So what exactly is the joke here? You even bother to look at the syllabus?
I personally don't care that much for Gaga but if you look at the approach the instructor is taking, this is basically a sociology of popular music course that covers most of the salient topics in the field but uses Gaga as a way to illuminated more abstract theories and concepts by using a concrete artistic example. At a certain point, Gaga is interchangeable. This could have been a course about the Beatles or James Brown and still used the same pedagogical approach.
to me the thought of having a course created to outlining someones rise to fame is crazy especially in the case of lady Gaga, this course could have been created for far better artists. seems like sumthin for an A&E Documentary
i did check the syllabus, but it still comes off as being a joke that it took someone like Lady Gaga to prompt such a course although the content offers some value looking into the music industry not specifically lady gaga, you are correct though this could have been easily about someone else; James Brown or the Beatles and maybe it should have been, therefore more people would probably take the course serious, they seemed to make quite a joke of it on the news, although i didnt really catch the full scope of what the course was about, but even the sound of Lady Gaga 101 just comes off as weak it could have easily read:
SOCY 398D - MUSIC/ARTISTS AND THE SOCIOLOGY OF THE FAME
although i am not a fan of her work either i dont think i would award her with a university course on her life, after being in the music industry for only 5 or so years..
she may be successful, she may be talented, but so are a lot of other deserving artists out there today.
So what exactly is the joke here? You even bother to look at the syllabus?
I personally don't care that much for Gaga but if you look at the approach the instructor is taking, this is basically a sociology of popular music course that covers most of the salient topics in the field but uses Gaga as a way to illuminated more abstract theories and concepts by using a concrete artistic example. At a certain point, Gaga is interchangeable. This could have been a course about the Beatles or James Brown and still used the same pedagogical approach.
to me the thought of having a course created to outlining someones rise to fame is crazy especially in the case of lady Gaga, this course could have been created for far better artists. seems like sumthin for an A&E Documentary
i did check the syllabus, but it still comes off as being a joke that it took someone like Lady Gaga to prompt such a course although the content offers some value looking into the music industry not specifically lady gaga, you are correct though this could have been easily about someone else; James Brown or the Beatles and maybe it should have been, therefore more people would probably take the course serious, they seemed to make quite a joke of it on the news, although i didnt really catch the full scope of what the course was about, but even the sound of Lady Gaga 101 just comes off as weak it could have easily read:
SOCY 398D - MUSIC/ARTISTS AND THE SOCIOLOGY OF THE FAME
although i am not a fan of her work either i dont think i would award her with a university course on her life, after being in the music industry for only 5 or so years..
she may be successful, she may be talented, but so are a lot of other deserving artists out there today.
this course wasn't created to give a deserving artist recognition. the idea is to study the sociology of an artist's rise to fame. lady gaga is really damn famous, right? i think this course would be especially interesting because they chose someone with questionable merit who's in the public eye right now. with her artistry being debatable, one can really focus specifically on the idea of being famous, and the course is supplemented with current, easily accessible examples.
this course wasn't created to give a deserving artist recognition. the idea is to study the sociology of an artist's rise to fame. lady gaga is really damn famous, right? i think this course would be especially interesting because they chose someone with questionable merit who's in the public eye right now. with her artistry being debatable, one can really focus specifically on the idea of being famous, and the course is supplemented with current, easily accessible examples.
so Kim Kardashian is next then?....it just opens a the doors for a world of 1 hit wonders and people who skyrocketed to fame over nuthin at all...i guess in the end your right its not entirely focusing on gaga
but i understand where your coming from, i just looked at it a completely different way..(glorifying Gaga and whats she done)
DocMcCoy"Go and laugh in your own country!" 5,917 Posts
Like O-Dub, I don't much care for her either, but the nature of her success and her rise to fame is a particularly modern and non-traditional manifestation of the phenomenon. I've said this about her on here before, but she's really the first artist whose success - in fact, her entire career thus far - has been measured as much in terms of digital downloads, YouTube hits, page views and Google searches as it has in physical record and ticket sales - possibly more so. Sure, the success of your Britneys and Miley Cyruses can be measured in those terms as well, but their path to fame came largely via a more traditional route. Conversely, Gaga's success has come about exclusively in a post-iPod era where social networking and 3G phones have become the principle means of exchanging information for millions of people, where CDs and DVDs are waved away as dead technology, and where old media is slowly crumbling around us. None of these upheavals have halted her ascent to an otherwise old-fashioned kind of global superstardom, although whether she'll be able to sustain it for Madonna periods of longevity remains to be seen. Either way, all of the above makes her a first-rate subject for this kind of sociological study, I'd say.
As for the whole "deserving artist" thing, well, Tom Cruise didn't become the biggest movie star in the world because he was the best actor, did he?
While I certainly agree that she is a sociology wonder and that many can learn from what she's accomplished, my main issue with this is with how many band managers, marketing managers, record labels, etc. are looking at her as the end all be all marketing formula for success. What worked for her may not work for others considering this is art, where formulas should not apply. If this is the route everyone goes now, there will be no differentiation and artists will just continue to get spewed in and out of the pop machine. I was at the Digital Hollywood Conference a couple weeks ago and posed this question in a panel on Personal Brands and every single panelist basically just said ' you simply have to look at what Lady Gaga is doing and do that'. WRONG! I think you have to start with a brand exercise that examines an artist's image, personality, fan base, willingness to connect, etc... then build a comprehensive marketing strategy around that.
pcmr
5,591 Posts
Comments
I personally don't care that much for Gaga but if you look at the approach the instructor is taking, this is basically a sociology of popular music course that covers most of the salient topics in the field but uses Gaga as a way to illuminated more abstract theories and concepts by using a concrete artistic example. At a certain point, Gaga is interchangeable. This could have been a course about the Beatles or James Brown and still used the same pedagogical approach.
i did check the syllabus, but it still comes off as being a joke that it took someone like Lady Gaga to prompt such a course although the content offers some value looking into the music industry not specifically lady gaga, you are correct though this could have been easily about someone else; James Brown or the Beatles and maybe it should have been, therefore more people would probably take the course serious, they seemed to make quite a joke of it on the news, although i didnt really catch the full scope of what the course was about, but even the sound of Lady Gaga 101 just comes off as weak it could have easily read:
SOCY 398D - MUSIC/ARTISTS AND THE SOCIOLOGY OF THE FAME
although i am not a fan of her work either i dont think i would award her with a university course on her life, after being in the music industry for only 5 or so years..
she may be successful, she may be talented, but so are a lot of other deserving artists out there today.
[ODub]YOU DISS SOCIOLOGY YOU DISS YOURSELF[/ODub]
this course wasn't created to give a deserving artist recognition. the idea is to study the sociology of an artist's rise to fame. lady gaga is really damn famous, right? i think this course would be especially interesting because they chose someone with questionable merit who's in the public eye right now. with her artistry being debatable, one can really focus specifically on the idea of being famous, and the course is supplemented with current, easily accessible examples.
so Kim Kardashian is next then?....it just opens a the doors for a world of 1 hit wonders and people who skyrocketed to fame over nuthin at all...i guess in the end your right its not entirely focusing on gaga
but i understand where your coming from, i just looked at it a completely different way..(glorifying Gaga and whats she done)
my bad...
http://www.slideshare.net/GlobalGossip/10-ways-to-be-a-marketing-genius-like-lady-gaga-4894115
As for the whole "deserving artist" thing, well, Tom Cruise didn't become the biggest movie star in the world because he was the best actor, did he?
While I certainly agree that she is a sociology wonder and that many can learn from what she's accomplished, my main issue with this is with how many band managers, marketing managers, record labels, etc. are looking at her as the end all be all marketing formula for success. What worked for her may not work for others considering this is art, where formulas should not apply. If this is the route everyone goes now, there will be no differentiation and artists will just continue to get spewed in and out of the pop machine. I was at the Digital Hollywood Conference a couple weeks ago and posed this question in a panel on Personal Brands and every single panelist basically just said ' you simply have to look at what Lady Gaga is doing and do that'. WRONG! I think you have to start with a brand exercise that examines an artist's image, personality, fan base, willingness to connect, etc... then build a comprehensive marketing strategy around that.
My $.02