V Magazine #99 Spring Preview 2016 by Lady Gaga

[YourMonster]

This will sell really well and that's really all that matters these days. I'll definitely pick up a few copies

 

[unwrapmypackage]

nah, she'll be back. and you all will seethe.

 

[ThatGuyPaul]

Irrelevant. Good one.

 

[Benn98]

putting her dog on the cover... WHO cares?

Well, the dog did book the last Coach campaign without her, but yes, I wish she'd go away!

 

[honeycombchild]

How can anybody realistically say that a person's 'best days are behind them', least of all about someone I presume they have never actually met? I mean, this woman isn't even thirty yet and you're prepared to make bold proclamations that she won't ever do anything of any worth again? Whether it's about Gaga or anyone else for that matter, it's a truly hilarious thing to be saying about a person. Who knows what is still in store for her, or her life.

Everybody measures 'worth' and 'relevance' differently. So many topics and words are banned on this forum but honestly, the world 'relevant' should be added, it makes me so tired to read the same discussions over and over again and I would hope that I'm not the only one.

 

[Miss Dalloway]

^ You are NOT the only one, i second everything you have written.

 

[happycanadian]

And I *third * everything. Haha. Really eloquent post - karma for you, Honeycomb.

I also completely agree with whomever it was that wrote that Gaga can often run a good thing into the ground. She IS an innovator. She has big ideas and she's totally in touch with her creative muse. But she has very very little restraint. She benefits from HAVING an editor, not being one.

 

[MON]

I think there is also a cover with Inez Van Lamsweerde

 

[kokobombon]

She IS an innovator.

I´d say she´s more of a regenerator

Out of the 16 covers there might be 6 covers that I really don´t like... as cute as her dog is, having a cover by Terry Richardson is a waste of paper. From the I&V series the only one I like is the one with Inez, the rest are so pointless imo.

 

[[Piece Of Me]]

How can anybody realistically say that a person's 'best days are behind them', least of all about someone I presume they have never actually met? I mean, this woman isn't even thirty yet and you're prepared to make bold proclamations that she won't ever do anything of any worth again? Whether it's about Gaga or anyone else for that matter, it's a truly hilarious thing to be saying about a person. Who knows what is still in store for her, or her life.

Everybody measures 'worth' and 'relevance' differently. So many topics and words are banned on this forum but honestly, the world 'relevant' should be added, it makes me so tired to read the same discussions over and over again and I would hope that I'm not the only one.

Thank you!
I'm not even a big Gaga fan, but the reaction she always gets when she fronts a cover is pretty ridiculous.

 

[dodencebt]

It's actually funny saying she's irrelevant in a year where she's already won a Golden Globe (which IMO should never have gone to her, but she did win it) and an Oscar nomination.

 

[blueorchid]

It's actually funny saying she's irrelevant in a year where she's already won a Golden Globe (which IMO should never have gone to her, but she did win it) and an Oscar nomination.

So what? Sally Kirkland won a Golden Globe. Who the hell ever talks about her? The Golden Globes hardly mean anything.

 

[dodencebt]

^ Lady Gaga is relevant right now in the media. Isn't that what scoring covers is all about?

 

[Phuel]

So what? Sally Kirkland won a Golden Globe. Who the hell ever talks about her? The Golden Globes hardly mean anything.

Very true.

The Golden Globes are seen as harmless joke for many insiders. I’m not kidding.

To those that aren’t familiar with its history, it began as this “award” ceremony by a group of people that are essentially fans who just wanted to meet the stars in the 1960s(?) that held remedial jobs in Hollywood— not high-profile positions. There’s a doc out that was made some time ago revealing the members of the GG, and how the stars and their agents just go along with the whole ceremony because it’s a Hollywood tradition, and more importantly, how the general public perceives it’s this important forecaster for the Academy, BAFTA, etc when it’s just a party for everyone to have some fun and not take it so seriously. Because it really holds no weight in the industry. It’s just a show for the general public.

The elderly members of the GG just wanted to meet Gaga, so they gave her a nom and win: Likely because they became fans of her bland Tony Bennett jazz standard collab and her boring Sound of Music tribute at the Academy. I can see that type of blandless appealing greatly to the predominately elderly members of the GG.

I’d highly recommend the doc. It's a hoot! I believe it was produced by the CBC and shown as a feature on The Passionate Eye here in Canada in the 90s.

 

[MyNameIs]

So what? Sally Kirkland won a Golden Globe. Who the hell ever talks about her? The Golden Globes hardly mean anything.

How dare you coming after Legend Kirkland? slap.gif

But yeah, this is not a good week to be arguing that Gaga is irrelevant. It's been her best week in a very long time.

 

[A.D.C.]

It's actually funny saying she's irrelevant in a year where she's already won a Golden Globe (which IMO should never have gone to her, but she did win it) and an Oscar nomination.

Ok let's all pretend Lady Gaga is as ubiquitous a pop culture force as she was during the Fame Monster. If we say anything other than that a million stats will be thrown our way. All I said was that having been alive during 2009-2011, the world just doesn't seem as Gaga obsessed these days. If anything they moved on to Beyoncé with that type of fervor. Now can someone please call Britney irrelevant so I can travel back to 1999-20001?!

 

[Nepenthes]

To be honest, I couldn't care less about whether the world is as 'Gaga obsessed' as it used to be. The woman is constantly evolving/exploring her passions and is doing so in a very genuine, authentic way. On top of that, she keeps getting recognition for her work. I never understood the constant need of mass approval for someone's work to have validity.

 

[A.D.C.]

To be honest, I couldn't care less about whether the world is as 'Gaga obsessed' as it used to be. The woman is constantly evolving/exploring her passions and is doing so in a very genuine, authentic way. On top of that, she keeps getting recognition for her work. I never understood the constant need of mass approval for someone's work to have validity.

Tbh my issue was never with Gaga but with V magazine. I can see Gaga still landing covers but the over indulgence of this issue seems unwarranted. That's the real turn off. Besides, nowadays, she's really going for a more sophisticated look which would have been a far more appealing angle to cover. This just screams of her past antics which even she seems to have moved on from. This would have been a good opportunity for everyone involved to give us something different. In fact, I don't think any magazine has covered this new side of Gaga. They really are clueless.

 

[timandnorah]

If you've got an entire board of people arguing over your relevancy, then you're a relevant figure. This is just more proof that Gaga is still a polarizing persona across the music, fashion, and acting industries.

I also don't get all of the complaints about 16 covers - no one is forcing you to buy all 16. It's a fun thing for collectors - plus V wanted to sell them in a plexiglass set for $300 and to break the record for most covers of any single fashion issue.

 

[MON]

So, anyone there with a review? :-)