Quote:
Originally posted by Haus_of_Nicole
Yes. Let's be honest, they all have more musical talent than the likes of Lady Gaga, and certainly A LOOOOT more than the likes of Britney, Ke$ha, Rihanna, Katy, etc 
I'm here more for the entertainment the character of Lady Gaga provides.  |
I don't think I agree with this. I certainly think saying Adele has more musical talent than Gaga would be a disservice to Gaga. Sure, Adele is an excellent singer. Gaga is an excellent singer as well. Adele is a better singer, technically. However, in live performance, I feel that Gaga usually comes out in terms of talent. MOST of Adele's live performances sound exactly like the studio version of the song, which is a vocal achievement, but don't add anything extra. Gaga's voice in live performances of her song lends a really genuine and emotional feel to them all that I prefer over Adele. In addition, I prefer Gaga's lyricism over Adele.
I feel like the most notable difference between Gaga and these other artists is that she almost seems like a machine. The quality of her material seems to be rising at an extremely fast pace. Every person she meets seems to make her understanding of music noticeably stronger and her records correspondingly better. In the end, none of these artists could do what Gaga does in terms of Pop music. I believe Gaga COULD do what some of these artists do, though. That seems to be her true talent: the ability to be chameleonic in today's music world.
As for Arcade Fire, they make decent music, but I think they're hugely overrated. I see them compared to Radiohead all the time and I just
.
But my opinion of them isn't the point I'm trying to make necessarily. I certainly think that right now people believe that Arcade Fire's music is more true and meaningfully great: thus the acclaim. Pop music sort of just has a stigma of not being able to produce amazing and relevant material, and that certainly hurts Gaga.
i was like where have you gone 
