I think to suggest that an entire genre–in this case, pop–is entirely insignificant and unimportant is discriminatory and unfair. Entertainment and fun are important components of pretty much everyone’s life, in one form or another; why shouldn’t music contribute to that? Must every song be a political anthem or sociological study in order to be important? Quite the contrary, I think some of the most important bands and artists of our time have performed/written many songs whose main redeeming value were slick guitars, catchy choruses, and the ability to rouse crowds into singing along.

Lest we forget, for the first three years of their career, The Beatles were almost exclusively a pop band, writing songs centering entirely around boy-girl relationships and teen dating.

So, in summation, I definitely agree with you on GaGa. But I think to suggest that “pop” music is unimportant or has no redeeming value is perhaps a bit mistaken.

Thanks Chuck and I will defend myself and say that I don’t think I called pop music “insignificant”, but if I did I apologize. I agree that pop music DOES have a purpose. I just don’t think it has ever changed our way of life in any significant way. With few exceptions, pop music is, for the most part, fun to listen too and non-threatening. Occasionally that rare artist or band appears and makes a ripple that influences either a group of people or a culture, but it’s rare and unusual. But I suppose it’s not unheard of. Lady Gaga has struck a nerve with a certain group of people, but I doubt she will be changing the landscape of pop music or changing our culture in any way.

Uh…who said it was Mom?

You can dream whatever little pipe dreams you want about Michael being the King of Pop or whatever, I seriously think we owe it all to Mr. Bowie.

Lady Gaga sort of reminds me of The Triplets a little bit. Except there’s only one of her, and her uncle obviously has a hell of a lot more money.