| |
Poll: lana vs gaga: more talented?
Member Since: 12/27/2011
Posts: 20,704
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Remixed
and grammys
So good to go from 1 - > 2 - > 3 - > 4 - > 5 - > 6 than from 0 - > 0 - > 0 - >  |
ddddd
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 9/1/2013
Posts: 3,374
|
Quote:
Originally posted by ultraviolento
village voice's pazz and jop >> metacritic
|
Is that why everybody uses Metacritic instead of this site that's so obscure that you literally had to post its description just so you could try to make your point? Because Metacritic is less reliable and less valid?
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 2/10/2012
Posts: 2,319
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Pop pop123
Raising grammys as if it is some sort of benchmark for acclaim is quite embarrassing, don't you think?  |
No more embarrassing than using metacritic or some obscure review site
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 7/9/2010
Posts: 42,506
|
Lana's 3 albums honestly all sound the same. Same dreary sound. Same themes. NO growth, and no Grammys.
And we know that she can't sing and has zero stage presence. What's left? She doesn't dance, play an instrument...?
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 4/4/2014
Posts: 13,402
|
critics can destroy ur career (like they destroyed gaga's) and grammys wont save ur career (gaga won a grammy this year, but shes still a talentless 3 years has-been fad, being forbes' loser of the year 2 years in a row, artgrave grossed less than 90m etc) so yeah critical acclaim >>
plus not an iggy stan talking about grammys 
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 9/15/2012
Posts: 22,487
|
While critical acclaim means nothing and is irrelevant to this discussion, Lana has not been critically acclaimed at all in the past. In fact, in the beginning of her rise to success critics were dragging her left and right. I don't know where this sudden critical acclaim argument came from, although I'll acknowledge that Ultraviolence has been much better received.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 7/9/2010
Posts: 42,506
|
Quote:
Originally posted by ultraviolento
critics can destroy ur career (like they destroyed gaga's) and grammys wont save ur career (gaga won a grammy this year, but shes still a talentless 3 years has-been fad, being forbes' loser of the year 2 years in a row, artgrave grossed less than 90m etc) so yeah critical acclaim >>
plus not an iggy stan talking about grammys |
Lol @ this flamebait filled post for no reason. Why u so angry boo? Was it the metascores that clocked u or the Grammys?
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/10/2012
Posts: 11,988
|
Quote:
Originally posted by ultraviolento
critics can destroy ur career (like they destroyed gaga's) and grammys wont save ur career (gaga won a grammy this year, but shes still a talentless 3 years has-been fad, being forbes' loser of the year 2 years in a row, artgrave grossed less than 90m etc) so yeah critical acclaim >>
plus not an iggy stan talking about grammys |
I mean if Gaga is a has-been fad, then what is Lana?
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 7/9/2010
Posts: 42,506
|
Quote:
Originally posted by GoneHome
I mean if Gaga is a has-been fad, then what is Lana?
|
Sis, don't stoop 6 rungs down on the ladder to compete with them.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 2/10/2012
Posts: 2,319
|
Quote:
Originally posted by ultraviolento
critics can destroy ur career (like they destroyed gaga's) and grammys wont save ur career (gaga won a grammy this year, but shes still a talentless 3 years has-been fad, being forbes' loser of the year 2 years in a row, artgrave grossed less than 90m etc) so yeah critical acclaim >>
plus not an iggy stan talking about grammys |
Looks like it's time for someone to leave the playpen 
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/6/2014
Posts: 21,185
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Tymps.
While critical acclaim means nothing and is irrelevant to this discussion, Lana has not been critically acclaimed at all in the past. In fact, in the beginning of her rise to success critics were dragging her left and right. I don't know where this sudden critical acclaim argument came from, although I'll acknowledge that Ultraviolence has been much better received.
|
Well she is acclaimed since Born To Die but yeah i don't get why using when its clearly offtopic/irrelevant to the topic.
they're pretty much equal on my opinion.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 3/4/2011
Posts: 11,853
|
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 4/4/2014
Posts: 13,402
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Remixed
Lol @ this flamebait filled post for no reason. Why u so angry boo? Was it the metascores that clocked u or the Grammys?
|
no one really clocked me? lana's still more acclaimed, deal with it 
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 12/27/2011
Posts: 20,704
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Tymps.
While critical acclaim means nothing and is irrelevant to this discussion, Lana has not been critically acclaimed at all in the past. In fact, in the beginning of her rise to success critics were dragging her left and right. I don't know where this sudden critical acclaim argument came from, although I'll acknowledge that Ultraviolence has been much better received.
|
!
Quote:
Originally posted by ultraviolento
critics can destroy ur career (like they destroyed gaga's) and grammys wont save ur career (gaga won a grammy this year, but shes still a talentless 3 years has-been fad, being forbes' loser of the year 2 years in a row, artgrave grossed less than 90m etc) so yeah critical acclaim >>
plus not an iggy stan talking about grammys |
Yet here in the year 2015, Gaga has been universally praised for her vocal prowess, something that actually matters to what this thread is asking PLUS the acclaim y'all wanna talk about.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 7/9/2010
Posts: 42,506
|
Quote:
Originally posted by ultraviolento
no one really clocked me? lana's still more acclaimed, deal with it |
Most common ways to measure music acclaim = Grammy & Metacritic.com
Lana loses to Gaga in both ways.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 11/21/2010
Posts: 15,739
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Somalian Hooker
No more embarrassing than using metacritic or some obscure review site |
nah.. not embarrassing at all. Metacritc averages reviews from actual music critics not old white men in suit who have no idea about the music they are voting for.
Sites like Pitchfork for example have a huge influence and impact on the new generation of music listeners more so than the grammys.
I expect someone that post on an actual music forum to know better.
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 3/4/2011
Posts: 11,853
|
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 7/9/2010
Posts: 42,506
|
Anyway, we have established that Gaga is far more acclaimed than Lana, yade yade ya...
Let's compare actual talents.
Gaga plays multiple instruments well. Her voice has been praised to the heavens and has been on display at events such as the GRAMMYs and the OSCARs. She is an award winning songwriter. 
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 4/4/2014
Posts: 13,402
|
dancing > gaga c+, lana f
producing > lana b-, gaga c-
songwriting > lana a-, gaga c+
vocals > gaga b+, lana b-
directing > lana directed vg and its an acclaimed video, gaga directed guy and it was critically panned so yeah its pretty obvious
lana has my vote!
|
|
|
|
Member Since: 4/4/2014
Posts: 13,402
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Remixed
Anyway, we have established that Gaga is far more acclaimed than Lana, yade yade ya...
Let's compare actual talents.
Gaga plays multiple instruments well. Her voice has been praised to the heavens and has been on display at events such as the GRAMMYs and the OSCARs. She is an award winning songwriter. |
lol lana's ivor novello >>> gagas ascaps and bmis
gaga plays the piano and lana plays guitar, ur deal? 
|
|
|
|
|
|
