Lady Gaga talks BTW sales/tour, defends electronic music

[Wee Monster 0]

I don't agree at all that electronic music comes more naturally to a woman who composes all of her music at a piano. Not to mention the fact she repeatedly states that acoustic performances are more comfortable for her. I think she saw a market appearing for electronic pop and capitilised on it. She doesn't break the mold musically so much as focus on what's coming next. She almost always gets in there first but she's not inventing anything that wasn't already coming. When she's at her best, she knows what bandwagons to jump on and which ships have sailed. It's an intuitive, business-like approach to music rather than an impulsive creative process. I agree completely that based on the inception of both her and adele's music, they're actually one in the same. But Gaga's refusal to drop electronic production is based more on the fact that she could only ever gain the masses' approval at the expense of her target market. She makes considerably more money as a dance-based musician than she would do otherwise because the stunts and gimmickry of her performance art simply wouldn't have the impact if she was operating primarily in the adult contemporary market.

She should focus more on defending pop as an art form than electronic music in particular as that's the real sticking point. Several alternative artists use electronic productions while being respected by the art crowd, the real pretension Gaga's up against is the snobbery leveled at mainstream, youth-orientated pop music... Rant over sorry!

[Nissa 51]

Gotta disagree. It's all a matter of perspective. I certainly can't prove anything yet, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if Adele herself fails to ever again even come close to the success of 21. We have no idea right now if she'll have staying power. But for the sake of argument, let's go ahead and assume she does...

Critically speaking, 21 got a 76 on metacritic, not much higher than BTW. And lower than The Fame Monster. Not to mention that 19 has a 68 on Metacritic, lower than all three of Gaga's albums. Critically speaking, they're about equals. Adele's commercial success has lead to the media completely distorting how much of a critical darling she is, as well as her acoustic and emotional aesthetic. It's made it very easy for the media to craft a narrative where Adele is the savior of "real" music, and Gaga represents the very apotheosis of the "shallow" pop scene. But it's a narrative of convenience, a fiction, and a lot of critics have spent a lot of time trying to debunk it (take this excellent article for instance: http://www.avclub.co...this-way,58174/ )

And the truth is Gaga and Adele are, critically speaking, relative equals because of two reasons: 1)they both create great music in their genre and 2) (this is the important one) they're both working in the same genre. Adele's blatant heartbroken aesthetic and preference for acoustic instrumentation gives her work a sheen of "importance," but anybody who knows music can recognize that her music is set into the same simple pop structures as Lady Gaga's. Adele does not write complex or deep or structurally challenging music. She just makes pop songs without computers. But again, all discerning critics have recognized that that's neither inherently "better" or "worse." A generally uninformed public feels smarter for listening to Adele, but again, that's because of critical fictions that have been established, not because Adele is actually a more difficult/rigorous/honest musician. (Indeed, BTW is actually, from an intellectual standpoint, a much more difficult and challenging album. That depth just comes hidden behind a barrier of electronic bleeps and bloops that keeps a lot of people from looking for it to begin with. That's their problem, not Gaga's. They hear songs titled Gov't Hooker, and think, "she just sings smut" instead of investigating how this smut operates semiotically.)

And Gaga's not playing second fiddle at all. In fact, that BTW is so widely considered a disappointment after selling 6+ million albums, providing three hit songs, and serving as the foundation for a record breaking tour is a testament to Gaga's indisputable relevance. Adele has no cultural cachet outside her music--she'll go down as a great vocalist and a woman who pushed more albums than people thought possible. But outside of those dialogues, nobody talks about her. Gaga is already a frequent topic at cultural criticism conferences, and is inspiring book length studies and university courses. And that's because she's inspiring all sorts of relevant dialogues: what it means to be a celebrity, the importance/possibilities of social networking, what it means to belong to and build communities, continuing the dialogue on queer theory and radical identity politics, continuing discussions on postmodernism, continuing discussions on feminism and the third-wave, and on and on. Gaga may never sell as many albums as 21 (I doubt she ever will...almost nobody ever will again), but she already is and will remain, artistically, politically, and philosophically a more important and radical figure.

Gaga certainly doesn't need to play into the tastes of the close-minded lowest common denominator to prove her importance or her artistry. It's already proven and verifiable.

These are my exact thoughts on the subject. I have always been peeved by the fact that what you so aptly called a "sheen of importance" managed to fool the Grammy judges. Intellectually as well as musically, BTW is far more superior and ground-breaking. But give the public a woman singing about heartbreak with a purely acoustical arrangement trying very hard to bring to mind the jazz vocalists of the '40s and '50s and it gets cheered on like it's the intellectual achievement that means to music what Ulysses means to literature. It's this veneer of being serious, being reminiscent of the past, having lyrics that the lowest common denominator can label as having so-called emotional depth because heartbreak is "relatable" that all cleverly and successfully disguise the rather shallow anemic if not skeletal structure underneath.

21 (or 19) does not stand for anything, it does not try to reinvent/revolutionize/be experimental nor is it in any way intellectually stimulating or challenging. It has no philosophical thread throughout that goes beyond shallow and obvious little metaphors for being heartbroken over and over again. Her work also does not evolve in the least and I sincerely doubt she has a vision as an artist. She's successful at bringing back memories of the "good ol' days" and she's profiting because of it. Don't get me wrong; Adele fulfills a function that the public (unfortunately) craves and she fulfills it just the way people want it. Great for her, not so great if you're an actual artist.

Gaga is indisputably the biggest star in the world - it's actually funny that some of her fans don't even seem to realize this. Adele sells a lot by tricking people into giving themselves an ego-boost and creating a sort of vacuous pseudo-intellectualism that will make the public feel more "cultured" or "refined". She does not have an ounce of cultural impact, outside of the US and the UK nobody even talks about her, nor is she a particularly great artist (I'm not talking without experience; I kind of liked 19 and have forced myself to listen to 21 to look for anything of redeeming value) or even vocalist (in my opinion Gaga's vocals have far surpassed Adele's during the last 1.5 years). Meanwhile Gaga continues to revolutionize, innovate, change the entire music and fashion industry, influence pop culture and even regular culture (for lack of a better word) with her never-before-seen massive cultural impact and relevance. Her fanbase is the most enormous that has ever existed, even when she's the one pushing the boundaries of social/political issues and exposing the comfort food society always retreats to (read: conservatism). And as a genuine artist, she still gets to do her own thing, she freely expresses her ever-evolving and expanding artistic vision in ways that have enormous depth on multiple levels. Most people will never even try (or just can't) understand or appreciate that pure artistry and intellectual stimulation but as you said: that is the public's fault, not Gaga's.

Adele is actually a great example for an expression we use in Belgium: "to buy baked air" - which means to buy something that is basically empty and vacuous but feel it's worth buying because the salesman, the pitch, and/or the people around you have praised it and made it look like it's High Culture to such an extent that you can't even recognize it as empty anymore. A case of the Emperor's new clothes, if you will.

I agree with your assessment that what Gaga's done and is doing regarding gender studies, postmodernism, queer theory, third-wave feminism, etc. is wonderful, and that it is obvious her contributions have a lasting impact - all those university courses and lectures dedicated to her art, symbolism, metaphysical/philosophical/politcal/sociological views are just one of the manifold examples of this fact.

Gaga certainly doesn't need to play into the tastes of the close-minded lowest common denominator to prove her importance or her artistry.

Exactly.

[Runway 27,876]

not the queen herself bringin up her receipts to educate lessors

[kupo 201]

These are my exact thoughts on the subject. I have always been peeved by the fact that what you so aptly called a "sheen of importance" managed to fool the Grammy judges. Intellectually as well as musically, BTW is far more superior and ground-breaking. But give the public a woman singing about heartbreak with a purely acoustical arrangement trying very hard to bring to mind the jazz vocalists of the '40s and '50s and it gets cheered on like it's the intellectual achievement that means to music what Ulysses means to literature. It's this veneer of being serious, being reminiscent of the past, having lyrics that the lowest common denominator can label as having so-called emotional depth because heartbreak is "relatable" that all cleverly and successfully disguise the rather shallow anemic if not skeletal structure underneath.

21 (or 19) does not stand for anything, it does not try to reinvent/revolutionize/be expermental nor is it in any way intellectually stimulating or challenging. It has no philosophical thread throughout that goes beyond shallow and obvious little metaphors for being heartbroken over and over again. Her work also does not evolve in the least and I sincerely doubt she has a vision as an artist. She's successful at bringing back memories of the "good ol' days" and she's profiting because of it. Don't get me wrong; Adele fulfills a function that the public (unfortunately) craves and she fulfills it just the way people want it. Great for her, not so great if you're an actual artist.

Gaga is indisputably the biggest star in the world - it's actually funny that some of her fans don't even seem to realize this. Adele sells a lot by tricking people into giving themselves an ego-boost and creating a sort of vacuous pseudo-intellectualism that will make the public feel more "cultured" or "refined". She does not have an ounce of cultural impact, outside of the US and the UK nobody even talks about her, nor is she a particularly great artist (I'm not talking without experience; I kind of liked 19 and have forced myself to listen to 21 to look for anything of redeeming value) or even vocalist (in my opinion Gaga's vocals have far surpassed Adele's during the last 1.5 years). Meanwhile Gaga continues to revolutionize, innovate, change the entire music and fashion industry, influence pop culture and even regular culture (for lack of a better word) with her never-before-seen massive cultural impact and relevance. Her fanbase is the most enormous that has ever existed, even when she's the one pushing the boundaries of social/political issues and exposing the comfort food society always retreats to (read: conservatism). And as a genuine artist, she still gets to do her own thing, she freely expresses her ever-evolving and expanding artistic vision in ways that have enormous depth on multiple levels. Most people will never even try (or just can't) understand or appreciate that pure artistry and intellectual stimulation but as you said: that is the public's fault, not Gaga's.

Adele is actually a great example for an expression we use in Belgium: "to buy baked air" - which means to buy something that is basically empty and vacuous but feel it's worth buying because the salesman, the pitch, and/or the people around you have praised it and made it look like it's High Culture to such an extent that you can't even recognize it as empty anymore. A case of the Emperor's new clothes, if you will.

I agree with your assessment that what Gaga's done and is doing regarding gender studies, postmodernism, queer theory, third-wave feminism, etc. is wonderful, and that it is obvious her contributions have a lasting impact - all those university courses and lectures dedicated to her art, symbolism, metaphysical/philosophical/politcal/sociological views are just one of the manifold examples of this fact.

Exactly.

Love your post.

Haha, you're harder on 21 than I would be--I genuinely think it's a great pop record (I think to emotionally galvanize so many people and link them is one of pop's great powers, and the album undeniably did that), but I'm not deaf, and it's very clear that her music is also relatively simple pop music and that her lyrics are VERY face-value and all surface. It doesn't take any investment or thought to figure out an Adele song. Not so with Gaga. She may use come-ons and innuendo, but her s-xual aphorisms and posturings have a uniquely cumulative intellectual effect where you see them taking on symbolic and philosophical dimensions when listened to in context. Adele's songs...just don't have that (nor are they meant to, though). Gaga's actually harder to pin down and more demanding of her audience.

[BeautyisaLie 491]

She should defend it! I'm sick of people not respecting dance-type music. It can have just as much value and lyrical meaning as an acoustic record. And with Gaga it does.

THIS

[JoseLittleMonster 3]

waw, that part of the interview was aggressive tbh, you can't ask that kind of questions to the queen, I mean the Gaga/adele comparation was 100% out of place, and by the way, the kind of music Gaga makes is not as mainstream as david guetta, katy perry, rihanna and the other b---h just saying

[oussamonster 0]

She just answered every question that was in my mind, thanks to the interviewer, can't wait for the issue to get released

[Nemo 3,968]

I was slightly disappointed to hear her next record is dance cuz I wanted her to start trends not follow them.

She says she's "sprinting from the sameness"... I don't think you should worry.

[AbuHassan1992 766]

It's true though - acoustic music is way easier than electronic music. With instruments like the guitas or just piano itself, it's easier to make music because the chords are simple. Electronic music is something different. There are no "C" "D" "E" ... etc. It's a whole different embodiment of music - and it takes effort for it to work. I mean, I write music - and I do acoustic music just because I don't understand electronic music. You can't just go in the recording booth and "make stuff up" when dealing with electronic music.

actually, there is.

[aaronyoji 2,007]

I love Adele but how is she the voice of our generation?

i ask the same question everytime i take a ****...

[StarLlamaFlies 0]

I never looked at electronic music from that POV

[lilmonstarrr 0]

actually, there is.

no, it doesn't work the same way as acoustic music dude. I know.

[kennji 546]

i need to have this issue

[AbuHassan1992 766]

no, it doesn't work the same way as acoustic music dude. I know.

and what makes you think I don't know? I make both acoustic AND electronic music, and I can tell you that there are chords and **** in electronic music. If you don't think so, you're stupid. There are, for example, piano rolls that functions pretty much as notes written on staff paper. So don't come here all condescending like I don't know anything about music, because I actually do. All the different tracks in an arrangements are like the different instruments in a band, they all play different notes and chords. What makes you think there are no A's, Em's or D's and stuff in electronic music? You even said you don't understand electronic music, so...

[AbuHassan1992 766]

dp