Adele reportedly not releasing new album until she has second child

[Kacey Elizabeth 900]

adele what are u doing

 

She is trying to kill her own career. 

[SlaeUrAnus 15,900]

Why Adele  I need 25.

Imagine the meltdowns if Gaga done this? I dunno how Adele fans cope  

[ARTPOPdidntflop 3,987]

YYAAAAAAASSSS

gaga take ha throne

[craig 680]

Imagine the meltdowns if Gaga done this? I dunno how Adele fans cope  

It's their own fault for stanning for someone who doesn't live for the Applause.

[MonsterOfSpain 8,307]

 

[Judas Oyster 1,914]

If this is true, GagA NEEDS to release ha new album during AHS Hote cause there will be no competition

and that is this year or next? Because nothing's gonna come out this year I think :P

[hijadeputa 3,899]

yasss slayyyyy gaga 

[SychosSoChic 9,995]

...

What kind of 1920 Reverse Feminism Expedition bullshi-...

Actually. You know what? This is good.

Maybe she'll have triplets and have no choice but to release two/three albums in quick succession for the sake of her finances coz God knows babies are ugly and expensive.

[nikola 4,342]

Ohhh Adole honey what the **** are you doing......at this point i am not even exited for her new album......by the time she is done with it it would be called 30 not 25.....i mean gir is not even pregnant so no new album for like 12 more months.....i mean that is if she gets pregnant in 3 months......and lets not start talking about taking time off to take  care about baby......MESS

[StrawberryBlond 14,633]

Excuse you?
A nine to five job isn't exactly comparable to Adele's career or any popstar's for that matter. Touring with a little child is exhausting. Sure it has been done before but if you have millions and millions to fall back on like Adele, why shouldn't she enjoy her child, her husband, her mansions and her money? She worked hard for it, she used to live in a tiny appartement with her mom, let her enjoy her wealth now. Adele isn't "teasing" her album at all, everything we heard so far are rumours and "insiders". It is indeed not the 1950's anymore, people (not just women) can CHOOSE now. If it's Adele's choice to sit at home with a baby, that her choice and who are you to shame her for it?

Get a grip smartypants. Is your life affected on a daily basis cause you don't have Adele's third album in your iTunes Library? Cause if not, I don't see why you felt the need to type an essay about this matter.

Sit down.

Actually, I think it is comparable. If anything, a singer has a better schedule for looking after a child than a regular citizen does. Most of them have studios in their houses, meaning they can create in the comfort of their own home, with their kid beside them. They also have their instruments on standby and you can write a tune anywhere. They don't have to venture outside their home to do the most basic part of their job. Singers can take their kids on the road with them on tour, or if they don't want to put them through that, do residences, like Celine and Britney. Not every artists promotes themselves extensively either. Point is, why can't her husband look after the kids when she can't? This is my main issue - the misconception that a man cannot help raise children and can only be used in an emergency. And actually, she did somewhat tease it months ago when she posted a picture online with the caption: "Bye 25, see you later in the year." That's what started all the speculation and its never died since. I think it's unfair to keep her fans in the dark, get their hopes up, ruin them and then ruin them further.

I'm not even an Adele fan, I just feel bad for her fans. Adele strikes me as someone who doesn't care about how many people admire her and want to hear more of her work, as long as she's happy. That's an attitude that you can't take when you elect to be famous.

Sophie Ellis-Bextor should be your hero; she's about to have her 4th child and yet keeps going with her music, putting out more albums than she has kids.

This just shows I had Adele pegged back in 2011. Even before she became a mom, it was clear she wasn't into touring and being a pop star. Lots of people saw that weirdly as virtuous, in comparison with "attention wh*res" like Gaga.  

But guess what folks? If a singer doesn't like attention, isn't a bit of an exhibitionist, doesn't live for the applause, they are likely to hate being in the limelight, not enjoy performing, and retire when they have the money. Kate Bush is another example.

Exactly, and not just her, but plenty of other women have followed the same idea. A lot of female legends carried on after having kids - Madonna, Cher, Celine Dion, Mariah Carey, Britney Spears, Whitney Houston...That's partly why they're legends - they never retire, no matter what life threw at them. Most people who give up on their career after having kids rarely go on to be superstars forever.

i totally agree, I thought the same thing. She fits with every stereotype of that artist who comes out of nowhere, has a massive hit album and then fades into obscurity. In her case, it'll be because she can't handle the pressure more than anything. And yes, I never understood why her need to not court her fans very much was looked at as the best way to act and made her superior. Because I think this will be what breaks her. In today's world, with social media bringing us all closer and resulting in less of an "us and them" mentality, celebrities have to network with their fans, update them, stay in the public eye, treat them well, etc. if they want to keep them. If you don't care about their fans, why should their fans care about them?

For someone who is always preaching about the rights of women, you certainly have an odd and rather immature view on women's choices when it comes to women's personal choices on parenting. 

Adele is worth 75 million dollars. She turned down a contract with some make up company for 11 million, because she didn't want to mess with it and she felt she had enough money. If she wants to choose to never make another song or give a single performance again, that is her solely her choice...and her choice alone! 75 million dollars is more than 20 times what the average person with a professional degree and job makes. She is MORE than set for life! 

I know plenty of professional women who chose to stay home with their young children, and none of them are hippie types. Some made sacrifices for a few years and some had enough money where they didn't have to worry about anything. What does it matter to you, if a woman makes a personal choice to stay home...or work? Neither decision should be judged! 

I really don't. I just much prefer it if a woman devotes her time to her child until it's of school age and then either returns to her career or takes up a part time job. Especially if you only have one child - saying that you don't work so you can be the best mother is kinda meaningless when the child starts school because if you worked 9-5, you'd only be sacrificing another 3 hours or so a day with them. Most parents, working or not, don't see much of their kids during the week anyway. I get why a normal woman would give up her career to be a housewife as well as a mother, but what are rich celebrities doing when they give up their career for children? It's not as if they don't have hired help to clean the house and so on.

It doesn't really matter if the person is rich or not. The point is, a career like a singer means you owe yourself to the public quite a bit. It's pressurising, but you know what you're getting into. I believe you shouldn't become a singer if you aren't willing to give your fans music fairly frequently. It's weird, when you're famous, you're allowed to make a half-assed job of things just because you can afford to. Regular people can't take several years out of their job because they have a child or not do any work for several years because they just don't feel inspired. But I think a singer is just like every other job. Only making an album every 4 years without fail? Unacceptable. What are they doing with their lives in between albums? Most authors push out 1-2 books a year and you never hear them complaining but some singers need years between albums. I don't get it.

I really don't have a problem with stay at home mothers, as long as they're all-round hard workers at home. Nothing worse than a rich woman who chooses to be a stay at home mother despite the fact that her only child is of school age and she doesn't lift a finger around the house, spending all her time shopping and going out to lunch with her friends. But my critique is focused on famous women who choose to give up their careers for children. When you're famous, you can get away with taking time off, you don't need to give it all up. It's a career, but not as we know it, because it's fun (I'm sure most people would rather by writing music or acting in films than slogging in a factory). Giving it up just seems silly. My issue is that doing this seems to define you as a mother, rather than just letting it be one aspect of you. Men don't let themselves be defined like that, so why should we? Why don't most men give up their careers when they become fathers? Why does a woman provide better care for a child than a man? There was this tv presenter who once got a hate-filled tweet asking who was looking after her children when she was at work and she simply replied: "My husband." Parenting is a two way street. Most of these celebrities aren't single mothers, so why aren't their partners doing more to help so they don't have to give up their career?

[Vernier 3,786]

Ha benevolence, giving the other girls a chance to collect their wigs  

[Whispering 18,865]

I really don't. I just much prefer it if a woman devotes her time to her child until it's of school age and then either returns to her career or takes up a part time job. Especially if you only have one child - saying that you don't work so you can be the best mother is kinda meaningless when the child starts school because if you worked 9-5, you'd only be sacrificing another 3 hours or so a day with them. Most parents, working or not, don't see much of their kids during the week anyway. I get why a normal woman would give up her career to be a housewife as well as a mother, but what are rich celebrities doing when they give up their career for children? It's not as if they don't have hired help to clean the house and so on.

It doesn't really matter if the person is rich or not. The point is, a career like a singer means you owe yourself to the public quite a bit. It's pressurising, but you know what you're getting into. I believe you shouldn't become a singer if you aren't willing to give your fans music fairly frequently. It's weird, when you're famous, you're allowed to make a half-assed job of things just because you can afford to. Regular people can't take several years out of their job because they have a child or not do any work for several years because they just don't feel inspired. But I think a singer is just like every other job. Only making an album every 4 years without fail? Unacceptable. What are they doing with their lives in between albums? Most authors push out 1-2 books a year and you never hear them complaining but some singers need years between albums. I don't get it.

I really don't have a problem with stay at home mothers, as long as they're all-round hard workers at home. Nothing worse than a rich woman who chooses to be a stay at home mother despite the fact that her only child is of school age and she doesn't lift a finger around the house, spending all her time shopping and going out to lunch with her friends. But my critique is focused on famous women who choose to give up their careers for children. When you're famous, you can get away with taking time off, you don't need to give it all up. It's a career, but not as we know it, because it's fun (I'm sure most people would rather by writing music or acting in films than slogging in a factory). Giving it up just seems silly. My issue is that doing this seems to define you as a mother, rather than just letting it be one aspect of you. Men don't let themselves be defined like that, so why should we? Why don't most men give up their careers when they become fathers? Why does a woman provide better care for a child than a man? There was this tv presenter who once got a hate-filled tweet asking who was looking after her children when she was at work and she simply replied: "My husband." Parenting is a two way street. Most of these celebrities aren't single mothers, so why aren't their partners doing more to help so they don't have to give up their career?

Who cares what you prefer? It's not your child, your family, your life or your decision. You make the best decision for YOU and YOUR family and leave others to decide what is best for them and their life. Would you care about perfect strangers preaching at you about your life choices?

Nope. An artist is a human being. They belong to themselves and those in their life that they have made a commitment to. If they want to release an album every year or every five years or retire forever, it is solely their decision. The fans and the general public then decide if they still want to purchase music or not from that artist. An artist makes their own choices, regarding their life and career, and if you don't like it, don't purchase what they are offering. It's as simple as that. You don't own another human being, because you purchased a couple of ten dollar CDs. How ridiculous! 

Giving up your career for full time parenting seems silly to you, so if and when you have a child...Don't do it! That's your decision, and yours alone. No one should judge you for it, either way...and if they do, they are in the wrong! Your judgement of other women for their personal parenting and career choices is doing the same thing you are being critical of. All you are doing is judging other women and insisting that your personal values and choices should be theirs. 

[Epione 10,896]

How about making pregnant other pop threats for #LG5?

 

[jojuun 4,159]

Actually, I think it is comparable. If anything, a singer has a better schedule for looking after a child than a regular citizen does. Most of them have studios in their houses, meaning they can create in the comfort of their own home, with their kid beside them. They also have their instruments on standby and you can write a tune anywhere. They don't have to venture outside their home to do the most basic part of their job. Singers can take their kids on the road with them on tour, or if they don't want to put them through that, do residences, like Celine and Britney. Not every artists promotes themselves extensively either. Point is, why can't her husband look after the kids when she can't? This is my main issue - the misconception that a man cannot help raise children and can only be used in an emergency. And actually, she did somewhat tease it months ago when she posted a picture online with the caption: "Bye 25, see you later in the year." That's what started all the speculation and its never died since. I think it's unfair to keep her fans in the dark, get their hopes up, ruin them and then ruin them further.

I'm not even an Adele fan, I just feel bad for her fans. Adele strikes me as someone who doesn't care about how many people admire her and want to hear more of her work, as long as she's happy. That's an attitude that you can't take when you elect to be famous.

Exactly, and not just her, but plenty of other women have followed the same idea. A lot of female legends carried on after having kids - Madonna, Cher, Celine Dion, Mariah Carey, Britney Spears, Whitney Houston...That's partly why they're legends - they never retire, no matter what life threw at them. Most people who give up on their career after having kids rarely go on to be superstars forever.

i totally agree, I thought the same thing. She fits with every stereotype of that artist who comes out of nowhere, has a massive hit album and then fades into obscurity. In her case, it'll be because she can't handle the pressure more than anything. And yes, I never understood why her need to not court her fans very much was looked at as the best way to act and made her superior. Because I think this will be what breaks her. In today's world, with social media bringing us all closer and resulting in less of an "us and them" mentality, celebrities have to network with their fans, update them, stay in the public eye, treat them well, etc. if they want to keep them. If you don't care about their fans, why should their fans care about them?

I really don't. I just much prefer it if a woman devotes her time to her child until it's of school age and then either returns to her career or takes up a part time job. Especially if you only have one child - saying that you don't work so you can be the best mother is kinda meaningless when the child starts school because if you worked 9-5, you'd only be sacrificing another 3 hours or so a day with them. Most parents, working or not, don't see much of their kids during the week anyway. I get why a normal woman would give up her career to be a housewife as well as a mother, but what are rich celebrities doing when they give up their career for children? It's not as if they don't have hired help to clean the house and so on.

It doesn't really matter if the person is rich or not. The point is, a career like a singer means you owe yourself to the public quite a bit. It's pressurising, but you know what you're getting into. I believe you shouldn't become a singer if you aren't willing to give your fans music fairly frequently. It's weird, when you're famous, you're allowed to make a half-assed job of things just because you can afford to. Regular people can't take several years out of their job because they have a child or not do any work for several years because they just don't feel inspired. But I think a singer is just like every other job. Only making an album every 4 years without fail? Unacceptable. What are they doing with their lives in between albums? Most authors push out 1-2 books a year and you never hear them complaining but some singers need years between albums. I don't get it.

I really don't have a problem with stay at home mothers, as long as they're all-round hard workers at home. Nothing worse than a rich woman who chooses to be a stay at home mother despite the fact that her only child is of school age and she doesn't lift a finger around the house, spending all her time shopping and going out to lunch with her friends. But my critique is focused on famous women who choose to give up their careers for children. When you're famous, you can get away with taking time off, you don't need to give it all up. It's a career, but not as we know it, because it's fun (I'm sure most people would rather by writing music or acting in films than slogging in a factory). Giving it up just seems silly. My issue is that doing this seems to define you as a mother, rather than just letting it be one aspect of you. Men don't let themselves be defined like that, so why should we? Why don't most men give up their careers when they become fathers? Why does a woman provide better care for a child than a man? There was this tv presenter who once got a hate-filled tweet asking who was looking after her children when she was at work and she simply replied: "My husband." Parenting is a two way street. Most of these celebrities aren't single mothers, so why aren't their partners doing more to help so they don't have to give up their career?

I think Whispering said it best :

Who cares what you prefer? It's not your child, your family, your life or your decision. You make the best decision for YOU and YOUR family and leave others to decide what is best for them and their life. Would you care about perfect strangers preaching at you about your life choices?

Nope. An artist is a human being. They belong to themselves and those in their life that they have made a commitment to. If they want to release an album every year or every five years or retire forever, it is solely their decision. The fans and the general public then decide if they still want to purchase music or not from that artist. An artist makes their own choices, regarding their life and career, and if you don't like it, don't purchase what they are offering. It's as simple as that. You don't own another human being, because you purchased a couple of ten dollar CDs. How ridiculous! 

Giving up your career for full time parenting seems silly to you, so if and when you have a child...Don't do it! That's your decision, and yours alone. No one should judge you for it, either way...and if they do, they are in the wrong! Your judgement of other women for their personal parenting and career choices is doing the same thing you are being critical of. All you are doing is judging other women and insisting that your personal values and choices should be theirs. 

You are dead wrong on this one Strawberry Blonde... I always see you on this website typing essays on what you think others should do. Maybe it's time to do some self evaluation and realise that maybe YOU should do what you think is best and let others make those choices for themselves. In that process, try not to judge others for their decisions either. This is not about a style choice or a musical direction or whatever it is we all judge artists and celebrities for. This is Adele's life and she's pretty much made it clear her success was more than she bargained for. This is a woman who went to work in a record store after she won a Grammy. She's rarely seen in public, yet the paps camp out on her front yard daily. She wants to live her life and that's her choice. Wether you like it or not, it's hers to make and the public can deal with it. Or not. I'm sure Adele doesn't give two sh*ts about a girl on a forum giving her opinion about what "a female artist in the 21st century should do". You don't even know her reasoning behind staying home. Maybe it's not even for her kid, maybe she's picked up an instrument or decided she'd redo her garden by herself, who knows? You don't, I don't. Why are you so sure that what you think is the motivation behind her taking time out for herself is her motivation? 

And FYI, Britney DID take time out for herself and her children. So did Madonna. Madonna didn't tour for Ray Of Light because of Lourdes and she still schedules her tours around her children. In 2012 she cancelled the Australian leg of her MDNA Tour because at that point it was clear Lourdes would leave for college soon. Cher? Cher is in and out of the limelight all the time, has taken major breaks from music. Whitney was deeply troubled and didn't even release or perform for years. Mariah hasn't done a real tour since her children. She's done Australian and Asian shows for a couple of weeks, tops. Now she's picked up a residency with a lot of time in between dates. Hardly an intensive touring schedule. Celine Dion basically IS Vegas at this point, so I'm not even going to argue on that one.

Have a seat.

[AgusPop 4,133]

She wants to abandon her career?