Music in America: Lady Gaga Revisited

It is by no means my intention to turn this into a Lady Gaga blog, but I will confess that I am a fan. Furthermore, this blog is partially about music and culture, so I believe it's perfectly valid to discuss something like Gaga's new album, Born This Way. I have now had to defend this album against far too many people, and every time the same issues seem to come up. Let me get to the point: for the American public, Lady Gaga has become too artistic. Yes, that's right. A music artist has become too artistic for mainstream America, and her ratings are subsequently sinking. I do hope with every bit of my being that you find this statement to be absurd, because it is the epitome of absurd - and yet, I'm not surprised in the least.

Let's face it, pop music was never invented to be profound. With the rise of the recording industry, coupled with a simultaneous bout of post-war trauma and American over-confidence, American music became so dumbed-down as to become pointless. Music became such a part of the mundane that it was quickly taken for granted, and capitalist record companies, eager to sell as quickly as possible, churned out a continuous spew of mediocrity that still plagues us to this day. This sort of capitalist swill, created supposedly for the sake of the masses, was quickly exported and shoved down the throats of many countries' populations. I am painfully reminded of Chile in the 60's, where the gross influx of American pop music sparked the Nueva Canción movement, a grassroots, pro-Socialist, indigenous music revival. This is pop music's origin; it is a genre based on keeping people ignorant, and blithely happy about nothing of any substance. Its subjects are usually so irrelevant that there is no real point to questioning the genre as a whole; people don't have to work in order to understand it.

But Western music history shows us that this is not what music has to be about. As Westerners, our heritage consists of composers and music makers who put titanic amounts of thought into their work, and expected their listeners to do the same. Once upon a time, the dialogue between artist and audience spurred by a challenging piece of music was something to be excited about! People wanted the librettos to operas in advance so they could study them before they went to see them performed; Renaissance printers made countless copies of the latest Italian madrigals for people to sing together in their homes; Haydn paid for the publication of his tour de force, The Creation, in both English and German, and set up a subscription system so that members of the public could gradually get their hands on the entire score; Wagner had fan clubs across Europe because people were so obsessed with his artistic vision; and today, musicians are still struggling to play pieces "as the composer intended." I could of course go on, but the point is this: in the West, music has always been considered an art of some kind, and with this definition comes an expectation that music will foster some kind of discussion or exchange of ideas.

But pop music, by nature, shuts this dialogue down. What's the point of doing a musical analysis of Britney Spears's "Hit Me Baby One More Time," or discussing the ideology of Train's "Meet Virginia?" Even songs that could be considered more in-depth than the more poignantly superficial ones are usually not so profound as to spark nation-wide arguments. Now, I understand that pop music is meant to let people just have fun. In some ways it's important to have an unpretentious, simple music genre for people to let loose with. But it's equally important to keep the public thinking. I also understand that not everyone listens to pop music, nor is it the only thing a person may listen to. But the fact that it chooses to label itself as "popular" demonstrates that it's a genre that believes itself to be accessible and likable for the general populace. It reflects a certain over-arching mindset when it comes to American music, and quite clearly tells us that American music should be simple, pointless, and fun, and not much else.

But Lady Gaga is different, and this is why she's so important to American culture. She has single-handedly attempted to turn a genre of music inherently anti-artistic into an art form. In the footsteps of Warhol and countless other modern artists, she has converted the mundane blandness of pop music and culture and turned it into something worth talking about. Her music and performances are controversial not just because their subject matter can be racy, but because they seek to penetrate and dissect the lifestyle that has sprung up around this type of music. Most of her music is trying to get you to think about something, sometimes several things at once - just like a good artwork will. I strongly believe that even if you dislike a piece of art, if it makes you question your own aesthetic values, your ideology, or your general perceptions, then that artwork was successful. It pushed you out of your norm and forced you to think of life in a broader scope. And this is what frustrates me so much about the mainstream criticism I've been hearing from people when it comes to Born This Way - the biggest complaint I hear is that her music has become too message-ridden. Heavens! Songs that make you think? Songs that make you angry or empowered or both? Songs that you can have a visceral connection or aversion to? What is the world coming to!?

So essentially, Lady Gaga has played the most genius cards I've ever seen. She has invaded the pop industry to seriously partake in it, and simultaneously criticized and questioned it. She has made millions fall in love with her and as many come to hate her. But this is not the same sort of distaste one expresses over other pop artists - when one condemns Britney for being talentless, they don't do it with the same sort of scorn that I hear the Gaga-haters toss around. There's a real anger present here that must be recognized, and at the same time appreciated. Lady Gaga, like it or not, has created a schism in this country by forcing us to ask ourselves the question, "what do we want to get out of our music?" Do we want pointlessness and fun? or do we want art? For the first time in a long time, we have the option to choose both, but with the awareness that the artist herself is cognizant of her genre's pointlessness.

Let me also be very clear about Born This Way as an album: I think it's bloody brilliant, and I wish more people would hear it the way I and many others do. I have heard people say it's not a cohesive album, that it's just edgy for the sake of it, that it's over-produced, that it's pretentious, etc. Yes, to some extent you're all right; but that's what's great about it. People simply must remember the purpose of the album, which is to encourage people to embrace themselves for who they are, and to defiantly be themselves in order to have fun, even at the status quo's expense. Therefore, we should expect an album whose music constantly pushes and pokes at the definition of "normal" pop music, an album that cannot be neatly categorized or defined, one that is sometimes unruly and seemingly undisciplined. Frankly, I find this "incoherence" to be a strength, as every song on Born This Way sounds different, and creates a singular world unto itself while still participating in several interconnecting themes. Some of these are particularly intriguing and worth discussing - man and metal, constructed identity versus natural identity, sanctity and harlotry, the performer's relationship to her audience, the abilities of electronic music, gay rights, and of course the general theme of self-liberation. When was the last time a pop album strove to cover issues like that? And shouldn't art challenge us to ask several questions and not just one or two? What's wrong with having an album that poses multiple issues at once while also being tonally complex and interesting? Aren't people's personalities complicated like that?

Here's what I find most compelling about Born This Way: no longer does the listener have fun because they're partaking in a vast social network that all agrees "this is the music everyone should be listening to and one has fun while listening to it" (often enough because alcohol, dancing, or general socializing is involved); rather, the listener has fun because they are being themselves, their own independent and unique individual. This is a step that has utterly obliterated the primary obstructions of pop music. Lady Gaga is as much obsessed with her fans as we are about her, and it's refreshing to know that. It's also refreshing to see that pop music can actually be done with some substance, by a woman who has a remarkable amount of talent in music performance, composition, dance, and design. So for those of you who hate the album, so be it. I don't expect to change your subjective aesthetic opinion, but I would like to think that I at least convinced you of there being more importance to this album than there seems to be at first glance.