the song is horrible

LOL, So, how do you REALLY feel.

Why's she have a poker face when giving oral sex?

What's wrong with the chord progression of Paparazzi? Which melodic elements do you consider to be cliche? I think that the chord progression creates a nice mood, and the melodies are pleasing and catchy. (I'm talking about the song in the video that I linked to, not Poker Face, but that's also a good song and there's also an acoustic version of it on Youtube that's quite good.)

Don't just talk out of your ass and expect people to accept it.

P.S.: She's sold millions of records already, so if you totally understand the structure of her songs and consider them to be cliche, then the obvious thing for you to do would be to go make some cliche songs and sell millions of records (unless, of course, it boils down to an ear for melody, which she has and you don't--no, it couldn't be as simple as that!). Your millions are awaiting you. What are you doing sitting here arguing on a forum? Go make your millions and report back.

kthxbye

I'm embarrassed to know this but she's impossible to escape from in the UK. Her 'poker face' was in sex with her boyfriend because he couldn't tell she was thinking about women instead of him.

Still my favorite

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YkfJ3zMIlO0

One reason to be glad I'm not in the UK I guess?

Thanks for the explanation, though..

First of all, little fella, I don't consider commercial and aesthetic success to be synonymous; the fact she can write a mercenary jingle is of no consequence. New Kids on the Block sold more than your precious little songbird, but I'm not sure the world considers "Hangin' Tough" to be the same level of pop brilliance of, say "Twist and Shout" or "Baba O'Riley", or even "Louie, Louie" (to cite three songs that share a chord progression and similar melodic structure, all of which do so with enough elan and expression to transcend their raw materials...rock, even in it's more poppish vein, being blues based, and relying heavily on the standard, but satisfyingly resolved, I-IV-V pattern).

Second, crapping out a hit is less a result of formulaic precision or aesthetic brilliance than marketing technique and/or pure, dumb luck. Sometimes, craftsmanship and artistry merge and shine through. More often, though, you are left with the swill you present here.

What's wrong with the progression of the piece you linked to? Like I said, it meanders, jumping from chord to chord with no real grace, tension, sense of drama or mystery, or even originality. That goofy little ditz (or whoever "composed" said ditty) did nothing but throw a bunch of chords against the wall and play them where they landed, or so it sounds to me. It's not impressionistic enough to allow for broad-stroked emotional or spiritual implication, nor sharp and/or concrete enough to allow for more straight-forward and universal portraiture. It wanders along with no real aim or aesthetic beauty outside of the sonic pleasantries that come from the instruments themselves, as opposed to the melodic and harmonic construct they should be building. And if you don't recognize the melodic structure, I refer you to (off the top of my head) Supertramp's "Logical Song", Blue Oyster Cult's "Joan Crawford Has Risen From the Grave", or pretty much any of Jim Steinman's grandiose and arpeggiated regurgitations. Not to mention Max Weinberg's piano work on Born to Run (especially"Thunder Road" and "Jungleland"), or the Ronnettes, or even some of Roy Orbison's work. Those are perfect examples of the time-worn melodic retreads I was speaking of. But Lady Whosit's quasi-classical posturing doesn't have enough depth of expression or invention to stand up as anything more than a sonic curiosity, while the other song's listed (even some of Steinman's work, which I generally loathe), do have elements of artistic creativity and, more important, visceral impact. If, five years from now, this song is remembered, at all, as anything other than pure toxic mind-poo poo and laughable period piece, I will gladly meet you at the top of the Empire State Building and kiss your ass at high noon.

That said, this song isn't as bad as the song this thread was initially discussing...it's still pretty pedestrian, if not as stridently annoying and shrill. But the fact that you find these components listed above present in this song says more about your seemingly one-dimensional taste and authority to make such a call than it does the song's sheer ordinariness. If you dig it, fine. If it helps you get through life, more power to you. But just because you're so easily hooked, don't expect everyone else to follow your lead and jump into the shallow end of the pool while making claims of deep sea diving.

And my initial response in this thread may have been "talking out of my ass". My response to you, and my criticisms of the song you linked, were decidedly not. This, however

stands as a fine example of such. Unless, of course, you can back up your accusation that I have an I.Q. of under twenty-five, then I will take your use of the word "idiot" to be one of hyperbolic license. I mean, no doubt I engage in hyperbolic overkill (a lot of it), but I can generally back it up with reason. Convoluted, maybe, and nit-like when the mood hits. But reason, nonetheless. Your implication that I am an "idiot" because I despise a song you embrace so tightly is strictly from a position of petulance, not measured analysis.

Which pretty much defines "talking out of one's ass".

I mean, I never once referred to you as in idiot because you so cherish a song I find utterly ridiculous and artistically empty.

Didn't really have to.

I just love it when I have a losing session and when I get into my car on that hour drive back home and this piece of crap song comes on!

That's what I thought. Chin up.

First of all, if you are going to make up statements and attribute them to me as dierct quotes, I'd appreciate at least the standard bold font, or at least a cursory "fyp".

Second, as I have never claimed any consistent melodic inventions as one of my many gifts (which include frisbee golf, garage cleaning, and clown-baiting), nor have I ever aspired to it, any "bitterness" I may have accrued in this otherwise good life I am lucky enough to enjoy must be the result of living in a world where the ridiculous likes of yourself is allowed to procreate. The fact that another "you" may one day be unleashed upon the world, championing God-awful music and harping on it's merits (as anything other than personally enjoyed ear candy), is chilling, indeed.

Third, you have yet to engage in any real dialogue, choosing instead to name call, finger point, and whine, in deceptive fashion, no less. I answered your query; now why don't you man up and tell me why the song in question is one of the dazzling brilliance you support, rather than a poorly written, but sleekly constructed, derivative fluff piece cleaned up in squeaky-clean fashion to con the gullible into dropping a few bucks on it's purchase rather than a work of real depth and quality? It's the equivalent of appreciating and AMC Pacer because of it's bitchin' paint job, and claiming brilliance for it's automotive design on that basis.

And since you seem to be hell-bent on playing dime-store psychologist, the very idea that I dislike a song that you treasure seems to have stoked the fires of your insecurities. Face the music: for any positive qualities you may possess (and there may be some, although your posts certainly don't illustrate such), you like a song that any subjective analysis of real intent would disdain as aural feces. Either defend your point, or claim it as a merely a guilty pleasure and shut the **** up.

No one ever said that the song was great. Reading comprehension ftw!

Even if you don't think it's "great" (and you used some awfully effusive adjective work to describe it), you're stil staking a position claiming shinola status for ****. I'm asking you to back that position up. Otherwise, just say, "Hell, I like it no matter what anyone else thinks, even if it is just an empty headed piece of crap"" and be done with it.

It's a pretty good pop song, which is both true and all that I ever claimed. Keep in mind that the post that I was responding to originally was over-the-top vitriol denouncing Lady Gaga as the worst artist to ever exist. I just find it annoying that people can't admit that both Poker Face and Paparazzi are good, catchy tunes.

For the record, kudzudemon never said (out loud) that he's bitter and envious of people who can write melodies. I made that up! Tee hee.

So what you are saying is it's like This"

Well, "good" and "catchy" are not synonymous, either, although they may overlap. There are thousands of (literal) commercial jingles that are catchy, but they don't really stand as an artistic statement, as a "good pop song" will. Maybe not capital-A "Art", but an aesthetically worthy piece of creative expression and communication. As to whether "Pokerface" (or the other song) really is a "good" pop song, really, only time will tell. I doubt it, and I'm pretty damn familiar with the subject of pop music. I see it more as a one-hit moonshot soon to be forgotten (or, at least, subtly swept out of the public consciousness), along the lines of "You Light Up My Life", "Double Dutch Bus", "Blame it On the Rain", or any number of disco pleasantries that may still occasionally reappear only to facetiously remind us of previous cultural transgressions. I mean, those songs may still grab the ear in some fashion, but no one is suggesting they are anything but curiosities, much less enduring pop songs of the "good" stripe.

Also, I never said Lady Whatsit was the worst artist ever. Certainly not while Michael Bolton and Celine Dion walk the earth. Reading comprehension ftw. Whatever the hell that last part means. Anyway, she's not even in the top ten worst artists ever. She simply doesn't have the body of work to compete, and I doubt she has the staying power to ever achieve such.

At any rate, I refuse to admit they are good, catchy tunes because I don't think they are. To my ears, strictly as a subjective opinion and without any analysis, I find them (particularly "Poker Face") shrill and unpleasant, almost insulting. Does this color any objective perspective of them? Not really; there is plenty out there I don't care for and am cheerfully willing to admit has real merit, in spite of my personal distaste. And I mentioned my reasons for dismissing them on objective and derivative grounds.

You like them. Fine. Like I said, whatever gets you through this life has merit. But don't claim for them the title of "good pop songs" when they really are not. What they are, are deftly crafted marketing constructs meant to make you spend money and buy them and the corresponding T-shirts and ringtones, not honest and artistic expressions of emotion and creativity. Most pop music is. Nothing new there. And most of it fails, except in the most utilitarian and merely competent sense. As I said, that doesn't mean such work can't achieve artistic success. The entire Motown catalog is a result of an assembly-line production, with an eye (and ear) more to commerce than art. But the artists who wrote and performed those songs were able to transcend such base intent. I don't see that the work of the artist you have chosen to champion does so, not even close. In addition to her being merely competent and nothing really special (I mean, she's not off-key, and the music is played flawlessly, if unimaginatively) overall, I, personally, find her to be an unbearable audio-experience.

Again, time will tell. "Good" pop songs endure, while "competent" pop constructions inevitably disappear. I'm willing to wager "Pokerface" is more the latter than the former. That certainly doesn't mean your are somehow "wrong" in enjoying it. I mean, I've got a soft spot for "Achy Breaky Heart", but I don't try to rationalize it. It's not a "good, catchy pop song". It's a piece of **** meme that happens to hit me in the right way. I'm not proud of it. But I'm not going to make claims of kitsch-genius for it to assuage my guilt for enjoying it, either.

Sorry you didn't get the obvious sarcasm in the "over the top vitriol". However, If it offends you, but makes Fish spew his shredded wheat, well, that's a trade-off I'll make every time. At any rate, it was certainly worthy of a more insightful and/or imaginative reply than

Seriously. If that's the best you've got, you're in a for a rough ride.

Sweet lord, Fish, is that really a chopped Pacer?

This may set a whole new paradigm for "cool".

kudzudemon may be the world's leading Lady Gaga critic at this point. Some people might just say "she sucks" and move on.

Brevity was never a strong point.

1) Kudz is awesome.
2) my favorite car ever was my '77 Blue AMC Pacer.

I'd be willing to bet $$$ that, say, one year from today, Lady Gaga will still be very popular (by whatever metric).

These pop songs might be more to your taste (or not):

http://www.youtube.com/view_play_lis...a+red+and+blue

If kudzu hated it that much, I had to listen to it.

****.

There's 3:39 I'll never get back.

i stumbled upon this video the other day, it TILTS ME SO HARD when i see music videos, tv shows, movies when the Hero gets pocket aces like a champ, overplays it and gets paid big time as if it took them so much skill to draw pocket rockets and windmill 4 of a kiind.