Lady Gaga?

[Louis VI the Fat]

Her songs are catchy but are completely aweful song writing.

'Sprinter X just won Olympic gold but his running technique is rubbish'.


Lady Gaga is Andy Warhol revisited. She is NY art scene, quite consciously exploring many of the themes of Warhol, such as obsession with fame and popular culture.

[Andres]

The only things I know about Lady Gaga are Poker face and some rumour that she is actually a he.

Guess I'm getting old...

[Louis VI the Fat]

The only things I know about Lady Gaga are Poker face and some rumour that she is actually a he.

Guess I'm getting old...

You need to get with the times!


First, they recently invented 'MTV'. It is a television channel that broadcasts 'music videos'. It is in colour too. Televisions are big brown boxes that allow you to 'see far away', ask some youth to install it for you. They will plug it into your wall, to a socket that does 'ouch' when you poke it: electricity. This is, well let's say that there are a lot of horses, and they run around all day long to make a 'dynamo' spin. This spinning 'dynamo' (sorry have to use difficult words here) is then connected with a cable to your house so you can harness this power without an actual horse present!!

[Meneldil]

@Louis

Though I admit she's much more of a character than Britney, Shakira and other has been pop stars, I don't like her songs much.
Some of them are okay to dance on when smashed, but that's about it.

But her general look and her outfits make her hot.

[Andres]

You need to get with the times!


First, they recently invented 'MTV'. It is a television channel that broadcasts 'music videos'. It is in colour too. Televisions are big brown boxes that allow you to 'see far away', ask some youth to install it for you. They will plug it into your wall, to a socket that does 'ouch' when you poke it: electricity. This is, well let's say that there are a lot of horses, and they run around all day long to make a 'dynamo' spin. This spinning 'dynamo' (sorry have to use difficult words here) is then connected with a cable to your house so you can harness this power without an actual horse present!!

I don't understand half of what you're saying, but I do know your name sounds French so whatever it is you want me to do, it's probably going to cost me a lot of money.

Time to grab my pitchfork and chase you away

[tibilicus]

Don't mind her music but don't see how people come to the conclusion she's smoking hot. I mean I'm not going to lie, she's not exactly unattractive, but all her videos seem to suggest she has a rampaging latex fetish and to put it bluntly it freaks me out.

[drone]

First, they recently invented 'MTV'. It is a television channel that broadcasts 'music videos'.

MTV shows music videos?

[Ja'chyra]

Meh, arguably she has a nice body but the face resembles a bulldog chewing a wasp.

Still not sure about the man thing either but her tunes are undeniably catchy

[Ronin]

I am no great fan of electronic pop music, but I must admit the lady has some catchy tunes....

I am pretty much addicted to Bad Romance at the moment after listening to it for a couple of times you´re hooked!

[Lemur]

Now, I'll grant that supposedly she is a musical prodigy, and those people tend to be pretty damn weird.

Based entirely on the "musical prodigy" thing I have now watched several videos. I don't get it. Prince is a musical prodigy. Seriously, even when I hate his songs, you can sense that he knows more about chord, harmony, phrasing and rhythm than any human being ought to know. Even his junk music is sophisticated.

Beck is something of a prodigy as well, although not on the same level as Prince. (But Beck is much closer to my tastes, so I cut him more slack.)

So where is this Gaga's evidence? These songs are not sophisticated. There's nothing interesting happening with the beat. There's no surprises in the harmony. There is nothing to indicate she has a greater depth to her musicality than the average Eurotrash band. Can somebody link to a song that shows she knows what she's doing? I mean, I can see how these songs are catchy, and I can see why she's the latest thing, but "prodigy"? First let's demonstrate that she can do something beyond the pentatonic scale.

Again: The songs I have heard so far do not involve key changes, unusual chord structures, or any beat that is not 4/4. The melodies are not unusual. I haven't even heard a superimposed chord yet. The instrumentation is not original. The production of the songs is standard Europop.

Yes, she's weird, an yes, the songs are catchy, but from what I can tell that is it.

-edit-

Here's how musical prodigies get funky and catchy. Note the chords P-man is superimposing over the classic one-key structure of a funk song, especially towards the conclusion. Beck's spin on the funk song is self-evident.

Musicology

Clap Hands

And let's not forget the absolute hard-core classic catchy, funky, sophisticated song of all time. Go ahead, try to tell me what key it's in. It's a little more complicated than you might think.

I Feel Good

[Meneldil]

I mean I'm not going to lie, she's not exactly unattractive, but all her videos seem to suggest she has a rampaging latex fetish and to put it bluntly it freaks me out.

[Reverend Joe]

Lady Gaga is Andy Warhol revisited. She is NY art scene, quite consciously exploring many of the themes of Warhol, such as obsession with fame and popular culture.

Ugh... like we needed more of that. And I thought you were supposed to be cultured... since when are you a fan of pop-culture obsession and Andy Warhol?

And let's not forget the absolute hard-core classic catchy, funky, sophisticated song of all time. Go ahead, try to tell me what key it's in. It's a little more complicated than you might think.

I Feel Good

Now that's a song.

[Subotan]

Beck is something of a prodigy as well, although not on the same level as Prince. (But Beck is much closer to my tastes, so I cut him more slack.)

So where is this Gaga's evidence? These songs are not sophisticated. There's nothing interesting happening with the beat. There's no surprises in the harmony. There is nothing to indicate she has a greater depth to her musicality than the average Eurotrash band. Can somebody link to a song that shows she knows what she's doing? I mean, I can see how these songs are catchy, and I can see why she's the latest thing, but "prodigy"? First let's demonstrate that she can do something beyond the pentatonic scale.

It's the image more than the music. "Quirkiness" is what everyone is doing at the minute (Paradoxical, I know), and Lady Gaga is about as quirky as you can get before you become weird. As long as there's an UMM-tiss, and a cool aura around it, people will dance to anything.


Here's another complicated one, as it's written quite unusually. Try and work out which beat is swung.

Music is a world within itself
With a language we all understand
With an equal opportunity
For all to sing, dance and clap their hands
But just because a record has a groove
Don't make it in the groove
But you can tell right away at letter A
When the people start to move

[Sasaki Kojiro]

"Catchiness" is the only legitimate way to measure how good a song is. Everything else is social norms/prejudice.

[Centurio Nixalsverdrus]

Though I admit she's much more of a character than Britney, Shakira and other has been pop stars, I don't like her songs much.

*rabidstare*

You don't want to compare Shakira with the Spears thing, will you?

"Catchiness" is the only legitimate way to measure how good a song is. Everything else is social norms/prejudice.

QFT. Taste in Music is socially acquired, and theory of music is complete bull made up to make one's own taste look cultured.

[Beirut]

You don't want to compare Shakira with the Spears thing, will you?

On their best days, all of them are beyond crackers-in-bed reproach.

Let us, therefore, rejoice upon their best days.

[Lemur]

Taste in Music is socially acquired, and theory of music is complete bull made up to make one's own taste look cultured.

Um, no. Just no. There are actual rules to music, deeply related to mathematics. I assure you that every song you like operates under those rules.

In my earlier post I was not discussing "taste." I was talking about musical sophistication, which is an easy-to-identify subject. I even enumerated some of the elements I was looking for, and not finding.

Here's a quick question -- do you know what a 4/4 rhythm is? A 3/4 rhythm? How strange the change from major to minor? (Hat tip to Cole Porter.)

If you're strictly talking about taste, then your statement stands. But to say that "theory of music is complete bull made up" displays a complete lack of learning on the subject.

[Subotan]

"Catchiness" is the only legitimate way to measure how good a song is. Everything else is social norms/prejudice.

and theory of music is complete bull made up to make one's own taste look cultured.

Hurr hurr hurr

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Um, no. Just no. There are actual rules to music, deeply related to mathematics. I assure you that every song you like operates under those rules.

In my earlier post I was not discussing "taste." I was talking about musical sophistication, which is an easy-to-identify subject. I even enumerated some of the elements I was looking for, and not finding.

Here's a quick question -- do you know what a 4/4 rhythm is? A 3/4 rhythm? How strange the change from major to minor? (Hat tip to Cole Porter.)

If you're strictly talking about taste, then your statement stands. But to say that "theory of music is complete bull made up" displays a complete lack of learning on the subject.

You can decompose light into its fundamentals, and talk about wavelengths, intensity, and purity. But the whole is greater than the sum of it's parts. A sunset is "pretty" in the way that a song is "catchy". Analysis is irrelevant to the experience.

Snobby people often describe pop music as trash and complain about it being stuck in their head, that's because they associate that kind of music with certain things and think of themselves as being better than that. They are like priests denying a woman's beauty because they are intent on their own celibacy. It's a barren, uptight existence.

Fortunately, most people know better

[A Very Super Market]

I've never had a good time staring into my light bulb. Or the sun, for that matter. I suppose the circumstances dictate the quality, eh?

[Sasaki Kojiro]

I've never had a good time staring into my light bulb. Or the sun, for that matter. I suppose the circumstances dictate the quality, eh?

You would compare staring at blinding light to listing to a deafening sound? No argument to be had there...

[Centurio Nixalsverdrus]

Here's a quick question -- do you know what a 4/4 rhythm is? A 3/4 rhythm? How strange the change from major to minor? (Hat tip to Cole Porter.)

If you're strictly talking about taste, then your statement stands. But to say that "theory of music is complete bull made up" displays a complete lack of learning on the subject.

Arrgh, OK. I have had music in school, yes, and I have heard of these things like rythm and major and minor, but no I have no idea what it's really about. I could not tell apart neither of them.

OK, I will revise my statement then:

Music theory: an instrument of some people to make their own taste in music appear cultured and sophisticated, and to degrade others' tastes as trashy or worthless.

[Lemur]

You can decompose light into its fundamentals, and talk about wavelengths, intensity, and purity. But the whole is greater than the sum of it's parts. A sunset is "pretty" in the way that a song is "catchy". Analysis is irrelevant to the experience.

Anti-intellectualism at its finest! I would point out that music theory is several layers of abstraction away from wavelength and intensity. So your statement is comparable to, "Architecture is a crock, it's all just masses and gravity anyway." Or, "There's no such thing as filmmaking technique, it's just photons being reflected off a surface."

I would also argue that there are common musical elements that make up "catchy" songs, and the majority of musicians would agree. As I said, all of the music you like conforms to music theory in one way or another. To argue that the theory is irrelevant is like saying math is irrelevant to the computer games you like.

A more concrete example: I was interviewing a drummer named Stewart Copeland some years ago, and he said something along the lines of, "Nobody's going to listen to my work and say, 'The syncopation of the hi-hat really drives the beat.' But they're going to know a great beat when they hear it. It's up to me to know the theory and sweat the details."

Snobby people often describe pop music as trash and complain about it being stuck in their head, that's because they associate that kind of music with certain things and think of themselves as being better than that.

Ah yes, the "some people say" assertion. I would appreciate it if you would respond to what is actually said in thread, rather than these theoretical "some people." If you think I'm being snobby by saying that music theory is real and has relevance to what kinds of music we like, grow a pair and say so.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

You missed this part:

Analysis is irrelevant to the experience.

And went on kind of a rant


Why do we listen to music?

-edit-

Well, it seems like we're on different pages here, so I'll attempt to answer my own question.

I don't know the specifics, but we find music pleasurable in some way. Some music sounds "nice" to us. Some part of those technical details you are talking about is pleasing. I think as far as pure sensation goes, the "catchy" songs are the songs that the sensation part of the brain "likes best". That would be my theory as to why they are remembered so easily. That's the guesswork part. So to say "it's catchy, but nothing more than that" seems to a peculiar way to look at it.

We aren't ruled by sensation of course, our perception is important as well. I will turn of songs that are catchy but have excessively emo lyrics for example. But I think some people are too willing to tune out songs based on social or cultural factors. I don't think "inane" or "meaningless" are good reasons, for example.

[Lemur]

So your entire contention in your "some snobby people" rant rested on the notion that understanding the theory underpinning something is "irrelevant" to the experience? And this justifies your anti-intellectual tub-thumping? Yes, darn those people who spend the time and effort to understand how something actually works. They bug me so darn much!

As for why we listen to music, the answers are as various as there are listeners and musicians. Generally, art is for evoking emotion and thought. Once you get more specific than that, you run into a thicket of problems. You could say it's for enjoyment, but that doesn't really cut it. Does the suicidal kid listening to old Merle Haggard songs "enjoy" them in any recognizable meaning of the word? Not really. But the sadness of the music validates and reinforces his suicidal tendencies. So "enjoy" isn't quite it.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

As for why we listen to music, the answers are as various as there are listeners and musicians. Generally, art is for evoking emotion and thought. Once you get more specific than that, you run into a thicket of problems. You could say it's for enjoyment, but that doesn't really cut it. Does the suicidal kid listening to old Merle Haggard songs "enjoy" them in any recognizable meaning of the word? Not really. But the sadness of the music validates and reinforces his suicidal tendencies. So "enjoy" isn't quite it.

Ah, it looks like you replied while I was editing.

With most artwork there's a part that pleases the senses, and a part that people like for other reasons. The feeling I get is that often the sensation deludes people into thinking that the "meaning" from it is deeper than it actually is (like the kid in your example, I don't know who merle haggard is). In this view art merely provokes questions, rather than supplies answers, which explains why it so subjective and why one persons art is anothers cliche.

Although I'm not entirely sold on that

[Louis VI the Fat]

I was interviewing a drummer named Stewart Copeland some years ago, and he said something along the lines of, "Nobody's going to listen to my work and say, 'The syncopation of the hi-hat really drives the beat.' But they're going to know a great beat when they hear it. It's up to me to know the theory and sweat the details."

Haha! That silly drummer boy sounds like a complete dork! As if with a nerdy attitude like that he's ever going to sell any records.

[Samurai Waki]

Stewart Copeland is the Drummer for the band 'Police'.

[Strike For The South]

Stewart Copeland is the Drummer for the band 'Police'.

that was the joke

Sometimes this mans genuis is lost on yall

[Samurai Waki]

I like Ruining Jokes.