4 responses
I know. The audio's screwed up from 5m to 10m. Frak! Will fix tomorrow.
I don't hate Lady Gaga. I respect her (team's) ability to craft perfect pop/dance tunes -- and I would argue that they are perfect. The songs have a good beat (yeah, it's 4/4 dance but it's been a good beat for a few decades), catchy ear-worm ready choruses, and they're edgy without pissing off parents. Perfect. She thinks she's the next Madonna but I didn't think we needed another one of those. I think your comparison to Marilyn Manson is more apt. Plus, she's one of the few artists still spending a buck on music videos, which I respect.

If you asked me what kind of music I hate it's an easy call, "guitar wankery." I really can't deal. Whatever you were playing in the outro? That totally counts. ;)

I don't hate her personally of course; she's a brilliant marketer and image shill. What bothers me most is the crux of why you respect her. She makes poppy tunes that are edgy without pissing off parents, yet her image is supposed to be somehow "dangerous". If her songs are edgy, I don't find them so. I find it disingenuous that she writes "pop" tunes which are meant to appeal to the masses while purporting to be some kind of "monster mistress". I understand WHY this happens, and why she WANTS to do it. I shouldn't expect better of artists on big labels.

I also don't like "guitar wankery", but I'm a big fan of well-done full band wankery. Give me 20 minutes of a band interplaying off each other over a blues guitar solo any day.

Thanks, as always, for reading and commenting!

You hit the nail on the head: you "shouldn't expect better of artists on big labels." I feel like Gaga is one of a dying breed of manufactured pop star. The British do this the most consistently - they have the built-in star-making engine of Top of the Pops. It is largely producer and label based and supported -- without that side, pop "monsters" like Gaga would not and could not exist. Manufactured authenticity? Look no further than the Billboard charts.