Is Lady Gaga as big as the Beatles?

[Kestra]

I think she's way more than a fad, but I also think that comparisons are tricky. Personally I've never understood what the big fuss was about The Beatles, but they've obviously had a long lasting cultural impact. I do have to say though, I think Lady Gaga has progressed beyond pop star of the moment to having a broader impact, and I like that she's out there.

Her first album isn't even 3 years old yet.

Get back to me if she is this popular 7 years from now, and I'll reassess. But 3 albums in less than 3 years? And upping the ante with gimmicky performance 'art'? To me, that equates to 'Too soon to tell'. The media hasn't even had a chance to get bored with her yet.

I'm not saying that she won't make it out of 'fad' status for me. She might. But not yet...and not for a while.

And I don't know that she has 'broader impact'. Certainly she has a lot of appeal to fans of current pop music. That much is clear. But not everyone is a fan of current pop music. And among those of us who are not particular fans of current pop music in general (not just Lady Gaga, but all current pop music), she is just an obtrusive, mouth-gaping-open face that we see on YouTube while were trying to get to the videos we really want to see.

Fans of all the genres sort of live in their own universes. And if you live in the pop universe, I have no doubt that she is HUGE - I would assume she is at the center of your current musical universe, in fact. But in my universe of the hard rock/metal genre? Not so much. And she certainly does not command Beatle-level respect in my world. Not even close.

Three years is plenty of time to get bored with a pop star. It obviously isn't enough to determine if anyone will care about her decades from now, however. I think it's obvious that she's not going to command the highest level of respect in other genres because, well, she's a pop star. That seems pretty intuitive. It's kind of silly to think that we all live in different "universes" when it comes to music though. I enjoy a wide variety of music and don't live in the pop universe any more than most people. There is no reason one cannot appreciate many different types of music.

 

[PKTrekGirl]

Do you think she commands Beatles-level respect among Country music fans?

Not sure if this was directed at me, but I suspect so since my last comment used these words when referencing my own 'fandom' of hard rock/metal.

But regarding Country music fans? I wouldn't even begin to have the foggiest idea if she commands Beatles-level respect. I can't imagine that she would. But then, I am not a Country music fan and do not frequent those circles, so I wouldn't know for sure. If you are a Country music fan, you could speak a lot more to that point than I could - I defer to the Country music fans to answer that.

 

[Amaris]

I think she's way more than a fad, but I also think that comparisons are tricky. Personally I've never understood what the big fuss was about The Beatles, but they've obviously had a long lasting cultural impact. I do have to say though, I think Lady Gaga has progressed beyond pop star of the moment to having a broader impact, and I like that she's out there.

Her first album isn't even 3 years old yet.

Get back to me if she is this popular 7 years from now, and I'll reassess. But 3 albums in less than 3 years? And upping the ante with gimmicky performance 'art'? To me, that equates to 'Too soon to tell'. The media hasn't even had a chance to get bored with her yet.

I'm not saying that she won't make it out of 'fad' status for me. She might. But not yet...and not for a while.

And I don't know that she has 'broader impact'. Certainly she has a lot of appeal to fans of current pop music. That much is clear. But not everyone is a fan of current pop music. And among those of us who are not particular fans of current pop music in general (not just Lady Gaga, but all current pop music), she is just an obtrusive, mouth-gaping-open face that we see on YouTube while were trying to get to the videos we really want to see.

Fans of all the genres sort of live in their own universes. And if you live in the pop universe, I have no doubt that she is HUGE - I would assume she is at the center of your current musical universe, in fact. But in my universe of the hard rock/metal genre? Not so much. And she certainly does not command Beatle-level respect in my world. Not even close.

Three years is plenty of time to get bored with a pop star. It obviously isn't enough to determine if anyone will care about her decades from now, however. I think it's obvious that she's not going to command the highest level of respect in other genres because, well, she's a pop star. That seems pretty intuitive. It's kind of silly to think that we all live in different "universes" when it comes to music though. I enjoy a wide variety of music and don't live in the pop universe any more than most people. There is no reason one cannot appreciate many different types of music.

Agreed. My taste in music is rather eclectic. I don't have any one preferred genre, and am always willing to give any type of music a chance. Lady Gaga's music may be pop styled, but she has broad based appeal across other genres as well.

 

[Admiral Shran]

If you are a Country music fan, you could speak a lot more to that point than I could - I defer to the Country music fans to answer that.

Well, I was just joking.

But, as a Country fan, I can say.... no, she doesn't.

 

[FPAlpha]

When she starts making iconic songs that are played regularly even long after she's retired only then i'll start considering her as somewhere within the same league as the Beatles.

While she makes, at times, catchy pop tunes one can listen to in the car all she's known for are her outrageous costumes and clashing outfits. There is no substance to her.. she is the product of her time and reflects that. Presentation and causing controversy over getting famous with talent.

 

[BlobVanDam]

I find this question insulting to music. And I say that as one of the biggest haters of The Beatles.

She's only been around a couple of years. She hasn't proved an ounce of longevity yet. Not even in pop terms. Fads come and go. She hasn't passed that stage yet.

 

[Amaris]

I find this question insulting to music.

Whose music? Yours?

And I say that as one of the biggest haters of The Beatles.

She's only been around a couple of years. She hasn't proved an ounce of longevity yet. Not even in pop terms. Fads come and go. She hasn't passed that stage yet.

So when will she pass the fads stage? I find this interesting. Have we been able to put a fine point on when a fad becomes a phenomenon... or is it just another way of saying never as the "fad" extends further over time?

 

[PKTrekGirl]

Three years is plenty of time to get bored with a pop star. It obviously isn't enough to determine if anyone will care about her decades from now, however. I think it's obvious that she's not going to command the highest level of respect in other genres because, well, she's a pop star. That seems pretty intuitive. It's kind of silly to think that we all live in different "universes" when it comes to music though. I enjoy a wide variety of music and don't live in the pop universe any more than most people. There is no reason one cannot appreciate many different types of music.

Okay. This thread is premised on the question of whether or not she is 'as big as the Beatles'. And as 'intuitive' as it is to you that hard rock/metal fans would not hold her in the highest respect...I will tell you that most of them DO hold the Beatles in high respect.

Which is exactly my point.

Secondly, I am not nearly as narrow as you have implied above, when you referred to me 'silly'. I listen to a lot of classical music, classic rock, and indie rock as well as hard rock/metal...and I can tell you that Gaga is not huge in those circles either, to my knowledge. It's just that I know the most about what's going on in hard rock/metal fandom, since that is where I spend the largest share of my time.

Sorry that you think me 'silly' and less cosmopolitan than you, simply because I don't care for current pop music. But what can I say? I simply don't find much of interest there, and I'd rather spend my music-related time on genres I enjoy more.

Now, I have no problem with other people liking it - to each their own. But come on. Let's be honest here: there are a lot of pop fans who do not care for the bands I listen to at all. Although hopefully you don't call them 'silly' too. Shoot, my own brother doesn't even like some of the bands I listen to...and until he informed me that he thought they sounded 'too angry', I thought my brother was one of the biggest metal-kind-of-guys I knew. And I'm not even talking about Death Metal here - I was sending him links for Bullet for My Valentine, Disturbed, and Avenged Sevenfold.

But the thing is, I don't consider people who don't care for the bands I listen to somehow lacking in breadth, let alone 'silly'. Maybe you think everyone has to like everything in order to meet your high 'eclectic' standard or whatever, but I don't. And I'm not offended at all by fans of pop who state that they do not care for the bands I enjoy most. Everyone has different taste, and that's fine with me. At least they are being honest about it. And they are not, in my book, 'silly' for focusing on the genres they truly enjoy most. Depth of knowledge counts for something too. Or should.

And yes...at a very high level, music is one big 'universe'. But no layperson can have a depth of knowledge in all genres - it would be nearly impossible, given the 5 decades of rock history, and the number of bands out there right now, at this very moment. And that isn't even counting the even longer histories of Country, Jazz, and of course, Classical. So if you have a real depth of knowledge in all of these many genres of music you enjoy, on the level I'm referring to when I say 'live in that universe'...then I applaud you, and am amazed that you are able to do it! I spend a lot of time listening to music, reading news, and keeping up with the fans of my favorite bands and what they are thinking via reading news stories, building a network on YouTube as well as on one band-related BBS I'm a member of and another I lurk at regularly, and one invite-only indie music community I'm a member of on Facebook...but it's all I can do to only marginally keep up with what's going on in the couple of genres I like most! That you are able to have such in-depth knowledge of what's going on among the bands and fans of several genres so as to live in all of those many 'universes' on the level I'm talking about is really an impressive feat. But I find it hard. Sooo hard.

Oh well. Whatever. Never mind.

 

[BlobVanDam]

I find this question insulting to music.

Whose music? Yours?

And I say that as one of the biggest haters of The Beatles.

She's only been around a couple of years. She hasn't proved an ounce of longevity yet. Not even in pop terms. Fads come and go. She hasn't passed that stage yet.

So when will she pass the fads stage? I find this interesting. Have we been able to put a fine point on when a fad becomes a phenomenon... or is it just another way of saying never as the "fad" extends further over time?

Whose music is it an insult to? Music in general. As I like neither The Beatles or Lady Gaga, it has nothing to do with my musical likes. It's the fact that The Beatles have endured for half a century and are undoubtedly the most popular band in history (and trust me, there is no bias in that statement, because I admit this reluctantly).
To compare a band of that untouchable stature to today's pop star of the moment is insulting to music history. Acts like hers come and go all the time. She hasn't separated herself from the crowd yet.

When will she pass the fad stage? Well obviously the line is arbitrary, but it's only been a couple of years. The Beatles didn't last all that long really, and yet their music and popularity has endured and grown.
Let's see how many people care at all once she stops releasing music. That is what defines music as timeless. Whether or not your music is popular for the music, or just popular because you're notorious for dressing like an idiot.

 

[Kestra]

Three years is plenty of time to get bored with a pop star. It obviously isn't enough to determine if anyone will care about her decades from now, however. I think it's obvious that she's not going to command the highest level of respect in other genres because, well, she's a pop star. That seems pretty intuitive. It's kind of silly to think that we all live in different "universes" when it comes to music though. I enjoy a wide variety of music and don't live in the pop universe any more than most people. There is no reason one cannot appreciate many different types of music.

Okay. This thread is premised on the question of whether or not she is 'as big as the Beatles'. And as 'intuitive' as it is to you that hard rock/metal fans would not hold her in the highest respect...I will tell you that most of them DO hold the Beatles in high respect.

Which is exactly my point.

Secondly, I am not nearly as narrow as you have implied above, when you referred to me 'silly'. I listen to a lot of classical music, classic rock, and indie rock as well as hard rock/metal...and I can tell you that Gaga is not huge in those circles either, to my knowledge. It's just that I know the most about what's going on in hard rock/metal fandom, since that is where I spend the largest share of my time.

Sorry that you think me 'silly' and less cosmopolitan than you, simply because I don't care for current pop music. But what can I say? I simply don't find much of interest there, and I'd rather spend my music-related time on genres I enjoy more.

Now, I have no problem with other people liking it - to each their own. But come on. Let's be honest here: there are a lot of pop fans who do not care for the bands I listen to at all. Although hopefully you don't call them 'silly' too. Shoot, my own brother doesn't even like some of the bands I listen to...and until he informed me that he thought they sounded 'too angry', I thought my brother was one of the biggest metal-kind-of-guys I knew. And I'm not even talking about Death Metal here - I was sending him links for Bullet for My Valentine, Disturbed, and Avenged Sevenfold.

But the thing is, I don't consider people who don't care for the bands I listen to somehow lacking in breadth, let alone 'silly'. Maybe you think everyone has to like everything in order to meet your high 'eclectic' standard or whatever, but I don't. And I'm not offended at all by fans of pop who state that they do not care for the bands I enjoy most. Everyone has different taste, and that's fine with me. At least they are being honest about it. And they are not, in my book, 'silly' for focusing on the genres they truly enjoy most. Depth of knowledge counts for something too. Or should.

And yes...at a very high level, music is one big 'universe'. But no layperson can have a depth of knowledge in all genres - it would be nearly impossible, given the 5 decades of rock history, and the number of bands out there right now, at this very moment. And that isn't even counting the even longer histories of Country, Jazz, and of course, Classical. So if you have a real depth of knowledge in all of these many genres of music you enjoy, on the level I'm referring to when I say 'live in that universe'...then I applaud you, and am amazed that you are able to do it! I spend a lot of time listening to music, reading news, and keeping up with the fans of my favorite bands and what they are thinking via reading news stories, building a network on YouTube as well as on one band-related BBS I'm a member of and another I lurk at regularly, and one invite-only indie music community I'm a member of on Facebook...but it's all I can do to only marginally keep up with what's going on in the couple of genres I like most! That you are able to have such in-depth knowledge of what's going on among the bands and fans of several genres so as to live in all of those many 'universes' on the level I'm talking about is really an impressive feat. But I find it hard. Sooo hard.

Oh well. Whatever. Never mind.

You need to not focus so hard on one particular word in my post. I didn't say you were silly or that I'm cosmopolitan. I do think it's silly to imply that people exist solely in these genre specific music universes. If that's not what you were implying and I got it wrong, then there shouldn't be an issue.

I never claimed that everyone had to like everything, just that it's possible to enjoy different varieties of music. Personally I don't usually care for in-depth knowledge about musical artists, it just doesn't interest me in general.

 

[Amaris]

Whose music is it an insult to? Music in general.

In other words, music you like. Her music is no more an insult than any created by any other artist. You do not like her music, that's fine. That does not mean her music is an insult to music in general.

As I like neither The Beatles or Lady Gaga, it has nothing to do with my musical likes.

Sure it does. You don't like her music. You consider her music to be an insult to music you do like. That is fairly evident.

It's the fact that The Beatles have endured for half a century and are undoubtedly the most popular band in history (and trust me, there is no bias in that statement, because I admit this reluctantly).

To compare a band of that untouchable stature to today's pop star of the moment is insulting to music history. Acts like hers come and go all the time. She hasn't separated herself from the crowd yet.

They've endured for half a century because the medium in which they evolved was also evolving, and open to new sounds and new ideas. The time of the Beatles was also a time of civil and political unrest, and the Beatles' music spoke to a disenchanted and war torn generation. Their ideas transcended music, and that's why they are still popular. They stood for something more than just the melody, and that idea still appeals to each new generation.

If we go by that standard, then every form of music since then is an insult to music in general, because the Beatles were a fluke. They were at the right place at the right time with just the right thing to say. It is grossly injust to hold that against the rest of the music industry.

When will she pass the fad stage? Well obviously the line is arbitrary, but it's only been a couple of years. The Beatles didn't last all that long really, and yet their music and popularity has endured and grown.
Let's see how many people care at all once she stops releasing music. That is what defines music as timeless. Whether or not your music is popular for the music, or just popular because you're notorious for dressing like an idiot.

In other words, when she stops making albums we'll know. This means as long as she makes albums, you'll insist that she's a fad, and when she stops, you'll consider her a fad because she'd no longer make albums. That's awfully convenient. It's like flipping a coin and saying 'heads I win, tails you lose'. Nice.

Well, I'll tell you this: Gaga is now firmly entrenched in the gay rights movement. She's becoming a symbol of popular culture coming to the aid of the oppressed minority. She may not reach "Beatles" status, but she's going to be more than a fad.

 

[BlobVanDam]

If your argument is to just assume my very clear comments meant the complete opposite, and dismissing my arguments because of your own assumptions, then why do I bother?

I dislike both, and I dislike the genre of both. How much clearer could I be on that? You have no idea what music I like, so don't make assumptions about what you know nothing about. To compare any act that released their first album in 2008 (including bands I love) to The Beatles is an insult. This is a simple matter of facts, not a matter of taste.

But by all means, continue putting words in my mouth and arguing against that instead.

 

[ALF]

She entertains me.
She's an entertainer.

 

[Kestra]

It's silly for any of us to be arguing because I don't think anyone in this thread thinks that Lady Gaga is as big as the Beatles.

... Right?

 

[Amaris]

If your argument is to just assume my very clear comments meant the complete opposite, and dismissing my arguments because of your own assumptions, then why do I bother?

Why do you bother? You're not paying attention to what I'm saying, and you already have it in your head that her music is an insult to the music genre, so nothing I say will get through to you.

I dislike both, and I dislike the genre of both. How much clearer could I be on that? You have no idea what music I like, so don't make assumptions about what you know nothing about.

I know that you apparently dislike the Beatles and Lady Gaga. You were the one making statements of "fact" and applying them to your preferred tastes in music.

To compare any act that released their first album in 2008 (including bands I love) to The Beatles is an insult. This is a simple matter of facts, not a matter of taste.

It's a simple matter of taste that you assume is fact. The "insult" is all in your head.

But by all means, continue putting words in my mouth and arguing against that instead.

I'm not putting words in your mouth at all. Short of you not liking any music at all, my statements are still accurate.

It's silly for any of us to be arguing because I don't think anyone in this thread thinks that Lady Gaga is as big as the Beatles.

... Right?

I don't think Lady Gaga is as big as the Beatles, no.

 

[TEACAKE'S PLEATHER DOME]

I notice people dismiss Lady Gaga because of all the wigs and show and avant garde posturing. That is actually what I like about her, I like it better than the music itself. While some of her music is great pop other songs are kind of meh to me. The show, the image, the personality.. that's the appeal. I see her as a unique individual with a driving need for reinventing herself, something that will keep her fresh.

 

[BlobVanDam]

Find me where I mentioned my tastes as fact, or where I mentioned my preferred music tastes in music at all. The reason you're not getting through to me is because you're not addressing my statements at all. You're making up my intent and ignoring my posts. You're assuming that my dislike of one is because of my musical tastes when the exact same point holds equally true for the other, and none of my arguments have mentioned their musical style or genre at all. Your argument is invalid and baseless.
The stupidity of comparing the legacy of an artist from 2008 to one from the 1960s is not a matter of taste. It is just plain obviously stupid.

 

[TEACAKE'S PLEATHER DOME]

I do not understand how one person's music can insult Music as a genre. This is just a high minded way of saying that person's music sucks.

 

[RJDiogenes]

As big as The Beatles? She's not even as big as Jesus.

Centuries from now, symphony orchestras will still be playing Beatles music alongside Mozart and Beethoven, while Lady Gaga and everything else we're familiar with will be historical curiosities. Lady Gaga is sort of the offspring of Madonna and Queen; I hate Madonna, love Queen and Lady Gaga is sort of invisible to me. She did have that one catchy song, though.

 

[Amaris]

I notice people dismiss Lady Gaga because of all the wigs and show and avant garde posturing. That is actually what I like about her, I like it better than the music itself. While some of her music is great pop other songs are kind of meh to me. The show, the image, the personality.. that's the appeal. I see her as a unique individual with a driving need for reinventing herself, something that will keep her fresh.

Exactly. She doesn't stand still for very long, and in the modern music age, she can't. With millions of artists out there clamoring for attention, one has to combine talent and pageantry to create a real, entertaining experience, and I think she achieves this.

Find me where I mentioned my tastes as fact, or where I mentioned my preferred music tastes in music at all. The reason you're not getting through to me is because you're not addressing my statements at all. You're making up my intent and ignoring my posts. You're assuming that my dislike of one is because of my musical tastes when the exact same point holds equally true for the other, and none of my arguments have mentioned their musical style or genre at all. Your argument is invalid and baseless.
The stupidity of comparing the legacy of an artist from 2008 to one from the 1960s is not a matter of taste. It is just plain obviously stupid.

Hmm...

I dislike both, and I dislike the genre of both. How much clearer could I be on that? You have no idea what music I like, so don't make assumptions about what you know nothing about. To compare any act that released their first album in 2008 (including bands I love) to The Beatles is an insult. This is a simple matter of facts, not a matter of taste.

You do not like Lady Gaga or the Beatles. You consider her music an insult to music in general. That means there is music you like. What you are doing is comparing the music you don't like, which is hers, to the music you do like. You like her music less than you like the Beatles, and you do not like the Beatles. Whether you like the Beatles or not makes no difference to this equation. You are making a comparison of your likes and dislikes, and calling them fact. You can run around the meaning all you want, but you are trying to substitute your musical opinions as fact.

I do not understand how one person's music can insult Music as a genre. This is just a high minded way of saying that person's music sucks.

Exactly. It's a way of trying to make one's opinion on music appear as objective fact.

As big as The Beatles? She's not even as big as Jesus.

Centuries from now, symphony orchestras will still be playing Beatles music alongside Mozart and Beethoven, while Lady Gaga and everything else we're familiar with will be historical curiosities. Lady Gaga is sort of the offspring of Madonna and Queen; I hate Madonna, love Queen and Lady Gaga is sort of invisible to me. She did have that one catchy song, though.

That's because the Beatles derive much of their basic melody from classical music. This was not uncommon during the 60s and 70s.
Of course, we're assuming that you are correct. It may be a bit of a leap to say that the Beatles will be popular orchestral fare centuries from now.