The Unbearable Idiocy of Pop Music Elitism

**Janszoon** · 01-22-2011, 01:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skaligojurah

Come on, Beatles had a few moments. What about "I am the Walrus"? Like or no, Would you classify that as generic pop?

I would put it in the same league as Lady Gaga. There are worse things in the world but it's nothing to write home about.

Ska Lagos Jew Sun Ra · 01-22-2011, 01:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Janszoon

I would put it in the same league as Lady Gaga.

You're just being difficult.

Screen13 · 01-22-2011, 01:35 PM

As to this Beatles/Gaga debate...

Beatles - Hard working, slightly innovative musicians who caught the right sounds at the right time and won success through both great musicianship, good promotion, good showmanship ('62-'65), hard work, and in the end just being themselves even at their most surreal. Included a controversial leader (When John was at his most down to earth, he could be seriously thought provoking), master of Pop songwriting (when Paul was on the mark), a classy guitarist (when George was not getting too much into the mystical stuff), and a Drummer with good humour who knew how to provide the solid backbeat (Well...Ringo was always Ringo!).

Gaga - Attention seeking acts that show her to be like a wanna-Be Madonna with Disposable music. Includes highly promoted gimmicks and slick and empty sounds that wastes some talent. Sadly, an example of Pop today.

Ska Lagos Jew Sun Ra · 01-22-2011, 01:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Screen13

As to this Beatles/Gaga debate...

Beatles - Hard working, slightly innovative musicians who caught the right sounds at the right time and won success through both great musicianship, good promotion, good showmanship ('62-'65), hard work, and in the end just being themselves even at thier most surreal. Included a controversial leader (When John was at his most down to earth, he could be seriously thought provoking), a master of Pop songwriting (when Paul was on the mark which is most of the time), a classy guitarist (when George was not getting too much into the mystical stuff), and a Drummer with good humour who knew how to provide the solid backbeat (Well...Ringo was always Ringo!).

Gaga - Attention seeking acts that show her to be like a wanna-Be Madonna with Disposable music. Includes highly promoted gimmicks and slick and empty sounds that wastes some talent.

Well, according to the original article, you're an idiot. Which is why my passionate initial response.

**Janszoon** · 01-22-2011, 01:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skaligojurah

You're just being difficult.

Nope, just expressing my opinions regarding the Beatles.

Screen13 · 01-22-2011, 01:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skaligojurah

Here is the difference between Beatles and Gaga in a nutshell:

A) Beatles were accepting a new, and popular form of music. Psychedelic might have been the trend but at the time when it was popular, and Beatles did their own version it was the new thing. Sure, they were just cashing in, but they were cashing in a NEW trend that didn't exist two decades before.

Not only that the Beatles INVENTED new studio technique. Backmasking, usage of feedback(well, this is a tad questionable), and subtle things like that. Beatles were an entirely new studio landscape, one of which was nothing like anything before. Structurally, they are far inferior to classical composers.

A good amount of that invention was helped out by their Producer (George Martin). If they were not in connection to someone who listened to their suggestions, things would have been more pedestrian.

RVCA · 01-22-2011, 01:55 PM

Okay, I understand that haters gonna hate and lovers gonna love, but tossing the Beatles in the same bin as Lady Gaga is just... no.

Ska Lagos Jew Sun Ra · 01-22-2011, 02:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Screen13

A good amount of that invention was helped out by their Producer (George Martin). If they were not in connection to someone who listened to their suggestions, things would have been more pedestrian.

Agreed.

Screen13 · 01-22-2011, 02:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skaligojurah

Agreed.

Thanks.

By the way, a couple of posts ago, I was responding to someone putting The Beatles on the same line with Gaga (which I don't agree with), and I should have added that quote as it possibly read the wrong way without the reference.

~~someonecompletelyrandom~~ · 01-22-2011, 02:21 PM

I don't like Lady GaGa as much as the Beatles, but why is the thought of them being in the same category instantly rejected? As if it's repulsive. Lady Gaga is about as popular as the Beatles were in the 60s, or Madonna was in the 80s. She, like them, is just a popular icon of our time. whether she will have any lasting impact years later remains to be seen.

Musically, I don't think GaGa pushes many boundries, but neither did the Beatles at first. Just wait until her popularity fades a bit. I expect big things from her.

01-22-2011, 01:35 PM	#53 (permalink)
Screen13 Music Addict Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 1,388	As to this Beatles/Gaga debate... Beatles - Hard working, slightly innovative musicians who caught the right sounds at the right time and won success through both great musicianship, good promotion, good showmanship ('62-'65), hard work, and in the end just being themselves even at their most surreal. Included a controversial leader (When John was at his most down to earth, he could be seriously thought provoking), master of Pop songwriting (when Paul was on the mark), a classy guitarist (when George was not getting too much into the mystical stuff), and a Drummer with good humour who knew how to provide the solid backbeat (Well...Ringo was always Ringo!). Gaga - Attention seeking acts that show her to be like a wanna-Be Madonna with Disposable music. Includes highly promoted gimmicks and slick and empty sounds that wastes some talent. Sadly, an example of Pop today. Last edited by Screen13; 01-22-2011 at 02:00 PM.

01-22-2011, 01:55 PM	#57 (permalink)
RVCA （￣ー￣） Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 3,270	Okay, I understand that haters gonna hate and lovers gonna love, but tossing the Beatles in the same bin as Lady Gaga is just... no.

01-22-2011, 02:21 PM	#60 (permalink)
~~someonecompletelyrandom~~ Account Disabled Join Date: Nov 2008 Posts: 4,538	I don't like Lady GaGa as much as the Beatles, but why is the thought of them being in the same category instantly rejected? As if it's repulsive. Lady Gaga is about as popular as the Beatles were in the 60s, or Madonna was in the 80s. She, like them, is just a popular icon of our time. whether she will have any lasting impact years later remains to be seen. Musically, I don't think GaGa pushes many boundries, but neither did the Beatles at first. Just wait until her popularity fades a bit. I expect big things from her.