|
The Trance Only Syndrome (pg. 12)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Mr.Mystery |
| quote: | Originally posted by pzK
I don't understand how someone, who's able to create & perform songs with a certain amount of complexity like http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNq1jSqakIQ , is willing to evolve towards shallow "simple, soulless music". :( |
It makes more money. |
|
|
| paulandrews |
| quote: | Originally posted by pzK
I don't understand how someone, who's able to create & perform songs with a certain amount of complexity like http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNq1jSqakIQ , is willing to evolve towards shallow "simple, soulless music". :( |
I can't watch that right now, but I presume it's one of those pre-Gaga videos from time when she was just a regular girl. The truth is, though, that she hasn't thrown this part of her self away, and she still rocks the piano big time (here's her brilliant cover of Viva La Vida, here's another great video). The only thing that has changed is that she's become much more eccentric.
She could've stayed Stefani Joanne Angelina Germanotta for the rest of her life, and perhaps win a few local singing contests with all those sad songs. Or she could've tried to sell her talent on a way bigger level, and make her dreams come true. Many people judge her only based on her music, but again, that's not really the thing she's putting the biggest effort into.
There's no doubt she has a decisive word in the whole creative process.
| quote: | I called all my coolest art friends and we sat in a room and I said that I wanted to make my face light up. Or that I wanted to make my cane light up. Or that I wanted to make a pair of dope sunglasses. Or that I want to make video glasses, or whatever it was that I wanted to do. It’s a whole amazing creative process that’s completely separate from the label.
They're my best friends. I'm not really sure what the world thinks ... but I do hear things like, 'Who is the Haus of Gaga?' and, 'Are you putting out a fashion line?' And no one gets it. It's not a commodity. It's not something that's meant to be sold... It's a real bond and relationship, and that's what I think music and art is about... they are my heart and soul. They believe in me, and they look at me like a mother and daughter and sister, with pride and love. |
| quote: | The theatrics and story elements are in the style of an opera. Imagine if you could take the sets of an opera, which are very grand and very beautiful, and put them through a pop-electro lens. The design of the show is very, very forward, very, very innovative. I've been thinking about ways to play with the shape of this stage and change the way that we watch things. So what I've done is I've designed a stage with Haus of Gaga that is essentially a frame with forced perspective, and the frame is put inside the stage.
It's got kind of a triangular inset, like a diamond, and everywhere we're playing, the dimensions fit this box that I'm bringing, so it's this giant box that fits into every show. So no matter where I go, my fans get the same experience. So often you go into theaters and there's ambient light flying in from all sorts of places, and the audience is in different spots, and the stage is in different shapes and lengths and widths and depths, so this is a way for me to control all the light and all of the different elements of the show. |
You really can't dismiss her for being in it for the big bucks. |
|
|
| pzK |
| quote: | Originally posted by paulandrews
You really can't dismiss her for being in it for the big bucks. |
I don't have a problem with going for the money. But there are lot's of artists with simular talent who made it without totally stepping away from their original self.
You say that she has become much more eccentric, but how much of that metamorphosis has been her own choice? I consider her mostly as a victim damaged heavily by her label so I wonder if it are really her own dreams which are coming true. |
|
|
| paulandrews |
I realize we're way OT, but from a purely scientific perspective it's interesting to see her act as an encompassment of self-referential culture that has characterised this past decade.
Not only does she regularly make statements of social and cultural critism, she at the same time references herself, as she also had to take advantage of media to make her voice heard. She's become part of this rotten society so she could mock it.
If not for the music, you at least have to appreciate her for the way she trolled lots of people. |
|
|
| paulandrews |
| quote: | Originally posted by pzK
But there are ot's of artists with simular talent who made it without totally stepping away from their original self. |
Yes, Björk perhaps. The point is, Gaga could hardly get her message across without entering mainstream media (see my post above).
| quote: | | You say that she has become much more eccentric, but how much of that metamorphosis has been her own choice? I consider her mostly as a victim damaged heavily by her label so I wonder if it are really her own dreams which are coming true. |
She certainly isn't a fabricated popstar. I guess the best way here is to link you to her wiki page. If we can trust what's written there, it's obvious she's been interested in high art & fashion long before she's become famous. |
|
|
| SYSTEM-J |
| quote: | Originally posted by paulandrews
That's weird because she also said this:
She's consciously using simple music to make what is normally considered avant-garde art accessible to the masses (fashion, visual art). |
What does that have to do with highbrow or lowbrow? "Soul" is a largely intangible slice of bull, but I've never heard it used in relation to intellectual content. Although funnily enough, when you're on a dancefloor on E grinding up to someone her fashion, her visual art and ridiculous stage shows are nowhere to be seen, heard or felt. Electronic music becomes music as product, divorced from external referent or creative process. What you feel is what you hear, just the song.
| quote: | I realize we're way OT, but from a purely scientific perspective it's interesting to see her act as an encompassment of self-referential culture that has characterised this past decade.
Not only does she regularly make statements of social and cultural critism, she at the same time references herself, as she also had to take advantage of media to make her voice heard. She's become part of this rotten society so she could mock it. |
She's postmodern, in other words (although I don't see the relevance of science). You could say exactly the same thing about, say Eminem: he makes no shortage of cultural references, he is archly self-referential (but then, every ****** is these days) and he has exploited the media with a series of well timed gestures to maximise his success. And yet I don't see you sporting an Eminem avatar or shouting his praises.
In the end, such ideological trappings are are a side-show at best and a pretentious excuse for liking something at worst. It comes down to what you hear at 3am on E: the music. An artist can be as clever as they want in justifying their art but if their art sucks, it doesn't matter. If Lady Gaga's music exists solely to hook people and turn them on to her fashion and visual art then she could probably put down the mic now and get a job as a fashion designer. Somehow I doubt it will happen. |
|
|
| paulandrews |
| quote: | Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
What does that have to do with highbrow or lowbrow? "Soul" is a largely intangible slice of bull, but I've never heard it used in relation to intellectual content. |
Yep, I guess that's right.
| quote: | | Although funnily enough, when you're on a dancefloor on E grinding up to someone her fashion, her visual art and ridiculous stage shows are nowhere to be seen, heard or felt. Electronic music becomes music as product, divorced from external referent or creative process. What you feel is what you hear, just the song. |
I'm not sure right now what was the context of that quote I used - if she was talking about her stage perfomances or her music just being played by some dj in a club. When Domesticated mentioned that interview, it surprised me she wasn't able to see her music realistically ("I wanna take a ride on your disco stick" certainly isn't highbrow), which I thought she's capable of when she described her music as 'soulless'. This word, whatever the hell it means, has negative connotations - something your usual pop artist certainly doesn't include in their PR.
| quote: | | She's postmodern, in other words (although I don't see the relevance of science). You could say exactly the same thing about, say Eminem: he makes no shortage of cultural references, he is archly self-referential (but then, every ****** is these days) and he has exploited the media with a series of well timed gestures to maximise his success. And yet I don't see you sporting an Eminem avatar or shouting his praises. |
I never said Gaga was the only one who did that. Although, I do like to think that the way she does it is kind of unique, just because of how much of it she crams into one video/song. I haven't been following pop that much lately but I really can't recall seeing anything similar.
Asking me why I'm not sporting an Eminem avatar is like asking a Boca de Juniors fan why he isn't wearing a Real Madrid scarf, when surely both teams play great combinational football. It's a matter of preference, really.
As I said I'm a fanboy. We're talking about irrational things such as feelings here. :p
| quote: | | In the end, such ideological trappings are are a side-show at best and a pretentious excuse for liking something at worst. It comes down to what you hear at 3am on E: the music. An artist can be as clever as they want in justifying their art but if their art sucks, it doesn't matter. If Lady Gaga's music exists solely to hook people and turn them on to her fashion and visual art then she could probably put down the mic now and get a job as a fashion designer. Somehow I doubt it will happen. |
From what I've gathered, her aim is to bring something new to pop, or perhaps dig out what has been lost. Her influences are obviously Madonna and David Bowie - singers who weren't afraid to be strongly visual-oriented/controversial/sexual/faux-androgynous/sartorial. She says that both music and imagery are equally important in pop music, and she just puts emphasis on the latter. She brings back what has already existed, and updates it for today. |
|
|
| SYSTEM-J |
| quote: | Originally posted by paulandrews
I never said Gaga was the only one who did that. Although, I do like to think that the way she does it is kind of unique, just because of how much of it she crams into one video/song. I haven't been following pop that much lately but I really can't recall seeing anything similar.
Asking me why I'm not sporting an Eminem avatar is like asking a Boca de Juniors fan why he isn't rooting for Real Madrid, when surely both teams play great combinational football. It's a matter of preference, really. |
My point is that self-referential postmodern artists are nothing new. We're oversaturated in them right now, to the point people hail it as fresh when someone like the Japandroids come out with a straight-talking unironic, non-referential record. To me it isn't interesting or smart to do it anymore, and it infects all high and low culture to an equal degree.
You just seem to be self-contradictory. You claim "Pop music will never be low brow" but then you admit there are parts of Lady Gaga songs that definitely aren't highbrow. All this mention of visual art and referentiality just seem to be trying to excuse the fact her actual music quite obviously is lowbrow. And to bring the point around to where we started, you're struggling to even defend Lady Gaga's music, which I'm sure you'd argue isn't the same as all pop music. So how does this argument prove "Pop music will never be low brow?"
It's like arguing that, say, DJ Spooky's pretentious postmodern essays about his sets validate the art of DJing as inherently highbrow. If we're arguing like that, then just about all modern culture is highbrow because it's all a product of the postmodern condition. Although I could simply point out that the avant-garde and postmodernism aim to destroy institutions or canons like "highbrow" or "lowbrow" in the first place, so your argument is self-destructive. |
|
|
| paulandrews |
| quote: | Originally posted by SYSTEM-J
My point is that self-referential postmodern artists are nothing new. We're oversaturated in them right now, to the point people hail it as fresh when someone like the Japandroids come out with a straight-talking unironic, non-referential record. To me it isn't interesting or smart to do it anymore, and it infects all high and low culture to an equal degree. |
Maybe it's my ignorance but I can't remember a pop star doing this in such a complex manner as Gaga (allusions to movies, music, photography, society/media in one video clip). That's also why I said she encompasses this postmodernism because she covers almost all the aspects of culture.
I guess this postmodern approach is still sort of new to me, so I can still enjoy it?
| quote: | | You just seem to be self-contradictory. You claim "Pop music will never be low brow" but then you admit there are parts of Lady Gaga songs that definitely aren't highbrow. |
Oh, you think my avatar is also my statement? Not really, I just thought it's a good gif; I do not identify with that sentence. I also think Gaga wasn't 100% serious when she said that; one of those controversial moments to get a rise out of people, I guess.
| quote: | | All this mention of visual art and referentiality just seem to be trying to excuse the fact her actual music quite obviously is lowbrow. And to bring the point around to where we started, you're struggling to even defend Lady Gaga's music, which I'm sure you'd argue isn't the same as all pop music. So how does this argument prove "Pop music will never be low brow?" |
Again I'd never argued that. I said that 'Bad Romance' is a great pop song that I can enjoy with a straight face. Of course, then there are songs I don't like at all. Pokerface, for example. No big deal for me.
I also enjoy searching for pseudointellectual - maybe even unintentional - allusions in her music, which is basically a part of this huge commercial MTV culture - all in good fun. I'm well aware how ridiculous it may be; it's just a part of the game. |
|
|
| SYSTEM-J |
| I don't think your avatar is your statement, but in a discussion about how we define pop music you plonked down a very large version of the same .gif. If that wasn't a statement, I'm not sure what is. |
|
|
| nefardec |
| quote: | | She's consciously using simple music to make what is normally considered avant-garde art accessible to the masses (fashion, visual art). |
you totally bought into her marketing ploy.
:p
avante garde art will never be accessible to the masses by definition. (that's what the phrase itself means.) Avant garde art is never 'normally' considered.
any claim to avant garde as a 'tradition' is also inherently disingenuous and meta-referential.
You are confusing 'avant-garde art' with 'pop' art. She is much more a warhol than a manzoni. And pop art was never concerned with 'highbrow', it was concerned with soup cans.
She may well truly believe that what she does is 'avant garde'. That's not for her to decide, but for history. What she is doing is using a postmodern idea of 'avant garde' as a marketing device and artistic license to suck. |
|
|
|
|
