Lady Gaga talks BTW sales/tour, defends electronic music

[E24187 614]

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.

You're doing an awful lot of speculating regarding Adele's future. I think that undermines the point you were trying to make. Furthermore, it stands to say something if, in fact, they are critical equals, yet Adele is the more commercially successful one. I do believe those with the discerning ear and mind do see & hear through the hype of Adele, but that's not her fault she made more popular music.

Gaga making great music in her genre is definitely a subjective POV. While I believe it, her antics and lack of proper explanation lead people to generally not care. Cultural icons create more than just forums among the lovers of art, but the common folk as well. This is the advantage Adele had over Gaga in 2011.

I don't think her dumbing down her music is appropriate, but cultivating discussion among the laymen is what makes her popular, not our devotion.

[Chucky 39]

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.

MTE. :pawsup:

[TheAmazingAdele 0]

Yawn, a lone Adele stan has arrived already I guess.

Oh I see... gagadaily should modify their posting rules regarding people insulting fans of particular artists to "You cannot insult fans of any artist" (unless they are Adele's or Madonna's fans)

[TheAmazingAdele 0]

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.

Why does "21" prevail over "Born This Way" ??

Very simple, 21 may not be a groundbreaking/experimental/political/pushing-boundaries album BUT... it's an extremely well executed, cohesive, and solid album, everything is just pitch perfect from start to finish. The heartbreak theme, Adele's amazing voice, and understated use of instruments, compliment each other so consistently like no other. It has all what it takes to make a wonderful album. Different types of music have different purposes, and Adele successfully fulfilled hers through "21". Something that Gaga failed to accomplish with "Born This Way", it's by no means an awful album, it's just not as well executed as "21", that leave the album feeling messy, and all over the place.

[Guest]

The interviewer sounds like a b---h

:dead:

[Rei 1]

The public's idea of music is sickening.

Real artist = someone who's "not weird" , dresses normally, stands and sings the whole performance, acoustic (hence how all 5 past American Idol winners were guys on guitars ((who all ended up going NOWHERE)) )

Adele: whole album about her dramatic love life: wins grammy! most amazing person ever

Gaga: album with giant span of topics, lyrical creativity, and style: little recognition

summary: humans love to dwell upon the emotions of heartbreak.

[Monster Voices 1,024]

:tea: Spillin the tea.

[rivingtonrebels 245]

Adele will soon seem like a distant memory...she's taking a SEVEN year break remember?

[TheAmazingAdele 0]

The public's idea of music is sickening.

Real artist = someone who's "not weird" , dresses normally, stands and sings the whole performance, acoustic (hence how all 5 past American Idol winners were guys on guitars ((who all ended up going NOWHERE)) )

Adele: whole album about her dramatic love life: wins grammy! most amazing person ever

Gaga: album with giant span of topics, lyrical creativity, and style: little recognition

summary: humans love to dwell upon the emotions of heartbreak.

It's not sickening, just different than yours.

gimmicks, tricks, outlandish costumes, pyrotechnics etc. are entertaining, but they also serve to mask the lack of substance in the music, and unproportional uses of those could dilute the actual talent of the musician itself which may be better off without it.

In my opinion, the ability command the audience with just a microphone, a piano, and a voice, is the definition of true artist.

[Disco Baby 2]

The journalist who wrote this is a bit b---hy, no?

Good on Gaga.

[Nissa 51]

Why does "21" prevail over "Born This Way" ??

Very simple, 21 may not be a groundbreaking/experimental/political/pushing-boundaries album BUT... it's an extremely well executed, cohesive, and solid album, everything is just pitch perfect from start to finish. The heartbreak theme, Adele's amazing voice, and understated use of instruments, compliment each other so consistently like no other. It has all what it takes to make a wonderful album. Different types of music have different purposes, and Adele successfully fulfilled hers through "21". Something that Gaga failed to accomplish with "Born This Way", it's by no means an awful album, it's just not as well executed as "21", that leave the album feeling messy, and all over the place.

I don't think you quite understood what I was trying to say in my post, I'm sorry.

A cohesive theme and good production along with good vocals and relatable lyrics are what made 21 a success among the general public - it's a prepackaged "pitch-perfect" product for mass consumption that plays the sociologically-induced mind trick that "a clean production" (read: using as much as possible of what we perceive as harmonious in our ears because it's being borrowed exclusively from our past musical traditions and nothing else) and a jazzy vibe constitutes "true, cultivated music" and should thus be seen as superior to all the mainstream "crap" people pull up their noses at (but still like so much as to consume it) - all the while being as mainstream as one could be. 21 achieved its goal marvelously and one can't deny it's a good album but I'm sorry, trying to be a female Sinatra without adding anything substantial to set your music apart from others doing the same thing doesn't make you worthy of the title of a legendary person or innovator - if her voice had been absolutely extraordinary, okay, if she had a beautiful and/or bold (or rather, ANY) artistic vision, okay. But that's not to be felt anywhere while listening to 21, at all.

And that's what the business is about: genuine artists and musicians work and create, some driven to influence the industry and the world more than others, trying to change the way the public experiences music. They experiment and revolutionize. The Grammy's have never been an event to crown tradition and "just plain good stuff" over very ambitious and innovative albums indicative of the future.

About BTW. Where you heard "messy", "all over the place" and "not well-executed" I and many other people familiar with the history of pop music hear experimentation, boldness, raw artistry and quite genius interweaving of themes and music, the meshing of layers of experimental sounds with subtle metaphors and a certain poetic quality far beyond the mere surface of its songs. But yeah, that's why Adele sells this much: 21 is "well-executed", it doesn't sound "messy", it sounds all clean and proper and isn't too complicated or different from what people have come to suspect from music. True artistic innovators or revolutionaries are rarely completely recognized for their true value in their own time, especially so shortly after they just unleashed their work on the world.

21 is inoffensive, requires a minimal amount of thought, it's easily relatable so it reaches a bigger part of the general public and it still gives you the idea that you're not just consuming "mainstream stuff" and lets people retreat incredibly easily into the mindset of conservatism, because everybody knows real music is what people did in the past (Frank Sinatra, for example) so anything that sounds like that must be superior to whatever else is put out there. "Severely Inoffensive" and "Furthering the status quo" are how you can describe this album, just as "good execution" and "solid content" also apply.

[Haku 2]

The interviewer sounds like a b---h

really

[iAstroLeo 14,208]

21 sounds like the same song over and over again tbh.

Now with Born This Way, it's the complete opposite, and that to me, is what makes it an amazing album :flutter:

[TheAmazingAdele 0]

I don't think you quite understood what I was trying to say in my post, I'm sorry.

A cohesive theme and good production along with good vocals and relatable lyrics are what made 21 a success among the general public - it's a prepackaged "pitch-perfect" product for mass consumption that plays the psychological and sociological trick that a clean production, slow music and a jazzy vibe constitute "true, cultivated music" and should thus be seen as superior to all the mainstream "crap" people pull up their noses at (but still like so much as to consume it) - all the while being as mainstream as one could be. 21 achieved its goal marvelously and one can't deny it's a good album but I'm sorry, trying to be a female Sinatra without adding anything substantial to set your music apart from others doing the same thing doesn't make you worthy of the title of a legendary person or innovator - if her voice had been absolutely extraordinary, okay, if she had a beautiful and/or bold (or rather, ANY) artistic vision, okay. But that's not to be felt anywhere while listening to 21, at all.

And that's what the business is about: genuine artists and musicians work and create, some more driven to influence the industry and the world more than others, trying to change the way the public experiences music. They experiment and revolutionize. The Grammy's have never been an event to crown tradition and "just plain good stuff" over very ambitious and innovative albums indicative of the future.

Where you heard "messy", "all over the place" and "not well-executed" I and many other people familiar with the history of pop music hear experimentation, boldness, raw artistry and quite genius interweaving of themes and music, the meshing of layers of experimental sounds with subtle metaphors and a certain poetic quality far beyond the mere surface of its songs. But yeah, that's why Adele sells this much: it's "well-executed", it doesn't sound "messy", it sounds all clean and proper and not too complicated or different from what people have come to suspect from music. True artistic innovators or revolutionaries are rarely completely recognized for their true value in their own time, especially so shortly after they just unleashed their work on the world.

21 is inoffensive, requires a minimal amount of thought, it's easily relatable so it reaches a bigger part of the general public and it still gives you the idea that you're not just consuming "mainstream stuff" and lets people retreat incredibly easily into the mindset of conservatism, because everybody knows real music is what people did in the past (Frank Sinatra, for example) so anything that sounds like that must be superior to whatever else is put out there. ;)

But you sounded like Adele and her producers trying to create a backlash towards Gaga and electronic music in general, for their own commercial advantage. Adele initially wanted to create an upbeat album because she didn't want to be known as a musical tragedian, but her artistic path said otherwise (pheww thank you Adele's artistic path!) Trying to sound like Sinatra? that wasn't her point, she was just being who she was, there's not much difference between 19 era Adele and 21 era Adele (except she's getting more mature). And I object to your statement that 21 requires a minimal amount of thought, as one of the world's most acclaimed designer Stefan Sagmeister said:

"I love limitations when designing a project. I don't love limitations when they are revealed only after we designed the project."

21 thrives in it's simplicity and modesty. they are her fortes.

In my a--logy, "21" is like a bowl of chicken soup that my grandma used to make, just plain chicken soup with potatoes and celery, but when i take a sip, OMG it's the best soup I have ever tasted in my life, and I keep coming back to eat it again and again.

It's not like I shun experimental records in general, Kate Bush, Bjork, Wim Martens, Pere Ubu are among my favorite acts of all time. I usually tend to listen to more 'avant garde' music than not, so it's quite surprising for me to find myself stanning for 'generic' pop act like Adele. But her music speaks on its own.

[Robinladen 1,474]

Why the **** was this topic bumped back up...