midnightmover said:

_____


shut up michael flatley !

midnightmover said:

i cant believe Im goint to write this but i actually still wouldnt disagree entirely. Her tours are very polished and professional now, still entertaining, but not a patch on her earlier tours, particularly The Girlie Show.

peppeken said:

I haven't called anyone names, so which one of us is the asshole?

midnightmover said:

Well the article gave me quite a few chuckles not least of all the quote referenced above.
Thanks for posting the article.

midnightmover said:

Now this is my kind of thread!

How dare you Madonna fans come in here to ruin the Anti-Madonna vibe!
I thought this thread was for NON- Madonna fans! I'm just kidding, so don't get your knickers all in a bunch!

T4P midnightmover

LOL that article is pathetic and tired just like all the Madonna haters out there,People can't stand it because Madonna's still around breaking records while there faves are faded stars or druggies.Madonna will go down as one of the most famous women that ever lived on planet earth and Madonna's got dance scholarship to the University of Michigan after graduating from high school.After being convinced by her ballet teacher to pursue a dance career, Madonna left the University of Michigan at the end of her sophomore year, 1977, and moved to New York City.Madonna's worked for whats she's got and never had it handed to her, so you can like it or not.

Ifsixwuz9 said:

I read this article in a public place and I laughed out loud when I got to that line. The humor in this article is so obvious I didn't think anyone could miss it, but it seems to have gone over the heads of some. Anyway, glad to see not everyone is mortally offended by it.

madsgreat said:

Hey.. university of Michigan isn't ABT!!!

All I know for sure is that Madonna's chaine turns suck! Even I was shocked at how bad they were. But she's very flexible.. I'll give her that.

And it's true Madonna has had to work very hard at her mediocrity, I'll give her that, too! Well... just that fact she struggled is what I'm talking about.
So..

C'mon don't ya think she's a little "much" with this faux intellectual business. I mean she made her name off MTV, but she won't allow her own kids to watch. I guess she's fine with "corrupting" not so much the morals.. but the intelligence of other people's kids, and not her own?

I do agree with Julie, the hypocrisy is quite entertaining if nothing more. Why is Madonna taken more seriously than any other artist in her genre? That's what I don't understand? It's fine to enjoy "her" music, as it is, but I just don't think she's necessarily the artist she thinks she is--and then by extension convinced her fans!!..

But that's ok.

All that said, I can't say she's not talented in some way. And I do think she's extremely intelligent and a hard worker. So.. I'll give credit where credit is due.
[Edited 4/14/08 10:25am]

madsgreat said:

Actually, I didn't like the article for other reasons...It came off as pure opinion and not enough historical context to back it up...And hey, I dig some of Amy Winehouse's stuff, but she does NOT expose Madonna's lack of talent anymore than Feist does...It's two different lanes...However, the best deconstruction of Madonna's career I've read was The Guardian's piece of Madonna, Michael Jackson and Prince below...To me, it sums up the fact that Madonna has gotten a free pass, but still makes it known that she is a hard worker...I think the truth can be on both sides of the fence....

Time to take a bow
This year, three of the biggest names in music - Michael Jackson, Madonna and Prince - hit 50. They've each sold millions of records in long careers. But what do their futures hold - and what is the point of a middle-aged pop star, asks Joe Queenan

Thursday February 7, 2008
The Guardian

Rock'n'roll, unlike jazz, blues, cabaret and classical music, has never figured out what to do with ageing deities. No one told Duke Ellington or Arthur Rubinstein or Lionel Hampton or Andres Segovia to stop playing when they turned 30, 40, 50 or, for that matter, 90. Smoothies such as Tony Bennett retain a strong appeal well into their 80s; they are not thought of as old, but as venerable. Luciano Pavarotti's declining gifts in his autumnal years were graciously overlooked by his adherents out of respect - or perhaps even gratitude - for his youthful triumphs. People knew that he was finished. That was no reason to stop adoring him. As for blues singers, not only does the public not resent their being a bit long in the tooth, they expect them to be old, acting as if BB King and Robert Johnson and Muddy Waters were born brandishing canes and foraging about for their reading glasses.

Only in the rock genre does the ageing process make the public feel uncomfortable; only in the world of rock do middle-aged performers feel pressure to exit the scene before they start making fools of themselves. Sometimes this pressure comes from the public, but the most vehement exhortations to blow town come from music critics and pundits who, with the exception of a few chosen ones - Bob Dylan, Leonard Cohen, Patti Smith, Neil Young, David Bowie and other beneficiaries of some sort of cultural coolness pass - would like all the Claptons and Collinses and Joels and Stewarts to get off the stage, go into retirement, take up Scottish country dancing, move to Spain, play more cribbage, or just curl up and die.

This year, Michael Jackson, Madonna and Prince will turn 50. Even for those of us who never seriously believed that any of the Beatles would actually turn 64 - which John Lennon and George Harrison did not - it is hard to believe that this trio of performers, who once symbolised the insolence and iconoclasm and adrenaline of youth, are now walking museum pieces, just as it is hard to believe that former teen idols Johnny Depp and Keanu Reeves are now both in their 40s. It is not just that people such as this become famous when they are young; to a large degree these people become famous because they are young.

Ageing performers whose records are ignored and whose concerts no longer sell out often grumble that the music they are recording today is just as good as it ever was. This is not true: rock stars never do work in their 30s that approaches the quality and originality of the work of their teens and 20s. Fame brings too many distractions, even the mildest affluence is the implacable enemy of creativity, and, most important, musical styles change and musicians can rarely change with them. A sure sign of panic is the statutory David Byrne/Peter Gabriel/ Paul Simon trip to the developing world in search of inspiration.

But even more to the point is that being just slightly older than the audience was always part of the Faustian marketing arrangement. Pop music, which is as much about demographics and style as it is about culture, is for the most part produced by the young and targeted at the young. This is because young people do not want to listen to their parents' music, even if their parents' music is listenable. It also means that performers need to get started early and clean up quick because the spotlight dims fast. Audiences may grudgingly accept that they themselves are ageing, but they expect their idols to remain young for ever. The results are often grotesque: singers who cannot remember the lyrics, lead guitarists who cannot remember what key they are supposed to be playing in, drummers who cannot keep the beat, flautists who can no longer support themselves on a single leg, rhythm guitarists who have to do the entire show sitting on a chair. Some performers can survive the stigma of age, but most rock stars end up playing private parties in Los Angeles, corporate functions in Osaka, free concerts in Paramus, New Jersey. If they are lucky.

None of the rules governing ageing rock stars apply to Jackson, Madonna and Prince, just as none of them apply to Mick Jagger or Aretha Franklin. These performers are like the Queen; they can rule as long as they like because they have the sceptre. Economists may charge that this is unfair and counterproductive: a misallocation of resources that obstructs the rise of subsequent generations. Jackson, Madonna and Prince don't care about that, and neither, by the looks of it, does the Queen.

The three stars came to fame by very different paths and have stayed famous in very different ways: Jackson was on top of the world as a child, then washed up at age 20, then the biggest star in the world at age 25, and now appears to be down for the count. Prince was up, then down, then way, way, way down and is now back on top. Madonna has never left the big time since she arrived in it, has never experienced a serious career slump. She's like the iPod; she came out of nowhere, and no one is quite sure how she became as huge as she became.

Stylistically, the three have little in common, nor do their careers resemble one another's. The tightest link between them is that they all grew up in America's heartland: Jackson in Gary, Indiana, Madonna in the suburbs of Detroit, Prince in Minneapolis. This may prove that young people marooned in the provinces are more ambitious than kids who grow up in New York and Los Angeles. Or it may just be a coincidence.

Then there's the fact that Prince is a rock star, and a remarkably important one, while Madonna and Jackson are mainstream pop stars. Prince and Madonna are linked by appearances in memorable motion pictures (Desperately Seeking Susan, Purple Rain) that somehow managed to survive their woeful acting, and each made one of the most ghastly motion pictures ever (Under the Cherry Moon, The Next Best Thing). Madonna actually made more than one of the ghastliest movies ever: Shanghai Surprise and Who's That Girl? are right up there in the Hall of Shame too. Nor is Body of Evidence anything to write home about.

This flirtation with Hollywood suggests that both Prince and Madonna would have liked to break out of the pop music straitjacket and establish themselves as stars in another genre, but had to throw in the towel, Prince because his pencil-thin moustache made him look like an out-of-work gigolo, Madonna because her arboreal acting actually got worse over the years.
Jackson, Madonna and Prince took entirely different paths to the top and have dealt with the maturation process in entirely different ways.

Jackson, a child star who has now been in the public consciousness for more than four decades, pre-empted the question of getting too old for the rock star job by undergoing a physical and psychological transformation that turned a very handsome, very likable young man into a reclusive, grotesque, anti-social freak. Jackson, the biggest star in the world in the 38 years since the Beatles broke up, never had to worry about looking preposterous at the age of 50; he had started to look preposterous by the age of 35.

It is impossible to say if Jackson, because of the child molestation charges that have dogged him for many years, could ever make the kind of comeback Prince has pulled off, as it would require a massive shift of attitudes on the part of the public. The public is ultimately forgiving, although it seems unlikely.

Less gifted than Jackson or Prince - as a singer, as a dancer, as a musician - Madonna is really a cabaret act who somehow managed to find a colossal world stage. Long the beneficiary of a cowed or indulgent press so smitten by Madonna the in-your-face feminist that it takes little note of her laughable acting, mechanical dancing and bubblegum song catalogue, she has begun to resemble Mount Rushmore: a revered icon whose fundamental cheesiness goes unnoticed because she's been around so long. Because she has been reinventing herself from the beginning - pop star, dominatrix, ingenue, fallen-away Catholic, matinee idol, children's book author, philosopher, Kabbalah devotee, political activist, Michigan suburbanite with phony British accent - Madonna has never had to compete with a single youthful image that is frozen in her fans' minds, in the way that the Rolling Stones or Sinead O'Connor or even Britney Spears has had to. There have been so many Madonnas that at this point one more incarnation isn't going to make much difference. Nor can there be any denying that by constantly shifting the target, she has made a little go a long way. She is a guerrilla chanteuse who always makes sure the battle is fought on her turf. And she works hard for the money, a lot harder than most of her male contemporaries.

Prince has also had several distinct phases to his career, though he never completely stopped being Prince. Hardcore fans remember his daring quasi-burlesque act long before the public discovered him in the Purple Rain era. By then, some of his early fans already felt he was going soft. No matter. Arriving on the grand stage at the same moment that Jackson was recording intergalactic hits such as Billy Jean and Beat It, Prince had to accept the somewhat thankless role as the second most fascinating, second most compelling, second weirdest star in pop music for several years. He then launched into a long phase of career self-immolation - refusing to be called Prince, warring with his record company, releasing too many records too often with too little top-quality material on them - basically sabotaging his professional life through a mixture of pique, self-indulgence and personal idiosyncrasy.

When he finally did make his astounding comeback a few years back, a triumph that culminated in his appearance at the Super Bowl half-time show last January followed by his month-long residency in London in August, he was coming back from the dead.

Prince hadn't been a vital force in music for years. He had been written off as a guy who used to be big in the 80s. Of course, the truth is, Prince is not a vital force in today's music, nor are his two celebrated contemporaries. True, nobody who can bring a record company to its knees or rewrite the rules of concert promotion the way Madonna has, or who has risen from the ashes to have the biggest-grossing tour of the year and play the Super Bowl the way Prince has, can fairly be called a has-been. Yet none of the three artists turning 50 exerts any real creative importance over the music scene any more. Jackson doesn't make records and he doesn't tour. Prince's shows are the very highest-class nostalgia - terrific, but certainly not anything new.

The same is true of his recordings: the new stuff sounds like the old stuff. As for Michigan's most famous alumna, people don't come to Madonna shows to hear new songs; they come to see Madonna.

Unlike pathetic has-beens who peddle their musty wares from one provincial town to the next, Madonna and Prince play in huge venues and command huge ticket prices. But musically, the shows are the same as the shows Joe Cocker and the Lovin' Spoonful and the survivors of Yes are doing these days. They're oldies shows.

Nobody associated with popular music ever wants to believe that it is first, last and foremost a business, much less that it is a business in which the same rules apply as in any other sphere of economic activity. In real life, middle-aged people cling to their high-paying jobs for as long as possible, resenting the younger employees nipping at their heels, all the while reassuring themselves that the youngsters can't get the job done the way they can. This sounds like every middle-aged rock star who ever lived, every former headliner who once played the Hollywood Bowl and is now playing small clubs in Norway and the cultural centre in Amiens. Nobody ever gives up a good job, with a nice salary and benefits and lots of prestige just because younger people think that they're out of step with the times or because they've stopped being cool. People in their 50s and 60s have more important things to do than worry about being cool.

Decades ago, critics wondered out loud how Jagger was possibly going to be able to keep a straight face singing Street Fighting Man when he had reached 30. Then they wondered how he would do it at 40. There was a general consensus that Jagger was starting to look a bit silly exhorting his fans to man the barricades at age 50, but now that he is well past 60 and the Stones have just finished another record-smashing three-year tour, it is no longer pertinent or relevant to ask how a near-septuagenarian can continue to strut and fret his two hours upon the stage the way he does, singing about revolutions that didn't happen, social upheavals that never occurred. A long, long time ago, Jagger made it clear that he was not giving up his job, not only because of the money and the adulation, but because the evidence seemed to suggest that, even though it was indeed only rock'n'roll, he rather liked it.

Prince and Madonna probably feel the same way: as long as the crowds keep coming, as long as they keep cheering, and as long as they keep paying, we're going to keep going out on the road. What Michael Jackson is thinking is anybody's guess.
[Edited 4/14/08 10:47am]

I think Julie's article is accurate! LOL

She mentioned the Sex book.. But the difference between Madge and some other celebrities displaying their privates is Madge was smart enough to make some money from it!

Also, hasn't Madonna said she doesn't let her kids watch TV? I didn't know about reading magazines though..

And.. what was the topic of the children's book she wrote.... about the other kids being jealous?? It was stupid and weird.

Plus. Julie used a quote from Madge, too, about Madge and her fans breathing the same air!


midnightmover brought-up her acceptance speech at the R&R Hall of fame. I'm proud to say, I didn't watch the show, so I don't know what she said.
I'll see if I can find it online somewhere..

Madonna fans need to lighten-up a little. It's funny..
[Edited 4/14/08 11:02am]

If we get our chance 2 fawn over Dame Esther's every move it's only fair
things like this get their own thread.

But Midnightmover..(content aside) what an unfortunate choice in using Julie Burchill,
self proclaimed patron saint of chavs , 2 champion your 'dislike'..

She's like a cross between Foxnews gossip columnist Roger Friedman & a schizophrenic Mann Coulter.

Isel said:

For real!

this thread was intended to serve as bait.

I find it strange that the mods did not act.

Isel said:

Oh I hear you....But, besides the fact that I could hardly be called a huge Madonna fan, I just think that this piece can only be taken as a humorous middle finger to ol' girl...Again, if we are going to say anything about Madonna, I would like folks to talk about her culture vulture tendencies; or the fact that her iconic stature has a lot to do with her being the embodiment of the sexy, white blond (yeah,we know its not her real hair color..lol)...I think that's more of a worthy discussion than Madonna's cooch.....

Well, here's the one thing that seems to hold true about Today's Madonna:



She does really look to hate the whole thing now, and the footage of her shows seems very joyless. She seems very unhappy but very determined to stay relevant and on or near the top.

She doesn't even seem to appreciate her fans much either, but she's not alone on that anymore!

She's more machine now.

murph said:

Now this article is light years away from the Burchill's hack job. It indicates a strong working knowledge of each artist's history and common threads -- generational, professional and personal -- among the three artists, who are the music trinity of the 1980's and prototypes for many failed and successful stars today. I don't agree with everything said, but I thought the comments, particularly the ones I highlighted, were very observant (if not completely accurate).

I love that! Especially in reference to faces/names that bombard media on a constant basis. You really have to live under a rock not to hear about some of these people, it's fucking annoying

'Pompous, pretentious, humourless'

So?

Oh... I found Madonna's acceptance speech!!!

I felt like she was taking in the moment-- or 1/2hour!


She did take herself a bit too seriously, but then again.. I think she really seemed to appreciate being honored!

Now Justin.. Geezz. I don't like him. The best part of the "presentation" was when the audience seemed to "boo" when he brought-up dating Britney-a Madonna wannabe(??) I guess?? I just don't like to anyone kicked repeated when he/she is down.

It IS very ironic and telling Madonna is the best selling female music artist--but she's not known singing or playing an instrument!!

But ya know, I was listening to Bruce Springsteen on the way home, and his voice isn't all that great. Bob Dylan's voice isn't all that great..

So I think a lot of music artists get away with not having great voices.

Glindathegood said:

You must not have read "Madonna" by Andrew Morton. He mentioned twice about how she did pose naked publicly and actually has interviews from the photographer and other crew members who were there when she was taking pics for her Sex book. The photo of her trying to hitch-hike naked was taken right by a real highway and one of the crew members, I believe it could have even been her bodyguard/lover at the time (can't remember), was right off camera with a long jacket in case a highway patrol officer happened to drive by while they were taking the picture. He also mentions about how in one photo, Madonna walked into a coffee shop naked and the owner threatened to call the cops so the whole crew had to run out of the establishment. I didn't read the article above, because I've already read the Andrew Morton book to know that even though he praises Mrs. Ritchie, he can't blind himself to the fact that Madonna is a woman who thrives off of attention, no matter how she gets it...something that I knew a long time before I even read that book. This article may be based solely off of one jounalist's opinion, but from all the people who Mr. Morton interviewed in his book that were intimate with Madonna, their opinions are based off of facts, so opinion or not, Madonna, simply put, is a media whore who will do whatever it takes to keep her name out there...she's been doing it for decades now, so she's really just a smart lady and a clever businesswoman more than a good singer/artist after everything is all said and done...feel free to chalk this up to being just my non-obssessed Madonna opinion if it makes you feel any better

Isel said:

That’s exactly my point and what I'm trying to get at in my comparison to the Spice Girls. I do think Madonna's a great pop star, nothing more. Spice Girls were a great pop act too, nothing more. On an artistic status she's nowhere near Beatles territory like fans make her out to be, she’s more in line with other pop acts. I agree with everything else you said too.

CrozzaUK said:

Your acting like her doing it solo is what makes her accomplishments so extrordinary but it is far easier to stay on top and do what you want when your a solo artist and only looking out for yourself. When your with a group you have everyone else to worry about, you have to compromise, you're not able to express yourself individually and there's the biggest worry about people leaving which is what was the Spice Girls down fall. Not everyone wants the same things so it's hard to get a final package out.

And it's not like Madonna got where she is strictly by herself anyway, she's constantly had people helping her along the way.

I'm almost tempted to think this article is an ironic piss-take because she pulls out all the usual cliche criticisms "She's pretentious, she can't sing, she's got a greasy twat" I mean, give me a break! Honestly I think the root of the criticism is plain jealousy. These articles never seem to be able to bridge the gap from moaning "She can't sing and she's the biggest selling female artist..WAH!!!" to finding any possibility of how she's managed to achieve this and giving her any credit for it, like it's just an accident that she's managed to remain relevant for 25 years despite constant ill will such as in this article. Take a minute and step back and consider someone wrote and published this article about YOU. How the fuck would you deal with that consistently and still want to face the public and do interviews and not appear slightly humorless? If she had paid any attention to this at the start of her career she wouldn't be one of the most succesful recording artists that has ever lived. To me, it makes her even more incredible.

hellomoto said:

Well Im merely trying to point out that i actually DO think the acts are light years apart - whether comparing individually or collectively. You narrow the field down to just singing and dancing - but if its a case of just being a mediocore singer/dancer why isnt every famewhore with half a talent doing it? Why aren't the girls in the spice girls who are better singers and dancers than madonna, who've probably got access to as much exposure and marketing power as she - acheiving the same success? Why in the decade they've been on the scene, have they not amassed the same kind of body of work as madonna did in her first ten years - because they dont have what she has. im not going to call it talent because people dont seem to be able to seperate talent away from being anything other than singing or dancing on this forum - but whatever she has - they and pretty much 90% of the music industry dont have.

CrozzaUK said:

I'm not narrowing it down to just singing and dancing. It's about performing, stage presence and success as well. They did achieve the same kind of success as Madonna just not for as long period of time. And even Madonna only achieved that kind of success for the first 7 years of her career. They got back together last year, they havent been together for the past 10 years so of course they havent got the same body of work. I think if Geri had of stayed in the group they would of had the same impact pop culture wise as Madonna. I think they already did in their 2 short years of being together. Just look at the reaction to their reunion tour, I havent seen that kind of reaction with many other pop acts let alone ones who reunite. I think they did have what she had. I think your intentionally forgetting how huge they were in 96/97/98 and acting like they were just like any other girl band who might have created mild hysteria. Don't you remember the storm they created? How old were you when they first came out? I have never seen an act take over the world and create that much hysteria since.

mynameisnotsusan said:

Poor Madonna! Everyone is jealous of her. She can't just get a break! I guess that's why she wrote that dumb-ass children's book!

Some of you all are taking this article way too seriously! All this writer is doing is poking some fun at Madonna.

Madonna has gotten a lot of praise by the media in recent years. I just think this writer is pointing-out that Madonna has a little room for criticism. If she and her fans can accept the praise, then why can't the both take the criticism--particularly when it's meant in fun.

midnightmover said:

Interesting article...it did feel a bit rushed though, more of a rant than a reasoned criticism.

As for the main points raised:-

1) The singing - Madonna has never maintained that she can sing well. There have alot of other "dodgy" singers over the years that have produced great records to. Why should she be criticised for it? If you don't like it, change the radio station. I think Leonardo Di Caprio's acting is dodgy, but I'm not going to go out of my way to criticise...what's that going to achieve; I just don't watch his stuff.

2) Madonna's looks - As a 27 year old hetrosexual male who is pretty handy in the looks department (apologies for the lack of modesty), I "definately would". Madge is still great looking! Don't forget, every woman has her off days.

3) Pompous & pretentious - Comes with being an entertainer, well, with alot of them at least....just look at Prince. I'm sure the budding psychologists amongst us will be able to field this point better than me.

4) Madonna As Hypocrite - Fully agree with the comments on this point. Madge needs to practice alot more before she preaches, particularly on environmental issues.

5) Madonna started as a dancer - So what? Is there a right or respectable way to crack the music business? The lady is far from perfect for sure, and a good number of her fans, myself included, fully acknowledge that...but we can forgive her due to the music she's given us, perfect pop tunes like Into the Groove, Cherish, Like A Prayer, Jump (etc, etc!!) that make us smile everytime we hear them. She didn't have to do it, but I'm bloody well glad she chose to, bumps in the road and all.

midnightmover said:

There, that's much better.

Reading the article, I'm reminded of the following unusual phenomenom I have encountered with my own better half:-

- When I've introduced my missus to female friends I have, if said female friend is ugly, fat or both the missus thinks "they're lovely".

- If said female friend has been good looking, successful or both the missus thinks she's "a bit of a bitch".


I call it the Madonna Affect .....