Lady Gaga.

[Alan]

And yet you still won't explain yourself.
Awesome.

[Hydrodyssodia]

Originally Posted by Despanan

the fact of the matter is that her music is extremely superficial, and without the bizarre presentation and fashion sense, she'd be pretty forgettable.

I'd like to point out, this is the point.

[Hydrodyssodia]

Originally Posted by erotomaniac87

Well, I guess violence towards women is still in.

I fail to see why do you need to mention you are a woman.

[Underwater Ophelia]

Originally Posted by Alan

And yet you still won't explain yourself.
Awesome.

Why the hell would I?

Am I seriously going to take the time to type out a detailed account of my opinions on a pop star's music for the benefit of this website?

[Alan]

Originally Posted by Underwater Ophelia

Why the hell would I?

Am I seriously going to take the time to type out a detailed account of my opinions on a pop star's music for the benefit of this website?

You have time to waste to tell us you're looking down on us but not enough time to tell us where you got that pedestal?

[IEnjoystabbingmypeers]

Hmmmmmmmmm...

[Mr.Doobie]

Originally Posted by Despanan

While I'll grant you that Lady Gaga is better than the usual pop-fair, and I definitely give her props for being able to get red-state mid-westerners dancing to tunes about it being okay to be gay...the fact of the matter is that her music is extremely superficial, and without the bizarre presentation and fashion sense, she'd be pretty forgettable.

This is what happens when some music executives decide to manufacture David Bowie from the top-down. Without the economic downturn and the people's subsequent wish to find a "real" artist Gaga would never have been booked at those "Underground NYC rock-clubs" by her agent and production team.

What it comes down to is, are you cool with slick top-down commercially created performers (I'm not) or are you interested in bottom-up artists?

I mean if you're cool with the music and culture you consume being a product first and expression second (well really fifth or sixth when you get down to it) then have at it. I personally need a bit more.

I contend that you shouldn't be bothered by the idea of your music being a product first if you enjoy it. The idea that "real" artists are somehow better than "fake" artists (pretty much any musician the guy doesn't like) is a lie perpetrated by people who want to return to some "glory days" that never happened.

Unless your problem is that by buying her music your feeding into the massive dinosaur that is the record business, I hate to break it to you, but unless you're listening to nothing but buskers playing on the streets, you're feeding into that machine one way or another. One of the problems of living in a capitalist society and whatnot.

[Mr.Doobie]

What it comes down to is, are you cool with slick top-down commercially created performers (I'm not) or are you interested in bottom-up artists?

Can you be both?

[prophecyofdoom]

Is Gaga manufactured? I'm not really interested in that kind of music so I haven't heard too much of her work, but I started paying attention to her after I saw an interview where she struck me as levelheaded and thought-provoking. I got the impression that she's an unusual looking woman with a beautiful voice who got where she is by the force of her personality. She has a strength about her I approve of. I find myself paying attention when she appears on TV. I've still only heard the two songs though.

[IEnjoystabbingmypeers]

Hmmm.... Hmmm.
HMM.

[Hydrodyssodia]

Gaga IS manufactured, but entirelly by herself. I basically reccomend watching the Bad Romance video, that's her in a nutshell.

Originally Posted by IEnjoystabbingmypeers

Hmmm.... Hmmm.
HMM.

Thought provoking insights.

[Solumina]

Side note: Back Street and New Kids on The Block have put themselves next to each other and are touring as NKOTBSB, apparently the venues are all selling out rather quickly.

[Mr.Doobie]

Originally Posted by DoubleK

You're wrong. First off, pop music is inherently BETTER on a technical standpoint. Also, Despanan didn't say anything about those that don't mind about their music being a product first. He just doesn't like his music being a product first and art second. There's actually nothing wrong with that and technically, it's more virtuous.

Never said there was anything wrong with that, I was saying there's nothing wrong with the other way either. Also, why is it more virtuous?

Alsoalso, I have to echo the above in that, are we sure Lady Gaga was manufactured?

Thought terminating cliche'. Dude, Despanan actually DOES listen to self produced and self released artists. None of them have record deals and their music is generally more honest.

So do I, and I applaud anyone that does.

Underground artists succeed commercially all the time. Do I have to give you a list? But you can't put Gaga next to Metallica. You can't put Gaga next to David Bowie. You can't put Gaga next to Manson even.

But what you CAN do, is put Gaga next Britney Spears. You can put Gaga next to Christina Agulera. You can put Gaga next to Back Street Boys and New Kids on The Block.

See where this is going?

So people aren't allowed to listen to musicians of varying degrees of respectability and talent? I listen to Cecil Taylor, the Beatles, Wagner, Charles Mingus, Albert Ayler, the Beach Boys, etc., but I also listen to 1910 Fruitgum Company, the Lemon Pipers, the Monkees, Fall Out Boy, etc.

[Stormtrooper of Death]

I don't mind her music, and it's not all that bad, but there is one thing that rubs me the wrong way, I really doubt she made that studded jacket for the Telephone video, and I really doubt she knows who Doom is, and owns all their music, which I do.

[Mr.Doobie]

Originally Posted by DoubleK

I don't really see what you're getting at.

If you're trying to argue that somehow Desp has made some sort of call on someone's character because they listen to Justin Bieber, you'd be wrong. You're trying real hard to convince those that are hostile to pop music to be okay with pop music. Stop it. It's silly and those that don't prefer to listen to pop music because they know they'll hate it is totally fine.

It's not like they're missing anything. Would you really expect people to drink bleach, just because they haven't done it before? A lot of people don't have to partake in something to know it's poison or bad for them. They can read it right on the bloody label.

What I'm getting at is that it's ok to like whatever music you do like, and there is no right or wrong answer. Implying that someone is somehow less virtuous or whatever because they can arbitrarily declare the music "manufactured" is stupid.

You don't have to listen to pop music, that's completely fine, but admit that what it really comes down to is that you don't like the music.

[Mr.Doobie]

Originally Posted by DoubleK

Dude...

What? Please care to elaborate your exasperation instead of just throwing out image macros.

[Mr.Doobie]

Originally Posted by DoubleK

No. You're just being annoying.

My thesis is that if one actually enjoys top down produced music as a means of being a product first and a piece of art second, that person would typically have really shit tastes in music.

I'm not saying that any excuse to legitimize a love for a brand is irrelevant, I'm saying they're just stupid excuses.

If you really like Gaga, that's fine. But I'd have to say that's some shit music you like right there.

It's not like I'm asking people to change their opinions because they love pop music, I'm saying that I'm not going to be inclined to respect their tastes in music. I don't really have to.

And my thesis is that you're wrong. First of all, what makes Gaga manufactured? Second, what makes "product" art worse than "art" art? How can you tell what is meant to be product and what is meant to be art? Your method of arguing your own thesis consists of sticking your fingers in your ears and saying "LALALALALALA" really loudly.

[Stormtrooper of Death]

Looks like the gloves have come off.

[Mr.Doobie]

Originally Posted by DoubleK

Story goes, it was a record company that she had a friend in that set her up with some "underground" showsin the East Village to generate a buzz. She was built from the top down. Her record label and publicists MADE her. So far, the only thing I know of that's legitimately artistic about her is that she writes/wrote her own lyrics.

THIS JUST IN! GETTING BIG REQUIRES ONE TO KNOW THE RIGHT PEOPLE!

That's how the machine functions, and the business has been pulling tricks like that with artists since music became a business. Even so-called "bottom up" artists worked out like that. One band that springs to mind is the Beatles.

Also, don't you think it's a bit funny how David Bowie became one of the biggest stars in Britain by suddenly switching from a shy folky with one hit novelty song to a glam rocker, just as glam rock began to rise as a commercial force in Britain? Than he rekindled his flame again in the 80's on the strength of dance pop? Than in the 90's it was pop-industrial, just as the likes of Nine Inch Nails and Marilyn Manson were getting popular?

It's kind of obvious isn't it? When the motivation is to churn out a piece of art that will maximize profits instead of making art for art's sake, you basically get something that panders to tried and true tropes instead of being genuine. Gaga and Britney Spears are pretty much interchangeable.

And yet, while this is often the case, it often isn't as well. Malcolm McLaren, the Anti-Pop Svengali, created the Sex Pistols strictly because they would sell, and all the Pistols, except, perhaps, for Johnny, wanted only to become famous and make a lot of money, yet they became one of the most influential and enduring artists in the world. The Ramones also wanted to be pop stars, and ripped off a lot of 60's bubblegum, yet they became just as (if not more) important to popular music. Almost every early Led Zeppelin song (and a good deal of their later ones) ripped off an old blues artist. In fact, almost all of rock, underground and mainstream, relies on tried and true tropes because so much of it is lifted from a lot of stuff that has come before.

Even in the case of completely manufactured artists like the Monkees or Justin Bieber, there is talent that goes into making them stars. Whoever writes their material has an ear for melody, hooks, and production that can match and even rival other "serious" musicians.

It's not just about pandering and relying on tropes, otherwise there would be a whole lot more famous people out there.

Man... some people's moms need to learn how to fucking swallow, I swear.

When you run out of points, the next logical step is to resort to ad hominem. I see you've studied Bill O' Reilly's debate tactics well.

Look, man. The point here is this: Desp and I tend to be a kind of musical listener that loses interest in an artistic act once we find out it was made more for profit than for art. To listeners like us, knowing that it's more of a product for maximum profits gives credence to the feeling that the art in question isn't genuine or an honest depiction of the artist in question.

This is the most valid point that you consistently make. "Dishonesty ruins music for me". That's a personal taste thing, and it's something I can't object to, however, your personal feelings about it doesn't devalue pop music or those who listen to it, so stop pretending it does.

This chick rips off Bowie, Madonna, Manson, and whatever the fuck else. Is there anything about her that's actually HER beyond her lyrics?

As I've stated before, "ripping off" is something a lot of musicians from all walks of life do very well.

[Despanan]

*Cracks Manly Knuckles, These are the beefiest knuckles ever, they have BEARDS and the sound they make kinda makes you want to throw up*

Sorry, came late to the party, was busy getting things ready for the Fringe.
So, Kontan coverd allot of bases allready, just want to point some things out first, before we get to the MEAT of this argument.

I enjoy foreplay, and I'm sure you do too, so prepare to have your intellectual nuts ticked for a while before I straight up make you my woman and force you to enjoy it.

Originally Posted by Doobie

When you run out of points, the next logical step is to resort to ad hominem. I see you've studied Bill O' Reilly's debate tactics well.

Hate to break it to you but insult /= ad hominem. Ad Hominem is a fallacy of irrelevance. If I say "You're wrong because of X and therefore you are a dumb shitfucker" I have not engaged in an ad hominem argument. If I say "You're wrong BECAUSE you're a dumb shitfucker" and leave it at that, THEN it's an ad hominem, because even if you ARE a dumb Shitfucker, that has nothing to do with the argument at hand.

Ad Hominem's don't even have to be insulting, for instance this is an Ad hominem:

Originally Posted by Doobie

I contend that you shouldn't be bothered by the idea of your music being a product first if you enjoy it. The idea that "real" artists are somehow better than "fake" artists (pretty much any musician the guy doesn't like) is a lie perpetrated by people who want to return to some "glory days" that never happened.

Unless your problem is that by buying her music your feeding into the massive dinosaur that is the record business, I hate to break it to you, but unless you're listening to nothing but buskers playing on the streets, you're feeding into that machine one way or another. One of the problems of living in a capitalist society and whatnot.

This entire argument hinges on slandering the character of those who disagree with you. Instead of addressing the very valid argument of:

1) There are objective ways to view, judge and appreciate a particular piece of art.

2) One of the major factors that is considered when judging a piece is the intention/motivation behind it's creation. (Honest expression of the human condition created for it's own sake vs. A a product designed to make money)

3) Because of X, Y, and Z I find that said artist is more interested in making money than expressing themselves honestly. Honest art is more appealing to my aesthetic senses therefor said artists work is unappealing to me.

You say: The only reason you're saying that is you want to return to some fictional "glory days" and if you consume any kind of commercial art you're a hyppocrite and therefore you are wrong.


See how this has nothing to do with the initial argument? That's why it's ad hominem. It doesn't matter if I'm a hypocrite because that's completely unrelated to the argument. If a doctor who smokes tells you smoking is bad for your health is his argument invalid? (you also have a bit of a straw man thrown in there for good measure btw)

You dumb shitfucker <---Not ad hominem.

Let's continue:

Originally Posted by Mr.Doobie

What I'm getting at is that it's ok to like whatever music you do like, and there is no right or wrong answer. Implying that someone is somehow less virtuous or whatever because they can arbitrarily declare the music "manufactured" is stupid.

This attitude is very common among we liberals, it is also one of the MAJOR things wrong with our ideology. You have taken the post modern-approach: ie: All art is subjective, and therefore there is no right or wrong answer, and therefore art cannot be criticized.

It is an attractive ideology, but in the end it is broken. There are objective facts and objective ways of judging a piece's artistic merit. Your argument hinges on attacking the ability to make critical distinctions between works of art to such an extent that it completely removes the ability to judge anything at all. However, this is obviously absurd. The Mona Lisa has far more artistic value than a 5-year old's macaroni painting. Shakespeare has far more artistic value than a Naruto fanfic. These are both objective statement, therefore your argument is invalid.

Originally Posted by Doobie

You don't have to listen to pop music, that's completely fine, but admit that what it really comes down to is that you don't like the music.

This is also an ad hominem. Even IF the listener in question is completely unobjective about his reasoning, it would not invalidate the argument.

Do better next time.

Originally Posted by Doobie

Even so-called "bottom up" artists worked out like that. One band that springs to mind is the Beatles.

The Beatles were not bottom-up. They weren't as prefab as the monkeys, certainly, but their early work was commercial tripe. ("Love me do" is a terrible song) It wasn't until later in their career that they began producing songs with any amount of artistic merit.

Originally Posted by Doobie

THIS JUST IN! GETTING BIG REQUIRES ONE TO KNOW THE RIGHT PEOPLE!

That's how the machine functions, and the business has been pulling tricks like that with artists since music became a business. Even so-called "bottom up" artists worked out like that.

Man, you really love these fallacies of irrelevance, don't you? The commercial success of one's work has little to do with the artistic merit of that work. It also has nothing to do with our argument (That lady Gaga's music has low artistic value due to the intention behind it's creation). Tell me, if you're selling hamburgers, the way you get big is to become a fast-food chain, correct? Consolidation and standardization is a basic rule of how to succeed at capitalism. Therefore, since that's how you get big, is every chef serving a hamburger required to become McDonalds? Is there no difference between a McDonald's hamburger and one painstakingly prepared by a chef in a fine-dining restaurant, other than one's personal preferences?

Of course not.

Originally Posted by Dumbass

Almost every early Led Zeppelin song (and a good deal of their later ones) ripped off an old blues artist. In fact, almost all of rock, underground and mainstream, relies on tried and true tropes because so much of it is lifted from a lot of stuff that has come before.

While tropes saturate the artistic process (Because it's impossible to produce art without invoking tropes) this does not destroy the ability to judge which tropes are used well, and which tropes are used poorly and/or cheaply. There's a difference between Stephen King cheaply evoking Magical Negros and Lucas's use of Archetypes in "Star Wars: A new Hope". While all art is derivative to a certain extent, there's a difference between Neil Gaiman's brilliant use of The Jungle Book's structure in The Graveyard Book, and Christopher Paolini's straight hijacking of the plot of Star Wars.

Overall Doobie, you are attempting to undermine our arguments by attacking our character, and everyone's ability to make judgments about art. You are appealing to cynicism and intellectually bankrupt post-modern thought, while spitting out thought terminating cliche's to quell your own cognative dissonance.

Stop it.

*sprays Doobie with a squirt bottle*

[Still Jack]

Desp I want you to manhandle me right now.

[MissCheyenne]

Meh, I don't like Gaga at all. She sells an image first and art second and while she may have some talent, it fucks me off royally that there are plenty of equally, in fact more, talented artists out there who never get a moments recognition because they simply don't have the looks or whatever to sell to an increasingly shallow market. That said, I don't give a flying fuck if other people like her or any other easily marketable, over produced pop star. I don't everyone is going to like everything I listen to so I don't think that someone else should expect me to coo and shit rainbows over their music collection.

[Mr.Doobie]

Originally Posted by Despanan

I enjoy foreplay, and I'm sure you do too, so prepare to have your intellectual nuts ticked for a while before I straight up make you my woman and force you to enjoy it.

I see.

Hate to break it to you but insult /= ad hominem. Ad Hominem is a fallacy of irrelevance. If I say "You're wrong because of X and therefore you are a dumb shitfucker" I have not engaged in an ad hominem argument. If I say "You're wrong BECAUSE you're a dumb shitfucker" and leave it at that, THEN it's an ad hominem, because even if you ARE a dumb Shitfucker, that has nothing to do with the argument at hand.

I stand corrected.

This entire argument hinges on slandering the character of those who disagree with you. Instead of addressing the very valid argument of:

1) There are objective ways to view, judge and appreciate a particular piece of art.

2) One of the major factors that is considered when judging a piece is the intention/motivation behind it's creation. (Honest expression of the human condition created for it's own sake vs. A a product designed to make money)

3) Because of X, Y, and Z I find that said artist is more interested in making money than expressing themselves honestly. Honest art is more appealing to my aesthetic senses therefor said artists work is unappealing to me.

You say: The only reason you're saying that is you want to return to some fictional "glory days" and if you consume any kind of commercial art you're a hyppocrite and therefore you are wrong.

Ok, I was projecting on to you the image of the typical person who makes your kind of argument. That wasn't fair, that was ad hominem, and that was wrong. I didn't know what kind of person I was working with, so I judged you before we had begun. That was all my fault and I shouldn't have done that.

This attitude is very common among we liberals, it is also one of the MAJOR things wrong with our ideology. You have taken the post modern-approach: ie: All art is subjective, and therefore there is no right or wrong answer, and therefore art cannot be criticized.

It is an attractive ideology, but in the end it is broken. There are objective facts and objective ways of judging a piece's artistic merit. Your argument hinges on attacking the ability to make critical distinctions between works of art to such an extent that it completely removes the ability to judge anything at all. However, this is obviously absurd. The Mona Lisa has far more artistic value than a 5-year old's macaroni painting. Shakespeare has far more artistic value than a Naruto fanfic. These are both objective statement, therefore your argument is invalid.

Never said a work can not be criticized or judged. Obviously, not all art is created equal. Charles Mingus or Brian Wilson are both better songwriters than Nick Jonas, and you would be hard pressed to argue otherwise.

What I am arguing is that intent and how someone got to be at the top of the dollar-bill totem pole doesn't much matter. I would argue that the Monkees are a better group than gads and gads of teenage garage bands playing bad Iron Maiden rip-offs, yet the Monkees were completely manufactured product, while all those teenagers are all self-described "serious musicians". Lady Gaga is certainly better than this bad singer-songwriter bitch I once saw who had this song about love being a toaster. Or something. Exaggerated examples (there are other artists that carry more artistic weight than teenagers or some hipster that I would argue are worse than the Monkees or Lady Gaga), but you get the idea.

You can appreciate different works with different values. A lot of classical artists got some inspiration from folk music and bar songs and other works that have proven to be less enduring.

If the Mona Lisa was painted by someone just wanting money, does that make the Mona Lisa less culturally valuable?

The Beatles were not bottom-up. They weren't as prefab as the monkeys, certainly, but their early work was commercial tripe. ("Love me do" is a terrible song) It wasn't until later in their career that they began producing songs with any amount of artistic merit.

But than, what exactly is bottom up? That was going to be the next item on my agenda. The Beatles spent years working the Liverpool bar circuit until they were discovered and fabricated into the Mop-Tops they became. Looking at things like this, it seems like this is all more complicated than "top-down" vs. "bottom-up".

Man, you really love these fallacies of irrelevance, don't you? The commercial success of one's work has little to do with the artistic merit of that work. It also has nothing to do with our argument (That lady Gaga's music has low artistic value due to the intention behind it's creation). Tell me, if you're selling hamburgers, the way you get big is to become a fast-food chain, correct? Consolidation and standardization is a basic rule of how to succeed at capitalism. Therefore, since that's how you get big, is every chef serving a hamburger required to become McDonalds? Is there no difference between a McDonald's hamburger and one painstakingly prepared by a chef in a fine-dining restaurant, other than one's personal preferences?

Of course not.

Yet this issue is more complicated than a fine chef making an awesome burger vs. McDonald's making a same-old, same-old.

As I've stated before, making a hit is hard. It takes a keen ear for a melody, a hook, and production. Is it as hard as making Pet Sounds, a masterpiece like Beethoven's Great Fugue, or whatever? No. But it does take a degree of talent that I believe can be appreciated and enjoyed and to not have someone else look down their nose at you for being able to appreciate.

Overall Doobie, you are attempting to undermine our arguments by attacking our character, and everyone's ability to make judgments about art. You are appealing to cynicism and intellectually bankrupt post-modern thought, while spitting out thought terminating cliche's to quell your own cognative dissonance.

Not exactly.

Stop it.

*sprays Doobie with a squirt bottle*

You're adorable.

[Alan]

Originally Posted by Mr.Doobie

You can appreciate different works with different values.

But you can't pretend to be on a pedestal for liking music of shitty value. That's all this conversation was.

[Mr.Doobie]

Originally Posted by Alan

But you can't pretend to be on a pedestal for liking music of shitty value. That's all this conversation was.

Never claimed to be on a pedestal, and I still contend Lady Gaga's music isn't of "shitty value", and that looking down your nose on someone's musical taste because they like Gaga or whatever is stupid.