[convol]

Originally Posted by Talyubittu

The fact that she didn't graduate has nothing to do with anything? - I'm sorry, but in the case of talent vs. education - I select talent.

So do I. You were the one to bring up that she was an NYU Art student.

Originally Posted by Talyubittu

Anybody can learn to be a musician, but very few can just do it. For someone with a decent musical education and background in the pop art/happenings world I'd say she's established herself pretty well as an artist. Yes, an artist. If you want to discuss her artistry further, let em point out that to cohesively develop and manage technology, fashion, music, and countless other themes into a single massive show that you have never even attended does require a bit more application than that of Zemfira, who you proclaim to be a great musician. The films, interludes, plot - staging, choreography - all of it is a cohesive theatrical production that takes place in the world.

Would you also say that Britney Spears and Madonna are more artistic than Björk, because the former characters have a massive show? How about this perspective: without the typical oversexualized image, Gaga's derivative fashion and having a show, not even teenage girls would care about Gaga's sugarcoated bubblegum music. Oh wait... is that why we have Gaga and not Germanotta?

Yep, I consider Zemfira a highly accomplished musician (perhaps that's why Patti Smith knelt before her after their duet at the festival in Kazan in '08?), Björk is pushing the boundaries of musical experimentation in a pop context, Kate Bush was a musical pioneer, Russian singer Pelageya has an amazing voice, Russian folk singer Inna Zhelannaya made a name for herself internationally before Tatu did (although in ethnic circles) and jams with Trey Gunn from King Crimson, Zhanna Aguzarova, well, how about you check her out yourself? I could continue but it's OT and I'd be happy to go into discussing any of these artists elsewhere on this board. All of them are infinitely more talented than Gaga could ever hope to be.

Apparently "I'm not in tune with Lady Gaga at all", but from my point of view Gaga, having musical talent or not, music has finally been completely eclipsed by a persona based on regurgitated ideas, repackaged like a fast food meal. Not surprisingly Gaga keeps mentioning Warhol in the hope of attaining a semblence of credibility. Furthermore, there is the often encountered pseudo-intellectual meta-layer to explain away that Gaga's music would sit perfectly in between generic Eurovision songs, i.e. Gaga is actually making a comment on the notions of fame and artificiality by fully embodying these ideas herself. In other words, if this proposition is true, would this mean that Gaga doesn't even have a very high opinion of her own work, but despite caring about her fans so much she is fine with a lot of people being gullible enough to buy into it?

Originally Posted by Talyubittu

And I'm sorry for the critics that dislike her work, but at the end of the day - they're still pinching pennies while she's spending thousands and thousands of dollars to perform a show featuring the music they all hate, which she believes in and comes from her heart. And not only that, but leaves her fans with something you could never understand in your current state of mind. Something more tangible than steel. If you cannot comprehend that as artistry, then you have no fucking idea what artistry is. Passion is more important than your meaningless critique of her, or your meaningless weighing of the scales between her and other musicians. At the end of the day, you're still busy discrediting her while she bleeds in front of twenty thousand people at her sold out shows that the world has attend and been publicly and critically acclaimed as a piece of contemporary musical history.

Even you must know that fame rarely corresponds to talent. Money, record companies, promotion, image etc. do however. Don't you think teenage girls experienced the same rush when they went to Spice Girls concerts? Then you go into personal insults, but that's hardly surprising. I was expecting it. I find your posts entertaining, even more so than Gaga herself. This is the reason I'm discussing (or "meaningless weighing of the scales between her and other musicians") with you; certainly not because I hate Gaga.

Originally Posted by Talyubittu

Lady GaGa did not get to where she is because of MTV or any other mass media outlet - if you really want to debate that, then by all means, lets do so. Because I've been prepared for this argument for ages.

Sounds serious . I wish I could debate, it would be fun, but unfortunately I stopped watching MTV more than five years ago. Although if you are saying that mass media didn't play a role in Gaga achieving fame, I'd be thrilled to read your arguments.

Originally Posted by Talyubittu

I'm not sure what your point is with this? If you're going to defend her argument with "it's a personal decision" - then let me defend GaGa's position on what are neither terrorism nor violence and end with a "it's a personal decision whether you wish to publicly share your opinion with others." - The fact that Zemfira doesn't want to be associated with that type of setting has nothing to do with a personal choice GaGa makes. You're obviously not in tune with GaGa at all, because at best your weak argument comes from your skimming of wikipedia articles or other random interviews when you simply cannot base a criticism of her on that kind of bullshit research.

"Weak argument", "bullshit research" (I even saw the video where Paris Hilton and Gaga have a chat - hilarious stuff) - surely, your being completely in tune with Gaga doesn't overcloud your judgement? Re. the quote: nope, that's not the reason I included it. A few hints: political correctness, playing the media game, delusional pop stars considering themselves gurus and equating fame with insight.