Audience walks out early on Lady Gaga and Tony Bennett's NYE show

When most performers have an audience walk out on them, it says something pretty specific about the show... but not if that performer happens to be Lady Gaga!

The Las Vegas Sun did a review of the two shows that Lady Gaga and Tony Bennett played together in Las Vegas on December 30th and New Year's Eve; and according to them, the NYE audience just wasn't into it. Specifically, the guests were standing and drinking, talking loudly during the performance, spilling their beer bottles all over the place, and finally - they were walking out!

According to the Sun: "Some Gaga fans likely mistakenly thought that they would get some “Bad Romance” and “Poker Face” Gaga and left early."

Can you believe that? The Sun is not blaming the performers for the audience walking out early, they're blaming the audience itself. They also go on to say that the audience was "unappreciative" and that they "failed Bennett and Gaga".

Yes, you read that right. On New Year's Eve, the paying audience is the one that failed.

LOL!

What kind of biased writing is that? It doesn't even make any sense. If the people walking out were her fans, they would know what they were going to see ahead of time. And if they weren't - well, the description of the show is sitting right here on the Cosmopolitan website.

Tickets for the show were being sold for $125-$250 on the primary market and averaged $650 on the secondary market. Do those look like the types of prices people would pay for a show if they didn't know what they were going to see? Or if they thought they were going to end up leaving early? The suggestion that the audience walked out because Gaga didn't sing "Poker Face" is just ridiculous.

Hey, here's a crazy idea - maybe the audience just didn't like the show.

                              

Who Raped Lady Gaga?

                

By Miss Stef

Lady Gaga recently went on the Howard Stern show where she confessed that she was raped as a teen and she dropped some cryptic information about who her alleged rapist is.  When asked by Stern what her SXSW Swine puke fest performance was all about, Gaga had this to say:

"I wrote a song called 'Swine.' The song is about rape. The song is about demoralization. The song is about rage and fury and passion, and I had a lot of pain that I wanted to release. I said to myself, 'I want to sing this song while I'm ripping hard on a drum kit, and then I want to get on a mechanical bull'—which is probably one of the most demoralizing things that you can put a female on in her underwear—'and I want this chick to throw up on me in front of the world so that I can tell them, you know what? You could never, ever degrade me as much as I could degrade myself, and look how beautiful it is when I do.'"  (It wasn't beautiful.   It was revolting)

"You keep alluding to...were you raped by a record producer?" Stern asked.

"I don't...I don't want to..." Gaga replied. "Happy times! Let's talk about happy things!"

Ok so Gaga is definitely implying that someone within the music industry raped her but she isn't saying who. The admission brought an interesting yet irresponsible tweet out into the Twittersphere by none other than celebrity lawyer Mark Geragos.  Geragos is representing Kesha in her lawsuit against producer Dr.Luke for sexual assault and battery, sexual harassment, gender violence, and emotional abuse.  After Gaga's  Howard Stern confession, Geragos tweeted this:

Guess who the rapists was? http://t.co/MTg0vSE3rr
— Mark Geragos (@markgeragos) December 2, 2014

Seriously, how unprofessional and irresponsible of Mark Geragos. Given his lengthy career, reputation and notable clientele, he should know better. Whether Dr.Luke is guilty or not is irrelevant. Tweeting something like this does nothing to help Kesha and her case. To throw out accusations like this, even if they are true, is slanderous and damaging. If Dr. Luke is guilty, the truth will come out without the use of Twitter.

The tweet didn't go unnoticed by Gaga or by Dr.Luke.  Both issued statements.  Gaga's representives had this to say:

“This ridiculous, manufactured link between Lady Gaga and the Kesha-Dr. Luke lawsuit is utterly incomprehensible. This simply isn't true and how dare someone take advantage of such a sensitive matter.”   Dr. Luke's camp responded “Luke met Lady Gaga twice for less than half an hour total in those two meetings combined. He has never been alone with her and never touched her.”

Rape is a serious soul damaging violation to have done to someone.  Whatever someone feels they need to do to release their pain and deal with it is fine by me; as long as it's not illegal.  But Gaga has a responsibility to go after her rapist and make his name known.  For the simple and obvious reason that this monster will do this again; and probably already has.  This is a person who exploits naive girls who have stars in their eyes by using his position of power.  I'm sure he isn't the only one in the cut-throat music industry to do this. Dropping cryptic hints and half stories on a radio show about something as serious as this is just as irresponsible and vague as Geragos' tweet. Staying silent only allows the rapist to continue his path of destruction that will forever change the heart, mind and soul of a young unsuspecting and trusting young girl.

Lady Gaga slams pop stars who don't write their own songs...

...calling it "karaoke for pretty girls".

Recently, Lady Gaga sat down with Yahoo for an interview, and if you can stomach a nauseating amount of ass-kissing, here it is.

The part I was interested in the most was when she slammed other pop stars (but of course was too cowardly to name them) for not writing their own music, saying:

“If you’re not gonna write your own music, you better be able to blow. Because if you can’t blow, there’s no reason to do the job. But then you think about artists that can’t really sing, that have songs written for them, and it’s like, well why are they artists? Why are companies paying money to promote them? Because they’re beautiful and look good on camera and are kinda-sorta singing along? It’s like karaoke for pretty girls. When you’re a singer-songwriter it doesn’t really matter if you’re beautiful. What matters is that you create a relationship with your fans, and they care what you have to say.”

Now who exactly do you think she is talking about here?

Most pop stars out there actually do have a hand in writing their own songs (or at least have songwriting credits), despite the fact that Gaga apparently doesn't think so. Even the ones that are topping/have topped the charts have songwriting credits to their name, including: Taylor Swift, Katy Perry, Madonna, Lana Del Rey, Kesha, Beyoncé, Miley Cyrus, Gwen Stefani, Cher, Cyndi Lauper, Pink, Selena Gomez, Nicki Minaj, Ariana Grande, Christina Aguilera, Britney Spears... and so on.

If you actually look, it's quite rare to find a pop star with no songwriting credits to their name. So who in the industry is Gaga trying to shame, and for what purpose?

Is she jealous of the 'pretty girls' that she seems to think don't have to work hard, like she does? Is she insecure about the fact that maybe she doesn't do as much as she says she does?

Well, have you ever heard the expression "the guilty dog barks the loudest"?

Back in 2010, Gaga said, "I write all my own music. Every single lyric, melody and note was created by me."

She's still basically saying the same thing now - except now she's estimating she creates "90 per cent" of her songs instead of the full 100, which is interesting because if you take a look at the songwriting credits on her last solo album, you'll see a different story altogether:

"Applause" had eight writers. "Jewels n' Drugs" had seven. "Venus" had six, and included sampling.

And let's not forget the fact that the music in "Donatella", "Mary Jane Holland", and "Aura" already existed long before Gaga came along and (presumably) bought the tracks.

Does that sound like someone that writes 90% of their own material to you?

This attitude that Gaga's got - that she's better than her peers, more talented, and somehow more deserving of fame and fortune than they are - has got to stop, especially when we can all clearly see that she's exactly the same as the rest of them.

And how incredibly judgemental was this line...

"But then you think about artists that can’t really sing, that have songs written for them, and it’s like, well why are they artists?"

Really? Wow.

Who the hell is Lady Gaga to determine who has the right to be an artist? Who is she to determine who has talent and who doesn't? Who is she to insinuate that other people don't deserve the things they get?  Who is she to say how hard someone works or doesn't work?

Clearly she's thinking of specific people when she makes comments like these, and I'd love to know who and why.

But hey, remember this tweet?

I guess it's only bullying if it's happening to her, right?

Lady Hypocrite strikes again.

Lady Gaga and the Grammy Award winners

Slant Magazine has published their list of the 11 worst albums of the year, and coming in at number 11 is none other than Cheek to Cheek, Lady Gaga's jazz pop duet album with Tony Bennett.

Here is what they had to say about it:

"Lady Gaga fancies herself a renaissance woman, capable of shifting genres as ably as she changes Halloween costumes. And though she claims to have been singing "jazz" all her life, she overzealously belts through the standards on Cheek to Cheek like a precocious teenager performing show tunes at a high school talent show. The difference is that this amateur is backed by a team of admittedly competent, professional musicians and, of course, Tony Bennett, who, though not exactly in peak form here, manages to escape the whole charade almost unscathed. Almost. It's tempting to praise Gaga for wiping off the war paint, but that's like giving a lollipop to a toddler for not shitting in the living room."

 Read the rest of the list for yourself: HERE.

This writer at Slant Magazine is obviously not buying Lady Gaga's claims to have been singing jazz for as long as she says she has (though with her record of lying, who really believes anything she says anymore?) and calls her out for being an amateur.

And he's not the only one. This article from the Guardian says of Gaga's performance: 

"Gaga’s gallop through evergreens such as Anything Goes, I Can’t Give You Anything But Love and Let’s Face the Music and Dance deserves a merit badge for trying. She’s head-over-heels in love with this music clearly; but her rhythmically square, shouty delivery is more generic Broadway than anything convincingly to do with jazz."

Despite that, and despite its lukewarm reviews (3 Stars from Rolling Stone, 3 Stars from Billboard, 2 Stars from Slant Magazine), Cheek to Cheek has been nominated for "Best Traditional Pop Vocal Album" at the 57th annual Grammy Awards.

If she was after a Grammy, working with Bennett might have been a good move; after all, Tony Bennett holds the record for most wins in that category with 11 in total.

And, speaking of The Grammy Awards...

Lady Gaga is about to go on tour with Tony Bennett, but as of yesterday has announced that she's working on new music with two more Grammy Award winners: Nile Rodgers and Diane Warren.

So what does this mean? Is she going to drop the "Jazz" thing and work on pop/rock music instead, as some of her fans seem to think?

What about when she said, "I'm planning to release one jazz album a year. I think I will continue to do that forever"?

With so much going on all at once in the world of Lady Gaga, and her penchant for not really following through with things, what do you think is going to end up happening in the end?

The life of a flop star

Does she really have nothing better to do?

According to the Daily Mail, Lady Gaga has been seen to make SIXTEEN different outfit changes in one week. The only question on my mind is: who cares?

No, really. Who cares?

The same woman that said "All of my clothing has iconography buried into it" is now dressing like a shapeless sack of potatoes.

She's changing outfits four, five, six times a day... and for what purpose? To get her picture taken? This is attention-seeking to the highest degree, not a show of "iconography".

Hey, Gaga. When you have a new album out, and a new tour planned, maybe you should be focusing on that instead of playing dress-up all day long, hmm?

(Oh, and LOL at her rep having to come out and make a statement that she's not pregnant. Guess that's what happens when you run out of things to wear and you have to put something on that does your form absolutely no favors.)

And in other news...

                                      

TMZ reports that Lady Gaga has given her father full financial control over her $24 million Malibu estate. This would allow him to take out loans on the property, as well as lease or even SELL it, as long as it's in Gaga's best interest.

So, what could this mean for Gaga? Is it really that she just trusts her father to make the best decisions for her financially? Or is something else going on behind the scenes?

Does this remind you of anyone else?

What do YOU think is really going on?