Elizabeth 450 Posted June 16, 2014 Share Posted June 16, 2014 Nope. Tour + hip injury + album promo = ultimate disaster. It would've been way too much pressure, she already came back from her injury too early. I think it's absurd to suggest she should've released it before she did, and absolutely disrespectful. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Born To Slay 10,996 Posted June 17, 2014 Author Share Posted June 17, 2014 Where is the proof the ticket sales were doing poorly? There were a few shows short of sell-outs, but that's far from doing poorly.But more importantly, when in history has an artist ever faked an injury to get out of poor tour sales?If the music industry had lots of artists who regularly faked injuries when ticket sales were less than 100%, then sure, you might have a point. :)But since that never actually happens, you are claiming that Gaga is doing (or capable of doing) something lower than any major artist in history.Sure, there are a few cases where a tour was cancelled because the artist got sick or had to go to rehab or died or whatever, but never faked outright (that I know of?) When the show was cancelled she had sold 200k tickets with 21 shows cancelled. That means the average audience per show as about 9,523. When most (if not all) of the venues she was playing to had more capacity then that and a lot of shows had 20,000 capacity. That's not good.Nope. Tour + hip injury + album promo = ultimate disaster. It would've been way too much pressure, she already came back from her injury too early. I think it's absurd to suggest she should've released it before she did, and absolutely disrespectful. Wait, how is it disrespectful to think she should've released sooner? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elizabeth 450 Posted June 17, 2014 Share Posted June 17, 2014 Wait, how is it disrespectful to think she should've released sooner? You implied in your OP that her injury was due to low tickets sales, which is absurd. Then, suggesting she should've been releasing music whilst suffering from/recovering from her hip injury is disrespectful imo. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Born To Slay 10,996 Posted June 17, 2014 Author Share Posted June 17, 2014 You implied in your OP that her injury was due to low tickets sales, which is absurd. Then, suggesting she should've been releasing music whilst suffering from/recovering from her hip injury is disrespectful imo. No, I said she should've releases music before the surgery. The idea was to release the lead single in December and then the album in April. I didn't really suggest she promote it. She could've used the publicity from the surgery to help sell the album or MAYBE done an acoustic performance or two. I wasn't suggesting she do anything strenuous. And I'm sorry if the OP came off that way but I was in no way suggesting that ticket sales caused the show to be cancelled. I don't believe that to be the case (tho, I don't think someone should get hate for saying that is the case) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elizabeth 450 Posted June 17, 2014 Share Posted June 17, 2014 No, I said she should've releases music before the surgery. The idea was to release the lead single in December and then the album in April. I didn't really suggest she promote it. She could've used the publicity from the surgery to help sell the album or MAYBE done an acoustic performance or two. I wasn't suggesting she do anything strenuous. And I'm sorry if the OP came off that way but I was in no way suggesting that ticket sales caused the show to be cancelled. I don't believe that to be the case (tho, I don't think someone should get hate for saying that is the case) Fair enough, maybe I misunderstood your OP. It's also not just your post I was talking about, but the ones that follow it in the thread. I get what you're saying here but the idea that "she could've used the publicity from the surgery to help sell the album" really doesn't sit well with me. I just don't think it would've been a good idea at all for her to release earlier in the year. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Born To Slay 10,996 Posted June 17, 2014 Author Share Posted June 17, 2014 Fair enough, maybe I misunderstood your OP. It's also not just your post I was talking about, but the ones that follow it in the thread. I get what you're saying here but the idea that "she could've used the publicity from the surgery to help sell the album" really doesn't sit well with me. I just don't think it would've been a good idea at all for her to release earlier in the year. She got a lot of publicity for her tour cancelation, she could've translated that into sympathy points. And maybe since she couldn't dance, release an acoustic single and sing that live acoustically. Between the publicity for the surgery and a huge acoustic performance the album would've benefited greatly. She had more positive attention then, then she did in August. Also keep in mind that there was no competition at that time. Katy, Miley, Britney and Beyonce came later and Taylor's era just finished. All the attention would've been on Gaga. So with the massive need for pop star news Gaga could've ruled the roost. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elizabeth 450 Posted June 17, 2014 Share Posted June 17, 2014 She got a lot of publicity for her tour cancelation, she could've translated that into sympathy points. And maybe since she couldn't dance, release an acoustic single and sing that live acoustically. Between the publicity for the surgery and a huge acoustic performance the album would've benefited greatly. She had more positive attention then, then she did in August. Also keep in mind that there was no competition at that time. Katy, Miley, Britney and Beyonce came later and Taylor's era just finished. All the attention would've been on Gaga. So with the massive need for pop star news Gaga could've ruled the roost. Gaga should be able to sell her music because it's good, not because she has to rely on sympathy from an injury. I don't think she would've been in the right frame of mind at all to release music at that point. Her health is far more important than 'ruling the roost'. I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree about this, we're obviously on very different wavelengths as fans. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Born To Slay 10,996 Posted June 17, 2014 Author Share Posted June 17, 2014 Gaga should be able to sell her music because it's good, not because she has to rely on sympathy from an injury. I don't think she would've been in the right frame of mind at all to release music at that point. Her health is far more important than 'ruling the roost'. I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree about this, we're obviously on very different wavelengths as fans. How would being on top hurt her health. If she did a high profile acoustic performance, it would've been very helpful. Coming out of surgery and getting on stage with a powerhouse vocal performance at a piano would've recovered mass praise from the media, similar to Adele's comeback in 2012. But okay we can agree to disagree, fair enough. But what do up you mean when you say we're on different wavelengths as fans. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sara 1,128 Posted June 17, 2014 Share Posted June 17, 2014 When the show was cancelled she had sold 200k tickets with 21 shows cancelled. That means the average audience per show as about 9,523. When most (if not all) of the venues she was playing to had more capacity then that and a lot of shows had 20,000 capacity. That's not good.And where did you get that 200k number? From Wikipedia? Well Wikipedia's source is a Billboard article which states this about the tour:"The North American leg, which was to wrap the tour and was almost completely sold out, would have likely put the tour at more than $200 million gross, easily in the top 20 tours of all time and probably in the top 15. As it stands, Gaga finished sixth among all touring artists in 2012, with a gross of $125 million and attendance of more than 1.1 million, according to Boxscore."The tour was not in any trouble. Now, "sold out" doesn't mean "at max capacity of the arena". It means they sold all the tickets they planned to sell from the start based on the configuration they had planned for that arena. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Born To Slay 10,996 Posted June 17, 2014 Author Share Posted June 17, 2014 And where did you get that 200k number? From Wikipedia? Well Wikipedia's source is a Billboard article which states this about the tour:"The North American leg, which was to wrap the tour and was almost completely sold out, would have likely put the tour at more than $200 million gross, easily in the top 20 tours of all time and probably in the top 15. As it stands, Gaga finished sixth among all touring artists in 2012, with a gross of $125 million and attendance of more than 1.1 million, according to Boxscore."The tour was not in any trouble. Okay but that same billoard article said that about 200k tickets had been sold http://www.billboard.com/articles/news/1539268/lady-gaga-tour-cancellation-a-look-at-the-damage And as I showed if that's the case the shows weren't selling that well. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Featured Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.