread and butter. So you must take care of it. But that's not the same as it being an instrument, at least not to me.

I'm not trying to lack humility. I'm just bringing my down-to-earth opinion to the table. I'm not trying to offend, this is just what I see as someone who can sing like it's a second nature but is completely lost with a physical instrument in front of me. For me, it's a different ball game. As someone who respects those who have the talent to play an instrument, I don't feel humble by putting myself on their level just because I can sing.

I believe I explained ALL in My previous post, please re-read it. You may view things as you please, but you are utterly wrong. There is no Such view in professional world. And Im sorry to say then that your musical abilities aren't then high enough IF you cant understand (its different than mastering) ALL tools to create music as The same thing, trust me, they are. Voice or singing is just inniatily more easier and accessable. But it gets just as hard later on. And requires as much work as other instruments no matter yoyr natural talents.

Btw, in professional studies you ALWAYS have to play and sing, nomatter you instrument. Its ALL about training your musicality regardless of "tool". 

But yeah, trust me thats The way it is. Voice is an instrument. Full stop. For example, yeah you have to Take care of The physical aspect of your " voice machinary" but its The same as taking care of your hands/body for other instruments. Totally The same thing. Oh and yeah playing violin is different than playing piano and they are different than playing "voice" but still they are same and equally hard to master. And they in essence are trained The same way (through different methods, though there are similarities too in All instrument playing/practising)

(Please don't think Im being rude or anything. Just saying how it is).

[StrawberryBlond 14,460]

10 minutes ago, Snow said:

I believe I explained ALL in My previous post, please re-read it. You may view things as you please, but you are utterly wrong. There is no Such view in professional world. And Im sorry to say then that your musical abilities aren't then high enough IF you cant understand (its different than mastering) ALL tools to create music as The same thing, trust me, they are. Voice or singing is just inniatily more easier and accessable. But it gets just as hard later on. And requires as much work as other instruments no matter yoyr natural talents.

Btw, in professional studies you ALWAYS have to play and sing, nomatter you instrument. Its ALL about training your musicality regardless of "tool". 

But yeah, trust me thats The way it is. Voice is an instrument. Full stop. For example, yeah you have to Take care of The physical aspect of your " voice machinary" but its The same as taking care of your hands/body for other instruments. Totally The same thing. Oh and yeah playing violin is different than playing piano and they are different than playing "voice" but still they are same and equally hard to master. And they in essence are trained The same way (through different methods, though there are similarities too in All instrument playing/practising)

(Please don't think Im being rude or anything. Just saying how it is).

Ok, you've made your point, you win. I guess I'll always see it as something different as a non-professional, but I respect the view of a professional. Just take my view for what it is - a down-to-earth non-professional amateur view based on personal experience. I'm not claiming that it's anything more than that.

[Snow 1,582]

1 minute ago, StrawberryBlond said:

Ok, you've made your point, you win. I guess I'll always see it as something different as a non-professional, but I respect the view of a professional. Just take my view for what it is - a down-to-earth non-professional amateur view based on personal experience. I'm not claiming that it's anything more than that.

And its fine if it helps you in your expressin of music or practising. Thats great! Just know that it isn't really The case. And Besides not all have to be professionals etc. Music in essence is for ALL. And its not about winning either Good night now

[somnambulist 1,526]

Dear god, I cannot even finish reading the filth that went on for pages and pages anymore.

Fame has highs and lows, Beyonce had a massive decline in sales after I am Sasha Fierce with 4, and she got her PR game on track and made a "comeback".

To think Gaga isn't A list, or capable of something similar is just......unreal. 

Ok, ARTPOP didn't "deliver". It had mixed reviews, lyrics that didn't jive with the GP, but to think Gaga ......isn't popular? Did we already forget the massive amount of praise at the superbowl? the Oscars? She isn't "that exciting" right now because she's taking her time with LG5, with a healthy amount of "me time" and collaborations with some of the worlds best producers this time around. ARTPOP was messy and lazy (though it had some good songs).

This thread should be locked, it's a stupid comparison in between eras. 

[Yves 1,891]

Dancing

Lady Gaga: 6/10

Beyoncé: 8/10

Singing

Lady Gaga: 8/10

Beyoncé: 8/10

I don't like or dislike Beyoncé so yeah. But I know I can admit that Beyoncé delivers more consistently. She's better than Gaga on the dancing part.