Is LG5's Lead Single Gaga's Last Chance?

[Music 15,215]

- will LG5's lead single be Gaga's final chance at "remaining relevant" in the music industry?
- do you think LG5's lead single will define Gaga's placement in the current music industry?
- is it important for Gaga to select the right single to return?
- if this single isn't successful, will next time be too late?
- do you care?

discuss below!

[The Surrealist 27,470]

A big 'Yes' to all of your questions except I don't care if she stays relevant or not. I will forever be on her side.

[Caesium 6,022]

Yes. If it flops (peaks outside the top 20) or even has crap longevity she will no longer be considered a major pop girl. If artists like Ariana and Selena are outpeaking her... 

I care, but I care more about the music being good. If that means its less commercial, I'm here for it.

[Gaga Monster 13,001]

Yes

[Dangerous Man 9,245]

No one knows really.

[Didymus 33,458]

Of course not. The GP doesn't keep a list they'll scratch Gaga off of if the next single isn't good enough When they hear a bop they'll hear a bop.

Look at how many Rihanna singles flopped massively. Her era's went on perfectly. Relevancy is not measured in constant success, but in how even your failures keep your presence intact. Rihanna doesn't need to have a hit this year to be one of the biggest pop stars today. That's relevance.

Gaga hasn't enjoyed that as much as some of her peers have, but I don't think she will either build that up or destroy the possibility forever with this one single. She always has a chance of redeeming herself as long as she delivers good products.

[Music 15,215]

2 minutes ago, Sycamore said:

A big 'Yes' to all of your questions except I don't care if she stays relevant or not. I will forever be on her side.

haha, i agree

we have to be honest, if Gaga doesn't get this right, whether it be genre, sound, lyrics, visuals, etc.. it'll be tough to be on par with her contemporaries.

[Jinzo 9,623]

As much as it hurts to say it, yes  

[The Surrealist 27,470]

11 minutes ago, Didymus said:

Of course not. The GP doesn't keep a list they'll scratch Gaga off of if the next single isn't good enough When they hear a bop they'll hear a bop.

Look at how many Rihanna singles flopped massively. Her era's went on perfectly. Relevancy is not measured in constant success, but in how even your failures keep your presence intact. Rihanna doesn't need to have a hit this year to be one of the biggest pop stars today. That's relevance.

Gaga hasn't enjoyed that as much as some of her peers have, but I don't think she will either build that up or destroy the possibility forever with this one single. She always has a chance of redeeming herself as long as she delivers good products.

Rihanna is "normal" to the GP. She is conventional good-looking, takes no risks, works with a bunch of known musicians, she basically has a perfect PR. 

[Didymus 33,458]

Just now, Sycamore said:

Rihanna is "normal" to the GP. She is conventional good-looking, takes no risks, works with a bunch of known musicians, she basically has a perfect PR. 

I don't get how that matters

I just brought her up because she has had her commercial failures but just kept on pushing forward, and no one cares about those downfalls. Gaga however decided to make a big deal about (the press spreading word about) her declining commercial success etc., so yeah, the public will take that on and will automatically assume therefore that her career is going down the shitter.

Just not making a big deal about it and continuing to serve material is a more productive way of keeping the GP's attention where it should be: oh here's some new music from Gaga! Oh, it's so good! And Gaga can obviously deliver that whenever she wants, despite some of her future singles flopping. I think it just seems like this is such a big deal now because Gaga has herself adopted this 2013 downfall vs. 2014/15/16 resurrection narrative that now has to pay off (theoretically, but not necessarily practically, which is my point - she has all the time in the world).

I mean, Ari is conventional and good-looking too, takes no risks, works with a bunch of known musicians, had a perfect PR until the donut thing, but she does not have a similar commercial track record as Rihanna, so I don't know if you were implying that it's easier to be relevant and stay relevant for conventional peeps, then I heartily disagree. Plenty of examples of conventional risk-less artists who get nowhere after one hit. And btw, Rihanna has changed her musical and visual style more than Gaga era-wise so I even disagree about her just being a run-of-the-mill pretty girl. She'd never have been able to command that much attention for so long.

[River 98,470]

Madonna and Kyle are saying hello, their careers had ups and downs and sometimes a 2 eras of down, but they are still here.

yes Madonna had 2 floppy eras but made a lot of money from the concerts of 2 albums in a row in a row without even a promo.

Gaga will never be irrelevant, her name is in everybody's mouth, she's too famous to be irrelevant..

 

[FrancoRedHawk 35]

While I want Gaga to do well, I am truly all about the music. If it's good, I am happy. A sizable portion of my music library is comprised of artists who don't get much attention or haven't in years; however, they still make great music. 

Her legacy has already been cemented in my book. Here's to great music!

[kabirartfling 9,063]

You should add another vote option 'is this thread reductive?' 

[The Surrealist 27,470]

1 minute ago, Didymus said:

I don't get how that matters

I just brought her up because she has had her commercial failures but just kept on pushing forward, and no one cares about those downfalls. Gaga however decided to make a big deal about (the press spreading word about) her declining commercial success etc., so yeah, the public will take that on and will automatically assume therefore that her career is going down the shitter.

Just not making a big deal about it and continuing to serve material is a more productive way of keeping the GP's attention where it should be: oh here's some new music from Gaga! Oh, it's so good! And Gaga can obviously deliver that whenever she wants, despite some of her future singles flopping. I think it just seems like this is such a big deal now because Gaga has herself adopted this 2013 downfall vs. 2014/15/16 resurrection narrative that now has to pay off (theoretically, but not necessarily practically, which is my point - she has all the time in the world).

I mean, Ari is conventional and good-looking too, takes no risks, works with a bunch of known musicians, had a perfect PR until the donut thing, but she does not have a similar commercial track record as Rihanna, so I don't know if you were implying that it's easier to be relevant and stay relevant for conventional peeps, then I heartily disagree. Plenty of examples of conventional risk-less artists who get nowhere after one hit. And btw, Rihanna has changed her musical and visual style more than Gaga era-wise so I even disagree about her just being a run-of-the-mill pretty girl. She'd never have been able to command that much attention for so long.

It matters because no matter what Rihanna does she can still rely on her beauty and star power to generate new hype. But Gaga never relied on her beauty, she always will be the "meat wearing woman" to the GP and will get hated on because of this. 

I really cannot explain it but in the essence of my opinion Rihanna's beauty is very important to her fame and success. She is a good-looking singer with 'bops". Gaga is a musician and provokes people through art and is much more experimental. I don't know if that makes sense. 

[Didymus 33,458]

Just now, Sycamore said:

It matters because no matter what Rihanna does she can still rely on her beauty and star power to generate new hype. But Gaga never relied on her beauty, she always will be the "meat wearing woman" to the GP and will get hated on because of this. 

I really cannot explain it but in the essence of my opinion Rihanna's beauty is very important to her fame and success. She is a good-looking singer with 'bops". Gaga is a musician and provokes people through art and is much more experimental. I don't know if that makes sense. 

But that didn't stop her from delivering the monster hits that were Just Dance and Poker Face And her very name alone generated hype for Bad Romance, Telephone, and Alejandro, as well as Born This Way

I mean yes she provokes, but she also serves bops, and those bops can easily attract the GP, and they have when they are good enough for them. I feel like this "she's a provocateur!" argument is used as if that's a justification for a drop in commercial success, when I don't think the two are necessarily related.. I can't imagine people actively forcing themselves not to buy a song they really like because they didn't like the meat dress.

And in any case, I don't get what all of that has to do with the OP or my original point. Despite all that, I do believe that Gaga can still attract the GP whenever she wants with a song that is good enough, and an era that pushes the public to focus on her work, and her act in total. I think her problem with generating hype is actually that she has spent so much time building a relationship with her fans, that she has alienated the GP, which is a lot harder to hype right now because she's (probably unknowingly) co-created this impression that you have to be a Little Monster to really care about her.

So I dunno. Maybe that's one side of the issue, but I do think there are plenty of others.