Consolator

What?

Gaga has strong convictions -- she's been the target of much criticism from other artists as well as groups. Her concerts have been repeatedly protested by religious groups because of her strong advocacy work of gay rights. I don't know where you live (if even in the US), but where I live, to stand up for gay rights puts you in the position to make LOTS of enemies. Had Gaga only cared about album sales, she would make safe, slightly less sex-obsessed music and would not comment on any sort of political / religious issue. I think by being pro-active in such issues, it shows that she does in fact have convictions and guts.

The last time I checked, whether you like it or not, Gaga is in fact an artist. The definition of artist is someone who essentially works in the arts. Singing, dancing, song-writing are included in that. Are you really one of those people that has that snooty pre-conceived "Well, I don't think she should be called an artist" ?

I do not like very much metal music, does that mean I go into the metal forum ****ting all over the artists saying that it's not art? That's juvenile. Note, I'm not saying you shouldn't criticize artists. Let's make better points than "I don't think she's an artist." I'm surprised that more people have not mentioned how predictable she has gotten as of late.

Urban Hat€monger ?

Every two bit female pop star bangs on about Gay rights or Feminism at some point. That doesn't make her music any more art worthy or controversial.
I mean bands like Coldplay speak out about safe issues like that kind of thing all the time. It doesn't make their music any more interesting that the turgid safe slush that it already is.

And let's face it, outlandish fashion sense, disco friendly pop tunes. the woman has stereotypical gay icon written all over her. Would it really be any kind of shock to anybody that she supports gay right?
That would be like me putting on a Primal Scream or Hawkwind album on and suddenly being shocked and outraged that they contain drug references.

So wearing an outfit made of meat is a statement that can be taken 'with many different interpretations'
Does that sound like someone with convictions ? That's an awfully vague description. That just sounds like someone who's gone out to get as much attention as humanly possible at one of the most widely seen televisual events of the year and then fumbled up some feeble excuse when asked to expand on it.

Why shouldn't I ?
Art is whatever you want it to be. I just think for all the plaudits she gets what I see coming out from her is remarkably hollow & basic.
Hell it's not even original, making pop songs to appeal to the slightly older pop demographic while wearing elaborate clothes, hell Alison Goldfrapp was doing that around a decade ago.

I think I've made plenty of valid points, even if you think I'm not I don't really see how you can say I'm being juvenile. I've explained what I don't like about her and why. I don't take issue with anyone liking her music or being a fan. I just don't see how anyone can dress this stuff up & claim it's anything more 'higher art' than say your average pop singer, which is basically all she is albeit with a rather large outlandish wardrobe.

__________________

Consolator

You're right that most pop stars bring up gay rights at some point, but not nearly to the point that Gaga does. I mean, just look at her website right now. You get re-directed to a plea to visit the Repeal Don't Ask Don't Tell whatever website. If you actually go to her website, it's more gay rights stuff. Her recent tweets and facebook updates have been purely about repealing Don't Ask Don't Tell. She brought the discharged soldiers to the VMA's with her and thanked them in her award speech. Please name a recent pop star that has used her fame to advance the cause to this degree.

Why is it so strange that something can have many different interpretations? Do you expect her to ramble off a list of things it symbolizes at command? The whole meat on your bones comment was awkwardly worded, yes, but is that not a reasonable interpretation to you? In essence, she's right. If we don't take part in our government, we will likely get the short ends of the sticks. Do you disagree with her claim? If not, I frankly don't see why you're criticizing her for it.

Also, I never said Gaga was original. Ever. If I have, please show me where and I will gladly edit it. Most of what (if not all) she's done can either be traced back to Madonna or Grace Jones. It's one of the problems I have with Lady Gaga. The only song of hers that has really impressed me in terms of being original is her song "Teeth," but even then, there may be some song just like it out there. I don't know. If there is I haven't heard it. It isn't like the stuff what is on the radio these days. It has a jazzy sound to it. I especially agree about your Goldfrapp comment. Goldfrapp is a delight. But, I digress, this is not the Goldfrapp thread.

You may think her messages are hollow and basic, but I can attest that there are many who do not. This thread is evident of that. Hollow and basic is subjective and means different things to different people.

Mojo

If she is going to the go to the lengths of dressing herself in MEAT for a high profile event like that then it is of course inevitable that someone will ask her to explain it. If she is wearing that outfit for a reason then she simply must be prepared with one for the moment someone sticks a mic infront of her face. If someone sticks the mic infront of her face and she starts prattling on about how her attire for the evening has many different meanings or interpretations then frankly yes, i would expect her to tell people what they are.

When she chooses to dress the way she did and then explain it the way she did, a lot of people are then going to assume that she has no reason to do it other than to ensure she makes the headlines and gets people talking about her, because that increases interest and therefore record sales and therefore wealth.

Also, the gay rights thing. I am certainly not going to criticise someone like Gaga for making another conscious choice on her part to take a stand like she has done. I am not going to criticise someone of her celebrity for doing that. Frankly she does have celebrity status and with that comes influence and so if she can take a stand against something that is close to her heart (and you can only assume that gay rights would be something of very real interest to her) then absolutely all fair play to her. I feel the only point Urban made though is that gay rights is, as he put it, a safe stand to make. That doesn't mean he is criticising her for doing it but rather that when he expresses an opinion that a lot of artists don't take stands anymore and you use her work for gay rights to counter that, you are still somewhat missing the point. Of course, technically you are correct as she is taking a stand but taking that particular stand is not really at all controversial or risky, it's safe. Of course they are people out there who won't agree with her, if there wasn't then there wouldnt be a problem but most people would have her back on that one.

Again, simply to re-iterate, this is not me disagreeing with you or anything you are saying. I am also not claiming that Gaga SHOULD take a stand that is at all controversial or risky, by thr way. I'm not claiming that it is wrong of her NOT to do so. But I can also see the trend of mainstream pop stars mainly taking public stances on very safe issues. I can see where it is you're coming from, i just also feel that Urban makes a lot of valid points and frankly has shared the odd opinion that i also share and so I feel I know where he is coming from. You are not necessarily incorrect in your responses, i just feel you are taking his opinions to mean more than they actually do while also missing the point in places.

__________________

Last.FM | Echoes and Dust

Consolator

Coming from a state whose government is trying to make homosexuality illegal and anal sex a federal crime under the basis that both are tearing society apart as we know it, I respectfully disagree.