SJAG 1,597 Posted October 23, 2018 Share Posted October 23, 2018 Hi guys.Yesterday I commented my thoughts about the relevance of Gaga in "A Star is Born" success (and in particular in the soundtrack for the movie). I was laughed at and mocked for saying that it's wrong to refer to it as "a (simple) soundtrack" and to be surprised for its success by saying stuff like "it's impressive for a soundtrack to spend so many weeks at the top of the charts". What I basically wanted to say is that, apart from being the soundtrack of a very acclaimed and successful movie (which already explaing why is selling so much) is a Gaga album (kinda) too. In which appeared to by my opinion only (while I acutally thought it was pretty objective) I stated that the fact that a famous artist such as Lady Gaga is featured in it affects its sales. To me it was pretty obvious that Gaga is one of the reasons the movie and the soundtrack are doing so good, it's not just people that enjoyed the movie to buy the album, but Gaga fans too. I'm not saying it's a bad thing at all, I'm not attacking anyone, I was just wondering why you act so surprised and impressed about a Gaga album topping the charts when almost every single release of hers has achieved that (It's still great since it's breaking her own records). I was criticizing the use of "a soundtrack" to diminish it, not the grammatical form as many misunderstood. This thought can be summarized by saying Gaga's name sells, it's pretty normal now that she's an established and well known artist to use her to promote and increase sales of products in general. For instance, none of you bought "FAME" to smell like tears of belladonna, crushed heart of tiger orchidea with a black veil of incense, pulverized apricot and the combinative essences of saffron and honey drops, but because it was Lady Gaga perfume, her name was on it. Another thing that comes into my mind is her partnership with Polaroid as a creative director. It was a marketing strategy, that Kanye West commented in an hilarious interview. Speaking of cameras, Taylor Swift recently released her own in collaboration with Instax. Altough her "aesthetics" goes well with it, it's pretty evident that it was all about marketing. This last one is the proof that it's not just Gaga's name, but famous people in general, just think about how much do designers clothes costs, and ask yourself if you're paying THAT much for the fabric quality or the brand name. It's literally getting to a point we don't even care what they put out anymore, we just buy it to support and show love to them (through out money). Mentioning Taylor Swift once again to prove my point, I would like to remind you that 8 seconds of static sound wrongly released as "Track 3" of her album 1989 went #1 on iTunes, just to make an example of how we really care more about WHO puts out stuff than WHAT it actually is. It's pretty sad to be honest, she really doesn't even need to try to make good music, her fans would buy it anyway. Do you get my point now? Is it still worth of "LMAO" reactions? I would like to hear your opinion on the topic. Remind that I'm not discrediting Gaga nor Taylor Swift (mentioned in this thread), I'm just using them as examples. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Born To Slay 10,996 Posted October 23, 2018 Share Posted October 23, 2018 Here’s the thing about the static air going number one. People assumed it would be good because they like her and trust her brand. If she consistently released crap, this trust would fade and this wouldn’t happen. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aglaya 8,014 Posted October 23, 2018 Share Posted October 23, 2018 but I agree with the one on the top could mean anything Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Hybrid 10,959 Posted October 23, 2018 Share Posted October 23, 2018 Isn’t that really obvious for everyone? Like, I don’t understand what wasn’t clear about this. No family’s safe when I sashay Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SJAG 1,597 Posted October 23, 2018 Author Share Posted October 23, 2018 2 minutes ago, Born To Slay said: Here’s the thing about the static air going number one. People assumed it would be good because they like her and trust her brand. If she consistently released crap, this trust would fade and this wouldn’t happen. Well that's true, but I explained why I used that example the sentence after. I'm basically saying that she has such a strong and loyal fanbase that is capable of making static sounds go #1 on iTunes, and people didn't buy it because it was great, but because it was released under Taylor Swift's name. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monster7 5,652 Posted October 23, 2018 Share Posted October 23, 2018 Obviously a name like Lady Gaga attached to a soundtrack affects its first week sales. She has constantly produced good material, at least. But if ASIB was crap, it wouldn't be number one even in first week. And it's going to be the top album for three weeks. Do you think FAME would have sold too much if it smelled bad? Yeah maybe some perfumes the first two days, but that's it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SJAG 1,597 Posted October 23, 2018 Author Share Posted October 23, 2018 Just now, A Hybrid said: Isn’t that really obvious for everyone? Like, I don’t understand what wasn’t clear about this. I mean, people laughed at me for saying that yesterday and I still get LMAO reaction like i'm telling a joke when I think it's just so easy to understand and it's not even an opinion, it's a fact. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SJAG 1,597 Posted October 23, 2018 Author Share Posted October 23, 2018 Just now, Monster7 said: Obviously a name like Lady Gaga attached to a soundtrack affects its first week sales. She has constantly produced good material, at least. But if ASIB was crap, it wouldn't be number one even in first week. And it's going to be the top album for three weeks. Do you think FAME would have sold too much if it smelled bad? Yeah maybe some perfumes the first two days, but that's it. You're right. Quality works has longevity. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeenIdle 121,108 Posted October 23, 2018 Share Posted October 23, 2018 Gaga's name sells because she worked hard, so people could associate it with "talent". ASIB wouldn't have been such a success in 2014 when Lady Gaga meant "fad". Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Born To Slay 10,996 Posted October 23, 2018 Share Posted October 23, 2018 28 minutes ago, SJAG said: Well that's true, but I explained why I used that example the sentence after. I'm basically saying that she has such a strong and loyal fanbase that is capable of making static sounds go #1 on iTunes, and people didn't buy it because it was great, but because it was released under Taylor Swift's name. But they associate Taylor’s name with greatness and assumed it would be great. There’s still a quality factor there. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
River 104,177 Posted October 23, 2018 Share Posted October 23, 2018 Track 3 it's more a demand thing, like a fast food for fans.. it's not a GP thing.. She released something - I buy because I'm a fan. I can smell your penis, I can cure you, DIE SIS Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Featured Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.