tane1976 said:

Thanks 4 that LAUGH. I needed that.

I guess it depends upon whom a person asks.

I do think that Grammy nominations are an indicator of relevancy for an artist during a specific time period. Don't artist in the music industry nominate and vote to determine Grammy winners? So it would make sense to me that in music circles, Prince would be more relevant than someone like Madonna. In fact, the Peppers are apparently also more relevant than Madonna according to the nominations. Sure, to me that's fair considering the people involved. Madonna was really just nominated for the specific style of music, wasn't she? Confessions really didn't cross-over to where it could compete with other genres. It was nominated for what it was: a good electronica/dance album--nothing more; nothing less.

What I think is interesting is that when Prince and Madonna were both touring in 2004, Prince ended up being the top-grossing tour. Celine Dion was actually in second place, then Madonna third. (I have a feeling that Prince probably got the idea about Vegas by looking at Celine's success in the top grossing tours for that year. So that's why he decided to give Vegas a shot.) Then again, Madonna beat Prince that year when compared to the number of performances and sales, with Elton John coming in second in that category. Prince was actually fifth in that category, but still beat Madonna in the total money his tour earned. So in terms of touring, Prince proved that he could at least compete with Madge's strength--which is touring. Prince can bring in the crowd, too, even though his shows are more straight forward and not as theatrical.

http://www.factmonster.co...31147.html

Consequently, I guess really both are relevant, but in different ways. Prince is more relevant as a musician and music artist. But Madonna is probably relevant as more of a cultural icon. Also as many have said, Prince started out on the periphery going through a period of mainstream success, yet has never been defined by it. In contrast, Madonna is all about mainstream success. So in a way, it's really difficult to compare the two. Like I said for different audiences, they both are relevant. I obviously prefer Prince over Madonna because I look at Prince as of his own creation where as Madonna relies more on a team.

In a way, it's like comparing apples to oranges. I have a feeling that serious musicians and/or vocalists would respect Prince more and say Prince is more relevant to them. On the other hand, maybe other pop music fans--particular those who still watch MTV, go to clubs to dance to electronica, like the whole spectacle of her shows, and don't mind a sort of over-produced sound would say Madonna is more relevant as a music artist and pop icon. I think in the long-term, both Madonna and Prince will be remembered for their contributions. Ironically, both always be relevant because there will always be younger artists trying to copy them and their success.
[Edited 12/19/06 14:14pm]

Isel said:

I'm sorry, but there's not nearly enough disrespect in your post 4 this thread. Please take your sensical talk elsewhere and make with the sh*t-slinging.

I'm sorry, but there's not nearly enough disrespect in your post 4 this thread. Please take your sensical talk elsewhere and make with the sh*t-slinging.

[/quote]

Don't give up the day job, as they say.
[Edited 12/19/06 19:52pm]

Graycrap says "Thanks 4 that LAUGH. I needed that."

I say: "Not YOU again."
[Edited 12/19/06 19:56pm]

Isel said:

Prince was the top grossing tour of the US in 04. That's all those numbers didn't take into account the money Madge made over seas that year. Seeing as that site only lists the 39 US shows and leaves out the 17 in Eurpoe for a total of 56 shows

http://en.wikipedia.org/w...ntion_Tour

Starting in May, 2004, Madonna's ReInvention Tour 2004 was a seven-country musical concert tour which featured music from the beginning of her career to her most recent work.

Madonna visited a total of seven countries, and 20 cities, selling out 55 of 56 shows (at Slane Castle she attracted 62,275 fans with 70,000 tickets available) where she was seen by an estimated 880,000 fans. The tour is considered the most successful and highest grossing concert tour of the year, with an estimated gross of $124.5 million. To acknowledge her achievement of the tour success in that year, Billboard Magazine awarded Madonna Backstage Pass Award in recognition of having the top tour of the year 2004. [1]

The tour was chronicled in I'm Going to Tell You a Secret, a two-hour documentary which included taped segments of the show, and backstage elements, including the auditioning of some of Madonna's dancers. A DVD, with a bonus CD of selected songs from the set, was released June 20, 2006.
[Edited 12/19/06 20:42pm]

ehuffnsd said:

The point is that Prince beat her in her own country in regard to how much money his tour grossed that year in the U.S. Madonna might rule the world, so to speak, but her tour didn't rule the U.S that year which is quite interesting since Americans are considered to be so youth-oriented, superficial, and materialistic. Now, even considering the discrepancies in number of performances and sales/cities considering Prince didn't do too badly in the U.S, and neither did Elton John for that matter: Elton was #2 behind Madge and Prince was #5.. Consequently, I was actually shocked at the numbers because after all of the hype, I thought Madonna for sure would be the top grossing tour here. So apparently, U.S. audiences believe Prince and a lot of other artists are just a relevant as Madonna--even Jimmy Buffet is just as relevant as Madonna according to concert goers. And to top it off, Prince doesn't even aspire to be the same type of star as Madonna, but he still can compete with her here in the U.S. at least.

As a matter of fact, I don't think most music artists, including but not limited to Prince, really care about being relevant according to Madonna's standards--or the standards of her fans. And I would imagine that most Prince fans feel the same way because Prince attracts the type of fans, for the most part, who are more into musicians and vocalists, not necessarily dancers turned music/video artists. And I still stand by what I said: serious musicians and vocalists find Prince more relevant. In fact, I would venture to say serious music fans find Prince more relevant because he is actually a musician--even though might not particularly like his music. A lot of people think Madonna marked the beginning of a new level of mediocrity in music, so just because she is popular and/or relevant doesn't mean she is any less mediocre in their minds.

I have gotten into discussions time and time again with performers as well as music fans about Madonna and Janet. I hate to say it, but in spite of their success and worldwide sales, there are a number of people who just don't respect either one of them as artists even though Madonna in particular might be more representative of pop culture and relevant when considering sales. Unfortunately, a lot of people I've talked to think that Madonna in particular represents everything that is bad-- manufactured,superficial,and expedient (as in morphing into whatever is popular at the moment in order to stay on top rather than having any real depth)-- about pop culture as well as the music industry. So if she is more relevant, well maybe that's just representative of what people value: the appearance of being a musician/vocalist based upon a manufactured product, image and marketing without any real "music" talent to back it up.

I disagree with that because obviously, as a Janet fan more so than Madonna's, I still think that they and other similar artists bring a different type of art to the table--a different way of creating and presenting music. But purists just don't buy it. So I just think it's quite complicated, and I still say it depends upon whom a person asks.
[Edited 12/20/06 8:48am]

Isel said:

It absolutely depends on who you are asking

Janfriend said:

relevence and quality are all subjective questions so of course it depends on who you ask.

Janfriend said:

But this is my point exactly, It dumbfounds me that people still want to look at this on a subjective level - meaning, who they like more. I'm a Prince fan but I still recognize that Madonna permeates the culture more directly and is more recognizable to the general population than Prince. It absolutely DOES NOT depend on who you're asking. You've completely missed point entirely. It's not about you and your friends. Jeez.
[Edited 12/20/06 21:32pm]

pald1 said:

No, just about you and your friends

Janfriend said:

Constructive argument, I like that. What a child.

A sensible debate over Madonna & Prince???

...what's the org coming to.

pald1 said:

I think it's Madonna's fans who seem to be missing the point? And even non-fans are basing their conclusions far too much on sales. Madonna's success indicates that she still has a lot of fans. I don't see how her success impacts our culture, per se, even though it might reflect certain aspects--or even music as an art form all that much. What Madonna has shown is that she can successfully morph into something that is marketable. Interestingly though, I've never seen her morph into a true singer or musician. I've never seen her tour without her dancers and effects. I've never seen her put-on a show like Prince or more of a vocalist like Celine Dion. She always chooses a genre that hides her weakness and exploits her strengths--which is fine. I think that the result is a type of art. And I think her art has a place even though others have disagreed with me. But I don't think it's an overriding sort of art that everyone wants to see, support, respect or emulate.

Ithought the question was whether Madonnas is more relevant an artist than Prince--not about whether or not Madonna is a bigger pop-icon? (I'll go back and look at the original question in a sec.) I may have been confused. Well actually the question was a little confusing because I don't think a person can discount talent, musicianship, and consideration to the type of artists consumers want to see or hear and whom up-and-coming artists are trying to emulate when determining relevancy. I guess as a pop-icon, Madonna would be more relevant at this point in time?? But then again, that's also questionnable as well even though she has a huge, worldwide fanbase. As far artistically--even as an entertainer...well a lot of people--even maybe the majority, don't respect her as a music artist--so she is not relevant to them musically and artistically. In other words when given a choice, apparently most people still prefer vocalists, musicians, bands,etc., over artists like Madonna. I've never wanted to be a performer like Madonna--ever. Now I wouldn't have minded like Bonnie Raitt, but Madonna, no. In fact, as a performer, I wouldn't have minded being like Ann Reinking, so even as an entertainer I have never wanted emulate Madonna. Just because I might attend one of her concerts, doesn't mean that Madonna has changed the music industry or is necessarily relevant to the culture.

If she is so relevant, then why aren't more people following in her footsteps? Even Justin Timberlake is trying more to be like Prince than Madonna. Look at American Idol: Madonna would have never stood a chance on a show like that because she can't sing. She couldn't even compete. The winners of that show can sing at least. Isn't that a show about pop artists? Janet has a better vocal quality, musicality, and range than Madonna. Janet's weakness is vocal power and resonance, but she can still do more with her voice than Madonna can. Janet MIGHT have been able to compete on that show with a little bit of training, but not Madonna.

Consequently, there are still more young artists trying to be musicians and true vocalists rather than dancers turned music-video artists. I don't know if I'm making my point very well, but I conceded that in regard to sales, yes she might appear to be more relevant, but in regard to music trends, well artists like Madonna are becoming a thing of the past, and frankly, they have never been a staple of the music scene anyway. There are far more vocalists, musicians, bands, even rappers than there are artists like Madonna.Oh, and I also said that it wasn't necessarily a matter of like and dislike, there are those music artists who don't particularly care for Prince, but they still find him relevant because he is what music is supposed to be about.

So it might appear that I'm talking about something else as far as being relevant as an artist, but then again maybe not. Ultimately, we are talking about music in the long and short term. We aren't necessarily talking about pop-culture of which Madonna is an excellent representative because she is ever-changing to fit-in to that culture to perpetuate her marketability. So I guess she might be considered to be the perfect pop-artist, an oxymoron, yet only appealing to a small percentage of consumers, relatively speaking, at a given time if we look at other indicators besides her specific success. More importantly, even considering sales, musician/vocalists as a group still out-sell her as far as what most consumers want to see in the long even short term, and since Prince is a part of that group, I consider him more relevant.

BTW not surprisingly, there are a lot of people who haven't heard Madonna's Confessions--or if it happens to be playing on the radio-which I've never heard ONE TRACK-then they change the channel. They are not interested in her, period. lol If they are going to listen to something, I would imagine they would choose Prince over Madonna any day. Of course, Prince isn't played on the radio all that much either, but when given the opportunity, a lot music fans would choose Prince. So it might appear that I'm confused, but I'm actually not.
[Edited 12/21/06 8:26am]

..

To our dear friend Pald1:

If you are somehow trying to imply that being "more relevant" has any indication of talent and ability, you are severely misguided. (I wanted to use other forms of language here, but for fear of moderation, I chose not to.)

Point blank: This thread means absolutely nothing. It really, honestly doesn't. Even assuming Madonna is "more relevant" and more "popular," what does that have to do with her ability in any way, shape, or form? Nothing.

What you really wanted to do was start problems and arguments. And hey, I won't lie, you suceeded in that regard. But, as for trying to prove something meaningful and worthwhile, you fail utterly.

is she relevant??

1) grammys
she didnt get any nominations in the top categories!!!

2) golden globes!!

no nominations

3) super bowl
they didnt want her

4) she was caught without any panties wait that was britney but she used to do those things too!!

5) carrie and madonna released an album in the same week last yr carrie is still in top 10 madonna is nowhere to be found!!

6) hung up reached top 10 after record comany started buyin the single!!

7) no musical skills

8) only cowrites songs( in industry lingo means get credit for something u didnt write)

9) has never written a hit for any other singer absolute zero here

10) became a sugamamma

11) writes childrens books

ShadeoViolet said:

To our dear friend ShadeoViolet:

You ponder that I mean to imply that being "more relevant" has any indication of talent and ability - on this I will refer you to the opening statement in which I categoricaly state it does not.

You also undercut your argument that this thread means nothing by a) responding to it yourself and b) still attempting to make the connection between relevancy and talent - again, something I never attempted.

Ofcourse, I wouldn't want you to lie about your thoughts on my success but as for trying to prove something meaningful and worthwhile, you fail utterly.

asg said:

I'll say it again, for somebody who you don't think is relevant - you sure know alot about her.

pald1 said:

Well explain how exactly is she relevant? I understand that her tour and her cd was a worldwide success. I understand in terms of dollars and cents. So yes, she still has a lot of fans worldwide. But how exactly has she impacted other musicians and/or vocalists? How is she continuing to impact our culture or even MTV for that matter" Yes, it's true when she first came-out there were a lot of Madonna wannabes, but now the trend seems to be shifting. I've heard dancers, for example, wanting to dance for her, but I've rarely heard aspiring vocalists, musicians, performers aspiring to be like her as an artist. More and more audiences are complaining about artists lip-synching. Other artists similar to Madonna like poor Janet, for example, aren't having near the success, except maybe for Ciara, she's more interested in emulating Michael, Janet, and from what I can tell musically Prince. Britney Spears, one of the few who've claimed Madonna as her idol, has become sort of a joke. How many younger artists emulate Madonna anyway? From what I can tell, most of the younger female artists can sing at least--and they can sing quite well as a matter of fact. As I mentioned earlier,even former boy-band members like Justin are trying to be more like Prince--to be taken as a serious musician. Even Madonna herself learned how to play guitar, I guess to be taken more seriously? But the problem is that she doesn't play well enough at this point in time to independent of her production. She might be able to be a front-woman in a band, but would her fans accept her? Could she compete with someone like Gwen Stefani or even Pink, for example?

Now that would definitely be interesting to see: Madonna stripped down figuratively speaking, of course, because she has already stripped-down literally. What was that show on MTV a while ago where artists "stripped-down" musically so to speak? Oh yeah, it was MTV Unplugged. Nirvana appeared on it as well Tony Bennett, I believe. I also remember seeing a really great performance by L. L. Cool J. of "I'm Going To Knock You Out." Now it would be quite interesting to see Madonna in a show like that--to carry a show like that with more than just a number or two, without the benefit of dancers or choreographed routines. If she could do that, I would then say that, yes she is relevant to EVERYONE. But right now, she is only relevant to those who enjoy her style of music and tours. Obviously, she has an audience, but it's not the overwhelming majority of music fans.
[Edited 12/21/06 15:26pm]

pald1 said:

i really dont i just asked sir elton john

Comparing Madonna to Prince or vice versa is like comparing Andy Warhol to Picasso.

Please- we musn't forget that music is art!

LollyPopLife said:

This is an excellent analogy. I actually thought about this, but didn't make the statement.

asg said:

Did he whisper it softly in your ear?

Isel said:

I'm not comparing. I'm saying she is more relevant to todays' culture.

Isel said:

You've got alot of heart, kid. There's quite a bit of writing here but who's got the time to read it all? If you can't say it in two sentences, why bother?

asg said:

no he has been tellin the whole world how talentless she is!!

i am surprised u missed it

pald1 said:

Well. Okie dokie. But you made some pretty confusing assertions in two sentences. I had to write paragraphs in order to elaborate and clarify my points and why your assertions were superficial and wrong. Two sentences isn't quite enough for a complicated issue--one that at face value seems quite simplistic but is really not.

If you didn't want to read responses and respond then why did you start the thread? I thought this was discussion. I thought you might be interested in what others have to say regardless of the length of the post. It doesn't bother me one way or another if you don't want to read my response. I know others will whether they respond to my post or not. It's not like it took a lot of effort to write.

But I guess that all you wanted to do was to create drama or have people disagree or agree without giving any examples or elaboration? I guess you were just being inflammatory as some have already said in this thread. This is a message board, not a chat room, and I don't think there are rules governing the length of posts.

In any event, I'm not going to take Madonna's success at face value and from that conclude that she is more relevant than someone like Prince. I guess you don't have any reasons to state why she's relevant, so I can be satisfied in proving my point because you don'thave a response to what I have to say by default.

Hey, I'll take a victory any way I can get it.

asg said:

Telling the whole world, eh? See how relevant she is.

Isel said:

People keep saying I'm being inflammatory. I thought I was just stating a fact. I really don't know what all the fuss is about.

u should post this thread in a more neutral site like

http://pulsemusic.proboar.../index.cgi

but i am sure prince will get more love there!!

pulse music board is full of ppl who know about about music more then they should