Honestly, she's a phenomenon. Fuck those MJ fans who live in the past... Madonna has proven herself over 25 years, and 10 year of that with the age over 40, when she was no teen idol anymore...

But what's the price? She had a big hit with 4 Minutes, but her music feels so desperate. She hasn't grown as an artist, she still makes the same kind of music she did in 1982 - dancey pop records.

I loved HC, but should every artists try to stay relevant even if this would mean to have no integrity??

Do you think people like Prince or George Michael or Stevie Wonder, people who don't have hit singles anymore or have many young fans but are still great in touring have the better career because they make the music they like???

Commercially yes, I must admit she's stretching her career to the fullest. Artistically? Hell no! It's not very relevant what she releases.

BT11 said:

Oh, I don't know. Whatever you think of the quality of her work, perhaps it's something for female pop artists to 1) be very smart about what you put out and 2) take control of your career and 3) have a hand in creating the work that you do.

But as for the quality itself, you're not going to find many artists who have consistently put out a comparable string of top-notch pop songs in the last 25 years.

errant said:

Yeah, I agree. But she seems to be the outstanding example.

You have to admit that Stevie Wonder, Paul McCartney, Prince, George Michael and Michael Jackson (1994) had their best stime WAY behind them.

Stevie's influence and relevance even declined in his early 30s. Paul McCartney had his last #1 hit with Michael Jackson...

It seems to be more natural that at a certain time even the best ones step back and don't focus on what's cool anymore.

But Madonna seems to be so desperate to still be big and still matter and stuff..

Should EVERYone do this? Should George Michael work out, loose weight and dance like in 1987 again?

Prince stretch his legs, riding on motor bikes and all that stuff?

Would this be the way to reach younger folks as well??

Young artist should aspire 2 learn music, how 2 write, how 2 play an instrument and how 2 perform it.

different strokes for different strokes. Madonna's talents are considerably different than say, Prince, Stevie, Paul, etc. Those 3 are primarily musicians and that is their main interest. They're going to do what they do and if it hits with a wider audience, that's great, but I don't think any of them are TOO concerned with that aspect of it (aside from Prince, maybe). To varying degrees, I think they're just happy to be able to do what they want to do at this point.

Madonna, Michael, George... they are primarily pop stars. That's what they are known for, and that's how they approach their own careers. MJ has sabotaged his own career beyond salvation, and George is just too high to give a damn any more.

Madonna is, by default, through intelligence and sheer pop star ambition, the last one standing, because she WANTS to be and has the know-how to get it done.

graecophilos said:

I thought you were a big Madonna fan enough to know she doesn't stay at one place for a long time. For almost a decade she didn't touch dance music, and was recording Celine Dion-esque ballads and then Joni Mitchell-inspired folk songs, between that discovering electronica. Is she supposed to keep on releasing sequels to Ray Of Light & American Life to have an integrity, and to perform her whole shows sitting at the piano or playing the guitar to "act her age"? Is that what you call "growing as an artist"? She was always all over the place, her integrity is to keep changing her collaborators, her sound, her image, her style and so on.

Only those would find Hard Candy desperate who had their own image of Madonna created and her latest stuff doesn't fit in. It would be more desperate to me if she was staying with William Orbit or Stuart Price for years. As long as she gets a new collaborator for the next album and their music will sound different from the previous, she's fine for me.

So yes, it is really what other pop artist should achieve, instead of staying with the same safe style and same collaborators. People lose interest after a while, but Madonna always caught different demographics with almost all of her albums.

I think that the type of carreer she has is almost unattainable in this day and age.

I think young artist should aspire to the Level of Ani Difranco, or Beck if they are looking for success.

errant said:

I would say George is a better musican than Madonna...even MJ.

superspaceboy said:

So would I, but all 3 of them are primarily pop stars rather than "musicians." That's how they approach their own careers, anyway.

errant said:

George said he thinks MJ was a better musician than him. But that's understatement. There are many songs where George played all the instruments on his own, especially the bass on Cowboys and Angels and Soul Free.
He played the guitar on some of the LWP songs and keyboards on many others, like Hard Day and Monkey and stuff.

Hell, he even played that piano solo on Nothing Looks The Same In The Light.

But well the question is: Do people who have achieved something like all the above mentioned artists in their eralier life still have to prove something to the world?

LiveToTell86 said:

I'm still a Madonna fan but right now I'm tired of her. It's not her fault. I virtually listened the whole year to her music only. I must have listened to Heartbeat 2000 times...

Now I have my George Michael/Paul McCartney phase. You know, when I like to listen to people who wrote timeless songs...

LiveToTell86 said:

It's really silly to say HC is not a desperate record when hooking up with Timbaland for a hit is sooooo 2006. I mean, come on. Madonna is at her best when she brings a producer out of the shadows and into the limelight, not when she does what everyone and they mama has already done.

graecophilos said:

So Madonna is living in the past too right?

That's what you said.

The only thing remotely 'phenomenal' about her is her old used up pussy aint leaving snail trails on the stage.

You also said 'desperate', damn that's Madogga alright, her old wrinkly ass hanging onto fame like her botox sessions depend on it.

She is not talented in any way, never has been. Just the world's greatest publicity whore that's all, loves the shock value, well i'd be shocked if she ever put something decent out. Or even learnt to sing. utter crap.

She's seeking out the next hot producers and writers right now.

Bravo!
.
[Edited 1/12/09 11:20am]

VoicesCarry said:

she tends to do that when she goes for an r&b cash-in. Like A Virgin (Nile Rogers), Bedtime Stories (Dallas Austin, Babyface), Hard Candy.... with varying results.

VoicesCarry said:

Her career is not based on bringing producers out of the shadows. It really only happened with Mirwais, he was totally unknown when she accidentally heard his demos at Warners'. William Orbit was remixing her (and others) for years before he produced her and Stuart was a Grammy winning producer already when COADF came out, not to mention it took him 4 years with Madonna before he got around to produce a track for her.

And what's with the "so 2006" thing? She releases albums in every two and a half years, COADF came out less than a year before Timbaland came back in the spotlight because of Nelly's and Justin's albums, it's not like Madonna could have canceled her tour or forced Warner to release HC earlier than 2008 just because Timbaland was super-hot in that year.

The "Madonna should always work with unknown people" argument is simply having high expectations towards a pop star who's been around for 25 years. If the music is good, it can be enjoyed regardless of who did it and how many other artist did that person work with. I prefer anything on HC over "Nobody's Perfect", "What It Feels Like For A Girl" or "Little Star" for example.

It's just a myth that she was always trendsetting musically. "Like A Prayer", one of her best and most acclaimed songs used the choir element after it was done by several artists in 1988. Does that take away from its quality as a great pop song? I don't think so.

LiveToTell86 said:

Madonna elevated the profiles of each of those producers substantially.



Because it is so 2006. Madonna should never have worked with Timbo at all. Period. Aaliyah and Missy did their defining work with him and his popularity as a producer really exploded in the mainstream. Unfortunately, Madonna got the memo years too late. Nelly and Justin seem much more prescient than her.



Well, I feel HC was a shit record.



She is trendsetting for a pop artist. There is a difference.

she did change her musical style for a long time, she only recently went back to her dance-pop sound of the 80's, and yes she's bigger than mj now and more respected compared to him, even if she gets a media beating too. Whether people like her or not, she's put out enough material for the younger generation to look up to her today instead of with jacko, who's only known for her past glories now and bizzare lifestyle.

Graycap23 said:

Absolutely but Madonna's business sense is something that I think all artist should look at. Whether her music is incredible or sucks smelly donkey balls, the girl knows how to promote herself. I gotta give her props on that alone.

the answer to the question is no, they cant get away with the stuff she did back then. madonna's career wasnt based on her music she was a controversy and hype machine,also her timing was perfect, she was mtv's darling

purplecam said:

All true but I'd prefer if young artist focused on the ART.

alphastreet said:

was that a mistake?

graecophilos said:

did I do that? shiiiit! I didn't mean it, and it wasn't a freudian slip either!

I don't think they should aspire the road to get there, but great business sense is one to aspire.

superspaceboy said:

This is an overborad statement and the comparsion doesn't make any sense, is madonna a musician in the first place to compare her to george and MJ?

even though im a huge george fan, i don't consider him as a greater musician than Mj, in fact george michael's Impact is nearly zero comparing to MJ.

Business wise, absolutely. She is someone to follow if you want to have a very successful career. She is a great business woman and I think most can agree on that.

If I was an artist though, I'd personally prefer to be someone like Prince. He may not sell as many records as Madonna or as many as he used to (No one sells like they used too anyway) but he is highly respected as an artist and a musician and has been very influential. Also, he still has a very dedicated fanbase and people who love and respect him. Prince gets love from the critics and the public. He is overall a good business man too who's made some interesting and bold moves in his career.

I guess it depends on what you aspire to be though. Do you want to be known as a great talent or be like Madonna, who is known for making some good music, being controversial and being a good business person, but not being rated very highly as a talent?

alphastreet said:

Yeah right. Who really rates Madonna highly as a talent other than her fans like yourself? That's something that i've argued with her fans about for the longest, they'll say well look at MJ or Prince, when's the last time they had a big album? They aren't relevant anymore, etc. However, I think those two are more relevant than Madonna, just turn on the TV or ask most young artists who they've been influenced by. They have been far more influential than she's ever been and more respected as a talent too, yes even with the bad joke Mike has become to many he is still respected mainly for his past music and is rated highly as a talent, definitely more than Madonna. Get real.

seeingvoices12 said:

that's true. Because he never invented something new. He just wrote in styles he liked. You know, Motown, Brazilian music, acoustic pop songs, Soul II Soul.

He copied other people's styles but has no style on his own.

That's okay, but that's also the reason why he had not such an impact on the music scene.

Joni Mitchell said that there was very little difference between Madonna and a hard hooker and that it was a horrible thing to aspire to be. Maybe this was during Sex/Erotica era because I think it's a little harsh now.

I look at her career and just think that she's worked her ass off and I think thats been key. Her work ethic and drive for attention and fame has trumped many other artists who were more talented. I think her level of ambition is scary rather than aspirational.

graecophilos said:

Neither George or Michael invented anything new musically, so that's a moot point. George was more self reliant than MJ though.
[Edited 1/13/09 1:18am]

mynameisnotsusan said:

sh*t joni said that...wow that's cold as a mf...