base talk Gaga couldn't reach Taylor's heights. Why?

[Corso]

27 minutes ago, selena_lavigne said:

That may be how you see it. The way i see it she has been good with the public forever except for the fact that some chose to not consume her content due to some of what has been mentioned previously.

First off, after i end it with Applause being a smash, which it was, she was all over the radio, she then proceeded with DWUW.

After that she made a jazz album that went #1 I THINK. Working with a legend but for me, since i don't listen to jazz well we were introduced to a legend.

She then proceeded to have very incredibly successful performance of The Sound of Music.

She then proceeded to have a well received performance in AHS.

She then proceeded to do Joanne which did over 200K first week. Not bad for a flop. 

She then proceeded to do the super bowl which catapulted her discography and made Million Reasons have longevity.

And then she proceeded to have a sold out 95 Million dollar tour. 

Which then proceeded to ASIB. And the smash hits on there.

She has been proving her legendary status for decades. And i'm not speaking on her personally since i don't know her, but i'm just talking about what i hear from other people and what i see on my computer. 

 

Right, she's had an amazing career. But the question was why doesn't she have the level of success of Taylor Swift which she did have during The Fame/Monster. That is just commercial success though so I think she can be more proud of the things she's done since then many of which you've mentioned. Id rather be a respected artist than just be really successful. And TS is respected too, but I don't think that level of commercial success really matters that much.

Edited Thursday at 03:49 AM by Corso

[iHype.]

13 minutes ago, Strawberry Bubble said:

It's naive to think the LGBTQ+ community wasn't part of Gaga's commercial plan. The biggest female pop star in history, Madonna, also advocated for LGBT people, and Gaga followed in her footsteps.

 

We were the product, the target audience. Advocating for gay people isn't "anti-commercial" at all. Pinkwashing is actually very common among pop girls. Please don't be so easily manipulated.

When Madonna made her imagery and music pro-LGBT in the 90s it was also the lowest commercial point of her career at the time so I'm not sure what your logic is. None of her prime 80s music was notably LGBT based.

 

You also must be like 16 and weren't actually cognisant during Born This Way era to imply it wasn't risky or anti-commercial. From the time the lead single dropped a large portion of the general public declared she went too far off, was 'weird', she got annoying, etc. LGBT rights weren't strongly accepted by many of the GP in 2011, let alone on a global scale. She literally had protests and bannings for her music all over the world.

[IBelonginYourArms]

One artist made their life goal to be relatable to the gray mass of mediocre Karens who can comfort themselves with Taylor Swift's Spotify stats while another one pandered to gays and took many risky decisions.

 

Taylor hires the army of data analytics and fortune tellers before dropping her same-sounding turd while Gaga takes more than 4 years to release something and moves on

 

Oh and Taylor would gladly drown all of her mutant-looking cats to reach Gaga's heights in her acting career 

 

It's 2024, not 2012 anymore, no one is obsessed with stanning for a queen of pop. It's probably more exciting to stan Camila Cabello with her abysmal numbers than Taylor Swift with her obscure album tracks which are apparently bigger than other girls' classic hits dd

 

Edited Thursday at 04:02 AM by IBelonginYourArms

[MadMax12]

2 minutes ago, iHype. said:

When Madonna made her imagery and music pro-LGBT in the 90s it was also the lowest commercial point of her career at the time so I'm not sure what your logic is. None of her prime 80s music was notably LGBT based.

 

You also must be like 16 and weren't actually cognisant during Born This Way era to imply it wasn't risky or anti-commercial. From the time the lead single dropped a large portion of the general public declared she went too far off, was 'weird', she got annoying, etc. LGBT rights weren't strongly accepted by many of the GP in 2011, let alone on a global scale. She literally had protests and bannings for her music all over the world.

It was too early in her career to start taking these risks with the LGBT community and religion. Madonna waited until she was properly established with 5 commercially successful eras before pushing boundaries. Gaga was trying to have her Like a Prayer era when she only just started, and Born This Way became her True Colours instead 

[Strawberry Bubble]

29 minutes ago, iHype. said:

When Madonna made her imagery and music pro-LGBT in the 90s it was also the lowest commercial point of her career at the time so I'm not sure what your logic is. None of her prime 80s music was notably LGBT based.

 

You also must be like 16 and weren't actually cognisant during Born This Way era to imply it wasn't risky or anti-commercial. From the time the lead single dropped a large portion of the general public declared she went too far off, was 'weird', she got annoying, etc. LGBT rights weren't strongly accepted by many of the GP in 2011, let alone on a global scale. She literally had protests and bannings for her music all over the world.

You must be 16 if you think Gaga or Madonna would be as successful as they are now if they were openly homophobic or didn't focus their brand on LGBT people. It's literally part of their marketing strategy.

 

"When Madonna made her imagery and music pro-LGBT in the 90s, it was also the lowest commercial point of her career": Yet, we are still talking about Madonna today, and her LGBT alliance is seen as provocative and part of her shock factor. Vogue is one of her biggest classics, for God's sake. It's all part of the brand. Many of her fans are LGBT people, and she's seen as an LGBT icon. Do you really think this wasn't part of the commercial plan? Do you really think a woman who said at the beginning of her career that she wanted to rule the world and has been very open about her ambition would risk everything for us? I'm sorry to open your eyes, but Madonna, like Taylor and Gaga, are products, and their success is part of their plan. Their millions didn't come from humility or trying to save the world (and the gays). They are products, and we are their target audience.

 

And here again, "Born This Way" is a song that was number one for like five weeks and was seen as provocative, driven by her shock factor as part of her brand.

 

 

 

Edited Thursday at 04:18 AM by Strawberry Bubble

[Witnessed ET]

Gaga has been polarizing since the beginning and the gimmicks were only gonna last so long before people got tired of it. She had to reinvent herself and cater to the soccer moms to find success again.
 

Taylor Swift is your all American girl next door who's been playing it safe since the beginning and has been writing and singing about relatable stuff to teen girls of a certain category (even her so called "risqué" era looked mostly mainstream and generic). And i don't even have to talk about the business mindset this girl has and she's willing to trample anything and anyone to get there. 
 

It's not really hard to see why one lasted longer than the other. So idk why this thread was even necessary. 

[Trent W]

Ehmmm

 

TFM + TF was bigger than any Taylor singular era

 

But well Taylor's 2023 was probably bigger than TFM + TF

 

Idk they were around the same, I remember 2009-2010 and it was similar to Taylor last year and this one

[iHype.]

21 minutes ago, Strawberry Bubble said:

You must be 16 if you think Gaga or Madonna would be as successful as they are now if they were openly homophobic

Who tf said that 

 

There's a difference between being casually pro-LGBT like 90% of mainstream Pop artists, and then actually aggressively incorporating it into your image, music, and overall branding like during Born This Way. The latter does not conclude to appealing to many of the population, and arguably the minority population of gays supporting does not compensate for that larger hetero population being turned off.

 

21 minutes ago, Strawberry Bubble said:

When Madonna made her imagery and music pro-LGBT in the 90s, it was also the lowest commercial point of her career": Yet, we are still talking about Madonna today, and her LGBT alliance is seen as provocative and part of her shock factor. It's all part of the brand. Many of her fans are LGBT people, and she's seen as an LGBT icon. Do you really think this wasn't part of the commercial plan? Do you really think a woman who said at the beginning of her career that she wanted to rule the world and has been very open about her ambition would risk everything for us? Vogue is one of her biggest classics, for God's sake. I'm sorry to open your eyes, but Madonna, like Taylor and Gaga, are products, and their success is part of their plan. Their millions didn't come from humility or trying to save the world (and the gays). They are products, and we are their target audience.

 

And here again, "Born This Way" is a song that was number one for like five weeks and was seen as provocative, driven by her shock factor as part of her brand.

Neither Madonna or Gaga's LGBT allyship was apart of a 'commercial plan'. Believe it or not, but not every artist is chart hungry as Taylor Swift and bases every waking moment of their entire life and existence around how they can go #1 on Billboard. 

 

Gaga and Madonna were pro-LGBT simply because it meant a lot to their personal values. Yes they were also aware it was a notable portion of their fanbase, however they could've been casual with thier support (like Taylor) and made it a part-time thing in exchange for more of the hetero public however explicitly made it clear (and showed with their actions) that was never their intention. They used their pull as successful artists to leverage equal rights, give spotlight to minority groups, and aggressively push mainstream media to be comfortable with things out of the 'normal'.

[Redstreak]

I mean, simply compare the albums on a side by side basis for the easiest answer

Edited Thursday at 02:26 PM by Redstreak

[Strawberry Bubble]

9 minutes ago, iHype. said:

Who tf said that 

 

There's a difference between being pro-LGBT casually like 90% of mainstream Pop artists, and then actually aggressively incorporating it into your image, music, and overall branding. The latter does not conclude to appealing to many of the population, and arguably the minority of the gay population supporting does not compensate for that larger population being turned off.

 

Neither Madonna or Gaga's LGBT allyship was apart of a 'commercial plan'. Believe it or not, but not every artist is chart hungry as Taylor Swift and bases their waking moment of their entire life and existence around how they can go #1 on Billboard. 

 

Gaga and Madonna were pro-LGBT simply because it meant a lot to their personal values. Yes they were also aware it was a notable portion of their fanbase, however they could've been casual with thier support (like Taylor) in exchange for more of the public however explicitly made it clear (and showed with their actions) that was never their intention. 

We are talking about Lady Gaga, Madonna, and Taylor Swift—not some indie artists that don't care about success and how to sell a product. This is a pop music forum about the most successful artists in history, not about underground artists who live for their passion and fight for others' rights.

 

It's very weird to me that you really think these women and their millions came from activism, or that they are better or less capitalistic than Taylor. They are all part of the same group: privileged millionaires who knew how to sell a product. And we, the gays, were also part of the product. This is how the music industry works.

 

It's very naive to say that Madonna and Gaga were not chart hungry. I could list their marketing strategies and the plans they followed to maximize numbers (like the very cheap album copies Gaga used for "Born This Way" to break records). 

 

"They could've been casual with their support (like Taylor) in exchange for more of the public," because Taylor's and Gaga's brands are not the same. They are trying to sell a product using different strategies. The meat dress and the crosses in the "Alejandro" video weren't for anyone's rights; they were for shock value (like the LGBT alliance).

Edited Thursday at 04:28 AM by Strawberry Bubble

[iHype.]

3 minutes ago, Strawberry Bubble said:

We are talking about Lady Gaga, Madonna, and Taylor Swift—not some indie artists that don't care about success and how to sell a product. This is a pop music forum about the most successful artists in history, not about underground artists who live for their passion and fight for others' rights.

 

It's very weird to me that you really think these women and their millions came from activism, or that they are better or less capitalistic than Taylor. They are all part of the same group: privileged millionaires who knew how to sell a product. And we, the gays, were also part of the product. This is how the music industry works.

 

It's very naive to say that Madonna and Gaga were not chart hungry. I could list their marketing strategies and the plans they followed to maximize numbers (like the very cheap album Gaga used for "Born This Way" to break records). 

It's also very weird to me you downplay Madonna & Gaga genuinely championing and putting their career on the line for your rights as 'capitalism' and not give them any flowers whatsoever because you refuse to criticize your god Taylor Swift or allude to anything that puts another pop female artist in a more favorable light than her.

 

I guess we agree to disagree. 

[kwek_kwek]

Gaga reached Taylor's height and that was from 2009-2011, just happened it did not last long. Every move she makes during her reign were in the news. She dominated the pop culture, name it all. 
 

 

[Strawberry Bubble]

1 minute ago, iHype. said:

It's also very weird to me you downplay Madonna & Gaga genuinely championing and putting their career on the line for your rights as 'capitalism' because you refuse to criticize your god Taylor Swift or allude to anything that puts another pop female artist in a more favorable light than her.

 

I guess we agree to disagree. 

Sure, Lady Gaga is the one who created LGBT rights, and not the thousands of real and unprivileged people who actually fought for them, from Stonewall to the Dewey's Restaurant Sit-In.

 

And if you read carefully, I'm saying that Taylor is just a product and a millionaire who knows how to sell a product. That's literally a criticism you wouldn't make if you considered someone a "God." You can erase that caricatured image you have of the Swifties if you want to have a real debate here.

 

Sure, Taylor has a lot of flaws. But it makes me cringe deeply when other fandoms don't see the obvious marketing strategies that all pop stars use. They are musicians and millionaires, not activists.

[Marry Illusion Glory]

Gaga has always followed her heart and stuck to her guns and creates from a space of creative freedom. She has made deliberate choices throughout her career to alienate people, be it markedly bold visual and sonic shifts or positioning herself as an outspoken advocate for socio-political movements that are much, much bigger than her which has allowed her to continually grow and evolve as an artist, gain some serious perspective, and be a game-changer in so many different ways. Prioritizing all that has clearly meant more to her than having the utmost commercial success.

 

There's no greater and meaningful legacy than your music and art helping save millions of lives, empowering them to embrace their truest selves and embark on journeys of self-expression, and inspiring them to strive to be limitlessly creative and fearlessly imaginative everyday. 

[Pop Art]

Kind of off the thread's original topic, but since it's veered in this direction already: I just know many, many Taylor fans don't see any difference between what Taylor did with You Need To Calm Down and what Gaga did with Born This Way.

 

Just because your fave's attempt at LGBT activism reeked of what basically boils down to corporate pride doesn't mean that's the case for other pop stars that have a genuine connection to (and in some cases, inclusion in, let's not forget that) our community. Taylor may not hate us, but she certainly has never genuinely supported us like some others have. There's a reason she's no one's gay icon.

[Walk_Away21]

3 hours ago, Buffy said:

Gaga had too many jump scare costumes. People were getting tired of attending a horror show. Taylor's music has always been easier on the eyes and ears.

Tbh this I kinda agree with. She jumped the shark during BTW. People loved her fashion during The Fame. Then she went into like Friday the 13th imagery instead of futuristic.

[burninredhot]

3 hours ago, Eternium said:

If you include Taylor's fraudulent Spotify streams, sure. But Taylor was bombing on Spotify before autoplay started and she regularly failed to outsell even Born This Way because she struggled in key global markets like Japan, South Korea, the U.K. and France. Nobody would have argued that Taylor Swift, Speak Now, Red, Reputation or Lover were bigger than BTW until after Taylor's label started pushing her on Spotify in 2020.

 

It's like saying The Weeknd is outperforming Michael Jackson at the same point in his career just because all listening impressions are now considered "sales equivalents."

This is so dumb. So Taylor had a fallout with the GP during rep-Lover era.. doesn't mean that she could'nt have risen back lol?

 

With this logic i guess A Star is Born is all a fraud and Gaga is still the biggest hasbeen in the industry alongside Katy Perry 

[BrokenMachine]

Not y'all falling for the bait 

[lonnie]

I love me some white on white violence with two annoying bases. Keep it going folks!

 

[burninredhot]

The real reason:

I agree with LMs when they call Gaga a visionary for her visuals.. they were creative and something new.

 

But behind all of that her music was never that special and just got terrible as time passed by which is why she came off as gimmicky and inauthentic. The GP was not interested anymore 

[Pink Whitney]

Gaga's discography is not nearly as good as Taylor's  

[hawx23]

Weird comparison. Gaga has always had linkages beyond music. Close relationships with fashion houses, and now movies, etc. Taylor doesn't have any of that but she is squarely about the music through and through. 
 

So "as big as Taylor'" is a weird metric because that only measures music charts and not other measures of cultural product (like fashion or blockbuster films etc)

Edited Thursday at 05:41 AM by hawx23

[Shinkirou]

Taylor is asexual, apolitical, presents hetero, PG 13, zero experimental music... Add to that the fact that writing is still for some reason the most validating aspect of music-making by the GP and she's pretty much a PR agent's dream. She's 100% having an impact on the industry. But all things come in waves, and very soon the flood of girls with guitars singing their diary entries is going to get stale and we're going to get some girls that actually push things forward musically

[bad guy]

Gaga had a unique personality so naturally that can alienate audiences yet she still managed to have an imperial phase that felt (and arguably was) much bigger than Taylor's. But the answer to this comes down to Gaga's inconsistency in both image and music. She went from TF/TFM -> BTW -> Artpop while Taylor went from country pop to…pop. Nothing about her really changed and with an image of sliced bread there's gonna be more appeal with kids as well.

 

Taylor's biggest reward has been not taking risks. When she tried with folklore/evermore she saw how she was getting no hits out of that and ran back to pop so it's clear success matters to her more than artistry.

[Sannie]

Well, no one has been able to match Taylor lol. 

 

Gaga's impact, however, has been undeniably bigger. Even Taylor said she'd love to mimic Gaga's career.