I think highly acclaimed music stands the test of time (Beatles, Madonna, Cher, Sound of Music, MJ, Prince, etc) GRAMMYs can help us figure out who is highly acclaimed.
Grammys do not indicate who is timeless did you know the band Queen never won a Grammy? The logic omg
And Rusty I said Katy's singles have been above Gaga's since the BTW album wore off which is true. Never had Gaga been above Katy since then (unless you count the one or two days Applause and DWUW were at #1 when they were released)
None of Madonna's classics are charting in the top 1000 so does that mean they aren't classics/timeless? None of MJs songs are, either. None of Britney's are. This whole "my fave is charting higher than urs so I WINZ ;O" makes zero sense (kinda scared for some of you)
"Longevity! Longevity!" Yeah, longevity my ass when people who want the song ALREADY bought the song.
But no one's still watching the video on Vevo? No one is still streaming it on Spotify? No radio stations are still heavily playing it? THOSE are what makes a song timeless, not iTunes receipts from 2010
Katy is winning on iTunes, VEVO, Radio, etc because these people think her music is STILL worth being played despite them being released a few years ago.
Gaga's songs are very weak on iTunes, VEVO, Radio, etc...
If people don't buy, don't listen, don'y stream, etc Gaga's music NOW after 6 years what makes you think her music will still be played after 10 years more?
Gaga sold more... that's in the PAST but she's not selling NOW which means TIME had an impact on her since her music is so 2009 and "dancey"
Do you get it now? did you grasp it?
You keep repeating the same things over and over hoping they'll start to make sense.
Gaga has some of the highest-selling songs of all time. Of all time.
In thirty years, Vevo might not even exist. iTunes might not even exist. We might be listening to radio on some holographic music player and charts might be obsolete. This is like saying a song from 1960 is timeless because more people played it on their record players than any other song.
Quote:
Gaga sold more... that's in the PAST but she's not selling NOW which means TIME had an impact on her since her music is so 2009 and "dancey"
The Beatles aren't selling now. Michael Jackson isn't selling now. Madonna isn't selling now. Again, see how it makes no sense to bring up current stats to prove timelessness? Probably not.
The simple fact is this: radio doesn't matter, charts don't matter, what matters are sales of a song, and Gaga has higher-selling records than Katy. Gaga's biggest hit hasn't been touched by Katy's biggest hit. Simple as that.
None of Madonna's classics are charting in the top 1000 so does that mean they aren't classics/timeless? None of MJs songs are, either. None of Britney's are. This whole "my fave is charting higher than urs so I WINZ ;O" makes zero sense (kinda scared for some of you)
So you are saying our argument makes no sense but are not providing an argument for Gaga being more timeless other than you perception of her music. Okay
You keep repeating the same things over and over hoping they'll start to make sense.
Gaga has some of the highest-selling songs of all time. Of all time.
In thirty years, Vevo might not even exist. iTunes might not even exist. We might be listening to radio on some holographic music player and charts might be obsolete. This is like saying a song from 1960 is timeless because more people played it on their record players than any other song.
The Beatles aren't selling now. Michael Jackson isn't selling now. Madonna isn't selling now. Again, see how it makes no sense to bring up current stats to prove timelessness? Probably not.
The simple fact is this: radio doesn't matter, charts don't matter, what matters are sales of a song, and Gaga has higher-selling records than Katy. Gaga's biggest hit hasn't been touched by Katy's biggest hit. Simple as that.
Then I guess Carly Rae Jepsen and Kesha are more timeless because they have a single that has sold more
Gaga having one song being bigger than Katy's <<<<< Katy having lots of big singles which people still remember
Where's the Beatles songs in the top 1000? And on VEVO?
I don't think anyone would argue that they aren't timeless, so I don't think all the little stats (it was cute while it lasted though!) count.
The Beatles sell +1m albums yearly (which is more than Gaga during the last 3/4 years)
Also, many of their albums re-entry albums charts each year (pretty much how Teenage Dream out-charted BTW, Artpop & C2C)
You keep repeating the same things over and over hoping they'll start to make sense.
Gaga has some of the highest-selling songs of all time. Of all time.
In thirty years, Vevo might not even exist. iTunes might not even exist. We might be listening to radio on some holographic music player and charts might be obsolete. This is like saying a song from 1960 is timeless because more people played it on their record players than any other song.
The Beatles aren't selling now. Michael Jackson isn't selling now. Madonna isn't selling now. Again, see how it makes no sense to bring up current stats to prove timelessness? Probably not.
The simple fact is this: radio doesn't matter, charts don't matter, what matters are sales of a song, and Gaga has higher-selling records than Katy. Gaga's biggest hit hasn't been touched by Katy's biggest hit. Simple as that.
Your argument is completely subjective and flawed.
and yes, all these artists are selling now and all of them are selling more than Lady Gaga despite her debuting in 2008.
iTunes Global Top 100 artists:
38. Madonna
43. Michael Jackson
76. The Beatles
104. Lady Gaga
The Beatles aren't selling now. Michael Jackson isn't selling now. Madonna isn't selling now. Again, see how it makes no sense to bring up current stats to prove timelessness? Probably not.
What makes you think they aren't?
Even Madonna with all the negative press and current irrelevance has great catalog sales with The Inmaculate Collection alone
None of Madonna's classics are charting in the top 1000 so does that mean they aren't classics/timeless? None of MJs songs are, either. None of Britney's are. This whole "my fave is charting higher than urs so I WINZ ;O" makes zero sense (kinda scared for some of you)
Because those songs are legit 30 years old, of course they aren't charting in the US iTunes top 1000. However if you look at a list of most played 80s songs on Spotify or most played songs on oldies stations they will for sure be there, just like Katy's songs will be in 30 years.
Do you really expect mass amounts of people to still be listening to Applause, BR or Telephone in 30 years when they can't even chart in the top 1000 a couple of years after they were popular? I can see TEOG (for its timeless sound) and perhaps PF doing it, as for the rest of her discography....
Katy videos in the VEVO top 300 this week:
17 Dark Horse
18 Roar
41 This Is How We Do
60 Last Friday Night (T.G.I.F.)
85 Firework
114 Wide Awake
118 Hot n Cold
142 Part of Me
212 E.T.
214 Unconditionally
219 The One That Got Away
251 California Gurls
But no one's still watching the video on Vevo? No one is still streaming it on Spotify? No radio stations are still heavily playing it? THOSE are what makes a song CURRENT, not iTunes receipts from 2010
Edited for accuracy. If this was the gauge of timelessness, The Beatles/MJ/Queen/ABBA/Madonna would not have any timeless music.
Then I guess Carly Rae Jepsen and Kesha are more timeless because they have a single that has sold more
Gaga having one song being bigger than Katy's <<<<< Katy having lots of big singles which people still remember
Yes, the songs that have sold more have a higher chance of becoming timeless because they sold more. That's how it works. As artists, however, it's completely different.
No, because people don't remember an artist's discography, they remember a few huge songs and that's it. Like it's been mentioned, Madonna, Michael, the Beatles, etc. all only have a handful of songs everyone knows.
Katy and Gaga both have a few huge hits (Gaga's huge hits have been bigger) and those huge hits will be remembered/timeless. It's as simple as that.
But this argument is clearly not going anywhere since I'm talking to what I'm assuming are a bunch of 16 year olds who think they understand what "timeless" is despite proving they don't by posting receipts from today.
The Beatles sell +1m albums yearly (which is more than Gaga during the last 3/4 years)
Also, many of their albums re-entry albums charts each year (pretty much how Teenage Dream out-charted BTW, Artpop & C2C)
Billboard 200:
192 200 194 1 - The Beatles - Apple/Capitol | UMe
194 Re-Entry 126 The Essential Michael Jackson - Michael Jackson - Epic | Legacy
N/A Lady Gaga's albums from 2008-2013
And Gaga has the advantage of "streams + single sales" but she still didn't chart
Slay Nightwish! Knowing that it's hard to find 1 radio station in a country that gave a Nightwish song a spin. You might hear them during a metal top 100 day.
Not Monsters comparing Lady Gaga to the Beatles and Madonna. Their songs are ****ing decades old and Lady Gaga hasn't even been relevant for a decade. How are you going to try and compare chart positions? The desperation is sad
You keep repeating the same things over and over hoping they'll start to make sense.
Gaga has some of the highest-selling songs of all time. Of all time.
In thirty years, Vevo might not even exist. iTunes might not even exist. We might be listening to radio on some holographic music player and charts might be obsolete. This is like saying a song from 1960 is timeless because more people played it on their record players than any other song.
The Beatles aren't selling now. Michael Jackson isn't selling now. Madonna isn't selling now. Again, see how it makes no sense to bring up current stats to prove timelessness? Probably not.
The simple fact is this: radio doesn't matter, charts don't matter, what matters are sales of a song, and Gaga has higher-selling records than Katy. Gaga's biggest hit hasn't been touched by Katy's biggest hit. Simple as that.
I hate how gaga fans are delusional to ignore the fact that gaga peaked immediately and her sales continue to decline album by album. Along with hit singles. Each album/era she has less and less. So yes duh she had more sales, but her whole career is front loaded. Let's see her next era though
Again, see how it makes no sense to bring up current stats to prove timelessness? Probably not.
