wnyc.org / 93.9fm / am 820

I think this debate missed a key component regarding "artists" and the current state of music. I think these so called "artists" are deemed so because they lack the skills to be referred to as musicians. Autotune is a tool used to fabricate singing capability in order to package an entertainment product. Lady Gaga is just the new shinny version of these products.

What the conversation failed to recognize is that Kurt Cobain, Neil Young and the other real musicians mentioned all have skills and talents. You really can't compare musicians with the new breed of "artists" under the topic of "authentic".

Is Lady Gaga a real artist or not? There’s a real simple way to find out. Replay this interview 5 years from now and see if anyone even remembers who she is. Test of time will tell if her BS is just more pop BS or just forgotten about stupid BS…. Either way I don’t think you have another Madonna here, she’s just not that clever.

Musicality seems to have taken a back seat here. If I recall, Queen, to take a glowing example, was all *about* "theatre", but they were all about musicality, e.g. chops, in a way GaGa decidedly isn't or doesn't care to transmit much, IMO.

Kraftwerk, as another example, was *entirely* about artifice, but they were also about taking new paths, even when they submitted to the dance floor.

Listening to GaGa, I'm hearing nothing particularly new (or interesting, for that matter). Of course, each generation has a tendency to think they invented a new groove. That likely will never change.

Yes, it's only rock n' roll. But today's piece didn't generate much light for me.

What, may I ask, is so fake about Lady Gaga? She's very candid about her (often sexual) exploits and most listeners certainly trust that she knows what she's singing about.

She's also very much aware of her fame, having stated in multiple interviews that it's a part of her mission, to embody the notion of living product first brought under the microscope by Andy Warhol and create "museum-worthy pop."

From record to persona, Lady Gaga is, at least, earnestly artficial and cannot be used as an example of a straight-forward, ingenuine popstar, most of which become cloudier and less relatable with fame, while she utilizes it as part of her work. A sentiment like "let's have some fun, this beat is sick, i wanna take a ride on your disco stick" reeks of pop mindlessness but when she sings it, you know she's also in on it.

Isn't ironic..as that tune (autotune) goes.

Two generations ago, a discussion of "authentic" (how's that for post modern diction, using quotation marks around "authentic") anyways, as I was saying, two generations ago, a discucssion of "authentic" would be center around the british blues guitarists and thier appropriation of african american delta blues.
Whereas, it was a discussion whether eric clapton's reality provided him the means to purvey blues music in a manner that would be in keeping with the way the delta blues men's used the music in dealing with their reality to create it in the first place.
Now, it seems, a discussion of lady gaga being authentic, is whether, her music relates to a reality anywhere outside her head and, of course, the millions of her fan's heads. The collective un-reality.

Isn't this type of music part of a larger trend in 'inauthentic' experiences - the video game lifestyle, so to speak. I am thinking of the 'Guitar Hero' obsession that seems to be blurring the meaning of actually playing an instrument for the current youth generation. Is the easy acceptance and lack of debate about authentic or inauthentic an extension of that?

It's ALL about marketing and putting coin in their pockets. For ALL of them. PLEASE, give me a break.

P.T. Barnum said there's a sucker born.... it seems to me that there are legions of suckers, dying to queue up and hand over their money to anyone that comes along with some novelty act, no matter how vaucaus (sp?)

I think art has to be changed up - because "fake" and "real" can become equally inauthentic with time and imitation -

The question of authenticity in a performer is only based on the type of performer and what they want to present. If their form is for pop music and entertainment value, they live their form by recreating it which is what they've signed up for. If in Lady Gaga's case, she's inventing a character, maybe she is if it helps her create. That's authentic.

It's difficult to validate what is real and what's not considering, they are up there doing it where others are not. What might be endearing for some might be a sense of artistic hardship where others are interested in exactly the opposite thing, a virgin entertainer without skill catapulted to the top.

It seems one of the most overlooked and interesting parts of music and performers it their ability to relate to somebody. I think the best performers and musicians are the ones that make you not only feel but also feel close enough to think "that could be me."

I don't see how GaGa saying she wants to ride someone's disco stick, or that music makes her horny is ANY less honest than Neil Young saying he still in love with someone on a harvest moon.

It's that there's sexuality attached-- blatantly...that's why people don't want to credit it as authentic or honest.

I think the lines between art and entertainment have been blurred to a point where it is impossible to have a conversation that differentiates the two relities... and it is having unfortunate results on the development of original content in our now hot-topic, sound-bite based culture.

i am a huge fan of the show but!!!

this interview is so broad..and the caller now, its not as easy as a good body and a stage performance(which is also, not as easy as it sounds..) everyone would be famous.
its a machine.

AND EVERYONE USES PROTOOLS!!!!! anyone who has ever been in a recording studio has used protools at this point.

these artists that are being compared are too broad. lady gaga is the exception not the rule. she had a well laid out plan, it was a concept. and dance music is a medium well accepted by the public. she is hands on.

black eyed peas are a record company product. they are marketed and produced to sell.

nirvana is also a product of a record company. selected out of a "scene" of people. blonde hair blue eyed angry and a mess. and marketable.

seriously, i have to laugh that you guys are focusing on the musical authenticity so much. gaga wouldn't be much if it wasn't for her presentation.

whether it's authentic or not...it's different!

whether its the black eyed peas changing there voices or lady gaga having crazy outfits and an alter-ego, they're making music just because someone is "real" doesn't make me want to dance and it doesn't necessarily make good music. I think that no matter the technology if they make good music then it doesn't matter! all the bands i love use synthesizers and my favorite band was formed because a giant snake came to the singer while he was on drugs in the middle of the desert and told him to make it but i think that makes them all the more interesting and its amazing.

If you look at popular music of past, it seems to be a pendulum going back and forth between authenticity and theatrical. Yes, we had Nirvana in the 90's, but they were preceeded by the "hair bands" of the 80's. You don't get much more theatrical than grown men with big hair and make up in spandex.

this concept of authenticity is a slippery slope.
bob dylan and tom waits are thought of perhaps as two of the most 'authentic' artists ever but both have created very complex personae.

When you compare Lady GaGa to a Brittany Spears...she seems much more in charge of her own destiny. This could be for any number of factors. But, to me, it is this:

While she's sexy, she's not "traditionally" pretty. I think that lends her an approachability, an accessibility, and an edge that the more bottled pop stars haven't been able to achieve, despite marketing to it.

The fact that there's a darkness to the construction of her songs just adds to the effect. Taken on their own, these songs are not extraordinary. Add a personality that doesn't quite fit... and they take on a new power.

We should also mention that "Where did you sleep last night" is a very old song, with many different renditions and titles - and Cobain's homage goes way back.

Wouldn't someone (Lady Gaga) as well versed in Postmodern theory also understand the ineffable nature of authenticity as described by Adorno? What's Ann Powers opinion of his influence on current pop culture?

I think part of Lady Gaga's charm is that she embodies the nontraditional. I think I want to think of her as always being fun, having parties, going crazy. I want to believe that she is what she embodies and who she really is isn't as important to me as the listener of her music.

The Madonna comparison is obvious, but this article compares Lady Gaga to Tori Amos. I believe the author's got a point -- if you've ever watched Gaga on the piano, you know she can play, and Tori's first album was also full of dated, forgettable pop tunes. :)

http://www.blackbookmag.com/article/how-lady-gaga-could-become-the-new-tori-amos/7965

I guess it's just the circle of life, but i find myself cringing when I hear Gaga singing 'I want to take a ride on your disco stick' while in the car with my 12 year old daughter...