s_k

I don't think the beatles can do much about that.
I love them by the way. But I already loved music before I got any sort of interest in the Beatles. So the statement is bull**** anyhow.

__________________
Click here to see my collection

Ska Lagos Jew Sun Ra

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. I mean, I as a massive fan of Bela Bartok say that none of The Beatles even remotely touch him as songwriters. However, they were extremely inventive in the studio. I mean, I've heard things like some of the earliest, if not earliest, self recording digital pianos were custom built for John Lennon.

The Beatles were at least exploring cutting edge technique, and trying in their own way to expand it.

B) Lady Gaga is a professionally trained musician who has worked many years in the studio. From what I hear, she was already a seasoned veteran musician around the time when she, and her producer, 'invented' the Gaga character. With her education, etc. she has a massive access to popular formula.

With that she can write songs off of what she knows is popular. It is very VERY obvious that Lady Gaga has some sort of twisted obsession with the 80s (which makes absolutely no sense to me since she is the same age as me, and I don't ****ing remember the 80s). In fact, if you look closely at anything and EVERYTHING she does it seems almost like a homage, a collection of 80s relics in which the modern teenie bopper audience just doesn't know the existence of.

Unlike the Beatles, Lady Gaga is not taking big risks in order to move 'pop' music forward. She is simply taking these long forgotten formulas, and mashing them together. She is basically taking low intellect Madonna music, and then slapping an aesthetic sheen of 80s art rock randomly onto it.

If that's not deluding the concept enough(Art rock standards? Seriously... Art Rock having standards kind of ruins the point). Gaga isn't creating new art she's simply bastardizing, and oversimplying extremely outdated art. What makes it worst is the further bastardization with the little GWAR publicity stunts she does.

With that said, they're both massively overrated. Unlike the Beatles, however, Gaga is doing nothing but moving us into the past. Beatles at least were trying - in their own way - to actually change things for the future. Gaga is just basically a disgruntled studio musician who gets her giddy thrills off of the fact she's the slightly more intelligent alternative to Katy Perry, and Justin Biebar(and wow... what an accomplishment).

----

Now, as for the argument of pop and classical being a different thing. Of course it is - HOWEVER - that's another reason why I've heavily criticized both acts. There are forms of music which are integrating the best elements of both what the Beatles helped pioneer, and what made more structurally sound classical musicians were helping build. They just go relatively unknown because of their lacking exposure.

Another reason to dislike Gaga who capitalizes of silly shock value, and the aggressive soulless exploitation of gays in place of more creative, ambitious, and interesting music.

__________________
Al Pacino = God

clutnuckle

Plenty of modern classical/avant-garde/early psych rock artists/bands from the 50s and 60s (and even earlier for the modern classical artists) did all of these things before them, in a much more interesting, shocking and paradigm-shifting way. Yes, The Beatles did some good work with it, but they did not invent this style of studio work. Just because nobody was paying attention to innovation when it happened, does not mean that The Beatles started it, nor does it mean they deserve credit for bringing it to the masses.

shuffleking

Enough with the labels. " Music fans" in the know have an obnoxious penchant for throwing around names of artists they consider "relevant" because they mearly like their music. Without knowing squat about where the music comes from and why it sounds like it does. It takes years of examination to arrive at a knowledgable opinion about music. If one was to call "pop" musin Blues, one would get an argument from said "music fans". Consider these elements of our western pop music...syncopation, call and response, the percussive method of performance, and GROOVE. These appropriated elements are all used quite freely in "POP" music. ALL the genetic markers of BLUES. Remember...there is a difference between quotation and thievery.

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.

Ska Lagos Jew Sun Ra

Agreed.

__________________
Al Pacino = God

Screen13

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.