Madonna must be relevant to have been able to play that horrible piece of garbage GMAYL at the superbowl.

Let's be honest here, has anyone with real talent ever come up and said" Oh man, i adored madonna's beautiful vocals and dance capability when i was growing up". It's usualy the Rihannas and all these other new autotune dependent assemblyline lucky break seeking "singers" who actually only admire the way Madonna was able to make her career despite not having any real skills at all.

If you're talking about catchy songs, yeah, she's got a few but that's about it. Icon, she ain't.

Objectively speaking, neither her vocals or dance is iconic. She has no talent that anyone could possibly aspire for except for her shrewd handling of the media and the public.

People that say "Madonna" has no talent, obviously isn't a fan! So why even comment on her if you have nothing good to say. Everything is negative and thats really sad, because you obviously haven't attended any of her concerts. She is an awesome dancer and her voice is far better than a Rihanna or Britney. Madonna herself has said "repeatedly" that she's NOT THE BEST SINGER OR DANCER, but she definitely can do both! Anyone who couldn't sing wouldn't be able to pull off "EVITA" and anyone who is a dancer (professionally) knows Madonna is a beast on the dance floor, she doesn't have to give you Janet Jackson or Paul Abdul to be considered a great dancer, she does her own thing but when she does dance she dances and I'm talking about the recent tour! Its pathetic, that all you can say about her is that she's manipulated the media and sold records that way. She has great music, classic hits that are always in rotation on radio. The woman has made a mark in Pop culture and she does it her way. Beyonce whom is a good singer has said she looks up to Madonna, so there are alot of good singers out there who respect her.

Xscaper said:

Madonna must be relevant to have been able to play that horrible piece of garbage GMAYL at the superbowl.

Let's be honest here, has anyone with real talent ever come up and said" Oh man, i adored madonna's beautiful vocals and dance capability when i was growing up". It's usualy the Rihannas and all these other new autotune dependent assemblyline lucky break seeking "singers" who actually only admire the way Madonna was able to make her career despite not having any real skills at all.

If you're talking about catchy songs, yeah, she's got a few but that's about it. Icon, she ain't.

Objectively speaking, neither her vocals or dance is iconic. She has no talent that anyone could possibly aspire for except for her shrewd handling of the media and the public.

i think just by the fact ur posting makes her relevant

U watcher her on the superbowl 1/2 time

over her career uv obviously watched her perform, award shows videos etc

The directors and producers of Evita obviously believed her dance skills were very good, look u dont have to like her, but she has very good dance skills

Prince in a few interviews live and print has said very good things about her talent

From the early 80s- 2012 she has a lot more than a few catchy songs

But arent those the songs the radio tends to focus on no matter the person range or extent of talent? Isnt that usually called radio friendly? MJ songs? -catchy radio friendly, the Prince songs mostly played...catchy radio friendly

Madonna is a pop icon, there are many people/entertainers/singers/artists/musicians/actors/designers/business men/women who are icons

maybe u dont know what an icon is or maybe you're making it more than it is, but Madonna is considered an icon, Whitney Houston is considered an icon, Donald Trump is considered an icon, Robert Maplethorp is considere an icon, Lucille Ball is considered and icon etc etc etc

i·con

(kn)

n.

1. also i·kon (kn)

a. An image; a representation.

b. A representation or picture of a sacred or sanctified Christian personage, traditionally used and venerated in the Eastern Church.

2. An important and enduring symbol: "Voyager will take its place ... alongside such icons of airborne adventure as The Spirit of St. Louis and [the] Bell X-1" (William D. Marbach).

3. One who is the object of great attention and devotion; an idol: "He is ... a pop icon designed and manufactured for the video generation" (Harry F. Waters).

4. Computer Science A picture on a screen that represents a specific file, directory, window, option, or program.

TheSanzSpot said:

People that say "Madonna" has no talent, obviously isn't a fan! So why even comment on her if you have nothing good to say. Everything is negative and thats really sad, because you obviously haven't attended any of her concerts. She is an awesome dancer and her voice is far better than a Rihanna or Britney. Madonna herself has said "repeatedly" that she's NOT THE BEST SINGER OR DANCER, but she definitely can do both! Anyone who couldn't sing wouldn't be able to pull off "EVITA" and anyone who is a dancer (professionally) knows Madonna is a beast on the dance floor, she doesn't have to give you Janet Jackson or Paul Abdul to be considered a great dancer, she does her own thing but when she does dance she dances and I'm talking about the recent tour! Its pathetic, that all you can say about her is that she's manipulated the media and sold records that way. She has great music, classic hits that are always in rotation on radio. The woman has made a mark in Pop culture and she does it her way. Beyonce whom is a good singer has said she looks up to Madonna, so there are alot of good singers out there who respect her.

The question is if Madonna is relevant. You do not need to be a HUGE fan to acknowledge she is still relevant and is a Icon. However, some of these posters are obviously stans with the over the top posts.

TheSanzSpot said:

People that say "Madonna" has no talent, obviously isn't a fan! So why even comment on her if you have nothing good to say. Everything is negative and thats really sad, because you obviously haven't attended any of her concerts. She is an awesome dancer and her voice is far better than a Rihanna or Britney. Madonna herself has said "repeatedly" that she's NOT THE BEST SINGER OR DANCER, but she definitely can do both! Anyone who couldn't sing wouldn't be able to pull off "EVITA" and anyone who is a dancer (professionally) knows Madonna is a beast on the dance floor, she doesn't have to give you Janet Jackson or Paul Abdul to be considered a great dancer, she does her own thing but when she does dance she dances and I'm talking about the recent tour! Its pathetic, that all you can say about her is that she's manipulated the media and sold records that way. She has great music, classic hits that are always in rotation on radio. The woman has made a mark in Pop culture and she does it her way. Beyonce whom is a good singer has said she looks up to Madonna, so there are alot of good singers out there who respect her.

Beyonce has talent, but I am not a fan

i think there's something oddly sexist about the (common) claim that madonna has "no talent".

have you ever noticed that male vocalists get away with sounding however they want - in some cases, sounding horrible - whereas female vocalists have to have perfect pitch and a huge range to even have "talent".

Madonna gets compared to Mariah Carey, which would be like comparing Mick Jagger to Sam Cooke, but i've never heard anyone say anything bad about Mick's voice.

She's got a voice. It works for pop music. I think it used to be a really good voice - but then she got a little mannered and artificial.

She writes the songs. Not alone, but then Mick Jagger didn't write alone either.

As for gimmicks - I'm old enough to remember certain statues being floated down the Thames, certain name changes / death notices taking the headlines, certain wardrobe malfunctions. She wasn't alone in the gimmick department. She may have just been a little better at it.

Anyway, "no talent" seems harsh, given the facts.

questions of "relevance" are like middle school questions of who's the most popular girl in class?!?!?!

7th grade never ends.

mjscarousal said:

TheSanzSpot said:

People that say "Madonna" has no talent, obviously isn't a fan! So why even comment on her if you have nothing good to say. Everything is negative and thats really sad, because you obviously haven't attended any of her concerts. She is an awesome dancer and her voice is far better than a Rihanna or Britney. Madonna herself has said "repeatedly" that she's NOT THE BEST SINGER OR DANCER, but she definitely can do both! Anyone who couldn't sing wouldn't be able to pull off "EVITA" and anyone who is a dancer (professionally) knows Madonna is a beast on the dance floor, she doesn't have to give you Janet Jackson or Paul Abdul to be considered a great dancer, she does her own thing but when she does dance she dances and I'm talking about the recent tour! Its pathetic, that all you can say about her is that she's manipulated the media and sold records that way. She has great music, classic hits that are always in rotation on radio. The woman has made a mark in Pop culture and she does it her way. Beyonce whom is a good singer has said she looks up to Madonna, so there are alot of good singers out there who respect her.

The question is if Madonna is relevant. You do not need to be a HUGE fan to acknowledge she is still relevant and is a Icon. However, some of these posters are obviously stans with the over the top posts.

Get over urself, what is an over the top posts, sounds silly

Mintchip said:

questions of "relevance" are like middle school questions of who's the most popular girl in class?!?!?!

7th grade never ends.

ouch, i never thhought about it like that

OldFriends4Sale said:

mjscarousal said:

The question is if Madonna is relevant. You do not need to be a HUGE fan to acknowledge she is still relevant and is a Icon. However, some of these posters are obviously stans with the over the top posts.

Get over urself, what is an over the top posts, sounds silly

No, you get over yourself at criticizing anybody who remotely has anyting negative to say about Madonna People can feel what they want to feel and Relevancy means different things to different people.

Mintchip said:

questions of "relevance" are like middle school questions of who's the most popular girl in class?!?!?!

7th grade never ends.

Hasn't it always been that way in the industry: who's the flavor of the month or the year? Who's a factor or who's a non-factor? Overated or underrated artist? So yeah, it never ends.

Beautifulstarr123 said:

Mintchip said:

questions of "relevance" are like middle school questions of who's the most popular girl in class?!?!?!

7th grade never ends.

Hasn't it always been that way in the industry: who's the flavor of the month or the year? Who's a factor or who's a non-factor? Overated or underrated artist? So yeah, it never ends.

Great point.

Right now Rihanna and Katy Perry are the "it" girls that all the guys want to bang. But next year it'll probably be completely new people.

If it wasn't for MTV, she would be another flash in a pan female artist, just a zit on the radar screen, and she wouldn't have the crossover success that she has. Prince and MJ wouldn't have the crossover success, neither, just another R&B artist, all three of them. Madonna started out underground and on black radio stations.

Terrib3Towel said:

Beautifulstarr123 said:

Hasn't it always been that way in the industry: who's the flavor of the month or the year? Who's a factor or who's a non-factor? Overated or underrated artist? So yeah, it never ends.

Great point.

Right now Rihanna and Katy Perry are the "it" girls that all the guys want to bang. But next year it'll probably be completely new people.

Oh absolutely

OldFriends4Sale said:

Xscaper said:

Madonna must be relevant to have been able to play that horrible piece of garbage GMAYL at the superbowl.

Let's be honest here, has anyone with real talent ever come up and said" Oh man, i adored madonna's beautiful vocals and dance capability when i was growing up". It's usualy the Rihannas and all these other new autotune dependent assemblyline lucky break seeking "singers" who actually only admire the way Madonna was able to make her career despite not having any real skills at all.

If you're talking about catchy songs, yeah, she's got a few but that's about it. Icon, she ain't.

Objectively speaking, neither her vocals or dance is iconic. She has no talent that anyone could possibly aspire for except for her shrewd handling of the media and the public.

i think just by the fact ur posting makes her relevant

U watcher her on the superbowl 1/2 time

over her career uv obviously watched her perform, award shows videos etc

The directors and producers of Evita obviously believed her dance skills were very good, look u dont have to like her, but she has very good dance skills

Prince in a few interviews live and print has said very good things about her talent

From the early 80s- 2012 she has a lot more than a few catchy songs

But arent those the songs the radio tends to focus on no matter the person range or extent of talent? Isnt that usually called radio friendly? MJ songs? -catchy radio friendly, the Prince songs mostly played...catchy radio friendly

Madonna is a pop icon, there are many people/entertainers/singers/artists/musicians/actors/designers/business men/women who are icons

maybe u dont know what an icon is or maybe you're making it more than it is, but Madonna is considered an icon, Whitney Houston is considered an icon, Donald Trump is considered an icon, Robert Maplethorp is considere an icon, Lucille Ball is considered and icon etc etc etc

i·con

(kn)

n.

1. also i·kon (kn)

a. An image; a representation.

b. A representation or picture of a sacred or sanctified Christian personage, traditionally used and venerated in the Eastern Church.

2. An important and enduring symbol: "Voyager will take its place ... alongside such icons of airborne adventure as The Spirit of St. Louis and [the] Bell X-1" (William D. Marbach).

3. One who is the object of great attention and devotion; an idol: "He is ... a pop icon designed and manufactured for the video generation" (Harry F. Waters).

4. Computer Science A picture on a screen that represents a specific file, directory, window, option, or program.

Well i didn't doubt her relevancy. In fact it's the first thing i conceded. She is absolutely relevant but not for the right reasons.

What dance skills? Anyone can manage simple choreography especially if they've had decades to practice for it. Now, Janelle Monae has raw dance talent. She has that passion for it which can't be learned. You're just born with it.

As far as vocals go, can you confidently say she could win any of the multitiude of idol programs(as lame as they are)? Her vocals are just barely good enough to work for her songs just like, say, Britney spears. They are bare bones vocals. They dont make you go "Damn!!".

In a nutshell, many would want to emulate her success(who wouldn't) but not many would like to possess her limited skill set. Not talented people anyway.

Mintchip said:

i think there's something oddly sexist about the (common) claim that madonna has "no talent".

have you ever noticed that male vocalists get away with sounding however they want - in some cases, sounding horrible - whereas female vocalists have to have perfect pitch and a huge range to even have "talent".

Madonna gets compared to Mariah Carey, which would be like comparing Mick Jagger to Sam Cooke, but i've never heard anyone say anything bad about Mick's voice.

She's got a voice. It works for pop music. I think it used to be a really good voice - but then she got a little mannered and artificial.

She writes the songs. Not alone, but then Mick Jagger didn't write alone either.

As for gimmicks - I'm old enough to remember certain statues being floated down the Thames, certain name changes / death notices taking the headlines, certain wardrobe malfunctions. She wasn't alone in the gimmick department. She may have just been a little better at it.

Anyway, "no talent" seems harsh, given the facts.

You don't absolutely have to have brilliant vocals to be considered great but you MUST at least have something that outshines others or takes you to that next level above your peers. That's what makes you an icon.

Anthony Kiedis doesn't have the best vocals either but it works for their music. More importantly, he contributes significantly with his song writing. Bob Dylan's vocals aren't tolerable for many but he's a great lyricist. Some people may find Stevie Wonder's vocals grating yet no one can deny the talent he possesses with his song writing and instrumentation. There HAS to be something about you that makes people go "That's talent right there".

Michael, Janet and Prince would still be as popular without those above mentioned gimmicks. Madonna has been playing the political/gay/feminist angle all her career.

imo madonna is up there with cher. aging beautifully and still talented. so i guess she's still relevant when it comes to being iconic.

Mintchip said:

questions of "relevance" are like middle school questions of who's the most popular girl in class?!?!?!

7th grade never ends.

Well put.

Don't you just love it when "relevancy" is determined by how many teenagers have a passing interest in your music?

Madonna and other "nostalgia acts" are getting more than 100 bucks per a concert goer, there are hundreds of thousands, if not millions of them and people still listen to their records.

Katy Perry, Rihanna and the kind get nothing for teenagers watching their latest videos for free on Youtube (or 0.005 for their songs getting played on Spotify).

Speculative capital is what seems to matter these days.

Beautifulstarr123 said:

If it wasn't for MTV, she would be another flash in a pan female artist, just a zit on the radar screen, and she wouldn't have the crossover success that she has. Prince and MJ wouldn't have the crossover success, neither, just another R&B artist, all three of them. Madonna started out underground and on black radio stations.

nonsense.

Graycap23 said:

Beautifulstarr123 said:

If it wasn't for MTV, she would be another flash in a pan female artist, just a zit on the radar screen, and she wouldn't have the crossover success that she has. Prince and MJ wouldn't have the crossover success, neither, just another R&B artist, all three of them. Madonna started out underground and on black radio stations.

nonsense.

Why is that nonsense, and why the double standards for Prince, when it came to success? Prince and MJ were already famous, but not at the pinnacle of success. Madonna was just a rising star. MTV pretty much blew them up to the level they're in now.

Beautifulstarr123 said:

Graycap23 said:

nonsense.

Why is that nonsense, and why the double standards for Prince, when it came to success? Prince and MJ were already famous, but not at the pinnacle of success. Madonna was just a rising star. MTV pretty much blew them up to the level they're in now.

Prince's discography is less than 25% R&B. Your comment makes no sense.

Graycap23 said:

Beautifulstarr123 said:

Why is that nonsense, and why the double standards for Prince, when it came to success? Prince and MJ were already famous, but not at the pinnacle of success. Madonna was just a rising star. MTV pretty much blew them up to the level they're in now.

Prince's discography is less than 25% R&B. Your comment makes no sense.

Prince started out as an R&B artist. Do you think he would have the level of success, crossover success if it wasn't for MTV? It makes no sense to you because you're an stan.

Beautifulstarr123 said:

Graycap23 said:

Prince's discography is less than 25% R&B. Your comment makes no sense.

Prince started out as an R&B artist. Do you think he would have the level of success, crossover success if it wasn't for MTV? It makes no sense to you because you're an stan.

Lol............Prince is many things.

4 u 2 pigeonhole Prince into R&B means u have NOT been paying attention the last 35 years.

[Edited 11/19/12 6:08am]

Graycap23 said:

Beautifulstarr123 said:

Prince started out as an R&B artist. Do you think he would have the level of success, crossover success if it wasn't for MTV? It makes no sense to you because you're an stan.

Lol............Prince is many things.

4 u 2 pigeonhole Prince into R&B means u have NOT been paying attention the last 35 years.

[Edited 11/19/12 6:08am]

Oh really? Truly? I need for you to elaborate more on what you're saying, and that includes Madonna and MJ.

Graycap23 said:

Beautifulstarr123 said:

Prince started out as an R&B artist. Do you think he would have the level of success, crossover success if it wasn't for MTV? It makes no sense to you because you're an stan.

Lol............Prince is many things.

4 u 2 pigeonhole Prince into R&B means u have NOT been paying attention the last 35 years.

[Edited 11/19/12 6:08am]

The music industry labels you, despite an artist's versatility. I guess this was my point in the first place.

Beautifulstarr123 said:

If it wasn't for MTV, she would be another flash in a pan female artist, just a zit on the radar screen, and she wouldn't have the crossover success that she has. Prince and MJ wouldn't have the crossover success, neither, just another R&B artist, all three of them. Madonna started out underground and on black radio stations.

True

the impact MTV and videos had for artists we really can't say how far they all would have gotten if they didn't have video to help

I was watching a show on the Disco era and it discussed a lot of the singer of those times, and why many of them were not famous. They said because most of them didn't have a face, people had the 45s and lps and danced up storms to their music at the discos and parties, but most did not know who they were. Donna Summers was marketed in a way that made her more visible and it took her further...

A big section of Michael J's superstar period came about because of the videos & mini movies and he gave you something to look at.

Now most videos that people put out dont have any direction, its just someones idea of hype

But Prince MJ(especially) Madonna(especially) put a lot of their person in the videos it was artistic and gave a visual of the songs, Prince didn't always do well with videos: his best in my opinion were the 1982-1986 period with touchs on Glam Slam & I Wish U Heaven, the Batman videos were good, Diamond & Pearls were ok, a lot of hit n misses after that, a lot of videos shot but not released. But his best were the ATWIAD-Parade videos

People can say what they want, ATWIAD would have been a lot bigger if he promod the era, A video for ATWIAD Pop Life/Hello and a few other (when you make a drastic change in sound like that you have to help it along) videos would have been the thing. Raspberry Beret was already a good colorful song, the video (which prince got some kind of award for) gave us another glimps into Prince's world

Xscaper said:

Mintchip said:

i think there's something oddly sexist about the (common) claim that madonna has "no talent".

have you ever noticed that male vocalists get away with sounding however they want - in some cases, sounding horrible - whereas female vocalists have to have perfect pitch and a huge range to even have "talent".

Madonna gets compared to Mariah Carey, which would be like comparing Mick Jagger to Sam Cooke, but i've never heard anyone say anything bad about Mick's voice.

She's got a voice. It works for pop music. I think it used to be a really good voice - but then she got a little mannered and artificial.

She writes the songs. Not alone, but then Mick Jagger didn't write alone either.

As for gimmicks - I'm old enough to remember certain statues being floated down the Thames, certain name changes / death notices taking the headlines, certain wardrobe malfunctions. She wasn't alone in the gimmick department. She may have just been a little better at it.

Anyway, "no talent" seems harsh, given the facts.

You don't absolutely have to have brilliant vocals to be considered great but you MUST at least have something that outshines others or takes you to that next level above your peers. That's what makes you an icon.

Anthony Kiedis doesn't have the best vocals either but it works for their music. More importantly, he contributes significantly with his song writing. Bob Dylan's vocals aren't tolerable for many but he's a great lyricist. Some people may find Stevie Wonder's vocals grating yet no one can deny the talent he possesses with his song writing and instrumentation. There HAS to be something about you that makes people go "That's talent right there".

Michael, Janet and Prince would still be as popular without those above mentioned gimmicks. Madonna has been playing the political/gay/feminist angle all her career.

Maybe it's just who she is, it seems that's who she's always been, so I would take it as not a gimmick but someone expressing themselves.

Same with Prince and the Sex + God angle, he definately used that to amp up his image, thing is people now are questioning if Prince really was that Sex fiend he portrayed himself to be or if he really was the conservative person we seem to be seeing now

For me it seems the 1980s Sex edge of Prince seemed very genuine, but the more 'vulgar' Sex image of Prince in the 1990s (obviously fueled by the gangster rap wave sweeping the scene) didn't seem genuine

I think the "90s sex thing" for Prince was just a reflection of the cultural climate of the time. Prince probably felt like he had the step up his game in that regard. You had things like Madonna's "Sex" book, Basic Instinct, Chris Isaak's "Wicked Game", Mark Wahlberg dedicating his book to his penis, soft porn appearing on TV and so on.

I also remember how humourless a lot of it was. They had these late night talk shows with guests having discussions about group sex and anal stimulation with dead pan faces.

Mintchip said:

i think there's something oddly sexist about the (common) claim that madonna has "no talent".

have you ever noticed that male vocalists get away with sounding however they want - in some cases, sounding horrible - whereas female vocalists have to have perfect pitch and a huge range to even have "talent".

Madonna gets compared to Mariah Carey, which would be like comparing Mick Jagger to Sam Cooke, but i've never heard anyone say anything bad about Mick's voice.

She's got a voice. It works for pop music. I think it used to be a really good voice - but then she got a little mannered and artificial.

She writes the songs. Not alone, but then Mick Jagger didn't write alone either.

As for gimmicks - I'm old enough to remember certain statues being floated down the Thames, certain name changes / death notices taking the headlines, certain wardrobe malfunctions. She wasn't alone in the gimmick department. She may have just been a little better at it.

Anyway, "no talent" seems harsh, given the facts.

And there you have it.

There are lots of male sngers who don't have a good voice or write their own songs, but they never get critized.

But when it comes to women, they don't have talent.

When men sleep around they are the man. When Madonna sleeps around, she's a slut.

when men are aging, they become more interesting, when Madonna ages she's a old hag.

novabrkr said:

I think the "90s sex thing" for Prince was just a reflection of the cultural climate of the time. Prince probably felt like he had the step up his game in that regard. You had things like Madonna's "Sex" book, Basic Instinct, Chris Isaak's "Wicked Game", Mark Wahlberg dedicating his book to his penis, soft porn appearing on TV and so on.

I also remember how humourless a lot of it was. They had these late night talk shows with guests having discussions about group sex and anal stimulation with dead pan faces.

I agree, but with Prince I just him trying to go along with the ride vs interpreting and addressing what was happening in that time.

That was a time of social revolution...

His 1980s expression of sex was much different

Yeah there was a lot of 'humorless over indulged sex talk' then too, but it was everywhere Salt n Pepas Lets Talk About Sex/Lets Talk About AIDs, different entertainers addressing safe sex AIDS and just taboo subject in general