Tm4074

Neither are respected by the music industry but Demi definitely is more respected than Selena. Demi at least got a pop vocal album and pop duo Grammy nomination which is a major competitive genre category. Selena's only Grammy nomination was for her Latin EP in a less competitive minor category. Her pop music hasn't been acknowledged by the Recording Academy at all. She's not taken seriously. Demi is also recognized as having musical talent which Selena lacks.

Well he was going to lose anyway and now he's going to lose extra hard now with this radioactive endorsement

She could pull it off. She can manipulate her voice to do anything. It wouldn't be authentic to her though and it would bomb. Country is the only genre she has never mentioned as being a fan of.

Pop stars are still working with mainstream top songwriters, it's just smaller more intimate teams now. They work with one or two writers instead of several to prioritize cohesion and consistency. Albums are the currency of mainstream pop stars these days, singles only get you so far. The Rihanna model hasn't been successful by anybody since Rihanna herself. Doja and Dua came the closest but they haven't been able to achieve similar longevity, consistency and impact. Their focus on singles over albums doesn't foster career longevity in this era. I think writing camps are great if you're an artist that is able to curate and creative direct like Beyoncé but that's a skill that needs to be developed with practice and also requires good taste/instincts. It's more complicated than simply working with a group of top pop songwriters and churning out hit after hit. KATSEYE is using the old school writing camp strategy and their music is AI slop. On the other hand you have artists like Gracie Abrams who insist on being singer-songwriters when she has nothing of substance to say. If you have no artistic vision and poor creative instincts then it doesn't matter if you write your own songs or use writing camps - the outcome will be lackluster.

Grammy nomination for Best Comedy Album incoming

Showgirl isn't a high bar to clear. Being "miles better" isn't saying much. You're telling me Midnight deserved a similar score to folklore and higher than Red? According to MC it's on folklore's level. I disagree with that. Midnights should be much lower. It's a low 70s album at best.

Midnights was given universal acclaim though. It should have been at least 10 points lower. It's better than Showgirl and has some highlights, but not that much better than Showgirl to warrant the gap. I agree it should have been in the high 60s/low 70s range. Not in the 80s.

Score is deserved but I find it quite telling that these critics all of a sudden have the balls to give her low scores now that the cultural attitude has shifted from Taylor mania but these same critics praised Midnights? Please. They should have been giving her low scores since Midnights and then maybe she wouldn't be releasing garbage over and over again.

Making all these music award shows besides the Grammys fan voted killed their prestige and relevance. Artists have little incentive to show up since these award shows don't have the cultural significance they once did due to the internet and the award is meaningless. These award shows need artists more than the artists need them. That's why the VMAs are essentially a legacy act award show now. If the music industry had the foresight back in the day they would have created an award season like Hollywood does for film which would have kept them relevant and their audience engaged because there would be stakes involved. Artists would show up and fans would be invested in the outcome. But nobody cares because most music awards are meaningless and it's their own fault. They willingly removed any prestige they used to have and now they're paying for it with their irrelevance. Winning a VMA used to be something artists strived for. Now they give them out like candy. Grammys are struggling to book current A-list performers never mind the VMAs.

2020 and 2025 being the highest. No Ariana no ratings. Nobody wants to see any more of Taylor's undeserved ego stroking. Even her fans aren't falling for it anymore. The rest of the show was Gen X nostalgia bait. The VMAs have lost the plot and the saddest part is they're still the 2nd most relevant music award show after the Grammys.

My niece is 10 and wore her Britney merch on her first day of school. Discovered her music on her own from the internet. Same with her friends. She's Gen Alpha. Britney is multigenerational and her catalogue aged like fine wine.

Title sounds like something that belongs on TTPD not TLOASG. I'm confused.

Doing this 13 years since her debut and on her 8th album. About to become her longest running top 10 hit too. No flops. Ariana has some of the best longevity in the game, yet she doesn't get nearly enough credit for it since some forget she's been around for a long time. She started setting streaming records all the way back to My Everything in 2014.

ATRL told me this album aged like milk, what happened?

By then BOAF will have the record

Jennifer Lawrence

Ariana is also the only female artist to have two songs in the top 10 longest charting female solo songs of all-time (7 rings and WCBF)

The vast majority of this site are younger millennials and older Gen Z that were the target age demographic for Hannah Montana and nostalgia is a hell of a drug. The fact that some people are claiming that HM was enough for legend status and she doesn't have to prove herself anymore? Lmao sure okay. In the real world your legacy being regulated to your sitcom character from a tween show when it's been 20 years since said show debuted is NOT a good thing. People act like Miley's in her 50s and this is expected. She's only 33.

And some of yall still have the audacity to say Ariana has no impact and influence. ADÉLA just adds to the obvious Ariana influence evident among many of these Gen Z pop stars. Happy for her though! The song is a bop. Seems this era will be her breakthrough in the mainstream even though some were disappointed she strayed from the sound she adopted on her EP.

How is my take anti-capitalist or entitled? I'm not for making surrogacy illegal, I'm for regulating it and allowing it under specific circumstances which was its original intent. That's not anti-capitalist, that's regulated capitalism and quite a neutral position. Wouldn't thinking you're owed biological children because you have the financial means to afford a practice like surrogacy be considered entitlement? Nobody is owed children regardless of your socioeconomic status. Capitalism shouldn't be applicable in every aspect of society and life, and it isn't. That is how the developed world actually works. If everything in life had a price tag and could be purchased for those with the means this world would be significantly worse than it is. The vast majority of developed countries have a hybrid system of capitalism and socialism, the question is how much of each and where to apply it. This is why ethics are important. Capitalism isn't ethical by design but we don't need it in certain aspects of society. For example, I don't think capitalism has an ethical place in healthcare, most developed countries follow the same principle except for infamously the United States. I don't believe just because one has the financial freedom to do something and it's allowed, that they should or that it's the right thing to do. Where do we draw the line? That's an argument that opens a huge can of worms well beyond the surrogacy debate. We used to be able to purchase human beings, it was called slavery. Just because those rich, white men had the legal and financial ability to purchase humans at one point, does that mean it's okay? What about child labor? Not equating those examples with surrogacy but just because something is allowed under capitalism doesn't make it okay and that we shouldn't question it. Surrogacy should be highly regulated and controlled considering the necessity of a living human female to successfully carry out the practice. Using the right wing "pull yourself up from your bootstraps" argument to defend potential exploitative practices and dangerous cultural precedents being promoted by the super wealthy's increasingly noticeable participation in commercial surrogacy is crazy. You responded to me that you dislike how this is turning into ammunition for a stan war which I agree with. Yet you're interpreting my response as a direct attack on Gaga. I literally said this isn't about her specifically and I don't know or need to know her individual circumstances, but about the larger context of commercial surrogacy and how the super wealthy take advantage of it. Denying that reality is naive.

Yeah, I want to reiterate this is not an exclusive criticism of Lady Gaga, far from it. I think focusing in on one particular wealthy celebrity using surrogacy as a path to parenthood is missing the point. I and the rest of the public do not know the specific circumstances of Gaga's experience or if she exhausted all methods before considering surrogacy. It's all speculation, and she doesn't owe us any details about her personal medical history or her family planning. However it is important to note how wealthy women are able to focus on their career in their prime (20s and 30s) thus allowing them to postpone parenthood for their 40s by affording these alternative methods. They also don't have to sacrifice their health, body and overall well-being to carry and birth a baby. It's often said that pregnancy and giving birth is the most dangerous thing a woman will do. If very wealthy couples (and single wealthy men as well which is absolutely a thing) are allowed to rent a womb for a price while the rest of us regular women have to suffer through pregnancy and birth (if they choose to have children), it's absolutely fostering a new standard that perceives pregnancy/birth as a duty of the have-nots and the privileged are exempt. There are very few things in life that unite us, for the most part women of all backgrounds and socioeconomic statuses experienced the universal reality (or more appropriately the universal suffering) of pregnancy and birth. Aristocrats and royalty had to give birth to produce a heir just like the peasants had to give birth to have them work in the fields and sustain their livelihoods. Now that surrogacy is becoming normalized and accepted among the wealthy, that is no longer the case which is alarming. The amount of celebrity couples having children via surrogacy just in these past few years should be concerning for us as a society. Imagine how many non-famous very wealthy couples are exploiting this method. It's hard to believe this increase in surrogacy always boils down to fertility issues considering there are various other methods available before landing on surrogacy. I'd argue a decent percentage of these super wealthy couples are accurately calculating the risks of pregnancy/birth and paying their way out of it but still get to adhere to the societal expectations of having biological children and having heirs to their multimillion dollar estates to continue their generational wealth. They get the reward with no risk. I don't feel comfortable with that principle being applied to pregnancy, birth and parenthood on a large scale among a specific group of super privileged and wealthy individuals. Surrogacy should be used for what it was intended for: a last ditch effort to parenthood after all other methods were exhausted and unsuccessful. Growing up my familiarity with surrogacy was mostly gay couples having a close friend or relative voluntarily agreeing to carry their baby with a donor egg as a charitable act for their friends/family so they could have a child as they couldn't on their own. It wasn't this commercial enterprise that it is today.

I think the discussion surrounding the ethics of surrogacy is valid to a degree, it's a moral gray area so it's important to apply nuance. The recent influx of wealthy couples using surrogacy is validating what we all know. Pregnancy is a huge risk for a healthy woman, never mind a woman with a health condition, and those with money and resources are choosing to not put their body through it and use the surrogate option. Pregnancy (or lack of) is going to become a symbol of socioeconomic status. The wealthy can avoid it and still have biological children to continue their bloodline and generational wealth. The rest of us don't have that option. I think this is primarily a wealth inequality and class issue, not a feminist issue. Btw I'm a woman with progressive views that has criticized the moralizing behavior of the left and its use in stan culture. This is not about Gaga but the trend that is happening on a larger scale among the wealthiest class. It's a little dystopian if you ask me. I think we all can remove the stan behavior and use our critical thinking skills for one second. Surrogacy was intended for couples that couldn't have biological children naturally and/or struggled with fertility, it wasn't intended for the uber wealthy to rent a womb to avoid the medical risks, physical discomfort and negative effects on personal vanity that comes with pregnancy. I think surrogacy is a good option as a last resort, it shouldn't be the first option. It needs to be highly regulated and should only be used if absolutely necessary after everything else fails. I don't think it should be normalized among the uber wealthy. It's just another way to separate the haves from the have-nots.

LMAOOO Ed had no spine but I love seeing P!nk take L's. She has tormented us with her obnoxious "not like other girls" act since 2000 and has gotten away with it.

Justin has the catalogue and the legacy, he just needs to start trying on stage and do a full performance but with how he's been lately it's not promising. If he decides to have some energy and enthusiasm on stage he'd be a good show. Harry would be fine…just fine. Nothing special but not horrible. Only two halftimes this decade have been headlined by women and we're heading into 2027. Hasn't been a female headliner since Rihanna. And JLo/Shakira had to share. What is Jay Z's problem? There are plenty of female artists with the legacy and catalogue to do the halftime. But we'll get half assed Justin Bieber and Harry Styles with only handful of solo hits.

Into You was charting well before the tour and has been doing 1m+ for over a year now. It started re-entering in 2025 doing 1.2/1.3m daily. It has been consistent since so it's not because of petal/tour.