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.

Lady Gaga's Judas and the Christian Reaction

It is time, my friends, that I finally addressed Lady Gaga, in particular, her newest songs, Born this Way and Judas. What has pushed me to the most extreme limits of my patience is the disturbingly laughable ignorance hopping around the blogosphere in response to these two songs, especially the latter, as Christians around the world feel scandalized over the idea of a song about Judas, the betrayer of Christ... My heart bleeds for them. God forbid the most tyrannical, sometimes meretricious institution on the face of the earth should ever feel offended. God help the individual who dares to hold a second opinion in regards to Christ.

Part 1

Now, the first absurdist post I stumbled upon was this one, http://www.thenewsstar.com/article/20110424/OPINION03/104240323/Lady-Gaga-s-Judas-sells-Christ-again, written by a Paul Kokoski from Hamilton, Ontario. Paul goes on to say that Gaga's use of Judas as a literary figure is nothing new because of the relatively recent discovery of the Judas Gospels in 2006. Paul writes: "Lady Gaga's recent attempt to rehabilitate the disciple Judas is nothing new. In April 2006, the agnostic "Gospel of Judas" went on display in Washington. It incorrectly portrayed Judas as Jesus' closest disciple saying that Jesus asked Judas to hand Him over to the Roman authorities so that He could fulfil His mission."

Dear Paul: perhaps it would be best for you to get your terminology straight. "Agnostic" refers to a worldview in which God is ambiguous; its adherents generally prefer not to question the question of religion too much as they believe they can never really find the truth. The Judas Gospels, however, are a Gnostic text. The Gnostics were a sect of early Christians who had a particularly interesting spin on Christian cosmogony. Gnostics insist that the God of the Old Testament is a liar and is the source of ignorance, whereas Christ is the messenger of the True God, the ineffable, loving source of all things. The Gnostics always had a tendency to upset the normal interpretation of things, but it is also not fair to label their interpretation as "incorrect." They have just as much legitimacy as the early Church Fathers did - the difference between them is that the Fathers had the papacy and what was left of the Roman government on their side. But in the early Christian period, the faith was in an amazingly ambiguous, syncretic state. Your singular interpretation of the Passion story demonstrates that you are still under the influence of archaic monotheistic thinking: "there is only one way to look at this!" This is the state of ignorance, my friend. It's obvious that you didn't come up with this opinion by yourself, that it was taught to you by your religious background. Attaining Truth takes the courage to question the world views imposed upon you by others!

Paul further writes that, "With Lady Gaga's new single 'Judas' we can see how Christ is being sold again... The song 'Judas' deliberately suppresses the truth about Christ's life, His death on the cross and His resurrection." I'm not sure I follow. The lyrics only represent a conflict between the Magdalene and Judas. Christ is only mentioned as the Magdalene's "virtue." The fact that Paul has failed to note this perhaps represents the undying Protestant contempt for the saints, which can become utterly disgusting as we will soon see. That sect of Christianity is always quick to zoom in on Christ until they utterly lose sight of Him, and by doing so, invent a myopic worldview that has no practical applicability. The "oneness" of God is so mentally contaminating, that Paul has the nerve to suggest that the song "suppresses the truth" about Christ. Does the fact that there are four sometimes conflicting Gospels also "suppress the truth?" The Gospels themselves were written by four separate individuals who were not Christ himself. How are they to have perfectly represented the true account of His life? (A miracle? An easy explanation that makes your faith too unquestionable. If you are to really have faith, shouldn't it be able to withstand the possibility that the Gospels were not written through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit?)

I only single out Mr. Kokoski as an example, as it was the first thing I found, and I was unnerved by his false terminology. How are we to take the criticism of Lady Gaga's work seriously when its mouthpieces don't even know what they're talking about?

Part 2

I also was able to find this lengthy gem from "Emancipation From Slavery," a pseudo-"Gnostic" (in the sense that they believe in some kind of hidden truth that society tries to suppress) Christian propagandist website that attempts to find Illuminati symbolism in celebrity photos and whatnot. Thank goodness we have such knights of faith to create inspiring, worthwhile websites such as these. WHAT WOULD WE DO WITHOUT YOU???

The site refers to Gaga as an "Illuminati puppet" and uses some pretty ridiculous analysis in order to "reveal" the "demonic content" of her media. (I apologize for the reckless use of quotation marks, but they are necessary for obvious reasons.) For my personal amusement, and to further vindicate Dame Gaga, I would love to just go through the site's post on Judas and dismantle their argument. I suggest you follow along with me by going to the page itself.

http://emancipationfromslavery.com/lady-gaga-illuminati-puppet/lady-gaga-illuminati-puppet-judas/

First paragraph! The word is "whet," not "wet." More foolish and poor use of terminology. I'm so pleased the uneducated are trying to explain something about religion to me. This seems promising. Down a bit: the writer states, "Her whole persona (whether its [sic] an act or not) is a tribute to mind control, where being vacuous, incoherent and absent minded [sic] becomes a fashionable thing." What a delightful turn of events! The ignorant are attempting to demonstrate that the liberally educated Stefani Germanotta of NYU is vacuous and incoherent. I was under the impression that she was just a well-educated liberal who is not afraid to use her mind and speak out against social constructs, like those propagated by certain sites... ahem.

The site then posts this picture and claims it is a

depiction of Gaga possessed by the devil himself, who apparently also caused Judas to betray Christ. If this is the big, bad, Prince of Darkness himself, why am I not terrified for my life? I'd like to think that Satan can do better than photoshopped-red or red contact eyes. My dear friends at EFS should remember that we live in an age of technology, where there are ways of giving yourself zebra-striped eyes if you want them.

They should also do a little more thinking about Gaga's entire "monster" campaign right now. For this, we must briefly discuss Born This Way. In a video steeped in Qabbalistic/Crowleyan symbolism (oh dear, maybe I'm only fueling the fire for the Illuminati argument), Gaga portrays "Mother Monster," who gives birth to a race of humans devoid of prejudice. Mother Monster on a "different plane" is also dark vixen who

gives birth to a machine gun in order to defend her creations. I'm sorry Gaga, but if you haven't read about the Qabbalistic understanding of the Mother as both Light and Dark, I'm left utterly confused. Crowley also writes that women are meant to be more militant and aggressive in this age - perhaps this explains the machine gun. But the symbolism is at least blatantly reminiscent of the fact that Binah, the Mother, loves all her creations with no prejudice, and the only reason we come to hate one another is because we believe in the illusion of separateness. The Mother does, in a way, create "monsters," for our natural, divine selves, have no real understanding of social constructs. There is only impulsiveness for action of any kind. We are also animals. This is always important to remember! And lastly, divine inspiration is sometimes akin to "madness," sometimes a kind of bestial raving in which one communes with the divine. The holy are never quite sane; they always have something wrong with them, and God continues to love them despite their given infirmity.

Moving on. If you scroll down, you will be treated to some humorous photoshopped pictures of Gaga, or the lovely compilation of satanic outfits supposedly to be worn by Gaga in the upcoming Judas video. Somewhere along the way, the writer tries to make the connection between the triangle and the occult. While I see what they're getting at, can't we just as easily make a connection between the Holy Trinity and the triangle? The writer attempts to make more claims that Gaga is possessed and has become a puppet. Apparently she has made a blood pact and she is condemning her fans to hell to please the devil. THANK YOU EFS.COM. I FEEL SO ENLIGHTENED NOW. This is utter poppycock. Where on earth do these people come from?

Next, the writer bashes a picture of Gaga depicted as the Virgin with an aureole behind her head. They claim that this aureole is a symbol of "sun worship," and that the darkness of the photo in conjunction with Gaga's "emotionless" expression demonstrates the false forces at work through her. They also make some hateful comment about Catholicism being a false religion because of its belief in saints. Apparently the writer has not thought to consider the old depiction of Mary as the Lady of the Seven Sorrows.

Remember that medieval iconography often depicts the saints as devoid of emotion or human sentiment so as to better demonstrate their other-worldliness. As beings with little attachment to the here and now, they often are shown as distracted or not-quite-present. In the case of Gaga, we see a combination of the two. Mary as the Lady of Seven Sorrows is attributable to the Dark Mother of Binah (abovementioned), who laments her separation from her children.

Let us also remember that Judas is a song about the Magdalene's inner conflict over still loving Judas despite his constant betrayals. The Magdalene is always a bizarre conflation of virginity and meretriciousness that becomes confusing. In some ways, she is a hybridization of all the Mary figures in the Bible. The Magdalene was also very close to Christ, was the first female preacher, and was canonized - hence the aureole. I only raise these points to demonstrate that this image of Gaga is heavily layered with meaning, and it is the pinnacle of foolishness to write it off as an representation of her "evil-side." One one level, it represents Mother Monster, on another it's the Magdalene, on another it's the Virgin Mary (here covering her breast, a traditional gesture of modesty, believe it or not).

Might I also take a minute to yell at the writer of this nonsense about their interpretation of the upside-down triangle as simply a symbol of the womb. Yes, you're right, you win. It's a symbol of the chalice, the element of water, and the Divine Feminine. Congratulations. But it's also colored magenta. As an anthem supporting homosexual society and culture, isn't it obvious that the symbol is mainly a gay one?

I could go on and on with this website - there's unfortunately more to their post that I could work on, but I'm frankly getting bored and frustrated with it. I may or may not have had a minor fit over the claim that Gaga's performance of Paparazzi at the 2009 VMA's was a depiction of Masonic rituals. Clearly, the performance went right over the writer's head.

Part 3: Interpretation

Now I get to provide my own spin on these "enigmatic" lyrics.

Oh-oh-oh-ohoo
I'm in love with Juda-as, Juda-as
Oh-oh-oh-ohoo
I'm in love with Juda-as, Juda-as
Judas Juda-a-a, Judas Juda-a-a, Judas Juda-a-a, Judas GaGa
Judas Juda-a-a, Judas Juda-a-a, Judas Juda-a-a, Judas GaGa
[Lady Gaga - Verse 1]
When he comes to me, I am ready
I'll wash his feet with my hair if he needs
Forgive him when his tongue lies through his brain
Even after three times, he betrays me
I'll bring him down, bring him down, down
A king with no crown, king with no crown
[Chorus]
I'm just a Holy fool, oh baby he's so cruel
But I'm still in love with Judas, baby
I'm just a Holy fool, oh baby he's so cruel
But I'm still in love with Judas, baby
Oh-oh-oh-ohoo
I'm in love with Juda-as, Juda-as
Oh-oh-oh-ohoo
I'm in love with Juda-as, Juda-as
Judas Juda-a-a, Judas Juda-a-a, Judas Juda-a-a, Judas GaGa
[Lady Gaga - Verse 2]
I couldn't love a man so purely
Even darkness forgave his crooked way
I've learned love is like a brick, you can
Build a house or sink a dead body
I'll bring him down, bring him down, down
A king with no crown, king with no crown
[Chorus]

I'm just a Holy fool, oh baby he's so cruel
But I'm still in love with Judas, baby
I'm just a Holy fool, oh baby he's so cruel
But I'm still in love with Judas, baby
Oh-oh-oh-ohoo
I'm in love with Juda-as, Juda-as
Oh-oh-oh-ohoo
I'm in love with Juda-as, Juda-as
EW
[Bridge]
In the most Biblical sense,
I am beyond repentance
Fame hooker, prostitute wench, vomits her mind
But in the cultural sense
I just speak in future tense
Judas kiss me if offensed,
Or wear ear condom next time
I wanna love you,
But something's pulling me away from you
Jesus is my virtue,
Judas is the demon I cling to
I cling to
[Chorus]
I'm just a Holy fool, oh baby he's so cruel
But I'm still in love with Judas, baby
I'm just a Holy fool, oh baby he's so cruel
But I'm still in love with Judas, baby
Oh-oh-oh-ohoo
I'm in love with Juda-as, Juda-as
Oh-oh-oh-ohoo
I'm in love with Juda-as, Juda-as
Judas Juda-a-a, Judas Juda-a-a, Judas Juda-a-a, Judas GAGA
Judas Juda-a-a, Judas Juda-a-a, Judas Juda-a-a, Judas GAGA

I am first struck by the line, "Forgive him when his tongue lies through his brain." The brain being the hub of our reason and logic, it only seems to me that Judas is lying/betraying because it seems like the reasonable thing to do. Of course, Judas turns Christ in for silver - a seemingly "practical" thing to do. Judas seems entirely human in this depiction - not demonic. The Magdalene, being a forgiving, penitent woman, forgives him out of love. What kind of love does this represent other than divine love? Love that can forgive endlessly despite betrayals? Unlike some of her other material, there is no blatant sexuality in this text. The Magdalene is not in her former role as whore, but in her role as mediatrix, the holy intercessor with the divine. Here's the thing, my narrow-minded Christian critics: we are all Judas. You will find this in almost every Easter sermon since the dawn of the faith. We all deny Christ, we all give Him up for "rational" things. We deny the fact that He is within us showing us the light of reality, ignoring Him because materiality "makes more sense." God continues to love and forgive us despite this sinful action - that's the true nature of Divine Love. In that sense, God is a bit of a "whore," as He/She does not discriminate between what It loves. Everything is equally good in Its eyes, despite the "fault" inherent in creation.

Further interesting is the fact that Judas betrays the Magdalene "three times." It makes sense that this is a reference to Peter, who denies Christ three times. Therefore, Christ and the Magdalene are conflated in Gaga's narrative. I am reminded of Julian of Norwich (14th century), who said that Christ is also a spiritual mother who nurtures us through faith. But also, by using the Magdalene as a savior figure, Gaga allows women to feel more connected to a patriarchal cosmology, and with a mostly masculine savior figure. Salvation is available to everyone, of course. Here we first see the inkling of a theme I believe links the work together as a whole: that the textual narrative of a song/myth is an opportunity for an artist to harmonize polar principles in a quasi-sexual union.

The next line of interest is "I'll bring him down, bring him down, down, A king with no crown, king with no crown." A crown, of course, is a reward given to the faithful upon entering heaven. It's a symbol of martyrdom and intense faith. Judas is a king because he sees his own agency and reason as more important than the lordship of Christ, and he is associated with a sort of material power, but he is also false because he is uninspired by the Divine. I have read a suggestion that this lyric is actually in the voice of Judas, which I could also buy, since Gaga's vocal timbre shifts to a darker, more nasal quality at this point in the song. It contrasts all the more with the "wailing" vocal line that we hear in the same section; this counter-subject, if you will, is more reminiscent of Gaga's natural tone, even though it sounds electronically manipulated. So perhaps the line is illuminating Judas's perspective - perhaps it's again a conflation, this time between him and the Magdalene. If the latter is the case, then we see a merging of the polar principles - the love-spurning masculine and the ever-loving feminine - through a textual relationship. The text actually becomes the vehicle for the sexual act.

My favorite part is definitely the bridge, in which she writes, "In the most Biblical sense, I am beyond repentance; fame hooker, prostitute wench, vomits her mind. But in the cultural sense I just speak in future tense. Judas kiss me if offenced [sic], or wear ear condom next time." She is clearly saying that, in the old Christian way of looking at things, she is nothing more than a harlot because she speaks her mind. As a motivated woman who is unafraid of sexuality, she would certainly be labeled as a prostitute according to the Bible (St. Paul's invective against women's speech comes to mind). But in modern times, now that that old order is slowly being overturned, this schema for women is no longer relevant - hence the reference to "future tense." Why would Judas be offended by her speech? Because he is once again us, the public, who have failed to see the liberating message Gaga has tried to bring through her music and persona, and who have only scorned her. Despite all this, she still "loves" us, trying to get us to see the relevance of her "divinely inspired" message. I'm not suggesting that Gaga is a prophet or a saint - I'm just suggesting that her actual message is not demonic, but is actually quite beatific. The liberation of mankind from sin and guilt is the whole purpose of the Passion. The use of an "ear condom" implies that Gaga's message is a sexual act - it is a way of consummating the love she believes she represents. It is interesting though that she still wants him to kiss her if he's offended by her words. It's as if she wants to provoke discussion and thought - not suppress it. The debate she stirs is also a kind of loving act; the discourse it raises furthers the relationship between Gaga and her audience. If Judas doesn't even care enough about the message to even have a negative reaction, she tells him he can just ignore her. So once again, the textual discourse created by Gaga is an opportunity to bring polar forces together in a kind of sexual balance - love.

Part 4: Concluding Remarks

Who, then, are the Illuminati here? Is it Gaga, who tells everyone to be themselves and to not feel restricted by societal oppression? Or is it the ignorant Christians who think they understand the Lord's message but really just miserably botch it up? who convince people to keep their heads in the sand? I believe the answer is horrifyingly clear. I will admit that Lady Gaga seems to have been expressing Crowleyan/Qabbalistic ideas, and perhaps has been using certain symbolism to this end. But by no means is this a bad thing. If the message makes people feel better about themselves, how is that wrong? The real "Illuminati" want you to feel guilty, to feel sinful, to feel incompetent, so that you keep running back to them for "salvation." How is this healthy?