kson

Jonbouy


Co-incidentally she was on a popular UK talk show tonight and she mentioned the HBO thing.

The theatre is very reminiscent of Madonna but she undoubtedly has so much more musicality in her little finger than Madge ever had by herself.  To me she is bordering on plug ugly but her attitude carries her above all that into another realm and she's definitely turned up for work every time I've seen her perform on TV.

Madonna was no musical slouch.  She played drums and guitar for "The Breakfast Club" before they turned her into a "pop star".  And...she didn't have to wear various loin cuts.  Lol.

Don't get me wrong, she wasn't Van Halen or Neil Peart, but some musical knowledge/skill is better than none.

I didn't say Madge had no musical skill aside from her great producers, I just said Gaga has a huge amount more.

I don't get the debate as to whether anybody is lip-synced, retouched, pasteurised or otherwise genetically modified either.

I mean if you think about it I'm not sure Harry Potter flies his own broomstick, but ain't showbiz about raising one out of mundane, drab reality every now and then?

Every bit of music I've ever purchased since I was a kid has had some kind of polish applied.  So the polishing processes are more advanced than they were but does it really matter?

I'd say it does, otherwise why are we hanging about on a Cakewalk forum when we could just simply capture our perfect performances on a free download of Audacity?

jamesg1213

yorolpal


Well, no one as yet as linked me to some "see you dimbulb she IS NOT lipsyncing" video as yet. 

No opinion either way from me, but here's a song from the show that was aired last night;

Edge of Glory

VIDEO REMOVED DUE TO MULTIPLE COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENTS ......

Some thoughts on this thread (as much as the gaga one):

1. If people are even debating whether you were lip syncing, it's rarely a good thing to the people who care about such things. But not everyone cares.

2. I don't care if an artist is "hard working". If you stink, it doesn't matter to me if you are "hard working". If you rule, it doesn't matter either. It comes off to me sounding like either an excuse or a backhanded complement (though I understand that's not what people here meant by it).

3. I think it's easy to confuse a stage show with music. My problem with what little of the HBO thing I watched was it didn't seem to be about music. That shouldn't be taken as a musical criticism.

4. If you put on a big campy show, people are bound to question your musical talent, fairly or not.

I saw the Monster Ball on TV last week. I liked it.

Most of the so called "content", that "you little monsters can do what you want" etc was just embarrasingly naive, close to plain stupid. Does it really need to be like that or are they under estimating the audience?  Many of the parents with about 8-12 year old children in the audience propably did not know where they were taking their kids. The "manuscript" sure wasn't for children.

I was surprised by Gagas musical skills. She's ten times better now than Madonna in the same age.
And Madonna has never been a singer, but Gaga did some serious stuff singing the ballads by the piano.

I believe she was honest saying she uses no lip sync, but the two girls singing in the background took care of the singing in several places when Gaga either sang more quietly or not at all .  That's not technically lipsync, right? I believe in a couple of places I could tell it wasn't Gagas voice I heard even though it should have been (for example once when the guys lifted her on their shoulders). I need to watch the show again carefully.

I'm also a bit surprised to see people comment critically about her natural born physical features... why is it OK to criticize a successful performer's body and face when most of us would think it's down right mean to say it about just about anyone else?

The fact there is that I mentioned that I thought Gaga was plug ugly in contrast to somebody commenting to the contrary.  I stand by that opinion FWIW.  I made no judgement good bad or indifferent as to whether that need be a feature in her career.  In fact I applaud the fact that she by her very presence does down the pouting porn-star clone look that seems so prevalent these days.
 
But if somebody is using devices such as a meat dress to attract attention surely that is an invite for comment on their appearance, yes, no, maybe?

And conversely how many times have you yourself mistaken talent for an agreebly pretty face?... 

Likewise what is known as TV personality is very often devoid of the second descriptive and whilst I would agree they are on TV the fact they are branded as a 'personality' will naturally invite some judgement as to whether I think they are an idiot or not.

I guess if you are shy of being 'shot at' then you don't make yourself a target, if you yourself are calling 'open season' then  expect some buck shot up yer ass.

DerGeist


It has always been my belief that untalented people are not capable of making something truly terrible. They can make bad things, things you don't want to hear, but usually just make a mess.
                                                          
To make something truly jaw-droppingly terrible you need many extremely talented people and lots of money. 
 

I like that!  Might make a good bumper-sticker.

"And conversely how many times have you yourself mistaken talent for an agreebly pretty face?... "

Perhaps you are referring to previous conversations where I claimed to think Susan Boyle was a good singer?

:-)

:-)

Or maybe we're just speaking about the pretty starlets I like to *discover* on the YouTube?

:-)

:-)

Wood67


Gaga was a guest on Graham Norton's chat show last night.  The music is true pop, but I was very impressed.  She does sing, and gives the show everything.  But what really got me was that underneath it, she seems a pretty genuine person who clearly recognises the value of her fans and is prepared to give back to them - to the extent of inviting one of the audience members on to the stage for a hug.

All the best to her I say.

I haven't seen the interviews so I can't argue, but as I mentioned in my previous post, why did the "speaking-content" of the Monster-show have to be so silly. She surely wasn't able to give the impression of an intelligent person, or even smart. But anyway, I like good shows, and she can deliver. If she stays somewhat sober she'll create an entertainment imperium.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDv7YLiKJ_M

Wood67

Gaga was a guest on Graham Norton's chat show last night.
 
 

Went through BBC America's entire upcoming show schedule on my Dish service last night looking for a repeat of this installment.  Nothing scheduled (at least in the next ten days or so). 

I can't get behind her music at all. I like some other of the current pop-fizz crop (Ke$ha being one) but Gaga's songs seem so lazy. The cribs of other people's stuff is too blatant to be a reconstructionist and not celebrated enough to be an homage, and I don't think she brings anything new to the table that turns heads (see: Annie Lennox)

Which leaves her whole "I wear crazy costumes and do big crazy shows!" thing, which I don't find to be nearly as "controversial" as lots of other folks seem to. I mean c'mon, big hats? Penis shoes? Marc Bolan was dressing wackier than this broad.

But, props where they are do, she knows how to become a star. Like Madonna before her, it is not raw talent or even crazy stage presence that gets you there, it's workin' the bidness, and this lady has made some smart choices (or slept with the right people). Either way, she's huger than huge.