Is Lady Gaga as big as the Beatles?
- Thread starter CaptainKit
- Start date
I'm only familiar with her song "Born this Way", and saw a couple performances of it. I think she's the real deal. It was amusing seeing her use a guillotine in one of them. I immediately thought of Alice Cooper, who is infinitely darker, more shocking, and much more musically complex. (from what I have heard of LGG's material)
But that isn't her schtick, she just strikes me as a singer-songwriter pulling on stage elements from various places.
As for being as big as the Beatles - I think the Beatles at their height were a supergroup. So there would have to be three LGG's, plus Ringo.
But to me, the core question is, is she as good a songwriter as John Lennon, or Bob Dylan, or Carole King or Paul Simon or whomever...I don't think that she is, but again, I'm not that familiar with the material. And songwriting is something that can develop over time.
The stage stuff is vital, and a lot of fun, but I think it's the strength of the writing that will show if LGG is a fad, or a perennial artist.
But that isn't her schtick, she just strikes me as a singer-songwriter pulling on stage elements from various places.
As for being as big as the Beatles - I think the Beatles at their height were a supergroup. So there would have to be three LGG's, plus Ringo.
But to me, the core question is, is she as good a songwriter as John Lennon, or Bob Dylan, or Carole King or Paul Simon or whomever...I don't think that she is, but again, I'm not that familiar with the material. And songwriting is something that can develop over time.
The stage stuff is vital, and a lot of fun, but I think it's the strength of the writing that will show if LGG is a fad, or a perennial artist.
They have vocals in death metal?
Yes, they do.
Facts really get in the way of nonsensical dismissiveness, don't they?
I did mention those bands as "contemporaries" to The Beatles and on par influentially. I'm sorry if I didn't make that clear. It seems many people forget the various other bands that were on this level that people seem to have reserved for The Beatles. Again, I will mention that I fully respect The Beatles' contributions to music and I acknowledge their impact upon the 1960's and continued popularity but I am not a fan of their music and I will also not accept the fact that they were THE "big thing" about the 1960's, when in actual fact there were many acts (some of which I named) that have an equally renowned and timeless catalogue of music.
Asides from this, I find it pretty hard to find a compromise with fans of The Beatles usually. But then again, as a musician and knowing what it takes to write and perform music I respect most music and don't class bands or performers as "better than" or "not great". Thats not arrogance, its just what happens when you understand the difficulty and artistic elements of a field, particulary within the entertainment industry. I'm not a professional, but i've got enough experience to recognise the deeper elements of music.
GaGa is a flash-in-the-pan, not fit to lick Ringo's drumsticks...
Paul McCartney is an embarrassing old fart. However, since he has National Treasure status, it means that for instance when he marries a gold-digger and then dumps her, the whole nation rises up and chases her from the land.
The Beatles were of their time. They changed the way pop music is written and performed. McCartney wrote some technically very good melodies and Lennon wrote some very good lyrics. That doesn't mean that the bulk of what they wrote wasn't run of the mill because it was.
Lady Gaga is of her time. She's as popular as the Beatles were. I can't provide a critique of her music because I don't listen to it.
Therefore the answer, in its most simple reading, is yes.
The Beatles were of their time. They changed the way pop music is written and performed. McCartney wrote some technically very good melodies and Lennon wrote some very good lyrics. That doesn't mean that the bulk of what they wrote wasn't run of the mill because it was.
Lady Gaga is of her time. She's as popular as the Beatles were. I can't provide a critique of her music because I don't listen to it.
Therefore the answer, in its most simple reading, is yes.
It just seems like a pointless argument. If you genuinely like her music, then what does it matter if she's as big as The Beatles or not? If you don't like her music, then what does it matter if she's as big as The Beatles or not?
This thread is almost as stupid as those "Who would win in a fight between...?" threads that pop up from time to time.
This thread is almost as stupid as those "Who would win in a fight between...?" threads that pop up from time to time.
The only way to tell is if 40 years from now people are asking if some enormously popular new kid on the music scene is as big as Lady Gaga.
And Servo I think Lady Gaga would win a fight with each Beatle (individually) except Ringo because he would fight dirty and bite her on the stomach as she slammed him into the floor.
And Servo I think Lady Gaga would win a fight with each Beatle (individually) except Ringo because he would fight dirty and bite her on the stomach as she slammed him into the floor.
I don't know about Ringo. After all, as John Lennon says, Ringo isn't even the best fucking drummer on the Beatles.
J
Jetfire
Guest
As for the question...does it matter? I don't listen to The Beatles but I am sure stuff I listen too was influenced by them. I don't listen to The Gaga but I am sure something I will listen to in the future will be influenced by her. She is talented but outside of 'Bad Romance' I really couldn't get into her music...well I find 'Poker Face' amusing.
At this point Lady Gaga is no bigger than Britney Spears...I still LUV ya Brit!
[add] By the way, even though Lady Gaga is at #6 with 'The Edge Of Glory'...Britney is hanging tough at #17 with 'I Wanna Go' on the Billboard Hot 100.
So it isn't like Brit has gone anywhere. 
At this point Lady Gaga is no bigger than Britney Spears...I still LUV ya Brit!
[add] By the way, even though Lady Gaga is at #6 with 'The Edge Of Glory'...Britney is hanging tough at #17 with 'I Wanna Go' on the Billboard Hot 100.
So it isn't like Brit has gone anywhere.
Last edited by a moderator:
She's not gonna. Sorry.
She's got the staying power of Pink! Debbie Gibson! All those other massive-hit massive-fan-base hyper-talented women that get four years and just... go.. away...
I remember seeing an awards-show remake of "Sweet Lady Maralade" which had four mega-hit-divas of the time singing the song, with Patti LaBelle featured at the end. Lil Kim, Aguleria, Pink, Mya. And they're where now?
You want to know if Gaga's got staying power with the hits she has now that compares to the Beatles, I'll let you know when my girls are talking about "Bad Romance" with their grandkids on the 'older than shit' music station.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zYMsA-jv1tw&feature=related - the video in question. It's actually pretty good. But it kinda proves my point. ALL of the women shown were in the position that Gaga is in now - er... so to speak.
All I'm putting forward is the simple question: "What makes Lady Gaga any different from the last 20 or so women in exactly the same position she's in?"
As for the Beatles. They're last 'major release' album was Anthology, released in 1995. It went platinum, over twenty years after the Beatles stopped recording.
CD/DVD remasters of their concerts and older albums have been made over the last decade. Each have sold in the millions. That's right, remakes of their albums are still going gold.
Do you really think Lady Gaga is going to pull that off in 2031?
The Beatles were the second best selling artist of the 2000s, behind only Eminem (in the US, this is). For a band that hasn't even recorded any music for decades, I'd call that damn impressive. They also had the decade's highest selling album, with a compilation album.
If that's not selling at the rate they were back when they were recording, that is a statement on how popular they were in their day, and not on waning popularity now.
Similar threads
