She says that she is influenced by F. Mercury.... So what?
Except the thing that she likes his music it says nothing about how good musician/singer she is.
dragon-fly
Thread
Posts in chronological order
GratefulFan
[QUOTE]
[b]Sir GH wrote: [/b]
Well, then I guess we disagree. I think you're being far too generous. I watched the video, and saw 5% computerized music and 95% sex blandly disguised as artistry. The song is catchy, but ultimately throwaway pop that'll be irrelevant in a few years. She has contributed nothing to the evolution of music, and she probably never will if she stays on the fad bandwagon. Image is not music, and never will be.
Emily Haines is a real artist that people should be listening to, not this garbage that's manufactured by computers, with accompanying videos that are half way to being softcore porn. Carole King and Patti Labelle must be disgusted and deeply saddened when they see what the bulk of these mainstream female artists have become.
But in the end it's not the artists' fault, of course. The bean-counters at the record labels are the ones who ultimately decide what the average person is going to be listening to.
[/QUOTE]
We definitely disagree about the 'Bad Romance' video. The female form as monster was for me a striking conceptual premise that was anything but bland. And the subtle visual homage to to pop's biggest female names then and now peppered throughout could be missed altogether if one was predisposed to dismiss her efforts as serial opportunities to appear in de facto underwear. And what does that all mean taken together- female monsters and pop queen doppelgangers? It's been a long time since a pop video prompted me to wonder anything. One need only watch the videos in the [url=http://www.youtube.com/user/kesha?blend=1&ob=4]number two[/url] and [url=http://www.youtube.com/user/davidguetta?blend=1&ob=4#p/u/13/N9hazmsUxrM]number three[/url] spots on the pop charts to see how vastly more interesting and substantial her work is.
One could argue that the modern pop scene is such a steaming pile of dung that excelling there is utterly meaningless, but I think that requires one to accept that it is an objective fact that the subtle artistry of Broken Social Scene et al is more important, somehow more valid than the brash and jarring sexually charged pop culture vision of one Stefani Germanotta. I reject that. You and I share a subjective preference for experiencing music as it is delivered by people like Emily Haines, but that says nothing about any dispassionate cosmic truth. Carole King at 20 was doing precisely what Lady Gaga was doing at 20 - writing hit songs on her piano for other people, moving toward massive and only seemingly instant solo success in a genre intimately tied to the times she lived in. I'd put a song like Speechless up against anything the brilliant Carole King wrote at 23 and expect it to measure up absolutely.
Lady Gaga responds to questions about sexuality in her music [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IkzxwrdyRw0]here[/url]. The brief clip is notable for it's parallels to some of the interviews Freddie did. Aggressive, deliberately provocative, supremely confident and not willing to suffer fools who want to trip her up with nonsense tossed on the road she's walking.
[b]Sir GH wrote: [/b]
Well, then I guess we disagree. I think you're being far too generous. I watched the video, and saw 5% computerized music and 95% sex blandly disguised as artistry. The song is catchy, but ultimately throwaway pop that'll be irrelevant in a few years. She has contributed nothing to the evolution of music, and she probably never will if she stays on the fad bandwagon. Image is not music, and never will be.
Emily Haines is a real artist that people should be listening to, not this garbage that's manufactured by computers, with accompanying videos that are half way to being softcore porn. Carole King and Patti Labelle must be disgusted and deeply saddened when they see what the bulk of these mainstream female artists have become.
But in the end it's not the artists' fault, of course. The bean-counters at the record labels are the ones who ultimately decide what the average person is going to be listening to.
[/QUOTE]
We definitely disagree about the 'Bad Romance' video. The female form as monster was for me a striking conceptual premise that was anything but bland. And the subtle visual homage to to pop's biggest female names then and now peppered throughout could be missed altogether if one was predisposed to dismiss her efforts as serial opportunities to appear in de facto underwear. And what does that all mean taken together- female monsters and pop queen doppelgangers? It's been a long time since a pop video prompted me to wonder anything. One need only watch the videos in the [url=http://www.youtube.com/user/kesha?blend=1&ob=4]number two[/url] and [url=http://www.youtube.com/user/davidguetta?blend=1&ob=4#p/u/13/N9hazmsUxrM]number three[/url] spots on the pop charts to see how vastly more interesting and substantial her work is.
One could argue that the modern pop scene is such a steaming pile of dung that excelling there is utterly meaningless, but I think that requires one to accept that it is an objective fact that the subtle artistry of Broken Social Scene et al is more important, somehow more valid than the brash and jarring sexually charged pop culture vision of one Stefani Germanotta. I reject that. You and I share a subjective preference for experiencing music as it is delivered by people like Emily Haines, but that says nothing about any dispassionate cosmic truth. Carole King at 20 was doing precisely what Lady Gaga was doing at 20 - writing hit songs on her piano for other people, moving toward massive and only seemingly instant solo success in a genre intimately tied to the times she lived in. I'd put a song like Speechless up against anything the brilliant Carole King wrote at 23 and expect it to measure up absolutely.
Lady Gaga responds to questions about sexuality in her music [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IkzxwrdyRw0]here[/url]. The brief clip is notable for it's parallels to some of the interviews Freddie did. Aggressive, deliberately provocative, supremely confident and not willing to suffer fools who want to trip her up with nonsense tossed on the road she's walking.
The Real Wizard
[QUOTE]
[b]GratefulFan wrote: [/b]
One need only watch the videos in the [url=http://www.youtube.com/user/kesha?blend=1&ob=4]number two[/url] and [url=http://www.youtube.com/user/davidguetta?blend=1&ob=4#p/u/13/N9hazmsUxrM]number three[/url] spots on the pop charts to see how vastly more interesting and substantial her work is.
[/QUOTE]
If we judged something only by comparing it to something else, then the Cold War was a fantastic war because it didn't claim as many lives as World Wars I or II.
[QUOTE]I'd put a song like Speechless up against anything the brilliant Carole King wrote at 23 and expect it to measure up absolutely.[/QUOTE]
Sure, I'll give you that. But from day one, Carole King was seen as a great songwriter, and 30+ years later we continue to see Carole King as a great songwriter. Lady Gaga, on the other hand, will either be forgotten 30 years from now, or seen as a sex symbol of the past, most of whose songs dated badly. Good on Carole King for keeping her clothes on and connecting with people on less superficial levels at all times without exception.
I realize you're trying to be fair, but I'm just not buying into it. Music is meant to be heard, not to be seen with skimpy clothing. Image can augment the music, but the music should have the final say in the end. In that interview video you linked to, the interviewer suggests the idea of separating sex from her music, and she replies by boasting about her record sales. That tells me everything I need to know about her.
"Fools who want to trip her up with nonsense," you say? The interviewer certainly was no fool, and that question was the furthest thing from nonsense. She basically confirmed that sex was the crutch for her mainstream success, and he didn't need to spend another moment on the topic. Score an A+ for his integrity there.
And finally, comparing her to Freddie Mercury in any way is just a disgrace. Freddie Mercury was a brilliant musician who always made the artistic choice to put the music first. For that reason alone, Lady Gaga has no business being mentioned in the same sentence as him.
[b]GratefulFan wrote: [/b]
One need only watch the videos in the [url=http://www.youtube.com/user/kesha?blend=1&ob=4]number two[/url] and [url=http://www.youtube.com/user/davidguetta?blend=1&ob=4#p/u/13/N9hazmsUxrM]number three[/url] spots on the pop charts to see how vastly more interesting and substantial her work is.
[/QUOTE]
If we judged something only by comparing it to something else, then the Cold War was a fantastic war because it didn't claim as many lives as World Wars I or II.
[QUOTE]I'd put a song like Speechless up against anything the brilliant Carole King wrote at 23 and expect it to measure up absolutely.[/QUOTE]
Sure, I'll give you that. But from day one, Carole King was seen as a great songwriter, and 30+ years later we continue to see Carole King as a great songwriter. Lady Gaga, on the other hand, will either be forgotten 30 years from now, or seen as a sex symbol of the past, most of whose songs dated badly. Good on Carole King for keeping her clothes on and connecting with people on less superficial levels at all times without exception.
I realize you're trying to be fair, but I'm just not buying into it. Music is meant to be heard, not to be seen with skimpy clothing. Image can augment the music, but the music should have the final say in the end. In that interview video you linked to, the interviewer suggests the idea of separating sex from her music, and she replies by boasting about her record sales. That tells me everything I need to know about her.
"Fools who want to trip her up with nonsense," you say? The interviewer certainly was no fool, and that question was the furthest thing from nonsense. She basically confirmed that sex was the crutch for her mainstream success, and he didn't need to spend another moment on the topic. Score an A+ for his integrity there.
And finally, comparing her to Freddie Mercury in any way is just a disgrace. Freddie Mercury was a brilliant musician who always made the artistic choice to put the music first. For that reason alone, Lady Gaga has no business being mentioned in the same sentence as him.
Karmablade
it certainly doesnt show in her or his music, talentless garbage "artist"
john bodega
Vaguely sexual imagery being used in a Goddamn clever way ... see, if I want that, I'll watch Pink Floyd The Wall. That's art, regardless of whether or not you liked the album.
[/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]It'd take some convincing for me to ever rate a Lady Gaga video as artistic.[/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]It'd take some convincing for me to ever rate a Lady Gaga video as artistic.[/QUOTE]
GratefulFan
[QUOTE]
[b]Sir GH wrote: [/b]
If we judged something only by comparing it to something else, then the Cold War was a fantastic war because it didn't claim as many lives as World Wars I or II.
Sure, I'll give you that. But from day one, Carole King was seen as a great songwriter, and 30+ years later we continue to see Carole King as a great songwriter. Lady Gaga, on the other hand, will either be forgotten 30 years from now, or seen as a sex symbol of the past, most of whose songs dated badly. Good on Carole King for keeping her clothes on and connecting with people on less superficial levels at all times without exception.
I realize you're trying to be fair, but I'm just not buying into it. Music is meant to be heard, not to be seen with skimpy clothing. Image can augment the music, but the music should have the final say in the end. In that interview video you linked to, the interviewer suggests the idea of separating sex from her music, and she replies by boasting about her record sales. That tells me everything I need to know about her.
"Fools who want to trip her up with nonsense," you say? The interviewer certainly was no fool, and that question was the furthest thing from nonsense. She basically confirmed that sex was the crutch for her mainstream success, and he didn't need to spend another moment on the topic. Score an A+ for his integrity there.
And finally, comparing her to Freddie Mercury in any way is just a disgrace. Freddie Mercury was a brilliant musician who always made the artistic choice to put the music first. For that reason alone, Lady Gaga has no business being mentioned in the same sentence as him.
[/QUOTE]
A couple of last thoughts on this, and then you can have the final word if you like.
I understand your view completely, along with the many others here and everywhere who feel the same way. I understand how you arrived there. Somebody could turn my own arguments around on me with a band like KISS for instance, and I just couldn't care. There's too little there for me to grab onto. So I do understand your position and credit it as a completely valid one.
However, I find your arguments supporting that position weak. Making declarations about how an as yet unfinished body of work is going to be received in the future would be viewed as presumptuous by most and is certainly unsupportable. Her skill and instincts on a song like Speechless intrigue me, and based on that alone frankly I don't know how anyone writes her off in 2009. And her more typical songs are [i]good pop songs,[/i] whether one likes pop music or not[i].[/i] They are written for a millieu (the sexually charged club scene) and a demographic (people in their heady sexual youth) where her frank and open sexuality works. She is absolutely unapologetic and absolutely honest about the way she uses sex in her art. It's that quality that makes me respect it completely.
I think you miscast the reality of the present. Joss Stone brushing Cadbury chocolate flakes off her covered breasts, or crooning to slow motion ass shots in Gap ads, or [url=http://www.oneangryman.com/ken/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/joss-stone-nude.jpg]pretending she walks around her house naked all the time[/url], or submitting to an endless of array of come-fuck-me publicity shots is not a superior or less calculated embrace of sexuality for a young talented female artist, it's just a more preditable one. And I think you [url=http://www.thefrisky.com/post/246-lady-gagas-outrageous-costumes-shtick-is-nothing-new/]miscast the reality of the past[/url] too. Despite your previous assertion, I think artists like Patti LaBelle would understand artists like Lady Gaga completely. And they'd most likely hear, as I did, the absurd spectable of that Norweigan interviewer asking her questions a male artist leveraging sex and the female body in countless ways would never have to endure. Her record sales do make it apparent that her artistic choices are not getting between her and a significant section of the public - a point she made with all the grace the line of questioning deserved. If he's disturbed by her use of her body in her art and by her open sexuality and her crap music, he can go buy a burqa and ball it up in his eyes and ears while she excels in a field he has apparently sought employment in.
You characterized me as 'trying to be fair', and perhaps constructing an argument for argument's sake, but I mean every word I've said. There was a time in my life when I would have rejected Gaga out of hand. I feel lucky to have been exposed to many ideas over time that have changed my thinking about thinking. This is the right stance for me.
P.S. I won't comment on your same sentence as Freddie point. It's been a couple of days, and I trust he's already haunted you from the grave for it. [img=/images/smiley/msn/angel_smile.gif][/img]
[b]Sir GH wrote: [/b]
If we judged something only by comparing it to something else, then the Cold War was a fantastic war because it didn't claim as many lives as World Wars I or II.
Sure, I'll give you that. But from day one, Carole King was seen as a great songwriter, and 30+ years later we continue to see Carole King as a great songwriter. Lady Gaga, on the other hand, will either be forgotten 30 years from now, or seen as a sex symbol of the past, most of whose songs dated badly. Good on Carole King for keeping her clothes on and connecting with people on less superficial levels at all times without exception.
I realize you're trying to be fair, but I'm just not buying into it. Music is meant to be heard, not to be seen with skimpy clothing. Image can augment the music, but the music should have the final say in the end. In that interview video you linked to, the interviewer suggests the idea of separating sex from her music, and she replies by boasting about her record sales. That tells me everything I need to know about her.
"Fools who want to trip her up with nonsense," you say? The interviewer certainly was no fool, and that question was the furthest thing from nonsense. She basically confirmed that sex was the crutch for her mainstream success, and he didn't need to spend another moment on the topic. Score an A+ for his integrity there.
And finally, comparing her to Freddie Mercury in any way is just a disgrace. Freddie Mercury was a brilliant musician who always made the artistic choice to put the music first. For that reason alone, Lady Gaga has no business being mentioned in the same sentence as him.
[/QUOTE]
A couple of last thoughts on this, and then you can have the final word if you like.
I understand your view completely, along with the many others here and everywhere who feel the same way. I understand how you arrived there. Somebody could turn my own arguments around on me with a band like KISS for instance, and I just couldn't care. There's too little there for me to grab onto. So I do understand your position and credit it as a completely valid one.
However, I find your arguments supporting that position weak. Making declarations about how an as yet unfinished body of work is going to be received in the future would be viewed as presumptuous by most and is certainly unsupportable. Her skill and instincts on a song like Speechless intrigue me, and based on that alone frankly I don't know how anyone writes her off in 2009. And her more typical songs are [i]good pop songs,[/i] whether one likes pop music or not[i].[/i] They are written for a millieu (the sexually charged club scene) and a demographic (people in their heady sexual youth) where her frank and open sexuality works. She is absolutely unapologetic and absolutely honest about the way she uses sex in her art. It's that quality that makes me respect it completely.
I think you miscast the reality of the present. Joss Stone brushing Cadbury chocolate flakes off her covered breasts, or crooning to slow motion ass shots in Gap ads, or [url=http://www.oneangryman.com/ken/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/joss-stone-nude.jpg]pretending she walks around her house naked all the time[/url], or submitting to an endless of array of come-fuck-me publicity shots is not a superior or less calculated embrace of sexuality for a young talented female artist, it's just a more preditable one. And I think you [url=http://www.thefrisky.com/post/246-lady-gagas-outrageous-costumes-shtick-is-nothing-new/]miscast the reality of the past[/url] too. Despite your previous assertion, I think artists like Patti LaBelle would understand artists like Lady Gaga completely. And they'd most likely hear, as I did, the absurd spectable of that Norweigan interviewer asking her questions a male artist leveraging sex and the female body in countless ways would never have to endure. Her record sales do make it apparent that her artistic choices are not getting between her and a significant section of the public - a point she made with all the grace the line of questioning deserved. If he's disturbed by her use of her body in her art and by her open sexuality and her crap music, he can go buy a burqa and ball it up in his eyes and ears while she excels in a field he has apparently sought employment in.
You characterized me as 'trying to be fair', and perhaps constructing an argument for argument's sake, but I mean every word I've said. There was a time in my life when I would have rejected Gaga out of hand. I feel lucky to have been exposed to many ideas over time that have changed my thinking about thinking. This is the right stance for me.
P.S. I won't comment on your same sentence as Freddie point. It's been a couple of days, and I trust he's already haunted you from the grave for it. [img=/images/smiley/msn/angel_smile.gif][/img]
CGtteir
I think she listened another Freddie Mercury.
I don't think is the same with the one we all know.
I don't think is the same with the one we all know.
The Real Wizard
[QUOTE]
[b]GratefulFan wrote: [/b]
Making declarations about how an as yet unfinished body of work is going to be received in the future would be viewed as presumptuous by most and is certainly unsupportable.
[/QUOTE]
Fair play. I'll give you that one.
[QUOTE]And her more typical songs are good pop songs, whether one likes pop music or not. They are written for a millieu (the sexually charged club scene) and a demographic (people in their heady sexual youth) where her frank and open sexuality works.[/QUOTE]
In other words, she appeals to the sexuality of the lowest common denominator, which is no big artistic achievement. The record companies can sign anyone up to look good and do that. People who look like her and can sing like her are a dime a dozen.
[QUOTE]And I think you miscast the reality of the past too. Despite your previous assertion, I think artists like Patti LaBelle would understand artists like Lady Gaga completely.[/QUOTE]
I highly doubt that. Unlike Lady Gaga, Patti LaBelle had a voice to kill. The outfits were always secondary to her voice and the quality of music being put forth. They never defined her as an artist. She can sleep well at night knowing her talents made her who she is, not her body.
What would Lady Gaga's music videos and shows be without the outfits and the over-the-top production? Would the songs themselves stand a chance of being interesting and entertaining enough? How many people walking out of a Lady Gaga concert talk about her voice and the quality of her songs? We should be asking this question about every artist currently experiencing mainstream success. The list of artists whose music can stand strongly on its own is a very small list.
[QUOTE]There was a time in my life when I would have rejected Gaga out of hand. I feel lucky to have been exposed to many ideas over time that have changed my thinking about thinking. This is the right stance for me.[/QUOTE]
Well put. But I feel that the world needs more quality songwriters, not another Madonna. However, since quality musicians and well-crafted songs generally aren't in the business plans of the bean-counters at the major labels, and sex sells courtesy of MTV, the state of mainstream music is what it is. As long as her record company is calling the shots (maybe they won't after her contract is up and she takes matters into her own hands), she'll get to have one Speechless for every 5 pop songs that sell sex.
[b]GratefulFan wrote: [/b]
Making declarations about how an as yet unfinished body of work is going to be received in the future would be viewed as presumptuous by most and is certainly unsupportable.
[/QUOTE]
Fair play. I'll give you that one.
[QUOTE]And her more typical songs are good pop songs, whether one likes pop music or not. They are written for a millieu (the sexually charged club scene) and a demographic (people in their heady sexual youth) where her frank and open sexuality works.[/QUOTE]
In other words, she appeals to the sexuality of the lowest common denominator, which is no big artistic achievement. The record companies can sign anyone up to look good and do that. People who look like her and can sing like her are a dime a dozen.
[QUOTE]And I think you miscast the reality of the past too. Despite your previous assertion, I think artists like Patti LaBelle would understand artists like Lady Gaga completely.[/QUOTE]
I highly doubt that. Unlike Lady Gaga, Patti LaBelle had a voice to kill. The outfits were always secondary to her voice and the quality of music being put forth. They never defined her as an artist. She can sleep well at night knowing her talents made her who she is, not her body.
What would Lady Gaga's music videos and shows be without the outfits and the over-the-top production? Would the songs themselves stand a chance of being interesting and entertaining enough? How many people walking out of a Lady Gaga concert talk about her voice and the quality of her songs? We should be asking this question about every artist currently experiencing mainstream success. The list of artists whose music can stand strongly on its own is a very small list.
[QUOTE]There was a time in my life when I would have rejected Gaga out of hand. I feel lucky to have been exposed to many ideas over time that have changed my thinking about thinking. This is the right stance for me.[/QUOTE]
Well put. But I feel that the world needs more quality songwriters, not another Madonna. However, since quality musicians and well-crafted songs generally aren't in the business plans of the bean-counters at the major labels, and sex sells courtesy of MTV, the state of mainstream music is what it is. As long as her record company is calling the shots (maybe they won't after her contract is up and she takes matters into her own hands), she'll get to have one Speechless for every 5 pop songs that sell sex.
GratefulFan
Thanks for your thoughts Sir GH.
Speaking of the clash between quality and talent and bean counters and the modern music scene, W5 did a piece on Justin Bieber last night. A rocket ride from YouTube to world teen sensation via some of the biggest names in pop. I don't get it, but apparently a gazillion teenagers and industry folks with an eye for the next big thing do. The piece is online, should anybody be interested in watching a rich, slightly parasitic music producer at work:
[url=http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20091231/w5_bieber_100102/20100102?s_name=W5]http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20091231/w5_bieber_100102/20100102?s_name=W5[/url]
Speaking of the clash between quality and talent and bean counters and the modern music scene, W5 did a piece on Justin Bieber last night. A rocket ride from YouTube to world teen sensation via some of the biggest names in pop. I don't get it, but apparently a gazillion teenagers and industry folks with an eye for the next big thing do. The piece is online, should anybody be interested in watching a rich, slightly parasitic music producer at work:
[url=http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20091231/w5_bieber_100102/20100102?s_name=W5]http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20091231/w5_bieber_100102/20100102?s_name=W5[/url]
Sheer Brass Neck
Wow, 3 Canadian posts in a row, we're taking over here.
[/QUOTE]Whether it's music or art or film, there is always going to be the sexual element for women. I don't know if Liona Boyd or Shania Twain are the best classical guitarists or country singers of the past generation, but certainly they are arguably the best known. Liona Boyd may have been playing coffee houses married to a plumber instead of performing on Adnan Khashoggi's yacht and dating a prime minister if she didn't use her looks to sell her music. Sharon Stone's career was solid until she opened her legs in Basic Instinct then she became a megastar. I think it's different for women. They have a time (not in my eyes, in the eyes of Hollywood and the entertainment industry) when they're hot physically and sexually. They have to make their money then. Freakin' Jack Nicholson is still called sexy at 70 and he's the male equivalent of Bea Arthur. Double standard for sure.[/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]Whether it's music or art or film, there is always going to be the sexual element for women. I don't know if Liona Boyd or Shania Twain are the best classical guitarists or country singers of the past generation, but certainly they are arguably the best known. Liona Boyd may have been playing coffee houses married to a plumber instead of performing on Adnan Khashoggi's yacht and dating a prime minister if she didn't use her looks to sell her music. Sharon Stone's career was solid until she opened her legs in Basic Instinct then she became a megastar. I think it's different for women. They have a time (not in my eyes, in the eyes of Hollywood and the entertainment industry) when they're hot physically and sexually. They have to make their money then. Freakin' Jack Nicholson is still called sexy at 70 and he's the male equivalent of Bea Arthur. Double standard for sure.[/QUOTE]
buffypython
While I'm not a fan of most pop or hip-hop music today, I do like most of Lady Gaga's songs and not just because she cites Queen as an influence. At first, I too didn't get the connection between her and Queen, but I'm starting to.
1) The importance of fashion to her: Gaga's very much into style and not all of her wardrobe is devoted to overtly sexual pieces. I've seen her wear completely modest dresses before. Freddie was also into fashion, though perhaps not as much as Gaga.
2) Sexuality: Obviously, Freddie wasn't very open about his sexuality. However, it seems to me (and this certainly can't be proven) that if homosexuality had been a socially-acceptable lifestyle back then, he would've sung about it in his music. Gaga definitely does. Is this a similarity? Technically yes, but most musicians have a love song at some point. In terms of overt sexuality, Freddie was a powerhouse like Gaga. Particularly in concert, it wasn't odd to see him using a metal support beam on the stage as a stripper pole or humping it out-right. I think the 2 artists are equally sexual.
3) Musically: Again, I didn't see a similarity between Freddie and Gaga at first, but now I do. I'll admit her hits don't bare much resemblance to Queen, but 1 song off of her newest album has a Queeny flavor to it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8IxKeNlmJas
This live song shows a strong connection to Freddie's live piano performances: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYxaTyvRt7c&feature=related
1) The importance of fashion to her: Gaga's very much into style and not all of her wardrobe is devoted to overtly sexual pieces. I've seen her wear completely modest dresses before. Freddie was also into fashion, though perhaps not as much as Gaga.
2) Sexuality: Obviously, Freddie wasn't very open about his sexuality. However, it seems to me (and this certainly can't be proven) that if homosexuality had been a socially-acceptable lifestyle back then, he would've sung about it in his music. Gaga definitely does. Is this a similarity? Technically yes, but most musicians have a love song at some point. In terms of overt sexuality, Freddie was a powerhouse like Gaga. Particularly in concert, it wasn't odd to see him using a metal support beam on the stage as a stripper pole or humping it out-right. I think the 2 artists are equally sexual.
3) Musically: Again, I didn't see a similarity between Freddie and Gaga at first, but now I do. I'll admit her hits don't bare much resemblance to Queen, but 1 song off of her newest album has a Queeny flavor to it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8IxKeNlmJas
This live song shows a strong connection to Freddie's live piano performances: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYxaTyvRt7c&feature=related
CGtteir
I only see one influence - men. Both like men.
GratefulFan
GratefulFan
Thanks for those thought and the links. Paparazzi is another song I've mentioned on the boards here that I think has some strength. It's not melodically complex, but it's compelling. Interesting to compare two stripped down versions: an acoustic romp by Gaga herself full of wild dynamics and theatricality, and a simple guitar accompanied cover by a YouTuber with a very pretty voice:
[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l3R3KqrJAI4]Gaga[/url]
[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xjps-_hfvBs&feature=fvsre3]YouTuber[/url]
[/QUOTE]
[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l3R3KqrJAI4]Gaga[/url]
[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xjps-_hfvBs&feature=fvsre3]YouTuber[/url]
[/QUOTE]
The Real Wizard
[QUOTE]
[b]buffypython wrote: [/b]
Particularly in concert, it wasn't odd to see him using a metal support beam on the stage as a stripper pole or humping it out-right.
[/QUOTE]
Right... but without it, it still would have been a great performance and the songs would have been just as powerful. Again, sex was never the primary thing with Freddie's music and stage personality. The occasional hint was all there ever was. It wasn't ever a major selling point to make it or break it.
That said, those links of Lady Gaga alone at the piano have their moments. In fact, I was thoroughly enjoying the piano version of Poker Face until they showed her bottom half, and I was no longer impressed. Is the outfit supposed to make her music sound better? But she and her record label know that people like me are in the minority. They don't care that I won't buy her latest record. They know that for every person like me, there are a thousand people who bought into it because sex sells. Two disappointed thumbs down.
[b]buffypython wrote: [/b]
Particularly in concert, it wasn't odd to see him using a metal support beam on the stage as a stripper pole or humping it out-right.
[/QUOTE]
Right... but without it, it still would have been a great performance and the songs would have been just as powerful. Again, sex was never the primary thing with Freddie's music and stage personality. The occasional hint was all there ever was. It wasn't ever a major selling point to make it or break it.
That said, those links of Lady Gaga alone at the piano have their moments. In fact, I was thoroughly enjoying the piano version of Poker Face until they showed her bottom half, and I was no longer impressed. Is the outfit supposed to make her music sound better? But she and her record label know that people like me are in the minority. They don't care that I won't buy her latest record. They know that for every person like me, there are a thousand people who bought into it because sex sells. Two disappointed thumbs down.