I'M AWESOME!! :ohshit:
- Thread starter The Witch
- Start date
- Tagged users None
her lyrics arent unique.
if i wrote a book that made no sense whatsoever, it wouldnt be called unique it would be called "shit". music is about music, not how people dress. she cant write for shit, that much is clear. its just the way of the music industry. if you spoonfeed it to enough people via radio and in night clubs theyll eventually think they like it.
if i wrote a book that made no sense whatsoever, it wouldnt be called unique it would be called "shit". music is about music, not how people dress. she cant write for shit, that much is clear. its just the way of the music industry. if you spoonfeed it to enough people via radio and in night clubs theyll eventually think they like it.
Although I do agree with a lot of that poast jim, music isn't always just about music, an artist can write about whatever they feel works in line with the melodies and sounds. Talking about what people dress is fine, but if it's poorly executed as I would say about Gaga, it's shit.
The writing isn't all about the lyrics mind, she does write some good melodies and scats into her music, but the rest is just shite.
The writing isn't all about the lyrics mind, she does write some good melodies and scats into her music, but the rest is just shite.
I agree about that. I love himStevie that is <33
i think youve got the wrong end of the stick again.
"music is about music" ie judge them based on their music (and lyrics) not how they dress.
if her music made a point (other than "its good to be famous for nothing") that warranted the way she dressed then i wouldnt have anything to say about her. but she isnt trying to make a statement about anything. she's just a slightly more educated jade goody.
its because of this ridiculous endeavour for equality. "we" want to make everyone think we're all the same and we can all be talented at the same things. we cant. this defeats the purpose of talent. why bother to find what you are passionate about (and potentially talented at) when all you have to do is dress differently to everyone else, or paint little red squares instead of big blue circles.
lets all be famous. apparently its very easy.
"music is about music" ie judge them based on their music (and lyrics) not how they dress.
if her music made a point (other than "its good to be famous for nothing") that warranted the way she dressed then i wouldnt have anything to say about her. but she isnt trying to make a statement about anything. she's just a slightly more educated jade goody.
its because of this ridiculous endeavour for equality. "we" want to make everyone think we're all the same and we can all be talented at the same things. we cant. this defeats the purpose of talent. why bother to find what you are passionate about (and potentially talented at) when all you have to do is dress differently to everyone else, or paint little red squares instead of big blue circles.
lets all be famous. apparently its very easy.
That's true. But she was a reasonable accomplished ghost writer for EMI before starting her own performing career so credit where it's due. I agree with you that she gives off that 'let's be famous for fame's sake' nonsense, but art is a reflection of our times and it speaks volumes of the society in which we live that fuels such art. Because at the end of the day, whether you enjoy it or not, sadly, you can't say it isn't art.
society doesnt fuel it. the music industry does. they decide what people listen to, ultimately. while we all claim to have minds of our own unfortunately its really not true of some people so theyre more susceptible to this shit. but it makes money, and the big music industry bosses love money. its (probably) far easier to find 50 talentless people than it is to find 1 truly talented person.
1. make the 50 talentless cunts superstars by spoonfeeding their dull shite to anyone who wont change the station/leave the club.
2. ???
3. profit.
having said that, even talented people become shite. maybe when art becomes a business, passion becomes a chore?
ps: i do believe some people genuinely enjoy it, i dont think theyre all mindless zombies, hungry for shit music. also regarding lady gaga, it wouldnt surprise me if her ghost writing was as bad as what she writes now.
1. make the 50 talentless cunts superstars by spoonfeeding their dull shite to anyone who wont change the station/leave the club.
2. ???
3. profit.
having said that, even talented people become shite. maybe when art becomes a business, passion becomes a chore?
ps: i do believe some people genuinely enjoy it, i dont think theyre all mindless zombies, hungry for shit music. also regarding lady gaga, it wouldnt surprise me if her ghost writing was as bad as what she writes now.
thanks for your valuable addition to our spam thread debate, sneaky.
But money makes the world go round. I agree it's the music industry which forces it upon the consumer, but the industry wouldn't be in that position if it wasn't for the consumer pumping it up. If Beyonce stops selling, she won't be pushed.
Sadly, where there is interest, people will find a way of making money. That then becomes the focal point of any successful venture.
You look at other art forms which have seen a mass influx of interest. Hollywood, Sport, Gaming, etc..
I would attribute all the dips in these art forms to money. It's the common denominator. Philosophies are forced to change from passionate, quirky ones to exploitational ones. I'm not saying this is always the case, but doing it for the love will rarely put a Lamborghini in your driveway.
You can barely sell music as it is with the advent of the internet and downloading to more refined methods of accessing music for free such as Spotify and YouTube.
EDIT - Also, finding talent is very difficult and not always as fruitful as it may seem. Susan Boyle for example has a very good voice, but she won't sell based on her looks and she doesn't have much character in her singing, meaning she can be replaced.
Michael Jackson for example, went from having an incredible child voice to refining it with mannerisms, ad libs and scats which made him not only instantly identifiable, but irreplaceable at the time.
It's about turning someone into a brand and making sure no one can imitate which will make money for the artist and put them in the driving seat. Otherwise, you only work to fill another's pockets.
Sadly, where there is interest, people will find a way of making money. That then becomes the focal point of any successful venture.
You look at other art forms which have seen a mass influx of interest. Hollywood, Sport, Gaming, etc..
I would attribute all the dips in these art forms to money. It's the common denominator. Philosophies are forced to change from passionate, quirky ones to exploitational ones. I'm not saying this is always the case, but doing it for the love will rarely put a Lamborghini in your driveway.
You can barely sell music as it is with the advent of the internet and downloading to more refined methods of accessing music for free such as Spotify and YouTube.
EDIT - Also, finding talent is very difficult and not always as fruitful as it may seem. Susan Boyle for example has a very good voice, but she won't sell based on her looks and she doesn't have much character in her singing, meaning she can be replaced.
Michael Jackson for example, went from having an incredible child voice to refining it with mannerisms, ad libs and scats which made him not only instantly identifiable, but irreplaceable at the time.
It's about turning someone into a brand and making sure no one can imitate which will make money for the artist and put them in the driving seat. Otherwise, you only work to fill another's pockets.
Last edited:
Well, she's not my fav--but at least she's unique with her strange lyrics and crap.Persoanlly I think Demi Lavato should be number one world wide.
You have got to be kidding me
nah, im just not gonna continue a debate about this in the spam section when you pull shitey arguments like that out of the hat.
generally, most of the people ii speak to (who i know download music) say they are perfectly willing to pay for the music to support the artist if they enjoy it. i dont think the record labels/the music industry in general has a lack of money, they just refuse to adapt to getting less due to technological advances. the last album i downloaded was hugh cornwell's hooverdam. it was free from his official website. he sold signed copies at his gig, but there was no obligation to pay for his album (unless you wanted a signed copy). artists can obviously accept and embrace the existence of this evil fiend we call the internet, and theyre the ones we should be supporting, so beyond that, who really gives a shit.
i think the above addresses this