it is soooo cool to hate lady gaga right now.which i really don't understand. i would have bet gaga was that rare pop star that would appeal to both the charts and the critics. she's got the weirdo-fashionista female pop star to win over the of montreal fans; her music takes a page right out of hypem's top 50; she writes no. 1 hits in ten minutes; she thumbs her nose at american idol by performing half of her biggest hit in faux barroom cabaret style. for any other artist these would have been positives, but somehow lady gaga gets criticized at every turn.
maybe it's the package. the fame. the materialism. the trl-ity. at first glance her album seems full of the shtick hipsters love to hate. but you can't ignore the irony that the entire album is dripping in - being disgusted by gaga and her music is like not getting the fishstick joke. don't you think she's a little bit smarter than that?
anyways, in this week's new yorker sasha frere-jones had written on an article on gaga. well, sorta, as elise pointed out. there's an opening non sequitur on the mysteries of pop music, and then her songs are compared to britney and eiffel 65. hmm... well maybe that's the point. frere-jones is trying to lure in skeptics by using established hipster-approved bands to qualify lady gaga's talent. you like gary numan's cars right? well look 'just dance' is just like that. GOTCHA! you ironically enjoy madonna, right? ha, just snuck 'eh, eh' under your nose. PWNED! if a = b and b = c, then doesn't a = c? (transitive property, i know pretty heavy)
not to labor the point anymore then i already have, but isn't this a little like when justin timberlake dropped 'like i love you' and everybody thought i was a fag for realizing it was dope?
in ten years lady gaga will be the shit. and i'll be sitting in my ivory tower, probably listening to something else.
No comments:
Post a Comment