|
Discussion: Why did Pure Heroin fail to outsell Born To Die?
Member Since: 4/3/2014
Posts: 19,477
|
Quote:
Originally posted by ultraviolento
I don't hate her. Anyway, did you know Lorde's dad is rich too? Also, did you know she had her first record deal with 13 y.o? They were just waiting for the right time to publish her.
|
Yeah, but nowhere near as rich as Lana's family is. An upper-middle class family from a city in New Zealand isn't the same thing as a girl who grew up a millionaire in New York. And like I said in my previous post, that's nothing to hold against Lana. If anything, I find it makes her more interesting. I like that she grew up really rich. It makes her seem even more worldly. Like she teleported here from The Great Gatsby or something. There's nothing wrong with privilege. And even if Lorde's dad is wealthy, that had nothing to do with her achieving success. She won a talent show. That's like when people throw "nepotism" accusations at Lena Dunham because her parents were successful in the art world.
Quote:
Originally posted by ultraviolento
If anything, she's more manufactured than Lana.
|
...how? Neither of them are manufactured. I genuinely believe in Lana Del Rey's artistic vision, regardless of the fact that she did change her look from when she was Lizzy Grant. But that's just marketing, and pretty much every artist has done that. People change, and that's ok. The thing is, Lorde hasn't really changed at all. So how can she be manufactured?
Quote:
Originally posted by ultraviolento
She's also hypocritical.
|
Again, how? Because she didn't grow up homeless, that doesn't give her the authority to sing about the artists she looks up to living lavishly? She didn't have to be dirt poor to recognise that the artists she was listening to were completely unrelateable.
Quote:
Originally posted by ultraviolento
And she did say more than that though. She did say Lana is fake. How dare she speaks about Lana's lyrics when she doesn't even know what Lana has been through? How dare she acts like Lana isn't good for young girls but stan and praise Nicki Minaj? She shaded Lana just to get attention, and that's petty.
|
I mean, I love Lana, but that's just something her stans have to accept is always going to be an issue in her career. Sort of like Iggy Azalea and her fake accent. You're not going to like that some people think she's fake. I'm not one of them. But a lot of people do, and they actually have a lot of reasonable arguments to justify their claims. You just need to accept that it's always going to be an issue in her career. And I don't think she need to "shade Lana just to get attention" when she had a monstrous #1 hit that was #1 for like 9 weeks or something and has 2 Grammys under her belt. Lorde's already surpassed Lana as far as being a "mainstream" artist is concerned. And I don't think Lana would have it any other way. I think she likes that she's niche and isn't a mainstream artist.
Quote:
Originally posted by ultraviolento
The truth is, 80% of Lorde's fanbase doesn't really stan Lorde, they just hate Lana. But it doesn't matter because Lana IS the standard for female alternative pop acts, hence she's always compared to the rookies.
|
Lol...and you say you don't hate Lorde? "80% of her fanbase don't even really like her, they just want to hate on Lana." Get over yourself, would you. That is the epitome of delusion. As I said in my previous post, they're complete opposites. You can't say "Lana is the standard for female alternative acts!" when there is literally not one similarity between them, other than the fact that they can be labelled "alternative." And they both have brown hair? So maybe that's another one, I guess.
|
|
|
Member Since: 4/4/2014
Posts: 13,402
|
Quote:
Originally posted by AMENHOOKER
Summertime Sadness was a hit.
|
Royals sold more than SS though
These excuses here
Lorde sold 2.5 within 12 months and Lana sold 2.9 within 11 months. They were p close but the thing is BTD had longevity. There is no excuse, Lorde had massive promo/exposure/hits, therefore should've sold more. Lana is also doing better than Lorde on tours AND Lana is more influential (see coldplay, shania, french montana, taylor, lorde etc).
|
|
|
Member Since: 3/15/2013
Posts: 7,918
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Rihinvention
Yeah, but nowhere near as rich as Lana's family is. An upper-middle class family from a city in New Zealand isn't the same thing as a girl who grew up a millionaire in New York. And like I said in my previous post, that's nothing to hold against Lana. If anything, I find it makes her more interesting. I like that she grew up really rich. It makes her seem even more worldly. Like she teleported here from The Great Gatsby or something. There's nothing wrong with privilege. And even if Lorde's dad is wealthy, that had nothing to do with her achieving success. She won a talent show. That's like when people throw "nepotism" accusations at Lena Dunham because her parents were successful in the art world.
...how? Neither of them are manufactured. I genuinely believe in Lana Del Rey's artistic vision, regardless of the fact that she did change her look from when she was Lizzy Grant. But that's just marketing, and pretty much every artist has done that. People change, and that's ok. The thing is, Lorde hasn't really changed at all. So how can she be manufactured?
Again, how? Because she didn't grow up homeless, that doesn't give her the authority to sing about the artists she looks up to living lavishly? She didn't have to be dirt poor to recognise that the artists she was listening to were completely unrelateable.
I mean, I love Lana, but that's just something her stans have to accept is always going to be an issue in her career. Sort of like Iggy Azalea and her fake accent. You're not going to like that some people think she's fake. I'm not one of them. But a lot of people do, and they actually have a lot of reasonable arguments to justify their claims. You just need to accept that it's always going to be an issue in her career. And I don't think she need to "shade Lana just to get attention" when she had a monstrous #1 hit that was #1 for like 9 weeks or something and has 2 Grammys under her belt. Lorde's already surpassed Lana as far as being a "mainstream" artist is concerned. And I don't think Lana would have it any other way. I think she likes that she's niche and isn't a mainstream artist.
Lol...and you say you don't hate Lorde? "80% of her fanbase don't even really like her, they just want to hate on Lana." Get over yourself, would you. That is the epitome of delusion. As I said in my previous post, they're complete opposites. You can't say "Lana is the standard for female alternative acts!" when there is literally not one similarity between them, other than the fact that they can be labelled "alternative." And they both have brown hair? So maybe that's another one, I guess.
|
yesssss clock, scalp, drag, and read that delusional thing!
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/1/2012
Posts: 11,608
|
Because Born To Die is the FAR superior album.
|
|
|
Member Since: 7/9/2010
Posts: 1,726
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Pop pop123
With two huge radio hits, grammys, and countless promo spots on itunes + performances on various awards show (grammys, Amas, Bmas, etc)
Various radio banners across all access page.
And a re release of Pure Herion (extended edition) with a diplo produced new song "No Better" (which kinda flopped)
WW
Pure Heroine: 2.5 million
Born To Die: 5 million +
Born To Die DOUBLE Pure Herione despite having no big hits, no promo.
why?
|
Born to Die released Jan. 25. 2012
Pure Heroine released Sep. 27, 2013
Lana has over a year and a half head start on Lorde. Nice try. Get better data next time
|
|
|
Member Since: 11/21/2010
Posts: 15,739
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Eglė
Oh, yeah. And how can Lorde be local when she's from New Zealand yet her debut single came out of nowhere and shoot up straight to number one in United States and United Kingdom, and basically rest of the world? She basically SCALPED everyone and dragged down anyone who doubted in her. How exactly is she local?
Sch, your logic is just...
|
shh... the world doesn't revolve around Anglo-Saxon countries.
Lorde IS LOCAL to this particular region
No, she didn't "shoot up straight to number one" in other regions.
|
|
|
Member Since: 1/1/2014
Posts: 43,331
|
Quote:
Originally posted by RadioactiveLights
I'm a Lorde fan because I heard The Love Club EP and liked it.
The only reason why I'm replying to this thread is because of the questionable things these people are saying about Lorde
|
.
|
|
|
Member Since: 2/5/2014
Posts: 839
|
Stating these again one last time:
-Sales now are significantly lesser than when Born To Die was released
-The Paradise edition + Cedric Gervais remix of Summertime Sadness helped sell BTD more. Pure Heroine only had Royals, Team, and Tennis Court (the Extended re-release wasn't even a big deal, it had 1 new track, it is like the DEMI re-release )
-Lana had more hits in Europe. "Team" and 'Tennis Court" didn't do well there.
-PH singles were less bigger in some territories that BTD singles were huge
|
|
|
Member Since: 11/21/2010
Posts: 15,739
|
Quote:
Originally posted by frankru2010
Born to Die released Jan. 25. 2012
Pure Heroine released Sep. 27, 2013
Lana has over a year and a half head start on Lorde. Nice try. Get better data next time
|
Lana still sold more in the same time frame if you want to compare.
|
|
|
Member Since: 4/4/2014
Posts: 13,402
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Rihinvention
Yeah, but nowhere near as rich as Lana's family is. An upper-middle class family from a city in New Zealand isn't the same thing as a girl who grew up a millionaire in New York. And like I said in my previous post, that's nothing to hold against Lana. If anything, I find it makes her more interesting. I like that she grew up really rich. It makes her seem even more worldly. Like she teleported here from The Great Gatsby or something. There's nothing wrong with privilege. And even if Lorde's dad is wealthy, that had nothing to do with her achieving success. She won a talent show. That's like when people throw "nepotism" accusations at Lena Dunham because her parents were successful in the art world.
...how? Neither of them are manufactured. I genuinely believe in Lana Del Rey's artistic vision, regardless of the fact that she did change her look from when she was Lizzy Grant. But that's just marketing, and pretty much every artist has done that. People change, and that's ok. The thing is, Lorde hasn't really changed at all. So how can she be manufactured?
Again, how? Because she didn't grow up homeless, that doesn't give her the authority to sing about the artists she looks up to living lavishly? She didn't have to be dirt poor to recognise that the artists she was listening to were completely unrelateable.
I mean, I love Lana, but that's just something her stans have to accept is always going to be an issue in her career. Sort of like Iggy Azalea and her fake accent. You're not going to like that some people think she's fake. I'm not one of them. But a lot of people do, and they actually have a lot of reasonable arguments to justify their claims. You just need to accept that it's always going to be an issue in her career. And I don't think she need to "shade Lana just to get attention" when she had a monstrous #1 hit that was #1 for like 9 weeks or something and has 2 Grammys under her belt. Lorde's already surpassed Lana as far as being a "mainstream" artist is concerned. And I don't think Lana would have it any other way. I think she likes that she's niche and isn't a mainstream artist.
Lol...and you say you don't hate Lorde? "80% of her fanbase don't even really like her, they just want to hate on Lana." Get over yourself, would you. That is the epitome of delusion. As I said in my previous post, they're complete opposites. You can't say "Lana is the standard for female alternative acts!" when there is literally not one similarity between them, other than the fact that they can be labelled "alternative." And they both have brown hair? So maybe that's another one, I guess.
|
Didn't read it but yeah Lana is the standard.
|
|
|
Member Since: 6/1/2010
Posts: 65,177
|
Lorde is still more successful and her next album will be bigger than Ultraviolence.
|
|
|
Banned
Member Since: 8/17/2013
Posts: 11,824
|
Lorde knew exactly what she's doing and I gotta say - the strategy she has planned with her team was genius.
Too bad it's kinda backfiring now.
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/19/2013
Posts: 14,988
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Pop pop123
Born To Die was released in 2012
Go away.
|
It's not like I remember when it was released or whatever, so bye. And stop comparing them when Born To Die was released in early 2012 and it got a full rerelease, meanwhile Pure Heroine was released in 2013 (not early 2013, more like mid-2013) and she still managed to outsell Born To Die. So, let's not, it's clear that Pure Heroine had more impact that Born To Die.
But was it, or the songs from it, critically acclaimed? I mean, Grammys, other awards?
|
|
|
Member Since: 4/3/2014
Posts: 19,477
|
Quote:
Originally posted by ultraviolento
Didn't read it but yeah Lana is the standard.
|
They're nothing alike
Find one similarity other than the fact that they're both brunette and can be labelled "alternative."
|
|
|
Member Since: 11/21/2010
Posts: 15,739
|
Quote:
Originally posted by TayLord
and no, she didn't shade lana for attention
She was a 16 year old thrusted into the public spotlight, she was speaking her mind and giving her opinions . That's why she also gave her opinions on other acts like Selena, Taylor, Kanye etc etc. It's nothing to do with using Lana for attention
|
gurl, she used lana for attention for interviews, for prints.
Just like taylor used Lana in wildest dream.
|
|
|
Member Since: 4/4/2014
Posts: 13,402
|
"Lana is not a very good example for young girls"
"Nicki Minaj is the **** yeahhh"
"Lana only writes about boys like get over it"
"I love Taylor's vision and lyrics"
Dear God she's so hypocritical
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/19/2013
Posts: 34,855
|
@Rihinvention (not going to quote your original post because jfc): Lana and Lorde actually do have pretty similar styles. From the outset of Lorde's career she's received endless comparisons. I myself wrote Lorde off as a literal poor man's Lana (literal in the sense that Royals had all the pretense and lavish signifiers of a Lana song but written from the perspective of a poor person), although I've come to realize that Lorde is more electronic and minimal while Lana's music is more bombastic and retro.
Vocally you can tell Lorde takes a lot of cues from Lana, too, although Lorde does more interesting things with them.
|
|
|
Member Since: 8/19/2013
Posts: 14,988
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Pop pop123
shh... the world doesn't revolve around Anglo-Saxon countries.
Lorde IS LOCAL to this particular region
No, she didn't "shoot up straight to number one" in other regions.
|
Local = relevant in one particular country.
|
|
|
Member Since: 3/15/2013
Posts: 7,918
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Pop pop123
shh... the world doesn't revolve around Anglo-Saxon countries.
Lorde IS LOCAL to this particular region
No, she didn't "shoot up straight to number one" in other regions.
|
but then by your definition Lana must be local too? cause she only has significant success in Europe?
|
|
|
Member Since: 11/21/2010
Posts: 15,739
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Eglė
It's not like I remember when it was released or whatever, so bye. And stop comparing them when Born To Die was released in early 2012 and it got a full rerelease, meanwhile Pure Heroine was released in 2013 (not early 2013, more like mid-2013) and she still managed to outsell Born To Die. So, let's not, it's clear that Pure Heroine had more impact that Born To Die.
But was it, or the songs from it, critically acclaimed? I mean, Grammys, other awards?
|
Thank you for answering my question.
Born To Die despite being hated by the critics still sold way more than Pure Heroin.
|
|
|
|
|