I have been listening to her for almost a year before she became famous. I never thought she would become famous because her music was just ok, nothing that blew me out of my shoes nor anything that I couldn't stand. It was just good music and I never understood why she is so popular so suddenly. There have been others who have had lyrics, hihop, and electronica mixed in one, they just didn't market as much.

That said, I love hard rock, and rock. Then Alternative came along and I love that too, and electronica has always been a favorite and I like the newer ones. That said, Lady Gaga has yet to even match Madonna's level of relevance, from back in the day, much less "most relevant ever."

Basically, she isn't great, but neither is she bad. She's just ok and that's plenty enough reason for me to put on her songs now and then.

The very same people that say that quality in (usually Nintendo's) casual games is subjective are bashing Lady Gaga and calling other performers "real-art". Hypocricy at it's finest.

Just because some people listen to upbeat, catchy songs instead of jazz or the old stuff doesn't mean they have no taste or they're listening to crap and not art. For me dance music is art, to some it isn't. Deal with it.

Actually no you can't. You can't call it art when it isn't, but you can call it your preference. Your opinion does not make things fact, and they can be easily wrong. Art has an actual definition, and you cannot say something is art that doesn't follow the definition. You can go ahead and call it "subjective art" or "art to me" but you cannot call it art because that is just wrong, hence you are wrong. Deal with itl

May i see that definition of art just to see why some artists fit to it but Gaga doesn't?

Art stimulates you intellectually and evokes emotion. Not just the "yea let's dance and drop some X" sort of emotion/intellect either. The best example is opera. I hate opera and find it to be one of the most boring things that has ever existed. However, and I know this experience is not just me, when I hear a good singer I get goosebumps and tears actually form in my eyes. I don't know what the hell they are singing about, or what it means, or really anything, but it still happens.

So no, Lady Gaga's songs are not art, they are just entertaining and that is what they will remain unless she does some amazing change. As I said you can call it "subjective art" or "my form of art," but if you call it actual art, then your opinion is wrong.

You are using personal reference.  Just because YOU get goosebumps or tears doesn't mean, I do or the guy down the street does.   Lady Gaga could easily stimulate you intellectually and evoke emotion.  (And last time I checked, Joy or Happiness fits the billing of an emotion). 

Again,  you can't take your personal opinions and express them as fact.   Art has a myriad of definitions beyond the one you listed and you can't prove Gaga doesn't fit with the one you listed either. 

i cant tell you weather lady gaga is becoming irrelevant or not but i can tell you that her popularity is at an all time high and that kesha is no where near the levels that lady gaga is at in popularity.

lady gagas fans span the globe...in the billions

kesha..well not so much unless you are an american citizen...

Lady GAGA irrelevant?Um Youtube Bad Romance it's the first youtube video to get to 200 mil views what are you blind?

Savoury music?

What does that even mean?

And half the reason people lash out is because they're so damned sick of the music being played everywhere. Plus we're snobby and arrogant =P

all i needed to read to say this is a retarted post techno was huge way before gaga.