Gaga and Bruno were originally planned to perform “Die With a Smile” at Grammys

[juicyjuicy 1,975]

It's what we all thought and many of us were scared of, but lol, loving this cute lil' PR moment she's having atm. And she's winning either way!

I don't think anyone aside from her fanbase (and haters) are focused on the numbers - yes, she didn't get #1 on this week's BB100 and maybe could have with the performance, but it doesn't matter. Mostly everyone is loving Abracadabra, she looked amazing at the Grammys, she had an incredible Grammys speech and she's at the top of the game again. Never would have thought 14 years into her career that she'd be one of the top artists at the Grammys in 2025 that everyone was looking forward to seeing/hearing from. Feels like 2011 all over again. 

From an OG Monster to Mother, we love you. x 

[Nemo 4,259]

It's already a Grammy-winning #1 song; how much more promotion did it need, anyway?

[nATAH 45,577]

8 hours ago, OMonster said:

"Albums" as in Mayhem + Bruno's upcoming album. 

on this note: if DWAS is on Bruno's album, is it gunna get a massive boost when his album drops?

[Stephen 30,389]

16 hours ago, StrawberryBlond said:

I don't understand why more people aren't mad about this.

Because if you've followed Gaga closely for years (I know you have) this decision tracks. I'm certain it was her enthusiasm for the idea that swayed Bruno. She gets excited for things like this, it adds another purpose to the performance, another reason, something further to fuel her and inspire her. It just reads as something Gaga would normally do, not something forced upon her, so I'm just accepting her choice. She is the artist after all. C'est la vie

Also, airing the Abracadabra music video was a HUGE moment. If that didn't happen I would probably feel a bit disappointed with the performance choice. But instead I just feel grateful, inspired and excited for Mayhem!

Edited February 5 by Stephen

[StrawberryBlond 14,477]

I also want to add that California Dreamin' contains the line "I'd be safe and warm if I was in LA." Hardly sensitive, huh? I actually remember hearing this song when the fires were burning and saying "Well, we know that's a song that won't be performed at the benefit concert." It's odd how insensitivity is subjective, isn't it? Funny how the artistic significance of that line was understood perfectly but DWAS just has "die" in the title and people flip their lid without taking in how the line is meant. Some people really are too much.

18 hours ago, HotLikeMexico said:

Sis, you’re doing a whole lot. They didn’t perform it, let it go. It’s not that serious. 

You're always LMAOing my posts every time I say something you don't like and unnecessarily responding to me. You're this little rain cloud that follows me everywhere. You're the one who needs to let it go.

3 hours ago, Stephen said:

Because if you've followed Gaga closely for years (I know you have) this decision tracks. I'm certain it was her enthusiasm for the idea that swayed Bruno. She gets excited for things like this, it adds another purpose to the performance, another reason, something further to fuel her and inspire her. It just reads as something Gaga would normally do, not something forced upon her, so I'm just accepting her choice. She is the artist after all. C'est la vie

Also, airing the Abracadabra music video was a HUGE moment. If that didn't happen I would probably feel a bit disappointed with the performance choice. But instead I just feel grateful, inspired and excited for Mayhem!

Considering a Grammy producer got to touch with them and they had a discussion, I'm reading it more as this idea was presented subtely and then made to feel like they came up with it and wanted it. It does sound like something Gaga would do but I don't know why she can't just think of her career like everyone else clearly is. Gaga has had fewer and fewer iconic awards performances as time goes on as she doesn't promote the same way. We missed a major chance for a legendary moment in her career. I don't bank on them inviting them back next year to perform it, though they sure owe them. They had a slot booked for this show and had their song all finalised, then were told to perform something else that was shorter. Anyone could've sung that, but out of all the nominees who were chosen to change their original plan, it was the nominees with one of the biggest songs of the year. That's just too suspicious for me to just take the L and move on.

[Stephen 30,389]

3 minutes ago, StrawberryBlond said:

Considering a Grammy producer got to touch with them and they had a discussion, I'm reading it more as this idea was presented subtely and then made to feel like they came up with it and wanted it. It does sound like something Gaga would do but I don't know why she can't just think of her career like everyone else clearly is. Gaga has had fewer and fewer iconic awards performances as time goes on as she doesn't promote the same way. We missed a major chance for a legendary moment in her career. I don't bank on them inviting them back next year to perform it, though they sure owe them. They had a slot booked for this show and had their song all finalised, then were told to perform something else that was shorter. Anyone could've sung that, but out of all the nominees who were chosen to change their original plan, it was the nominees with one of the biggest songs of the year. That's just too suspicious for me to just take the L and move on.

I'm glad we agree it sounds like something she would do! So the question is: was the producer intentionally malicious in their discussion? We might never know

But who knows? She might have loved the idea for other reasons that aren't so altruistic - maybe she was cautious of overshadowing Abracadabra, or maybe she's afraid of overexposure knowing she has several big scale performances coming up this year for Mayhem. Maybe she feels less pressure to be perfect when singing California Dreaming. Maybe she has always loved that song privately and was just excited to sing it? It could have been any combination of factors but I do believe Gaga does what she wants.

I agree that I'm dying for another big award show moment too.

[StrawberryBlond 14,477]

14 minutes ago, Stephen said:

I'm glad we agree it sounds like something she would do! So the question is: was the producer intentionally malicious in their discussion? We might never know

But who knows? She might have loved the idea for other reasons that aren't so altruistic - maybe she was cautious of overshadowing Abracadabra, or maybe she's afraid of overexposure knowing she has several big scale performances coming up this year for Mayhem. Maybe she feels less pressure to be perfect when singing California Dreaming. Maybe she has always loved that song privately and was just excited to sing it? It could have been any combination of factors but I do believe Gaga does what she wants.

I agree that I'm dying for another big award show moment too.

I'd bet it was malicious. These producer types are shady and manipulative. They've got a vision of what kinda show they want and who they want to highlight. They saw a chance to downplay Gaga and Bruno and they took it. If I was either of their managers, there would be words. Chromatica's plans already got cancelled considerably because of a pandemic before. The second consecutive album is not going to suffer similarly because of another unplanned tragedy which has nothing to do with live performance and promo. As I said before, do you think they would treat Beyonce, Taylor or Adele like this? Hell no, their fans would kick off. They're too powerful to step on their toes. But dear sweet empathetic Gaga could definitely be talked into graciously stepping down and doing a cover for the people. I think her kind-hearted nature was used against her.

Having 2 big songs out at the same time happens constantly. Justin was at #1, 2 and 3 in the UK charts once. It's called "having a successful era." 2 big hit songs simultaneously always benefits. My only non-altruistic theory is that Gaga wanted to just do what the producers told her so she'd be in their good books which could be a leg up for future nominations and wins. "We like this one, she does what she's told" kinda thing. Ugh, women are always told to be gracious. Sometimes, we need to stand up for ourselves. 

[HotLikeMexico 4,883]

52 minutes ago, StrawberryBlond said:

 

You're always LMAOing my posts every time I say something you don't like and unnecessarily responding to me. You're this little rain cloud that follows me everywhere. You're the one who needs to let it go.

[PartySick 150,616]

15 hours ago, MOT said:

Atoning ? She has a duty/responsibility to fight certain battles ? No she doesn't.

And why are you assuming that she was quiet because of JFAD ? It's possible that that was the reason, but I think it's more likely that it was because of Michael, either because he advised/asked her not to, or because she decided against putting his personal safety at risk. Make no mistake, if you speak up publicly against maga you are taking a risk.

That's pure speculation on my part. So is suggesting that it was because of JFAD.

 

Yeah, I'm not assuming anything  

And yes, if she's gonna call herself an activist she has to act 

I'm not so full of beans anymore though. She can do as she pleases but this new dark era is a great opportunity for her to do the right thing like she used to and like she did at the Grammys.