MickyDolenz said:

PurpleJedi said:

Considering how her career is now longer than his, and she's showing no signs of stopping, I would say that it's a good probablility that in the FUTURE, Madonna may be looked back as a bigger "historical figure" than Elvis.

The Beatles as a group only recorded 7 or 8 years, but that hasn't affected their popularity. B.B. King has released records way before The Beatles (or The Quarrymen ) existed and still records and tours today, but he is not as popular as them. So has Tony Bennett, Johnny Mathis, and many others. I don't think that length of career is that much of a factor.

Yeah longevity has nothing to do with it. Its what you do in that time that counts. I mean Marilyns career only went for 10 years or so? I feel you can just tell when someones going to be that kind of a legend. I just knew before Michael died that he would be up there even if he had of lived till old age (which I was expecting). He just had that classic fame story behind him and he sparked that much more of a reaction out of people. I have a feeling thats how Elvis was before he died too.

Arnotts said:

MickyDolenz said:

The Beatles as a group only recorded 7 or 8 years, but that hasn't affected their popularity. B.B. King has released records way before The Beatles (or The Quarrymen ) existed and still records and tours today, but he is not as popular as them. So has Tony Bennett, Johnny Mathis, and many others. I don't think that length of career is that much of a factor.

Yeah longevity has nothing to do with it. Its what you do in that time that counts. I mean Marilyns career only went for 10 years or so? I feel you can just tell when someones going to be that kind of a legend. I just knew before Michael died that he would be up there even if he had of lived till old age (which I was expecting). He just had that classic fame story behind him and he sparked that much more of a reaction out of people. I have a feeling thats how Elvis was before he died too.

What Marilyn, Elvis, the Beatles and Michael share is that they were able to have so much impact in such little time: Marilyn in just ten, Elvis in just four, the Beatles in six, Michael in about fourteen.

And that's what separates them from everyone else.

Timmy84 said:

Arnotts said:

Yeah longevity has nothing to do with it. Its what you do in that time that counts. I mean Marilyns career only went for 10 years or so? I feel you can just tell when someones going to be that kind of a legend. I just knew before Michael died that he would be up there even if he had of lived till old age (which I was expecting). He just had that classic fame story behind him and he sparked that much more of a reaction out of people. I have a feeling thats how Elvis was before he died too.

What Marilyn, Elvis, the Beatles and Michael share is that they were able to have so much impact in such little time: Marilyn in just ten, Elvis in just four, the Beatles in six, Michael in about fourteen.

And that's what separates them from everyone else.

Some people will argue that Elvis and Marilyn are just as big hacks as Madonna is purported to be. Marilyn had marginal acting abilities, and Elvis stole all his music from black musicians. The only reason either one really made it big was that they were controversial, same as Madonna. That hip-swinging performance by Elvis on Ed Sullivan or the Marilyn was comparable to the Madonna-in-wedding-dress-writhing-on-floor perfomance on MTV.

Time will ultimately tell.

PurpleJedi said:

Elvis stole all his music from black musicians.

So did Charlie Pride, Ray Charles, Sammy Davis Jr, Johnny Mathis, & Marian Anderson steal white music by singing country, showtunes, and opera? What about John Coltrane recording My Favorite Things? Did the Muscle Shoals musicians and some of the Stax and Motown musicians steal black music too? Why do people always trash Elvis but accept others like Hall & Oates, Teena Marie, Michael McDonald, Average White Band, Rolling Stones, Jamiroquai, George Michael, Eric Clapton, Phil Collins, Johnny Ray, Joss Stone, Steely Dan, etc. Did you know some Latin music like Salsa is based on African music? Why aren't they accused of stealing? Elvis has never kept it a secret that he liked black performers and has said many times that Jackie Wilson is his favorite singer.

MickyDolenz said:

Timmy84 said:

I was actually shocked at how little James' death was covered by our own media considering he was once considered a hero in the community.

And the little they did say was mostly mess and gossip like JB's adult children kicking his wife and young son out of the house, the body being missing, and so on, but not about his contributions to music. Then Michael Jackson's death was not really taken seriously at all anywhere, people making jokes, the press writing negative stories, etc. I'm pretty sure Frank Sinatra & George Harrison didn't get the same treatment.

where are you from? I know some media were weird, but most people I came across were positive and sympathetic and felt bad, and a lot were jumping on the bandwagon too...maybe it has to do with being from an urban city.

PurpleJedi said:

Timmy84 said:

What Marilyn, Elvis, the Beatles and Michael share is that they were able to have so much impact in such little time: Marilyn in just ten, Elvis in just four, the Beatles in six, Michael in about fourteen.

And that's what separates them from everyone else.

Some people will argue that Elvis and Marilyn are just as big hacks as Madonna is purported to be. Marilyn had marginal acting abilities, and Elvis stole all his music from black musicians. The only reason either one really made it big was that they were controversial, same as Madonna. That hip-swinging performance by Elvis on Ed Sullivan or the Marilyn was comparable to the Madonna-in-wedding-dress-writhing-on-floor perfomance on MTV.

Time will ultimately tell.

I often hear that argument about Elvis but why not Bill Haley or Jerry Lee Lewis or Gene Vincent? Or even the Rolling Stones if you wanna go further. It's not fair to say one man stole something that was supposed to be appreciated by ALL people. If anything, he did play a part in people accepting the real R&B because he would always MENTION it (along with the others I mentioned here). I think people singled out Elvis because he got promoted more. As for Marilyn and Madonna, that's what happened to them too - they were singled out. And singled out for a reason.

[Edited 12/12/10 12:23pm]

Back in one of the early RIP threads for Michael there was a pretty good discussion that connected to this thread. One of the key factors to Elvis and Michael Jackson's impact that is absolutely fundamental to their lasting appeal is how they treated their fans.

I think it can be pretty accurately stated that no major star has as ever been as accessible and loving to his fans as Elvis and coming in a close second is Michael. That is a huge reason that giant crowds still flock to Graceland year round and especially on the anniversary of his death and birthday, because in life he would stand for hours at the gates talking with his fans. Of course, in his final years with depression and drugs taking their toll he became far more withdrawn but never failed to express his love for his fans. I mean, "thank you, thank you very much" has become an Elvis cliche but when he said it on stage it was always clearly sincere.

While Michael was less accessible to his fans, he always cited how much he loved them as well.

Now we get to Madonna and Prince. While they have established incredible fan bases, there is a sense that they see the love of their fans as something they deserve and sometimes it seems as if the down upon their fans.

Ultimately, this will impact their legacies and how they endure over time.

So, short answer, I don't think Madonna will ever eclipse Elvis Or Michael in terms of being a historical figure. Also, as many people have stated in this thread, popularity is one thing, actual impact is a whole other thing.

In the case of Elvis, it is easy (mainly because he always openly acknowledged his influences) to track his musical style, but what is harder is to say that before Elvis, __________ was doing the exact same thing. There might have been other performers who had a dynamic and shocking stage style, or who had a similar musical style, but there was no one who brought it all together in the same way Elvis did.

But being a child of the 80's, I distinctly remember having a lot of conversations about Madonna comparing her to Belinda Carlisle of the GoGos, Debra Harry, and even Pat Benatar, and to be honest, Belinda was usually crowned sexier, Debra Harry more musically daring and Pat Benatar as the better singer. And this is in't even scratching the surface of the great female stars of the 50's, 60's and 70's(Big love to Donna Summer!). I am not saying any of this in any way to diminish the impact of Madonna I am just trying to say that there were people to compare her to when she hit, but if you look at Michael, the Beatles, Elvis, or Jimi, she just doesn't stack up.

I think what Timmy says above is also particularly relevant. When the acts he lists hit, it was like an atomic bomb going off, and that isn't as true for Madonna.

(It seems like my first post after a long semester is always a bit long winded...for those of you who read the whole thing...thanks! For those of you who don't...I don't blame you.

[Edited 12/12/10 12:33pm]

It's funny that people tend to ignore that Barbara Streisand has sold more then Madonna and also has the theater and movie career that Madonna can only dream of.

It's funny, someone rated Mariah as one of the top overated acts of this year for claiming to have more #1 hits than Elvis (when Elvis has an additional 12 #1s that occurred prior to the modern pop charts systems.)

So, with all of Elvis' music success and his huge movie career uhhh, no, Madonna will never be as big as Elvis and are say she will never be as big as Barbara either.

sosgemini said:

It's funny that people tend to ignore that Barbara Streisand has sold more then Madonna and also has the theater and movie career that Madonna can only dream of.

It's funny, someone rated Mariah as one of the top overated acts of this year for claiming to have more #1 hits than Elvis (when Elvis has an additional 12 #1s that occurred prior to the modern pop charts systems.)

So, with all of Elvis' music success and his huge movie career uhhh, no, Madonna will never be as big as Elvis and are say she will never be as big as Barbara either.

You are so right, I never thought about in that context.

------------------------

[Edited 12/12/10 12:55pm]

sosgemini said:

It's funny that people tend to ignore that Barbara Streisand has sold more then Madonna and also has the theater and movie career that Madonna can only dream of.

It's funny, someone rated Mariah as one of the top overated acts of this year for claiming to have more #1 hits than Elvis (when Elvis has an additional 12 #1s that occurred prior to the modern pop charts systems.)

So, with all of Elvis' music success and his huge movie career uhhh, no, Madonna will never be as big as Elvis and are say she will never be as big as Barbara either.

Hell, Barbra Streisand practically owned entertainment in the 1960s and 1970s.

sosgemini said:

It's funny that people tend to ignore that Barbara Streisand has sold more then Madonna and also has the theater and movie career that Madonna can only dream of.

It's funny, someone rated Mariah as one of the top overated acts of this year for claiming to have more #1 hits than Elvis (when Elvis has an additional 12 #1s that occurred prior to the modern pop charts systems.)

So, with all of Elvis' music success and his huge movie career uhhh, no, Madonna will never be as big as Elvis and are say she will never be as big as Barbara either.

The rock & music press is not going to mention Barbra because she sings showtunes and adult contemporary, so is not taken seriously. They'd nominate someone like Joan Jett, Stevie Nicks, or Kim Gordon if they mention a female act at all. I imagine they would even put Madonna ahead of her. Madonna is in the R&R Hall Of Fame and Barbra isn't.

MickyDolenz said:

The rock & music press is not going to mention Barbra because she sings showtunes and adult contemporary, so is not taken seriously. They'd nominate someone like Joan Jett, Stevie Nicks, or Kim Gordon if they mention a female act at all. I imagine they would even put Madonna ahead of her. Madonna is in the R&R Hall Of Fame and Barbra isn't.

Well NO DUH!

MickyDolenz said:

The rock & music press is not going to mention Barbra because she sings showtunes and adult contemporary, so is not taken seriously. They'd nominate someone like Joan Jett, Stevie Nicks, or Kim Gordon if they mention a female act at all. I imagine they would even put Madonna ahead of her. Madonna is in the R&R Hall Of Fame and Barbra isn't.

Did anyone qualify this conversation by stating us only talking about rock n roll? And if you actually look at Bab's catalog, she's done more straightforward rock then Madonna ever has.

Streisand spent a good two decades recording pop/rock tracks and didn't return to the standards front till 85 will The Broadway Album. It seems rather foolish and prejudiced that the R&R Hall of Fame ignores her contributions when she lived the rock & roll scene for two decades.

^ Yeah she had some good pop/rock records. It wasn't all standards. I do think it's sad she's never considered but then again it's run by the douche that runs Rolling Stone.

sosgemini said:

Did anyone qualify this conversation by stating us only talking about rock n roll? And if you actually look at Bab's catalog, she's done more straightforward rock then Madonna ever has.

What you say is irrelevant. Who writes the history books? Who makes all of these lists about who the best performers, musicians, albums, music videos, songs are? They're the ones who decide who is historical or not. I've never seen Barbra's albums or music mentioned in them, but I have seen Madonna. Barbra might be acknowledged in a Hall Of Fame for Broadway, Tin Pan Alley, musicals, or even pop. But that is a side dish like a Blues Hall Of Fame or a Songwriters Hall Of Fame and not the main meal.

^ You sure YOU don't work for Rolling Stone?

Timmy84 said:

^ You sure YOU don't work for Rolling Stone?

I'm not just talking about Rolling Stone. I meant music journalism in general.

MickyDolenz said:

Timmy84 said:

^ You sure YOU don't work for Rolling Stone?

I'm not just talking about Rolling Stone. I meant music journalism in general.

And you act as if music journalism and journalism in general isn't a) a dying breed or b) a niche market.

Who controls, predicts and creates the hype? Google, Yahoo, MSN and other internet home and news pages. It's these outlets who create the most buzz about a deceased celeb and if you ask me, without taking into account all the qualifies you are throwing at this conversation, Bab's career will be reflected on (when she's dead) and she will be given credit for her art and career at a much larger rate then Madonna.

Madonna will be noted for the cultural phenom that she is and her image will have a lasting impact but Babs has her theater, acting, directing, songwriting and image that will have a longer and greater impact long after he death.

It's funny that you bring up Rock N Roll cause who in their right mind even consider's Madonna's music rock? (With the exception of her dance/rock hybrid of Ray of Light). She's a pop/dance artist.

[Edited 12/12/10 14:06pm]

Even though I am a Madonna fan, I would agree that Barbra has her place in history secured even without the mentions in all the stupid lists and a place in the (largely irrelevant) Hall Of Fame.

As for the argument about the love towards the fan base and about the comparisons with other '80s stars and the impact in a short amount of time I disagree. The love towards the fan base is largely irrelevant, if anything the whole arrogant attitude of Madonna (and Prince) during the first 10 years of their career is part of what makes them special and the lovey-dovey attitude of Michael Jackson has little to do with his legacy. He would still be huge if he was the most arrogant person on the planet.

As for the other two arguments, I agree that Cyndi, Pat and Debbie (but not Belinda) were far better than Madonna in the '80s. But part of Madonna's legacy is her staying power. None would have been amazed that Debbie, Pat and Cyndi had staying power (which they had) but everyone used to be interested in Madonna's staying power (until it became a fact of entertainment life) because she was expected to be an 1-2 albums wonder. So her lengthy career reaching new heights of popularity with every subsequent album over a period of 7 years (1983-1990), reaching her critical peak with "Ray Of Light" much much later than her commercial peak with "True Blue" are the exact parts of her story which makes her interesting to the general public and part of her legacy, quite different from Michael Jackson or Prince's for example who, even though were famous for some time before their peak (Michael Jackson for over a decade), their commercial and critical peaks coincided and they had been in a slow decline since then (more or less a slow linear one for Michael, with a lot of ups and downs for Prince until he stabilised in his current great form)

sosgemini said:

MickyDolenz said:

I'm not just talking about Rolling Stone. I meant music journalism in general.

And you act as if music journalism and journalism in general isn't a) a dying breed or b) a niche market.

Who controls, predicts and creates the hype? Google, Yahoo, MSN and other internet home and news pages. It's these outlets who create the most buzz about a deceased celeb and if you ask me, without taking into account all the qualifies you are throwing at this conversation, Bab's career will be reflected on (when she's dead) and she will be given credit for her art and career at a much larger rate then Madonna.

Madonna will be noted for the cultural phenom that she is and her image will have a lasting impact but Babs has her theater, acting, directing, songwriting and image that will have a longer and greater impact long after he death.

It's funny that you bring up Rock N Roll cause who in their right mind even consider's Madonna's music rock? (With the exception of her dance/rock hybrid of Ray of Light). She's a pop/dance artist.

[Edited 12/12/10 14:06pm]

I never said Madonna was rock. I even said on the 1st page of this thread that Madonna nor any other female act will never be put up with Elvis or most male acts. Barbra will not be put up with Elvis either. It's still basically a man's world, and men will always be put above women, sales or no sales or chart positions. Aretha Franklin has more Top 100 hits than The Beatles, but it was said that Glee broke The Beatles record, when The Beatles didn't have the record in the 1st place. That's what I meant by whoever writes history decides who and what is remembered. Just like any other history book about any subject.

MickyDolenz said:

sosgemini said:

And you act as if music journalism and journalism in general isn't a) a dying breed or b) a niche market.

Who controls, predicts and creates the hype? Google, Yahoo, MSN and other internet home and news pages. It's these outlets who create the most buzz about a deceased celeb and if you ask me, without taking into account all the qualifies you are throwing at this conversation, Bab's career will be reflected on (when she's dead) and she will be given credit for her art and career at a much larger rate then Madonna.

Madonna will be noted for the cultural phenom that she is and her image will have a lasting impact but Babs has her theater, acting, directing, songwriting and image that will have a longer and greater impact long after he death.

It's funny that you bring up Rock N Roll cause who in their right mind even consider's Madonna's music rock? (With the exception of her dance/rock hybrid of Ray of Light). She's a pop/dance artist.

[Edited 12/12/10 14:06pm]

I never said Madonna was rock. I even said on the 1st page of this thread that Madonna nor any other female act will never be put up with Elvis or most male acts. Barbra will not be put up with Elvis either. It's still basically a man's world, and men will always be put above women, sales or no sales or chart positions. Aretha Franklin has more Top 100 hits than The Beatles, but it was said that Glee broke The Beatles record, when The Beatles didn't have the record in the 1st place. That's what I meant by whoever writes history decides who and what is remembered. Just like any other history book about any subject.

I believe that Billboard was talking about a non-solo act record since the Beatles were not holding the all-acts record anyway, Elvis was

jiorjios said:

MickyDolenz said:

I never said Madonna was rock. I even said on the 1st page of this thread that Madonna nor any other female act will never be put up with Elvis or most male acts. Barbra will not be put up with Elvis either. It's still basically a man's world, and men will always be put above women, sales or no sales or chart positions. Aretha Franklin has more Top 100 hits than The Beatles, but it was said that Glee broke The Beatles record, when The Beatles didn't have the record in the 1st place. That's what I meant by whoever writes history decides who and what is remembered. Just like any other history book about any subject.

I believe that Billboard was talking about a non-solo act record since the Beatles were not holding the all-acts record anyway, Elvis was

But shows like Entertainment Tonight reported the Glee record, and the average person who watches these programs doesn't read Billboard or knows the difference. The general public just hears that they broke the Beatles record.

MickyDolenz said:

jiorjios said:

I believe that Billboard was talking about a non-solo act record since the Beatles were not holding the all-acts record anyway, Elvis was

But shows like Entertainment Tonight reported the Glee record, and the average person who watches these programs doesn't read Billboard or knows the difference. The general public just hears that they broke the Beatles record.

Entertainment Tonight is irrelevant.

Timmy84 said:

MickyDolenz said:

But shows like Entertainment Tonight reported the Glee record, and the average person who watches these programs doesn't read Billboard or knows the difference. The general public just hears that they broke the Beatles record.

Entertainment Tonight is irrelevant.

You could say that about anything. A lot of the general public gets their information from it and it has been on since the early 80s. It's like in the US, a lot of people believe the Emancipation Proclaimation freed the slaves, when that is not true. It was the 13th Amendment. It's what the masses believe that is passed down to the most people. A lot of people believe whatever Oprah Winfrey says. ET might not be relevent to you, but it is to others.

MickyDolenz said:

Timmy84 said:

Entertainment Tonight is irrelevant.

You could say that about anything. A lot of the general public gets their information from it and it has been on since the early 80s. It's like in the US, a lot of people believe the Emancipation Proclaimation freed the slaves, when that is not true. It was the 13th Amendment. It's what the masses believe that is passed down to the most people. A lot of people believe whatever Oprah Winfrey says. ET might not be relevent to you, but it is to others.

Yeah zombies lol

Timmy84 said:

Yeah zombies lol

Doesn't matter, people like Oprah or the women on The View have a lot of influence. So does talk radio programs or CNBC. It doesn't matter what the content of the shows, people get their information from them. Some people believe the stories in tabloid papers like the Enquirer, so you can't exactly say it's irrelavant.

MickyDolenz said:

Timmy84 said:

Yeah zombies lol

Doesn't matter, people like Oprah or the women on The View have a lot of influence. So does talk radio programs or CNBC. It doesn't matter what the content of the shows, people get their information from them. Some people believe the stories in tabloid papers like the Enquirer, so you can't exactly say it's irrelavant.

Whatever.

Timmy84 said:

MickyDolenz said:

Doesn't matter, people like Oprah or the women on The View have a lot of influence. So does talk radio programs or CNBC. It doesn't matter what the content of the shows, people get their information from them. Some people believe the stories in tabloid papers like the Enquirer, so you can't exactly say it's irrelavant.

Whatever.

You can't underestimate the power of some people or of the media.

MickyDolenz said:

Timmy84 said:

Whatever.

You can't underestimate the power of some people or of the media.

Yes I can. I don't follow it, therefore I'm not hooked.