New topic
PrintableAerogram said: DavidEye said: The music biz is so much different than it used to be.Back when I was growing up,there was a thing called "fan loyalty",where fans supported an artist through every album.Nowadays,music has become "disposable",like fast food.Kids get into groups like The Backstreet Boys,and then a few albums later,they move on to something else.Very few artists are maintaining their success and it's not likely that most of these acts will have longevity and continued success. Actua
Actually, David,,we always had disposable acts and more enduring artists, especially in the pop market targeting teenagers. The 50s and 60s weren't all Elvis and the Fab Four... there were many one hit wonders and acts who vanished after two or three singles or LPs. In the 70's, we had classic examples -- ask The Osmonds and David Cassidy. It's no wonder, considering the audience targeted by poppy pop acts is almost completely replaced every five or six years. My sister had a big crush on David, but by the time she was 17, she was more into Pink Floyd and Led Zeppelin. Today's acts try to make the transition with their audience, but it is doomed to failure unless it's a major, growing talent. Unless you're George Michael, you don't go from formulaic brainless fun songs to full blown adult albums. Whoever can survive the crop of current teen acts will need a lot of talent and a pretty good radar, like your dahling Madonna.. you are right about madonna, and the fact that pop acts get replaced every 5 or 6 years. explain me please about the radar of madonna. thanks. | |
- E-mail - orgNote -  Report post to moderator |
subyduby said: Aerogram said: DavidEye said: The music biz is so much different than it used to be.Back when I was growing up,there was a thing called "fan loyalty",where fans supported an artist through every album.Nowadays,music has become "disposable",like fast food.Kids get into groups like The Backstreet Boys,and then a few albums later,they move on to something else.Very few artists are maintaining their success and it's not likely that most of these acts will have longevity and continued success. Actua
Actually, David,,we always had disposable acts and more enduring artists, especially in the pop market targeting teenagers. The 50s and 60s weren't all Elvis and the Fab Four... there were many one hit wonders and acts who vanished after two or three singles or LPs. In the 70's, we had classic examples -- ask The Osmonds and David Cassidy. It's no wonder, considering the audience targeted by poppy pop acts is almost completely replaced every five or six years. My sister had a big crush on David, but by the time she was 17, she was more into Pink Floyd and Led Zeppelin. Today's acts try to make the transition with their audience, but it is doomed to failure unless it's a major, growing talent. Unless you're George Michael, you don't go from formulaic brainless fun songs to full blown adult albums. Whoever can survive the crop of current teen acts will need a lot of talent and a pretty good radar, like your dahling Madonna.. you are right about madonna, and the fact that pop acts get replaced every 5 or 6 years. explain me please about the radar of madonna. thanks. Madonna has some kind of radar. I'm not sure if it's located in her belly button or elsewhere, but the girl has "flair"... she knows what to do to keep being seen as relevant without seeming to seek relevance too seriously. She has largely grown up with her audience. The same young boys who were fixated on her belly button in their late teens or early twenties have continued to follow her as she got into more threatening sexuality, then mixed it up a bit with religious and racial imagery, then it was back on the sexual frontier of pseudo-SM (the book Sex). By the time Ray of Light came out, Madonna had managed to hold off any attempt at a totally "serious" record for almost 15 years, so she was welcome to try (and succeed). I wonder how that fits with the "prolonged adolescence" thing that's been going on for years. I'm referring to the fact that most people used to have family responsibilities much younger than we do today. Most of my friends married in their thirties, whereas in my mom's time, a girl who wasn't married at 20 was seriously taking her time. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Ewww! I would NOT want anyone to die for moi! | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Aerogram said: subyduby said: Aerogram said: DavidEye said: The music biz is so much different than it used to be.Back when I was growing up,there was a thing called "fan loyalty",where fans supported an artist through every album.Nowadays,music has become "disposable",like fast food.Kids get into groups like The Backstreet Boys,and then a few albums later,they move on to something else.Very few artists are maintaining their success and it's not likely that most of these acts will have longevity and continued success. Actua
Actually, David,,we always had disposable acts and more enduring artists, especially in the pop market targeting teenagers. The 50s and 60s weren't all Elvis and the Fab Four... there were many one hit wonders and acts who vanished after two or three singles or LPs. In the 70's, we had classic examples -- ask The Osmonds and David Cassidy. It's no wonder, considering the audience targeted by poppy pop acts is almost completely replaced every five or six years. My sister had a big crush on David, but by the time she was 17, she was more into Pink Floyd and Led Zeppelin. Today's acts try to make the transition with their audience, but it is doomed to failure unless it's a major, growing talent. Unless you're George Michael, you don't go from formulaic brainless fun songs to full blown adult albums. Whoever can survive the crop of current teen acts will need a lot of talent and a pretty good radar, like your dahling Madonna.. you are right about madonna, and the fact that pop acts get replaced every 5 or 6 years. explain me please about the radar of madonna. thanks. Madonna has some kind of radar. I'm not sure if it's located in her belly button or elsewhere, but the girl has "flair"... she knows what to do to keep being seen as relevant without seeming to seek relevance too seriously. She has largely grown up with her audience. The same young boys who were fixated on her belly button in their late teens or early twenties have continued to follow her as she got into more threatening sexuality, then mixed it up a bit with religious and racial imagery, then it was back on the sexual frontier of pseudo-SM (the book Sex). By the time Ray of Light came out, Madonna had managed to hold off any attempt at a totally "serious" record for almost 15 years, so she was welcome to try (and succeed). Actually,I would consider her 1989 album 'Like A Prayer' to be a "serious record".The critics were really impressed with that one.But yes,you are right about her having some kind of "radar".Madonna always seems to know what kind of record to make,when to make it,when to tour,when to make a controversial music video,who to collaborate with,when to take some time off,when to re-emerge,etc.Either she is one shrewd woman,or she has some really competent advisors and managers hanging around...lol... | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
DavidEye said: Aerogram said: subyduby said: Aerogram said: DavidEye said: The music biz is so much different than it used to be.Back when I was growing up,there was a thing called "fan loyalty",where fans supported an artist through every album.Nowadays,music has become "disposable",like fast food.Kids get into groups like The Backstreet Boys,and then a few albums later,they move on to something else.Very few artists are maintaining their success and it's not likely that most of these acts will have longevity and continued success. Actua
Actually, David,,we always had disposable acts and more enduring artists, especially in the pop market targeting teenagers. The 50s and 60s weren't all Elvis and the Fab Four... there were many one hit wonders and acts who vanished after two or three singles or LPs. In the 70's, we had classic examples -- ask The Osmonds and David Cassidy. It's no wonder, considering the audience targeted by poppy pop acts is almost completely replaced every five or six years. My sister had a big crush on David, but by the time she was 17, she was more into Pink Floyd and Led Zeppelin. Today's acts try to make the transition with their audience, but it is doomed to failure unless it's a major, growing talent. Unless you're George Michael, you don't go from formulaic brainless fun songs to full blown adult albums. Whoever can survive the crop of current teen acts will need a lot of talent and a pretty good radar, like your dahling Madonna.. you are right about madonna, and the fact that pop acts get replaced every 5 or 6 years. explain me please about the radar of madonna. thanks. Madonna has some kind of radar. I'm not sure if it's located in her belly button or elsewhere, but the girl has "flair"... she knows what to do to keep being seen as relevant without seeming to seek relevance too seriously. She has largely grown up with her audience. The same young boys who were fixated on her belly button in their late teens or early twenties have continued to follow her as she got into more threatening sexuality, then mixed it up a bit with religious and racial imagery, then it was back on the sexual frontier of pseudo-SM (the book Sex). By the time Ray of Light came out, Madonna had managed to hold off any attempt at a totally "serious" record for almost 15 years, so she was welcome to try (and succeed). Actually,I would consider her 1989 album 'Like A Prayer' to be a "serious record".The critics were really impressed with that one.But yes,you are right about her having some kind of "radar".Madonna always seems to know what kind of record to make,when to make it,when to tour,when to make a controversial music video,who to collaborate with,when to take some time off,when to re-emerge,etc.Either she is one shrewd woman,or she has some really competent advisors and managers hanging around...lol... Yes, Like a Prayer was more serious than its predecessors, but it still had a light side and never took itself that seriously as a whole. It was more of young adult's self-affirmation record (Express Yourself...) than the kind of serious, "mature" record going for an "artistic statement". Not that it makes it a lesser record (au contraire... I like Like a Prayer betta...) | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
People always assume that Madonna wasn't taken seriously as an artist until 'Ray Of Light'.They forget about early songs like "Live To Tell"(1986) and "Papa Don't Preach"(1986),which are much more mature and introspective than your typical "bubblegum" pop hit. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
DavidEye said: People always assume that Madonna wasn't taken seriously as an artist until 'Ray Of Light'.They forget about early songs like "Live To Tell"(1986) and "Papa Don't Preach"(1986),which are much more mature and introspective than your typical "bubblegum" pop hit.
It's just the kind of album Ray was, its tone and vibe... more instrospective and fewer nods to brainless fun. Madonna was playing the hedonistic game in one form or another before that, and I remember thinking Ray sounded too cold and "serious", and missing the fun gal.. So I'm just saying it was ""serious" record"" as a label - note the quote marks indicating I'm not sure how that makes it actually more serious (no quote marks) than Like a Prayer, for instance. Maybe you can tell me if Madonna actually set out to do something that would scream "serious artistic statement"? [This message was edited Tue Jul 2 5:42:27 PDT 2002 by Aerogram] | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Aerogram said: DavidEye said: People always assume that Madonna wasn't taken seriously as an artist until 'Ray Of Light'.They forget about early songs like "Live To Tell"(1986) and "Papa Don't Preach"(1986),which are much more mature and introspective than your typical "bubblegum" pop hit.
It's just the kind of album Ray was, its tone and vibe... more instrospective and fewer nods to brainless fun. Madonna was playing the hedonistic game in one form or another before that, and I remember thinking Ray sounded too cold and "serious", and missing the fun gal.. So I'm just saying it was ""serious" record"" as a label - note the quote marks indicating I'm not sure how that makes it actually more serious (no quote marks) than Like a Prayer, for instance. Maybe you can tell me if Madonna actually set out to do something that would scream "serious artistic statement"? [This message was edited Tue Jul 2 5:42:27 PDT 2002 by Aerogram] I see what you're saying.'Ray Of Light' was clearly meant to be her BIG ARTISTIC STATEMENT.The lyrics were serious and profound.There wasn't even a "sex song" anywhere on that CD (although "Skin" comes pretty close...lol...).She clearly did alot of soul-searching before and during the making of that album. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
back to the orignal question, some time ago in a forum, someone was complaining about the singles. i did not understand at the time about the problmes with singles. can u explain to me what is happening currently with them and why? | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
DavidEye said: People always assume that Madonna wasn't taken seriously as an artist until 'Ray Of Light'.They forget about early songs like "Live To Tell"(1986) and "Papa Don't Preach"(1986),which are much more mature and introspective than your typical "bubblegum" pop hit.
For the most part she wasn't. Bubblegum or not, it was rare any of her albums were on a critic's list prior to the late 90s. And even now she's not what is considered a critic's darling. Like A Prayer may have been taken more seriously than any of her prior albums, but nobody (aside from her own fans) was screaming from the rooftops about it. [This message was edited Tue Jul 2 19:10:19 PDT 2002 by Supernova] This post not for the wimp contingent. All whiny wusses avert your eyes. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Supernova said: DavidEye said: People always assume that Madonna wasn't taken seriously as an artist until 'Ray Of Light'.They forget about early songs like "Live To Tell"(1986) and "Papa Don't Preach"(1986),which are much more mature and introspective than your typical "bubblegum" pop hit.
For the most part she wasn't. Bubblegum or not, it was rare any of her albums were on a critic's list prior to the late 90s. And even now she's not what is considered a critic's darling. Like A Prayer may have been taken more seriously than any of her prior albums, but nobody (aside from her own fans) was screaming from the rooftops about it. [This message was edited Tue Jul 2 19:10:19 PDT 2002 by Supernova] Madonna will never be a "critic's darling".She's the type of artist you either love or hate (so is Prince).Not that it really MATTERS what critics think,but I think she is getting the props and recognition that she deserves. [This message was edited Wed Jul 3 4:08:36 PDT 2002 by DavidEye] | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
DavidEye said: Supernova said: DavidEye said: People always assume that Madonna wasn't taken seriously as an artist until 'Ray Of Light'.They forget about early songs like "Live To Tell"(1986) and "Papa Don't Preach"(1986),which are much more mature and introspective than your typical "bubblegum" pop hit.
For the most part she wasn't. Bubblegum or not, it was rare any of her albums were on a critic's list prior to the late 90s. And even now she's not what is considered a critic's darling. Like A Prayer may have been taken more seriously than any of her prior albums, but nobody (aside from her own fans) was screaming from the rooftops about it. [This message was edited Tue Jul 2 19:10:19 PDT 2002 by Supernova] Madonna will never be a "critic's darling".She's the type of artist you either love or hate (so is Prince).Not that it really MATTERS what critics think,but I think she is getting the props and recognition that she deserves. [This message was edited Wed Jul 3 4:08:36 PDT 2002 by DavidEye] Um, David, I think you're getting it a bit confused. That is, if you think critics hate(d) Prince. Prince, in fact, was THE critic's darling during the 80s. Actually, I've never seen him acquire the same type of acclaim from his first decade until TRC was released and his tour was going on. Maybe I got what you're saying confused though. This post not for the wimp contingent. All whiny wusses avert your eyes. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |