xLiberiangirl said:

mjscarousal said:

And THERE IT IS... so really all that other bullshit is irrelevant you just PREFER Madonnas music

I said that Invincible sucked but that's my option, It's not a fact, it's just taste/option..

But I think a lot of people agree that Invincible is his worst album... right?

So I guess you like that album... well, that's fine.. if you think it's better than Madonna's album, I respect that, that's your option/taste...

I dont think Invincible is Michaels best either but Im not going to base that opinion on what an UNRELIABLE source said about an album unlike you. You seem to think critics and what the media says about something validates an album or an opinion and it doesnt.

NO, Invincible is not Michaels best album but I did find it to be underrated. There were quite a few gems on the album and Michaels vocals are very good on it. That fact that that was Michaels voted worse album is irrelevant. I wouldnt rank Madonnas 00s albums as being her best material either. It was very average and mediocre to me.

And to me, based on listening to all those shit albums Michael tops them for a variety of reasons.

[Edited 3/5/12 8:02am]

seeingvoices12 said:

who takes madonna seriously as an artist other than her crazed fans ,none ,the woman can't even hit a note...reinventing herself my ass ,I need to see raw talent , madonna failed to show that through her entire career !

MadamGoodnight said:

Madonna's name is always thrown in with Michael and Prince. Two outstanding singers, and dancers get lumped in with a no talent hack. This woman has no pipes, and that chicken wing dancing she does is horrific. I can't. I don't usually say anything but when they put her up against great talent, and dis the other, please!

Michael could sing Happy Birthday and shut down anything she has done. His voice was that great. This heffa wouldn't make it past the first round on the X Factor.

Girlll you betta preach in that post!!!... Im making brunch did you want French toast or waffles???

mjscarousal said:

MadamGoodnight said:

Madonna's name is always thrown in with Michael and Prince. Two outstanding singers, and dancers get lumped in with a no talent hack. This woman has no pipes, and that chicken wing dancing she does is horrific. I can't. I don't usually say anything but when they put her up against great talent, and dis the other, please!

Michael could sing Happy Birthday and shut down anything she has done. His voice was that great. This heffa wouldn't make it past the first round on the X Factor.

Girlll you betta preach in that post!!!... Im making brunch did you want French toast or waffles???

I waffles! Thank you for my e-brunch!

If pop music in the charts today is the norm, I say it is a very good thing not to be relevant.
Rihanna, Lady Gaga, Black Eyed Peas, Snoop Dogg, Chris Brown, Usher, Katy Perry, Kesha, LMFAO, Nicki Minaj, David Guetta & countles other acts AND Madonna ALL SOUND THE SAME. Like they all have the same producers.
Every song sounds HUUUGE. Full of high pitched synths, over reverbed/processed vocals and all around the 125 bpm mark. Most of them are about celebrating in the club and getting drunk/laid.

I hope this trend flies over quick.
It seems to me the producer that can come up with the most annoying sounds wins


Unfortunately Madonna will probably hear about dubstep next year and will release MDNA the dubstep remix album produced by skrillex.... Yeah, she's soo relevant....
.... to people that haven't developed an acquired taste in music yet.

And why call her album Mdna? Madonna and her management team know damn well mdMa is a popular drug these days with the bad little kiddies. Controversy sells right? Sad she has to stay relevant this way.

Madonna had some quality releases in the past, but come on. The stuff she's putting out now is just garbage!

Applause for being relevant.

MadamGoodnight said:

mjscarousal said:

Girlll you betta preach in that post!!!... Im making brunch did you want French toast or waffles???

I waffles! Thank you for my e-brunch!

no prob

CrabalockerFishwife said:

rdhull said:

Does anyone find it funny that the main topic of this thread is that her current producer (i.e. the one she gave a job to) the one giving her props? Talk about a conflict of interest lol.

Nobody cares about that, though. This is a who's better - MJ or Madonna thread...

lol..I know..thats whats crazy. It ended up as this all from a biased statment.

ThruTheEyesOfWonder said:

SC honey, did you report this thread already? I hope so...

Yes, I did. Still waiting.

Oh my fucking God!! To you losers still debating this:

[img:$uid]http://i40.tinypic.com/o0qk5f.gif[/img:$uid]

Terrib3Towel said:

Oh my fucking God!! To you losers still debating this:

[img:$uid]http://i40.tinypic.com/o0qk5f.gif[/img:$uid]

Terrib3Towel said:

Oh my fucking God!! To you losers still debating this:

[img:$uid]http://i40.tinypic.com/o0qk5f.gif[/img:$uid]

Um who say that's a prerequiste to adapt to the times in order to be a great music artist?

I can't say I love all of Madonna's new music.

Just the cause the music is new and with the times- doesn't mean it makes one a great artist.

In the end, its the music that counts and whether its sounds good.

[Edited 3/5/12 16:02pm]

rialb said:

Eh, he's right isn't he? How relevent was Michael in the '00s or even post History?

---------

Thriller sold 40 million copies in the 80s. Do you think MJ needed to do something else?

Mike had more talent in his toe than Madonna has in her whole body and I am not a hugh MJ fan.

"Shut up and dance!"

SoulAlive said:

"Shut up and dance!"

Is that you?

rialb said:

purple05 said:

by the mid 90s madonna was just as much as a has been as mj was. I also wouldnt actually wouldnt consider Madonna "relevant" in recent years just because she has released music. Honestly, no one I know nor I was checking for Madonna anyway. Also having a hit on the charts usually just mean that your label is putting money into your project (nothing more in 85% of cases). I do think that its wonderful that she can still go on tour and sell out though. Not many people can do that years in the game.

Huh?

Ray of Light, released in 1998, sold over fifteen million copies worldwide.

Music, released in 2000, sold over ten million copies worldwide.

Confessions on a Dance Floor, released in 2005, sold over ten million copies worldwide. Keep in mind that by 2005 album sales had tanked which makes that number even more impressive.

Three albums after the mid nineties that sold at least ten million copies is irrelevent?

Even if Madonna was irrelevent in the mid nineties (which is arguable) she certainly bounced back in a way that MJ never did. That is an inarguable fact.

I am not a Madonna stan by any definition, I don't own any of the three albums I mentioned above, but if you look at the cold, hard facts it is obvious that Madonna was much more successful than Michael circa the late nineties/2000's.

Im not saying she didnt sale, because obivously she did. MJ sold music also but that doesnt make him "relevant" either. I do not know anyone who was really checking for either of their stuff. The only video I remebere of hers is teh one where she is dancing around in the leotard and still never really heard of her new stuff either. The same goes for MJ. I knew she was doing stuff but no one was checking for her that I know of either.

CrabalockerFishwife said:

rialb said:

Huh?

Ray of Light, released in 1998, sold over fifteen million copies worldwide.

Music, released in 2000, sold over ten million copies worldwide.

Confessions on a Dance Floor, released in 2005, sold over ten million copies worldwide. Keep in mind that by 2005 album sales had tanked which makes that number even more impressive.

Three albums after the mid nineties that sold at least ten million copies is irrelevent?

Michael Jackson...

HIStory sold 20 million

Blood On The Dance Floor (remix album) sold 6 million

Invincible sold 13 million

I do believe that means the three MJ albums I mentioned outsold the three Madonna albums you mentioned. (Yes, I know Madonna has released other albums as well.)

MICHAEL sold 3 million (I think)

If we're basing relevancy solely on album sales (are we?) then I'd say both artists are still relevant.

[Edited 3/5/12 1:11am]

I agree. I was just basiclly stating that even though she was still around and can push numbers, that doesnt necessairly make her relevant. She is still just as much of a has been as MJ was. Both MJ and Madonna can pull high numbers just because of who they are.

Invincible did NOT sell 13 million.

This discussion about who was more relevant has always made me laugh. People say Madonna purely because she still released albums in the 00's, but thats what makes it even more embarrassing for her. Michael was still the most talked about one out of the two of them for the decade even before he died. Still sold more then her every week when Amit (sorry forget her whole username) used to post the stats of their album sales. I've been on this site since 2004 and remember just how much more he used to sell than her too every week. Again this was before he died. I was also in high school and never once heard Madonna talked about amongst other teens, yet Michaels events in the news always had him as major conversation, even in classrooms with the teacher. Madonna has simply not been relevant to mass culture in the 2000's despite her music and touring, (excuse me actually she was form 2000-2003 after that zilch.) Michael was for almost the whole decade except 2007 and 2008 when he was vitually off the radar. Theres no contest, Michael was still more famous and relevant to the world in the 2000's without even trying. People are just more interested in him than they are Madonna.

MadamGoodnight said:

Madonna's name is always thrown in with Michael and Prince. Two outstanding singers, and dancers get lumped in with a no talent hack. This woman has no pipes, and that chicken wing dancing she does is horrific. I can't. I don't usually say anything but when they put her up against great talent, and dis the other, please!

Michael could sing Happy Birthday and shut down anything she has done. His voice was that great. This heffa wouldn't make it past the first round on the X Factor.

But she's still going strong doing it though. She's not great at anything but she's made money and a career despite her handicaps. That's reason to celebrate, not hate. If you can't celebrate mediocrity rising above mediocrity check yourself for jealousy.

smoothcriminal12 said:

Invincible did NOT sell 13 million.

Of course it did. It had Michael Jackson's name on it.

rdhull said:

Does anyone find it funny that the main topic of this thread is that her current producer (i.e. the one she gave a job to) the one giving her props? Talk about a conflict of interest lol.

lol

As somebody staed earlier this interview is WEEKSSSSSSSSSSS OLDDDDDDDDDDDDD. I was gonna post it awhile back but I changed my mind. Then I came across it again and I was like...... hmmmm why not??? I really just wanted to see what the dicussion would turn into.

SUPRMAN said:

smoothcriminal12 said:

Invincible did NOT sell 13 million.

Of course it did. It had Michael Jackson's name on it.

I've heard of that figure, but I've really only seen it all add up to 7 million.

smoothcriminal12 said:

Invincible did NOT sell 13 million.

2001 it was 2 million but gradualy increased over the years. Soundscan has it at the 10 million range and its probably sold more by now. This was before MJ passed.

reported MJ and downhill discussion!

Please use the MJ stickeeeeee!!