JPJ headliner Lady Gaga channels Madonna
Lady Gaga in her new video for "Alejandro."
STILL FROM VIDEO
If you have a thing for buff male dancers with Moe Howard haircuts, brooding half-naked Nazi SS-looking soldiers in fishnet stockings, nuns in red leather, simulated gang bangs and rough sex, coffins, frozen hearts on pillows, bras with the barrels of M-16 rifles protruding from them, impossibly pale white skin with red lips, industrial head ware, and don’t care for eyebrows, then Lada Gaga’s new video for her song “Alejandro” is for you.
Ms. Gaga will play JPJ September 8.
40 comments
Lady Gaga could easily be a man
Oh what a tempest in a teapot...LOL.
Ursoporcinicus you had a roll on the floor laughing so don't cry foul when I try to bust your chops. And hey I never said you were literally #2, but rather the negation of that proposition. And having extracted yourself from Arkansas is a credit to you so you're definitely ahead of your former self, although I bet you find it harder to find a liquor store when you come out of church.
Now wifey: Forgive me but I'm going to be smarmy again and say that most Hook readers know tongue in cheek when the see it; this is Charlottesville after all. And it doesn't take a course in C++ to surmise that != denotes something other than "equals" and derive rest of the intended meaning from context.
Or you could read the painfully obvious, albeit ad hominem riddled first bit (which really suffers more from straw man since I'm only attacking a moniker for fun and wouldn't treat anyone identified by a real name that way.
Or you could be a bit more exegetical and read into the passage the intention "Yes this kind of crass stage antics is a cultural nadir. But if you want to get upset about something think about what is being done where it really matters, eg, the influence upon our legislative processes by lobbyists."
Now could you tell me where I could get one'em exegesis jobs?
Isn't exegesis the guy who married Mary Magdelene and fathered the Merovingian dynasty?
Lady Gaga isn't as original as "Charlie."
PJ said: "I’m actually a former musician with many friends in the music industry and know it quite well, and what a disaster it is for most artists. But read an interview or two with Lady Gaga and you’ll understand that she is a very different story than Britney, Jessica Simpson, Rihanna et al. Whether you like what she does or not, I don’t think there’s any question she is in control of her own work and is a legitimate artist."
____
PJ, you're sadly misguided. I don't care whether you're a former musician and that you have friends in the industry. That doesn't make your insight somehow more legitimate. You're trying to connect the two to bolster your opinion. A) Lady Gaga's videos and photoshoots are riddled from top to bottom with the same mind control and "illuminati" (for lack of a better word) symbolism as noted by Fritz Springmeier and others. B) If you haven't done the research then you're in no place to refute it.
If people were to do the research then there'd be no way they could deny what's in her videos and photo spreads. It's there, plain as day, down to the letter. So until you've done the research then you're not in a place to be arguing.
I with you man, I need liquor after church too. Especially after those Arkansas sermons! Whew!
Manbearpig and I Want to Believe--I think you're on the same team.
IWTB, it wasn't at all clear that your initial post was ironic. I perform exegesis for a living, and there was a lot of tonal ambiguity there. MBP was simply taking your statement as a frank estimation of the ills of society. And while it is entirely absurd to believe Lady Gaga and lobbyists are public enemies #2 and #1, respectively, people have certainly voiced more absurd opinions, in all earnestness, on this very forum.
As for the absolute/relative position...it is generally in poor taste to speak in mathematical denotation on a general forum. Such behavior, rather than making you appear rhetorically sophisticated, tends to make you look like someone who cannot be bothered to phrase things in a comprehensible manner.
Unfortunately, many unclear writers believe that others' difficulty understanding their writing speaks to its sophistication, and their superior intelligence--but in fact it is entirely possible (and congenial) to present complex arguments clearly.
But MBP, the ad hominem attack was a bit smarmy as well, as you admit.
Now...play nice, boys. I don't want to have to come back here and scold you again.
Sorry ManBearPig, I may still have left you in the dark with the snarky comment and fear & loathing bit.
Let's be more definitional about this very subtle point in math logic:
relative position != absolute position
Haha that's funny because media has fed us this perceived image of what is prety. She's bold in a way that she isn't afraid to make the outfit look right but we think it's ugly. People she's trying to change the image of beauty. Dressing insane is awesome. She is a performer. I believe it's part of the job description. I want a show not a person In a normal dress or jeans who tries to personaly relate. Gaga gives a performance not just a singing concert. Pop music is good like all of them. It may be the media trash being fed to us in some opinion but it's not bad to follow it. It's not bad to be plastic or superficial as long as you're proud of it. Stop thinking being morally and ethically right is the only way in life. Some people want to just be art or barbies so let them. She may be an illuminati puppet or not, but we should be aware of that possiblility. Sexy can be portrayed differently. This is seen as sexy because it's so personal. It shows the deepest darkest feelings of her and that's also art. It may be gruesome but that's the beauty.
What do terry t-bagger and squirrels have in common? They both have nuts in their mouths.
Makes it hard to understand what they're saying.
I think because *Adam* (not Alex) Lambert's performance was on TV, where little kids can access it. Conservatives don't care much for gays kissing or simulating sex on network television (although they seem to have no issue with all the rampant violence we see on TV, that seems to be okay...) no matter what hour of the day it appears. (believe it or not I'm not taking sides, I'm just answering your question, but I had to point out the hypocracy of, "Gays are bad, violence and killing is okay." :D )
Lady Gaga is giving a concert, which is different. The only way little kids can access a concert is if their parents pay and bring them along, and in that case obviously the parents are giving their okay for the kids to see whatever it is Lady Gaga may do.
I think she's an incredible visual artist. No, she's not movie star beautiful- she's successful because she's actually (*gasp!*) creative, hardworking, smart, talented, and interesting to watch. Looks aren't everything, thank God. The music is not Mozart, it's sugar-coated pop, and some people are going to hate it, but she writes it herself, and it DOES take a special talent to write internationally popular, radio-friendly, catchy dance music. (Disagree? Do it, and enjoy the money.)
I'm actually a former musician with many friends in the music industry and know it quite well, and what a disaster it is for most artists. But read an interview or two with Lady Gaga and you'll understand that she is a very different story than Britney, Jessica Simpson, Rihanna et al. Whether you like what she does or not, I don't think there's any question she is in control of her own work and is a legitimate artist. (By "legitimate" I mean someone who is actually doing something original and artistic by design and recognized as such; it may or may not equal "good"- that's a matter of personal taste.) This interview is pretty good, actually: http://mediacation.wordpress.com/2010/06/02/the-entire-showstudio-lady-g...
After reading it, you might still hate her music and think she's full of crap, but you can't think she hasn't thought carefully about what she does.
PJ Harvey! Wow, thanks for checking in!
You all do realize "Lady" Gaga is a guy, right? Just wait. It's coming!!
@ I Want to Believe
So your top 2 ills of the world are:
1.) Lobbyist activity.
2.) Stage performance schtick.
ROTFLMFAO
Let me guess the next 2:
3.) Parking.
4.) The near US conversion to the metric system in the late 70s.
LOL @ fu. Well, then, I can at least perform exegesis with manbearpig. Delicious!
IWTB, I should warn you--exegesis doesn't pay. But it's more fun than working for the man. Usually.
FYI, it is still a crime in this state to perform exegesis with anyone other than your lawful spouse.
@manbearpig: Sorry you didn't get the exegesis concept in your literature classes.
I could say that you're somewhere behind Bozo the Clown in intelligence, but that still might leave thousands of Teabaggers, Humvee drivers, wrastlin fans, and the residents of Arkansas ahead of you. So that doesn't make you #2 in the literal sense.
Comprehensible to your feeble wit now?
I'm still really confused.
Also, what does != mean mathmatically?
@I Want to Believe: I offered a critical interpretation of your 4-line text (i.e. an exegesis).
You're "not arguing" with a rant about "stage performance schtick", which presumably means you agree with the rant to some degree. You then pull in "lobbyist activity" as "part of what’s wrong with society" way out from left field. How is "lobbyist activity" any part of Lady Gaga or her visit to Charlottesville?
Sorry for the ad hominem rub, but actually I really don't understand what you mean at all. How am I #2 in the literal sense? I guess all of us in the peanut gallery really are "stage performance schtick" on some stage and in some performance.
I understand that you have a thought process that probably makes sense, but your words don't seem to do the process justice. All I did was an exegesis with very limited information and the exigetical product, I thought, was pretty funny. You really rank "stage performance schtick" right after "lobbyist activity?" That's funny!
I also was a resident of Arkansas at one time--so when I lived there was I ahead of myself?
what about a relative position? or an absolute position? I could be in deep doo-doo...
And btw: What the hell's wrong with Moe Howard haircuts???
Seriously, what does != mean? Obviously, it means something other than = and I am curious to know.
I guess I'll just head back to Arkansas and expurgate myself from the ubiquitous snare of moral lassitude. But that would be a piquant, yet pliant and perhaps not nonplussed, extolment of a flibbertigibbet's specious but thought-to-be trenchant perspicacity of the zeitgeist.
BTW, liquor stores are closed on Sundays in both Arkansas and Virginia so there would be no difference in the difficulty of my finding a liquor store after church.
"!="
It's just code for "not equal to" in several programming languages.
Couldn't you have broken it to me gently about the liquor on Sunday thing? Well that settles it; I'm not going back even if I do have horny she-cousins there. I need liquor after church, especially since my pastor got a Moe Haircut.
What about hermeneutics? Do that pay?
Lady Gaga = Cher
I can easier find artistic brilliance in Nickleback.
Taylor Swift doesn't need the outrageous costumes and lavish sets because she's actually pretty.
Please explain to me why this is acceptable and yet Alex Lamberts performance was raked over the coles
Lady Gaga's music is awful. i wish that i understood why she is so popular.
Wow - even the shock value of her video does not overcome her ugliness. She is just the latest corporate music product - the new madonna.
Cville = Moderately smart people criticizing other who know how to make gobs of money and they cannot get their grubby hands on it.
so to be clear, making gobs of money, no matter how it's done, is the pinnacle of success, not to be critcized.
Some things that do make money shouldn't
and
some things that don't make money should.
I don't think the money is the issue.
Lady Gaga is the embodiment of the music industry's regard for the consuming. We'll swallow any garbage they cram down our throats if they can hype it enough.
I think that's more to the point of the criticism.
PJ said:
"she’s successful because she’s actually (*gasp!*) creative, hardworking, smart, talented, and interesting to watch...."
Methinks you have a lot to learn about the way the movie and music industries work. Nobody makes it or becomes successful in the industry without selling their soul - quite literally - and becoming a totally controlled puppet pawn of handlers/masters. This is the reason why those of mediocre talent (and sometimes none at all) will make it while others don't. The mistake that so many people make is to believe that these "artists" are: A) actually in control of themselves, and B) the ones "creating" their product. They may have some say in it, but once you've been accepted "in" decisions are made *for* you. And if you don't/won't conform to the agenda, then you don't get to stay on top. In extreme cases, like with those who might start blabbing about what they've witnessed and know, ie, going against signed agreements (with the devil you could say) they're just done away with. Oops, "drug overdose." Oops, "suicide." Oops, "car/plane accident."
Why do you think Lady Gaga is always so blitzed out/tranced out all the time? Why she seems to have no life force or real personality to speak of? Why are her videos riddled from top to bottom with the same mind control symbolisms and techniques as outlined in specific detail by Fritz Springmeier? Why do you think that one day she just decided to start referring to all her fans as "little monsters"? For the average person who doesn't have knowledge about mind controlled industry performers with multiple personalities and handlers, they don't notice these things and will parrot the same sort of thing PJ is saying here, speaking from a place of naive fandom. Please do the research though and become enlightened to what's really happening in this world. Do a Google search on all the industry performers (namely singers like Gaga) with their openly acknowledged multiple personas/personalities. Janet Jackson, Beyonce, Britney and more have all openly talked about it. Do a Google search on the mind control symbolisms so you can realize what it is you're actually looking at when you watch these videos. once you do you may look back at your innocent naive fandom post and cringe and do a face palm.
Lada Gaga incredible, creative, talented visual artist my behind. At best, she (her "designers" actually) does nothing more that bad third generation Leigh Bowery as channeled through Boy George and Alexander McQueen rip-offs.
Well this pretty much makes it clear that disgusting people can make videos and call them sexy, and people will buy them? Like that black lady did when stripping in front of kids on a public sidewalk while making her so called "Music (HAHAHA) Video". This thing called lady gaga is a joke but more more...a disease to put it bluntly.
"so to be clear, making gobs of money, no matter how it’s done, is the pinnacle of success, not to be critcized."
Let us not confuse criticism with jealousy. Her persona gets her in the headlines which in turn makes her money. Like it or not she is the Madonna for todays youth.
And to think, I didn't even go into depth about the Disney Kids, the ones who've basically been owned, controlled, and abused since childhood. :/ The public has no idea though, they just naively think these kids/teens are swell. You want to see a flagrant example of what goes on in the music industry look no further than Miley Cyrus' little sister and the lingerie they parade her around in, posing her on stripper poles with other little girls, etc. etc. Do a Google image search. Time to wake up, all you fans of Gaga. The music industry isn't what you think it is.
I won't argue the rant on stage performance schtick. It's all part of what's wrong with society; right behind lobbyist activity.
But Lady Gaga was a successful songwriter before becoming a pop star, and her songs are very well-crafted. Not my cuppa but give credit where it's due.