Is Lady Gaga as big as the Beatles?

[RJDiogenes]

as rich she might become, but not even Jesus will ever be as popular as the Fab Four! (and before I get excommunicated: this was merely a reference to a quote by John Lennon, not an anti-religious statement)

Somebody beat you to it.

 

[Alidar Jarok]

The thing that makes me suspect it will beat Oasis, perhaps even Sgt. Pepper at no.2 with 4.8 million, is that Oasis took twice as long to sell 3 million copies as 21 has.

Maybe it will top out soon, but it's not showing any sign of it yet.

It's quite a good album. Caught me by surprise too. Seems to be getting a lot of cross-genre radio play (top 40 stations, alternative stations, etc). I hope she does well.

 

[PKTrekGirl]

People were saying she'd fizzle out pretty much from the day she came onto the scene. She's still here and still popular. How long does it take before she can legitimately not be a "fad"? I'm sure those who hate her will continue to move the goalposts just so she can never be considered "legitimately" popular.

Well, I can't speak for those who 'hate' her, because I don't love her or hate her, one way or the other. I don't really care for that genre of music...and so really haven't spent a lot of time listening to her. 'Indifference' is really the term that best categorizes my feelings about Gaga.

I think that part of the problem here is that you guys who seem to really believe she has a shot at the Beatles are construing our disagreement with that assessment as a) evidence of our 'hatred' of her (not true - at least in my case) and b) some sort of imagined claim that we see her as not 'legitimately popular'.

But I don't even know what that means. Because the woman has sold, like, a bazillion records. Of course she is 'legitimately popular'.

And no - our disagreement that she is not as big as the Beatles does NOT mean we 'hate' her and are involved in some vast conspiracy to 'move the goalposts', just so she can never achieve greatness. Clearly, you guys are under the mistaken impression that we actually care enough to spend countless hours plotting ways to thwart Lady Gaga's Plan For World Domination or something. And that just isn't true. Some of us (myself included) don't give a shit one way or the other about Lady Gaga. If she's popular, fine. Doesn't effect me or my listening habits one way or the other, so I couldn't possibly care less. And I certainly don't care enough to spend time plotting ways to 'move goalposts', just so Lady Gaga can't pass the test.

Some of us in this thread are actually not even here for the Lady Gaga element, but were drawn in by the Beatles name - we are here because of the comparison to the Beatles. And what we see as the absurdity of comparing ANYONE to the Beatles. Not just Gaga...but anyone.

Now...as for when she moves from the fad column into the legend column. Well, I've already given my opinion. If she still has fans following her around the country and flocking to her shows a decade or two after the massive PR buzz machine stops buzzing, we can start talking about the potential for legend. But those are the same standards I apply to ANY band - not just Gaga. I apply to them to my own most beloved bands as well. The goalposts are firmly planted, and will not be 'moved' for Gaga.

 

[PlainSimpleJoel]

As others have said ... it's kinder cruel to compare Lady Gaga to The Beatles. The music industry has changed a lot in the last 50 years or so. Only time will tell if she is - maybe in 30 or 40 years we'll know. I know she is popular, but to me, just doesn't interest me. I'm glad I listen to a radio station that doesn't play her music.

Music today has much more variety of sounds and different genres.

 

[BlobVanDam]

Hmm...

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.

Reading comprehension. I never called her music an insult to music. I said THIS QUESTION is an insult to music. You assumed the rest.

Ah, I see. So we need to find out what the definition of 'is' is. The question is an insult to music, but you didn't say her music was an insult to music. That's a mighty fine hair you've chosen to split.

I explicitly said "this question". And the question makes no reference to their music. The question is about how big there are. Maybe I should have said "music history" instead of "music" to make it clear to people who are missing the obviousness of my point, but there is no ambiguity here.
You're the one splitting hairs to make up an argument against me. As many others have agreed with me that comparing her to The Beatles is a no contest, maybe you should address the thread topic and let up on this little personal dispute. Or have I accidentally created another semantics argument in this post for you to focus on instead?

 

[Amaris]

Reading comprehension. I never called her music an insult to music. I said THIS QUESTION is an insult to music. You assumed the rest.

Ah, I see. So we need to find out what the definition of 'is' is. The question is an insult to music, but you didn't say her music was an insult to music. That's a mighty fine hair you've chosen to split.

I explicitly said "this question". And the question makes no reference to their music. The question is about how big there are. Maybe I should have said "music history" instead of "music" to make it clear to people who are missing the obviousness of my point, but there is no ambiguity here.
You're the one splitting hairs to make up an argument against me. As many others have agreed with me that comparing her to The Beatles is a no contest, maybe you should address the thread topic and let up on this little personal dispute. Or have I accidentally created another semantics argument in this post for you to focus on instead?

Oh, no, I'm done. It's fruitless to continue, so just believe whatever you want, substituting whatever opinion you want as "fact", just don't expect everyone else to accept it.

 

[TheBrew]

Bah, Beethoven has been popular for centuries while the Beatles have only been around for a few decades. Heck, some of them are still alive!

The "Fad Four" indeed.

 

[DarthTom]

You're not even trying to separate celebrity from skill, are you?

Celebrity versus skill I'd argue is a matter of taste. Personally I find none of the Beatles music enjoyable in the slightest but I recognize that others do. And I recognize that they brought a new genre to the industry as did Jackson and Elvis.

It has yet to be determined if Gaga will do the same. She undeniably has a strong stage presence and like Madonna is controversial in her own unique way.

IMO it has yet to be determined if her 'presence,' is unique enough to own the stage with the Beatles, Jackson, Elvis.

I'd wager she will not and like Madonna will be relegated to simple mega-fame of her time. But that has yet to be determined.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

People were saying she'd fizzle out pretty much from the day she came onto the scene. She's still here and still popular. How long does it take before she can legitimately not be a "fad"? I'm sure those who hate her will continue to move the goalposts just so she can never be considered "legitimately" popular.

Well, I can't speak for those who 'hate' her, because I don't love her or hate her, one way or the other. I don't really care for that genre of music...and so really haven't spent a lot of time listening to her. 'Indifference' is really the term that best categorizes my feelings about Gaga.

For someone who doesn't care about her one way or another, you sure have posted a lot about her in this thread.

I think that part of the problem here is that you guys who seem to really believe she has a shot at the Beatles are construing our disagreement with that assessment as a) evidence of our 'hatred' of her (not true - at least in my case) and b) some sort of imagined claim that we see her as not 'legitimately popular'.

But I don't even know what that means. Because the woman has sold, like, a bazillion records. Of course she is 'legitimately popular'.

And no - our disagreement that she is not as big as the Beatles does NOT mean we 'hate' her and are involved in some vast conspiracy to 'move the goalposts', just so she can never achieve greatness. Clearly, you guys are under the mistaken impression that we actually care enough to spend countless hours plotting ways to thwart Lady Gaga's Plan For World Domination or something. And that just isn't true. Some of us (myself included) don't give a shit one way or the other about Lady Gaga. If she's popular, fine. Doesn't effect me or my listening habits one way or the other, so I couldn't possibly care less. And I certainly don't care enough to spend time plotting ways to 'move goalposts', just so Lady Gaga can't pass the test.

In your previous posts, you talked about things like how popular she is in rock circles, where you spend your time and where the Beatles are popular. I think what you're missing here is that the Beatles were also the pop music of their day, so it's a totally fair comparison. Pop music is unique in that it's never been one particular genre--it's always drawn from multiple genres and changes over time. Jazz, rock and roll, new wave, grunge, hip hop, etc. have all been "pop music" at one time or another.

Anyway, that seemed to be the crux of your objection: that the Beatles are legendary in rock circles and Lady Gaga is not popular in those circles at all. Which, of course, doesn't mean much. A lot of bands aren't well-known outside their particular followings. The Beatles transcended that and maintain popularity across much of the listening public, regardless of where their musical interests lie.

Whether Lady Gaga has done that remains to be seen. None of us has a crystal ball. But right now, she's huge. Just given her level of record sales, media exposure, touring popularity, radio play, etc., she's in a pretty small group of top-tier American artists.

Some of us in this thread are actually not even here for the Lady Gaga element, but were drawn in by the Beatles name - we are here because of the comparison to the Beatles. And what we see as the absurdity of comparing ANYONE to the Beatles. Not just Gaga...but anyone.

So, the Beatles are a sacred cow that no one can compare to, ever. That helps clarify your position substantially and drive home the futility of this discussion.

Now...as for when she moves from the fad column into the legend column. Well, I've already given my opinion. If she still has fans following her around the country and flocking to her shows a decade or two after the massive PR buzz machine stops buzzing, we can start talking about the potential for legend. But those are the same standards I apply to ANY band - not just Gaga. I apply to them to my own most beloved bands as well. The goalposts are firmly planted, and will not be 'moved' for Gaga.

I don't know where this "legend" business came from. The word in the original post was "big," which is a totally nebulous term that we could say means anything.

And be reasonable here: no PR buzz machine can keep someone popular for years on end if there's nothing to back it up. Charlie Sheen built up quite the buzz machine around himself, and where is he now?

If I understand your position, it is basically:

* You don't listen to Lady Gaga since that's not your preferred type of music.
* You don't think any musical act is comparable to the Beatles, ever.
* Therefore, she is not "as big as the Beatles."

You could've said that in a lot fewer words.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

They occupy different niches at this moment in the evolution of popular culture.

I listen to Lady Gaga in a lot of social situations, parties, clubs, bar mitzvahs etc.

I listen to Lady Gaga at the gym.

I listen to Lady Gaga on the radio.

Etc, etc...

OTOH, I listen to the Beatles...in the elevator at the office.

 

[Yeoman Randi]

I listen to Lady Gaga in ... bar mitzvahs etc.

I'm sorry but for some reason that just made me spew my Cherrios. Thanks alot!

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

I've spent a lot of my free time on weekends over the last month looking for a venue for a celebration next year. So I've dropped in on quite a few restaurants and listened to a lot of DJs. You better bet that Gaga and Katy Perry are big with the coming-of-age crowd.

Ke$ha does pretty good for herself, too.

 

[Yeoman Randi]

^ Oh i know all about it. My daughter's sweet 16 was last year. The DJ played plenty of it.

OTOH, it was a fucking miracle no babies were born from the way those kids danced.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

I've spent a lot of my free time on weekends over the last month looking for a venue for a celebration next year. So I've dropped in on quite a few restaurants and listened to a lot of DJs. You better bet that Gaga and Katy Perry are big with the coming-of-age crowd.

Ke$ha does pretty good for herself, too.

I love them all. I'm not ashamed to admit I have no taste.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

I've spent a lot of my free time on weekends over the last month looking for a venue for a celebration next year. So I've dropped in on quite a few restaurants and listened to a lot of DJs. You better bet that Gaga and Katy Perry are big with the coming-of-age crowd.

Ke$ha does pretty good for herself, too.

I love them all. I'm not ashamed to admit I have no taste.

Oh, it's more a matter of having growed up enough to embrace your own without embarrassment.

Pop music is what it is. Same with country. There's no genre or musical tradition that I've heard that I don't like some of.

 

[BlobVanDam]

Pop music is what it is. Same with country. There's no genre or musical tradition that I've heard that I don't like some of.

Challenge accepted! Death metal? Black metal? Symphonic power metal? Crabcore? Snooze rock? Arabian melodic power folkcore? German folk electro-funk?

Ok, I started making them up, although I'm always wary of anyone who says they like a bit of everything.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

...although I'm always wary of anyone who says they like a bit of everything.

I'm not surprised.

Polka gets on my nerves pretty quickly, but it's fun.

 

[BlobVanDam]

...although I'm always wary of anyone who says they like a bit of everything.

I'm not surprised.

Polka gets on my nerves pretty quickly, but it's fun.

Some things you just gotta be in the mood for. There's plenty of music I can tolerate just fine if it's on, but wouldn't listen to by choice or own in my music collection.

 

[SPCTRE]

Personally I've never understood what the big fuss was about The Beatles, but they've obviously had a long lasting cultural impact.

Well, I guess it's generally hard for us that were born too late to experience the whole Beatlemania thing first-hand to fully grasp its significance

 

[Kestra]

Oh, I can appreciate the significance, I just don't like the music.