NME: Lorde's Bowie Tribute Better Than Gaga's

[elijahfan 25,706]

... and it was inevitably turned into a **** contest by the media. What a surprise.

Saw this from a mile away, though.

[dopega 3,708]

NME is disrespectful to Gagz anyway 

I cant help the way I'm feeling, Gaga's performance was life 

[SamJ 8,008]

No way Lady Gaga's tribute was captivating all the way through Lorde's version was quite boring in my opinion

[elijahfan 25,706]

11 minutes ago, UK Monster said:

No way Lady Gaga's tribute was captivating all the way through Lorde's version was quite boring in my opinion

To be fair, both tributes couldn't be more different from one another - both were great in their own way, it's stupid to even try to compare them, but obviously the media won't pass on that opportunity.

[SamJ 8,008]

Just now, elijahfan said:

To be fair, both tributes couldn't be more different from one another - both were great in their own way, it's stupid to even try to compare them, but obviously the media won't pass on that opportunity.

I agree that the media want to compare and thats not necessary but I was watching the Brits it was late at night and I was thinking to myself when is this performance gonna be over when lorde was singing that was just honestly how I was feeling where's it was hard to take your eyes off gaga, she had so much enthusiasm

[Andy McQueen 4,484]

NME hates Gaga, they always write negative about her - just like Bowie's son, who posted Lorde's tribute on the official David Bowie Facebook fan page but NOT Gaga's tribute.  

[StrawberryBlond 14,590]

Well, damn. Five BS reasons. I'd expect nothing less from NME. Let's debunk them, shall we?

1. It was backed by Bowie’s band

So what? We can't have everything in life, can we? Maybe his band didn't want to travel to the States to perform at the Grammys. I'm sure the most important part about Bowie...was Bowie. Not his band. So what did it matter? For the record, I don't think the band made any difference to how I felt about Gaga's performance either.

2. Lorde knew that one outfit was good enough

Again, so what? Are you that superficial? As long as you're enjoying the music, what importance is a singer's outfit?

3. It was subtle

Subtle doesn't automatically mean good. Not all tributes have to be somber and mournful and be all about ballads. Bowie was a showman, he loved being extroverted and controversial. He made freaks feel proud. He broke away from the norm. A tribute should be a celebration of a life, therefore, not all doom and gloom in reference to the very end of it.

4. It had Bowie’s stamp of approval

So, because he once said that Lorde was the future of music (clearly not all legends call it right, folks), that means he must have liked the performance? How can you prove that?

5. It was actually about Bowie

Now, this one is just ridiculous. Gaga was dressed as Bowie, sang Bowie songs and even sounded like Bowie. What part of it was about her? I'd even controversially suggest that Lorde's performance was the one that was all about her. It was stripped back and basic and emotional to make the public take her back into their hearts. She's a one hit wonder who hasn't released a follow-up album in 2.5 years - she still has something to prove in this business. Such a performance was to exalt her status and make her more likely to make a comeback. I may even hazard to say that her label commisioned her to do this tribute in the hopes of getting to the public to remember and support her again. Who's trying to make it all about them now?

 

Honestly, Lorde's performance was good and all, but Gaga's just seemed more "Bowie." This was more an X Factor idea of how a tribute should resemble, which is why it got so much praise. People relate better to artists who play it safe. I'm just stunned that a one hit wonder with one album who's been largely forgotten about got to do such a prestigious thing. Doing a tribute requires people who have been in the industry a while. Using newer artists stinks of "promoting new blood." It's akin to giving Sam Smith the opportunity to sing the Bond theme just because he was a new, successful act right now as opposed to getting someone who actually had the chops for such a song. I just think tributes should be saved for people who have proved themselves in the industry or have been a close friend to the deceased. No matter how much of a fan you are, doing such a thing when you're such a fledgling artist makes it more about a promotional angle than anything else.

[PopBitch 1,218]

39 minutes ago, StrawberryBlond said:

Well, damn. Five BS reasons. I'd expect nothing less from NME. Let's debunk them, shall we?

1. It was backed by Bowie’s band

So what? We can't have everything in life, can we? Maybe his band didn't want to travel to the States to perform at the Grammys. I'm sure the most important part about Bowie...was Bowie. Not his band. So what did it matter? For the record, I don't think the band made any difference to how I felt about Gaga's performance either.

2. Lorde knew that one outfit was good enough

Again, so what? Are you that superficial? As long as you're enjoying the music, what importance is a singer's outfit?

3. It was subtle

Subtle doesn't automatically mean good. Not all tributes have to be somber and mournful and be all about ballads. Bowie was a showman, he loved being extroverted and controversial. He made freaks feel proud. He broke away from the norm. A tribute should be a celebration of a life, therefore, not all doom and gloom in reference to the very end of it.

4. It had Bowie’s stamp of approval

So, because he once said that Lorde was the future of music (clearly not all legends call it right, folks), that means he must have liked the performance? How can you prove that?

5. It was actually about Bowie

Now, this one is just ridiculous. Gaga was dressed as Bowie, sang Bowie songs and even sounded like Bowie. What part of it was about her? I'd even controversially suggest that Lorde's performance was the one that was all about her. It was stripped back and basic and emotional to make the public take her back into their hearts. She's a one hit wonder who hasn't released a follow-up album in 2.5 years - she still has something to prove in this business. Such a performance was to exalt her status and make her more likely to make a comeback. I may even hazard to say that her label commisioned her to do this tribute in the hopes of getting to the public to remember and support her again. Who's trying to make it all about them now?

 

Honestly, Lorde's performance was good and all, but Gaga's just seemed more "Bowie." This was more an X Factor idea of how a tribute should resemble, which is why it got so much praise. People relate better to artists who play it safe. I'm just stunned that a one hit wonder with one album who's been largely forgotten about got to do such a prestigious thing. Doing a tribute requires people who have been in the industry a while. Using newer artists stinks of "promoting new blood." It's akin to giving Sam Smith the opportunity to sing the Bond theme just because he was a new, successful act right now as opposed to getting someone who actually had the chops for such a song. I just think tributes should be saved for people who have proved themselves in the industry or have been a close friend to the deceased. No matter how much of a fan you are, doing such a thing when you're such a fledgling artist makes it more about a promotional angle than anything else.

I'm sure Lorde was picked per David's family's wishes.  Everyone associated with that tribute obviously had his family's sanction and/or request to do it.  They wouldn't have gone up there and done it otherwise:  Annie Lennox, Gary Oldman, Bowie's band, Lorde.  It had nothing to do with a promotion angle, but what his family knew David would have loved.  They obviously know who he is a fan of and isn't.  They wouldn't see her performance as an X Factor, but as someone who didn't try to mimic him, but sang it in her own voice to fit her style.

Some would say Gaga and her Intel commercial, her tattoo filmed and posted two days before, and her taking the time to snap herself crying and post it before the performance smacked of self-promotion and making it about herself.

Lorde was there as an invitation, and David's longtime pianist, for like 30 years, said to the son on twitter:  And @lorde was a dream to work with. We adored her respectfulness to your dad.

Iman has been retweeting up a storm a lot of people's tweets about the tribute.  She obviously loved it and approves.  She didn't approve of Gaga's because she never tweeted anything, like it didn't exist.

Longtime fans, for the most part, (not all) loved the whole performance, all of it, which included Lorde.  But that was loving the whole presentation, not just Lorde.

Ultimately it's about what the people who loved him most felt, which is his family, and that's that this is the tribute they wanted and loved for the man they loved and for his legacy.

As far as the general public, I think both were enjoyed, some probably liked Gaga's more energetic medley more or Lorde's/Bowie's band more or both or neither.  No one did a bad job.  It's just a matter of what you find to be the appropriate and moving Bowie tribute for yourself.

But your tweet smacks of jealousy or something.  Lorde was only picked because David was impressed by her talent and the family wanted her.  I think Iman knows best what Bowie would have wanted.

And did you listen to the lyrics of the song she sang, about the girl with the mousy hair.  It's about a young girl.

"Bowie, at the time of Hunky Dory's release in 1971, summed up the song as "A sensitive young girl's reaction to the media." In 1997, he added "I think she finds herself disappointed with reality... that although she's living in the doldrums of reality, she's being told that there's a far greater life somewhere, and she's bitterly disappointed that she doesn't have access to it."

 

[StrawberryBlond 14,590]

11 minutes ago, PopBitch said:

I'm sure Lorde was picked per David's family's wishes.  Everyone associated with that tribute obviously had his family's sanction and/or request to do it.  They wouldn't have gone up there and done it otherwise:  Annie Lennox, Gary Oldman, Bowie's band, Lorde.  It had nothing to do with a promotion angle, but what his family knew David would have loved.  They obviously know who he is a fan of and isn't.  They wouldn't see her performance as an X Factor, but as someone who didn't try to mimic him, but sang it in her own voice to fit her style.

Some would say Gaga and her Intel commercial, her tattoo filmed and posted two days before, and her taking the time to snap herself crying and post it before the performance smacked of self-promotion and making it about herself.

Lorde was there as an invitation, and David's longtime pianist, for like 30 years, said to the son on twitter:  And @lorde was a dream to work with. We adored her respectfulness to your dad.

Iman has been retweeting up a storm a lot of people's tweets about the tribute.  She obviously loved it and approves.  She didn't approve of Gaga's because she never tweeted anything, like it didn't exist.

Longtime fans, for the most part, (not all) loved the whole performance, all of it, which included Lorde.  But that was loving the whole presentation, not just Lorde.

Ultimately it's about what the people who loved him most felt, which is his family, and that's that this is the tribute they wanted and loved for the man they loved and for his legacy.

As far as the general public, I think both were enjoyed, some probably liked Gaga's  more or Lorde's more or both or neither.  No one did a bad job.  It's just a matter of what you find to be the appropriate and moving Bowie tribute for yourself.

But your tweet smacks of jealousy or something.  Lorde was only picked because David was impressed by her talent and the family wanted her.  I think Iman knows best what Bowie would have wanted.

I just feel like Gaga has been unfairly sidelined because she dared to take a risk. Lorde was good but she played it safe. It irks me when the safer one gets more praise. Not the same praise, MORE. It feeds into this ridiculous notion of "slow and mature is always best." They did two very different styles and both did it well. Can't both be equally liked? I could understand if Gaga has messed up, but she didn't and her vocals were good. So, why was Lorde deemed better?

I'm not jealous, I'm just annoyed that out of anyone they could've picked it was Lorde, whose talent I've found to be promising but not spectacular. And I've certainly been turned off by her attitude. She thinks she hot s**t and in one so young, especially, that is not an attractive quality. I also don't think she can sing, although this was her best performance. And she's certainly not a born performer. Yeah, Bowie may have liked her but nothing about her says "Bowie tribute." Gaga, with her performance ability and years of experience, was just far more fitting than a 19 year old who's still finding her feet musically.

[PopBitch 1,218]

11 minutes ago, StrawberryBlond said:

I just feel like Gaga has been unfairly sidelined because she dared to take a risk. Lorde was good but she played it safe. It irks me when the safer one gets more praise. Not the same praise, MORE. It feeds into this ridiculous notion of "slow and mature is always best." They did two very different styles and both did it well. Can't both be equally liked? I could understand if Gaga has messed up, but she didn't and her vocals were good. So, why was Lorde deemed better?

I'm not jealous, I'm just annoyed that out of anyone they could've picked it was Lorde, whose talent I've found to be promising but not spectacular. And I've certainly been turned off by her attitude. She thinks she hot s**t and in one so young, especially, that is not an attractive quality. I also don't think she can sing, although this was her best performance. And she's certainly not a born performer. Yeah, Bowie may have liked her but nothing about her says "Bowie tribute." Gaga, with her performance ability and years of experience, was just far more fitting than a 19 year old who's still finding her feet musically.

How has Gaga been sidelined?  Her performance was talked about for days.  This performance just happened and it's being talked about.  You sound more like it's about Gaga, not about Bowie.

I see nowhere in the media, except one or two places that pited them against each other.  Otherwise, I see nothing,  Just the media commenting on the tribute that just happened.  Shouldn't they?

You're annoyed.  But see, just like you are annoyed, others feel the same way about Gaga, or whomever.  It is Bowie's tribute, and his longtime fans feel this tribute was the right tribute in the way it was handled with the band and videos and introductions and Lorde being understated, then the tribute worked.  Not that it was safe.  You are making this some event.  It's not an event.  It is a tribute to a man who died and fans wanting closure.  What you call safe, others call moving and heartfelt.   

You say nothing about Lorde says Bowie tribute.  But others may say this was the perfect Bowie tribute, all inclusive of everything.  And others may say it wasn't and like Gaga's. over-the-top performance more with the visuals.

It's all subjective.  But again, I think his family must know what a Bowie tribute is, as they know who he was as an artist, and they loved this tribute.  Who is anybody to argue with that and say it's not a Bowie tribute with her if his own family  loved it?.

Other than that, everybody can just enjoy all or none of the tributes.  There's more coming in some shows.  I will just stick to Bowie himself.  LOL  Because no one can do him justice in my mind.  

[StrawberryBlond 14,590]

9 minutes ago, PopBitch said:

How has Gaga been sidelined?  Her performance was talked about for days.  This performance just happened and it's being talked about.  You sound more like it's about Gaga, not about Bowie.

I see nowhere in the media, except one or two places that pited them against each other.  Otherwise, I see nothing,  Just the media commenting on the tribute that just happened.  Shouldn't they?

You're annoyed.  But see, just like you are annoyed, others feel the same way about Gaga, or whomever.  It is Bowie's tribute, and his longtime fans feel this tribute was the right tribute in the way it was handled with the band and videos and introductions and Lorde being understated, then the tribute worked.  Not that it was safe.  You are making this some event.  It's not an event.  It is a tribute to a man who died and fans wanting closure.  What you call safe, others call moving and heartfelt.   

You say nothing about Lorde says Bowie tribute.  But others may say this was the perfect Bowie tribute, all inclusive of everything.  And others may say it wasn't and like Gaga's. over-the-top performance more with the visuals.

It's all subjective.  But again, I think his family must know what a Bowie tribute is, as they know who he was as an artist, and they loved this tribute.  Who is anybody to argue with that and say it's not a Bowie tribute with her if his own family  loved it?.

Other than that, everybody can just enjoy all or none of the tributes.  There's more coming in some shows.  I will just stick to Bowie himself.  LOL  Because no one can do him justice in my mind.  

There was another performance, so it was compared and not in Gaga's favour. And I really don't think tributes should be compared, unless someone really messed it up. It's the nature of comparing it that I'm really against. I see no reason why we should look at one or the other as superior, so I agree with you really. I'm not even a fan of his, so it's not like I'm defending his honour, I just don't like how the modern idea of tributes are being critiqued. I am really puzzled as to why they didn't praise Gaga's tribute. She did a great job. It's a shame how Gaga's been rather shunned by her idols when she clearly has more talent than some of the people they praise.

[Gianni Versace 2,987]

Damn, another hit thread

poor my haters

[Miel 15,009]

Both are good, in very different ways.

Like... can they not... see that...

[President Trump 3,508]

Why is anyone still talking about gaga Bowie performance I mean it was good but just like yawn lets move on, real pro performance that's all . Also I never jump on the band wagon and hate certain publications but NME is literally known as the single biggest gaga hating publication out there ever since their ridiculous interview with gaga during btw era. They literally dragged her as they interviewed her and then dragged her in the editorialization. 

[E24187 614]

18 hours ago, DrewStevens said:

Can we just move on? Lorde did fine and Gaga did fine, none of them are Bowie. But Bowie fans should be glad that their idol is still remembered as a great visionary by great modern artists and not as a child molester.

This effortless shade.....LORDT.

 

I REALLY REALLY REALLY wish Gaga stayed with her original plan.

I wasn't expecting new music because Intel said there wouldn't be, but the man didn't like her. Nothing wrong with him, he just didn't care for her not one bit. That alone disqualified her from doing anything Bowie-related. The very best case scenario suggested he was "meh" to her even AFTER she expressed her adoration of him. Doing a high profile publicly televised tribute to David Bowie was not her place. It just wasn't. Lorde was the sensible choice.

It's cool she felt inspired by him (I guess..) but some nice words on twitter about him was sufficient and she should've moved on. The way she's continuing to carry on with her recent instagrams is actually quite annoying.

The technology in the tribute was cool, more or less, but the content being Bowie really took me out of it. I was like, meh. Add her original plan to the list of betrayals.