Why do you think those weekend bands never make it?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jeremy Clarkson
  • Start date Start date

Why don't they become famous?

  • Their music doesn't appeal to a niche or group

    Votes: 3 25.0%

  • They don't promote themselves/try to get attention

    Votes: 3 25.0%

  • They are too old and unattractive

    Votes: 4 33.3%

  • Their name blows

    Votes: 2 16.7%
  • Total voters
    12
miroslav said:
That's why I bring up Gaga.

And I still say...if she dropped the freak show...NO ONE WOULD CARE ABOUT HER...just like before.
Click to expand...

she had the freakshow before, it wasnt an addition...struggle reading much?
 
miroslav said:
That's why I bring up Gaga.

And I still say...if she dropped the freak show...NO ONE WOULD CARE ABOUT HER...just like before.
Click to expand...

You brought up gaga to make the point that she's some manufactured shock-pop phony. That's incorrect. She was a freak and a weirdo way before anyone knew who she was. She even writes her own music as far as I know. It's awful sterile pop garbage, but she writes it herself and has a big say in the production process. She's nothing like the usual pop princess except that she has a bajillion dollars now.
 
miroslav said:
It's not about talent, it's about having a *promotable" image....and that's juts about anything that the sheep will follow. All of the really young audiences are mostly told what is "hip/cool", and that's where image sells the most.
.
Click to expand...

Been that way all along.

The Beatles were the first "boy band" with the bowl haircuts. The average age kid at Shea stadium was like 14.
Hendrix was all about flash and show in 67,
Alice Cooper, David Bowie, the list is a mile long.

You need a strong pop tune pushed on the radio and some kind of image to hype, whether its freaky or cute or geeky (ala Elvis Costello) anything.

After thats accomplished, is where the rubber meets the road and recently there's nobody you can take seriously.
 
kcearl said:
she had the freakshow before, it wasnt an addition...struggle reading much?
Click to expand...

I've seen her on TV with her real name, no makeup, no costumes...this was just when she started using the name Lady Gaga, and someone called her by her real name and she said she not going to be using it anymore....blah, blah, blah.

So...she wasn't a freak show of the same caliber as she is now.
No one really heard of her until she became the Lady Gaga freak show.....struggle reading much? ;)
 
Greg_L said:
You brought up gaga to make the point that she's some manufactured shock-pop phony.
Click to expand...

No...I brought up Gaga to make a point that until she became the Gaga freak show...no one heard of her.
True, she manufactured her own image...but THAT was my point, that without the manufactured freak show image she wasn't all that known or famous, though yeah, she was writing the same garbage as a virtual unknown. :)
 
miroslav said:
No...I brought up Gaga to make a point that until she became the Gaga freak show...no one heard of her.
True, she manufactured her own image...but THAT was my point, that without the manufactured freak show image she wasn't all that known or famous, though yeah, she was writing the same garbage as a virtual unknown. :)
Click to expand...

You don't understand....she was always the freakshow. Of course it's "manufactured", but it wasn't manufactured for her. She had her weirdness way before anyone knew who she was outside of NYC. I don't know what the circumstances were that got her noticed, but she's not really any different now except she has more money which allows more freakiness.

Having a some kind of visual accompaniment to the music isn't some new label-built phenomenon though. Even old fart blues and jazz retards incorporate a visual with the music. I can't think of any band or solo artist that puts no thought or effort into how they look on-stage. The difference, to me, is where did the look come from? Were they told to look and act a certain way, or is it natural? I doubt anyone told Iggy to roll around in broken glass and smear peanut butter all over himself, so he's legit. From what I know, lady gaga's image is legit too. My only problem with her is that she plays uninteresting sterile pop radio music. If she did punk or hard rock, with everything else being the same, I might be a fan.
 
Yes...she did the burlesque thing for awhile and certainly was never a straight-up singer, but the level of "freak" changed dramatically once she became "Lady Gaga", and that was purely a marketing decision ....mind you, she's only been doing a regular stage show since like 2006, so it's not like she's been a freak for 20 years and now finally broke out.

And the point isn't about when she became a freak...the point is that without the "freak" she had nothing much.
It was/is the "freak" that makes people "not able to look away" as you mentioned earlier...and that's all I'm talking about.
If she just sang as a straight-up singer....it would be easy for people to look away.

So then it's become mostly about image and hype.
Sure, image and hype has been used forever...but I think it's more the key ingredient these days than talent. I think in years past, artists had the talent, and then the record companies would hype them up to push them even harder (often screwing up the artist and their talent).
Now days, talent is almost an oh-by-the-way. As long as there is a way to market the image, the talent can be "masked".
 
miroslav said:
Yes...she did the burlesque thing for awhile and certianly was never a straight-up singer, but the level of "freak" changed dramatically once she became "Lady Gaga", and that was purely a marketing decision ....mind you, she's only been doing a regular stage show since like 2006, so it's not like she's been a freak for 20 years and now finally broke out.

And the point isn't about when she became a freak...the point is that without the "freak" she had nothing much.
It was/is the "freak" that makes people "not able to look away" as you mentioned earlier...and that's all I'm talking about.
Click to expand...

You're arguing just to argue. She wasn't able to freak out to the degree she does now because she didn't have the funds. Just like any other band with a stage show. Giant eggs and two dozen dancers cost money. KISS didn't blow up stadiums and fly over the crowd when they first started either.
 
I'm not *arguing* ...about anything. :D

Like I said...the point isn't when she became a freak or was she a little freak before and now a big freak.
The point is that her entire existence is based on the freak, and without it....yaaaaaaaaawn.
 
I agree, but so what? I don't listen to her garbage and you don't have to either. Tons of bands, and probably some that you like, exist because of an image. No one just stands there in their pajamas and plays live.
 
Look...we are on the same page about this.

You made a comment earlier about not being able to look away....and I'll did was bring up Gaga and some others who base their fame on just that.....not about their awesome singing/performance talent, but simply the shock or hype that makes people not able to look way.

So there's no argument between us...and I agree, none of us have to listen to Gaga. I don't even know why that point is being made. :)
 
I think you brought up gaga. I only mentioned some colored metal band and not looking away because it was hilarious. :laughings:
 
Right...I brought up Gaga.... because IMO, she was/is very much like the hilarious metal band you mentioned, who even though didn't impress you musically, you could not look away.
That was the connection to Gaga (and other hyped, image-only "artists & stars" we have today).

I wasn't looking to segue into a debate about when she became a freak or for how long she's been one. :D
 
Gaga isn't hilarious though, so it's not the same. I wouldn't watch or listen to her. A bunch of thugged out gangstas playing drop-tuned slop metal is funny. :D
 
I thought her meat/beef costume was pretty hilarious...standing there with a slab of meat on her head was funny! :laughings:
 
geesus miro...youd argue the colour of the sky if youd started of saying it was green

gaga is shite...but shes not manufactured


and not all pop is shite either...it means popular music, thats not its fault, thats its dumb label
 
I wasn't arguing...but I know you always like arguing that I was! :laughings:

Like I said...her talent is her freakishness (whenever it began :D )...that's it, IMHO.
She's a mediocre singer, nothing special as a songwriter, and she's not even good looking.

Not sure what you mean that she's not manufactured, though?
I think you would agree that most *image-focused* musicians are manufactured to a good degree.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top