Madonna´s Erotica sold 4m copies. It was labeled a flop, and it was. Context matters.

Are you familiar with the concept of "internalized homophobia"?

the amount of lies being told here is unhealthy

Nnnnnn.Gagz sis.

Retro is not homophobic

See there's this little thing called CONTEXT.

The album will pretty much be forgotten even amongst her own fans, it was an lackluster era overall and everybody knows it. that's not success.

But are you familiar with the concept of "obsessed with Lady Gaga"?

She's spilling the truth tho.

The album might not have reached a BTW or TFM kinda of success, but it's far from being a flop. The era sold 2 million albums and had 2 successful singles (not smashes, for sure). The tour is doing well and the critics gave it a similar score to some other pop stars last albums (Katy, Rihanna, Britney, Christina).

Context is not invented by internet users and journalists.

Yes, I am. If I had said anything discriminatory of the LGBT community you'd have a point, but I said "forum homosexuals," a term widely understood to mean the denizens of ATRL, Exhale, Pop Overdose, etc. and my post was critical of these pop forum denizens and their lack of understanding of one word relevant to their stan culture.

It may not be a flop but its definitely underperformance after BTW in both - sales and quality categories.

And apparently, it's important!

That's fine, I understand that it may not exclusively reflect ARTPOP but in the big picture of things, if UMG are reporting a loss - There's no proft made.

There's obviously no breakdown as to what was spent on ARTPOP (a reasonable person could conclude a lot) but at the end of the day UMG reported a loss. You can't really use the "profit" arguement when the company didn't make one.

Just get over it Gags and stop convincing yourself that ARTPOP was a success. Too late for this. Sit on your ass and write some good songs.

You understand that €39 is $50 right? Also one Irish date isn't going to destroy a tour that's currently playing stadium venues, has high sales in the UK, all Asian dates and elsewhere in Europe and had a solid NA leg.

The company didn't make a profit, but they don't just let their artists make G.U.Y. sized videos, go on world tours, and do plenty of other projects if that particular artist was not profitable. There's no way you can draw assumptions about her career from info on the whole company, and assumptions on her career should therefore be made within the context of her own career.

Can you do us a favor and link us the UMG report? The New York Post is a sensationalist paper.

I believe she is profitable when it comes to touring. I think they allowed GUY sized videos because they projected it to perform and make profit though, it didn't.

Don't get me wrong, it's the same with My fave - She by far makes up for any "lack" of album profit when she tours.

In this instance she was and the people in here are, talking about the album as a singular. They're not looking at the era as a whole. She was talking about the album as potrayed by the media. If that quarter didn't make a profit as a whole, then the album didn't. That's not to say this quarter won't now that there's a tour but the album as a singular, didn't make profit so I don't think it's a reasonable arguement to make and with all due respect, you're making the same assumptions I am but you're just on the other side.

I get what she's saying tho. Y'all do too much.

"As long as I know it made someone somewhere happy, it was a success." is basically what she's saying, which isn't a bad view to have at all. But Gaga is over, faded, ARTFLOP, etc etc I guess