ehuffnsd said:

Honestly, I have no idea if they are both in the same size venues. That Miley Cyrus tour grossed over $70 million dollars and I don't know if that includes the movie tickets or just the concert tickets, but I'm sure it doesn't include the merchandise profit; and if she was asking for waay less money on tickets than Madonna and grossed this much, than that's a feat for a child personality who I think is tone deaf because she screams in many of the songs I've heard.

Either way, it's crazy to think that this 15 year old kid is grossing that much and really is just what you say, the new Hilary Duff. I do know that Madonna is not the only artist to be charging these ridiculous ticket prices. Barbara Streisand made over $90 million in 2006 on her tour which I'm sure wasn't any where near the size of Madonna's and didn't have all the elaborate stage designs and swarm of back-up dancers. Madonna may be pulling in a large amount for her tours, but how much is she shelling out to make them so visually stimulating? I remember Elton John was charging about this when he did some shows a few years ago. All I can say is that if Barbara can make that much money on a small venue, than, wow, she must have some extremely dedicated fans.

LiquidGold said:

That's because you're naive. No one gets awards based on how good they are. It's all about positioning. You have to get big name stars to your ceremony in order to ensure coverage, and you also have to avoid offending people as much as possible. So most awards are determined by politics, not talent. When MC Hammer won Best Rap Album at the Grammys in 1990, do you think it really meant he released the best album that year? Please.

the thing i question on your math was Miley selling twice as many tickets because of parents. if a venue has 15K seats it has 15K regardless of who's playing there.

Babs fans are crazy.

Hilary had the Lizzy McGuire show that was all the rage in 01-03 on the disney channel. had movies she did her first couple of cds. than she was replaced by Miley and her Hannah Montana.

midnightmover said:

You're forgetting that Jennifer was an unknown before Dreamgirls. She had no power in the politics of the music business. It was her standout performance that go her the attention

The Grammy's are voted on by peers, so blame the members of the Academy that voted. Whether you believe it or not, Hammer's music had quality and was positive, deserving of a nod in itself

LiquidGold said:

My friend, if awards were based on merit then Prince wouldn't have been able to move for Grammys in the '80s. As it was he lost out to lesser talents year after year. Marvin Gaye got nothing for What's Goin' On. The Beatles were ignored in the '60s. James Brown was ignored. The list goes on

The Oscars are even worse. They don't even bother to pretend they're rewarding artistry anymore. Helen Mirren let the cat out of the bag when she accepted her best actress award and admitted she knew full well she was winning not because of her performance, but because they wanted to commend the queen (who she was playing in the film). That's a pretty brazen condemnation right there, but no one commented on it at the time, because the media has an interest in preserving the fiction that award ceremonies are something more than publicity events.

The best and most remembered films of all time were almost always overlooked. Even Madonna of all people said "award ceremonies are silly". If even Madonna knows that, then you really don't have to be a genius to see it. Don't allow yourself to be conned so easily. Award ceremonies have NOTHING to do with rewarding merit.

madsgreat said:

The only artist that I know for sure is worth over a billion dollars is Paul McCartney and that was before that nasty divorce, so I don't know, but Paul has been around for more than 3 decades, so I would hope he had that much or close to that amount by this point. He would have more had MJ not have bought much of the Beatles' cataloge...that was one damn smart move, MJ.

It could very well be an elaborated monetary assumption by the media, but Miley has a ridiculously popular CHILDREN'S TV show, had a huge tour, a sold-out film to accompany it, and shitloads of merchandise. They estimate her at making close to $50 million a year if the success of her Hannah Montana franchise continues at this pace. Neither Madonna or Janet have this going for them; they don't have legions of underaged fans scooping up their merchandise, watching their TV show (because neither one of the have a TV show), or flocking to their shows with their parents in tow. When kids are involved, money matters are going to be doubled because whose going to take them to the concerts and pay for all the merchandise that they beg for...their parents.

So, concert-wise for example, if Madonna has 50,000 seats sold at one of her shows, Miley is going to have double that because they don't let parents into the venue for free, so she's getting a ticket sale per kid and one or two tickets sold to the parents, because someone has to be their to accompany the minor. That's why celebrities and artists who appeal to children have soo much money after only a few years in the business; that is if they make smart decisions when signing their contracts.

If NSync had known how to read a contract properly, they would have definitely gotten waaay more money in the beginning, but they all faired well in the end and they are a group of 5 guys...Madonna is a solo artist, always has been, so she never had to split the money with anyone, so she had better be worth close to half a billion at the least since she's been out since the mid-80s and NSync didn't debut until almost a decade later.

Britney's initial fanbase was young kids and teenagers and she's worth well over $150 million last I heard and she's only been out for 10 years. Hell, the Olsen twins are billionaires and they've been loaded for years now; and they are waay younger than Madonna, so it is possible for Miley Cyrus to be a billionaire if her popularity with younger audiences stays steady and she doesn't fuck up and do something stupid.

As much more 'popular' as Madonna is over Janet; Janet is one of the few, if not the only, female artists to have an album with multiple number ones on it...not sure if anyone has broken her record yet as almost 2 decades have passed since it was released. "Rhythm Nation" blew many artists out of the water and it's still something that Madonna has yet to achieve no matter how much more popular her albums are over Janet's. Madonna has always been the better businesswoman out of all the female artists, young and old, so she's definitely tops in that area, which is one of the main reasons I believe she's been around for soo long, that and her constant need to re-invent herself.

I don't get it, as much as I like all these artist (Janet, MJ, Prince, Madonna, etc.), some have achieved greatness where others have not and vice versa. MJ is amazing, but even he hasn't won an Oscar, yet Prince has, but he's no where near MJ's popularity throughout the world. Whose the most popular is soo high school to me, always has been and always will continue to be. I don't care how many people like an artist, because if the music sucks than I know that most of those people are just die-hard fans or individuals who get easily distracted by an artist's image and pretty flashing lights.

Personally, I go on smart business endeavors and career achievements to determine who's 'successful' to me, not how many people in whatever country likes this person. Mariah outsold both of them in the US with 'Emancipation of Mimi', and she didn't come out until 1990 or 1991. Plus, I think Mariah got paid over $100 million dollars when her record company broke her contract after 'Glitter' bombed and she supposedly had a nervous breakdown, so she's apparently not that dumb after all.

After Prince got out of his WB contract, he started selling his music online. Even though 'Crystal Ball' sold less than 500,000 copies worldwide, he still gets half of that money, because he didn't have to pay a record label, so if he was selling that set for $50 a piece and getting close to half of that, you can do the math and see who came out on top in the end. Making smart business decisions and learning how to read contracts is the most intelligent thing any artist or celebrity can ever do, so who cares if more people like one or the other, whoever signed the best contract is the winner in the end. Both are successful and neither one has an amazing singing voice, so they both came out on top IMO. Just my

honestly Madonna is NO better than Janet. PERIOD. not in dance or even music. and definitly NOT in looks.

So why wasn't janet as successful world wide??? From the start of her career to now.

TotalAlisa said:

It's all a matter of opinion. I personally think Madonna music is better than Janets and so do obviously the majority of the world or she wouldnt be more successful

Arnotts said:

people forget taste is subjective. no one is ever going to agree. i don't know why people try to pass of opinion as fact

Yet again, the World is not America.

Worldwide, control & 1814 aside, Janet has never even been in the big league outside of the States.

SquirrelMeat said:

You should add Janet (definitely her biggest album internationally) and Velvet Rope to that.

honestly Madonna is NO better than Janet. PERIOD. not in dance or even music. and definitly NOT in looks.

So why wasn't janet as successful world wide??? From the start of her career to now.

honestly Madonna is NO better than Janet. PERIOD. not in dance or even music. and definitly NOT in looks.
So why wasn't janet as successful world wide??? From the start of her career to now.

TotalAlisa said:

madonna's brothers were not bigger than her. she didn't have to break the mold her family name put her in. madonna is not looked at as black first and then an artist- she's just an artist

CrozzaUK said:

well between us both Crozza, i think we answered the thread question. no doubt it'll go on for ten pages though!

Madonna's fanbase changed with every album too. I remember a time when being a madonna fan did not equate to being LGBTQQ.

I'm sure soccer moms who called madonna immoral and all that stuff jumped on the bandwagon when she was using the mother figure image for years and now all of a sudden have no problem with her.

I guess Madonna has a very diverse fanbase and always will

alphastreet said:

exactly.


and why is race an issue? the reason MADONNA is more successful is because she's white??? why do i never hear that argument about someone like say these two people.....





they're only successful because they're black.



be responsible for your own actions.
[Edited 11/8/08 18:50pm]

Janet could have bounced back from the superbowl but the way it was handled was horrendous.

It's not cause Janet is black, she just needs a revamp.