What do you think of people like Beyonce, Shakira, Lady Gag,etc.?

Da Shins Kelly

People who claim to be powerful women who want to be seen as role models and inspirations to young girls everywhere. Something irks me about this. I don't think they are particularly good role models for young girls. They over-sexualise themselves to augment their talent, while in the same breath saying that they want to be inspirations to young girls everywhere. I dunno, I find it strange..

Jerrica

Da Shins Kelly wrote: »

They over-sexualise themselves to augment their talent, while in the same breath saying that they want to be inspirations to young girls everywhere. I dunno, I find it strange..

What kind of bugs me about this concept is that people are treating like it's some new phenomenon when it's been going on for decades.

Rita Hayworth, Bette Davis, Betty Grable, Marilyn Monroe, Liz Taylor, Raquel Welsh, Farrah Fawcett and more recently Madonna - all women who traded off their sexuality and pushed the boundaries of what was, at the time, considered "good taste", all reprimanded by the hand wringers for setting bad examples and yet with hindsight are viewed for what they really were - pioneers of their time, beautiful, confident and brave.

tbh I see 'artists' like Rhianna and Lady Gaga as attention seekers and not much else, and it's very hard to take them seriously. Are they really role models? I haven't got kids of my own so I can't comment on that but I really don't think we gives kids enough credit where this stuff is concerned.

Eve_Dublin

What I don't like personally is the agressiveness of their sexuality. It's really, really full on and as female, I think it smells of desperation. It's all so contrived and you know the record companies are pulling the strings. It seems it's got to the stage where they're trying to out do eachother on the sexiness front but in all honesty, it's all been done. There's nothing more they can do. Water off a ducks back . Besides from doing it for titillation purposes, I reckon they do it for the shock factor. Thing is, I've seen it all before. I don't find Lady Gaga in the least bit shocking or outrageous or daring or pushing any kinds of boundaries. Meat dress? There's a woman wearing a dress of meat on an Understones (All wrapped up) best of album that my brother had when I was a kid. Coming out of an egg at the Grammies? Two words: Spinal Tap.

I think they've set a different tone for what's considered sexy nowadays. It seems more and in-your-face is the way to go. I can imagine that puts huge pressure on young impressionable women. There wasn't that kind of aggressive sexuality in my day. Still, as Jerrica said, it's probably just handwringing on my part. I don't know.

I think both Beyonce and Rhianna are stunning and I quite like Rhianna's voice and some of her songs. They don't bother me day to day, I don't give them much thought but I don't get the adulation. Then again, I am 31...I'm kinda past it

However, read an article in Time about how Lady Gaga has given a voice to the young, gay community internationality and helped them with self-acceptance and pride in being themselves in the last issue (I can't find it). Was a very positive article and I was somewhat convinced that something good could come of her carry on.

baby and crumble

I agree with Jerrica, about not giving kids enough credit. If you ask a lot of young girls and young women who their role models are, yes a certain amount will say those names you mention, but a surprising amount will name people like their Mothers, aunts, historical figures they've learned about in school, etc. I know when I was growing up mine was Mary Robinson.

Also, what bothers me more, if we're getting into aggressive sexualisation, is t-shirts with 'pornstar' on it or whatever for little kids...

Logical Fallacy

Role Models are a complex issue. Depending on who you are and what you perceive as being your flaws and your goals then you will gravitate towards certain people as role models and ignore others.

The simple fact of pop music is that it's about selling a fake dream to people. You can succeed like i have succeeded, i understand you while no one else does, if we were to meet then i might just love you etc.

It's the kind of false crap that usually wears off after about the age of 17 and from that point on people tend to be in to the music they like because they actually like it. It pretty evident in the way a lot of people will no longer listen to the music they listened to religiously in their teen years...sometimes only going back to it for nostalgia as they flick around Youtube and sometimes never listening to it again at all.

I'd definitely agree with Jerrica that we should have a lot more faith in kids with regards this type of thing. If someone adopts as a bad role model as a kid...who cares? They are a kid, they need to make mistakes, big and small, and then use those mistakes to mature and eventually become adults.

Any star today, especially in music, is little more than the point of the spear, behind them are writers, producers, stylists, photographers, photoshoppers, choreographers, agents, managers and PR guru's and a 100 other people who are all putting their skills towards the same objective...developing the image and sales strength of said "talent".

Eventually most people grow up and move beyond the idealised bull**** and all the crappy messages and just like a tune for the melody or the beat, the people they see as role models change as their world view changes.

If pop stars are role models, they are transient ones at best.

metrovelvet

I think its sad that fame itself has become the ambition and not for anything you achieve yourself. I'd say more young girls want to be fooball wives and models than they do astronauts or world leaders.

The hard thing to discern though is this because what is being presented to them is that those occuaptions are what is available to women and that to enter a man's world is to be an imposter?

r3nu4l

There is a line of feminist thought that says that men are afraid of highly sexually charged women and that women who are overtly sexual are therefore showing their dominance over men or at least displaying that they are in control of their sexuality.

I'm sure some of these 'role models' would trot out that line if asked about it.

I think the real truth is somewhere closer to the old adage 'sex sells'.

What annoys me most about these people is that they are clever marketeers They know they have talent but that talent isn't enough. However, they take the easy marketing option which is to sex-it-up.

I admire Pink because not only is she an excellent live performer (so my wife tells me having seen her in concert) but she markets herself as the 'anti-bimbo', just a talented performer who is strong and intelligent. That to my mind is a role model.

Logical Fallacy

r3nu4l wrote: »

There is a line of feminist thought that says that men are afraid of highly sexually charged women and that women who are overtly sexual are therefore showing their dominance over men or at least displaying that they are in control of their sexuality.

Meh, just another generalisation that doesn't hold up to inspection to be honest, while some men might not like highly sexually charged women there are plenty of blokes who will.

This is kind of like the "people who hate gays are obviously gay themselves and just in denial" line that gets put out there a lot. It doesn't make any sense, or have any backing....it's just designed as a mild insult towards people it's morally okay to dislike.

Eve_Dublin

metrovelvet wrote: »

I think its sad that fame itself has become the ambition and not for anything you achieve yourself. I'd say more young girls want to be fooball wives and models than they do astronauts or world leaders.

The hard thing to discern though is this because what is being presented to them is that those occuaptions are what is available to women and that to enter a man's world is to be an imposter?

But I wanted to be a popstar at that age too. i wanted to be Kylie Minogue. I also wanted to be a shopkeeper so I could eat all the sweets. Then I wanted to be a cowgirl because I went through a horse stage. As I got older, I wanted to be a vet because I loved animals, then a photo journalist...as I got older, my ambitions became more realistic and more ambitious. I think it's very normal for a little girl to want to be famous. That's how it's always been...there's always been popstars, at least in the last century but we grow out of it. I really doubt there's going to be an epidemic of women wanting to be WAGS in the near future. I think this is blown out of proportion actually.

Edit: We have more women in intellectual positions of power than ever before. I think they far outnumber the Cheryl Cole's of this world.

LeeHoffmann

I really doubt there's going to be an epidemic of women wanting to be WAGS in the near future. I think this is blown out of proportion actually.
Edit: We have more women in intellectual positions of power than ever before.

I agree with this. Having role models seems very important to us maybe because we think the youth need a good example to follow and all that lark, but I never had a role model as such. I remember I admired Linford Christie when I was very young. The only woman I was aware of when I was a kid who had a position of power or respect or who was seen to be in any way admirable by those around me was Mary Robinson. I definitely think it negatively affected how I viewed women growing up. However, I would hope that there are far more high-profile admirable women these days for kids to look up to. I don't think they're all going to aspire to be WAG's but I do find it disconcerting that some do

Da Shins Kelly

Don't get me wrong, I'm not usually one of those 'someone think of the children!' types. I grew up through Britney Spears' years of being an overtly sexual 16 year old, or whatever, and I haven't been scarred by it (I used to love her, still kinda do! ) and I agree that we should give kids more credit. I think people think that children are mindless and will just do whatever their favourite popstar does. However, I just wonder about how it makes people feel as they get into their teenage years. Like, when I was a teenager I was quite insecure, and I do think that a lot of these popstars dress up the fact that they are over-sexed and overly competitive (trying to out-do each other, etc.) with the old 'Oh, I'm a powerful woman, and an inspiration to teenage girls everywhere, look where I came from and look at what I've achieved!'. I think I could have a lot more respect for the likes of Rihanna and Gaga if they'd just be honest about what it is they're doing and stop marketing themselves as amazing role models and inspirations, and instead just stood up and said, 'Maybe I'm not the best role model in the world, but I'm a good popstar and that's how I want to be known.' At the moment I think they're just selling an unrealistic and unattainable image of beauty and sexiness to teenage girls under the guise of being role models. Their messages have nothing to do with being inspirational and more to do with being famous and, like someone said already, out doing each other. For example, Gaga clearly just wants to be an icon and remembered in future generations, and I really think that she could care less about how that happens, so long as it does.

r3nu4l

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

Meh, just another generalisation that doesn't hold up to inspection to be honest

That's exactly what I was hinting at when I said they would 'trot' it out. It's a falsehood that is destroyed by (ironically, given your username) logical thinking. It is a line of thought that still exists though and I'm sure it would be used as a defence by at least some 'role models' if they were asked about it.

Da Shins Kelly

r3nu4l wrote: »

That's exactly what I was hinting at when I said they would 'trot' it out. It's a falsehood that is destroyed by (ironically, given your username) logical thinking. It is a line of thought that still exists though and I'm sure it would be used as a defence by at least some 'role models' if they were asked about it.

Interstingly, I saw an interview with Jenna Jameson on Fox News with the lovely man that is Bill O' Reilly (it's on Youtube, if you want to see), and she expressed exactly this sentiment that you described - she considers herself a powerful woman because she's taking control of her sexuality and why should men be allowed to flaunt their sexuality and women can't? I don't think it's a great argument, and it's a complete cliche, but aside from that she didn't come off too badly. It was an interesting interview, and she came across as a pretty intelligent woman. When asked about the possibility of young girls seeing what she does and thinking that it's a good idea to follow suit, she made it clear that she wasn't putting herself out there as a role model (how could she??) and emphasised the responsibility of parents when it comes to their children, and what kind of people and things their children are exposed to. I thought that was a fair point.

LeeHoffmann

Jenna Jameson

Who?

Logical Fallacy

LeeHoffmann wrote: »

Who?

Former porn star.

r3nu4l

Fair play to her in many respects. I do think that many parents today seem to want to abdicate from their responsibilities in teaching their children what is appropriate and not appropriate or guiding their children towards understanding what they see and the implications surrounding that. These parents instead seem to prefer at least some forms of censorship or restriction rather than having to teach their children.

As a parent myself while I don't want my daughter exposed to hardcore porn while watching Saturday afternoon TV I do think that if and when she sees the likes of Beyonce etc on TV that I will be able to provide some perspective for her (hopefully without being too judgemental or lecturing ). She's too young yet to know who Beyonce is but I'm sure there'll be plenty of Beyonce's when she is old enough to see and understand.

Bottle_of_Smoke

I think gaga is alright because there's a hell of a lot more to her than her skimpy clothes. You get the distinct impression she has a personality.

I think stuff like girls aloud/the saturdays/pussy cat dolls etc are a really bad influence on kids. just look like harems of prostitutes with no individuality

dazey

Had to laugh at Beyonce's new song 'girls - run the world' or whatever it is called. In it she says let's hear it for the college grads, I mean what??

You are doing this faux army imagery in your video with really hyper-sexualised outfits projecting the image that power for women = getting men to do whatever they want with their sexual prowess and now you commend a woman's brain?? Like without the help of a push-up bra or a thigh revealing skirt. It is like these women only represent power as sex starting from Madonna and champion it as a new wave of feminism

That is like men showing their worth and power by wearing tighty white-ys ...it just doesn't role with me I'm afraid!!

Dudess

Hate the way they have a "Men are bastards and only want women for sex" stance... while dressing uber sexily...

Lia_lia

I don't know. Doesn't really bother me. There are much worse things out there that kids can be subjected to.

Do young girls really see likes of Lady Gaga as a ...role model? Really? Like do they really look at these music videos and think "aw yeah I want a push bra" I can never remember looking up to popstars.

irishh_bob

r3nu4l wrote: »

There is a line of feminist thought that says that men are afraid of highly sexually charged women and that women who are overtly sexual are therefore showing their dominance over men or at least displaying that they are in control of their sexuality.

I'm sure some of these 'role models' would trot out that line if asked about it.

I think the real truth is somewhere closer to the old adage 'sex sells'.

What annoys me most about these people is that they are clever marketeers They know they have talent but that talent isn't enough. However, they take the easy marketing option which is to sex-it-up.

I admire Pink because not only is she an excellent live performer (so my wife tells me having seen her in concert) but she markets herself as the 'anti-bimbo', just a talented performer who is strong and intelligent. That to my mind is a role model.

a woman must be reasonabley pretty in order to be a bimbo , pink is a munter

liah

Do that many kids actually see them as role models? I don't remember kids taking it that seriously back then. I'd say a fair amount of this role model stuff is projection (from the artist or audience). And kids grow out of it if it isn't.

We really don't give children enough credit or responsibility or room to grow on their own with all this constant "think of the children" bs.

Give 'em a chance to prove themselves, like. They'll surprise ya.

Dudess

irishh_bob wrote: »

pink is a munter

No she isn't. She's average to pretty. Hate that sh1t of "I think someone's unattractive, therefore they're a munter"...

Ickle Magoo

irishh_bob wrote: »

a woman must be reasonabley pretty in order to be a bimbo , pink is a munter

You are sailing perilously close to a ban from this forum - up the quality of your posting or have your posting rights removed. Referring to a woman as a "munter" adds nothing to the discussion and is not acceptable in this forum.

Companero

increased hilarity over the past 10 years or so. One of the biggest cornerstones of the original feminist movement was a desire for women to be seen as human beings independent of their bodies, in the way that men are, i.e, you are a person first and a body second.

What is truly amazing is the way that this idea has been turned completely on it's head and some genius (probably a male one) , came up with the idea that there was something empowering about writhing around in your undergarments and being seen as a sex object. And we now have a situation where women have never in history (even in the most powerfully patriarchal societies) been as enslaved by the ideals of youth and physical perfection as they are now.

I am old enough to remember when women looked up to people Like Kim Deal, P.J Harvey and Courtney Love, not brainless sex kittens like Rihanna and The Pussycat Dolls - and those women were sexy, but not, crucially, because of how they looked, but because of how they were: Kim Deal had a look on her face that said: "You , little boy, could not possibly handle me, because I am cooler than you will ever be." now THAT was female sexual empowerment. Hot chicks in underwear? Just Marilyn Monroe in a different decade.

There is nothing 'revolutionary' or empowering about Lady GaGa: Hot early-20s blonde chick dances around in very few clothes and sings songs about sex. Well I have to say that as a male I feel deeply, um, threatened by that, and I can feel the patriarchal system quaking in it's boots. And personally, yes I do think that kids take it seriously. I hear them on buses and trains taking, and the utter emptiness of them scares me.

krudler

dazey wrote: »

Had to laugh at Beyonce's new song 'girls - run the world' or whatever it is called. In it she says let's hear it for the college grads, I mean what??

You are doing this faux army imagery in your video with really hyper-sexualised outfits projecting the image that power for women = getting men to do whatever they want with their sexual prowess and now you commend a woman's brain?? Like without the help of a push-up bra or a thigh revealing skirt. It is like these women only represent power as sex starting from Madonna and champion it as a new wave of feminism

That is like men showing their worth and power by wearing tighty white-ys ...it just doesn't role with me I'm afraid!!

Her "All The Single Ladies" song gives me brain meltage when I hear it. You can be single and happy without having to announce it in a "raaawr I'm so HAWT and single, come get me boys!" way.

neveah

Here is an interesting article comparing Adele to the likes of Rihanna etc:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1392380/Adele-record-boss-slams-rise-faux-porn-music-shocked-Rihanna-type-bondage-themes.html

'faux porn' is a good way of describing the antics of some pop stars, Rihanna and Britney at the Billboard awards was just :rolleyes: ,two girls kissing on stage has been done before, Britney has already been there and bought the t-shirt. Goes to show how 'normal' this kind of display has become considering their 'kiss' was hardly reported in comparison to the uproar a few years ago at the MTV awards. They were probably looking for publicity, hoping they would be the most talked about performance from this years awards but the thing is most people have become de-sensitised to all this in your face sexuality from pop stars, it's the norm nowadays.

I do think it has an influence on young girls/teenagers, everything is so sexualised now that they probably feel a lot of pressure not only to be sexually active with boys but to be domineering sex goddesses in bed as well!!

I actually love Rihanna's music I went to her concert last year and her live show was brilliant but it was very very raunchy as well and there were loads of kids there. When she was singing one of her songs 'So Hard' she stood with her legs open and put the microphone down to her crotch to imitate an erect penis. I did think at the time it was a bit much considering the age of some of the audience but then again maybe that's a debate about whether parents should take their kids to see these types of shows. I absolutely loved the concert, she really had the crowd going, the thing is I can imagine how easy it is for a young girl to look up to her and want to imitate her and from that point of view I wouldn't want my young child to be exposed to her too much, but unfortunately in today's society it's so hard for kids to remain innocent given all these half-naked, gyrating, S&M loving pop stars that they are shoved in their face from all angles!

Silverfish

krudler wrote: »

Her "All The Single Ladies" song gives me brain meltage when I hear it. You can be single and happy without having to announce it in a "raaawr I'm so HAWT and single, come get me boys!" way.

I didn't get that from that song at all


I like Lady Gaga, not a huge fan of her music, but I've seen videos of her playing piano live and singing, and she's definitely talented.
Also she's Polaroid's creative director :pac:


Beyonce the same - not a fan of her music but she comes across as a nice person. Nearly everyone used their sexual appeal to augment their music - even the Beatles.

kerash

GAGA - dressed up idiot, not a role model for anyone.

kerash

Companero wrote: »

I am old enough to remember when women looked up to people Like Kim Deal, P.J Harvey and Courtney Love,

Who in their right mind would look up to her?:eek:

I preferred Shakira's look back in the 1990s before she went blonde. But that's just my preference. They say she has an IQ in the 140s as well, so I guess she knew what she was doing.

Standman

I've always found it kind of strange the way these kind of artists behave. I remember when the Christina Aguilera came out with her first big song, she was quite conservatively dressed and had a girl next door kind of vibe going which is a complete contrast to that "dirty" song she did later on. Exact same thing with Nelly Furtado. Seems there is a formula going around that if you want to be a top female r&b/pop singer, you've got to completely sexualise yourself. Considering men are not the target audience for these artists, why does this happen? Dropping clothes and dancing sexily appeals to men but it's not men that buy the records presumably.

Logical Fallacy

Standman wrote: »

I've always found it kind of strange the way these kind of artists behave. I remember when the Christina Aguilera came out with her first big song, she was quite conservatively dressed and had a girl next door kind of vibe going which is a complete contrast to that "dirty" song she did later on. Exact same thing with Nelly Furtado. Seems there is a formula going around that if you want to be a top female r&b/pop singer, you've got to completely sexualise yourself. Considering men are not the target audience for these artists, why does this happen? Dropping clothes and dancing sexily appeals to men but it's not men that buy the records presumably.

Mostly when they start out in their careers they tend to be quite young. 16-17 or sometimes younger. As such for a very brief period they are actually appealing to a demographic that is the same age as them. Even the sleazy pop industry feels weird about overly sexing up a 16 year old girl so by the time the singer in question reaches 18 you have a double effect.

On one hand, the label and management want to sex things up because apparently, "sex sells". On the other hand you have the artist themselves who normally wants to shed the childish image they previously had, as they feel all adult and grown up now...and apparently you do that by taking your clothes off and singing songs about ****ing instead of about love.

There is normally a vast removal between who the artist wants to appeal to and the main demographic who actually buys their music. It's like boy bands like Boyzone, Westlife, N Sync, Backstreet Boys etc...they want to sing songs about love and physical intimacy because those are the subjects that tend to be covered in dime a dozen, high selling pop numbers...but they don't want to admit that at most of their gigs they are singing their songs to a crowd that is majority made up of girls that they would actually be arrested for having sex with.

It's the difference between the actual appeal and the fantasy appeal that artists need to feel they have to maintain their own credibility when they look in the mirror.

You've also got to factor in that, once again because you have these singers starting out so young, becoming so famous so fast and being an object of the media's attentions that all their youthful rebellions will be played out very much in public. A young girl who feels like rebelling might just end up sneaking out to a disco in normally clothes and changing into a short skirt and a lose top and high heels at her friends house...when a pop star does similar it's seen by millions of people because it's done in the form of a music video.

liah

Standman wrote: »

I've always found it kind of strange the way these kind of artists behave. I remember when the Christina Aguilera came out with her first big song, she was quite conservatively dressed and had a girl next door kind of vibe going which is a complete contrast to that "dirty" song she did later on. Exact same thing with Nelly Furtado. Seems there is a formula going around that if you want to be a top female r&b/pop singer, you've got to completely sexualise yourself. Considering men are not the target audience for these artists, why does this happen? Dropping clothes and dancing sexily appeals to men but it's not men that buy the records presumably.

Advertising, quite simply. Men may not listen to the music, but they'll sure as hell talk about how bangable the singer is with their friends. Word spreads, records are sold, etc.

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

Even the sleazy pop industry feels weird about overly sexing up a 16 year old girl

Britney Spears and Miley Cyrus would disagree with that.. :pac:

Logical Fallacy

liah wrote: »

Britney Spears and Miley Cyrus would disagree with that.. :pac:

I don't know about Britney, i normally manage to do a reasonable job of dodging the over exposure to things i hate but at times stuff gets through....but i don't really remember her being overtly sexual about things until a couple of years after she broke, before that i seem to remember it being all kind of "cute" or something.

Miley i have absolutely no exposure to beyond an episode of Family Guy so i can't really comment. lol

Edit : "Hit Me Baby One More Time"....according to the all seeing eye that is Wiki, came out when Britters was 18....so my note on the sleazy music industry is somewhat intact.

liah

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

I don't know about Britney, i normally manage to do a reasonable job of dodging the over exposure to things i hate but at times stuff gets through....but i don't really remember her being overtly sexual about things until a couple of years after she broke, before that i seem to remember it being all kind of "cute" or something.

Miley i have absolutely no exposure to beyond an episode of Family Guy so i can't really comment. lol

Edit : "Hit Me Baby One More Time"....according to the all seeing eye that is Wiki, came out when Britters was 18....so my note on the sleazy music industry is somewhat intact.

Wasn't that video of her in the school with the schoolgirl outfit on from when she was 16? Don't remember the song title but I remember the controversy alright.

Logical Fallacy

liah wrote: »

Wasn't that video of her in the school with the schoolgirl outfit on from when she was 16? Don't remember the song title but I remember the controversy alright.

Hmmmm.....my only options here are to Google stuff and i am not sure i am able for that type of lark...but...for the sake of the discussion *gets his Google Glasses on, speakers off* Yeah...that was Hit Me Baby and she was 18 at the time (from what i can find online) so it's more like they were dressing her "sexy younger" than sexing up a kid.

Funnily enough, looking at the video, all the back up dancers are bare legged and she has knee length socs on...kind of kills any possible sexy right there tbh.:pac:

cealabeala

I think many of the older posters are looking at Lady Gaga in a pretty one dimensional way.

There's no doubt she's derivative, and is often described as my generations Madonna. But there is no way you can include her in the same category as Beyonce or Rihanna. Lady Gaga writes her own songs. And maybe they aren't mindblowing musical masterpieces but they are good pop. She plays piano, and has been performing and writing since she was in her early teens. She came from a wealthy family but she still started at the bottom of the music industry. And she even wrote songs for other artists. She has got musical talent.
But there is no doubt that what makes Gaga special are her music videos, her stage performances and her clothes. Maybe you look at them as weird for the sake of being weird, or attention seeking, or pretentious. And maybe they are all of those things. But what they also are is inspiring and beautiful. The amazing talent and work and effort that goes into them is evident. It's obviously not just Gaga who constructs them, but a whole team of pretty amazing artists and designers who are indisputably great at what they do.

And maybe you haven't noticed, but there are some very interesting themes running through Gaga's music videos. I've spotted commentary on Consumerism, Feminism, Domestic Abuse, Homosexuality, Media... and personally, I think all the "skimpy outfits" could be a comment on something in themselves.

Because Lady Gaga is not competing in the "most sexy" competition being played among female pop icons. She's something else, in her own category. You would not hear teenage boys including her in their top five singers they'd like to get it on with. She's not there because she has "the overall package", like voice, body, looks. She's there on talent, and innovation. Look at Rihanna's early videos, and then look at SnM. She went from being a run of the mill, cookie cutter pretty popstar, to a Gaga knock off trying too hard. Theres no doubt that the Record Company pushed her to do that. But Gaga doesn't have that "normal" past. She was "born this way".

Anyway, the main point I wanted to make is that I think Gaga is a great role model for intelligent, artistic young people. Many of those who look up to her do so because they identify with her weirdness. And if she inspires them to look on that as something to celebrate, and to keep being creative then I think a bit of flesh on show doesn't counteract that.

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

The simple fact of pop music is that it's about selling a fake dream to people. You can succeed like i have succeeded, i understand you while no one else does, if we were to meet then i might just love you etc.

You say this like it's a bad thing, and in some cases maybe it is. But with Lady Gaga, who has quite a unique relationship with her fanbase, maybe it is a positive thing that they feel less alone, and like less of a **** up, and that they CAN succeed at what they excel at and love. Maybe they won't be supernova stars, but theres nothing wrong with having a dream and trying to make it happen.

parker kent

liah wrote: »

Wasn't that video of her in the school with the schoolgirl outfit on from when she was 16? Don't remember the song title but I remember the controversy alright.

She was definitely 16 when "Baby One More Time" Came out. I remembered the controversy at the time and just checked online. She was born on December 2nd 1981 and that video was made in August 1998. So she turned 17 a few months later.

Vinta81

I always remember reading a Britney interview in some magazine a few years ago and she said it "wasn't her job to parent America" that she doesn't go out dressed like she does in videos etc..And she's too right, I like the majority of the female "popstars" from an early age and I didn't grow up to walking around Cork City in a bra and snake hanging off my body. It's just a part of an act, it's performing at the end of the day.

If some people want to get their knickers in a twist because they think kids are going to end up as some fcuked up slutty so and so, then I really don't think you give kids/teenagers enough credit these days.

And as for Lady Gaga, absolute nonsense. She is incredibly cunning, she knows exactly what to say to get people into the palm of her hand. I used to think she was brilliant but lately she just seems to believe her own hype, she's not doing anything different to what Madonna, and the Britneys/Christinas did a few years back.

old hippy

Millie Jackson was there long before them all

Logical Fallacy

cealabeala wrote: »

You say this like it's a bad thing, and in some cases maybe it is. But with Lady Gaga, who has quite a unique relationship with her fanbase, maybe it is a positive thing that they feel less alone, and like less of a **** up, and that they CAN succeed at what they excel at and love. Maybe they won't be supernova stars, but theres nothing wrong with having a dream and trying to make it happen.

This is the GaGa myth that makes me smile the most. How is her relationship with her fanbase unique?

Does she call around to their house and have tea with them? Does she holiday with them? Or does she use social media and the internet to infer a closeness with them by simply saying she is close to them?

If you go to a Lady GaGa gig she will never meet you, or distinguish you from the crowd. You will always be at least 20 feet away from her and it will the showmanship and quality of the stageshow that will make you feel close to her.

It's actually incredible dismissive of how all other people who like other music and artists feel about there favourite acts. "Well, Gaga has a SPECIAL relationship with her fans"...indeed.

There is nothing special, nothing new, nothing unique about who she is or what she does...people just believe it because that is what she says. It's the same crap with a bigger budget because it is resulting in higher returns.

Even then, for all her pomp and image and hype....she has been trounced in sales by an artist from England who will stand there with her mic and just sing.

careca11

sorry , but its people like
Mother teresa
Mary Robinson
JOhn Hume
Niall Melon
Adi Roche
or your parent's/grand parent's
that are the role model's we should aspire ourselves to , (they make a difference to people's lives )


not popstars, footballers etc

liah

I'm not so sure Mother Theresa is one people should aspire to be like, tbh.

metrovelvet

Lady gaga is totally derivative. But then so are all the others. Lady Gaga though, tries to present herself as something progressive and groundbreaking, which she isnt at all.

However, she can perform so I'll give her that much.

Very interesting commentary from Camille Paglia.

http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/public/magazine/article389697.ece

Lady Gaga is the first major star of the digital age. Since her rise, she has remained almost continually on tour. Hence, she is a moving target who has escaped serious scrutiny. She is often pictured tottering down the street in some outlandish get-up and fright wig. Most of what she has said about herself has not been independently corroborated… “Music is a lie”, “Art is a lie”, “Gaga is a lie”, and “I profusely lie” have been among Gaga’s pronouncements, but her fans swallow her line whole…

She constantly touts her symbiotic bond with her fans, the “little monsters”, who she inspires to “love themselves” as if they are damaged goods in need of her therapeutic repair. “You’re a superstar, no matter who you are!” She earnestly tells them from the stage, while their cash ends up in her pockets. She told a magazine with messianic fervour: “I love my fans more than any artist who has ever lived.” She claims to have changed the lives of the disabled, thrilled by her jewelled parody crutches in the Paparazzi video.

Although she presents herself as the clarion voice of all the freaks and misfits of life, there is little evidence that she ever was one. Her upbringing was comfortable and eventually affluent, and she attended the same upscale Manhattan private school as Paris and Nicky Hilton. There is a monumental disconnect between Gaga’s melodramatic self-portrayal as a lonely, rebellious, marginalised artist and the powerful corporate apparatus that bankrolled her makeover and has steamrollered her songs into heavy rotation on radio stations everywhere.

For two years, I have spent an irritating amount of time trying to avoid Gaga’s catchy but depthless hits Lady Gaga is a manufactured personality, and a recent one at that. Photos of Stefani Germanotta just a few years ago show a bubbly brunette with a glowing complexion. The Gaga of world fame, however, with her heavy wigs and giant sunglasses (rudely worn during interviews) looks either simperingly doll-like or ghoulish, without a trace of spontaneity. Every public appearance, even absurdly at airports where most celebrities want to pass incognito, has been lavishly scripted in advance with a flamboyant outfit and bizarre hairdo assembled by an invisible company of elves.

Furthermore, despite showing acres of pallid flesh in the fetish-bondage garb of urban prostitution, Gaga isn’t sexy at all – she’s like a gangly marionette or plasticised android. How could a figure so calculated and artificial, so clinical and strangely antiseptic, so stripped of genuine eroticism have become the icon of her generation? Can it be that Gaga represents the exhausted end of the sexual revolution? In Gaga’s manic miming of persona after persona, over-conceptualised and claustrophobic, we may have reached the limit of an era…

Wibbs

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

This is the GaGa myth that makes me smile the most. How is her relationship with her fanbase unique?

+1. She's got pretty much the same fanbase (just younger) and relationship with of Madonna before her. With added twitterbook. She's aimed at the loudly odd as one of them, but her image and past is as manufactured as any boyband. She most certainly was not "born this way". And I can think of enough blokes that would have no problem lusting after her. She has one hell of a figure for a start.

There is nothing special, nothing new, nothing unique about who she is or what she does...people just believe it because that is what she says. It's the same crap with a bigger budget because it is resulting in higher returns.

Bingo. She can sing and play piano and with the best producers can cobble together catchy hooks masquerading as songs and wrap it up in a very well polished package, but David Bowie she is not.

Vinta81

Lady Gaga came out during the social media boom, she capitalized on that that's all.

krudler

careca11 wrote: »

sorry , but its people like
Mother teresa

a woman who believed poverty and suffering was a good thing with draconian views on womens rights? really?

kerash

cealabeala wrote: »

Anyway, the main point I wanted to make is that I think Gaga is a great role model for intelligent, artistic young people people who don't appreciate good music, preferring hyper-produced, homogenized, imitative, airbrushed, drivel. Many of those who look up to her do so because they identify with her weirdness. And if she inspires them to look on that as something to celebrate, and to keep being creative then I think a bit of flesh on show doesn't counteract that.



You say this like it's a bad thing, and in some cases maybe it is. But with Lady Gaga, who has quite a unique relationship with her fanbase, maybe it is a positive thing that they feel less alone, and like less of a **** up, and that they CAN succeed at what they excel at and love. Maybe they won't be supernova stars, but theres nothing wrong with having a dream and trying to make it happen.

I f'dyp

cealabeala

Vinta81 wrote: »

Lady Gaga came out during the social media boom, she capitalized on that that's all.

Actually, I've read that she has become bankrupt four times since she went global. Apparantly all her profit goes back into making amazing sets for her shows. Apart from a bit of make up, I haven't seen her endorse anything. She really doesn't seem like someonee who's primary motivation is money.

I read that article about a year ago, and thought most of it was nonsense. This thread began with the question of who is a good role model. And it's my opinion that Ldy Gaga is a good role model for "freaks, misfits, little monsters." Just because you go to a posh school, that does not automatically mean you have a happy, included time there. She's said in interviews that she was a weird kid in school. And even if you are loaded, going through that makes you an empathetic person. And I think she does empathise with her fans more than other artists.

As for her arrival signalling the death of sex, and the idea that my generation is not alarmed by her due to over exposure to technology, etc. etc. I think the journalist is trying to fit her into a doomsday kind of comment on society, and has edited her down to do this.

Bottom line on it is that I don't think Gaga is a fraud. If you do a bit of research you'll find that she's been performing, writing songs and dressing in an avant-garde way from the beginning.

As for all these comparisons to Madonna, yes, that's fine, but are fourteen year olds today supposed to look to Madonna because she came first? No offence, but they want someone of their own time, even if you personally think they are just a modern diluted version.

g'em

cealabeala wrote: »

Actually, I've read that she has become bankrupt four times since she went global. Apparantly all her profit goes back into making amazing sets for her shows. Apart from a bit of make up, I haven't seen her endorse anything. She really doesn't seem like someonee who's primary motivation is money.

She's the Creative Director for Polaroid and is one of the Celebrity endorsers for the Viva MAC Glam line for 2010 and 2011, two not insignifacant deals. Although you could also argue that both are in-line with her creativity (Polaroid) and championing (said more than a little tongue-in-cheek) for human rights causes (The proceeds from the Viva Glam line go into MAC Aids fund).