Gaga Valentino perfume: first look, out Sept 16th

[PunkTheFunk 123,709]

4 hours ago, Kao Intouch said:

"When I was young, I never smelled good. And as I struggled to mask my odours, I discovered the power of perfume. I remember being 13 years old and watching my mother put her perfume on every morning, basking in the glow of her power to put on her bravest scent as the hard working woman she was, even though her job at the bread factory had a strict no-perfume policy. I then began to experiment with perfume as a way to make my dreams of being as strong as my mother become true. I mixed all my mom's perfumes into one, and the fumes knocked me out for hours. It was during a fever dream I had while I was passed out that I invented Lady Gaga. I found the superhero within me by smelling my armpits and seeing who I wanted to be. Sometimes your smell doesn't come naturally from within, unless you have a pre-existing condition. But I’m so grateful that perfume inspired a bravery in me I didn’t know I had. I’ve come to accept that I discovered my beauty by having the ability to transform how I smelled. They said I was weird, but really, I just didn't know what deodorant was."

- XOXO LADY GAGA, VOCE VIVA

[MelbHawker 6,583]

Who cares if the image is old, she looks like a goddess

[OMonster 14,581]

1 hour ago, KNJ said:

TL;DR Gaga is effing smart. If you paying attention, she hasn't changed at all. She is brokering deals and making moves for the things she actually cares about.

I appreciate this, and thank you for taking the time to contribute to my perspective. 

My 'problem', though, is that much of what you have just highlighted can be achieved, straight-up, without all of the compromising deals. 

I've always 'liked' the Tudor Watch partnership, for the reasons you've highlighted. I think her message is very clear with that, and I agree, it is a good and sensible business move, even beyond the cash. 

But, as for the others... she didn't need them to achieve anything. 

Sure, I'm not denying they're 'good' at catapulting her brand and making money - that's show business, after all - but I stand by my comment that most of these moves are diluting her authenticity as an ARTIST. 

And to summarise my point: Lady Gaga doesn't NEED to 'broker deals' to contribute to the causes she cares about. She is most likely heading toward a net worth of $500M, at this point. There is nothing she ever has to do again to change the world in whatever way she wants to do - nothing.

These deals, imo, are far more about 'self-preservation' (if you can call it that, when we're talking hundreds of millions, here) interwoven with charitable causes, than they are about charitable causes, period. And again, there's nothing wrong with that, as such - I just don't find it particularly comfortable or inspiring to witness Gaga grow her wealth so exponentially, whilst her artistic output lessens in both frequency and, to an extent, passion. 

I fell in love with Gaga for her perspective, her music, her art, her talent... not her savvy moves as a philanthropist that, frankly, can, more often than not, come at the expense of the former. 

I end on this: do you really believe that Gaga is taking these deals for the wider good? She doesn't need money to do that - she's already got it. 

[raragaga 8,111]

i wish she would make her own again. or rerelease the fame and eau de gaga

[Schwerk 7,001]

I understand Gaga and Bobby know how to do business and get multifaceted deals that are about more than money. I do however feel it's starting to alienate her fans a bit, so I hope they have more visually exciting things up their sleeve this era, in line of the Paper magazine shoot for example and a bit more interaction with the fanbase.

This ad reminds me a lot of 90's/Y2K era Valentino with the touch of Valentino red. Like this ad for my favourite, sadly discontinued Valentino perfume 'V':

If they couldn't do a shoot because of Covid, this seems like a good solution. She looks gorgeous but it is a bit boring, even for a perfume ad. Maybe they shot the commercial recently and it's a bit more extravagant and modern.

 

[KNJ 4,170]

2 hours ago, OMonster said:

I appreciate this, and thank you for taking the time to contribute to my perspective. 

My 'problem', though, is that much of what you have just highlighted can be achieved, straight-up, without all of the compromising deals. 

I've always 'liked' the Tudor Watch partnership, for the reasons you've highlighted. I think her message is very clear with that, and I agree, it is a good and sensible business move, even beyond the cash. 

But, as for the others... she didn't need them to achieve anything. 

Sure, I'm not denying they're 'good' at catapulting her brand and making money - that's show business, after all - but I stand by my comment that most of these moves are diluting her authenticity as an ARTIST. 

And to summarise my point: Lady Gaga doesn't NEED to 'broker deals' to contribute to the causes she cares about. She is most likely heading toward a net worth of $500M, at this point. There is nothing she ever has to do again to change the world in whatever way she wants to do - nothing.

These deals, imo, are far more about 'self-preservation' (if you can call it that, when we're talking hundreds of millions, here) interwoven with charitable causes, than they are about charitable causes, period. And again, there's nothing wrong with that, as such - I just don't find it particularly comfortable or inspiring to witness Gaga grow her wealth so exponentially, whilst her artistic output lessens in both frequency and, to an extent, passion. 

I fell in love with Gaga for her perspective, her music, her art, her talent... not her savvy moves as a philanthropist that, frankly, can, more often than not, come at the expense of the former. 

I end on this: do you really believe that Gaga is taking these deals for the wider good? She doesn't need money to do that - she's already got it. 

Thank you for responding thoughtfully and respectfully.

What I'm confused about tho are the bolded statements. What do you mean? Because she is (supposedly) worth $500M (which just means the value of your stuff, not actually how much you have to spend), do you think she shouldn't be doing any of this cause she could pay for it herself? We don't know her financial situation and that's not how philanthropy works.

Some things she doesnt have to do, I guess. But, why not? You can do something just cuz it's fun or different or a new challenge. Or something that is actually satisfying to her in a way we know nothing about. 

As far as her philanthropy effecting her perspective, art, music, talent, you'll have to explain that one to me. Also how all of these are compromising her authenticity. 

As far as lessening output...that just life (icons age just like us) and not true. I don't know how old you are but: you 15 yrs ago, you today, and you 15 yrs from now, are all different people with different priorities, motivations, and energy reserves...but, you will still be you.   I wouldn't question her passion tho. Covid has destroyed every plan for this era. And with chronic illness, what you wanna do and what you can do, is not really up to you. 

Hope this makes sense.

[CHROMATICON 2,068]

2 hours ago, Marjol said:

I understand Gaga and Bobby know how to do business and get multifaceted deals that are about more than money. I do however feel it's starting to alienate her fans a bit, so I hope they have more visually exciting things up their sleeve this era, in line of the Paper magazine shoot for example and a bit more interaction with the fanbase.

This ad reminds me a lot of 90's/Y2K era Valentino with the touch of Valentino red. Like this ad for my favourite, sadly discontinued Valentino perfume 'V':

If they couldn't do a shoot because of Covid, this seems like a good solution. She looks gorgeous but it is a bit boring, even for a perfume ad. Maybe they shot the commercial recently and it's a bit more extravagant and modern.

 

I think it's a fake pic. It literally looks like the Vogue shoot. 

[Chromatography 10,001]

beautiful, was hoping for a full body shot tho and not as close up

[TerrenceV2 2,001]

What’s left on the list? Her own tequila brand? Smh

[gagasicebath 2,340]

8 minutes ago, TerrenceV2 said:

What’s left on the list? Her own tequila brand? Smh

Whiskey, surely 

[high heeled fem 3]

It’s DELETED  someone show me

[chromaticainmyhead 6,357]

9 hours ago, OMonster said:

I'm really struggling lately with the 'commercialisation' of 'Lady Gaga'. 

Of course, she's always been commercial - she's a pop star. 

But her 'for the money' mentality always used to be, very intrinsically, tied to her artistry. 

Now, it's tied to her name, her brand... her ability to make money for money's sake. 

And when we're in an 'era' where music and art is supposed to be at the forefront (not HausLabs or... this) - it all becomes even more apparent, and harder to enjoy, or at least ignore. 

ESPECIALLY if there's no experimentation or interest injected into these projects... which, as beautiful as she looks, this certainly seems to be lacking - if it's legit, that is. 

Anyway, just a few thoughts. 

I'll always support Gaga and I adore her talent. But I don't understand why she keeps trying to earn more and more money. Hasn't she got enough? It just goes against everything that, to me, 'Lady Gaga' represents. I guess it's time to accept that's not the case, anymore. 

It is honestly surprising to me that your post got so many reactions bc what you described is nothing new. What you have described as „for the money“-mentality is rather a „for the image“-mentality, I believe. Those campaigns aren’t existing bc of the money, they are here to raise awareness.

Her team or „they“ are generally focussed on introducing „the person“ behind Lady Gaga to the public much more since Joanne. With Joanne they pushed the reset button to strip down all the „gimmicks“ she was still associated with by the public. And they needed to because the image of Lady Gaga has been pushed to an extreme (with ARTPOP) where it was impossible to keep it profitable for mainstream. 

So from the Joanne era on they slowly built up a public perception of who Lady Gaga that is completely different to how she was marketed as in the early 2010s. And they did it very well with a precise balance of showing the world who she is behind the crazy costumes with Joanne, Five Foot Two and ASIB and the pop star she has always been like with the SB, Coachella, Enigma and now Chromatica. Tiffany’s, Haus Labs, the Tudor Watch or this perfume campaign isn’t any different than Joanne. They are trying to keep „the person“ behind Gaga still alive in the public eye. 

It‘s very smart from a marketing perspective to keep the two „personas“ of Lady Gaga present at the same time. That way she‘ll be recognized as an actual person who is famous for being a musician with Chromatica right now or for playing the role of Ally in ASIB back then. You know what I mean? 

All of this has to do with longevity. Those campaigns are sort of nuggets for the public to make them remind themselves who she is behind the costumes. This isn‘t for us, the fans, really. It‘s for the people who stumble upon her when they are looking at the magazines. When they walk through the subway corridor and see an ad for Tiffany‘s, when they see her on TV having a chit-chat with David Beckham. They need to push those campaigns because the „old“ image of Lady Gaga is still so dominantly turning off to many people. Those campaigns are here to recognize exactly those people who are moreso afraid by that aggressive memory of Lady Gaga = „the meat dress“. Those campaings are here to remind these people that she is a very authentic human. And if people are accepting her like that it is easier for her to make people accept her for her artistry. It‘s easier for her to promote Chromatica, for example. 

[JazzGa 14,512]

10 minutes ago, venusinmyhead said:

It is honestly surprising to me that your post got so many reactions bc what you described is nothing new...

This comment is so smart it just blew my mind. I was over here agreeing with OMonster's comment because I FEEL IT in my HEART but you have done a great job of explaining it from their point of view. Her team really does know what they're doing, and it's what is best for Gaga, even if we the superfans don't necessarily like it or understand it  

 

18 minutes ago, high heeled fem said:

It’s DELETED  someone show me

 

[Harris Walz 2024 1,451]

It's not good. Sorry, i love Gaga but it's just not provocative at all.

[3562136 743]

Great gowns, beautiful gowns