chicbitch

I was looking through some old GagaDaily threads from 2012–2013 and honestly forgot just how INSANE the entire ARTPOP era was, even before the album was released. And I'm not even talking about Act II because that's been discussed to death. Does anyone remember the original rumors? Gaga was apparently going to have Lindsay Lohan in a music video, there were rumors about Nothing On (But the Radio) being the lead single, a supposed collaboration with Eminem and Kendrick Lamar called Street Lights, and even speculation about a song titled White Rose Thorns that fans were connecting to Princess Diana. There was also that fake Princess Die collaboration with Lana Del Rey, the fake BMI registrations for Candy Art, Cold Hearted ***** and CRWTH, and an entire 20-track ARTPOP tracklist circulating online with Beyoncé, Elton John and Azealia Banks features. The actual announced plans were arguably even crazier. ARTPOP was initially being promoted as an entire multimedia experience with films for every song, interactive games and unreleased music. Almost none of this materialized the way people imagined it would. Commercially, it wasn't even a complete disaster at first. ARTPOP debuted at #1 with 258k copies, compared to Bangerz (another strange album) opening with 270k. That's literally only a 12k difference. But then ARTPOP dropped 82% in its second week, while Miley had We Can't Stop and Wrecking Ball carrying her era. But I still wonder whether ARTPOP was genuinely too ambitious for its own good, or whether the public had simply grown tired of Gaga's particular brand of spectacle by then. Because looking back, it's arguably one of the most interesting periods of her career.

Gimmick to me is a compliment!! It means you're dedicated to the art.

These are all examples of aesthetics tho.. and not really gimmicks. Tate dancing in a sandpit or Sabrina having a 60s-inspired image is just styling and creative direction. I'm talking about actual publicity stunts, absurdity, theatrics, things that go beyond just having a recognizable image. Gaga showing up to the VMAs as Jo C. and staying in character the entire night is a gimmick. Nicki bringing a pope to the Grammys and staging an exorcism is a gimmic. There's a difference between having a visual identity and deliberately turning yourself into a spectacle.

That's kinda part of the point. Being polarizing comes with doing something outrageous so you can be talked about

I don't think anyone has run out of ways to shock people, I think we've just gotten so used to artists playing it safe that you assume there's nothing left to do. If anything, I think the bar for creativity has just gotten higher, not that shock value itself is dead (because I mean like.. people not doing music are literally profiting off it to this day, it's not once died)

By that I mean, both found fame within the same year/same audience (a little)

Equal kinda

She's camp, I love Addison down.

Aesthetic / branding / marketing vs an actual gimmick.. do you get what I'm trying to say? I don't think any of those qualify under the 'gimmick' thing I'm talking about.

I see what you mean, but I feel like that was part of the escapism lowkey.. seeing pop stars do all these outrageous things and create these larger than life personas was part of what made pop music so fun. I think nowadays there's so much emphasis on being relatable and effortless that we're kinda missing that fantasy aspect of it.

Neitherrrrrrrrrrr

Maybe it's just me, but does anyone else feel like pop stars have completely lost the desire to be theatrical or just downright ridiculous anymore? We had Lady Gaga arriving at the Grammys inside an egg, bleeding to death onstage at the VMAs, dressing up as her male alter ego Jo Calderone, and making practically every public appearance feel like some bizarre performance-art piece. Nicki Minaj had the whole Harajuku Barbie/Roman Zolanski thing going on, complete with ridiculous wigs, multiple personalities, and that infamous Grammy exorcism performance. And the funny thing is, even some of the less successful pop girls were doing THE MOST. Jessie J had her cartoonish wigs and bodysuits, Kerli was building an entire BubbleGoth universe..You didn't even need to be an A-lister to have some sort of recognizable gimmick. And before somebody says the GP wouldn't care, I actually think it's the opposite. In an era where practically anything can go viral overnight, you'd think pop stars would be doing everything possible to stand out.. Obviously, gimmicks alone don't make somebody interesting, but somewhere along the way pop music became so obsessed with being tasteful, relatable and aesthetically cohesive that everybody forgot how to be entertaining. I actually think Doja's Hot Pink era was one of the last great examples of how to manufacture a larger-than-life pop persona without making it feel completely forced. Thoughts?

Poor thing, I always thought it was the lupus tho or maybe I'm just uneducated.

I fear I'm slowly getting sick of the current girls. Sabrina can only make so many songs about being horny, Tate can only remake greedy so many times and Olivia has had the gays pretending they enjoy stale ballads for like two years now. But seriously, I've been thinking about how mainstream pop seems to go through a complete overhaul every 10 years or so. We had Gaga, Kesha, Katy and Rihanna dominating the early 2010s with obnoxiously loud electropop and huge choruses. Then the late 2010s/early 2020s brought us Dua, Doja, Billie etc. with a completely different sound. I genuinely wonder what the next wave is going to sound like. I can't imagine us entering 2030 with Sabrina still making sexual puns and Tate doing her 47th It's Ok I'm Ok. Do you think we're heading towards another electronic/EDM takeover? (ala Brat) And more importantly, which of the current girls do you see surviving the next pop reset? Because I fear a few of them are going to be looking for employment once the GP moves on.

Addison.. these Tate gays dont have taste