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.

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.

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..

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:

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.

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

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

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

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

it very often seems to me that it is we, the public, who are actually stalked by the stars. And to the most extreme extent.

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 .....

Isel said:

You sat through the whole of her speech? What are you, a masochist? Most people's speeches are usually about four minutes, but Madonna's was nearly half an hour. Talk about milking it. Perhaps she thought she was doing the audience a favor by talking about herself so long their butts started to ache.



Please quit drugs. They will do you no good in the long run. Here's Bruce singing live.

http://www.youtube.com/wa...5PoIrcyd34

And here, by way of contrast is Madonna singing live.

http://www.youtube.com/wa..._cqi5QEinM

Now is your chance to restore my faith in you. Please, and I mean please, tell me you can hear the quality difference between these two.

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.

Isel said:

Funny.

This article isn't a little criticism, it's a tired rehash of points that have been covered a million times before.

Point 1 - She can't sing. *insert name here* astonishing voice has showed her up.

Point 2 - She wrote some childrens book.

Point 3 - She's pretentious/has a fake pommy accent/is humorless

Point 4 - She did a book called Sex and flashed her fanny

Point 5 - She's crap at acting

Point 6 - She's attention seeking

Am I missing something? Is there anything there that hasn't been written about many, many times before?

Poor Julie! How can she possibly escape the clutches of Madonna's publicity machine? Why not write yet another article and publicise her just that little bit more. Madonna has to be laughing her ass off all the way to the bank.

Isel said:

Funny.

This article isn't a little criticism, it's a tired rehash of points that have been covered a million times before.

Point 1 - She can't sing. *insert name here* astonishing voice has showed her up.

Point 2 - She wrote some childrens book.

Point 3 - She's pretentious/has a fake pommy accent/is humorless

Point 4 - She did a book called Sex and flashed her fanny

Point 5 - She's crap at acting

Point 6 - She's attention seeking

Am I missing something? Is there anything there that hasn't been written about many, many times before?

Poor Julie! How can she possibly escape the clutches of Madonna's publicity machine? Why not write yet another article and publicise her just that little bit more. Madonna has to be laughing her ass off all the way to the bank.

DaveT said:

You. have. got. to. be. kidding.

midnightmover said:

And they say some people don't have a sense of humour.....

midnightmover said:

Regarding Madonna's speech, no.. I only watch Part 1 with Justin and Madge! LOL It was close to 10 minutes. I saw there were more "parts," but I didn't have time to watch it all. Part 1 was quite enough! I got it!

Regarding Bruce, the song I listened to was live!

I've heard him before.. I just don't think his voice is a great as say a young Robert Plant! LOL... or even David Grohl's whom I adore... or Eddie Vedder, David Bowie or the late, great Stevie Ray Vaughan, Jimi Hendrix..,or Eddie Mercury.. just to name a few.. His voice is definitely better than Anthony Keides' though, but I love me some Peppers, so ..



He's ok.. But I would think people are more fans of his songwriting like they are with Dylan..

Hey the Madonna clip is a rehearsal: that's not fair! LOL She's probably not warmed-up or something..

But no.. there's no comparing Bruce to Madonna.. I just don't think compared to some other powerhouse rock stars, Bruce's voice isn't necessarily all that great. It's more about his "story-telling," and sincerity.. all the vocal dynamics he uses to get us to feel..and relate to what he's to say through music.

I guess with Madonna it's more about visual dynamics??
[Edited 4/15/08 17:16pm]

Isel said:

Rehearsal or no rehearsal, a good singer would not be capable of sounding as awful as Madonna does there. I only posted the rehearsal because I couldn't find the clip I was looking for, but it illustrates the point just as well. The clip I was looking for was from the European VMAs where she certainly was warmed up and sounded just as bad as she does in that clip.

Regarding Bruce, I'm a fan and I can tell you, I love his songwriting and his voice. Sometimes he overdoes the gruffness and sounds constipated, but he can also sound incredibly soulful. There is an emotion in his voice that cuts deep. He sounds like a man who's been to hell and back and has seen everything there is to see. You can hear that quality quite clearly in this live video. He's singing about love, but with the hard-living tone of his voice he could just as easily be singing about death. It's a powerful combination. Very powerful. The great lyrics only add to the spell.

DaveT said:

I tell ya what.. I used to think Madonna was attractive, but no so much any more. I just think her plastic surgery or whatever she's had done is too obvious. It's changed the dynamic of her face.


She's not ugly or unattractive-just fake looking.

^^

Not to hijack the thread, but just a quick question: do you all like Lyle Lovett as a songwriter? Of course, I just love Lyle, period. But I just think he's such a poet. Plus his band is always so on-point!

Of course, he's not good-looking in the traditional sense, but he's just hoot in concert... Great personality.. Funny. And his music.. is so "pristine" for lack of a better word.

Isel said:

Never heard of him.

It's just one journalist's opinion on a celebrity...people on here are making it sound as if this woman just insulted Jesus.

estelle81 said:

estelle81 said:

Madonna is an easy target and make no mistake she's had continuous criticism throughout her entire career. CNN had an article discussing whether she was worthy of being inducted into the Rock N Roll Hall of Fame. Have they ever challenged any other nominees ever? I'm not a HUGE fan and have tired of her antics before but I feel like she is targeted unfairly in a way that other artists aren't.

She's always tried to f**k with people (often journalists) so it's no surprise she gets it back. I don't think she is anywhere near as aggressive now as far as running for the spotlight as she was before she had her kids. She's stage managed her career better than any other artist around considering her mediocre singing/acting/dancing abilities.

hellomoto said:

I remember the hysteria well - it was absolutely huge - Im not trying to denigrate anything they've done necessarily, just say that I believe that madonna is on a different level talent wise - and i believe her career reinforces that. The Spice Girls reunion was heavily marketed and hyped, just as all their solo careers have been. they've had the best management, the best advisors, a powerful record company - and they've still not managed to replicate what she has. You say thats because they've not been together, but if they're all of a comparable level "talent" wise, and they've all attempted to have solo careers - why have they not acheived the same as individuals? They had all the comparable marketing, A&R clout etc. as Madonna has, why could they not do what she has done for the last 25 years.

I guess what im saying is you can fool the public for a few years, mediocre talent can yield success sporadically. But to do it at the highest level for 25 years, with a certain degree of consistency relies on more than just fluke. Talent has to factor in, in some form, but some people will never accept that because it shines a light on the fact that not having outstanding natural "talent" at something is no excuse for failure.

mynameisnotsusan said:

midnightmover said:

Ahhhhh, great memories!!!

After being a fan for many years, the Confessions Tour was my first Madonna concert.....this performance of Live To Tell sent chills down my spine!! Absolutely brilliant!!

quite understandably, she appears to have a good deal of contempt for her paying public

mynameisnotsusan said:

I knew someone was going to post this pic after I made the Jesus statement. I was going to make a point of this moment in DFA history at the end of that statement, but I didn't out of respect for Jesus. I remember the reactions people had about this little scene, positive and negative, and how funny they both were. I just found it to be a desperate cry for attention and pretty dumb. Honestly, other than doing it for attention and shock value, I really don't know what was going through her brain when she thought this one up, because it just screamed "LOOK AT ME EVERYBODY!!!! PAY ATTENTION TO ME!" The only thing going through mine was, 1.) Other than the fact that Jesus died on the cross to save mankind, why do people put soo much admiration into a torture device, which is all a cross really is (a guillotine is just as cool) and 2.) I wonder if Madonna would ever give up all her worldly possessions and live a humble life like Jesus did.... ..hell no, she'd commit suicide or go insane if she went back to being poor...of course, many famous and rich people would too, so I can't just knock Madonna for it. WWMD...What Would Madonna Do?