Allan 3,705 Posted October 5, 2013 Share Posted October 5, 2013 Who are they actually? "We felt embarrassment for our fans". Rolling Stones performed with Gaga, the commercialized and cheap girl, and they didn't feel any embarrassment for their fans, so did Elton John, Sugarland, Tony Bennett and many others. Do they really think they're in a higher level than these artists? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zae 1 Posted October 5, 2013 Share Posted October 5, 2013 Whoever that person quoted is literally doesn't make any sense and does indeed lack artistic integrity. How you gonna say you're against the commercialization of your art and then do the exact opposite (commercialize your art?).I get they wanted the money, but you can't sell one lie while blatantly trying to sell another. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NathanC 938 Posted October 5, 2013 Share Posted October 5, 2013 Gaga should have scrapped the song... ****ing asses... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chic 20,830 Posted October 5, 2013 Share Posted October 5, 2013 Unfortunately, pop music already has that reputation among non-fans of the genre. They're just referring to it, and trying not to be tarred with the same brush. I think what they said was cowardly but it makes sense that they want to keep up appearances in a ****ty situation (where many people will judge them for associating with pop music). The funny thing is, they said that they hated commercialization and wanted to preserve their artistic integrity, and yet they're willing to sell out their music for royalties and because they were afraid they would be blacklisted if they didn't. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maxxie 37 Posted October 5, 2013 Share Posted October 5, 2013 YOU DISRESPECTUL FUKS Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
QueenMortuana 1,083 Posted October 5, 2013 Share Posted October 5, 2013 Why is everyone so mad? I wasn't phased by that at all. To be a musical act that's worked hard for years without being main stream, then suddenly someone from the realm of the mainstream world wants your song is a lot to take in. Specifically when its a song they loved. They cpild have said no. And its a profit for them too. They're allowed to have their opinions and I'm glad they do. Nobody has to kiss Gagas ass. But god forbid someone doesn't, all hell breaks loose. If it was Gag as song she gave to someone and she disliked it you know ALL of you would have her back. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hot Space 14 Posted October 5, 2013 Share Posted October 5, 2013 are they serious? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JanPianoMusic 730 Posted October 5, 2013 Share Posted October 5, 2013 FFS, get off your high horse. You will never please everyone. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paper Planes 340 Posted October 5, 2013 Share Posted October 5, 2013 It's their own fault that she used the song; they're the ones that agreed to it. After they agreed to let her use it, she's free to do whatever she likes with it as long as they get credit. But at least we have "Aura" in all of its flawlessness, and now they can stay mad. delete it fat Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LORD GAGA 1,271 Posted October 5, 2013 Share Posted October 5, 2013 they sound like pressed hipsters... lmfao Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
djBuffoon 12,029 Posted October 5, 2013 Share Posted October 5, 2013 This has been a succinct lesson in hypocritical values, brought to you by Infected Mushroom. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LStephens11 15 Posted October 5, 2013 Share Posted October 5, 2013 I admire their honesty but to bite the hand that feeds them is ridiculous; being upset because Gaga wanted them to be credited as "Infected Mushroom" is so childish. She knows exactly what she's doing by allowing that - opening their craft to a new audience. And to refer to her as "cheap" left a bad taste in my mouth. I will not be listening to their music for sure. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kayla 7,595 Posted October 5, 2013 Share Posted October 5, 2013 "we see ourselves as a band with a high artistic integrity and we avoid commercialization and doing cheap things such as Britney or Gaga." followed by: "it's a guaranteed lifelong pension. Each time the song is being played or sold, we get some pretty nice royalties." So...you have high artistic integrity but you agree to let something you made be used on a track you don't even like for a person you don't even care for so you can make money off of it? Um.....apparently it's not just pop stars who will do it for the money. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Americano 31,061 Posted October 5, 2013 Share Posted October 5, 2013 "we see ourselves as a band with a high artistic integrity and we avoid commercialization and doing cheap things such as Britney or Gaga." followed by: "it's a guaranteed lifelong pension. Each time the song is being played or sold, we get some pretty nice royalties." So...you have high artistic integrity but you agree to let something you made be used on a track you don't even like for a person you don't even care for so you can make money off of it? Um.....apparently it's not just pop stars who will do it for the money. Well, also the fact they wanted to cover it up by not using their artistic name so their fans wouldn't find out. How disingenuous is that? "Lets make money behind our fans back since we know they wouldnt like this!!" Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
elijahfan 25,274 Posted October 5, 2013 Share Posted October 5, 2013 So, we decided to go for it thinking it won't make the cut or she'll eventually change her mind. LOL And now, watch it becoming a single Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Featured Posts