Lady Starlight Talks About Gaga, Shades Bieber & Rihanna

[MJ Holland 4]

One of my pet peeves is...99% of the world calling pop acts "artists"

Sorry I'm not sorry, but most of them have little to nothing to do with the creative process of their act.

They are entertainers, nothing more.

Gaga is one of the few pop acts (popular and pop acts) that has the passion, drive (and involvement for all we know) that could be asociated with an ARTIST.

Artist are creators, not singers, not dancers. Not to mention some pop acts don't even have the gift of song.

[iAstroLeo 14,208]

She spilled the tea tho :nails:

[Hamlet 67]

Why are Gaga's companions always the ones to speak up about other celebrities, while Gaga doesn't say ****?

Because she tries to be polite with her contemporanies.

[alexd 1]

That's true. But it should also be noted that the senior management of Def Jam before, when Gaga got dropped, is different with the senior management of Island Def Jam now, after L.A. Reid's transfer to rival Sony Music Group. And the label's heavy interference to the imaging of an artist is not only solely limited to Island Def Jam per se (or the entire Universal Music Group which Gaga is part of), but it's also prevalent over the entire music industry.

Rihanna was with Def Jam way before Gaga signed on (even before the change in management). This does nothing to prove your point, as it is widely known that labels have a heavy influence on artists. What Starlight was conveying was that even though there is this influence/controlling, Gaga disregards it and does her own thing, even though the label might not agree with it.

[giskardsb 12,565]

Artist are creators, not singers, not dancers. Not to mention some pop acts don't even have the gift of song.

I don't actually agree with this. A gifted singer or say an orchestral soloist can certainly add their own artistry to a work written by another person via their interpretation of the work with their instrument or voice. And great dancers likewise can take choreography to a new level. While I wouldn't put Rihanna at the level of Andreas Botticelli, it's also true that her particular vocal delivery is part of the reason why her fans enjoy what she does, even if she doesn't write it. Same with somebody like Elvis, or a jazz performer like Billy Holliday. However, I still have more respect for those artists who both write and perform their work.

A work such as Alanis Morrisettes "Jagged Little Pill" is brilliant not only because of Alanis's songwriting, but also because she sings the songs with the emotional content necessary to make them shine. Gaga is much the same way, by being involved in all stages of the process she is emotionally invested in the results. All music is a collaboration of not just singers and musicians and writers but also the producers, engineers, etc. Even rock bands use producers and engineers who help shape the songs to a final form.

[heavyMetalGAGA 65]

"Not to speak disparagingly of Justin Bieber or Rihanna, but they’re not so hands-on with their image or their sound. They don’t write the music. They have people doing things for them. Whereas Gaga is more like a Bowie. Gaga is a real musician, and a real artist. Her thing is the creative process – she’s involved in everything. She’s pop, but, in a way, she’s more like a rock-and-roll act."

Nothing she said was even remotely offensive. It was factual. The only reason I could see this statement rubbing certain types of people the wrong way is the fact that she called Gaga a "real artist". Her credibility as a real artist and a real musician to some fans or ex-fans is now questionable. To me if you look at it objectively, it is not, despite the fact that I preferred her aesthetic during The Fame rather than Born This Way. I agree completely with Lady Starlights comments.

Why is her credibility as a real artist not existent to you?

[hausofandrew 105]

Only if they lose their writers. Britney's not an artist either, and yet she's slaying with S&S after 13 years.

And?

[hausofandrew 105]

Rihanna won't fade that fast. Were have you been? she is one of the most successful popstars in this moment in US and WW.

I have been to Rihanna shows and they are all repetitive. General public will get tired of her in a few years. That's my opinion.

[Alcina Dimitrescu 1,156]

Anyone else think starlight looks like a majestic unicorn.

Is that (not so) subtle way of calling her horsefaced?

Because yes, she is. I thought it was one of Gaga's friends dressed in drag the first time I saw a pic of her

She's awesome nonetheless :legend:

[Nolan 1]

Is that (not so) subtle way of calling her horsefaced?

Because yes, she is. I thought it was one of Gaga's friend dressed in drag the first time I saw a pic of her

She's awesome nothenless

Yes You're right though, total bad ass.

[MJ Holland 4]

I don't actually agree with this. A gifted singer or say an orchestral soloist can certainly add their own artistry to a work written by another person via their interpretation of the work with their instrument or voice. And great dancers likewise can take choreography to a new level. While I wouldn't put Rihanna at the level of Andreas Botticelli, it's also true that her particular vocal delivery is part of the reason why her fans enjoy what she does, even if she doesn't write it. Same with somebody like Elvis, or a jazz performer like Billy Holliday. However, I still have more respect for those artists who both write and perform their work.

A work such as Alanis Morrisettes "Jagged Little Pill" is brilliant not only because of Alanis's songwriting, but also because she sings the songs with the emotional content necessary to make them shine. Gaga is much the same way, by being involved in all stages of the process she is emotionally invested in the results. All music is a collaboration of not just singers and musicians and writers but also the producers, engineers, etc. Even rock bands use producers and engineers who help shape the songs to a final form.

Still, most popular acts aren't gifted singers or dancers. Fact.

I'm not trying to be rude, I just hate when people throw the word "artist" around.

[giskardsb 12,565]

Still, most popular acts aren't gifted singers or dancers. Fact.

I'm not trying to be rude, I just hate when people throw the word "artist" around.

I mostly agree with you. I'm ok with labeling anyone in the artistic industries an "artist", but of course there are some that are much better than others.

[Runway 27,876]

Well whatever, it's not like Gaga didn't got handed things to her.

And Rihanna works hard too u guys, she had a very very tight schedule for the Loud tour.

:lmao: :lmao:

[Neal 768]

Wow she handled that professionally. :)

[Mills 446]

Rihanna was with Def Jam way before Gaga signed on (even before the change in management). This does nothing to prove your point, as it is widely known that labels have a heavy influence on artists. What Starlight was conveying was that even though there is this influence/controlling, Gaga disregards it and does her own thing, even though the label might not agree with it.

Starlight said, "they’re not so hands-on with their image or their sound". I think that's very debatable for her to say that, given that she arguably has limited personal knowledge, or even none at all, with how the brand imaging process of the artists mentioned. And even if she does, with the experience Gaga had when she was with Def Jam, we cannot deny the fact that changes are always constant in the music industry or any field of work for that matter. Rihanna may not have been hands-on with her image or her sound during her early days, as most of the artists in their debuts, but does it equate with the current situation she's right now?

As for imaging, doesn't Rihanna's posts in her social networking sites such as Instagram and Twitter heavily contribute to the public image she has right now? Doesn't Rihanna's own actions, such as her continuous involvement with Chris Brown, have greatly shaped (or consistently shapes) the brand image she's projecting with the general public and the media alike? I just think that her "rebellious, in-your-face" image is due to her own making, or at least the most part of it. That's why I do not see eye to eye with Starlight's statement, well at least in that particular "not so hands-on" statement which I've earlier mentioned.

Yes, i do feel we need to label an artist's genuiness, or else it goes against the whole nature of art, which is to create something and take full credit for it, not give it to others and let them take credit for it. I agree that the term "real music" is subjective and no one's ever going to win that argument (nor should they) but I definitely believe that "real artists" is not subjective and is a clear black and white term. In music, a real artist writes and produces ALL their own material (an occasional cover album doesn't count, though). Now, there are some artists who write everything, but they can't play an instrument, and of course they're artists too, but just on the songwriting scheme of things. Similarly, a person who can play an instrument but can't write songs is just an artist when it involves their instrument in isolation.

At least Justin can play instruments and plays them live, so I have no problems with people calling him an artist in the instrumental sense. But it's clear that he gets majorly overlooked in the songwriting department in favour of trained songwriters. His album credits may show his name frequently, but the number of co-writers supporting him gives away that his part is pretty much irrelevant. Rihanna also doesn't write the majority of her own work and she didn't write anything on Good Girl Gone Bad and Loud, which just so happen to be her two most successful albums. So, she gets the most success when her work is written for her, in other words. Rated R, which she played a big part in, was one of her biggest flops and Unapologetic is skating on thin ice at this moment with the follow up singles not making much of a move. If she can only be successful when she has the help of other songwriters, how is she an artist? Did you know that in order to get songwriting credit, you only need to add/remove one line or even one word? I have no doubt that this is the case for Rihanna most of the time. Unlike Justin, she can't even compensate for it with playing instruments. She doesn't even dance, which is a huge pop star requirement. When I see Rihanna sing live, I don't feel like I'm watching a star, I feel like I'm watching a girl who got lucky. Her voice is average, she's singing a song she didn't write, she doesn't play any instruments, she doesn't even dance. Sometimes she just stands in one position, even for an energetic song. This is why I can't understand why some people think Rihanna is a great performer. She barely does anything on stage. Her back up singers, dancers and band are the performers to cover up her sheer lack of performance ability. Literally any hot young girl could do Rihanna's job right now. And when anyone could do your job, you're hardly an artist.

Basically, you just have to look at the facts. Gaga writes and produces all her own music, plays instruments, has a good voice and dances. She is an artist. Rihanna only writes a few lines of songs occasionally and doesn't produce any of her work, doesn't play an instrument, has an average voice and doesn't dance. She isn't an artist. A celebrity, yes, an artist, no.

I think it's very important that we make distinct definitions on what a true artist is so the next generation can have a more informed take on supposed "stars." The world seems to define the word "artist" differently when it pertains to singers. In music, anyone who sings songs is called an artist these days, even if they didn't write them. But you wouldn't think the same in the world of painting, would you? An artist paints a masterpiece and even puts their name on it. They give it to an aspiring painter and says that they can take credit for it. The aspiring painter hangs it up in a gallery and invites people to come and look at it. The beauty of the painting attracts media attention and people come from all over the world to look at it and praise the aspiring painter for "their" work. From then on, the aspiring painter asks the real artist to make more masterpieces for them to take credit for and continues reaping praise and money from someone else's talent and hard work. Now, is that aspiring painter an artist? Of course not. But the exact same thing happens all the time in the music industry, in audio form and yet, singers who don't write a thing (and we know that they don't) are called artists. So, this is why I believe that there is a correct definition of an real artist and we need to praise the genuine ones and call out the fake ones.

An artist could also be a performer or a singer. Rihanna is a recording artist, to say the very least. While she isn't the best singer or dancer, her past performances have shown how much effort she exerts to improve her craft. She barely dances, but she tries to appease her fans. The video of Where Have You Been is one of those rare videos of her where a certain choreography is an integral part of the visual presentation. I applaud her for that because at least she tries. She barely gives an awe-inspiring live performance, but her performance of Stay at SNL has somewhat shown how much she has polished her vocal prowess over the years, from the pre-Good Girl Gone Bad days to her current era.

And I would not call her a "fake" one or anyone for that matter as long that individual tries to improve his/her craft. To right away label one's genuineness (or the opposite of it) as an artist based on what's conventional is a bit prejudice to a certain degree, doesn't it?

I don't actually agree with this. A gifted singer or say an orchestral soloist can certainly add their own artistry to a work written by another person via their interpretation of the work with their instrument or voice. And great dancers likewise can take choreography to a new level. While I wouldn't put Rihanna at the level of Andreas Botticelli, it's also true that her particular vocal delivery is part of the reason why her fans enjoy what she does, even if she doesn't write it. Same with somebody like Elvis, or a jazz performer like Billy Holliday. However, I still have more respect for those artists who both write and perform their work.

A work such as Alanis Morrisettes "Jagged Little Pill" is brilliant not only because of Alanis's songwriting, but also because she sings the songs with the emotional content necessary to make them shine. Gaga is much the same way, by being involved in all stages of the process she is emotionally invested in the results. All music is a collaboration of not just singers and musicians and writers but also the producers, engineers, etc. Even rock bands use producers and engineers who help shape the songs to a final form.

Could not agree more. Well said. :clap: