Some of you don't realize that gaga is already an ICON

[Gov Hooka 8,008]

Show me where Britney had an impact on the industry? She was only doing what Madonna and Janet Jackson had already done on a much bigger and better level. The only people who think Britney changed anything are the ones who are too young to remember the originals. If Gaga herself was inspired by Britney than in actuality she was inspired by those women who came before her and actually provided the blueprint.

You do realize that you sound exactly like the pressed Madonna stans. And by your logic Gaga is less than Britney who was inspired by Janet/Madonna. Britney made her artistry (more like her label's artistry) her own, just like Gaga is, period.

[ramamama 0]

I am an icon too.

[Cameron1012 0]

It's all so subjective though. When I see Mozart and Michael Jackson on the pop icons list next to Gaga then I disagree. If I see Britney/Christina/Rihanna on the list with Gaga then I agree.

Now that is just plain wrong and untruthful. Same with Britney. Objectively, their music resonated well with millions of people (more than Gaga) and have impacted music regardless of what you think.

 

Relevance is determined by consistent sales and chart performance/public perception. As much as us fans like to say **** the charts, they determine legend status.

 

eh i agree with your first statement, but success doesn't necessary make someone iconic. 

 

and GAGASLAYEDYOU, hmmm yall are making me ponder really heavily about this..

 

I think the reason why I'm so hesitant to label Gaga iconic, is because the word iconic seems to carry less meaning and gravity than it did back in the days, or more so people these days are just not as iconic as people use to be...which is the same reason why you seem to have trouble placing mj next to mozart....which i can quite understand

 

but i think there must also be a difficulty in comparing them because they're genres/mediums of art are not exactly the same. comparing classical music and pop music is simply difficult in itself.  so of course seeing mj and mozart in the list may seem weird...but i do believe mj is iconic near the same gravity that mozart was, BUT in a different manner in context. 

 

However with Gaga I just plain old feel no matter what the context, she still doesn't seem iconic....

 

but i say all this questioning my own thoughts. hmm

[Gov Hooka 8,008]

eh i agree with your first statement, but success doesn't necessary make someone iconic. 

 

and GAGASLAYEDYOU, hmmm yall are making me ponder really heavily about this..

 

I think the reason why I'm so hesitant to label Gaga iconic, is because the word iconic seems to carry less meaning and gravity than it did back in the days, or more so people these days are just not as iconic as people use to be...which is the same reason why you seem to have trouble placing mj next to mozart....which i can quite understand

 

but i think there must also be a difficulty in comparing them because they're genres/mediums of art are not exactly the same. comparing classical music and pop music is simply difficult in itself.  so of course seeing mj and mozart in the list may seem weird...but i do believe mj is iconic near the same gravity that mozart was, BUT in a different manner in context. 

 

However with Gaga I just plain old feel no matter what the context, she still doesn't seem iconic....

 

but i say all this questioning my own thoughts. hmm

that is the defining characteristic of being iconic though. How else can someone be seen as a great unless others recognize it as well, otherwise any person could be a great with no success.

[GagaSlayedYou 2]

Disagree with your opinion. Mozart single-handedly changed the direction of music, as did Mozart and Beethoven. I feel like you're only giving them more credit because they are classical composers from the 18th century.

 

You mean Michael there? 

[Deacon 5]

Show me where Britney had an impact on the industry? She was only doing what Madonna and Janet Jackson had already done on a much bigger and better level. The only people who think Britney changed anything are the ones who are too young to remember the originals. If Gaga herself was inspired by Britney than in actuality she was inspired by those women who came before her and actually provided the blueprint.

 

Very true. I've been a fan of Britney's since BOMT, but she was basically the white Janet for teens with some PR-mumblings of being the next Madonna.

[Gov Hooka 8,008]

You mean Michael there? 

 

[Disregard 50]

You do realize that you sound exactly like the pressed Madonna stans. And by your logic Gaga is less than Britney who was inspired by Janet/Madonna. Britney made her artistry (more like her label's artistry) her own, just like Gaga is, period.

 

Calling me a pressed Madonna stan is quite comical considering I loathe her. But I can still recognize that she did major things in her heyday. No, Britney never made her artistry ANYTHING, because she doesn't have any artistry. And no, my logic does not make Gaga seem like less than Britney in any way. That doesn't even make any sense. I already said Gaga is clearly more artistic, creative, and more likely to make a legendary title for herself, considering she holds these attributes more than any of these other basic label puppets.

[Cameron1012 0]

I am an icon too.

 i love you. best comm

 

But she IS an icon. I mean she seriously took the world by storm during the years of her debut, and she continues to make her mark! She has not only received more awards than most of her contemporaries who have been in the field for longer but she has had mind blowing single, tour, AND album sales. At some point, she has dominated every field. Not to mention many legends have reached out to her throughout the years to collaborate, in not just music but also fashion.

 

She is certainly not a legend yet, but she is an icon. She will be remembered and referenced far more than say Katy Perry or Rihanna due to her complete individuality as an artist.

 

 

 

 

 

eh, but again i dont think success equates to iconic. and out of the pictures, only the meat dress is really iconic, and even that i heavily debate that. 

 

idk...i think the lack of solid definition of icon is what's causing so much debate... eh, to me using the wiki's definition of icon, i just need more evidence to see it

 

but i understand where you're coming from.

[Essence 148]

 i love you. best comm

 

 

eh, but again i dont think success equates to iconic. and out of the pictures, only the meat dress is really iconic, and even that i heavily debate that. 

 

idk...i think the lack of solid definition of icon is what's causing so much debate... eh, to me using the wiki's definition of icon, i just need more evidence to see it

 

but i understand where you're coming from.

people talk about the meat dress to this day.

 

whatever it is she has made her mark. :)

[No Angel 128]

This argument is useless considering the fact that many fans will call their favorite popstar a Legend or Icon because they adore them so much. But you guys should stop trying to void Britney out for not being a Legend. You can't talk about Modern pop music without bringing up Britney Spears. While she may not be the best performer, she came at a time where Pop music was changing and we saw many new faces... her being one of the most memorable ones. So we shouldn't single her out. 

 

But do I think Gaga is an Icon? Maybe, in terms of how she arrived in such a memorable way blending in her fashion with Music and Technology. She is very memorable and you'd pretty much have to be under a rock since 2008 to not know who 'Lady Gaga' is.

 

Do I think Gaga's a Legend? No. Not yet. 

[Gov Hooka 8,008]

Calling me a pressed Madonna stan is quite comical considering I loathe her. But I can still recognize that she did major things in her heyday. No, Britney never made her artistry ANYTHING, because she doesn't have any artistry. And no, my logic does not make Gaga seem like less than Britney in any way. That doesn't even make any sense. I already said Gaga is clearly more artistic, creative, and more likely to make a legendary title for herself, considering she holds these attributes more than any of these other basic label puppets.

First of all I didn't call you a pressed Madonna stan, I just said you're argument sounded a lot like the arguments made by those people about Gaga-that Gaga is a recycled Madonna for the next generation. And here you are saying the same thing about Britney. Something is wrong about that. Both were clearly different than Madonna. And you saying Britney didn't have any artistry is just YOUR opinion. Art is subjective, and many others don't think that. Britney does have an artistry, and her music and image is quite interesting and nice imo. It's just that you are biased for Gaga and ripping on Britney and you fail to see that.

[Smooth Criminal 2]

theres not a rule book for legends in the making sis 

 

also, lets not compare different artist who sing different music

 

its obvious gaga has had a huge impact in such a short time, other celebs and people are already speak of her as such, so whats the argument that she isnt?

 

My response was for the person I quoted who said that she is an Icon, but Legend is a different story. Thus, came my explanation of how one become's a Legend.

 

And I never said that Gaga isn't a legend in the making, I said that she is not a Legend atm.

 

Therefore your last statement is invalid.  :)

[Smooth Criminal 2]

This argument is useless considering the fact that many fans will call their favorite popstar a Legend or Icon because they adore them so much. But you guys should stop trying to void Britney out for not being a Legend. You can't talk about Modern pop music without bringing up Britney Spears. While she may not be the best performer, she came at a time where Pop music was changing and we saw many new faces... her being one of the most memorable ones. So we shouldn't single her out. 

 

 

ABSOLUTELY!

 

How someone is going to disregard Britney as a Legend is beyond me. Britney has paved the way for girls like Miley Cyrus & Selena Gomez. Even they admit it. What they are doing today is, what Britney did 10 years ago.

 

The amount of impact, success, & praise Britney has gotten is comparable with a lot of the greats. Do not forget that Britney ruled the late 90s and early 00s. There was not a single artist more famous or followed than Britney back then, even Beyonce.

 

A lot of people like to discredit Britney from this "Legend" status because of her breakdown or because she isn't what she used to be. And I can only pity them, if that's the case. 

[GagaSlayedYou 2]

eh i agree with your first statement, but success doesn't necessary make someone iconic. 

 

and GAGASLAYEDYOU, hmmm yall are making me ponder really heavily about this..

 

I think the reason why I'm so hesitant to label Gaga iconic, is because the word iconic seems to carry less meaning and gravity than it did back in the days, or more so people these days are just not as iconic as people use to be...which is the same reason why you seem to have trouble placing mj next to mozart....which i can quite understand

 

but i think there must also be a difficulty in comparing them because they're genres/mediums of art are not exactly the same. comparing classical music and pop music is simply difficult in itself.  so of course seeing mj and mozart in the list may seem weird...but i do believe mj is iconic near the same gravity that mozart was, BUT in a different manner in context. 

 

However with Gaga I just plain old feel no matter what the context, she still doesn't seem iconic....

 

but i say all this questioning my own thoughts. hmm

 

I agree with you.

 

I don't think Michael Jackson/Gaga (or others) can be compared to any classical musician, especially because the context, like you've said before.

 

The hype, and the musical attributions from modern artists are not the same than any of the previous cited musicians, because they wrote in a very new way. Let's remember that many of them started from monophonic music, to a very highly complexity one. Most of them pronunciated a development of sophisticated forms of music. They CHANGED music in a very short term. They added textures, harmonization and many others element on long scale compositions, with movements, phases, and more!

 

But it doesn't mean the ENTIRE modern music of our century, is a ****. But, we can agree that many of the music achievements of the classical musicians had a more important impact on this, than the modern music could have now, because the latter is very focused to emerge through the experimentation along with the technology and the big explosion of visuals, and more elements. Although it's too early to say how much modern music is going to challenge the classical one.

 

EDIT: I wrote too much