I wonder how many Times readers are Lady Gaga fans, and how many Lady Gaga fans are Times readers. Anyway, this inspired me to check out Gaga on YouTube.
If that really is her singing - and I have no reason to think it isn't - she ain't bad. The Madonna connection is pretty evident, but I don't see that Gaga falls short by the comparison. But then I never discerned any depths hidden beneath Madonna's shallows. Made me think of a distaff Gary Numan and the Tube way Army. Why wouldn't kids get a kick out of it?
If that really is her singing - and I have no reason to think it isn't - she ain't bad. The Madonna connection is pretty evident, but I don't see that Gaga falls short by the comparison. But then I never discerned any depths hidden beneath Madonna's shallows. Made me think of a distaff Gary Numan and the Tube way Army. Why wouldn't kids get a kick out of it?
I listened to some Gaga tracks when her album came out and came to pretty much the same conclusion: she's Madonna 2.0. There's some good songs and genuinely creepy ones (I'm thinking particularly of "Teeth"), and some creative beats mixed in.
ReplyDeleteOne thing that struck me about her image is that she presents herself and acts more butch than femme. Early Madonna designed herself for the male gaze (particularly in the "Material Girl" and "Like A Prayer" videos). Gaga presents a much harder edge. Still lusty, but more predatory than erotic.