Great Music

Old son of a gun here and I am about to say something that everyone will hate. Amy Winehouse is one of the greatest jazz singer I have ever heard and Lady Gaga sings words I hate; but, she sure is talented. This is from an old R&B, pop rock, heavy metal guy, talent is talent. Two songs.

YouTube - Amy Winehouse - Rehab

Tony Bennett & Lady Gaga - The Lady Is A Tramp

I love jazz and 70s rock; I also appreciate anyone who learns their craft. We do not have to agree on the message to agree on the talent and skill. Listen to the links and tell me that these ladies have no talent and you must lie.

Funny thing is that I'm 50 and completely agree with you.

Not paying attention to stage and popularity antics, Amy and Gaga are absolutely the most exciting and talented artists of this era.

Never thought I'd find not 1 but 2 true and talented artists of their caliber in the new era.

Peace

Here. Feast your ears (and eyes).



Anyone who thinks this woman lacks talent is deaf (and blind).

reply to post by Astyanax


Dear Astyanax,

I dislike her message'; but, only a fool would say she lacks talent and I am not a fool. The greatest compliment I have been given in my life was from a young African American jazz player. He said I reminded him of Satchmo and the old blues and jazz guys. I knew exactly what he meant and the measure of the compliment. He was referencing my attitude and he knew I understood. Thank you for your post, I detest Ms Gaga's message; but, she is old jazz player at heart and I love that attitude and skill. The videos you posted showed how talented she is and how she knows her audience

My mother taught me something a very long time ago. She said that 95% of all art was garbage and that 5% of all art was beauty. She said that all styles came from one genius at a minimum. Enjoy genius when you find it, there is not one style of music that lacks a creator, a genius. Lady Gaga is very talented and now I know she is better in person. Thanks..

Match it up:
Pure, simple and raw.

reply to post by jude11


Dear jude11,

My mother taught me to appreciate talent and I thank you for letting me see Ms. Gaga do the jazz thing. She is very talented, that was obvious, I am only coming to see that she knows how to use it. If she did a jazz album, I would buy it, she is that talented. Peace.

reply to post by jude11


Dear jude11,

I don't imbed, but, I can link. Two songs for you. Peace.

YouTube - Linda Ronstadt - Try Me Again

Linda and Carly, a live performance by Ms. Simon, heart ripping I think; but, not quite jazz. I love the song; but, know Ms. Gaga has a jazz heart and that is more to my liking. I am comparing her to the best I know. I will add one more. Ms. Wilson of Heart, I have heard her in person.

YouTube - Carly Simon - That's The Way I Always Heard It Should Be - 1972

I have been blessed to have heard Ms. Ronstadt in person and in the tenth row on a lovely rainy evening outside, the Greek theater on her debut of the big band music, it is a special night that I will never forget, listening in the rain; however, I have also heard Ms. Wilson in person, second row in a small venue, her voice is stronger than they can put on their albums. Please hear her and enjoy.

YouTube - Heart - Alone

YouTube - Bobbie Gentry - Ode To Billie Joe

YouTube - Jeannie C. Riley - Harper Valley P.T.A.

Seems that we have turned this into the greatest female singers, lets try these ones.

YouTube - i don't know how to love him- helen reddy

and for deceased love, a female singer who captured a moment.

YouTube - Sinéad O'Connor - Nothing Compares 2U

reply to post by AQuestion

Chacun à son gôut. Linda Rondstadt has a great voice, certainly. But Lady Gaga has something none of the women you posted about has – the very thing you were going on about, namely genius. And I say that as one who is not particularly fond of her or her music.

As for your liking or not liking her 'message', that's hardly relevant, is it? Art is art. It is not, as Keith Richards once put it, interested in petty morals.

reply to post by Astyanax


Dear Astyanax,

As for your liking or not liking her 'message', that's hardly relevant, is it? Art is art. It is not, as Keith Richards once put it, interested in petty morals.

Funny, you state that you don't like her or her music and than question my mentioning that I didn't like her message. You do not mention your reasons for disliking her whereas in fairness to her I did. The fact that I don't like her message emphasizes the fact that I do believe she is talented. As for dear old Keith, art is a comment on morality and on life or it has no meaning. What he meant was that artists do no care what others think, they express what they feel. We should consider the message that we are sent by them, it is not just music. When ten year old girls are singing "I want your sex, I want your disease", it matters what the words are. I intentionally did not get into what her message was; because, I wanted to just discuss her talent.

Roughly translated, "To each his own" or "Everyone to his taste"

reply to post by AQuestion

You state that you don't like her or her music and than question my mentioning that I didn't like her message.

'Not particularly fond' ≠ 'don't like'. I choose my words carefully; I urge you to do me the courtesy of reading accordingly, and not imputing meanings to me that I did not intend. We shall return to this topic later in the post.

Lady Gaga doesn't speak to me or for me; I'm old enough to be her father. She does, however, speak to and for a great many people of her own generation, and her message is Empowerment, with a vengeance. In a world full of losers and consumers, don't you think it's heartening to hear someone articulate such a message?

Still, really, that isn't the point. The point about Lady Gaga – what she has that the people you mentioned, talented as they are, all lack (and Amy Winehouse lacked it too – her genius was of a different, purely intuitive kind) are intent and self-knowledge. Lady Gaga is someone who has written her own script and is following her own programme. She knows exactly what she is doing and precisely how to attain the effects she desires. There are no managers, handlers, stylists or svengalis pulling her strings.

She is a very good musician, but her real art is that of fame and celebrity. Like Madonna before her – but it's much harder to do it now, when the media are so fragmented and interactive – her genius is the creation and moulding of image. Take a look at the '60 Minutes' interview embedded below, in which she explains just what she's about. I think you'll be surprised.

Sure, I'm no big Lady Gaga fan. But the thing is – and I'll come back to this lower down, too – someone who appreciates art for its own sake should be able to judge the artistry – the vehicle – independent of one's own personal preferences. And that, most certainly, includes one's personal moral preferences.

As for dear old Keith, art is a comment on morality and on life or it has no meaning.

People who do not really understand or appreciate art are often partial to this view. I'm not saying you're one of those people, but if you believe the above you have, I think, misunderstood something fundamental about life, and the loss is yours.

What Keith Richards meant was that artists do no care what others think, they express what they feel.

Incorrect. He said those words in court. Here is the actual exchange:

Mr. Morris (Prosecutor): (Would you not expect) a woman to be embarrassed if she had nothing on but a rug in the presence of eight men, two of whom were hangers on and the third a Moroccan servant?

Mr. Richards (Defendant): Not at all.

Mr. Morris: You regard that, do you, as quite normal?

Mr. Richards: We are not old men. We are not worried about petty morals.

Source (Unfortunately not available online as far as I can tell.)

I used Keith's words in a different context, without attributing that context to him; that's why I wrote 'put it', not 'said'. Read with care!

When ten year old girls are singing "I want your sex, I want your disease", it matters what the words are.

Why? And why blame Lady Gaga?

Art is not about sending messages. As Sam Goldwyn rightly pointed out, we have, or rather had, Western Union for that (today we have Twitter). Art is not about educating, improving or manipulating the general public. That's called propaganda. Art is not about politics or religion. That's propaganda, too. No matter that art is often used as propaganda; we confuse the medium with the message at our peril. Damn it, if people didn't make that mistake – the mistake you are making – propaganda and advertising would simply cease to work.

Moreover, we would all be greatly enriched by the expansion of our personal aesthetic domains. Let's talk about that a little.

I am no Christian, but I can be powerfully moved by some of Bob Dylan's Jesus-period songs, such as 'Every Grain of Sand' and 'Jokerman'. As a brown-skinned South Asian, I can still love the work of Rudyard Kipling despite the patronising and wrong-headed ideas about race, the petty colonial morality, the cant about the White Man's Burden and all the other Victorian rubbish with which it is replete. I can appreciate the magnificent theatrics of Albert Speer's Nazi rallies without endorsing or approving the vileness of Nazism. Hell, I can even enjoy picking a guitar and singing the Louvin Brothers' hit, 'This Christian Life'. It's self-righteous God-bothering redneck claptrap, but it's heartfelt claptrap, and that makes it, in its own way, great.

I understand that not everybody is able to do this; frankly, it would be a better world if they could.

Now, here's Lady Gaga.

reply to post by Astyanax


Dear Astyanax,

Sure, I'm no big Lady Gaga fan. But the thing is – and I'll come back to this lower down, too – someone who appreciates art for its own sake should be able to judge the artistry – the vehicle – independent of one's own personal preferences. And that, most certainly, includes one's personal moral preferences

Nothing should be appreciated for it's own sake, it should be recognized for what it is. Lady Gaga is talented, that was my thread, that doesn't mean that her message is correct or good. You place art above morality and play semantic games. Her message is poison, not all of it, the center. Charles Manson had a message and has been recorded by Guns and Roses and the Beach Boys, should we ignore his message? I do not dislike her message, I hate it. That does not mean that she has only one message, yes, she is about personal empowerment and freedom, she is also about drugs and perversion. Should I completely ignore one over the other? No, I should evaluate both. She is incredibly talented and has some really good messages, she also has some really bad messages and kids are being perverted by the bad one. As a person, she is doing the best she can and I appreciate that. You might make effort to stop being so sensitive. I didn't understand you 100%, oh my, and you cannot get over it and focus on the issue at hand? The readers shall decide, you have already made your comments. Deny Ignorance.