Unpopular Opinions: Gaga Edition

[bxr 2,784]

23 minutes ago, NUTELLA said:

She probably wouldn’t have envisioned it for herself at the time,

but I personally think if 2008ga saw this current future in a crystal ball, she wouldn’t do anything to change/alter it. She would welcome it 💰 

Beautiful, Dirty, Rich & all that 

Her whole career (artistic or otherwise) has been a business venture. 

She was arguably more full of sh!t about that back then (& a lot of that artifice endeared people to her)

This … is a fun hypothetical plane to traverse

Agree: she would welcome the trajectory

That said: Beautiful, Dirty, Rich (for instance) is the antithesis of conventional business success … “Daddy I’m so sorry; bang, bang” is a counterhegemonic (if not heavily tongue-in-cheek) thesis in and of itself

Her whole career (artistic and otherwise, as neither exist in mutual exclusivity of the other) has been a real-time case study / venture in integrated business reform—alternatively, Taylor Swift (for instance) is an example of translating the feasibility of entertainement products into financial instruments in the contemporary consumer capitalist global economy (Taylor‘s father being an investment banker/broker, and Gaga‘s father being an internet entrepreneur (I think his core business was outfitting hotels with internet access back the brink of digital integration at that level?) is another fun case study in American capitalist family business inheritance when the heir apparent is an heiress)

Gaga‘s career, from a critical analysis vantage, has exposed how fragile and fickle the corporate entertainment structure is, when anchored on the routine exploitation of creative labor—if nothing else, it is a formidable case study in the patent incompetence of the current entertainment industry model from a generative sustainability standpoint … and, more allegorically, it is a lucid practical parallel to the Emperor‘s New Clothes; no corporate suitor‘s reputation comes out unscathed after engaging with Gaga‘s fame—long game, she‘s bad for conventional business viability … but maybe that‘s the adventure in her model

This was pretty much riffing on the blink, but I have no idea how business works

[HOTRODSGAGA 86]

18 minutes ago, nATAH said:

where exactly is she supporting israel?

key word being SUPPORTING

You can get lost in semantics all you want, she is on the wrong side of history. 
As a long time stan from lebanon, I’m extremely disappointed in her. She’s better than this, or at least thats what i thought.

[AVeryGagaHolyDick 32,188]

1 hour ago, bxr said:

@gagacabana … looking 41 with the 20s spirit 

I think she looks 14 there 

[Ladle Ghoulash 55,271]

42 minutes ago, bxr said:

This … is a fun hypothetical plane to traverse

Agree: she would welcome the trajectory

That said: Beautiful, Dirty, Rich (for instance) is the antithesis of conventional business success … “Daddy I’m so sorry; bang, bang” is a counterhegemonic (if not heavily tongue-in-cheek) thesis in and of itself

Her whole career (artistic and otherwise, as neither exist in mutual exclusivity of the other) has been a real-time case study / venture in integrated business reform—alternatively, Taylor Swift (for instance) is an example of translating the feasibility of entertainement products into financial instruments in the contemporary consumer capitalist global economy (Taylor‘s father being an investment banker/broker, and Gaga‘s father being an internet entrepreneur (I think his core business was outfitting hotels with internet access back the brink of digital integration at that level?) is another fun case study in American capitalist family business inheritance when the heir apparent is an heiress)

Gaga‘s career, from a critical analysis vantage, has exposed how fragile and fickle the corporate entertainment structure is, when anchored on the routine exploitation of creative labor—if nothing else, it is a formidable case study in the patent incompetence of the current entertainment industry model from a generative sustainability standpoint … and, more allegorically, it is a lucid practical parallel to the Emperor‘s New Clothes; no corporate suitor‘s reputation comes out unscathed after engaging with Gaga‘s fame—long game, she‘s bad for conventional business viability … but maybe that‘s the adventure in her model

This was pretty much riffing on the blink, but I have no idea how business works

Yeah, I think, in spite of certainly embracing (however ironically) certain elements of the corporate model, her relationship has always undoubtedly been, if not always outright critical, at the very least discursive re: popstar as corporate/political entity. Feels, in a more concrete way, like the conversation she was having in the BTW MV: if we understand the Eternal Mother as being pure, unbridled creative freedom, perhaps then the birth of evil represents the introduction of corporate capital and the game of the music industry into the process, making the question “how could I protect something so perfect (ie creative expression, creative impulse as a contagious form of self-liberation) without evil (ie the weapons of mass dissemination within the corporate media)?” as much an abstract philosophical/ethical concern as much as it is also an interrogation of her own cultural locus.

All of which feels relevant to the exploration of Gaga as both part of the machine and adversary to the machine in the plot to the BTWB, especially in establishing it as a natural expansion of that same conversation about the relationship between artist and industry from TF -> TFM: Pop ate my heart and I became a monster -> the monster develops an appetite of its own -> the monster develops agency and desires freedom.

Edited Saturday at 09:18 PM by Ladle Ghoulash

[bxr 2,784]

25 minutes ago, AVeryGagaHolyDick said:

I think she looks 14 there 

The Mathemagics of it all—a perfect illusion!

 

41 with the spirit of the 20s was admittedly more of a narrative take on character development in the cadence of cabanagirl‘s hypothetical next steps 

[bxr 2,784]

23 minutes ago, Ladle Ghoulash said:

Yeah, I think, in spite of certainly embracing (however ironically) certain elements of the corporate model, her relationship has always undoubtedly been, if not always outright critical, at the very least discursive re: popstar as corporate/political entity. Feels, in a more concrete way, like the conversation she was having in the BTW MV: if we understand the Eternal Mother as being pure, unbridled creative freedom, perhaps then the birth of evil represents the introduction of corporate capital and the game of the music industry into the process, making the question “how could I protect something so perfect (ie creative expression, creative impulse as a contagious form of self-liberation) without evil (ie the weapons of mass dissemination within the corporate media)?” as much an abstract philosophical/ethicsl concern as much as it is also an interrogation of her own cultural locus.

All of which feels relevant to the exploration of Gaga as both part of the machine and adversary to the machine in the plot to the BTWB, especially in establishing it as a natural expansion of that same conversation about the relationship between artist and industry from TF -> TFM: Pop ate my heart and I became a monster -> the monster develops an appetite of its own -> the monster develops agency and desires freedom.

The dialectical behavior of a perpetual auraboros in living iconography … a continuous journey, indeed

[mlmc1995 151]

Some fans want her to be more experimental or explore certain genres, but realistically wouldn’t enjoy the lack of general public appreciation as a result. Additionally, I think her current discography is not too experimental outside of the realm of pop music - she pushes the boundaries in that sense - but she does have the range and I think maybe the desire to go outside that, much like she has with her jazz cover albums.

If she did I think she could have her magnum opus, but she will not be top of the charts. Fans need to reckon with that - do we want her to be successful within the frames of the mainstream, or do we actually want her to experiment? 

[Magneto 13,579]

16 hours ago, imogen2133 said:

Well I knew about these already (plus Donatella is an already finished instrumental as well for a different song) but at least she wrote the songs and Aura was not exactly the same when it was Kink by Infected Mushroom but most of the first half of the song is almost exactly the same yes. 

*asks for examples*

*gives examples*

"I knew about these already"

[Magneto 13,579]

16 hours ago, gagzus said:

Can’t account for anything to do with TIHTY and CTM (because I haven’t heard there demos) but she wrote MJH Aura and PI — PI’s demo Tame played live wasn’t the same lyrics at all besides the chorus which was “it wasn’t love, it wasn’t love. It was just an illusion” 

Read my original post, babes 

[gagzus 24,624]

29 minutes ago, Magneto said:

Read my original post, babes 

I did, you said that songs were far into creation and that made you question her songwriting. But then have examples of songs that she did in fact write pretty much entirely and sound nothing lyrically like their demos. Her buying an instrumental has nothing to do with her songwriting. 

 

Edited Sunday at 12:29 PM by gagzus

[Magneto 13,579]

8 minutes ago, gagzus said:

I did, you said that songs were far into creation and that made you question her songwriting. But then have examples of songs that she did in fact write pretty much entirely and sound nothing lyrically like their demos. Her buying an instrumental has nothing to do with her songwriting. 

 

I think we have a different definition of songwriting. If it's just writing lyrics then I agree with you, but I'm also talking about the process of creating the song itself

[Bronco 27,303]

16 hours ago, HOTRODSGAGA said:

You can get lost in semantics all you want, she is on the wrong side of history. 
As a long time stan from lebanon, I’m extremely disappointed in her. She’s better than this, or at least thats what i thought.

Look I'm a massive critic of her silence on this topic and I fully understand your connection to the topic making it particularly important to you. 

But she's not actively supporting anything even if she is complicit with her silence. You may consider it semantics, but its not because we're talking about her behaviour not just wording. And people will criticise you for it.

[nATAH 57,745]

16 hours ago, HOTRODSGAGA said:

You can get lost in semantics all you want, she is on the wrong side of history. 
As a long time stan from lebanon, I’m extremely disappointed in her. She’s better than this, or at least thats what i thought.

it's not semantic to ask you to back up your claim

you said it was blatant, which means it should be really easy for you to provide multiple sources of her supporting israel

find me at least one quote from the past 5 years where she's spoken in favour of israel

[imogen2133 667]

17 hours ago, Hydrangea said:

Sometimes I think 2008/09 gaga doing her interviews about being genuine and an artist would probably not like her business ventures 

I can not agree with this more... but that is a whole thing.

[imogen2133 667]

1 hour ago, Magneto said:

*asks for examples*

*gives examples*

"I knew about these already"

No I was just wondering if you had any strong examples that suggested Gaga had little to no involvement because that is how you phrased it and I would not say the examples you provided are examples of that because she has writing and production credits on the songs even if the instrumentals partially existed already.