New topic
PrintableSupernova said: AaronForever said: Supernova said: AaronForever said: who's a better artist? someone that can paint a pretty landscape with perfect brush strokes? or someone who provokes thought and imitators with some rudimentary tools?
Oh my. If Madonna is provoking you to think, you guys weren't thinking much were ya? 
As far as imitators go; Nirvana has them too. And it's partly why rock music has declined since their shot heard 'round the world. You're reading too much into what I'm saying. Overall I don't think it's been "great" since sometime in the 70s. But even compared to the 80s (another decade I think is overrated overall) the 90s were worse for rock music. I was only reading what you wrote. Rock music today sucks because of Nirvana. That's what you said. Guns & Roses? Warrant? Nelson? Poison? Motley Crue? to quote Dr. Phi... "GET REAL!" Nirvana sucks because watered-down, fourth-generation wannabe's like Matchbox 20 don't know how to do it right?
See, this is where you're going to have to get real, Aaron. You're talking about the worst whose careers were MOSTLY enhanced most by regular MTV rotation - which really tells me a lot about your adoration of Madonna to begin with.  [/quote]
this was a VH1 poll, you know... Personally, I think GnR's debut album was pretty darn good for a rock album. It was an antidote to the Bon Jovi's, and other hair bands of the 80s. GnR's angst was that they seemed to live it as opposed to anything Bon Jovi or other groups of their ilk were peddling, and it seemed to come out in their music. Much like the Stones during the 60s. you slam Madonna and my love of her and then have the nerve to say something like what you did above? LOL LOL. [/quote]Neil Young, Springsteen (even without Born In The USA), The Clash, Tom Petty, Van Halen, Living Colour, John Hiatt, Peter Gabriel, REM, Sonic Youth, U2, Los Lobos, John Cougar, Midnight Oil, The Pretenders, Police, Elvis Costello, and yes that guy named Prince, and even Bob Dylan and the Stones released some of their most defining work of that decade. THAT rock music is superior to me than the overall climate of 90s rock.[/quote] right. but you said that rock music sucks because of and since Nirvana. that was the comment i was taking issue with. and half the people you list, suck ass anyway. Tom Petty? Van Halen? Los Lobos? you can do better. but anyway, back to Madonna.
hmmm. obviously Madonna's provoking YOU to think, or you wouldn't have so much to say about her, positive or negative, 20 years after she burst onto the scene Sure, she's provoked me to think about why her career has turned out the way it did. Unfortunately her music has never provoked me to think the same way a more important artist would. The things I've heard people say she puts on the table have been on that table for years, it's just been pushed to the backburner for a while. She's not the flashpoint of anything. apparently she's thought-provoking and a flahspoint enough for you to fill up an entire thread about her
for example, how many women before Madonna, particularly female artists, were able to have a sex life? to admit they had sex? liked to have sex? got to be both exalted and banally human while talking about it?
WOW!  Are you familiar with Bessie Smith??? Apparently not. Are you familiar with some of Aretha's earliest music??? Apparently not. Mae Glover?? Apparently not. The original "Nasty Girl" Betty Davis??? Apparently not.
perhaps not. and perhaps i don't care. and perhaps most other people don't either. if people haven't heard it, don't know it, if it's that obscure, those people aren't going to get voted "top artist" in some vh1 poll. and rightly so. how much attention, before Madonna, did issues like gay rights and AIDS awareness get talked about in a serious way?
You're really funny Aaron.
The first thing about AIDS being publicly discussed was in 1981 when America finally found out about this disease that was starting to affect a lot of people. If memory serves I think it was a significant article in one of the major city newspapers like maybe New York Times or LA Times. It wasn't a mainstream subject, unfortunately, until Rock Hudson got it. Then all of a sudden Hollywood notices there's this "new" disease. see my prior comments about Rock Hudson and how middle America views/viewed him. As far as gay rights; you've got to be kidding? I first noticed a lot of public people coming out of the closet after Slick Willie decided that gays should be able to serve in the military - though the "don't ask don't tell" policy ultimately failed. With all of the Slickster's faults there's no denying he was a gay advocate. That opened the floodgates a lot. MORE than anything in the 1980s. Left and right there were people coming out of the closet, and it wasn't as stigmatized as before. How much did gay rights issues receive prior to the military brouhaha about it?
all of this after Madonna began championing the cause. thanks for proving my point, toots. Meshell has never denied her bisexuality.
no. but then she came along in the early 90's, again, after Madonna had championed the cause. and whose record label is she signed to? hmmm? kd Lang has (as far as I know) never denied being a lesbian. no? i'm not sure on this one either. but again, her career didn't take off until the 90's, well after Madonna was championing the cause. Melissa Ethridge very publicly had David Crosby (bleh) give up the sperm for herself and Julie what'shername's baby.
yeah, in 1999 or 2000, wasn't it? yeah, pioneers... so late in the game? Rob Halford of Judas Preist never came out of the closet during JP's heyday in the 80s - he did in the late 90s.
I could think of more if I looked it up. again, after Madonna championed the cause
But prior to Slick Willie's administration...
there's Freddie Mercury, whose lifestyle wasn't really that covert (at least in England), and it took Magic Johnson's announcement in late 1991 (I'm sure he was influenced by Madonna!) to coax him to tell the world he was dying of AIDS. all of this AFTER Madonna championed the cause i mean, really... come up with some good examples prior to 1987/1988 when she was the only one talking about it and you might have a point.
But remember: we're talking about people with public lives already (with the exception of military soldiers). Not those gays and lesbians in the world in general.
of course not. and i'm not saying she was the only one to bring these issues into the spotlight. but she was one of the first. and one of the biggest names ever to do it and so often. before Madonna, single mothers were a punchline to a Dan Quayle/Murphy Brown joke.
I'm sorry, but unfortunately single mothers are still stigmatized in this society. Murphy Brown's demise seemed to coincide with that after people tuned in in record numbers because of the pub Quayle gave to her show. on this, we agree. but nobody gave Madonna shit for it. or Jodie Foster. or Melissa Etheridge. or Rosie O'donnell (well, not much anyway) or Calista Flockhart. since about... when... 96? when did Madonna have her baby again? the fact is, Madonna has so revolutionized not only popular culture, but AMERICAN culture, much like the Beatles did that it's often easy to obscure or glaze over exactly the commotions she caused throughout the 80's and 90's. but without them, we would probably be living in a much more uptight society than we do now, especially for women, and particularly for female artists.
Madonna and the Beatles in the same sentence. 
why not? you put the Stones and G'n'R together
I said: They should have had musicians vote. None of these performers would come close to a top 50 list. None of them, Aaron, and you know this!
TRON said: Well actually that's not true. VH1 ran a similar poll about 2-3 years ago called the '100 greatest women of rock 'n' roll'. They were voted on by the most prominent critics, journalists and musicians in the industry and Madonna faired very well. Certain mainstream pop artists that you'd expect to make a list like this based on popularity were not included such as Mariah, Celine, etc. I remember nearly the entire top 10 and it went something like this:
1. Aretha Franklin 2. Tina Turner 3. Janis Joplin 4. Bonnie Raitt 5. Joni Mitchell 6. Billie Holiday 7. Chrissie Hynde 8. Madonna 9. Annie Lennox 10. Carole King So I think it's fairly safe to say that Madonna is not only admired by the public but also by her peers. You're right TRON, I remember that poll. But I'm talking about musicians (and recording artists - whatever you want to call them) ONLY being polled. And not the newbies. Btw, Chrissie Hynde being above Madonna is the way it should be. a musician is a musician. but you asked for a poll done by musicians about musicians, and he came up with one placing Madonna very high, and you're still not satisfied. you never will be. [This message was edited Sun Sep 29 14:26:17 PDT 2002 by AaronForever] | |
- E-mail - orgNote -  Report post to moderator |
SkletonKee said: AaronForever said: Rock Hudson taught no one here about AIDS. it wasn't getting enough attention at the time to garner any widespread change of mind in middle America. in fact, i've found that people turned on him when they found out he was gay/had AIDS. even with the enlightenment that's come with the last decade, there are still people who smirk at Rock Hudson because it happened to him before there was much awareness. as for Magic Johnson, his case was revealed well into an era where there was more education and more attention brought to the subject by people like Madonna, Elizabeth Taylor and that Glaser guy. i'll agree with your first sentence...but, people learned about aids because of him...sure, it wasnt positive... and you forget, *you* follow Madonna, but middle america doesnt (for the most part)..thats why i jokingly referenced your sexuality...do you really think middle america mom and pop ran out to get that latest madonna interview in vogue? nooo...these are the same people that despiss her and all she represents...The Glasers, ill agree with...her speech at the Democratic Convention moved many..But, I dont think Madonna has ever had a platform *that big* to be heard...not one to your middle of american loving kin.. mom and pop didn't. but their kids did. and now those kids are in their 20's and 30's, and are beginning to be the decision makers and no doubt have a more enlightened opinion about such issues because they grew up with her talking about them. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Supernova said: You're reading too much into what I'm saying. Overall I don't think it's been "great" since sometime in the 70s. But even compared to the 80s (another decade I think is overrated overall) the 90s were worse for rock music.
AaronForever said: I was only reading what you wrote. Rock music today sucks because of Nirvana. That's what you said.
Let's keep it ALL in context Aaron, this is what I said READ CAREFULLY: As far as imitators go; Nirvana has them too. And it's partly why rock music has declined since their shot heard 'round the world.
Supernova said: Personally, I think GnR's debut album was pretty darn good for a rock album. It was an antidote to the Bon Jovi's, and other hair bands of the 80s. GnR's angst was that they seemed to live it as opposed to anything Bon Jovi or other groups of their ilk were peddling, and it seemed to come out in their music. Much like the Stones during the 60s.
AaronForever said: you slam Madonna and my love of her and then have the nerve to say something like what you did above? LOL LOL.
Oh sure. I firmly believe that GnR's debut album is superior to ANY hair band's music of the 80s. Supernova said: Neil Young, Springsteen (even without Born In The USA), The Clash, Tom Petty, Van Halen, Living Colour, John Hiatt, Peter Gabriel, REM, Sonic Youth, U2, Los Lobos, John Cougar, Midnight Oil, The Pretenders, Police, Elvis Costello, and yes that guy named Prince, and even Bob Dylan and the Stones released some of their most defining work of that decade. THAT rock music is superior to me than the overall climate of 90s rock.
AaronForever said: right. but you said that rock music sucks because of and since Nirvana. that was the comment i was taking issue with. and half the people you list, suck ass anyway. Tom Petty? Van Halen? Los Lobos? you can do better.
You're going to have to learn CONTEXT Aaron. I said the 80s rock music was SUPERIOR to the 90s rock music. Whether they suck or not is another issue. My contention is that it was better overall than the 90s. CONTEXT. Supernova said: Sure, she's provoked me to think about why her career has turned out the way it did. Unfortunately her music has never provoked me to think the same way a more important artist would. The things I've heard people say she puts on the table have been on that table for years, it's just been pushed to the backburner for a while. She's not the flashpoint of anything.
AaronForever said: apparently she's thought-provoking and a flahspoint enough for you to fill up an entire thread about her
 Yes, the flashpoint of unadulterated FAMDOM on Prince.org. And you'll notice that I've never undertaken a spirited debate here about her supposed musical impact.
Supernova said: WOW!
Are you familiar with Bessie Smith??? Apparently not. Are you familiar with some of Aretha's earliest music??? Apparently not. Mae Glover?? Apparently not. The original "Nasty Girl" Betty Davis??? Apparently not.AaronForever said: perhaps not. and perhaps i don't care. and perhaps most other people don't either. if people haven't heard it, don't know it, if it's that obscure, those people aren't going to get voted "top artist" in some vh1 poll. and rightly so.
Uhh, Bessie Smith and Aretha Franklin were NEVER obscure during their early years. And the poll was a UK one. It's a different mentality out there about things of this nature. Supernova said: As far as gay rights; you've got to be kidding? I first noticed a lot of public people coming out of the closet after Slick Willie decided that gays should be able to serve in the military - though the "don't ask don't tell" policy ultimately failed. With all of the Slickster's faults there's no denying he was a gay advocate. That opened the floodgates a lot. MORE than anything in the 1980s. Left and right there were people coming out of the closet, and it wasn't as stigmatized as before. How much did gay rights issues receive prior to the military brouhaha about it?
AaronForever said: all of this after Madonna began championing the cause. thanks for proving my point, toots.
Nice try Aaron. But the timeline is not Madonna's it's stated quite clearly that it's Slick Willie's. CONTEXT my friend, CONTEXT. Supernova said: Meshell has never denied her bisexuality.
AaronForever said: no. but then she came along in the early 90's, again, after Madonna had championed the cause.
After Slick Willie did in a more public way. Also in a more legislative way which is more important (but remember, I'm not saying the don't ask don't tell thing was successful). and whose record label is she signed to? hmmm?
Signed to Maverick Records by FREDDY DEMANN. NOT Madonna. And she also had offers from other labels at the same time. She wanted a smaller label. Now she's disgruntled. Should we give credit to Madonna for that too? Supernova said: Melissa Ethridge very publicly had David Crosby (bleh) give up the sperm for herself and Julie what'shername's baby.
AaronForever said: yeah, in 1999 or 2000, wasn't it? yeah, pioneers... so late in the game?
Ethridge's gayosity was well-known before she hooked up with Julie what'shername. AaronForever said: all of this AFTER Madonna championed the cause i mean, really... come up with some good examples prior to 1987/1988 when she was the only one talking about it and you might have a point.
You've missed the point ENTIRELY. If I were to come up with examples prior to the ones I mentioned my point would not be that it was Slick Willie's gay advocacy ethos that helped usher in the climate, now would it? I'm proving MY points. Supernova said: Madonna and the Beatles in the same sentence.
AaronForever said: why not? you put the Stones and G'n'R together
CONTEXT Aaron. In terms of the raunchy rock and roll lifestyle, I said they seemed to have lived it, like the Stones. Nothing more, nothing less. Come on, keep up now. Supernova said: You're right TRON, I remember that poll. But I'm talking about musicians (and recording artists - whatever you want to call them) ONLY being polled. And not the newbies.
Btw, Chrissie Hynde being above Madonna is the way it should be. AaronForever said: a musician is a musician. but you asked for a poll done by musicians about musicians, and he came up with one placing Madonna very high, and you're still not satisfied. you never will be.
Oh please. I said about poll by musicians - TRON's poll was clearly given to critics and journalists, not just musicians, which VH1 has said, and which TRON also mentioned. CONTEXT dammit! 
But like Kee, I do realize that the gay issue is mainly what puts her in your favor. It's a bias. I'm coming at it from the musical side of things. I've never said anything about her single mother status. CONTEXT. Keep it in context and your points may turn out better. Otherwise it's a waste of time for both of us. And actually, you may think I take issue in some places where I clearly don't: I've said that Madonna's influence was more a social one than a musical one, and you keep hammering that point home with what you bring up in your posts. This post not for the wimp contingent. All whiny wusses avert your eyes. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Uhh, Bessie Smith and Aretha Franklin were NEVER obscure during their early years. And the poll was a UK one. It's a different mentality out there about things of this nature. yes, a mindset steeped in a rich culture of hisotry and the arts, no?
Nice try Aaron. But the timeline is not Madonna's it's stated quite clearly that it's Slick Willie's. CONTEXT my friend, CONTEXT.
right. but you're completely changing the context. Madonna was a pioneer in this area whether Clinton got into office or not. she did campaign fairly heavily for him, btw, for a pop star anyway. After Slick Willie did in a more public way. Also in a more legislative way which is more important (but remember, I'm not saying the don't ask don't tell thing was successful). Clinton didn't do a damn thing for gays. That's one of the stumbling blocks for me liking him as a president. I'll never get over him signing that horrendous "defense of marriage act." your context is wasted on me, one who bears a grudge against him on the very issues we're discussing. Signed to Maverick Records by FREDDY DEMANN. NOT Madonna. And she also had offers from other labels at the same time. She wanted a smaller label. Now she's disgruntled. Should we give credit to Madonna for that too? no, she should blame Freddy Demann. he was in charge when she became disgruntled. Ethridge's gayosity was well-known before she hooked up with Julie what'shername.
correct, but well into the 90's, after Madonna had championed the cause
You've missed the point ENTIRELY. If I were to come up with examples prior to the ones I mentioned my point would not be that it was Slick Willie's gay advocacy ethos that helped usher in the climate, now would it? I'm proving MY points.
my point is that Madonna built the climate among the youth that paved the way for whatever you're saying Clinton did. which was damn little. Supernova said:Madonna and the Beatles in the same sentence.
AaronForever said:why not? you put the Stones and G'n'R together CONTEXT Aaron. In terms of the raunchy rock and roll lifestyle, I said they seemed to have lived it, like the Stones. Nothing more, nothing less. Come on, keep up now. I'm keeping up fine. You first said that Nirvana is the reason why rock music in the 90's sucks and then compared Guns & Roses to the Rolling Stones (and in a positive way, no less!)
But like Kee, I do realize that the gay issue is mainly what puts her in your favor. It's a bias. I'm coming at it from the musical side of things. I've never said anything about her single mother status. CONTEXT. Keep it in context and your points may turn out better. Otherwise it's a waste of time for both of us. And actually, you may think I take issue in some places where I clearly don't: I've said that Madonna's influence was more a social one than a musical one, and you keep hammering that point home with what you bring up in your posts.
context context context... the context that we're arguing in was about what makes a great artist, and i said one that provokes thought and challenges & changes society. but then you bring in Bill Clinton, Nirvana, etc. i'm sticking with the context. you're off on some other deal... but i love ya anyway
and stop screwing up the quotes! it's hard as hell to fix that shit right after you go and mess them all up [This message was edited Sun Sep 29 15:20:42 PDT 2002 by AaronForever] | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
AaronForever said: After Slick Willie did in a more public way. Also in a more legislative way which is more important (but remember, I'm not saying the don't ask don't tell thing was successful).
Aaron said: Clinton didn't do a damn thing for gays. That's one of the stumbling blocks for me liking him as a president. I'll never get over him signing that horrendous "defense of marriage act." your context is wasted on me, one who bears a grudge against him on the very issues we're discussing.
Once again you're reading a bit too much into it. I'm not saying Clinton did a lot for gays. I'm saying he was an obvious gay advocate. That was clear. How far he took it is another issue. But I maintain he took it further than the likes of Madonna. Supernova said: Signed to Maverick Records by FREDDY DEMANN. NOT Madonna. And she also had offers from other labels at the same time. She wanted a smaller label. Now she's disgruntled. Should we give credit to Madonna for that too?
Aaron said: no, she should blame Freddy Demann. he was in charge when she became disgruntled.
Fair enough. But I don't think that's how she sees it. Supernova said: Ethridge's gayosity was well-known before she hooked up with Julie what'shername.
Aaron said: correct, but well into the 90's, after Madonna had championed the cause
You are such a LOON!
Supernova said: Madonna and the Beatles in the same sentence.
AaronForever said: why not? you put the Stones and G'n'R together
CONTEXT Aaron. In terms of the raunchy rock and roll lifestyle, I said they seemed to have lived it, like the Stones. Nothing more, nothing less. Come on, keep up now.
Aaron said: I'm keeping up fine. You first said that Nirvana is the reason why rock music in the 90's sucks and then compared Guns & Roses to the Rolling Stones (and in a positive way, no less!)
Yes, but not musically. In terms of lifestyle influencing their music. Which is a comparison that could work with many artists and groups. I just think GnR, though I don't own any of their music, is a better ROCK group than the hair bands of their day. Supernova said: But like Kee, I do realize that the gay issue is mainly what puts her in your favor. It's a bias. I'm coming at it from the musical side of things. I've never said anything about her single mother status. CONTEXT. Keep it in context and your points may turn out better. Otherwise it's a waste of time for both of us. And actually, you may think I take issue in some places where I clearly don't: I've said that Madonna's influence was more a social one than a musical one, and you keep hammering that point home with what you bring up in your posts.
Aaron said: context context context... the context that we're arguing in was about what makes a great artist, and i said one that provokes thought and challenges & changes society. but then you bring in Bill Clinton, Nirvana, etc.
i'm sticking with the context. you're off on some other deal... but i love ya anyway That's cuz you led me there!
and stop screwing up the quotes! it's hard as hell to fix that shit right after you go and mess them all up
[This message was edited Sun Sep 29 15:20:42 PDT 2002 by AaronForever] My quoting style is better than yours. Mmmkayyy?
 Aaron
Supernova This post not for the wimp contingent. All whiny wusses avert your eyes. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Supernova said: mistermaxxx said: Puffy is a Talent Scout more than anything else&maybe a DJ at best.but we all know He has Chucky Thompson&Other Ghost Writers&Producers.Madonna is a Artist who is in a Business where She has to Hustle for Her Loot plain&Simple.no matter how you dress it up everybody Signed to a Major Label has to adhere to all the Stipulations in there Contracts.
And this has really nothing to do with anything I said. It applies to everyone that sells records. when People are supporting you as long as People have been behind Madonna She is doing something right.
Redundant. sooner or later you have to acknowledge Her Musical Impact?
I don't have to acknowledge anything I don't feel is true at all. Just as you don't have to acknowledge Springsteen's relevance at all. there is so much to being a Artist&Madonna from what I can tell has Her Stuff together on it.many trends have come&gone since She came on the scene 20 years back&yet She Still is Fresh amongest Her Hardcore Fans now what do you suppose the answer to that is?
I could say the same thing for Springsteen, but you'd never agree. Just as I won't agree that Madonna is a MUSICAL ARTIST. I've never denied her impact at all. I deny any sort of lasting musical influence/impact that the other ladies I mentioned have. NOT EVEN CLOSE. The other stuff you'll never be able to sell me on, just as nobody is able to sell you on Springsteen's greatness - whether it was/is past or in the present. I think we're even and our work is done here. mistermaxxx | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Oh, thanks Mistermaxxx. Likewise.This post not for the wimp contingent. All whiny wusses avert your eyes. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
nothing wrong at all with putting Madonna&the Beatles mentioned together.what was the Beatles Music from 60-64 before the LSD Trip? they were written songs along the lines of what Backstreet Boys,N-Synch,Boyz11Men were doing.then they Hit LSD&George Martin twisted the Knobs&they changed there whole Game.it's "POP Music no matter how you Slice or Dice it.that is what some folks seem to forget.Some have more Overall Talent&Some do it Better than others&whatnot but at the end of the day to quote Duke Ellington: It's either Good or Bad to the Consumer&there Ears.I'll say again it's always the Songs.as Quincy Jones would say,Madonna has struck a chord with People.20 Years Later&there is still debates on Her speaks Highly of Her IMHO.She has long ago made Her Mark. mistermaxxx | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
mistermaxxx said: at the end of the day to quote Duke Ellington: It's either Good or Bad to the Consumer&there Ears.
Too black and white for me. Everything isn't at those extremes. There's plenty in between. Example: I don't think a lot of Madonna's music is "bad" at all. Though I don't think a lot of it is great or even "good" either. Some things are just middle of the road. This post not for the wimp contingent. All whiny wusses avert your eyes. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
blahbedyblahblah... why don't you write a few more pages of text on why Madonna is irrelevant cos, you know, when someone is irrelevant, it's a done deal. it's understood. you don't have to explain it
and stop smashing my face in with hammers! that smarts! [This message was edited Sun Sep 29 18:11:27 PDT 2002 by AaronForever] | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
SkletonKee said: and as far as your single mother rant, well...Julia was a show about a single mother and that ran in the 70s. The joke wasnt on single mothers but *on* Dan Quayle...tisk tisk...
But Kee, wasn't Julia a divorced single mother? The stigma to single motherhood is usually placed by the right wingers who think it's despicable that females would plan to start a family without a father. Divorced mothers don't plan to become single parents when they get married and have kids. This post not for the wimp contingent. All whiny wusses avert your eyes. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Supernova said: mistermaxxx said: at the end of the day to quote Duke Ellington: It's either Good or Bad to the Consumer&there Ears.
Too black and white for me. Everything isn't at those extremes. There's plenty in between. Example: I don't think a lot of Madonna's music is "bad" at all. Though I don't think a lot of it is great or even "good" either. Some things are just middle of the road. mistermaxxx | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
SkletonKee said: DavidEye said: ***Her own movie "Swept Away" comes out in late October. oh yeah, and im sure you all fams will be saying this is the greatest film ever when it comes out and her performance rocks.. this despite the fact that the film has been universally panned thus far. 
I didn't say the film would be successful.I've always said that Madonna should accept smaller,supporting roles in movies instead of trying to "carry" a film herself.Her performance in "The Next Best Thing" was embarassing. There! Now you can't call me a Madonna asskisser [This message was edited Mon Sep 30 0:04:28 PDT 2002 by DavidEye] | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Hi Supernova!
I guess that the same would answer that the « best writers of all times » are : - John Grisham - Michael Crichton - Tom Clancy 2 of the greatest « female singers » of the 20th century for the occidental world, let’s say :  
Ella & Maria (no, not Carey ) | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Just so I don't piss off Davideye too much, I won't say what's really on my mind, but it should be proof what bullshit this is with Kylie and Britney on the list. I hate to say it, but the brits just love crappy pop music. Davideye, you better have a thick skin my friend because when her movie opens and it gets slammed by the public and critics, you better be ready for all the "I told you so's". | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |