Tag Archives: attention

Rick Ross Video Director Spiff TV Branches Out

Ross has been ‘getting me a lot of gigs,’ Spiff tells Mixtape Daily. By Shaheem Reid Spiff and Rick Ross Photo: Spiff TV Fire Starter: Spiff TV Carlos Suarez has an ear for the streets and an eye for the Internet. Better known to everyone on the hip-hop blogs as Rick Ross’ directorial go-to guy, Spiff TV, the 26-year-old has made a name for himself with his vivid visuals for artists such as the Bawse and Waka Flocka Flame. What the world might not know yet: It was Spiff’s keen audio scouting that unearthed the beats for two of Ricky Rozay’s hottest records right now. ” ‘MC Hammer,’ I did two verses,” Ross explained to us a couple of weeks ago. “One night, we was riding around the city, and Spiff played me the beat. I just start writing to it, and Spiff took his BlackBerry and started writing down the rhymes. I actually wrote the two verses and the chorus riding around in the whip.” “I’m a director/A&R,” said Spiff, who also manages producer Lex Luger (Ross’ “MC Hammer” and “Blowin’ Money Fast [B.M.F.]” and Waka’s “Hard in the Paint”). “If you check that Albert Anastasia album , it’s ‘A&R by Spiff TV.’ I got him [the beat for] ‘B.M.F.,’ and I got him ‘MC Hammer.’ I actually gave him ‘MC Hammer’ when we left the ‘Super High’ video shoot . Like 2 in the morning. I had the laptop opened up, playing the beat. He just started freestyling. I said, ‘Hold up.’ I whipped the BlackBerry out and started writing down everything he was saying. The next week, he calls me like, ‘Spiff, e-mail me.’ Sent him the lyrics. Hit! Same thing with ‘B.M.F.’ ” Spiff is directing the upcoming videos from Albert Anastasia for “MC Hammer” and “Sweet Life” with John Legend. A couple of weeks ago, he helmed a teaser for “B.M.F.” Spiff directed all the freestyle videos Ross has done the past couple of years, as well as videos from Deeper Than Rap, such as “Mafia Music” and “Valley of Death.” The Orlando native has caught the attention of other MCs as well; he directed Waka Flocka’s “O Let’s Do It” remix video as well. “I’m from Orlando,” Spiff began to tell of how he hooked up with the leader of the Carol City Cartel. “I used to work as A&R for DJ Nasty. Nasty Beat Makers from Orlando. That’s [DJ] Khaled’s people and brother. So [Ross] put me on a couple of years ago. We just been building. Right now, we working. A lot of stuff going on. Ross manages me as a video director. He’s been doing a lot for me as far as networking, getting me a lot of gigs.” Spiff’s biggest goal right now is to start directing films. He says getting the opportunity to shadow director F. Gary Gray on the set of the “Super High” video was an invaluable experience. “I got to watch him shoot a video. It was amazing. He shoots videos like they’re movies. He’s picking two movies coming up. He doesn’t know which one. But either one he picks, I’m flying to where it is, and I’m going to be his water boy that day and watch everything he does.” For other artists featured in Mixtape Daily, check out Mixtape Daily Headlines or follow the Mixtape Daily team on Twitter: @shaheemreid and @mongosladenyc .

See original here:
Rick Ross Video Director Spiff TV Branches Out

Media Ignore Planned Parenthood’s $1.3 Billion Federal Funding Discrepancy

If $1.3 billion is unaccounted for and the media don’t report it, did it really happen? According to an  American Life League review  of Planned Parenthood’s annual reports, the organization received more than $2 billion in federal grants and contracts between 2002 and 2008. A June 16 Government Accountability Report, however, found that the organization spent just $657.1 million of taxpayer money in the same time period. The $1.3 billion discrepancy failed to catch the attention of the nation’s major media outlets. None of the networks (ABC, CBS and NBC) or major newspapers (Los Angeles times, The New York Times, USA Today and The Washington Post) reported it. A Culture and Media Institute review of coverage found that only one newspaper listed among Nexis’ “major newspapers” – The Houston Chronicle – even mentioned the GAO report. The Chronicle’s June 16 article noted that Planned Parenthood spent $657 million of federal money over seven years, but did not mention the income/outlay discrepancy. Don’t Follow the Money The media have made Planned Parenthood a go-to source for several stories over the last six months, including debate over abortion language in health care reform legislation, the trial of the activist who killed abortionist Dr. George Tiller, and the 50 th  anniversary of the Pill. From Dec. 28, 2009, to June 28, 2010, the broadcast networks and the “Big 4” newspapers mentioned Planned Parenthood 56 times in news stories. None of those stories mentioned the GAO report, and only one article reported the amount of federal money going to Planned Parenthood. The February 27 article in The New York Times mentioned an investigative operation by pro-life activist Lila Rose which found Planned Parenthood clinics willing to accept donations from people who wanted African American babies aborted. A separate New York Times report on January 28 characterized the investigation as “prank calls” to Planned Parenthood. Four reports referred to state funding of Planned Parenthood, but did not mention federal resources granted to the organization. Planned Parenthood’s 2008 Annual Report says $349.6 million in taxpayer-funded grants and contracts accounted for more than a third (36 percent) of the organization’s income that year, second only to health center revenue.  Federal funding for Planned Parenthood has increased by 45 percent since 2001-2002, when it  received a reported  $240.9 million from taxpayers. While federal orders mandate that government money not be used directly for abortions, pro-life advocates point out that federal money used to cover non-abortion costs frees up private money to pay for abortions. Favorite Experts Planned Parenthood is by far the most cited pro-abortion group when it comes to national media coverage. In the last six months, 30 broadcast and print reports have quoted Planned Parenthood representatives and another 26 have mentioned the organization. The 56 mentions of Planned Parenthood dwarf other pro-abortion groups, including the National Organization for Women (30) and NARAL Pro-Choice America (15). When abortion was a major focus of health care reform debates, the media turned to Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards and other affiliated representatives to statements and analysis. When the media celebrated the 50 th  anniversary of “the Pill,” the media commemorated Planned Parenthood’s role in making it possible. A February 26 profile in The Washington Post painted a glowing picture of abortion doctor Carol Ball. The article described a “difficult time” for Ball and other doctors who perform late term abortions in South Dakota. When Planned Parenthood produced an ad in response to Focus on the Family’s pro-life Super Bowl ad, the media praised it. USA Today noted it “defend[ed] abortion rights,” although the Focus on the Family ad did not target abortion “rights.”   The New York Times on January 27 turned to Richards on the increase in teen pregnancy rates, and she used the opportunity bash abstinence education. “This new study makes it crystal clear that abstinence-only sex education for teenagers does not work,” Richards said. In addition to news reports related to Planned Parenthood, newspapers published five letters to the editor from readers mentioning the organization and fives letters to the editor from Planned Parenthood executives. Another seven op-eds and entertainment reviews mentioned Planned Parenthood, as well as 15 death notices, and a couple of comedians’ jokes. All told, the networks and newspapers mentioned Planned Parenthood more than 80 times in the last six months. But when someone noticed a $1.3 billion discrepancy in Planned Parenthood’s handling of federal money – crickets. The Sound of Silence One letter to the editor in the Los Angeles Times February 7 illustrated the effect the media blackout has had on public perceptions of Planned Parenthood. Responding to the media-manufactured controversy over Focus on the Family’s pro-life Super Bowl ad, a reader wrote, “If I had it, I would give millions to Planned Parenthood to advertise on CBS during the Super Bowl.” Well, dear reader, your wish has already come true. You might not know it from reading the Times, but Planned Parenthood already receives more than $350 million every year from you and every other American taxpayer, with no oversight from the “watchdogs” in the media. Like this article? Sign up for “Culture Links,” CMI’s weekly e-mail newsletter, by   clicking  here.

Cramer Rips Federal Gov’t for Congressman’s 1,000-2,000 Dow Drop Prediction: ‘Washington Has Decided to Eviscerate Profits’

On CNBC’s June 29 broadcast “Power Lunch,” Rep. Paul Kajorski, D-Pa. made a pretty prediction about the Dow Jones Industrial Average ( DJIA ) should Congress be unable to pass financial regulation legislation. [Video Available Here ] “You know, I wish every one of them would ask the question and also the industry and media, what happens in this country if this bill fails?” Kanjorski said. “Do you think 236 points down on the Dow is surprising? Check 1,000 or 2,000 points if we fail to change the ways that caused this problem.” That caught the attention of CNBC’s Erin Burnett, who played the clip for “Mad Money” host Jim Cramer. Cramer blasted Kanjorski and the entire institution of the federal government for being a drag on the markets for a myriad of reasons on his June 29 “Stop Trading” segment of CNBC’s “Street Signs.” “You know, they are the problem,” Cramer said. “And we all know it, right? It’s like let’s not even outthink it. I love our bureaucrat congressmen in Washington, but they’re the problem. And I don’t want to be just Mr. Rick Santelli here, but give me a break.” Cramer noted the timing – on the eve of a financial regulation bill vote and asked why he was waiting until now to tell us. “I mean, really – so he’s telling us about the 2,000 points? Now he’s telling us?” Cramer continued. “I mean, like other than a couple of congressmen and senators.” But according to Cramer, things are much more dire than the Washington, D.C. political playbook. He explained there was a real problem with the mentality in the federal government – to demonize profits. “What is the 10-year telling us?” Cramer continued. “We’re done. It’s 1934. I’ve been saying over and over on the show – the market’s overvalued, the market’s overvalued. Just try to buy a yield. It’s because, you know – we’ve had it. Washington has decided to eviscerate profits. No one wants to say this because what happens when you say it, is you got a bullseye on your back and I don’t even feel like saying it because I already have a ton of them. But you know it really is – I mean to like listen to Congress tell us about what causes a 2,000-point decline and then just accept it and say, ‘Yeah, that’s interesting.’ I’m not playing that game. I’m too old.” Cramer said the problem was very complicated with what he said was a deflationary phenomenon. He explained there were very few positives with the S&P 500 index to point at what he deemed “gloom-busters.” “We have radical deflation in this country,” Cramer said. “I mean, that’s what it is. People are maybe working, earning money off the books. I’m doing a series on the show. I’m trying to find companies that are gloom-busters. I gave combed most of the S&P 500, some of the S&P 600, you know the next level. I’ve got about four or five companies that say things are good. I mean, this is a remarkable time in the American economy. This market deserves to go down. Now I know a lot of people will say, ‘Wait a second, it just rallied from 270.’ We’ve all played that game. We know what happens – the ultra-funds come in in the last half hour, they rebalance – you go down 500 in the last minute. Maybe it’s our fault. It’s our fault because of TARP or … whatever.”

Link:
Cramer Rips Federal Gov’t for Congressman’s 1,000-2,000 Dow Drop Prediction: ‘Washington Has Decided to Eviscerate Profits’

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Trailer, New Photos Released

Voldemort: Why do you live? Harry Potter: Because I have something to live for. Sorry, Eclipse , but you can’t hog all the attention these days. While the third installment of The Twilight Saga has fans around the globe lining up for tickets days in advance, others are focusing on Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows . Based on the final book in this beloved series, the film will be broken into two parts. The first opens on November 19 and its first official trailer has been released. Check it out now: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Preview In the movie, Lord Voldemort’s power is growing stronger. He’s exerting more control than ever before, and we all know the only person that can stop him: The Boy Who Lived. While viewers will need to wait until July 2011 to get the conclusion to this tale, they can check out a few scenes from it below. We’re pulling for you, Harry!

See more here:
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Trailer, New Photos Released

JWoWW aka Jenni Farley Bikini Pictures

I thought the world was over this Jesrsey Shore garbage and back onto the sensitive vampire train, I guess I’m out of touch again. Anyhow, here’s JWoWW aka Jenni Farley and her big fat boobs hanging out on the boardwalk in a bikini over the weekend. I suppose that’s better than some pale teenager pouting about her vampire boyfriend not paying enough attention to her. I wish I could have cropped out all the d-bags, but they seemed to have figured out that standing next to big fat boobs will get you on my website. Clever bastards.

BET Awards Fashion Face-Off: Fergie vs. Cassie

While Chris Brown’s BET Awards performance gets much of the attention, we can’t forget about the obligatory, morning-after-awards-show tradition at THG: Picking apart the night’s ridiculous fashion choices! Below, Fergie and Cassie go head-to-head in a clash of single-named titans. The Black Eyed Pea’s tailcoat dress raised some eyebrows, for better or worse. Cassie’s ensemble, meanwhile, defies description. Is that an ace bandage around her chest? That and the pleated pants really accentuate the half-shaved head, we have to admit. This could become a trend. Whose outfit looked better, fashion fanatics? Vote: Who looked better at the 2010 BET Awards?

Continued here:
BET Awards Fashion Face-Off: Fergie vs. Cassie

Wall Street Tabloid Asks CNBC Anchor ‘How Does It Feel To Be A MILF?’

The editor of the Wall Street e-tabloid Dealbreaker on Wednesday actually asked CNBC anchor Trish Regan, “How does it feel to be classified as a MILF?” For those unfamiliar with the term — as was Regan! — it means “Mom I’d Like to,” well, let’s say have sex with. Nice thing to ask an Emmy-nominated 37-year-old mother of two, wouldn’t you agree? Yet that wasn’t even the worst of Bess Levin’s questions (Levin in bold, h/t TVNewser ): Question number 2: How do you feel you measured up next to Mandy and her assets? I think I held my own. For those that don’t watch CNBC, Amanda Drury was originally brought over from CNBC Asia to fill in for Melissa Francis who was going on maternity leave. When Levin asked about Mandy’s “assets,” she wasn’t referring to her stock portfolio if you catch my drift. As such, Regan was being questioned about how her bra size compared with Drury’s. Seem a little childish to you? Wait. It gets worse:  Question number 3: If you had to: Charlie Gasparino or Dennis Kneale? Killing yourself is not an acceptable answer. I think I would have to kill myself. Or be on life-support. And then? Who would it be? You think it would still be appealing for them? Dennis Kneale and Charlie Gasparino? Yes, one of them would definitely still go for it, if not both. Question number 4: Just so we can be fair, in that same vein, if you had to get down and dirty with one of the anchorettes on CNBC, whom would you choose? See this question is just as hard as the last but for the opposite reason. I’m not into women but if I were it would be really difficult. We have a lot of beautiful ladies at CNBC. Add it all up, and Regan was asked: how she feels about young men wanting to have sex with her; which guy on her network she’d like to have sex with, and; which woman.  All of this raises a number of questions such as what is this Dealbreaker, and why would a serious journalist want to have anything to do with it? Fortunately, fashion magazine Elle did an article on Levin in April offering us some insights: The 25-year-old editor of Dealbreaker.com, the financial industry’s online tabloid that reports on corporate scandals and insider gossip, some of which she overhears at happy hour in the finance world’s watering holes, has become a mustread on Wall Street. Posting nine times a day, she’s been known to scoop the mainstream business media and retains a fiercely loyal following who seem to have an infinite appetite for her biting, off-kilter commentary about the money business- you don’t see The Wall Street Journal running headlines like “Neil Barofsky Will Cut a Bitch” or “Spotted: Ruth Madoff Getting Her Tan On.” Dealbreaker, which draws 300,000 unique visitors a month, has posted hedge funds’ for-investor-eyes-only marketing materials, which three years ago sparked a lawsuit that named Levin and Dealbreaker’s publisher; they later settled. During the Bank of America and Merrill Lynch merger last year, Merrill employees depended on Levin to report what their company wasn’t telling them.  The New York Observer recently wrote of Levin: Because of someone else’s car accident and a physics-class coincidence, Bess Levin is the most important young Wall Street blogger in the country. But Dealbreaker has a certain crackle-a taste for picking out and serving up the day’s fascinating little nuggets of finance news. It’s a must-read.  John Friedman wrote about Levin earlier this month: Levin, at only 25 years old, is reputed to be the scourge of Wall Street. Clearly, she gets a kick out of poking holes in the pompous image of Wall Street professionals, to the delight of journalists who don’t have the same cleverness — or freedom — to write like her. The media universe embraces Levin as a symbol of the Really New Journalism (sorry, Tom Wolfe), someone whose job description is to lampoon the establishment and entertain the masses with both biting and good-natured sarcasm. Levin has a knack for writing irreverent, witty and insightful stuff. But what makes proudly hard-bitten journalists look at her in something approaching awe is her precocious age. Levin is not too far removed from attending Amherst College or, even high school in suburban New Jersey. That seems like part of the attraction. But Friedman made a more salient observation: Much of Levin’s success results from the states of the journalism and Wall Street landscapes. The rise of the Internet has attracted a large number of young readers who would sooner dig a ditch than buy a newspaper or a magazine at a newsstand. This situation has forced the nation’s once-stodgy media companies to dig deep to tape [sic] young, adventurous writers, who are at home on the Web and can communicate with their peers. Which likely explains the need for the tawdry, but why would someone like Regan, who just gave birth to twin daughters, want to associate with someone who views her website’s approach as “Wall Street torture porn?” It’s certainly not for the exposure, as despite Elle’s fawning, 300,000 unique reads a month is nothing; NewsBusters typically does over 5 million. As for the whole peer thing, one doesn’t imagine Regan at 37, and a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, views Levin as her contemporary. With this in mind, although Dealbreaker devotees might have loved these sex-related questions — according to Levin, they came from readers — I’m having a hard time understanding why the seemingly conservative Regan put herself in this position. Isn’t this degrading to women looking to be taken seriously in the business world and not be treated as sex objects? Or is this the state of modern feminism?   As for Levin, who clearly must be doing something right given her glowing reviews, one has to wonder why someone of her intellectual capacity feels the need to occasionally wander into the gutter. If she really has the eyes and ears of hedge fund managers and financial sector CEOs, can’t she keep their attention without the smut?  As the father of a sixteen-year-old girl, I certainly hope so. 

Read more:
Wall Street Tabloid Asks CNBC Anchor ‘How Does It Feel To Be A MILF?’

Rebecca Gayheart Karma Watch of the Day

Now that Rebecca Gayheart has a kid, I like to keep track of her, just to see if Karma gets back at her for running over a kid with her car only to be given 3 years probation and a 2,800 dollar fine…and I’m sure she’s liking the attention since the last movie she was in was called “Bunny Whipped” and it came out in 2007….and the highlight of her life recently was some cocaine fueled threesome sex tape that wasn’t even fun to watch…and that didn’t even blow the fuck up cuz after you kill a kid, even if you get off for it, and even if you don’t let it phase you cuz you are self-absorbed cunt, you’re done.. But in her defense, the parents of the kid she killed but got off from killing got an out of court settlement, which to their poor Spic asses must have solved a lot of problems….probably enough problems that losing one of their dozen or so kids was a small safrice to make to get some “Urban Legends: Final Cut” dollars….I keep having visions of the kid’s mom pushing him in front of the famous car cuz she saw a lottery ticket at the end…but maybe I’m just dark….. Either way, she’s got an injured hand and I think it’s safe to say Karma is coming…. Pics via Fame

See the original post:
Rebecca Gayheart Karma Watch of the Day

M.I.A.: Don’t Believe The Hype, She’s Human After All

Everything you probably think about M.I.A. is wrong, in Bigger Than the Sound. By James Montgomery M.I.A. Photo: Chris Weeks/ WireImage “Hi, I’m Maya.” That’s how M.I.A. — scourge of The New York Times, the U.S. Department of Immigration and oppressors the world over — introduces herself, and to be honest, it sort of catches me off guard. After all, she does not appear to be clutching a copy of “The Anarchist Cookbook,” or covered in blood and gunpowder, or espousing the virtues of violent secessionism. She does not scan the skyline for black helicopters, or check the planters on the New York City rooftop where we’ve met for listening devices, or even mention the C.I.A., not even in passing. She does not strike me as particularly dangerous, paranoid, or ill-informed. Basically, she is just very tiny, with dainty fingers and windswept black hair and the kind of eyes you could drown in. She is funny and swears a lot and, seems to be, for all intents and purposes, a very nice person. Or, to put it another way, everything you probably think about M.I.A. is wrong. Your opinion of her no doubt has a whole lot to do with things you’ve read about her over the past month , or the seemingly incongruous way she lives her life, or even the causes she’s chosen to align herself with. The blame, it would seem, can be equally distributed. That’s not really the point. What is the point is that, when I met her earlier this week — on a sunny NYC roof deck with fake grass beneath our feet and a nude sunbather off in the distance — she struck me less as a firebrand, or a revolutionary, or even a figurehead for this haywire century and more as an honest-to-goodness person, a complicated one, somewhat unwittingly thrust under the spotlight but determined to make the most of her time there. Of course, she could have just been on her best behavior, what with the lashing Lynn Hirschberg gave her in the Times still so fresh in her mind, but really, it was a revelation to me, and it should be for you too. Because for years, we’ve all been quick to deify M.I.A. (or, alternately, demonize her), hanging an unending stream of cultural signifiers — both good and bad — on her tiny shoulders, mainly based on the way she looks or her lineage or what she supposedly represents. I am just as guilty of this as the next guy: In 2007, I wrote that her song “Paper Planes” was “indicative of the shrinking world we inhabit [and] the culture-mashing power of the Internet.” This probably wasn’t fair to M.I.A., even though she didn’t exactly hide her multinational roots or her father’s ties to the Tamil Tiger military group at the time. The problem was, I took the easy route. I didn’t consider her a person first and foremost, choosing instead to assign a bunch of BS terms to her and her music. And the reason I bring this up is because, after spending the first part of her career practically inviting this kind of press, M.I.A. seems to have transitioned with her new album, ///Y/. Sure, there was the brutal video for “Born Free” and some of the stuff she said in Lynn Hirschberg’s New York Times piece was still rather, uh, eyebrow-raising, but in either of those instances, M.I.A. simply seemed to be trying to raise awareness of injustices around the world. For quite possibly the first time in her career, she appears to be less concerned with battling evils than she is with simply highlighting them. It’s what people in her position — and by that I mean globally famous — do in situations like this. Because, first and foremost, they are people just like you or me. And that’s all a longwinded way of saying that ///Y/ is not just M.I.A.’s most personal album; it’s her most human too. It’s her (rather dissonant) attempt to make sense of the world around her, or, as she put it on that NYC rooftop: “This is not some weird, crazy conspiracy theory. This is mainstream media. I wish I was talking about way more underground theories, but [I’m] not. This is just me digesting what I see in the mainstream.” So, to make M.I.A. any less than human these days — or to take her at anything less than face value — is to do a disservice to her and her art. It’s taking the easy way out. I used to think that she was some multi-hyphenated vessel, some pop deity who delighted in pressing buttons and pushing the envelope. Now, after meeting her, after watching her answer questions about why folks seem to dislike her so (“It’s because I fight the ones that fight me. I stand up for myself,” she smiled. “Everyone should.”), I just see her as another human being, someone trying to figure out the world and her place in it. She is bound to make mistakes along the way. Shoot, she already has, but she’s learned from them. And she’s unafraid to make even more going forward. And sure, there are still plenty of reasons you could hate her — she is opinionated, she is contradictory (you know, what with her millionaire boyfriend and home in tawny Brentwood, California, and all), she supposedly thrives on confrontation — but they’re all wholly human flaws, the same ones we all have. And you may not agree with everything she says, but it’s important that she says them, because someone’s got to. Despite everything you’ve read about her, and in direct opposition to whatever you may think, M.I.A. is not a demon. She’s not dangerous. She seems just like the rest of us. Albeit a little shorter. Questions? Concerns? Hit me up at BTTS@MTVStaff.com . Do you have any strong opinions on M.I.A.? Let us know in the comments.

Go here to read the rest:
M.I.A.: Don’t Believe The Hype, She’s Human After All

Lady Gaga Talks About The Heartbreak That ‘Shaped’ Her Success

‘I wouldn’t have been as successful without him,’ she tells Rolling Stone of onetime love Luke. By James Montgomery Lady Gaga on the July 2010 issue of Rolling Stone Photo: Rolling Stone Lady Gaga strikes a formidable pose on the cover of the upcoming issue of Rolling Stone — wearing little more than a thong and a pair of M-16 assault rifles on her chest — but inside the magazine, she reveals that she’s just as vulnerable as you or I, fueled creatively by a former boyfriend who broke her heart years ago. In the new issue (which hits newsstands Friday), Gaga told writer Neil Strauss that she wouldn’t have become the international star she is today if she hadn’t gone through her breakup with a former flame named Luke, a heavy-metal drummer who has inspired everything she’s done since. “I wouldn’t have been as successful without him. I’ve never really loved anyone like I loved him. Or like I love him,” Gaga said. “That relationship really shaped me. It made me into a fighter.” In the piece, Strauss wrote that, after breaking up with Luke, Gaga “promised herself she would never love again and would make him rue the day he doubted her.” And, during their interview, he asked her if the love she used to direct toward men was now being channeled into her deeply loyal “little monsters.” “I wouldn’t say that my love for my fans is equated to my attention for men. But I will say that love comes in many different forms,” Gaga replied. “And I sort of resolved that if you can’t have the guy of your dreams, there are other ways to give love.” Strauss continued to press Gaga for details about her ex, but she told him, “I don’t want to talk about him … he’s too precious to talk about.” Though, she did say one last thing about Luke and her past life, before she became Lady Gaga — and how, by the sound of things, she’ll never be looking back ever again. “[It was] love. But, you know, I don’t really know much about love,” she said. “I suppose if I knew everything about love, I wouldn’t be good at making music, would I?” Does Gaga’s heartbreak come across in her music? Share your thoughts in the comments.

See the article here:
Lady Gaga Talks About The Heartbreak That ‘Shaped’ Her Success