Gaga DRAGS the NYT for their 'Joanne' review

[XoXoJoanneGaga 629]

11 hours ago, MonsterPaws said:

Are we reading the same review? 

It's this one right? http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/20/arts/music/review-lady-gaga-joanne.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter&_r=0

Yes, he talks plenty about the album. But look at the ending of every sentence or paragraph. It always ends in a "sounds like a Britney Spears parody" or "performances were ostentatious" (in reference to the Oscars...which was really quite an average performance visually).

The issue with the review isn't necessarily that he hates the album. It's that he expresses that through constantly criticizing Gaga herself.

He uses tweets to validate his points when he should just be listening to the music and saying what he did and did not like. Was the Chainsmokers feud mention necessary to the review? No. Was the use of terms like 'flop' necessary? No.

 This reviewer is extremely unprofessional. And if you think otherwise then you need some alone time to work things out.

You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. It is the job of a good critic to provide the context of the artist's history and the circumstances under which the album is released, and then provide analysis on said context. He used the feud with The Chainsmokers to extrapolate on Gaga's current relationship with the pop sphere, and how it's changed from her imperial phase. It is not the job of a critic to say "I liked this song, I didn't like this one, the end :)". His criticisms of the album are not about Gaga herself, they are about the music, try actually reading it.

The fact that you're trying to invalidate this review by pointing out that the writer used adjectives makes me embarrassed to even be responding to this post. Please read more, take a course on critical thinking and analysis if you have to.

[XoXoJoanneGaga 629]

8 hours ago, Kermit the frog said:

Well it is about the music and her place in pop culture, are we reading the same thing? 

For them to be reading the same thing, they would have had to have read it in the first place.

[YeehawKylie 7,817]

His review has little credibility in my opinion. Especially after calling ARTPOP a flop. I just don't feel like that's professional terminology when reviewing an album and most music professionals admit even thought ARTPOP may have underwhelmed in terms of sales...it certainly was no flop. 

It just reads as though this guy has issues with her or just enjoys to pick at her work. Yawn. 

[MonsterPaws 2,731]

2 minutes ago, CoCo1 said:

You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. It is the job of a good critic to provide the context of the artist's history and the circumstances under which the album is released, and then provide analysis on said context. He used the feud with The Chainsmokers to extrapolate on Gaga's current relationship with the pop sphere, and how it's changed from her imperial phase. It is not the job of a critic to say "I liked this song, I didn't like this one, the end :)". His criticisms of the album are not about Gaga herself, they are about the music, try actually reading it.

The fact that you're trying to invalidate this review by pointing out that the writer used adjectives makes me embarrassed to even be responding to this post. Please read more, take a course on critical thinking and analysis if you have to.

You're trying to sound smarter to make your post more convincing.

The fact that the writer used the term 'flop' goes to show the extent of his unprofessionalism, especially given his position in the New York Times. You might not agree with that, but you're demeanor as a whole doesn't tell me you're as intellectual, open minded, or objective as you think you are.

As for the suggestion for taking a critical thinking course, I would love to! Especially since joining a university of good standing here in the US. Thank you for the suggestion though!

[MonsterPaws 2,731]

12 minutes ago, koonsisme said:

His review has little credibility in my opinion. Especially after calling ARTPOP a flop. I just don't feel like that's professional terminology when reviewing an album and most music professionals admit even thought ARTPOP may have underwhelmed in terms of sales...it certainly was no flop. 

It just reads as though this guy has issues with her or just enjoys to pick at her work. Yawn. 

Exactly, I attended a few journalism sessions in the past few weeks, and the editorial/copy editing team would destroy this guy if they knew he used the term 'flop'. Totally unprofessional.

Like you said, using terms like 'underwhelming' would be more appropriate. Anyway, journalism these days is more about stating biased opinions than providing context for readers/viewers to come to their own conclusions. Meh.

[XoXoJoanneGaga 629]

10 minutes ago, MonsterPaws said:

You're trying to sound smarter to make your post more convincing.

The fact that the writer used the term 'flop' goes to show the extent of his unprofessionalism, especially given his position in the New York Times. You might not agree with that, but you're demeanor as a whole doesn't tell me you're as intellectual, open minded, or objective as you think you are.

As for the suggestion for taking a critical thinking course, I would love to! Especially since joining a university of good standing here in the US. Thank you for the suggestion though!

I'm not trying to sound smart at all, making a comment like that only reflects worse on you when you failed to read the article properly in the first place, and it paints you as insecure. For instance, you call out his use of "ostentatious". First off, as I said in my above post is it the critic's job to provide context for the release. His detailing of the Cheek to Cheek and Oscars performances was his way of providing context for the last couple of years leading up to this album's release, and Gaga's reinvention campaign from eccentricity to unadorned. The Cheek to Cheek and Oscars performances were, by definition, ostentatious. Look up the dictionary definition for that word.

His usage of the word "flop" is the only thing that could be deemed unprofessional in this review simply by way of the fact that it could be construed as hyperbolic language depending on how you look at it. But he's an NYT writer not a pop forum stan, so he's likely not using the word in the same inflammatory way that it's tossed around on sites like this. It's common knowledge that ARTPOP fell on it's face in terms of overall reception and that it performed poorly by Gaga's standards. Yes, he could have used a less loaded word in it's place, but that's not reason enough to dismiss the entire review and the writer as invalid.

[SKANK 14,288]

7 minutes ago, CoCo1 said:

I'm not trying to sound smart at all, making a comment like that only reflects worse on you when you failed to read the article properly in the first place, and it paints you as insecure. For instance, you call out his use of "ostentatious". First off, as I said in my above post is it the critic's job to provide context for the release. His detailing of the Cheek to Cheek and Oscars performances was his way of providing context for the last couple of years leading up to this album's release, and Gaga's reinvention campaign from eccentricity to unadorned. The Cheek to Cheek and Oscars performances were, by definition, ostentatious. Look up the dictionary definition for that word.

His usage of the word "flop" is the only thing that could be deemed unprofessional in this review simply by way of the fact that it could be construed as hyperbolic language depending on how you look at it. But he's an NYT writer not a pop forum stan, so he's likely not using the word in the same inflammatory way that it's tossed around on sites like this. It's common knowledge that ARTPOP fell on it's face in terms of overall reception and that it performed poorly by Gaga's standards. Yes, he could have used a less loaded word in it's place, but that's not reason enough to dismiss the entire review and the writer as invalid.

 

People have been calling things "flops" for a hundred years. "Flop" isn't just some 21st century stan language. To describe a failed project as a flop isn't unprofessional in any way.

[MonsterPaws 2,731]

1 minute ago, CoCo1 said:

I'm not trying to sound smart at all, making a comment like that only reflects worse on you when you failed to read the article properly in the first place, and it paints you as insecure. For instance, you call out his use of "ostentatious". First off, as I said in my above post is it the critic's job to provide context for the release. His detailing of the Cheek to Cheek and Oscars performances was his way of providing context for the last couple of years leading up to this album's release, and Gaga's reinvention campaign from eccentricity to unadorned. The Cheek to Cheek and Oscars performances were, by definition, ostentatious. Look up the dictionary definition for that word.

His usage of the word "flop" is the only thing that could be deemed unprofessional in this review simply by way of the fact that it could be construed as hyperbolic language depending on how you look at it. But he's an NYT writer not a pop forum stan, so he's likely not using the word in the same inflammatory way that it's tossed around on sites like this. It's common knowledge that ARTPOP fell on it's face in terms of overall reception and that it performed poorly by Gaga's standards. Yes, he could have used a less loaded word in it's place, but that's not reason enough to dismiss the entire review and the writer as invalid.

First of all, I am quite insecure and openly admit that, but you sir are far worse than simple insecurity. You lack Socratic Ignorance, you lack something so essential in a bright mindset that could make your efforts in defending a man who is clearly in the wrong in a mere fan forum site more useful in a place that deserves people as insistent as you are.

Shame really, you are smart, I admit. But in no way are you utilizing your intelligence in something tangible and meaningful.

Now to my sassy self

Bish what?

First of all, as a non-native English speaker, I'm proud to say I've known words like 'ostentatious' since I was very  young. And by no means was Gaga's performance at the Oscars ostentatious (in comparison to her other performances, and artists who hosted the Oscars previously). I haven't watched many Cheek To Cheek shows so I can't comment on that.

If you knew anything about real journalism you'd know that being objective is key. You are clearly unfamiliar with that term so please look up the definition of 'objective'. Using a term like 'flop' is like using the phrase 'illegal immigrant' to describe 'someone who is residing in the country illegally'. I'm 100% you can't tell the difference between the former and the latter statements.

Maybe we can join that critical thinking course and analysis together? How about journalism while we're at it?

I'm done for the evening. Look up Socratic Ignorance before replying to this comment (if you plan on replying at all).

Good night and goodbye, and much love.

[XoXoJoanneGaga 629]

17 minutes ago, MonsterPaws said:

First of all, I am quite insecure and openly admit that, but you sir are far worse than simple insecurity. You lack Socratic Ignorance, you lack something so essential in a bright mindset that could make your efforts in defending a man who is clearly in the wrong in a mere fan forum site more useful in a place that deserves people as insistent as you are.

Shame really, you are smart, I admit. But in no way are you utilizing your intelligence in something tangible and meaningful.

Now to my sassy self

Bish what?

First of all, as a non-native English speaker, I'm proud to say I've known words like 'ostentatious' since I was very  young. And by no means was Gaga's performance at the Oscars ostentatious (in comparison to her other performances, and artists who hosted the Oscars previously). I haven't watched many Cheek To Cheek shows so I can't comment on that.

If you knew anything about real journalism you'd know that being objective is key. You are clearly unfamiliar with that term so please look up the definition of 'objective'. Using a term like 'flop' is like using the phrase 'illegal immigrant' to describe 'someone who is residing in the country illegally'. I'm 100% you can't tell the difference between the former and the latter statements.

Maybe we can join that critical thinking course and analysis together? How about journalism while we're at it?

I'm done for the evening. Look up Socratic Ignorance before replying to this comment (if you plan on replying at all).

Good night and goodbye, and much love.

Socratic Ignorance is probably the first thing taught in most high school philosophy courses lol. But you're conflating journalism with criticism, so your invoking of it is quite ironic. Criticism is not supposed to be objective and could never be unless art contained no subjective elements. 

Gaga's reinvention campaign from late 2014 through 2015 was full of ostentatious performances in that they were designed impress and attract notice. You don't go out on stage in nothing but a simple dress and sing an incredibly theatrical, operatic rendition of The Sound of Music to an audience of 100M that thought of you as a crazy, meat-dress wearing popstar without the intention of impressing them and drawing attention to your true talents and reinvention. Hence, as the author states, these performances were ostentatious in a more nude way than her earlier eccentric pop performances, but ostentatious nonetheless. It's not a criticism.

18 minutes ago, SKANK said:

 

People have been calling things "flops" for a hundred years. "Flop" isn't just some 21st century stan language. To describe a failed project as a flop isn't unprofessional in any way.

You're right, but I'm willing to concede this point just because of how ingrained that word is in pop stan culture and because of the toxic connotation it carries in that niche. But it's not the author's responsibility to write to pop stans.

[MonsterPaws 2,731]

28 minutes ago, CoCo1 said:

Socratic Ignorance is probably the first thing taught in most high school philosophy courses lol. But you're conflating journalism with criticism, so your invoking of it is quite ironic. Criticism is not supposed to be objective and could never be unless art contained no subjective elements. 

Gaga's reinvention campaign from late 2014 through 2015 was full of ostentatious performances in that they were designed impress and attract notice. You don't go out on stage in nothing but a simple dress and sing an incredibly theatrical, operatic rendition of The Sound of Music to an audience of 100M that thought of you as a crazy, meat-dress wearing popstar without the intention of impressing them and drawing attention to your true talents and reinvention. Hence, as the author states, these performances were ostentatious in a more nude way than her earlier eccentric pop performances, but ostentatious nonetheless. It's not a criticism.

You're right, but I'm willing to concede this point just because of how ingrained that word is in pop stan culture and because of the toxic connotation it carries in that niche. But it's not the author's responsibility to write to pop stans.

First think I dislike about your post: assuming most high schools/educational systems are equal. Sorry if I don't come from a privileged background to have been able to attend an elite high school. But anyway, that's completely off-topic.

Second thing, I'm confused by what seems to be a contradiction in your post (highlighted in bold). You state it's not criticism yet imply it is in fact criticism? A bit confused since your post reads like the first SAT essay I ever wrote. A bit 'off' sounding.

Also, 'flop' as a term isn't necessarily ingrained in pop stan culture alone. Not anymore from what I've seen. And as for the part I underlined, by saying it's not the author's responsibility to write to pop stans you're suggesting it's his responsibility to write to a non-stan audience? A more 'general' audience? If so, then that invalidates a decent portion of your previous argument(s), in particular the one that involves the reviewer mentioning the very recent feud between The Chainsmokers and Lady Gaga, since feuds like this one are usually more of interest to the 'niche' you describe in your last post. But I do agree criticism is not meant to be objective, so apologies for that mistake. Still, this whole argument started with my dislike of the reviewer criticizing the artist rather than the music for the most part. Given the reviewer's history, I don't find his review to be credible in the slightest.

Thanks for the stimulating argument though! I need to practice discussing with more..."hardheaded" persons if I ever want be good at debating.

Have a wonderful evening!

[XoXoJoanneGaga 629]

1 hour ago, MonsterPaws said:

First think I dislike about your post: assuming most high schools/educational systems are equal. Sorry if I don't come from a privileged background to have been able to attend an elite high school. But anyway, that's completely off-topic.

Second thing, I'm confused by what seems to be a contradiction in your post (highlighted in bold). You state it's not criticism yet imply it is in fact criticism? A bit confused since your post reads like the first SAT essay I ever wrote. A bit 'off' sounding.

Also, 'flop' as a term isn't necessarily ingrained in pop stan culture alone. Not anymore from what I've seen. And as for the part I underlined, by saying it's not the author's responsibility to write to pop stans you're suggesting it's his responsibility to write to a non-stan audience? A more 'general' audience? If so, then that invalidates a decent portion of your previous argument(s), in particular the one that involves the reviewer mentioning the very recent feud between The Chainsmokers and Lady Gaga, since feuds like this one are usually more of interest to the 'niche' you describe in your last post. But I do agree criticism is not meant to be objective, so apologies for that mistake. Still, this whole argument started with my dislike of the reviewer criticizing the artist rather than the music for the most part. Given the reviewer's history, I don't find his review to be credible in the slightest.

Thanks for the stimulating argument though! I need to practice discussing with more..."hardheaded" persons if I ever want be good at debating.

Have a wonderful evening!

You're looking at two separate paragraphs that are addressing different arguments. At the bottom of the second paragraph when I say "it's not a criticism", I'm referring to his use of the word "ostentatious" and the way he discusses Gaga's career leading up to this album. The reason I said this is because in your original post you stated he was being critical of Gaga herself rather than the music through his use of language, after offering his use of "ostentatious" as an example. Following context is key. And likewise, that wasn't meant as a criticism, just a constructive suggestion. Have a wonderful evening too