f seems to be a popular letter - too many artists to choose from about a month ago, and ohhh so many albums to choose from this morning. i might even repeat f again tomorrow, since there are so many little treasures of musical goodness just sitting in there. but this morning, there was really only one choice: gaga's "the fame." oh yea, i went there, and i went there good.
once again, i confess being a latecomer to gaga fandom. i remember the exact moment i realised i loved gaga: sweating in a club in the middle of port moresby with my best friend (i don't think this was the kind of field work the ethnomusicologist had in mind, but there ya go.) you know an artist has transcended all kinds of boundaries when you hear 'pokerface' in the middle of papua new guinea.
i appreciate lady gaga not necessarily for her music - which can claim partial responsibility for my reintroduction to the world of pop, no small feat - but also for who she is(n't). clearly, lady gaga is an image, a character, a figure, as much as a singer. various articles rage as to the authenticity of lady gaga as both a musician and a personality. i confess not having enough of a background in pop to really refute some of the claims made e.g. gaga "stealing" from madonna, but it seems to me that musicians are always influenced by a range of sources - and to my mind gaga has used various influences to create a sound of her own. i'm satisfied enough that lady gaga really can sing (witness the stripped back vocals at the start of "again again"), and that she writes (yep) good songs. a quick look at any of her videos will confirm that she can dance, and reviews indicate epic live shows. so yea, musically i'm satisfied.
i'm more interested in the debate on gaga's personality, and i guess from a quasi-feminist perspective.
there can be little doubt camille paglia is correct in saying "lady gaga is a manufactured personality" but surely paglia must work harder than that to prove that a manufactured personality is a bad thing in and of itself. i fail to see a distinction between gaga and, for example, bart simpson, another icon who embodies a certain set of characteristics (albeit with much more limited reach). essentially, gaga is a character like any other, she just has greater reach, and unlike other (human) celebrities, appears to remain constantly in character (witness 'paparazzi'). i don't really see the issue with this. but what further infuriates me about paglia's attack on lady gaga is the argument that gaga isn't sexy, and therefore she can not be a generational icon: and this coming from a so-called feminist. what bollocks. to me the refreshing thing about lady gaga's boundary-pushing is precisely that: she's a bit off the wall, a bit weird looking, and yea, not what we'd traditionally define as sexy. but wait, maybe that's precisely why so many people identify with her. as alex needham argues in response to paglia, part of gaga's iconic appeal is that she's not selling sex - she's selling kookiness. and, well.... music.
so yes, paglia is quite right that gaga is a construct, but i fail to see what's wrong with that. i like the perfect irony of "the fame" as an album critiquing the ease with which anyone can achieve fame, but the fact that no one really cares who the artist stefanie whatsherface is, they know the character lady gaga. the anonomity that the individual playing the character of lady gaga somehow seems to retain in the face of international superstardom like we have never seen before fascinates and astounds me.
in the end, i'm not really saying anything new here, and all i can really come up with is "so what"? gaga is a construct that people, for whatever reason, identify with. and perhaps my experience of seeing her being adored in png really says something: the fact that lady gaga ranked seventh on forbes' list of one hundred most powerful women - rated for their ability to influence - illustrates just how global her reach is.
plus, she's got a good voice and makes music that makes me smile.
No comments:
Post a Comment