DavidEye said:

Yeah, I think it works well as an album but there's nothing truly outstanding on it.

VoicesCarry said:

That's right, I do think Invincible is a good album. For the most part the songs are pretty solid. And you've known that I think this for quite a while. Isn't it about time you let go of the MJ vs Madonna thing? I don't lay into you everytime you rip apart MJ's post Bad material. Neither do I jump all over you when I think you give Madonna unneccesary credit for some of her later work. Apart from the singles I thought Music was a drab album. American Life was (to my ears at least) a healthier set but there's no Madonna classics on there.

Cloudbuster said:

why do I get the feeling that a "MJ Vs. Madonna" thread is inevitable?

DavidEye said:

Well, I'm staying the hell away from it.

Cloudbuster said:

why? I think you and VC could have a lively exchange

DavidEye said:

I ain't being done for murder.

Cloudbuster said:

Dangerous is actually growing on me. Other than that, his post-Bad material is, well.....

Let's hope he doesn't wait another 10 years to do an album.
[This message was edited Mon Apr 12 7:27:42 2004 by VoicesCarry]

VoicesCarry said:

'Music' is a solid album,and it's Madonna's most experimental work to date.Songs like "Impressive Instant","Nobody's Perfect","Don't Tell Me" and "Paradise (Not For Me)" don't sound like anything she had ever done before.Yes,'Invincible' has some cool songs but let's be honest,except for the brilliant "Whatever Happens" (which adds a little Latin flavor),it's all stuff that MJ has already done before.

DavidEye said:

DavidEye said:

If the songs are quality then it shouldn't matter if it's been done before. You're not seriously gonna tell me that Madonna's never repeated herself, surely?

Music is a fair pop album but the singles are the highlights for me. I guess Ray Of Light set the standards too high and when it failed to match up then ultimately I was disappointed. I did play it quite a lot when it first came out but I found all the electronic effects to be more of a distraction than a compliment to the songs. With American Life, though, I thought the gimmickry worked well.

Cloudbuster said:

She's one of the more versatile pop artists. MJ is much more repetitive and seemingly scared to try new things than she is, IMHO. I'd LOVE to see him experiment with a sonic landscape that was distinctly "un-Jackson" but I don't think that'll happen.
[This message was edited Tue Apr 13 6:00:49 2004 by VoicesCarry]

VoicesCarry said:

Yeah, she is up to a point. But her styles are still usually in the ballad/dance/radio-friendly-pop-song genres.
She's not quite as diverse as some people make her out to be.

Cloudbuster said:

And Michael's aren't? Michael was pretty obsessed with success, especially in the 80s (I remember reading that he was worried about his post-Bad LP because Janet's Rhythm Nation hadn't sold enough for his tastes). Everything on Bad sounded radio-ready. Dangerous was probably his least commercial record and that's why I appreciate it for its merits. But Invincible sounds like he was trying too hard to please everyone. But this is pop music. It's not meant to change your life, just enrich it. I don't consider much from Erotica or American Life to be very radio friendly (neither did radio, actually). That something like "Frozen" (over five minutes, requires an attention span, not produced by Max Martin) got airplay at all in the middle of the teeny-bop phase of the late 90's attests to the fact that Madonna's appeal is not merely limited to radio-friendly pop.

Overall, from Madonna we've had electronica, acoustic, R&B, gospel-themed pop, dance-pop, house, and so on. You can debate the merits of her work but I don't think it's debatable that she's certainly tried a lot more than MJ.

You know, it's weird, but Off The Wall seems to be emerging as his defining album. A lot of people are re-evaluating Thriller and finding that it's just too.....commercial, I guess. OTW sounds so much more real and organic. I wish Michael would go back to that production style. That's primarily what turned me off of Invincible.
[This message was edited Tue Apr 13 6:12:59 2004 by VoicesCarry]

VoicesCarry said:

Here we go.

What is it with you and your Madonna vs MJ thing?

Cloudbuster said:

Yes,the songs are quality but that still doesn't mean that artists shouldn't grow and evolve.As Prince fans,we should expect this from all of our favorite artists.After all,isn't that one of the things we love about him? Michael is a really talented guy and he's capable of so much,but unfortunately,he seems to be stuck in R&B/dance pop mode.Whenever it's time to make a new album,he simply calls up every hot shot R&B producer.That's not what I would consider to be artistic inspiration.

As for Madonna "repeating herself",can you honestly tell me that these albums all sound alike?

***I'm Breathless
***Erotica
***Bedtime Stories
***Evita Soundtrack
***Ray Of Light
***Music
***American Life

Each of these albums is different,lyrically and musically.You can really see how much she's evolved since 1990."I'm Breathess" is mostly a collection of show tunes..."Erotica" is mostly a club record with a dark feel to it..."Bedtime Stories" is mostly R&B..."Evita" is something entirely different,and features Maddy singing like never before..."Ray Of Light" is a bold,challenging masterpiece that rivals ALL of the previous albums..."Music" is a unique blend of eerie techno sounds,country-styled acoustic guitars,and Old School electro funk (those disparate sounds are not supposed to blend well together,but somehow Maddy pulls it off)..."American Life" is the gospel according to Madonna....a deeply personal,confessional album with songs that deal with materialism,fame,death,and even a song directed at Jesus Christ ("X-Static Process").You know,the type of weighty subjects that MJ would never address on an album.

Cloudbuster said:

Cloudy sees the light!

DavidEye said:

They're fairly different but they're still basically within the ballad/dance/pop structure.
I'm not sure if I'm Breathless & Evita are worthy of a mention as they were tailored for film.

Cloudbuster said:

Nope,those albums count.Yes,they are film soundtracks but you wouldn't exclude "Purple Rain" from Prince's catalog,would you?

But you gotta admit,those albums show much more growth than MJ's output during the same period.

DavidEye said:

Okay, fair point.



Madonna is more in tune with dance music than MJ so, of course, if she's to remain relevant then she's gonna cater to that audience and she does it well. Michael is more of a pop/r&b artist than a proper dance artist (although he does make danceable songs) and so he's never gonna switch styles as often as Maddy. He's just not as interested as making music geared towards nightclubs. However, I think it's unfair to say he hasn't shown any signs of growth, though. Despite their similarities (and all artists have their own signatures) I still don't think that Dangerous, History & Invincible are as alike as people make them out to be.

.
[This message was edited Tue Apr 13 10:29:20 2004 by Cloudbuster]

Cloudbuster said:

Responding to what Davideye said. I primarily discuss MJ because you choose to dismiss Madonna ("She's dance pop and writes songs about love.") for things you let MJ get away with (don't many of his songs fall under that category as well?). I don't see how you can apply that criticism in one place, but completely ignore it otherwise.

Why does this so often come up? Well, this is an MJ and Madonna thread, so it naturally comes around to discussing them in the same context. Don't be so paranoid.
[This message was edited Tue Apr 13 7:59:08 2004 by VoicesCarry]

Madonna is a mediocre singer, a mediocre musican, is a great performer and has lots of charisma. PERIOD!

Michael Jackson is a great performer, a great singer, great dancer and good composer. period.

OMG, how much crack u smokin!!. Madonna is not a musician, but a marketing genius and MJ is talentless - withb respect for a few moves (played over and over and over....) and a mediocre voice..

VoicesCarry said:

Hey, it's okay. I never said that Michael didn't make dance pop love songs. That's what he does a lot of the time, and he does it well. And I wasn't trying to dismiss Madonna. I stressed simply that she's not quite the all encompassing musical artist that some folk would like you to believe she is.

Madonna has clearly addressed more social issues in her work and dipped her toe into more musical areas than Michael has and probably ever will do. But I don't think that because of Madonna's willingness to experiment I should overlook the simple fact that her songs aren't as good as they used to be. While it's admirable that she's not afraid to take risks (for that alone she deserves immense credit) I still believe that a strong song is paramount. And I know you're gonna disagree with me but I think Michael still has stronger songs than Madonna does. That's all.

DavidEye said:

Hey I didn't say he could come up with a GOOD album, but "some kind of an album". He can play an instrument, he can write songs, programs a lot of his own rhythms & he is probably capable of hitting the record button at the tape machine, so, just like any mp3.com or soundclick doodler he could make an album on his own.

Damnit. It isn't funny.
[This message was edited Tue Apr 13 11:15:45 2004 by Novabreaker]

Novabreaker said:

He already has. It's called Bad (minus 2 measely lil' songs )

give em a break, go listen to Terence Trent, Prince, hell even outkast. Madonna? give me a break, her music sucks, girl cannot sing, she hangs out musically with britney spears. I do want to hear Madonna sittign at a piano performing a song that she wrote alone, and if the song is good i will respect her. My sister has 2 maddy album i read the credits and i never saw a song that she did all by herself she always needs someone. I could accept this if she had a great voice, but helll no, she is worse than aguilera and beyonce cause at least the other girls can sing.

7salles said:

Written entirely by Madonna:

From Madonna (1983):

Lucky Star
Burning Up
I Know It
Think Of Me
Everybody

From Like A Virgin (1985):

Shoo-Bee-Doo
Pretender

From Like A Prayer (1989):

Act Of Contrition

And she's cowritten basically everything else she's done, which is more than I can say for most artists these days, let alone pop artists. She works out the lyrics and melodies, and the cowriters generally work on arrangements.

P.S. Aguilera and Beyonce need a troupe of cowriters to properly flesh out a song (Aguilera had something like 50 people working for her on the Stripped album). Madonna generally only works with one, a close collaborator for the entire record.

Comparing Madonna to Britney Spears is like comparing Michael Jackson to Justin Timberlake, know what I mean?
[This message was edited Wed Apr 14 8:20:57 2004 by VoicesCarry]

VoicesCarry said: