Aileen: see this? [Jon Caramanica in the New York Times, 21 July 2010:]

It’s Halloween-costume empowerment, sure, but [Lady Gaga’s] fingerprints are all over the revised images of Christina Aguilera, Rihanna, Katy Perry and Beyoncé; and on new artists like Kesha, Janelle Monáe and Nicki Minaj. These performers might not cite Lady Gaga as a direct influence, but the work she’s done since her 2008 debut album, “The Fame,” has nudged loose conventional boundaries. The space for women in pop to try out new aesthetic identities hasn’t been this vast in some time. …. In many ways it is a bastardization of the Madonna model. From the start of her career Madonna was a savvy pop trickster, using outrageous imagery as a distraction while smuggling ideas about religion and social politics into her music. Most of the Gaga generation, however, is interested in distraction as an end in itself.

Aileen: the writer kinda does this lazy laundry list of other current female popstars and how they’re all supposedly copy gaga — but he doesn’t really connect any dots, other than to say that hey, pop is little more interesting today, at least visually. not sure if this has to do so much specifically with gaga than with the level of competition for sales and media attention… i mean aren’t there other things to attribute that to? like, the internet and a weaker monoculture in general? kind of like this conclusion though:

It’s probably the first time Lady Gaga has acknowledged that there’s a living, breathing organism beneath the hyperstylized exterior, that her flesh has any instincts of its own. Maybe she’s expended so much time and energy building up her outer shells that they’ve begun to reinforce her inner self too. This nakedness, this new assuredness — a Lilith ideal, perhaps — is a real step toward feeling. Or maybe the skin’s just another costume.

Michael: So “Madonna was a savvy pop trickster, using outrageous imagery as a distraction while smuggling ideas about religion and social politics into her music.” Could somebody remind me what these “ideas” were? The idea of Madonna as somehow more intellectual or political or engagé than Gaga is ludicrous. “post-sexual theater” seems right-on, though.

Zach: Not ludicrous, I don’t think, but certainly a stretch. “Ideas” is not quite right, but Madge was certainly angling for something; her wheeling and handling of her image brought around an overt acknowledgement of sexuality and proposed an imagining of a woman for the eighties. Certainly the power dynamics supposed in her big Prayer-era hits were a consistent, I think compelling reimagining of woman-in-pop. I don’t think this can be said for “Alejandro” and the rest. Presumably that is what the writer means. But then Germa is only on her (more or less) first record.

Richard: i think the thing is that they already matter, just not in themselves; but that there’s a tendency to think Madonna did. it’ll take a decade, if Lady Gaga ever experiences a similar canonization. but three of those miracles have to happen when you’re dead; the process isn’t self-willed. being superficially culturally relevant, the deepest impact they’re ever going to have is slow and inspirational — some thirteen-year-old now is going to listen to Alejandro and feel fine about their to-now conflicted homosexuality.

Michael: The mistake, I think, is in seeing Madonna’s outrageous imagery as a “distraction” from her true interest in Catholicism, social commentary, third wave feminism, whatever. Rather, Madonna and Gaga are only truly interested in outrageous imagery, which is itself the bearer of whatever cultural or artistic significance the two women might possess. What seems most superficial about them—their posing, preening, and peacocking—is the only thing that matters, if indeed anything about them matters (an open question).

Zach: Well you can argue it either way—imagery for distraction or distraction for imagery—but I don’t think it makes much difference. And you have a harder time saying that there’s any sort of nexus around which Gaga’s outrageous imagery congregates: I’m repeating myself, but so be it—it’s too heterogenous. Madonna doggedly did the Catholic / mores bits, so whatever the effect or lack thereof there
was at one point something, if not being driven at, at least indicated. And I think I would argue that the peacocking and that variety of cultural significance are not as extricable as you seem to want to believe.

Michael: Sure, but what was the “one point” Madonna was driving at about the Church? And even if you could identify some kind of coherent critique, which I doubt, would that really be what makes Madge important?

Zach: Yes, you’re right. The beauty of it is that the “critique” and the spectacle are the same thing, which is in its natural state neither critique nor spectacle. MY complaint is that there’s not enough contact between Gaga’s pop-symbolism and this world we actually live in, apart from that tired old Futurist line about art reflecting chaos which I never bought anyway. Madonna’s had, in my estimation, loads of contact throwing off sparks well into the 90s. That’s why she was Madonna. But then Gaga is sort of like Wallace Stevens in that respect, perhaps.

Michael: The Idea of Order at Madison Square Garden?

Alex: right?? i used to get all uptight about rick ross getting tons of great beats until i realized that “deeper than rap” actually rules. it’s like one of those (blasphemy ahead) first-run wu solo albums where it would be a ghostface album ostensibly, but rae or meth would be on 90% of the tracks.

Zach: I’ve always loved the Baby Wayne duo singles. But Bird is like the most insanely two-dimensional rapper ever.

Alex: omg yes. do you remember “leather so soft”?? i always thought that was the goofiest boast

Zach: I want to say “indulgent” but I feel like that would be too credible a description by Cash Money standards

Alex: wow this has a terrific wiki —

The video features Lil Wayne playing the guitar. The end of the video has some scenes (beginning at 2:55) with a deaf interpreter.

Zach: The second-to-last track on Pricele$$ … “I Want It All” is like a Cash Money Xanadu, though. Dude. Like how about a posse album with Lil Wayne DJ-hosting a bunch of rollerrink bangers.

Alex: YES. what’s more fun than a rollerrink banger.

Zach: The first three tracks on Pricele$$ all go at it but the dude CANT say anything other than hunren mill making big money big house on the hill got new harley making bank flippin bricks always been money. But then once in a while. Like he drops some ad lib like “big rings… big diamond rings.” And it’s awesome.

Alex: oh, birdman. what is his real name, do you know? i’m hoping it’s something real dopey

Zach: Haha

Alex: bryan williams. he’s 41. no big deal.
wait whaaaaaaaaaaaaaat. “discography”:

Pricele$$ (2009)
Pricele$$ 2 (2010)

Alex: things to look forward to

Zach: On Pricele$$ 2 songs are all the same, but now they all have Gucci Mane on them. Speaking of which sorta, love that Drake line about losing a sandal

Alex: hahhahaha. can’t say i know the one yr talking about, but that is an amazing sentence.

Andrew Romano: This sounds like a great lost Bobby Fuller track recorded by a bunch of stoned teenagers on a RCA boombox circa 1987. which is fine and all; I mean, I like the whole “let’s create an air of nostalgia/mystery/insouciance by sounding incompetent and technologically backwards” aesthetic as much as the next Brooklyn fauxhemian. but wouldn’t be nice to hear a song this solid given the full British Invasion treatment: 12-string lead, proper harmonies, audible drums, etc.? Hey bands! stop playing dumb! bottom line, though, is that I can’t get this out of my head.

Zachary Sachs: From the sound of it, I think you rather don’t like the “technologically backwards” aesthetic as much as the next Brooklyn bohemian.

Andrew: i like the way it sounds. i do not like it being reflexively applied to everything. i do not like it as substitute for actual songwriting. and especially i don’t like it when i find myself liking a song that sounds “bad” that i wouldn’t like if it sounded “good.”

Zach: Yeah. How often does that happen though.

Andrew: you mean me liking something because of the way it sounds? It happens fairly often, actually, at least at first. sometimes it’s very hard to separate the quality of the music from the sound of the music, especially when it’s a sound you like. everyone takes shortcuts. i can basically like any girl group song if i’m listening passively.

Zach: Yes, I’ve always held that the ‘separation’ is ultimately artificial. Not that that means it’s any less valid, since all criteria are artificial. Some people just seem to like to pretend that some things are otherwise.

Andrew: Right. I guess I choose to think of the “production” as something that enhances the underlying work, which needs to meet whatever standards of craftsmanship and performance I’ve set. If it doesn’t, I tend not to think that production/vibe/etc is enough. I can like a great song that sounds stupid—Jimmy Webb comes to mind—but I can’t like a great-sounding song that isn’t any good. There are plenty of British Invasion tracks for example that fall into the latter category, and I try to apply the same standard to this whole lo-fi indie-pop scene. But I admit that my value system here is arbitrary.

Zach: I think in those cases it’s useful to be more explicit about the qualities you seek in the “underneath.” e.g., in some genres, the underneath is prized for its homogeneity, or aggregate effect, rather than its changes, and thereby the qualities of the recording itself, rather than the chords chosen, can be of significant importance. Being not a very serious minimal techno fan, I can’t speak to this very directly, but I think it’s useful to concentrate on what exactly I’m getting out of something, and not get too hung up on what I perceive as how it relates itself to a given fashion or genre (unless that is exactly the quality that is important). But anyway perhaps that amounts to screaming “pay attention to what matters!” Which isn’t terribly useful.

Andrew: You’re right that the only thing you can really measure is your personal response. Which makes me wonder why i feel so suspicious of this current lo-fi aesthetic. i think it probably has something to do with the artificiality of the sound—that it’s manufactured to sound careless, unconcerned, tossed-off, but it’s still manufactured, which means it’s actually the opposite of tossed-off. it’s very deliberate. it’s “cool” as a pose, and there’s something hypocritical about that. but now i sound like a scold!

Zach: My complaint with the lo-fi craze is that they sorta fail by what I understand are their own metrics. Garageband sounds weird in a not-nasty way. And then the applique of effects just doesn’t sound as good to these ears. Phony reverb, etc. And then, I agree, from a stylistic perspective, the affect seems convoluted. I mean if you present yourself as a Polaroid toting analogue freak and then spend all your time running everything through Photoshop filters.

Andrew: but you can’t judge something only by its own metrics. its metrics might not be particularly worthwhile. i’d have to figure out what they’re trying to achieve beyond just sounding like their favorite bands from 15 years ago and judge them on that.

Zach: Isn’t “sounding like your favorite bands from 15 years ago” a pretty age old approach

Andrew: sure. but is that enough?

Zach: I dunno. Hard to make judgements on that scale.

Andrew: like, is trying to sound like the shop assistants a worthwhile goal? if a new band has “sounding like the shop assistants” as its internal metric and then does, in fact, wind up sounding like the shop assistants, do i have to declare them a success solely for that reason?

Zach: The modernist mantra about newness seems pretty wrong to me these days though. If their own internal metric is really “sounding exactly like the Shop Assistants” then unless they’re playing covers there’s going to be some uh built in failure eh

Andrew: here’s my take on it i guess: a lot of these bands are really about pop songwriting— THAT’S their internal metric. but that’s “caring.” that’s trying hard. and so they kind of want to dilute it by not trying hard production-wise, or seeming not to. there can be a nice tension there. but it dissolves without a strong pop song underneath. so the song is a necessary part of the equation I think. the alchemy is gone if the music itself isn’t strong enough, and you’re just left with the pose.

Zach: Yeah, I mean, I think pretty much everyone would concede that, right? Though the terms here are interesting — (e.g., why is that “dilution”?)

Andrew: i guess so. But I don’t think a lot of this stuff is held to a high enough standard of songwriting

Zach: But then what is.

Andrew: My point is that this could’ve been a chart-topping single in 1965. i wonder what it would’ve sounded like if it actually was. because that’s the idiom the song was written in.

Zach: Sorta

Andrew: well via the Ramones or something. but i guess i don’t think the way they translated this song—which is written in a very particular historical pop style—is all that interesting. or at least, is more interesting than what it would’ve sounded like had it been recorded in 1965.

Zach: The imagination is a powerful thing.

Andrew: i want it to be uncool, enthusiastic, going for the big emotions, because i think it’s good enough to do that. i think it could stand up to that sort of “obvious” approach. there’s nothing here to hide.

Zach: Enthusiastic would be a pretty significant contrast for a song titled “I Don’t Feel So Happy Now No More.” Or, you can flip the comparison if you want to. “Phil Spector songs are so good they could have stood up to a stripped-down, soulful performance instead of being amped up by seventeen overlaid tracks”

Andrew: sure. that’s exactly the point i’m making. this song is good enough to have been a big mid-sixties british invasion pop single. i’m not saying it doesn’t work like this. i’m saying it could work like that

Zach: It just sounds like there’s a “and it really ought to” somewhere in there

Andrew: if only for some variety. what’s frustrating is that contemporary “power pop” bands like, i don’t know, sloan or something, they put the sound first—they want to sound beatlesque or whatever and none of them have written a song as simple, direct and good as this. it’s very hard to do. i was listening to the dum dum girls record today. same thing. there are some good songs there. i’d like to hear a band write that well but skip the trendy aesthetics. i guess i sort of suspect that it’s a shortcut—that you can just say, oh, we’ll record it through garageband and it will sound “right” for Brooklyn or whatever, without having to make the tough production/arrangement decisions about what would best serve the song. sometimes it might be right but sometimes not.

Zach: I agree exc. I think I have yet to hear a project it really suits. A lotta of these people only seem willing to choose between Contemporary Studio Sound and Garageband w/ Built-In Mic. I don’t know why they don’t mess around more. There’s lots of old recording junk out there.

Andrew: but isn’t that kind of a false distinction—like, we’re nostalgic about bad 4-track recordings but garageband is the new bad. What’s bad-bad now will be good-bad later.

Zach: Well but there is an audible difference, perhaps I am reactionary about it but there it is.

Andrew: there’s definitely an audible difference. At the end of the day I just want everything to sound like it was produced by Owen Bradley.

Zach: And arranged by him.