Andrew Watt confirms DWAS was always intended for Gaga album

[K e n 648]

They clearly didn’t plan to add it. But the song took off so well and it fits with the concept of the album being all over the place genre-wise, a perfect album closer to signify finding peace amidst all this chaos.

Also, perfect placement as haters can end the album after Blade of Grass. 

Edited 13 hours ago by K e n

[elegidadedios 379]

The only thing that would "irk" me (and not really, because I'm not that invested in worrying about marketing decisions) is the possibility of letting a song out of the album, which seems unlikely. Pretty sure the album was made to 13 cuts originally. And if they did let one song out, they could have resolved It have two bonus tracks in different versions (store exclusive and target). So... Who the fck cares? Honestly. It's not like she disrespects her astistic integrity by doing that. I don't even care if Watt is lying, I do get it's a PR thing. 

That being said, she and her team could have been more clever: including the song from the very beginning to the album and matching the visuals from the video and promo to the album's aesthetic. But... That's it. A soft-rock ballad totally fits within MAYHEM's universe. Think about it in this way: if you listen to DWAS while having present the album cover (just like it will be once the record gets released), does it feel odd? Because, frankly, the cover totally matches the song too. That speaks volumes.

PE RI ODDDDDT

[Kayi 1,855]

1 hour ago, LeafBug said:

Would Rita Ora’s ex lie? 

Omg I didn't knew this 

Lmaooo everything is linked to Rita Ora 

[HeardASine 435]

29 minutes ago, Cameltoe Chariot said:

Why is this fanbase ALWAYS up Gaga's ass about something?

Jesus christ, the music industry is a business, and she's selling a record. She co-wrote and produced a song with Bruno during the production of Mayhem and she decided to add it to the album. Just like every other song that she wrote and produced during the production of Mayhem. Additionally, every album she's made has had a piano-driven ballad on it, regardless of the album's tone/vibe.

Why do you guys find an issue EVERY album cycle? It's annoying as f*ck 

For real, like why are "fans" actively trying to discredit this album or the narrative Gaga wants us to follow? What do you gain besides giving haters ammunition to attack the project? 

 

No other fanbase would give a f*** about a move like this and here we are debating it weeks before the album comes out. 

[Windowlicker 3,268]

8 minutes ago, HeardASine said:

For real, like why are "fans" actively trying to discredit this album or the narrative Gaga wants us to follow?

MIght have something to do with this new narrative being totally different to the one Gaga herself spoke about regarding the song's origins when it came out, but I'm just guessing. Frankly, I don't know why she and her team care all that much to put this new spin on the song being included to begin with. It comes off insecure and disingenuous. Nobody cares about where the track came from beyond Twitter stans. There's nothing wrong with saying they added the song to the album because they saw how deeply it resonated with the public.

[monstertoronto 9,016]

Until an album is actually released, the artist can decide anything they want.  They can add tracks, delete tracks, decide to change the artwork. It’s all a work in progress until it’s actually released to the world. Even then, they can decide to make changes and reissue if they wanted. The ridiculousness of requiring a certain date at which songs had to have been “intended” for an album or not otherwise they aren’t legitimately part of an album (even if they’re included in the only official playlist ever released before the album even comes out), is entitled toxic stanning. Any fans opinion of whether or not a track should or should not be on an album or that the decision had to be made before a certain date or whatever other reason is just a person’s opinion. The artist is the only one who gets to decide what is on album and can make decisions anytime they want to, and it’s nonsense to suggest that a fans sense of what “counts” is more legitimate than an artist’s actual decision as to what they want to make up an album. 

[Ladle Ghoulash 17,538]

24 minutes ago, HeardASine said:

For real, like why are "fans" actively trying to discredit this album or the narrative Gaga wants us to follow? What do you gain besides giving haters ammunition to attack the project? 

 

No other fanbase would give a f*** about a move like this and here we are debating it weeks before the album comes out. 

This is pretty culty ngl lmao. Why do we need to subscribe to the “official narrative” for the sake of protecting our Dear Leader from ravenous outsiders? 🥴

Edited 13 hours ago by Ladle Ghoulash

[ryansamonster 1,627]

1 hour ago, Ladle Ghoulash said:

Lowkey live for the image of me leading a January 6th style insurrection at Interscope. Ryan ate that up 

Riots being used as a metaphor for internet backlash  I didn’t think t would be taken so literally. 

[Ladle Ghoulash 17,538]

8 minutes ago, Windowlicker said:

MIght have something to do with this new narrative being totally different to the one Gaga herself spoke about regarding the song's origins when it came out, but I'm just guessing. Frankly, I don't know why she and her team care all that much to put this new spin on the song being included to begin with. It comes off insecure and disingenuous. Nobody cares about where the track came from beyond Twitter stans. There's nothing wrong with saying they added the song to the album because they saw how deeply it resonated with the public.

That part. 

[ryansamonster 1,627]

But like, if the song came out and wasn’t successful and was still on the album, we wouldn’t be having this discussion. 

[faysalaaa 3,662]

All I know is that when it was released, it wasnt intended for the album, but when it became a huge it, they included it.

[HayThurJack 197]

1 hour ago, Stephen said:

The real question is: was Happy Mistake originally meant for Mayhem? Because she literally sings about being a broken mirror. 

I see this as being ten times more likely than DWAS being meant for the album lol

[Maarck 171]

I think they wanted to insert it later when they realized that it was selling a lot and was being successful and therefore the album would have sold more. They wanted to protect their asses. Maybe it wasn't even Gaga's idea. Anyway it's fine like that, it's a song it deserves.

[Judas Oyster 1,904]

Please enlighten me. The track/sketch was originally made by Bruno and co.

How is that supposed to be "always intented for Gagas album"...

The most stretch idea is: Wyatt informed Bruno, and made him start a song without Gaga. With the goal by Wyatt and Bruno to get in Gagas album. Then they made a good song, which they made as stand off.

Later Wyatt, Bruno and Interscope made her add it to the album, changed her mind, to add it anyway.

[ARTSEX 1,093]

I don't understand. Didn't Gaga say it was the missing peace of the album [so that would mean it likely initially wasn't planned for it]. How come can there be such conflicting statements?

Btw, if he's right, can we actually add DWAS on Wikipedia as Mayhem's first single?