[ᴇʀᴏs]

Even if my fave performed at the Super Bowl and that specific game broke the record for highest viewership among the other Super Bowls, I wouldn't list that above her Grammys as a higher achievement. I mean yes, headlining the Super Bowl halftime show is undoubtedly a great achievement, but most people would generally agree that winning the biggest award in music is a higher achievement for a musical artist.

[Hi_im_new]

Originally posted by LoKoPaNdA

Your fave Iggy is the bottom of the barrel and will never amount to anything. Keep trying

!!

[wesleywalrus]

Why are people bringing their faves up in a Gaga thread?

[DanceForYou]

Originally posted by Hi_im_new

Why are people acting like a Grammy is bigger than the Super Bowl?

The once in a life time chance to perform in front of 100+ million people during the biggest event of the year>>>>>>a hunk of gold plated metal.

Well, too bad Katy's performance was one of the most forgettable ones of all time. Getting overshadowed by a backup dancer in a ridiculous childlike costume and by her special guest. Katheryn still loses.

[gerardsuxx]

Monsters saying Grammys are bigger than a SB performance is because Gaga will never be there since her music pop is not successful anymore (and she can't be performing her album with Tony Bennett or her song about rape), she can have her awards I guess.

[WalkingOnCharts]

Originally posted by ezra

Super Bowl is about sports and not whoever the singer for 10 minutes is. Super embarrassing to brag about.

And constantly bringing up Grammy awards isn't And funny that the half time show had a bigger audience than the game itself

Originally posted by Rusty

And yet some people still have none!

Shame your fave hasn't performed at the super bowl, which as I've already established is a much bigger achievement.

Originally posted by alimonster

Superbowl is forgotten and no one will remember it + it's not even about music

Grammys are always with you and you'll be introduced as a grammy winner.

Just like performing in front of a record audience of 118.5 million people

Originally posted by prollyallmyfault

I'm deceased

Thanks for your contribution

Originally posted by SpinThatShhh

Headlining the Superbowl is a sign of popularity. Nothing to do with talent, songwriting ability, singing ability etc etc. I would rather be known for my talent than being popular.

For example, if you were at school would you rather be popular due to your physique or constantly get top mark in all your tests?

Why hasn't your fave performed at the super bowl then?? And Katy still has talent, songwriting ability and singing ability

Originally posted by monsterLd

Lmao what am I reading??? This is so laughable

Thanks for contributing!

Originally posted by Hi_im_new

Why are people acting like a Grammy is bigger than the Super Bowl?

The once in a life time chance to perform in front of 100+ million people during the biggest event of the year>>>>>>a hunk of gold plated metal.

Exactly, shame some people are too confused to realise this

[KillingYourCareer]

It's clear. Gaga had beef with Katy, but Katy completely outshined her (and this was in 2013). Some people are still pressed about it, so they like to attack the grammyless Katy using the Grammy excuse.

[Rusty]

Originally posted by Hi_im_new

Why are people acting like a Grammy is bigger than the Super Bowl?

The once in a life time chance to perform in front of 100+ million people during the biggest event of the year>>>>>>a hunk of gold plated metal.

A Kat got defensive and brought up the SB in a troll thread aimed at trying Monsters because Lady Gaga wins Grammy Awards. The comparison makes no sense, one is an award for critically well received work, while another is a performance slot at the final of an American football tournament which garners high viewership and the performer now pays to perform there as the event garners it own attention separate to the act in question most often, as was the case when Katy performed (highest viewership was in the second half of the game, not the HT show).

Lady Gaga performed at the opening of the Baku games, got paid $2M to do so, and was watched by several hundred million viewers in Asia and Europe, but that is a separate achievement also. It doesn't have a Grammy comparison.

Originally posted by WalkingOnCharts

And funny that the half time show had a bigger audience than the game itself

No it didn't. The viewership peaked over 120M during the fourth quarter of the game

[WalkingOnCharts]

Originally posted by DanceForYou

Well, too bad Katy's performance was one of the most forgettable ones of all time. Getting overshadowed by a backup dancer in a ridiculous childlike costume and by her special guest. Katheryn still loses.

Hardly forgettable considering the amount of costumes people have made of the super bowl show many months later, the amount of people who have watched the show FOR KATY etc

[Rogue]

Originally posted by alimonster

Superbowl is forgotten and no one will remember it + it's not even about music

Grammys are always with you and you'll be introduced as a grammy winner.

I've yet to hear "Introducing the SuperBowl Halftime Performer.......!!"

Like, what kind of comparison? Are we gonna compare that orange blimp award to the Grammys next?

[Dante™]

Originally posted by gerardsuxx

Monsters saying Grammys are bigger than a SB performance is because Gaga will never be there since her music pop is not successful anymore (and she can't be performing her album with Tony Bennett or her song about rape), she can have her awards I guess.

SB is paid for. Was Madonna popular when she performed? I don't think so. She could perform any year she wants. Just wait for ha

[Hi_im_new]

Originally posted by DanceForYou

Well, too bad Katy's performance was one of the most forgettable ones of all time. Getting overshadowed by a backup dancer in a ridiculous childlike costume and by her special guest. Katheryn still loses.

That's your opinion. Plenty of people praised her performance.

[GoneHome]

Originally posted by WalkingOnCharts

And constantly bringing up Grammy awards isn't And funny that the half time show had a bigger audience than the game itself



Shame your fave hasn't performed at the super bowl, which as I've already established is a much bigger achievement.



Just like performing in front of a record audience of 118.5 million people



Thanks for your contribution



Why hasn't your fave performed at the super bowl then?? And Katy still has talent, songwriting ability and singing ability



Thanks for contributing!



Exactly, shame some people are too confused to realise this

Literally in almost every case in the past few years, the performance is viewed more than the game. Just stop.

Both are major accomplishments that the other wishes they had. Let's leave it at that

[Lyrical.]

Also it's similar to how they pretend to care sooo much about the jazz album.. its success only.

Most of them dislike it/haven't even heard it LOL

[Scandal & Media]

Originally posted by Lyrical.

Also it's similar to how they pretend to care sooo much about the jazz album.. its success only.

Most of them dislike it/haven't even heard it LOL

Isn't it like totz hilarious that like every other fan base does the same things pull the same petty ****?

LOL~

[WalkingOnCharts]

Originally posted by Rusty

No it didn't. The viewership peaked over 120M during the fourth quarter of the game

NBC announced on Monday that the Patriots 28-24 last second victory over the Seattle Seahawks drew an average audience of 114.4 million viewers.

Perry's colorful pyrotechnic extravaganza hauled in 118.5 million viewers making it the most watched halftime show in the Super Bowl's 49 year history.

So duration of game vs duration of half time show, Katy wins

[PinkBox]

Lord this whole thread is embarrassing

[Erotic]

Originally posted by gerardsuxx

Monsters saying Grammys are bigger than a SB performance is because Gaga will never be there since her music pop is not successful anymore (and she can't be performing her album with Tony Bennett or her song about rape), she can have her awards I guess.

You're not very clever. Trying to undermine Gaga's groundbreaking crossover into jazz and acting while receiving fruitful nominations and awards for her work. While Gaga may not be "SuperBowl material" at this very moment - she has a wonderful catalog of succesful music that will give her the chance to someday perform, along with her FUTURE music. Not to mention her stage presence and performing abilities by far outdo those of previous performers and their props

[SpinThatShhh]

Originally posted by WalkingOnCharts

Why hasn't your fave performed at the super bowl then?? And Katy still has talent, songwriting ability and singing ability

Because...Katy Perry's last era was bigger than Gaga's? haha?

Never said Katy didn't have talent. The Superbowl just isn't a measure of talent while the GRAMMYs are.

[Hi_im_new]

Originally posted by Rusty

A Kat got defensive and brought up the SB in a troll thread aimed at trying Monsters because Lady Gaga wins Grammy Awards. The comparison makes no sense, one is an award for critically well received work, while another is a performance slot at the final of an American football tournament which garners high viewership and the performer now pays to perform there as the event garners it own attention separate to the act in question most often, as was the case when Katy performed (highest viewership was in the second half of the game, not the HT show).

Lady Gaga performed at the opening of the Baku games, got paid $2M to do so, and was watched by several hundred million viewers in Asia and Europe, but that is a separate achievement also. It doesn't have a Grammy comparison.



No it didn't. The viewership peaked over 120M during the fourth quarter of the game

Ok.....

The SB>>>>>>a Grammy.