Americano 31,061 Posted July 28, 2012 Author Share Posted July 28, 2012 This is the Entertainment section of CNN, nobody reads it. :heart: It's on the front page of CNN.com, the main site Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morphine Prince 96,071 Posted July 28, 2012 Share Posted July 28, 2012 Sadly, this is how most people see her. It's sad though because they don't focus on her music and voice just what she wears. That's because most people are superficial. It reflects our generation in a way. Most people these days mostly just care about their personal appearance. Hypocrites. All of them! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
00000000 1 Posted July 28, 2012 Share Posted July 28, 2012 It's on the front page of CNN.com, the main site oh god and you know all those older people will take every word to heart. :dies: Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
HausOfAntonio 7,821 Posted July 28, 2012 Share Posted July 28, 2012 *insert you in danger girl here* Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tiffa 168 Posted July 28, 2012 Share Posted July 28, 2012 Soon, she is going to shock by sitting on the piano playing a real song.... WHAT IS SPEECHLESS? :huh: Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kupo 201 Posted July 28, 2012 Share Posted July 28, 2012 Well, I think it's fair to say that the music isn't what comes to mind when people talk about Gaga. To casuals, she is bettern known for meat dresses and eggs than her albums. And while music may be the most important thing to Gaga, it's not the part of her artistry she's best at. Her conceptual art I find is generally where she really excels. The music is but a small piece of a large, complicated, and nuanced puzzle that is Gaga. But this article, despite trying to sound somewhat objective by discussing and defining "rockism" is written purely from this perspective. Why shouldn't the other stuff matter as much? Why is the fashion or the theater or the performance or the conceptual art aspect inherently less "about something" and less "important" than the music? What kind of ****ty-ass perspective are you coming from where you assert that she can't be an artist because you think music is more important than these other arts? Because that's really what this article is arguing. It also shows the typical lack of imagination where someone sees an egg on the red carpet, and literally the only synapse their brain fires screams "attention-seeking *****!" instead of, you know, asking what sort of semiotic meaning the gesture/theatric might carry. Articles like this ****ing make my head hurt. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evanescence 3 Posted July 28, 2012 Share Posted July 28, 2012 Bored of the simple minded thinking that emphasis on imagery automatically detracts from musical substance. Lady Gaga is living, breathing pop culture and intentionally so. She is just as much about the visuals and entertainment as she is about the music, which is popstar 101 and absolutely nothing new. When one thinks of Michael Jackson and Madonna, do you seriously conjure up nothing but music? Of course not. You think of moonwalking, vogueing, their videos, their iconic looks. It's no different with Gaga. You immediately think of the iconic looks and stunts, but everyone knows her hits too. Let's not pretend otherwise. As for denying that she is an artist, I think they should really assess their definition of the word because they are clearly misinformed. Your eloquent answer just made my day :flutter: Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tiffa 168 Posted July 28, 2012 Share Posted July 28, 2012 Bored of the simple minded thinking that emphasis on imagery automatically detracts from musical substance. Lady Gaga is living, breathing pop culture and intentionally so. She is just as much about the visuals and entertainment as she is about the music, which is popstar 101 and absolutely nothing new. When one thinks of Michael Jackson and Madonna, do you seriously conjure up nothing but music? Of course not. You think of moonwalking, vogueing, their videos, their iconic looks. It's no different with Gaga. You immediately think of the iconic looks and stunts, but everyone knows her hits too. Let's not pretend otherwise. As for denying that she is an artist, I think they should really assess their definition of the word because they are clearly misinformed. I always love reading your input. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CroatiaGeisha 19 Posted July 28, 2012 Share Posted July 28, 2012 The article pretends David Bowie and Madonna never existed. :rofl: Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
exoskeleton123 6 Posted July 28, 2012 Share Posted July 28, 2012 Soon, she is going to shock by sitting on the piano playing a real song.... WHAT IS SPEECHLESS? +1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
omgwtfbbq 0 Posted July 28, 2012 Share Posted July 28, 2012 ^ David Bowie and Madonna are in the montage of 'outrageous' artists in the article. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 680 Posted July 28, 2012 Share Posted July 28, 2012 "In the '40s, and I believe well into the '50s and the rock 'n' roll era, the idea of what it was to be a musician wasn't as pure and pristine as we seem to want to think of it now," says Auslander, who's written a study of glam rock. "The idea that to be a popular musician is not just to stand up there and show off your ability as a musician, but to entertain in other senses -- that was very much a staple of what popular music performance was about." Even the Beatles, who became much more decorous performers after Beatlemania hit, dominated the local scene during their Hamburg residency by turning up the volume, smashing stages and -- in a famous incident -- doing a show with John Lennon in his underwear, wearing a toilet seat around his neck. Of course, pop musicians have long been as much about entertainment as art -- but as times have changed, so have perceptions of where the line is drawn. To critics, MTV -- which arrived in the 1980s -- heightened the value of looks and slickness over "authenticity," with the image becoming more important than the music. And nowadays, in our 24/7 world of rapidly posted YouTube videos, instant MP3 releases, reality shows, lurking paparazzi and meat dress one-upmanship, it's easier than ever for spectacle to overwhelm singing. Shows Gaga being theatrical is nothing new. I'm sure to 60s adults who hated rock, the Beatles were just about screaming girls and silly haircuts. Before that, soundtracks from stage musicals were the best selling albums. Lot of famous 40-50s singers were actresses like Judy Garland. Is it's "just about music for ears" why even bother with a live show? And why can't you be authentic and theatrical both? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
poker face 3 Posted July 28, 2012 Share Posted July 28, 2012 i can hear the twitter stans preparing. el oh el at the article and comments, it really is a shame people automatically assume just because she's on the radio and she's mainstream shes awful. oh well their loss not mine. :ohwell: Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tiffa 168 Posted July 28, 2012 Share Posted July 28, 2012 Shows Gaga being theatrical is nothing new. I'm sure to 60s adults who hated rock, the Beatles were just about screaming girls and silly haircuts. Before that, soundtracks from stage musicals were the best selling albums. That's exactly how "Adults" thought of the Beatles. "Mothers against rock" existed back then, too. Theatricals in Pop or music was never said to be anything "new". Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CroatiaGeisha 19 Posted July 28, 2012 Share Posted July 28, 2012 Bowie was mentioned? didn't find him. They completely dismissed Madonna though. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trending Now
New Threads
Trending Now
New Threads
Featured Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.