Space Cadet: Katy Perry's residency at Resorts World lost millions, and now she's not invited back

In the 2000s, Katy Perry could do no wrong. She was young (early-mid 20s), attractive, and produced catchy, non-controversial songs. Even her bisexual-themed "I Kissed a Girl" was tame, even stating she did it "just to try it", and that it meant nothing.

In 2008, at the age of just 23, she released "Waking Up in Vegas", with an entertaining video featuring a parade down Fremont, kicking Penn & Teller out of their room, and a huge gambling run-up at the Palms, concluding with chunking it all back off and attempting to start over at a laundromat slot machine with a single quarter.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-pUaogoX5o

At the time Perry didn't take herself seriously and instead opted for relatability. Even in the video above, her love interest was a skinny, dorky, everyman type, rather than a male model or celebrity.

However, as the 2010s wore on, Perry started to get infected by Hollywood elitism. She started acting strangely, wearing bizarre clothes on the red carpet and in public, and eventually speaking out politically. She drew some people's ire in November 2024, after an anti-Trump rant at one of her concerts two days before the election seemed to motivate Hollywood-fatigued flyover state voters to show up and vote Trump. Many of Kamala's supporters feared that this could further cast Kamala as the candidate of the Hollywood elite, and indeed, Kamala lost the election. This, of course, wasn't Perry's fault -- Kamala was a horrible candidate. However, it showed how Katy Perry's endorsement was seen by Kamala's own supporters as a net negative, rather than a positive.

Even more recently, Perry's journey with other female celebrities to "space" (actually to the edge of space) was met with derision, and seen as an obnoxious, privileged publicity stunt. Katy's kissing the ground upon landing was also mocked widely.

https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/1024/b...1d5f751d2f.jpg



Katy Perry is now 40, and she's in that zone where her act has worn thin with a lot of people. She's not young enough to appeal to today's Gen Z, but also not old enough to be a draw for Gen X and older. Katy has to count on fellow millennials for relevance, but it seems like everyone is just done with her. Her "143" album last year flopped badly, and her recent tour had poor ticket sales, somewhat attributed to a backlash to her "space" flight.

But what about Resorts World?

This is a new story about an old situation. Perry had a residency at Resorts World spanning from 2021-2023, and it was called PLAY. At the time, it was reviewed fairly well, as Perry sung all of her hits, and wore lots of outrageous costumes to keep fans entertained. Unlike other ill-fated Vegas shows, this one seemed to satisfy audiences. That's why there was little discussion of it when the residency quietly ended in 2023 as planned, and Reosrt World stated they'd like to have her back.

However, it was just revealed on NewsNation -- and then picked up by other outlets like Yahoo and NY Post -- that Resorts World has cancelled these plans, partially due to Perry's first residency losing money! The reason? Ticket sales weren't terrible, but they foolishly paid her $750k-$900k per show, due to a bidding war with Caesars. In order to justify that salary, each show needed to be a sellout, and it just wasn't happening. Some of this might have been Resorts World's fault, as they've struggled to attract the foot traffic they need to be profitable, and made various other missteps along the way.

Apparently the backlash to the space flight was the final straw, and Resorts World decided not to take another chance with her. Prior to that, they were in discussions for a second residency, where she would be paid less, or where her compensation would be tied to the show's attendance. Now they just don't want her at all, as her popularity and reputation have taken a hit in the past 18 months.

We saw her there a few years ago, comp'ed tickets, the theater was full. Some of the best seats around us were occupied by trans, apparently she is supportive of and attracts them.

We liked the show a lot, it was pretty rated G or at worst PG, can see how she was picked for the Super Bowl in 2015, after the 2012 M.I.A. flip off controversy among other issues with other past half time performers. LGBT following aside, she is pretty white bread lacking in controversy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wB7XvxkraLM


You would not catch her denouncing Grump, on or off stage.

Springsteen, Undeterred by Trump, Keeps Up War of Words From Foreign Stage

Wrong. She has denounced Trump several times, including right before the election, as I posted: https://www.billboard.com/music/musi...ly-1235820445/

Perhaps she finally felt compelled to take a stand, but that article you linked to makes her seem like a 1950s Donna Reed speaking out in support of the right way to prepare roast beef.

“Four years ago, I became a mother,” she told the audience. “Best decision I ever made. Orlando [Bloom] and I, we welcomed our daughter Daisy and she is the reason I am voting for Kamala Harris.”

Perry continued that she admires Harris’ goal “to protect our rights as women to make decisions about our own bodies,” adding, “I know that she’ll protect my daughter’s future and your children’s future.”

Doesn't sound much like denunciation of the other side? If there are other instances I'd be interested to read what exactly she said.

“My home America, the America I've written about that has been a beacon of hope and liberty for 250 years, is currently in the hands of a corrupt, incompetent and treasonous administration,” said Springsteen to cheers as he took the stage - now that sounds like a denunciation.

Taylor Swift could always return for another record residency in sin city: I can't think of a bigger draw.

Fact is, the pool of popular entertainers doesn't seem as deep as it once was,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MDawg

Perhaps she finally felt compelled to take a stand, but that article you linked to makes her seem like a 1950s Donna Reed speaking out in support of the right way to prepare roast beef.

“Four years ago, I became a mother,” she told the audience. “Best decision I ever made. Orlando [Bloom] and I, we welcomed our daughter Daisy and she is the reason I am voting for Kamala Harris.”

Perry continued that she admires Harris’ goal “to protect our rights as women to make decisions about our own bodies,” adding, “I know that she’ll protect my daughter’s future and your children’s future.”

Doesn't sound much like denunciation of the other side? If there are other instances I'd be interested to read what exactly she said.

“My home America, the America I've written about that has been a beacon of hope and liberty for 250 years, is currently in the hands of a corrupt, incompetent and treasonous administration,” said Springsteen to cheers as he took the stage - now that sounds like a denunciation.

---

Springstten is a piece of shit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mickeycrimm

Springstten is a piece of shit.

---

Trump disagreed at one point.

He really wanted Bruce to let him play "Born in the USA" at his rallies in 2016.

Would Trump want "a piece of shit" to be the energizing force behind his rallies?

Think again.

Besides. in his early days Bruce made some great songs: who gives a flying fuck about his politics?

He's an entertainer.

So Mickey what do you dislike about the man, his music or his politics?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MisterV

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mickeycrimm

Springstten is a piece of shit.

---

Trump disagreed at one point.

He really wanted Bruce to let him play "Born in the USA" at his rallies in 2016.

Would Trump want "a piece of shit" to be the energizing force behind his rallies?

Think again.

Besides. in his early days Bruce made some great songs: who gives a flying fuck about his politics?

He's an entertainer.

So Mickey what do you dislike about the man, his music or his politics?

---

Does this mean that Springsteen has some kind of veto power over the licensing of his music?

My understanding was that musicians contract with a licensing firm which takes it all out of their hands.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smurgerburger

Does this mean that Springsteen has some kind of veto power over the licensing of his music?

My understanding was that musicians contract with a licensing firm which takes it all out of their hands.

---

see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musici...of_their_music

[QUOTE=MisterV;195856]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smurgerburger

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MisterV

Does this mean that Springsteen has some kind of veto power over the licensing of his music?

My understanding was that musicians contract with a licensing firm which takes it all out of their hands.

---

see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musici...of_their_music

---

I don't doubt that Springsteen would be opposed to it. I wondered why Trump would have to ask him.

The backlash against Katy Perry is ACTUALLY because Katy chose to work with Luke The Producer. Luke The Producer has been in sexual abuse allegations controversies. Fans of Katy denounced her working with a Producer who has sexual abuse allegations controversies, stating that she not only is a Mother, she's a Mother of a little girl and the people questioned if Katy would be okay with Daisy as an Adult working with a Producer who has sexual abuse allegations controversies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smurgerburger

I don't doubt that Springsteen would be opposed to it. I wondered why Trump would have to ask him.

---

The article I cited basically answered that question, to wit:

"Venues and political campaigns can buy rights to play songs through licensing packages offered by performing rights organizations such as BMI and ASCAP.[8] BMI and ASCAP allow artists to remove a song from a campaign's Political Entities License.[9] After BMI or ASCAP notifies the campaign of the song's removal, the campaign must stop using the song or risk legal action for copyright infringement.[10] A political campaign that uses a licensed song without the artist's permission may also risk legal action on grounds of trademark infringement,[10] false advertising, or right of publicity.[11]"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MDawg

Perhaps she finally felt compelled to take a stand, but that article you linked to makes her seem like a 1950s Donna Reed speaking out in support of the right way to prepare roast beef.

“Four years ago, I became a mother,” she told the audience. “Best decision I ever made. Orlando [Bloom] and I, we welcomed our daughter Daisy and she is the reason I am voting for Kamala Harris.”

Perry continued that she admires Harris’ goal “to protect our rights as women to make decisions about our own bodies,” adding, “I know that she’ll protect my daughter’s future and your children’s future.”

Doesn't sound much like denunciation of the other side? If there are other instances I'd be interested to read what exactly she said.

“My home America, the America I've written about that has been a beacon of hope and liberty for 250 years, is currently in the hands of a corrupt, incompetent and treasonous administration,” said Springsteen to cheers as he took the stage - now that sounds like a denunciation.

---

She bashed Trump starting from his first election. Not as aggressively as Springsteen, but she's far from politically neutral. As I said, the just-before-the-election statement at her concert got everyone's attention, and this has somewhat defined her.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tasha

The backlash against Katy Perry is ACTUALLY because Katy chose to work with Luke The Producer. Luke The Producer has been in sexual abuse allegations controversies. Fans of Katy denounced her working with a Producer who has sexual abuse allegations controversies, stating that she not only is a Mother, she's a Mother of a little girl and the people questioned if Katy would be okay with Daisy as an Adult working with a Producer who has sexual abuse allegations controversies.

---

No, it's not.

In fact, the allegations against Dr. Luke by Ke$ha seem to be mostly bullshit.

It kind of sucks that even music is politicized now.

I mean we are all Americans here.

Except for Garnabby of course, but he might be soon enough.

Whether a musician has lost or sold the rights to his music (the Beatles were in that situation for most of their career, although Paul McCartney has regained some publishing rights to some of his songs), someone or some entity has those rights and absent fair use (see below) no one is allowed to play the copyrighted music in a public setting without either permission or paying some kind of royalty.

Even when bands play covers or DJs play music, the venue itself is either paying royalties or has some kind of blanket arrangement whereby something is paid to the copyright holders.

When it comes to politicians playing music at their events, they too need to pay for use of the music and if the copyright holder such as the band doesn't object, nothing extraordinary happens, some kind of compensation is passed along if the holder requires it, but if the copyright holder objects, the politician is supposed to not play or stop playing the musician's music. For the most part this does not become an issue, but with someone like Grump who gets people fired up one way or another, there are some musicians who have asked him to stop playing their music and have gone as far as sending cease and desist letters and threatening legal action.

And some, have taken it all the way to lawsuits.

More and more artists want Trump to stop using their music. They face a costly fight

By the way, a Grump defense (that will probably fail) and over arching principle that defeats copyright infringement is called fair use, where someone who uses copyrighted material in a non-commercial manner, for example for educational use, and not for profit, doesn't need a license (doesn't need permission) doesn't need to pay for its use. But Grump is using the music to promote his campaign which is far from fair use.

Still, if you pay attorneys enough (and Grump has lined his pockets with quite a bit of his supporters funds, such that he just burns OTHER people's money not his for such things), they will come up with creative arguments that will make it very costly to beat them, even if the end result is inevitable.

That is incidentally what is going on with all these lawsuits where the government is trying all sorts of crazy actions in the areas of immigration and government cutbacks - the end result for most of the cases is inevitably going to be a loss, but with government money to burn, Grump and his cronies don't care, so they throw out all sorts of bizarre arguments in bizarre efforts to overcome the US Constitution and other well settled principles of law.

Anybody else remember this from the 90s?

They tried to start charging royalties for girl scouts to sing songs around campfires but the public backlash forced them to back off:

“ In 1996, the American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers (ASCAP) initially proposed charging Girl Scouts and other nonprofit camps for royalties to sing copyrighted songs, even campfire songs. This prompted a public relations debacle, as the Girl Scouts had previously assumed such singing was exempt. However, ASCAP later clarified that it did not intend to license Girl Scouts singing around the campfire and agreed to reimburse councils that had paid.”

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DGenBen

It kind of sucks that even music is politicized now.

I mean we are all Americans here.

Except for Garnabby of course, but he might be soon enough.

---

LOL ... well spoken.

"Today, The Gulf of America; tomorrow, Toronto!"

As I sit back--relaxed and very satisfied--seeing and reading about celebrities (including, of course, that foolish POS Springsteen--who wouldn't know a losing politician from a pair of shit-stained underwear).....I tingle :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DGenBen

Anybody else remember this from the 90s?

They tried to start charging royalties for girl scouts to sing songs around campfires but the public backlash forced them to back off:

“ In 1996, the American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers (ASCAP) initially proposed charging Girl Scouts and other nonprofit camps for royalties to sing copyrighted songs, even campfire songs. This prompted a public relations debacle, as the Girl Scouts had previously assumed such singing was exempt. However, ASCAP later clarified that it did not intend to license Girl Scouts singing around the campfire and agreed to reimburse councils that had paid.”

---

They wanted to charge royalties for Girl Scouts singing songs around campfires? What utter bollocks (British for completely ridiculous bullshit) The Girl Scouts singing songs around campfires are just friends singing to each other. What next, charging drunk people at bar karaoke for singing Separate Ways by Journey? :confused: