narid

EGOT here she comes!

Aww, a shame you didn't get I was paraphrasing just that! Unfortunately I don't have a microscope at hand, but I'm sure you do in order to check Shakicabana's new record.

Maybe you can use a microscope to count the number of people?

THEEE Queen of Pop Madonna constantly birthing, inspiring, and supporting her new descendants. We love a mother who always uplifts the new generation of pop royalty.

Not the "receipts" being: A claim that Gaga "dethroned" Beychella, while Beychella was still described AFTER Gaga 2025 as the "best-ever headlining performance" in Coachella history. https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/articles/lady-gaga-2025-vs-beyonce-020349614.html And a claim of 2.1 MILLION attendees that BBC literally investigated and found impossible. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cm20rg0vvp9o Two claims, and two giant

Yes, indeed! It's a shame it only lasted a total of 3 years and ended in 2011.

Talking about awards as the defining feature of an artist's career is the embodiment of an artist's limited impact! This is especially the case in this day and age, when awards have lost all meaning and value. You keep running to Gaga's awards because you know everything else is lacking!

Gaga is actually better than no one! Not Beyonce, not Taylor, not Rihanna, and definitely not Madonna. Madonna is not the Queen of Pop because of 'sales' alone, but because of impact. And Gaga hasn't touched 10% of Madonna's impact, and never will.

In my view is not a question of Madonna letting go of the title! It's simply part of pop history and how she's been known across the World for 4 decades.

As someone who claims to "work with copyright law", you are completely confusing a master use sync license with a live venue blanket license. Marketing law is not music industry law. Concert tours do not require prior permission or direct contract payouts to cover or mash up a song live. Venues worldwide operate under reciprocal blanket licenses paid to local societies (like PRS, GEMA, SACEM), which automatically route performance royalties back to ASCAP/BMI. As I said, Madonna never signed a contract or cut a check to Gaga and she didn't see a dime from Madonna. If this was a legally cleared profit-share deal for a commercial release as you claim, Gaga's publishers would legally have to be credited. Yet, BTW is completely omitted from the official MDNA World Tour live album booklet, DVD credits, and streaming metadata, which was clearly a tactical legal dare. If Gaga's camp took the bait to sue, Madonna's camp would have immediately countersued for copyright infringement over BTW vs EY. A countersuit would have forced Gaga to defend those structural similarities in court, which would be a total PR nightmare they didn't want to face. So your point about the possible similarities and whether they would hold in court is completely irrelevant. The entire point was that if Gaga sued, from a PR perspective it would have just dragged the plagiarism comparisons out in public discourse for much longer.

Madonna won hers in 1986, the first female and before MJ, which made him so angry he demanded to have it renamed the Michael Jackson Video Vanguard Award. They should award it to her in 2026, 40 years later, and rename it the Madonna Video Vanguard Award to make it right

Gaga never got a penny from Madonna. BTW isn't even credited on the MDNA Tour, which was clearly intentional. If Gaga went after her for performing BTW, she would open a can of worms she clearly wasn't interested in doing for obvious reasons.

Of course she does, and everyone knows why.