So, Kanye said something that actually made sense and called TS a 'fake ass', and I mean he is an expert in fake asses, isn't he?
Adam on the other hand is saying nothing, because he is working hard on being a saxophone playing rock star with a girlfriend.
An Gaga meanwhile gets raked over the coals for being - Gaga.
Does that pretty much cover it?
I think some people underestimate the element of mass and number in all these debates.
The truth is a good thing, but if the truth is dished up a hundred times over, is shoved down your throat, is publicly screamed from what someone might consider their own little roof top, then maybe it just isn't about the truth anymore, but rather about feeling invaded or attacked or harassed. And I think, this is the piece that some of these Glambert swarms are missing in their evaluations of truth. Each individual comment may be a fair one, but by the hundreds, they start to sting or feel like an army has come rolling in. And it makes the person avoid coverage of the topic in the future, or make them think twice about cooperating with the person that made them experience this, and as such, in can actually hurt Adam.
Add to that, that a few people are less than savvy, when it comes to what they are saying, and a few are outright rude, and you get the result. I don't think this is limited to Adam's world at all. It is a consequence of the public access that the internet has created for everyone, but that does not make it any easier for any specific individual situation, Adam's included. Sometimes less is more. Not every comment needs to be made, especially, if there are already five or five-hundred others.
Only today did I get a chance to actually watch that Gaga performance, that everyone was critiquing everywhere on social media, and given all the negative messages, I was expecting one big hot mess.
Contrary to what I read here and elsewhere, I was actually impressed:
Yes, it was frantic and a bit too much, but that is Gaga, her award shows were always that. The Grammy organization made the decision that they already had a ton of tributes, and that they would not do another tribute, but rather marry the planned Gaga performance, the Intel commercial deal and the need/wish to commemorate Bowie into one performance. Whether that was a good decision, can be debated. In my mind, Bowie would have deserved a full tribute (with many artists contributing), but they chose not to go down that path. Imo, Gaga's performance was exactly that marriage of these three elements, it was at times visually stunning and creative, it was vocally alright, and it had many immediately recognizable visual references, on top of the use of the song material, of course.
What did not work, in my mind, was a) the amount of songs, compared to time given to develop each song (hence frantic), and b) the transitions between the songs were not properly worked out, neither musically nor in staging, and that was to some degree surprising for me, as that would involve Nile, and not just Gaga to work it out right.
But, in the end, I have to say, I thought it was a much better performance that the general impression I had, based on comments. I enjoyed the performance.
So, I just thought, I'd throw that out, because I am not sure, whether those that liked the performance, are just not speaking up, whether people are just letting out on Gaga and Nile, that they are in principle against the decision the Grammy organization made regarding this performance, whether a few folks might be even critiquing Gaga just out of a sense of sour grapes, because our favorite snowflake did not get to do the performance, or whether it was really as bad as people are saying, and I am just not seeing it, I don't know.
Anyhow, I thought, all this critical feedback did deserve a response, and while I regret that Adam did not get a chance to showcase 'Let's Dance', the bottom-line is, I did not think that a crime on Bowie or his music legacy was committed here.
YMMV.
haha....or this:
they'll probably welcome her back next year with open arms.