Gaga Invited to Join Metallica as Fifth Member

[Shadow 6,039]

35 minutes ago, StrawberryBlond said:

Understandable, but when is Gaga really going to have the time for this, in between making her own albums, her own music videos, rehearsing for her own tour, touring with her own tour? It's like, doesn't she have enough on her plate? She's still gaining respect as an artist, she's still got a way to go to becoming a legend herself. Metallica did an album with Lou Reed, but he had been in the game a long time. Gaga's still in the early days of her career and is building herself up well. A few performances with them is fine, featured vocals are fine but a semi-permanent member? I fear that that may have repercussions within Metallica's fanbase, even if it is Gaga, for one. I want Gaga to focus on making more music as a soloist, not focus on getting together with other groups to make material together. And well, I think a male soloist would take this as an insult. Why shouldn't a woman? Seriously, a man would respond to this like: "Do they think I've got nothing to do with my time? I've got my own f***ing career to worry about, and I'm selling more than them anyway!" My reactions aren't really gender-specific, so, yeah.

Rude.

That's a completely different thing. It didn't exactly halt her career. And I supported this venture. But the fact it was all standards meant the workload was different and the tour was tiny. I'd be fine with Gaga doing a small tour with Metallica but not in a way that cuts into her solo work. Gaga's artistic endeavours always seem to take longer than other artists, so any obstacles in her path irk me.

Shady. I'm more of the belief that if you've got to say something, say it to my face.

Pardon, I tend to get passionate about my hard rock/metal and my favorite band. I didn't mean to get hostile, but was taken aback at your impression to what seemed clearly as praise and compliments for Lady Gaga, as an acclaimed artist and individual, adult, female professional.

I didn't read intensity in Lars' or the other band members' statements about her. Yes, she has a great deal on her plate this year and so do Metallica, since they have a world tour of their own to undergo this year.

Metallica has supported other artists and used their fame to give others a spotlight, hence why they covered so many bands on Garage Inc. and worked with Lou Reed to try something different, risky for them, since they have just as many millions of metal fans to please as well.

Even their Grammy collaboration with Lady Gaga alone was risky if you think about it from their side. They put their creditability and image on the line to share a spotlight with Gaga just like she risked hers.

I think we're emphasizing on the word "permanent" a little too much. It was Lars' way of giving her huge props for her work with them  and welcoming her with a place in the band for the next time they have a chance to work together again. No one is asking Gaga to end her career or for Metallica to start being MetalliGa instead. It would just be a mutual work, like the Lou Reed project and Gaga's jazz work with Tony Bennett.

I'm not sure why this turned into gender issue or an insult of career-time management, maybe you could enlighten me. Male or female, who is demanding anything based on gender?  Was Adam Lambert insulted for working with Queen? Nothing better to do? He still could have pursued other ventures for his career. It was simply an offer like this is an offer. She doesn't have to do anything. Like she said in an interview or the Emotion conference with Facebook last year, Gaga can say no. I don't think there would be any hard feelings if she does just that.

Her work with Tony didn't halt her career, but would you agree it was a huge risk to her brand and possible alienation of the fan base?

This possible venture would be also a risk, but there is a possibility something amazing could come out of it and it could even start a trend in the industry. Plenty of pop artists have worked with hip hop artists or electronic dance producers, what if pop singers did similar with rock bands just to mix it up? It has potential, would you agree?

[John Slayne 4,154]

34 minutes ago, StrawberryBlond said:

Understandable, but when is Gaga really going to have the time for this, in between making her own albums, her own music videos, rehearsing for her own tour, touring with her own tour? It's like, doesn't she have enough on her plate? She's still gaining respect as an artist, she's still got a way to go to becoming a legend herself. Metallica did an album with Lou Reed, but he had been in the game a long time. Gaga's still in the early days of her career and is building herself up well. A few performances with them is fine, featured vocals are fine but a semi-permanent member? I fear that that may have repercussions within Metallica's fanbase, even if it is Gaga, for one. I want Gaga to focus on making more music as a soloist, not focus on getting together with other groups to make material together. And well, I think a male soloist would take this as an insult. Why shouldn't a woman? Seriously, a man would respond to this like: "Do they think I've got nothing to do with my time? I've got my own f***ing career to worry about, and I'm selling more than them anyway!" My reactions aren't really gender-specific, so, yeah.

No it was a compliment after rehearsals for their performance, I don't think anyone would take this as an insult. I'm sorry but you are just reaching far, seeing something that isn't there, it's not that deep. They wanted to compliment her and offer a collab, artists do this all the time.

But I agree she is very busy these days with Joanne, JWT, and ASIB but a cute EP and a mini-tour in late 2018/early 2019 wouldn't hurt anyone... 

[darkchylde 14,857]

1 hour ago, Red said:

 

 

 

1 hour ago, TylerBR97 said:

 

LMFAOOOO LIVING FOR IT. THE 1 IS EVEN IN SH1T 😂😂😂😂

 

someone got it omfg it took y'all 9 pages

[Red 87,359]

Just now, Entropy said:

 

someone got it omfg it took y'all 9 pages

So it was intentional?? D-Y-I-N-G

[StrawberryBlond 13,279]

15 minutes ago, lego said:

 

I knew you would see it. I was just fine with not quoting you or getting into this argument. It was enough annoyance to read all that. 

You're the kinda fan that will take a huge compliment from legendary act and turn it into an insult, basically telling Gaga that she should be offended. This has nothing to do with your life or your experiences. You still have a lot to learn. 

 

Well, there's that option too. Knowing I'd see it, but still not referring to me anyway, acting as if I'm not there. Whatever you post on a public forum isn't an inner monologue, people do see it and are affected by it. I interpret it as a very disrespectful move. It's right up there with being nice to a member one minute and then liking a post from another member that insults the member you were getting along with. That's happened to me more than a handful of times and it drives me crazy.

I'm fine with Gaga being offered a compliment that doesn't involve her taking a large amount of time out of her own work. How would you like it if someone offered you a part-time job on top of your full-time job? Even if it was because they thought you'd be an asset to their workplace, it's like, you don't live to serve an outsider's needs. You've got your own life to lead that you set down for yourself and your own free time to manage. But oh no, apparently, I have a lot to learn? Please.

12 minutes ago, Shadow said:

Pardon, I tend to get passionate about my hard rock/metal and my favorite band. I didn't mean to get hostile, but was taken aback at your impression to what seemed clearly as praise and compliments for Lady Gaga, as an acclaimed artist and individual, adult, female professional.

I didn't read intensity in Lars' or the other band members' statements about her. Yes, she has a great deal on her plate this year and so do Metallica, since they have a world tour of their own to undergo this year.

Metallica has supported other artists and used their fame to give others a spotlight, hence why they covered so many bands on Garage Inc. and worked with Lou Reed to try something different, risky for them, since they have just as many millions of metal fans to please as well.

Even their Grammy collaboration with Lady Gaga alone was risky if you think about it from their side. They put their creditability and image on the line to share a spotlight with Gaga just like she risked hers.

I think we're emphasizing on the word "permanent" a little too much. It was Lars' way of giving her huge props for her work with them  and welcoming her with a place in the band for the next time they have a chance to work together again. No one is asking Gaga to end her career or for Metallica to start being MetalliGa instead. It would just be a mutual work, like the Lou Reed project and Gaga's jazz work with Tony Bennett.

I'm not sure why this turned into gender issue or an insult of career-time management, maybe you could enlighten me. Male or female, who is demanding anything based on gender?  Was Adam Lambert insulted for working with Queen? Nothing better to do? He still could have pursued other ventures for his career. It was simply an offer like this is an offer. She doesn't have to do anything. Like she said in an interview or the Emotion conference with Facebook last year, Gaga can say no. I don't think there would be any hard feelings if she does just that.

Her work with Tony didn't halt her career, but would you agree it was a huge risk to her brand and possible alienation of the fan base?

This possible venture would be also a risk, but there is a possibility something amazing could come out of it and it could even start a trend in the industry. Plenty of pop artists have worked with hip hop artists or electronic dance producers, what if pop singers did similar with rock bands just to mix it up? It has potential, would you agree?

Don't worry, I didn't think you were hostile. I'm just responding honestly. Look, I'm fine with small collabs with Gaga - inviting her as a guest on their tour to occasional dates, doing another live performance on a tv show, maybe a collaborative song. But to have Gaga basically working with them on and off for the foreseeable future...that's not fair to her fans. Joanne took long enough to get here and it was a short album at that, I don't want this kind of wait every time, especially for something short and sweet. Metallica have just released their first album in a long time and they're solidified as legends anyway, they've perhaps forgotten what it's like to be in the early days of your career when you've got to make albums frequently to maintain your fame and fanbase. The music business is in a different realm now compared to when they started out. Now you've got to keep hustling yourself, you can't take long breaks and suchlike. Pop and metal are different arenas, with different expectations too. And that Lou Reed collab was met with bad reviews. I don't want to see something similar get equally trashed if Gaga does it.

As for the gender thing, well, sometimes, some men don't realise when they're being...subliminally sexist. They think they're being a gentleman by trying to help a woman out when in reality, she's fine on her own. It's like, I can open a door, I can put my coat on, I don't need your help. In the music industry, a man might say to a woman: "Wow, you're a great singer - look, my band's all ready to go but none of us can sing, could you be our lead singer?" What they should be saying is: "Wow, you're a great singer, have you tried to crack a solo record deal? Do you write your own music? Play your own instruments?" Work out what she's looking for from the business. If she confirms that she's all about being her own artist, don't even suggest that she join your band. I mean, I wouldn't ask a man to join a band I'd formed if he was all about being a soloist. It would suggest that I think his own work is meaningless. Yes, it's a compliment to say you're a great singer but immediately following it up with what is basically "I know what your talent can do for me" is somewhat of a backhanded compliment. It's well-meaning, but come on, women don't always need to be rescued. We've seen Gaga take it personally when Calvin Harris seemed to suggest that she didn't know much about EDM. Remember she responded on Twitter saying something about "Oh, I guess as a woman, I know nothing about EDM?" I think sexism is on her radar. Men think they can always do a favour for women in the industry, that they can help them get better, that they can teach them something that they couldn't do before. And Gaga knows all too well how there are lecherous creeps who have ulterior motives sniffing about too.

Sure, a collab with them could lead to Gaga being seen as a more diverse artist and possibly another Grammy nomination/win in yet another category. But it can't cut into Gaga's personal work. She's expanding enough by going into acting now. I'm a bit old school, I prefer people to stick in their day job for the most part. I wish Gaga could put all her effort into making original music for herself full-time. It seems like there's always something standing in her way. I sometimes wonder if she'll ever get that dream relationship because she's just so busy that she likely doesn't have time to take a load-off and just be with those she loves.

3 minutes ago, John Slayne said:

No it was a compliment after rehearsals for their performance, I don't think anyone would take this as an insult. I'm sorry but you are just reaching far, seeing something that isn't there, it's not that deep. They wanted to compliment her and offer a collab, artists do this all the time.

But I agree she is very busy these days with Joanne, JWT, and ASIB but a cute EP and a mini-tour in late 2018/early 2019 wouldn't hurt anyone... 

But it sounds like a serious consideration, that's the point. It's not natural to think that every person you perform with should be a future band member. Sometimes a collab is just a one-off, move on. It's more than a collab they're offering, this is being part of the band, a very different thing.

A one-off EP, sure, but working with them on and off for the rest of her career? No thank you.

[Shadow 6,039]

29 minutes ago, StrawberryBlond said:Don't worry, I didn't think you were hostile. I'm just responding honestly. Look, I'm fine with small collabs with Gaga - inviting her as a guest on their tour to occasional dates, doing another live performance on a tv show, maybe a collaborative song. But to have Gaga basically working with them on and off for the foreseeable future...that's not fair to her fans. Joanne took long enough to get here and it was a short album at that, I don't want this kind of wait every time, especially for something short and sweet. Metallica have just released their first album in a long time and they're solidified as legends anyway, they've perhaps forgotten what it's like to be in the early days of your career when you've got to make albums frequently to maintain your fame and fanbase. The music business is in a different realm now compared to when they started out. Now you've got to keep hustling yourself, you can't take long breaks and suchlike. Pop and metal are different arenas, with different expectations too. And that Lou Reed collab was met with bad reviews. I don't want to see something similar get equally trashed if Gaga does it.

As for the gender thing, well, sometimes, some men don't realise when they're being...subliminally sexist. They think they're being a gentleman by trying to help a woman out when in reality, she's fine on her own. It's like, I can open a door, I can put my coat on, I don't need your help. In the music industry, a man might say to a woman: "Wow, you're a great singer - look, my band's all ready to go but none of us can sing, could you be our lead singer?" What they should be saying is: "Wow, you're a great singer, have you tried to crack a solo record deal? Do you write your own music? Play your own instruments?" Work out what she's looking for from the business. If she confirms that she's all about being her own artist, don't even suggest that she join your band. I mean, I wouldn't ask a man to join a band I'd formed if he was all about being a soloist. It would suggest that I think his own work is meaningless. Yes, it's a compliment to say you're a great singer but immediately following it up with what is basically "I know what your talent can do for me" is somewhat of a backhanded compliment. It's well-meaning, but come on, women don't always need to be rescued. We've seen Gaga take it personally when Calvin Harris seemed to suggest that she didn't know much about EDM. Remember she responded on Twitter saying something about "Oh, I guess as a woman, I know nothing about EDM?" I think sexism is on her radar. Men think they can always do a favour for women in the industry, that they can help them get better, that they can teach them something that they couldn't do before. And Gaga knows all too well how there are lecherous creeps who have ulterior motives sniffing about too.

Sure, a collab with them could lead to Gaga being seen as a more diverse artist and possibly another Grammy nomination/win in yet another category. But it can't cut into Gaga's personal work. She's expanding enough by going into acting now. I'm a bit old school, I prefer people to stick in their day job for the most part. I wish Gaga could put all her effort into making original music for herself full-time. It seems like there's always something standing in her way. I sometimes wonder if she'll ever get that dream relationship because she's just so busy that she likely doesn't have time to take a load-off and just be with those she loves.

But it sounds like a serious consideration, that's the point. It's not natural to think that every person you perform with should be a future band member. Sometimes a collab is just a one-off, move on. It's more than a collab they're offering, this is being part of the band, a very different thing.

A one-off EP, sure, but working with them on and off for the rest of her career? No thank you.

Thank you for understanding where I'm coming from at least for the most part.

Lady Gaga is doing so much because she is young and ambitious, doing things that inspire her. She wants to create a legacy for her talent, her diversity in what she is capable of musically and artistically. Creating music, doing acting gigs takes time, hence why she is so busy, so it makes sense why this isn't something that is going to happen soon or in the next two years anyway.

However, I doubt those of us who even dreamed of this sort of thing even expected these two acts to ever collaborate to begin with. I think the fact they tried, did decently even with technical issues, and got mixed but mostly positive feedback from fans in both genres, it is good to know it was possible. The possibility of something like this proves that it is possible again, that is the highlight of what Metallica, Lady Gaga, and supporters of this collaboration could at the very least hope for. I doubt Lady Gaga or Metallica would risk their brand or label contracts beyond a side project, probably another collaboration or a mini venture, if that.

I don't want Gaga or Metallica trashed in reviews and rejected by fans like the Lou Reed thing was either. If it happens, it has to be on a level of perfection or above and thankfully perfectionists like those two acts are fully capable of.

I am aware of this attitude from men in the entertainment industry like Calvin Harris. Not crazy about that backward way of treating women of any industry, so I respect where you're coming from in that regard. However,  what I read in the article from Lars and other band members, I was not seeing this type of patronizing, subtle sexist rhetoric. Did it look like they thought they were doing Gaga a favor? Did it seem they were arrogant or greedy about using her?

Kirk Hammett basically said he wasn't sure about collaborating with her at first, but when she did work with them he was impressed how professional she was and how natural it was working out the performance.  Robert Trujillo said she had "a lot of edge and attitude, which is important for what we do."  Lars Ulrich sounds like he's a big fan of hers, praised her Super Bowl performance, and yeah, he did say 'we got a new co-singer and we were talking about it earlier' but it seemed she was part of the talks. So whatever that means or what this amounts to, is it not safe to think she was involved in talking about it with them as well? Does it sound like it was something she was forced into or talked down into partaking?  He could have phrased it better like you were saying if it was only coming from their side as an offer, unless she was cool with it as well to some degree at least if they already discussed it.

 

 

 

 

[StrawberryBlond 13,279]

23 minutes ago, Shadow said:

Thank you for understanding where I'm coming from at least for the most part.

Lady Gaga is doing so much because she is young and ambitious, doing things that inspire her. She wants to create a legacy for her talent, her diversity in what she is capable of musically and artistically. Creating music, doing acting gigs takes time, hence why she is so busy, so it makes sense why this isn't something that is going to happen soon or in the next two years anyway.

However, I doubt those of us who even dreamed of this sort of thing even expected these two acts to ever collaborate to begin with. I think the fact they tried, did decently even with technical issues, and got mixed but mostly positive feedback from fans in both genres, it is good to know it was possible. The possibility of something like this proves that it is possible again, that is the highlight of what Metallica, Lady Gaga, and supporters of this collaboration could at the very least hope for. I doubt Lady Gaga or Metallica would risk their brand or label contracts beyond a side project, probably another collaboration or a mini venture, if that.

I don't want Gaga or Metallica trashed in reviews and rejected by fans like the Lou Reed thing was either. If it happens, it has to be on a level of perfection or above and thankfully perfectionists like those two acts are fully capable of.

I am aware of this attitude from men in the entertainment industry like Calvin Harris. Not crazy about that backward way of treating women of any industry, so I respect where you're coming from in that regard. However,  what I read in the article from Lars and other band members, I was not seeing this type of patronizing, subtle sexist rhetoric. Did it look like they thought they were doing Gaga a favor? Did it seem they were arrogant or greedy about using her?

Kirk Hammett basically said he wasn't sure about collaborating with her at first, but when she did work with them he was impressed how professional she was and how natural it was working out the performance.  Robert Trujillo said she had "a lot of edge and attitude, which is important for what we do."  Lars Ulrich sounds like he's a big fan of hers, praised her Super Bowl performance, and yeah, he did say 'we got a new co-singer and we were talking about it earlier' but it seemed she was part of the talks. So whatever that means or what this amounts to, is it not safe to think she was involved in talking about it with them as well? Does it sound like it was something she was forced into or talked down into partaking?  He could have phrased it better like you were saying if it was only coming from their side as an offer, unless she was cool with it as well to some degree at least if they already discussed it.

Yeah, I don't think Gaga will seriously do this full-time but I'm cool with a mild collaboration. I just don't want it to take over too much. I think Gaga's talent can be put to so much better use than merely just singing existing songs.

Thing is, when you're as big as Metallica, it's easy to assume that everyone would be happy to work with you. That an offer from them is one you can't refuse. That there'd be no bigger honour. But soloists are soloists for a reason. If Gaga was happy singing existing songs, she would have carved out a career doing just that. But she chose to be a soloist and write her own work, so should she even be an option for a co-lead singer? Notice how they just want her to sing, they didn't say anything about her writing music with them. But why not? They were happy to do that with other men. Do they think live singing is all very well but writing music with a female popstar is a bridge too far? The thing I love most about Gaga is her original songs. To suggest that she's nothing but a great live voice is doing her a disservice. Don't get me wrong, I'm aware that Gaga can say no to all of this, I'm just presenting my view on how I look at the situation.

[Shadow 6,039]

4 minutes ago, StrawberryBlond said:

Yeah, I don't think Gaga will seriously do this full-time but I'm cool with a mild collaboration. I just don't want it to take over too much. I think Gaga's talent can be put to so much better use than merely just singing existing songs.

Thing is, when you're as big as Metallica, it's easy to assume that everyone would be happy to work with you. That an offer from them is one you can't refuse. That there'd be no bigger honour. But soloists are soloists for a reason. If Gaga was happy singing existing songs, she would have carved out a career doing just that. But she chose to be a soloist and write her own work, so should she even be an option for a co-lead singer? Notice how they just want her to sing, they didn't say anything about her writing music with them. But why not? They were happy to do that with other men. Do they think live singing is all very well but writing music with a female popstar is a bridge too far? The thing I love most about Gaga is her original songs. To suggest that she's nothing but a great live voice is doing her a disservice. Don't get me wrong, I'm aware that Gaga can say no to all of this, I'm just presenting my view on how I look at the situation.

Hmm, where did they say they only want her to sing and not write music with them?

Which band member said they expect her to call back since they're so big and assumed she won't refuse? 

Lady Gaga is a soloist for a million reasons, but did that stop her from covering songs from other artists? Did it stop her from singing with big acts like Elton John, Rolling Stone, Beyoncé, Yoko Ono, Sting, Bon Jovi, and a quite a few others? And again, whole album of jazz covers with Tony?  

Isn't it remarkable that Gaga is able to seemlessly work with countless other big acts (some with only days to prepare) as well as build her own platform from the streets of New York to the studios in California? How many performers can breathe and bleed talent like that? Like how she sang the Sound of Music at the Oscars or the National Anthem at the Super Bowl, something she didn't write but nailed on a professional level? And it is also smart for her because it opens her brand to new audiences that wouldn't normally give her the time of day. She doesn't have to compete solely with pop fans, since she managed to win over fans from other genres. It broadens her grip in the music scene so it is harder for her to be marginalized or shelved by critics or the industry.

[StrawberryBlond 13,279]

20 hours ago, Shadow said:

Hmm, where did they say they only want her to sing and not write music with them?

Which band member said they expect her to call back since they're so big and assumed she won't refuse? 

Lady Gaga is a soloist for a million reasons, but did that stop her from covering songs from other artists? Did it stop her from singing with big acts like Elton John, Rolling Stone, Beyoncé, Yoko Ono, Sting, Bon Jovi, and a quite a few others? And again, whole album of jazz covers with Tony?  

Isn't it remarkable that Gaga is able to seemlessly work with countless other big acts (some with only days to prepare) as well as build her own platform from the streets of New York to the studios in California? How many performers can breathe and bleed talent like that? Like how she sang the Sound of Music at the Oscars or the National Anthem at the Super Bowl, something she didn't write but nailed on a professional level? And it is also smart for her because it opens her brand to new audiences that wouldn't normally give her the time of day. She doesn't have to compete solely with pop fans, since she managed to win over fans from other genres. It broadens her grip in the music scene so it is harder for her to be marginalized or shelved by critics or the industry.

Well, considering that they were only talking about "lead singers," that would suggest nothing but singing. They didn't say anything about "collaborating" or "creating." Just "lead singing."

I'm not saying Gaga can't cover songs by other artists, I liked C2C, but it shouldn't take over so much that her solo work starts taking a back seat. Covering tends to be something you do when you're much older, I think she's too young to be focusing overly so on covering. Her gig with Tony is enough to be going on with.

Yes, it means she expands her diversity as an artist but she can do that as a soloist as well. She can easily create a metal album on her own. You don't have to actually do a joint album with an artist from another genre (and you certainly aren't limited to just covering that genre either) just because you wants to experiment. They can guide and feature but not necessarily full-on do a duet deal. Getting together with an established name - that's usually just for superficial credibility purposes, nothing more. Gaga could easily have done a solo album of jazz standards. She roped Tony into it partly because she admired and respected him, yes, but clearly, the business side of her realised the critics would respect this venture more if it was associated with him and she could pull in more sales by pooling fanbases.

[Shadow 6,039]

5 hours ago, StrawberryBlond said:

Well, considering that they were only talking about "lead singers," that would suggest nothing but singing. They didn't say anything about "collaborating" or "creating." Just "lead singing."

I'm not saying Gaga can't cover songs by other artists, I liked C2C, but it shouldn't take over so much that her solo work starts taking a back seat. Covering tends to be something you do when you're much older, I think she's too young to be focusing overly so on covering. Her gig with Tony is enough to be going on with.

Yes, it means she expands her diversity as an artist but she can do that as a soloist as well. She can easily create a metal album on her own. You don't have to actually do a joint album with an artist from another genre (and you certainly aren't limited to just covering that genre either) just because you wants to experiment. They can guide and feature but not necessarily full-on do a duet deal. Getting together with an established name - that's usually just for superficial credibility purposes, nothing more. Gaga could easily have done a solo album of jazz standards. She roped Tony into it partly because she admired and respected him, yes, but clearly, the business side of her realised the critics would respect this venture more if it was associated with him and she could pull in more sales by pooling fanbases.

How about we don't assume singing is all they mean and all she'd be limited to here? If they work together, I could see Gaga being very hands-on on any endeavor she partakes.

Metallica's members sound like they'd be willing to work with her if she'd like to contribute to new music material.

Metallica and Gaga have their own brands to consider, again i doubt something like collaborating would envelope their careers.

Gaga also appears to respect and admire Metallica enough to perform as if she were one of them in the Grammy show. It also seemed to be a mutual respect from what we've heard from them and seen from her.

She could very well do a solo rock/metal album if she wanted. However, she might be limited by her label, so by doing covers and collaborations, she can get around it. 

 

[paw 62]