Jonathan Ross | Lady Gaga | News

BigGayDeal.com

Watch: Lady Gaga on Friday Night with Jonathan Ross

Telephone  

Lady Gaga made her second appearance on UK talk show Friday Night with Jonathan Ross last week.

Watch it, AFTER THE JUMP...

Feed This post's comment feed

Comments

  1. Andy, that was last weekend not this one. She also performed Brown Eyes before coming on for the interview.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yALgp77HJ5

    Posted by: Tim | Mar 14, 2010 2:47:57 PM


  2. Ross is such a douche bag, his lisp is so annoying and his questions so lame. England's Jay Leno.

    Posted by: patrick nyc | Mar 14, 2010 2:53:02 PM


  3. I love Gaga, love the outfits etc, but does she HAVE to look outrageous EVERY time. You can be out there, and make a statement, without a telephone on your head.

    Posted by: Brian in Texas | Mar 14, 2010 3:10:41 PM


  4. LOL @ Brian. I was thinking the same thing. This could get old pretty quick. I feel like she's using up all her tricks.

    Posted by: Toddy | Mar 14, 2010 4:22:53 PM


  5. Is she paying this blog? Why do I have to be made aware of every time this woman takes a dump or changes her clothes?

    I love the music reviews on this blog, though. Much obliged.

    Posted by: drifterbob | Mar 14, 2010 5:06:39 PM


  6. this lady gaga is trying way too hard.... possible style but no substance!

    Posted by: Jesse | Mar 14, 2010 5:11:42 PM


  7. I think it's great that she's always "on". It makes me stop & think - and that's what good art of any kind does. What do I think about? Here are a few things:
    1. What does it say about Gaga that she feels she always has to be dressed to the nines?
    2. What does it say about me (and by extension, society as a whole) that we wonder WHY she does this? Or that we think it's weird that she does? Or how unnecessary we think it is? To say nothing of how unrealistic it is logistically for the average person.
    3. What's the difference between a telephone as a hat being "fashion" and being a gimmick, or just being stupid?
    4. Can someone be fashionable and still be a valid artist/singer? Can someone be a valid singer/artist and be fashionable? Can someone be a valid singer/artist and NOT be fashionable?
    5. Where the hell does she (or her "house of gaga") come up with all these ideas? How does she/they actually get away with it? Who says it's fashion? Themselves? If so, does that really make it fashion?

    And that's just the beginning of my questions. It doesn't matter what my answers are. I may decide that she's a brilliant singer/songwriter/fashion icon, or I may decide the exact opposite. But the fact that she evokes these questions at all makes her an effective artist.

    Posted by: nycmrm | Mar 14, 2010 5:23:28 PM


  8. I'm with drifterbob. I know the Towleroad logo says "more than gay news" but all the Lady Gaga crap is getting old. The logo should be "more than gay news - and TONS of Lady Gaga shit!" It'd be sweet if all that was posted about her were her comments/help toward the gay community. Otherwise, meh -- pointless.

    Love the site (for all the socio-political news) but how about one week without any Lady Gaga

    Posted by: finkles2000 | Mar 14, 2010 6:12:23 PM


  9. Lady Gaga is a phony. Note how, now that she's hit the big time, she's not as big on male dancers or male sensuality. Keep in mind, also, that she failed to put any male-male sensuality in her official music videos. According to Lady Gaga's videos, only male+female and female+female is OK.

    You in the gay community have again been duped. You're the most gullible community in the world. You should've woken up to the stragegy of the Lady Gaga camp ages ago. She is NOT on our side.

    Posted by: jason | Mar 14, 2010 6:22:44 PM


  10. Jason, I'm sorry. I thought that female+female was a part of the gay community. LGBTQ does include women you know. I can't wait to see how you incorporate the gay community into your videos. When's your first to premier?

    Posted by: Randy | Mar 14, 2010 6:51:41 PM


  11. @ Drifterbob, finkles2000: I am not interested in 95% of the political articles on this website. Do I read them? Do I comment on them? Do I get upset? No. I just scroll past them and look at the next thing. I realize that there are a lot of people interested in it even though I may not be. You should try it.

    Posted by: Jay | Mar 14, 2010 7:07:29 PM


  12. LOL @ Brian. I was thinking the same thing. This could get old pretty quick. I feel like she's using up all her tricks.

    POSTED BY: TODDY | MAR 14, 2010 4:22:53 PM

    For those who were born before 1980, it's been done many, many times before. "Everything old is new again".

    I don't take issue with Stephanie, it's more the individuals who praise her for being "cutting edge". I love that she genuinely appears to want to help, through her efforts with the LGBT community, but we've seen celebrities such as Madonna appear to do the exact same thing. Yet, what has Madonna done with the LGBT community (except rake the benefits from them)?

    Posted by: CJ | Mar 14, 2010 7:10:28 PM


  13. JASON it's clear you have not seen her Teeth video, which is very gay male soft porn.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0fhrRfTFeug

    Posted by: patrick nyc | Mar 14, 2010 7:17:51 PM


  14. @ Jason: Since when does someone have to have male+male sexuality in their music videos to be legitimately supportive of GLBT causes?! That is the craziest rationale ever. She's only had what, 5-10 videos so far?

    @Patrick NYC: That video is not an official Lady Gaga video. That was someone else's project, nothing to do with her.

    Posted by: Jay | Mar 14, 2010 7:29:04 PM


  15. She wasn't on this past weekend, it was 2 weekends ago.

    Posted by: KFLO | Mar 14, 2010 7:34:54 PM


  16. Patrick NYC,

    Teeth is not an official music video of Lady Gaga. Lady Gaga does not appear in it nor was it produced by her usual crew of video producers as far as I can tell.

    I'm surprised that many of you in the gay community seem to support her censorship/omission of male+male sensuality in her official music videos. Can't you see the obvious ploy?

    It's called "exploiting dumb gay guys into believing that you are pro-gay but then marketing yourself to the sleazy straight guy fantasy". This basically sums up Lady Gutless.

    Posted by: jason | Mar 14, 2010 7:52:05 PM


  17. @Jason, GaGa accepted her MMVA by hoisting it in the air exclaiming "this is for God and the gays", instantly destroying what you call 'the straight guy fantasy'.

    It takes balls for a performer to so openly support or affirm or espouse gayness risking the loss of support of the Str8s and 'phobes.

    Posted by: Dickster | Mar 14, 2010 8:08:25 PM


  18. Dickster,

    Well, how does that disprove what I've said? In fact, it confirms it. It simply proves my point that Lady Gaga has no hesitation in claiming she is pro-gay without really delivering on the visuals in her videos.

    As for "destroying" the straight guy fantasy, LOL. Sleazy straight guys don't worry about what female singers say. They simply want them to show their tits and make out with other women. This is exactly what Lady Gaga does. She's catering to male heterosexual fantasy.

    She's the product of male heterosexual fantasy. That's where it begins and that's where it ends with Lady Gaga.

    Posted by: jason | Mar 14, 2010 8:30:08 PM


  19. Jason - whether or not she's portrayed male/male sexuality in her videos (yet), surely you can't deny that Lady Gaga is anything other than an extremely vocal supporter of the LGBT community and a credit to it. As well as dedicating her MTV award to gay fans, she spoke at the National Equality March last year and more recently has been very involved in AIDS charity work. She doesn't have to do these things, but she does because it's something she feels passionately about - perhaps because she's a member of the community herself?

    That's another thing - I think you're getting her expressions of sexuality as a bisexual woman confused with attempts to titilate straight men - I'm sure Gaga would agree when I say she's 'sexual but not sexy', ie she has a sexualised image but is probably quite low on most straight guys' list of fantasy figures (in a similar way to Madonna in her heyday).

    Also, for the record I saw her live a few weeks ago and she was very vocal about her gay fans that night, and one of the songs ended with two male dancers sharing a long (and very sexy) kiss. That song, "Alejandro", is rumoured to be her next single - perhaps we'll see similar themes in the music video.

    Posted by: Chris | Mar 14, 2010 8:30:10 PM


  20. Ugh, why do people hate on such vocal gay supporters like Ga Ga?

    Posted by: Aaron K | Mar 14, 2010 10:22:11 PM


  21. How is she being supportive? She's making BANK off the gay community. It's smart business move as she's certainly following in Madonna's foot steps, but let's be honest, it seems she's raking in the $$$ with gay bucks. With out the gay community, she'd be another aspiring drag queen.

    Posted by: CJ | Mar 14, 2010 10:34:11 PM


  22. You know what's really getting old? How everybody in the comment sections always rush to be the first jaded bitch.

    Posted by: Washington | Mar 14, 2010 10:54:35 PM


  23. Some of you guys are forgetting, again, that this is one person's blog. It's not the blog of some greater gay entity. Andrew Towle can post articles on Lady Gaga if he wants. Same as he picks and chooses which news stories to post about accurately, which stories to twist, which stories he invents, etc. It's HIS blog.

    Posted by: JT | Mar 14, 2010 10:59:38 PM


  24. Another harmless post, another giant pile of bitchy, jaded, fundamentally humorless bitches all trying to show who's got the sharpest claws. Newsflash, kittens: You go into battle against enemies, not friends. Lady Gaga is a friend. See how easy that is?

    Posted by: Robert | Mar 14, 2010 11:22:50 PM


  25. My information, which I gleaned from a source, is that Interscope Records (Lady Gaga's record company) may not be too comfortable about having male-male sensuality in her videos. It's my understanding that Interscope Records does not want its insignia at the bottom of a music video that contains male-male sensuality.

    My understanding is that the deal with Lady Gaga was that she could use male-female and female-female but not male-male in her music videos, which are considered her prime marketing tool. She could, however, have a little male-male in her stage show, but nothing more than that.

    I'm not 100% certain as to the source's reliability but that's the information I'm getting.

    Posted by: biggles | Mar 15, 2010 12:37:41 AM


Post a comment







Trending


« «Photo: Hippo Having its Teeth Cleaned by a Zebra« «