New topic
Printableimnotsayinthisjust2bnasty said: DavidEye said: imnotsayinthisjust2bnasty said: DavidEye said: Surely you wouldn't call the 'Ray Of Light' album "mindless",would you? i wouldn't...it is actually one of the few madonna CDs that i own (plus like a prayer, madonna, & like a virgin)...but, i also am a fan of william orbit. I have always considered Ray of Light to be his album...it may have been madonna's name on the record but it is orbit's work through and through. I don't care how many filters the girl uses, without orbit Ray of Light would not have been what it is. This is just one reason why i don't consider her a real artist...she relies on others too much. Honestly, I know she's huge and many many people love her, but where would she be without mad pr skills and a great producer? It's true that Madonna works with producers and songwriters,but if you were to ask William Orbit and Mirwais,they would tell you that she is in total control when they're in the studio.I once read an interview with Orbit and he confirmed this.Madonna is NOT one of these no-talent bimbos who just sits back and takes orders from some hot-shot producer.She's very talented and knows exactly what she wants.When you hear a new Madonna song these days,you are hearing HER vision and HER ideas. as a skilled pr woman, i am quite sure she pays those guys tops $$$ to not concern themselves with all the credit. I don't doubt that she tells them what she wants her record to sound like...she just can't make it sound that way. I can tell a painter what i want on canvas, but i can't paint it for myself the exact way i want it to appear. Does that make me an artist? Not really. It goves me a vision, but i can't execute it on my own. Madonna, like I said, is a great pr machine. She has dominated the industry solely by conception, not actual execution. She pays good money for the final product and I give her credit for getting where she has gone but not for being an artist. So,do you feel the same way about ANYBODY who uses a producer on their records? Do you feel the same way about Janet Jackson (who works with Jam and Lewis)? Do you feel the same way about Aretha Franklin (who utilizes producers)? Do you feel the same way about Sheryl Crow (who has worked with producers)? You seem to think that,unless an artist writes,produces and composes the album all by themselves,they are not an "artist".That's absurd.Writing lyrics,singing the vocals and composing melodies (which is what Maddy does these days on her recordings) are all part of the creative process.And on the new CD,she will be playing guitar. ... [This message was edited Thu Feb 27 6:36:00 PST 2003 by DavidEye] | |
- E-mail - orgNote -  Report post to moderator |
DavidEye said: So,do you feel the same way about ANYBODY who uses a producer on their records? Do you feel the same way about Janet Jackson (who works with Jam and Lewis)? Do you feel the same way about Aretha Franklin (who utilizes producers)? Do you feel the same way about Sheryl Crow (who has worked with producers)? You seem to think that,unless an artist writes,produces and composes the album all by themselves,they are not an "artist".That's absurd.Writing lyrics,singing the vocals and composing melodies (which is what Maddy does these days on her recordings) are all part of the creative process.And on the new CD,she will be playing guitar.
To an extent, yes. I think Janet is a talented singer but i don't think her artistry is in her singing (as much as i love her, she is only a mediocre singer). Her artistry is clearly in her dancing. She can choreograph a dance and execute the dance. She creates straight through to executing an idea. Aretha is an incredibly talented singer. She is not an artist in terms of anything else. I am not terribly familiar with the credits of her albums so I can't say much. Does she write her own songs? To be perfectly honest anyone can get voice lessons and carry a note (madonna did it for Evita) but I don't feel that makes them an artist. I believe an artist actually creates something more than a voice. I thought sheryl crow actually produced all her material except for her debut. I am not that much of a listener of hers so I can't say too much there. I am not trying to insult anybody's taste. If you dig madonna and get satisfaction from her albums than that is great! I suppose everybody's idea of art is different. Some people don't consider Andy Warhol's pop art to really be art, some do. I suppose it's all in your perspective. I qualify art as something that was a concept in the mind of someone. That same someone then goes through the process of fleshing it out into something tangible (like a bokk, painting, record, etc.). That's not to say that they can't have any help, but i feel 95% of the work (or something to that effect) should be produced by that same someone. If you need someone else to finish your idea for you, or make it a completed piece of work, can you really be considered an artist? In my opinion (just mine) the answer is no. Any board of directors or suits can come up with a trendy artful idea, but they still need to hire artists to complete it to fruition. In my opinion, Madonna is that board of directors...not the artist hired to do it. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
William Orbit's solo stuff is rather shitty. ...Your coochie gonna swell up and fall apart... | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Swinger said: Who gives a shit if old broad Madge tries her damnest to be controversial again?
Madonna Bill O' Reilly... There will be an interview, if this story is true. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Martinelli said: William Orbit's solo stuff is rather shitty.
yes. it's dull. as is Babyface's and most of David Foster's and Shep Pettibone's work. however, Madonna's talent is evident in pulling a "Take A Bow" out of Babyface, a "You'll See" out of David Foster, "Vogue" and the "Erotica" album out of Pettibone, and the "Ray Of Light" album out of William Orbit. even though she works with a lot of hot producers (many of whom she MAKES hot -- who was doing albums with William Orbit before Madonna? no one. and NOW the guy's dance card is always full) Madonna's music is always uniquely Madonna's. from True Blue through Music, there are constant thematic, lyrical, sonic threads that remain constant no matter who she's working with. [This message was edited Thu Feb 27 22:46:57 PST 2003 by AaronUnlimited] | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
imnotsayinthisjust2bnasty said: DavidEye said: So,do you feel the same way about ANYBODY who uses a producer on their records? Do you feel the same way about Janet Jackson (who works with Jam and Lewis)? Do you feel the same way about Aretha Franklin (who utilizes producers)? Do you feel the same way about Sheryl Crow (who has worked with producers)? You seem to think that,unless an artist writes,produces and composes the album all by themselves,they are not an "artist".That's absurd.Writing lyrics,singing the vocals and composing melodies (which is what Maddy does these days on her recordings) are all part of the creative process.And on the new CD,she will be playing guitar.
To an extent, yes. I think Janet is a talented singer but i don't think her artistry is in her singing (as much as i love her, she is only a mediocre singer). Her artistry is clearly in her dancing. She can choreograph a dance and execute the dance. She creates straight through to executing an idea. ermmm... no. yeah, she can dance. but she owes a lot of that talent to Paula Abdul and Tina Landon and the guy that choreographed a lot of the Rhtym Nation stuff (can't remember his name). Aretha is an incredibly talented singer. She is not an artist in terms of anything else. I am not terribly familiar with the credits of her albums so I can't say much. Does she write her own songs? To be perfectly honest anyone can get voice lessons and carry a note (madonna did it for Evita) but I don't feel that makes them an artist. I believe an artist actually creates something more than a voice.
you know, the whole singer/songwriter thing is a relatively new form of musician. and still only makes up about 1/3 to 1/2 of all the acts out there today. I thought sheryl crow actually produced all her material except for her debut. I am not that much of a listener of hers so I can't say too much there. I am not trying to insult anybody's taste. If you dig madonna and get satisfaction from her albums than that is great! I suppose everybody's idea of art is different. Some people don't consider Andy Warhol's pop art to really be art, some do. I suppose it's all in your perspective. I qualify art as something that was a concept in the mind of someone.
and that is exactly why Madonna is an artist to me. all of the facets of her career feed into the concept of Madonna. for Madonna, life is art, and the music, the dancing, the acting, the businesswoman, the diva... it's all feeding into that concept that she's created for herself. That same someone then goes through the process of fleshing it out into something tangible (like a bokk, painting, record, etc.). That's not to say that they can't have any help, but i feel 95% of the work (or something to that effect) should be produced by that same someone.
this is the reason why we get Mariah Carey singing shitty songs because she wants to be a writer. and we get a shitty singer like Bob Dylan singing great songs (that he's written). If you need someone else to finish your idea for you, or make it a completed piece of work, can you really be considered an artist?
absolutely. do you think Beethoven or Mozart played every single instrument in the orchestras that played their music? talk about busy fingers and lips! 
In my opinion (just mine) the answer is no. Any board of directors or suits can come up with a trendy artful idea, but they still need to hire artists to complete it to fruition. In my opinion, Madonna is that board of directors...not the artist hired to do it.
Madonna is the board of directors and the artist all wrapped into one. She's a truly modern artist. She can think with both sides of her brain, which is very rare when it comes to musicians. If that makes her "not a musician" then all the better. She's better than a musician. She can create and have some common sense... something which is very rare in rock/pop/r&b/country. She comes up with the concept, writes the song (usually) and is her own best PR. That's exactly what you said an artist is -- someone who comes up with the concept and sees it through. What is wrong with collaboration? How many artists have we seen go stale because they stayed wrapped up in their own little world, their own little sound? That she likes working with people with fresh ideas is a testament to her savvy and artistry. That she's constantly finding and assimilating new things, sounds, people into her work to reinvigorate it and help her keep her message and her art fresh and relavent is a good thing. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
AaronUnlimited said: Martinelli said: William Orbit's solo stuff is rather shitty.
yes. it's dull. as is Babyface's and most of David Foster's and Shep Pettibone's work. however, Madonna's talent is evident in pulling a "Take A Bow" out of Babyface, a "You'll See" out of David Foster, "Vogue" and the "Erotica" album out of Pettibone, and the "Ray Of Light" album out of William Orbit. even though she works with a lot of hot producers (many of whom she MAKES hot -- who was doing albums with William Orbit before Madonna? no one. and NOW the guy's dance card is always full) Madonna's music is always uniquely Madonna's. from True Blue through Music, there are constant thematic, lyrical, sonic threads that remain constant no matter who she's working with. Thanks Aaron,I couldn't have said it better myself 
Another point I want to make is,Madonna rarely works with "hot" producers.William Orbit wasn't exactly a hitmaking Top 10 producer when Madonna asked him to work with her on 'Ray Of Light' in 1997.Mirwais was virtually unknown until Madonna collaborated with him on 'Music'.And in the 80s,Madonna mainly worked with Patrick Leonard and Steven Bray,two producers who only became "hot" after they worked with her. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
AaronUnlimited said: Madonna is the board of directors and the artist all wrapped into one. She's a truly modern artist. She can think with both sides of her brain, which is very rare when it comes to musicians. If that makes her "not a musician" then all the better. She's better than a musician. She can create and have some common sense... something which is very rare in rock/pop/r&b/country. She comes up with the concept, writes the song (usually) and is her own best PR. That's exactly what you said an artist is -- someone who comes up with the concept and sees it through. What is wrong with collaboration? How many artists have we seen go stale because they stayed wrapped up in their own little world, their own little sound? That she likes working with people with fresh ideas is a testament to her savvy and artistry. That she's constantly finding and assimilating new things, sounds, people into her work to reinvigorate it and help her keep her message and her art fresh and relevent is a good thing. There's no reason for me to add anything else to this discussion.Aaron is taking the words right out of my mouth | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
| Moderator
|
DavidEye said: AaronUnlimited said: Madonna is the board of directors and the artist all wrapped into one. She's a truly modern artist. She can think with both sides of her brain, which is very rare when it comes to musicians. If that makes her "not a musician" then all the better. She's better than a musician. She can create and have some common sense... something which is very rare in rock/pop/r&b/country. She comes up with the concept, writes the song (usually) and is her own best PR. That's exactly what you said an artist is -- someone who comes up with the concept and sees it through. What is wrong with collaboration? How many artists have we seen go stale because they stayed wrapped up in their own little world, their own little sound? That she likes working with people with fresh ideas is a testament to her savvy and artistry. That she's constantly finding and assimilating new things, sounds, people into her work to reinvigorate it and help her keep her message and her art fresh and relevent is a good thing. There's no reason for me to add anything else to this discussion.Aaron is taking the words right out of my mouth I concur  |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
moderatorok...there are too many statements to reply to so i'll just say a few things and call it a day. As far as orbit not being a hot producer...that is only in America. most of europe knew who he was. The same goes for mirwais and the whole Air sound. That is something else madonna is famous for...taking something from someone else (lesser known) and making it big.Thus, without claiming it herself, peeps give her the credit. Once again, a testament to her business sense! A quick mention to Janet...yes, she uses choreographers but she also choreographs things herself, so perhaps she was a bad example (sorry)...mozart and beethoven wrote their symphonies...alone...i'm talking about hiring a band, I think you took it a bit to ofar there. Sorry if that is hat you thought i meant, but i would never say an artist needs to play all the instruments themsleves...that's musical masturbation (sorry Prince).
Ok, so i still think madonna is a great intelligent business woman. I think she has an ear for music and for trends and knows what to do and when to do it. U2 was doing all this europop stuff back when madonna was doing erotica. U2 did not succeed at it, commercially, because they did not know how, or care to, turn it into a trend. Right there is the difference (for me). An artist does things for themselves, not for notoriety. An artist doesn't create to please others and make loads of money (a la "I wanna rule the world")...in my eyes an artist creates because an artist needs to create. It is my humble, and obviously lonely  , opinion that madonna is a mediocre dancer, mediocre singer, mediocre writer, etc..yet has managed to be the number one star in the world. That, perhaps only that, is what would qualify her as an artist...a bullshit artist
ok though, this conversation was fun and i enjoyed it, but i have to stop talking about madonna...soon enough i'll hear the new song and won't be able to get it outta my head. So i'll bow out now. or should i say I'll take a bow? ok, corny, i know. peace. | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
imnotsayinthisjust2bnasty said: It is my humble, and obviously lonely
, opinion that madonna is a mediocre dancer, mediocre singer, mediocre writer, etc..yet has managed to be the number one star in the world. That, perhaps only that, is what would qualify her as an artist...a bullshit artist
ok though, this conversation was fun and i enjoyed it, but i have to stop talking about madonna...soon enough i'll hear the new song and won't be able to get it outta my head. So i'll bow out now. or should i say I'll take a bow? ok, corny, i know. peace. Well, I guess it's lonely opinion + 1 because these are my sentiments exactly, and I am NOT on the Madonna bandwagon. I've never liked her music (not even way, way back) and I still don't. In fact, I can't even believe I'm wasting time writing about her right now, so I'll go away from this thread now.  "I saw a woman with major Hammer pants on the subway a few weeks ago and totally thought of you." - sextonseven | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
Nobody here in Europe had ever heard of Mirwaïs or WO b4 ROL and Music. They where by no means 'Hot'. BTW, musician is not synonymous for artist. ...Your coochie gonna swell up and fall apart... | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |
imnotsayinthisjust2bnasty said: ok...there are too many statements to reply to so i'll just say a few things and call it a day. As far as orbit not being a hot producer...that is only in America. most of europe knew who he was.
"most of Europe knew who he was" ... hmmm. well Blur and All Saints and everyone else he produces now weren't banging down his door until after Madonna worked with him. and as i understand it, he was pretty much "over" at that point, having peaked in popularity and notability in his genre in the early/mid-90's. The same goes for mirwais and the whole Air sound. That is something else madonna is famous for...taking something from someone else (lesser known) and making it big.Thus, without claiming it herself, peeps give her the credit.
those lesser known people should get down on their hands and knees and kiss the ground she walks on for getting the public to buy what would otherwise be unheard albums. Once again, a testament to her business sense! A quick mention to Janet...yes, she uses choreographers but she also choreographs things herself, so perhaps she was a bad example (sorry)...
what did she ever choreograph? in fact, when was the last time she had any new choreography at all? she's been dancing the same steps as in her videos since 1986. mozart and beethoven wrote their symphonies...alone...i'm talking about hiring a band, I think you took it a bit to ofar there. Sorry if that is hat you thought i meant, but i would never say an artist needs to play all the instruments themsleves...that's musical masturbation (sorry Prince).
you don't think John Lennon and Paul McCartney are artists? or Elton John and Bernie Taupin? they helped each other write great stuff. but by your definition, collaboration is not art (  )
Ok, so i still think madonna is a great intelligent business woman. I think she has an ear for music and for trends and knows what to do and when to do it. U2 was doing all this europop stuff back when madonna was doing erotica. U2 did not succeed at it, commercially, because they did not know how, or care to, turn it into a trend. Right there is the difference (for me). An artist does things for themselves, not for notoriety. An artist doesn't create to please others and make loads of money (a la "I wanna rule the world")...in my eyes an artist creates because an artist needs to create.
and you've spoken to Madonna to suss that she only creates to start trends and make money? she's made her money and started more trends than most other artists can follow in their lifetime. obviously there is the need for her to continue to create for the sake of creation, or she'd have stopped making music 10 years ago after the pinnacle of her commercial success and notoriety. It is my humble, and obviously lonely
, opinion that madonna is a mediocre dancer, mediocre singer, mediocre writer, etc..yet has managed to be the number one star in the world. That, perhaps only that, is what would qualify her as an artist...a bullshit artist is art not meant to provoke thought and reflect/extend culture? Madonna has certainly done that through her work. Madonna is a large reason why many issues that would never be discussed 20 years ago are now in the public discourse. [This message was edited Fri Feb 28 15:16:51 PST 2003 by AaronUnlimited] | |
| - E-mail - orgNote - Report post to moderator |