Is Lady Gaga as big as the Beatles?

[Pingfah]

I don't know very much about Lady Gaga at all, not a fan, except of the way that she obviously gets up the noses of so many people.

People getting all worked up and pissed off about some pop star is extremely entertaining, I hope she keeps it up, whatever she is doing.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

Yeah. I like her, but I am not into her that much. I enjoy her music and her videos, that's about the extent of it.

But I enjoy seeing people get so pissy about her.

 

[Amaris]

Yeah. I like her, but I am not into her that much. I enjoy her music and her videos, that's about the extent of it.

But I enjoy seeing people get so pissy about her.

I love her music and her videos. She figured out a long time ago that a sweet, piano playing brunette was going to get nowhere fast, regardless of her talent, so she built her own image, and it worked. For some reason, this pisses people off.

 

[PKTrekGirl]

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.

You know, I get it. You don't like me. Fine. Quite frankly, I don't give a flying fuck. But how about you back off on the personal comments about my posting style that you go on and on and ON about every chance you get? You don't like my posting style? Don't read my fucking POSTS. Jesus. For a mod, this constant bordering trolling of people you don't like (and no - it's not just me) is getting WAY old.

I'll continue to post whatever the hell I want. In whatever length I want. Don't read it if you don't like it or you don't have the attention span for it. Because it shouldn't be any skin off your nose at all. Unless, of course, this is personal. Sorry, but I don't believe in taking 1 sentence cheap shots and making 2 sentence smart ass remarks as a posting style, however popular that might be with some. I am quite earnest and sincere in my desire to fully explain myself. If you don't like my honest attempts at self expression, then please - just leave me alone.

As to the, you know, actual subject - no. I never said that 'any musical act is comparable to the Beatles'. In fact, when AJ said something similar, I disagreed, saying 'ever' is a kind of a harsh term. And I think that post was pretty damn short. So you are willfully ignoring it. As usual.

As I have stated again and again, I don't believe any act that is active RIGHT NOW is comparable to the Beatles RIGHT NOW. How they will 'go down in history' remains to be seen - time will tell, because it is only with time that we will see how Gaga and any given other act will fare, in the grand scheme of things. Gaga may stand the test of time...or she may not - only time will tell. I've said that numerous times before, and I'll say it again, in bold this time so you'll be sure to not conveniently miss it in your quest to pick another argument with me.

 

[stoneroses]

Comparing The Beatles to Lady Gag Gag is like comparing Champagne to piss, with the Beatles (Champagne) winning by far.
Lady Gag Gag is over rated and only helped by technological advances is the studio.
I bet she sounds like William Hung (American Idol) with out them.

100% correct!

 

[Servo]

I heard that Paparazzi song on the radio today. I thought it was awful.

 

[TEACAKE'S PLEATHER DOME]

=J. Allen;5098398

I love her music and her videos. She figured out a long time ago that a sweet, piano playing brunette was going to get nowhere fast, regardless of her talent, so she built her own image, and it worked. For some reason, this pisses people off.

Yeah that's it basically. Same thing happened to Madonna.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

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.

You know, I get it. You don't like me. Fine. Quite frankly, I don't give a flying fuck. But how about you back off on the personal comments about my posting style that you go on and on and ON about every chance you get? You don't like my posting style? Don't read my fucking POSTS. Jesus. For a mod, this constant bordering trolling of people you don't like (and no - it's not just me) is getting WAY old.

I'm sorry you feel my posts were in any way "badgering" or "trolling" you. This discussion wasn't personal but you certainly seem to have made it that way.

I'll continue to post whatever the hell I want. In whatever length I want. Don't read it if you don't like it or you don't have the attention span for it. Because it shouldn't be any skin off your nose at all. Unless, of course, this is personal. Sorry, but I don't believe in taking 1 sentence cheap shots and making 2 sentence smart ass remarks as a posting style, however popular that might be with some. I am quite earnest and sincere in my desire to fully explain myself. If you don't like my honest attempts at self expression, then please - just leave me alone.

I never said you couldn't post whatever you wanted. I just found most of what you posted in this thread to be completely tangential to the subject at hand, such as discussing how big Lady Gaga is in "rock circles," as if that's the only realm of the music world that matters.

As to the, you know, actual subject - no. I never said that 'any musical act is comparable to the Beatles'. In fact, when AJ said something similar, I disagreed, saying 'ever' is a kind of a harsh term. And I think that post was pretty damn short. So you are willfully ignoring it. As usual.

Well, so, "almost never." It is still the same general sentiment.

As I have stated again and again, I don't believe any act that is active RIGHT NOW is comparable to the Beatles RIGHT NOW. How they will 'go down in history' remains to be seen - time will tell, because it is only with time that we will see how Gaga and any given other act will fare, in the grand scheme of things. Gaga may stand the test of time...or she may not - only time will tell. I've said that numerous times before, and I'll say it again, in bold this time so you'll be sure to not conveniently miss it in your quest to pick another argument with me.

No need to get so irate since, in principle, I agree with you. You just went off on all these odd tangents about what kinds of music you're into and made it clear you don't care about her type of music at all, yet you feel comfortable passing judgment on it. As you yourself said, it's the fans of any given musician or band that decide its fate and legacy for the long term--not those who don't even like the music at all.

 

[Thestral]

Death Metal Friday

This may be the only time I've heard that psychotic growling make something sound less demented...

No, she hasn't.

No, she has already peaked.

While you're at it, give me my lottery numbers for next week.

While I'm sure you're both right, I think Judas was a pretty big misstep, so she's not invincible. Fortunately Edge of Glory nicely recovered from that and washed it away.

 

[Locutus of Bored]

Comparing The Beatles to Lady Gag Gag is like comparing Champagne to piss, with the Beatles (Champagne) winning by far.
Lady Gag Gag is over rated and only helped by technological advances is the studio.
I bet she sounds like William Hung (American Idol) with out them.

100% correct!

Except for the part where three posts after that one a video of her singing live on-stage without technical enhancement in her pre-Gaga days shows that's absolutely not true.

 

[RAMA]

Wow what a question...no I don't think she is anywhere near the popularity of the Beatles, don't think she really has the sales to back that up either. The Beatles were also far more influential. Question is, does she have staying power...

I don't have any problem with her songs, some of them play on my mp3 player at the gym...her whole look is a little pretentious and I don't really buy into all that stuff, but I don't really need to deal with an artists background or style if I like what I'm hearing.

RAMA

 

[Locutus of Bored]

A lot of artists we consider classics wore some pretty ostentatious outfits and makeup back in the day: Bowie, Queen, Elton John... If they don't bring anything else to the table then it's just a gimmick, but clearly with the artists above and Lady Gaga it's meant to compliment the music and add to the atmosphere of the overall presentation.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Yeah. I like her, but I am not into her that much. I enjoy her music and her videos, that's about the extent of it.

But I enjoy seeing people get so pissy about her.

Yep.

Comparing The Beatles to Lady Gaga is like comparing Champagne to piss

Come on, the Beatles aren't that much worse than Gaga.

I have no patience with this kind of snobbery. Life's too short.

 

[Sean Aaron]

I don't think Gaga is nearly as controversial or inspiring as much mania as The Beatles in their heyday, so I'll go with "no" in response to the original question.

 

[Kelthaz]

I was a Lady Gaga virgin up until today, so I decided to watch her Bad Romance video on YouTube. Yeah, that was painful. Really painful.

Anyway, she's obviously way more than a fad and she has connected with a lot of people, but I can't imagine her ever becoming as big as The Beatles. Not even close.

 

[Mr Silver]

Heres the thing, I respect the Beatles contribution to music but I cannot say I am a fan. I find it very hard to enjoy their music, I mean its catchy but there isn't any "substance" to it that resonates with me. People can say that their music defined an era, but I find that hard to digest when during the Beatles' heyday there was the likes of Dylan, The Stones, Hendrix, Cream, Jefferson Airplane, The Doors, The Grateful Dead, Santana, The Byrds, Simon And Garfunkel and The Animals all with enormous followings on both sides of the Atlantic.

Like I said though, I respect their contribution to music and acknowledge their success. Paul McCartney's other projects are of great enjoyment to me from a musical level, particulary with Wings and as himself.

As for Lady Gaga, whilst she is a talented performer, he music only appeals to a particular demographic, nothing she has written (or co-written) has any timeless appeal to it. Although she could very well be regarded as Madonna is within a decade or so, we'll just see how her career pans out.

 

[sidious618]

As for Lady Gaga, whilst she is a talented performer, he music only appeals to a particular demographic, nothing she has written (or co-written) has any timeless appeal to it.

I don't know about that. It's one of those time will tell things because for all we know her music will turn out to be timeless. I do agree about respecting but not necessarily enjoying The Beatles, though.

 

[Alidar Jarok]

Then again, the Beatles formed because John Lennon wanted to get laid and chicks dig guys in bands. The timeless stuff was a bi-product of some good fortune and lots of speed while playing in front of angry Germans.

 

[RAMA]

Heres the thing, I respect the Beatles contribution to music but I cannot say I am a fan. I find it very hard to enjoy their music, I mean its catchy but there isn't any "substance" to it that resonates with me. People can say that their music defined an era, but I find that hard to digest when during the Beatles' heyday there was the likes of Dylan, The Stones, Hendrix, Cream, Jefferson Airplane, The Doors, The Grateful Dead, Santana, The Byrds, Simon And Garfunkel and The Animals all with enormous followings on both sides of the Atlantic.

Like I said though, I respect their contribution to music and acknowledge their success. Paul McCartney's other projects are of great enjoyment to me from a musical level, particulary with Wings and as himself.

As for Lady Gaga, whilst she is a talented performer, he music only appeals to a particular demographic, nothing she has written (or co-written) has any timeless appeal to it. Although she could very well be regarded as Madonna is within a decade or so, we'll just see how her career pans out.

I think SGt Pepper era Beatles was just as influential with the hippies as those bands you name, and as with their earlier style when they broke on the scene.

RAMA

 

[Goliath]

Style mostly. Black Metal often employs more theatricality than Death Metal - corpse paint, leather outfits, grandiose set design in music videos...etc. Black Metal bands tend to focus their music on more supernatural and religious themes (mostly anti-Christianity, especially when it comes to bands from places like Norway). It also differs in vocal style, with Black Metal using higher pitched, screeching vocals, as opposed to the deeper, growling vocals used by Death Metal bands.

Musically, black metal is generally quite a bit more minimalistic than death metal.

A lot of death metal bands place a premium on "technicality." Their songs feature a number of tempo and melody changes, and can be quite complex, sounding more like a collage of songs rather than a single song.

Black metal songs are more simple and straightforward. As Wikipedia puts it, "many black metal songs contain lengthy and repetitive instrumental sections."

Death metal bands like clean production, to show off the aforementioned technicality. Black metal bands prefer "dirty," lo-fi production: the joke is that a truly "kult" black metal song should sound like it was recorded in a forest.

Death metal bands tune their guitars down for a deeper, heavier sound, and to match the guttural vocal style. Black metal bands favour higher-pitched guitar-playing, again to match the shrieking and screaming from the vocalist. The bass guitar plays a much less important role in black metal than in death metal.

Finally, if you like a death metal song, you say it's "brutal." If you like a black metal song, it's "grim".

There is a certain amount of crossover between the two. Death metal bands who go in for black-metal type lyrics, like Deicide, Behemoth and Akercocke, are called "blackened death metal." Black metal bands also sing about death, but they prefer to sing about war and suicide rather than murder and torture.