The Contradiction of 'Music Not the Bling'

[skedaddleBItCh 2,532]

1 hour ago, JaysAMess said:

Or how about we just allow all opinions - whether positive or negative, just as long as they're respectful.

Not when these so-called Little Managers have been harassing Gaga(*^▽^*) and for what? For making money, apparently. Have you seen her fans recently? The comment section under the sponsorships on IG? Where's the respect? Now look at these thread, literally someone made 7 accounts just to type and say their so-called opinion. These kinds of fans, I swear. Disappointing.

[skedaddleBItCh 2,532]

23 minutes ago, Delulu Rogers said:

I agree with what you said but that doesn’t cover how she contradicts herself or how all the products seem to be so out of reach for the average person 

what? From what I can recall, most products from her past eras are just as expensive if not more

[Delulu Rogers 6,365]

6 minutes ago, HuffsAhoy said:

Honey if you cannot afford some Oreos you really need to re-evaluate your life  And please, the same people complaining about $100 bottles of champagne or Tudor watches have no issue throwing hundreds of dollars at mediocre album merchandise. Get a grip. 

I live outside of the US so yes, the product is unattainable for me. And you made my point about the mediocre merchandise costing insane amounts of money, honey. 

[Oriane 18,987]

Oh, you triggered a lot of people 

[Cello 49,538]

Music AND bling! 

[HuffsAhoy 7,433]

3 minutes ago, Cello said:

Music AND bling! 

 

 

[Alannah 2,900]

I'd like a Chromatica singing toothbrush, not fancy fizzy alcohol. Her sponsorships used to mean something. 

 

[Chlorine Sevigny 45,560]

1 hour ago, Jill said:

In 2013, Gaga released 'ARTPOP', and along with it, the 'Lady Gaga Is Over' film, and with the lyrics of the title song, and the statement shown at the end of the film, she unknowingly sealed her fate on the minds of Little Managers. Since then, the 'music not the bling' line has been cited over and over again by fans from all over the world as a justification for Gaga being hypocritical (or something) by venturing into other areas that are separate from music, claiming these ventures are part of the 'bling' and that, thus, Gaga is contradicting herself by persuing them. This is stupid nonsense of course, but the reasons why it is a stupid nonsense isn't only because it is, in fact, nonsense, and that it requires Gaga to dedicate her entire life to a single line she wrote in her 20s, but also because it is a contradiction by itself. Not the lyric, but the philosophy that Little Managers created around it.

This philosophy states that, by doing things that are not music, Gaga is entertaining the 'bling' and not the 'music', thus Gaga = hypocritical. But these fans never complain about tours and music videos, which are arguably a part of the 'bling', since they're not music and are usually released after the music itself. They're ventures that are built upon music but that have the general purpose of contributing to the success of the music. They are not new music, nor they can be called music. And, as contributors to the success and promotion of the music, they share the same space as those things which are separate from it, like films, and promotional campaigns with Lamborghini and Dom Perignon, which are made to promote the music (in case of the campaings), but that aren't music themselves. Despite this, for some reason, Little Managers don't seem to realize caring about chart positions, music videos, and tours or performances while also criticizing promotional campaings such as the ones mentioned is deeply contradictory. And not only this, but also that caring about chart positions, music videos, and tours or performances is an objective part of the 'bling' and not the 'music'. Gaga's duty toward this lyric she wrote when she was much younger ends when she finishes the recording of a song, or an album, or sits down to write a new song. That's music without the bling, and that's the real significance of the lyric.

Little Managers complain, holding Gaga accountable by citing a lyric she wrote in her 20s, but don't realize the 'music' part of it was accomplished with the album release, and that all other promotional ventures are part of the 'bling'. There's nothing bad with entertaining the 'bling', but there's many things wrong with not letting an artist do whatever they want because you have a personal philosophy that is not only contradictory, but also deeply flawed. So, TL;DR - leave Gaga alone.

There's a hole in this though. Gaga releases music commercially and for profit. So it is not unreasonable to also group in any other expressions of that music with the music itself. Whereas something like promoting a watch brand which has literally nothing to do with her music and only lending her name and face to a campaign for money is markedly different and in direct contradiction of "music not the bling."

Just as a counterpoint. 

[Jill 25,280]

24 minutes ago, PussPuss said:

Gaga releases music commercially and for profit. So it is not unreasonable to also group in any other expressions of that music with the music itself.

The lyric is not "Music-related profits, not the bling". It is about music itself, not the promotion of it.

[chromaticarth 74]

My biggest "problem" with advertising is not that her sold out, but that there is only something creative if they pay.

SL APPLE

ROM Adobe

911 LG

FW?Babylon? DP

 

It is not about the products or what she is selling, but that she does not care enough to pay for something of her own, she only does things if they are paying. Nor does it look like the woman who believed in her vision so much that she paid G.U.Y out of her own pocket 

[boyerased 2,759]

She said she’ll exit mainstream music just to have creative control IF NECESSARY during ARTPOP. Seems like she found away to stay true while still getting her coins and I see nothing wrong with that. Not that she was lying, but fans should probably stop being too deluded to believe that everything she says is gospel. Gaga herself admittedly is too deluded at that point in time.

[Magui 2,600]

4 minutes ago, chromaticarth said:

My biggest "problem" with advertising is not that her sold out, but that there is only something creative if they pay.

SL APPLE

ROM Adobe

911 LG

FW?Babylon? DP

 

It is not about the products or what she is selling, but that she does not care enough to pay for something of her own, she only does things if they are paying. Nor does it look like the woman who believed in her vision so much that she paid G.U.Y out of her own pocket 

But they can pay and she still has her vision respected? It's possible. I don't see how much difference Adobe or LG made on the videos... I assume that the music videos still represent her vision. I think these days she is in a position that she can have deals with brands and still execute her artist vision. If someday she finds herself again in the position of having to pay the production of her own tour or a music video from her own pocket, cause she can't find someone or a deal to support it, that's something she needs to decide. Right now in my opinion she can secure her artistic vision and have easily a deal/brand to support it. If she doesn't choose to do more videos it's her choice, cause she has the money for it and most certainly the exposure, that any brand would gladly support it.

[Runway 27,876]

21 minutes ago, chromaticarth said:

My biggest "problem" with advertising is not that her sold out, but that there is only something creative if they pay.

SL APPLE

ROM Adobe

911 LG

FW?Babylon? DP

 

It is not about the products or what she is selling, but that she does not care enough to pay for something of her own, she only does things if they are paying. Nor does it look like the woman who believed in her vision so much that she paid G.U.Y out of her own pocket 

They don’t “pay” her, the sponsor money is invested in the videos. Just because she did it once doesn’t mean she must fund her own videos & projects all the time  Mind you during GUY she was at the lowest point of her career and her own label didn’t want to invest in it. Artists are not supposed to fund their own projects otherwise everyone would be an independent artist and record labels would be useless lmao

[lilboyblue 2,099]

21 minutes ago, chromaticarth said:

My biggest "problem" with advertising is not that her sold out, but that there is only something creative if they pay.

SL APPLE

ROM Adobe

911 LG

FW?Babylon? DP

 

It is not about the products or what she is selling, but that she does not care enough to pay for something of her own, she only does things if they are paying. Nor does it look like the woman who believed in her vision so much that she paid G.U.Y out of her own pocket 

Now, now... Let's not go there. You have no idea what her intentions are going into all these projects. Do you have receipts that she will only do these things if they're being sponsored?

You do know she works with a business team, right? Can't it also be possible that Gaga tells them the things she wants to do and Bobby & co. try to find the right sponsors, because, well, why not? If there are brands willing to support? Because that's how the entertainment industry works. That's how you stay afloat in this business. And they've been here long enough to know that.

These assumptions based on imaginations that are being propagated as truth is what's TOXIC about the fandom.

[Rolodex of Hate 1,721]

Yes, have to admit I did struggle buying that interview she did a while back where she said 'I don't like selling perfumes, there's more to me than that etc'... yet during this chromatica era she's selling Valentino perfume, Oreos and now champagne ???