I say average

1983-1988 Meh

1989-1990 Good

1991-1996 Depends on the song. Somethimes very good (I'll Remember) sometimes she wasn't even singing (Erotica)

1997-1999 Awesome

2000-2002 Meh

2003-2006 Not much singing more spoken with a bit of singing. When she sang she did it well I guess

2007-2011 Shit

2012 Fine I guess

shitty troll thread

No Tea No Shade.

she is aight--Rain is my song.

When compared to today's "stars" she at least has a recognizable voice.

Her live "singing" on the other hand

in certain periods (eg 1997-1999), she sang well.
Although her ​​singing is usually ranges from mediocre to average.
But Madonna is not a bad singer, she is better than most of today's pop stars

+ Her voice is unobtrusive and pleasant to the ears

On a 1 to 10 scale....I'd say strong "3".

I loved her voice back when she wasn't afraid to get throaty with it. Somewhere along the way she learned how to sing properly, and in the process, destroyed what made her voice unique. I think she can sing though. At least she turns the mic on at her shows. I saw Britney a couple of times and after one song with a live mic, people were RUNNING for the soundboard asking it to be shut back off.

Oooh, boy! This thread is asking for it.

Oh god. saw the thread and thought "madonna hate thread pt.263739"

carry on .orgers....

[Edited 8/1/12 2:29am]

I'm not sitting listening to Madonna acapella tracks but she does just fine and her shows are mostly live vocals, right?

in certain periods (eg 1997-1999), she sang well.

That was around the time of Evita and the Ray of Light album. It was brought up that she had worked with a vocal coach when she was filming Evita so that she could sing the songs properly, the way they were meant to sung. I think that was the case with songs she did from the movie Dick Tracy too.

She's a better singer than a dancer. I guess that's something, right?

UnderMySun said:

in certain periods (eg 1997-1999), she sang well.

That was around the time of Evita and the Ray of Light album. It was brought up that she had worked with a vocal coach when she was filming Evita so that she could sing the songs properly, the way they were meant to sung. I think that was the case with songs she did from the movie Dick Tracy too.

I thought she did pretty good on Sooner or Later. But Madonna is a mediocre singer. Her voice like someone mentioned above is not harsh, its light and pleasant to the ears which is why most people dont think about the technicality of her singing.

Also, on certain songs, her voice does well with the production but just on singing skills alone, vocal range and vocal talent, on a scale from 0-10 she gets a 0. I love alot of Madonna songs but she has absolutely 0 talent.

There is nothing particularly wrong with her singing, except that it's aesthetically unappealing for some reason.

mjscarousal said:

UnderMySun said:

That was around the time of Evita and the Ray of Light album. It was brought up that she had worked with a vocal coach when she was filming Evita so that she could sing the songs properly, the way they were meant to sung. I think that was the case with songs she did from the movie Dick Tracy too.

Also, on certain songs, her voice does well with the production but just on singing skills alone, vocal range and vocal talent, on a scale from 0-10 she gets a 0. I love alot of Madonna songs but she has absolutely 0 talent.

Madonna's very underrated as a singer. No, she's not technically the best, but she's not as bad as everyone says either. Listen to Masterpiece and Falling Free on her recent album. She may not have a big range but her voice is lovely and very emotionally expressive. She doesn't belt and scream like Aretha Franklin or someone but to say she can't sing it just flat out wrong. She's done some beautiful vocals on her ballads over the years. She may not be technically perfect but she expresses emotion. She has that unique "it" factor to her voice.

scriptgirl said:

I say average

THAT!^

But Madonna does get above above average in songs like Like A Prayer, Live To Tell, & Take A Bow.

Madonna couldn't sing, dance or act her way out of a wet paper bag. And she

needs to sit her old ass down somewhere with the quickness.

But as a provocateur? On a scale from 1 - 10, she's an 11.

mjscarousal said:

aardvark15 said:

mjscarousal said:

I thought she did pretty good on Sooner or Later. But Madonna is a mediocre singer. Her voice like someone mentioned above is not harsh, its light and pleasant to the ears which is why most people dont think about the technicality of her singing.

Also, on certain songs, her voice does well with the production but just on singing skills alone, vocal range and vocal talent, on a scale from 0-10 she gets a 0. I love alot of Madonna songs but she has absolutely 0 talent.

Songwriter, decent singer, fashion icon, awesome tour maker, dancer, amazing reinventor and she has no talent?

Yes.

At best Madonna is average, but she is a marketing genius.

duccichucka said:

novabrkr said:

When compared to today's "stars" she at least has a recognizable voice.

Her live "singing" on the other hand

Yeah its aiight..the songs are unforgettable though...

No matter being an average singer though....anyone re-doing her songs will never sound right.

aardvark15 said:

duccichucka said:

Yes.

That makes absolutely no sense

Yes, her fame makes no sense until you realize that smoothcriminal is right, and

so am I:

she's a helluva provocateur and marketer. She knows exactly when it is that she

needs to reinvent whatever it is she calls "talent." And she does it well. Madonna,

talent wise, is a hack.

She's smart as shit - and her hu$tlenomic$ in the 80s was never before seen and will

never be seen again. She out-hustled everyone. And I think her career still exists

because of how hard she hustled in the 80s. There were 3 big pop superpowers in

the 80s:

Prince

Michael Jackson

Madonna

Two of those names are talent non pareil. One of those names needed a casting couch,

some chutzpah, determination, a great producer, timing, luck, wherewithal, songwriters,

a look, dancing lessons, singing lessons, a vagina (yeah, I said it), and a nice rack in

order to get put on.

duccichucka said:

aardvark15 said:

duccichucka said:

Yes, her fame makes no sense until you realize that smoothcriminal is right, and

so am I:

she's a helluva provocateur and marketer. She knows exactly when it is that she

needs to reinvent whatever it is she calls "talent." And she does it well. Madonna,

talent wise, is a hack.

She's smart as shit - and her hu$tlenomic$ in the 80s was never before seen and will

never be seen again. She out-hustled everyone. And I think her career still exists

because of how hard she hustled in the 80s. There were 3 big pop superpowers in

the 80s:

Prince

Michael Jackson

Madonna

Two of those names are talent non pareil. One of those names needed a casting couch,

some chutzpah, determination, a great producer, timing, luck, wherewithal, songwriters,

a look, dancing lessons, singing lessons, a vagina (yeah, I said it), and a nice rack in

order to get put on.

That's only part of her.

Well, the other part of her can't be talent. Hell, the whole of her can't

be talent.

I'm just being mean to be mean.

Madonna's all right with me. I think she sucks and is a better marketer than

anything else, but my wife digs her so by default, I at least have to tolerate

Madonna's caterwauling, no talent, awful singing ass a little bit more than I'd

like to.

For a Pop star, she's got a good voice. It's instantly recognizable. I never really thought much of her voice until I heard "You Must Love Me," the first single from Evita. That's when I realized that she had been undergoing some vocal coaching which lent to her voice a tender quality.

On "Ray of Light," the same tenderness prevailed. After that, it was apparent that she had stopped with the vocal coaching and in her live shows, without musical accompaniment, she's very pitchy and mostly off-key. In spite of this, the voice is iconic, but average at best. She's no Chaka or Miss Patti.