Pop Art

You would think it would be something like that, but then why are her overall views on her channel without those collabs (38.5B) higher than what Kworb lists, which includes videos of collabs from other channels (34.5B)? Kworb's page is missing hundreds of millions if not billions of views from most big names, but I don't know why exactly.

I'm definitely not one to defend Taylor, but I do like accuracy, and Shakira is actually the #3 female artist in terms of official view total: Taylor: 46,341,728,829 BlackPink: 42,844,306,298 Shakira: 38,496,111,124 Kworb's YouTube page is weird, it lists the artist's features for them which you would think would boost their comprehensive view count, but somehow almost every artist's total is still less than their actual total shown on YouTube. You can see each artist's actual YouTube views on Chartmasters (scroll down to "Most-Viewed Artists Channels on YouTube: Top 1,000" and filter by gender) or by just checking each artist's YouTube channel.

Says the person talking about streams like they're getting songwriting residuals from them (which some artists don't even see *giggles hysterically*)

August 2026 Update Spotify YouTube

Is that so? Shall we revisit your list in the OP then but with career concert grosses? Surely the order wouldn't change if Rihanna is such a hot live act as you're insinuating, right? Taylor Swift - $3.13B Beyoncé - $1.78B Lady Gaga - $1.17B Shakira - $529.7M Katy Perry - $529.1M Rihanna - $350M Oh dear...it seems it did change. I wonder why?

Follow up question: why would people rather listen to Rihanna's catalogue, than watch her perform?

Abracadabra surpassed 500M plays on YouTube Music today, becoming Gaga's 17th song to surpass the mark on the platform. Die With A Smile: 3.5B Bad Romance: 3B Poker Face: 2.8B Shallow: 2.7B Always Remember Us This Way: 1.3B Judas: 1.1B Telephone: 1B Alejandro: 1B Just Dance: 1B I'll Never Love Again: 933M Paparazzi: 742M Applause: 739M Rain On Me: 667M Million Reasons: 599M Bloody Mary: 580M Born This Way: 579M Abracadabra: 500M

I can't speak for anyone but myself, and no I most certainly did not ever care more about her acting than her music. Feel free to check my post history to verify if you'd like. Also, have you considered that perhaps the reason her acting career isn't discussed a lot at the moment is because...there's nothing to discuss? Her last lead role was almost 2 years ago and she has yet to sign on for the next one — what exactly do you expect us to talk about? Like let's take the hater goggles off and put on our thinking caps from time to time sis.

More and more I'm starting to seriously think the Kats have lost their minds. One of the Boys counting as a major smash era for Katy but not Born This Way for Gaga?

Weren't y'all dragging her acting as a supposed desperate cling to relevance when her success in music cooled down a bit? Now all of a sudden it's concerning she's not acting as much? Let's get control of the narrative shall we?

I knew as soon as I read "AI" on the website for this that ATRL would be up in arms. Look, I cannot stand generative AI in most instances (I can't tell you how embarrassing it is when I hear someone close to me say "let me ask chat" ) and we should absolutely call out Gaga's and every other popstar's usage of generative AI when it does happen, but as said many times in this thread, this is more than likely not that. There are different types of AI and they are not all the generative type that deservedly receive lashings. I'm still a little skeptical about this, but if they can do what they're claiming, it really could be revolutionary. I've been hoping there could be a way one day that animal testing could be phased out — never did I think Gaga might be involved in making that a reality. Not to mention all the possible advancements in healthcare and beauty around skin, from the vain (anti-aging solutions) to life saving (cancer treatments). This really could be huge in several industries if it can deliver on their claims.

Haus Labs 2.0? The page she linked kinda just sounds like buzzword jargon to me. Admittedly I did only skim it, and if it does what I think it's claiming to do, it certainly sounds like it could be a pretty big deal.

It's the daily streams they had on day one, one year later, and two years later. As It Was had 16.1M streams on Day 1, BOAF 8M.

To add to this, I'm reminded of the TOTC article from a year ago about DWAS vs BL and how they pointed out that though DWAS had a stronger first year, BL had a surprisingly strong second year because of a few factors (SBHT, continued smash era, etc.) that it was unclear at the time if DWAS would have. A year later, it looks like DWAS might in fact have a stronger second year even without those factors. Kinda wish they would update their article to reflect the additional data.