Madonna still around in 2008... why?

Am I missing something here? Madonna is a well polished bore. She has less sex appeal than an average mannequin. She is the most boring "sex symbol" ever.

Musically irrelevent, she just knows the right people to pay. A good businesswomen, that she is.

So why does madonna still get attention in the USA? Does she elsewhere?

you need a 'yes, in the past' option.

As for success, she has this annoying habit of producing a good record now and then. I thought she was dead and hung out to dry before 'Ray of Light', and then she hooked up with William Orbit, in the musical form of his life, and after 'American Life', but then she came out with 'Hung Up'.

BUT that leotard. NOOOO

It will catch up with her eventually, but i kinda enjoy the regular reinvention. And its really not all about using money either; there's a good business brain in there, and one that follows music.

i think madonna is brilliant. i hope i look like that at 50!

Like any of the big pop stars; she gets ahead purely by her ability to be completely uncontroversial, vacous, unimaginative and whore herself to death for the industry.

Pretty much why the Factory bands never became really huge. Wouldnt want it any other way.

Lib-Tory wrote: Like any of the big pop stars; she gets ahead purely by her ability to be completely uncontroversial, vacous, unimaginative and whore herself to death for the industry.

Pretty much why the Factory bands never became really huge. Wouldnt want it any other way.

Still doesn't explain why 80% of Factory bands were, musically, quite shit. (Not that Madge isn't either.)

Madonna is an artist and completly understands the realm of pop music. Something tells me you have stuck to the stereotype of pop music and really haven't given her a true listen. Many of her songs are magnificent... amongst some pop frills...

Is she as sexy as a 20 year old? No, but she is one of the hottest 50 year olds out there

So if she was to suddenly, say, cut her nose off and put on a couple of stone, she would lose any musical relevance she now has? It's a bit depressing when her looks and artistic validity seem to be confused in everyone's mind.

There's a lot worse-looking people being touted around as worthy of being on our magazine covers. She's looking after herself and working hard which is more than can be said for a lot of people.

I feel like sticking up for her at the moment. A pseudo-intellectual has been big name schleb journo that we have here in the UK, who's name I can't bring myself to write this early, tore into her in print recently which puts me in Madonna's camp under the 'enemy's enemy' rule. (I didn't actually read the piece, I should add.)

I won't be rushing out to buy her music because it's not really my sort of thing. But she's not got a baggy arse and even if she did it wouldn't affect my decision.

I paid £173 per ticket when I took my ex wife to see then bitch of music at wemberleeee in 2005. The highlight of the night was seeing a poster promoting the New Order gig.

What a fucking mug I was !

she wants her fanny kicking in!

would have gave her the best seven seconds of her life in the 80's but not these days :barf:

BIGINLYCRA wrote:

I feel like sticking up for her at the moment. A pseudo-intellectual has been big name schleb journo that we have here in the UK, who's name I can't bring myself to write this early, tore into her in print recently which puts me in Madonna's camp under the 'enemy's enemy' rule. (I didn't actually read the piece, I should add.)

i read it.

the journo in question pointed out that what's most perplexing about a female singer that's been around for 25 years is that she hasn't really got a voice. she commented on the fact madge originally trained to be a dancer, and probably switched to singing after realising she was never going to be a world beater and it's easier to fake being a singer. she suggested the 'reinventions' were a clue and asked since when did a singer have to reinvent themselves - did billie holliday or aretha?

interesting points, i thought.

BIGINLYCRA wrote: It's a bit depressing when her looks and artistic validity seem to be confused in everyone's mind.

fully agree with this. the questions 'why is madonna still around in 2008?' and 'is madonna sexy?' are completely separate, surely?

well actually, maybe they're not, and maybe that's partly her own doing, and maybe that's the real issue here...

has she been hoist by her own petard/leotard?

She's popular over here in Japan....

I think she has talent as a female singer (and I don't even listen to much female singers in the first place---besides Madonna and the French singer Mylene Farmer), and as long as her voice, her looks are kept in decent shape (for her age), and her CDs sell, I think she will continue to do what she does.

There's nothing wrong with having a long musical career, generally speaking. Does the original poster think that all female singers should have to quit their singing career once they've hit a certain age??????

Then again, we all have different tastes in music, don't we?

bloodynora wrote:

i read it.

the journo in question pointed out that what's most perplexing about a female singer that's been around for 25 years is that she hasn't really got a voice.

I thought someone else might provide me with a synopsis, cheers.

I suppose it comes down to a question of authenticity. La Burchelle's point seems to be that Madonna is 'faking' ie feeding what voice she has through effects so it sounds good. The end result is surely how she should be judged? If people buy the record, it's successful. Does it matter how the sound was achieved?

Sounds like a big bunch of sour fuckign grapes to me. A bit like everything else she's written since she got on the Guardian payroll.

bloodynora wrote:

BIGINLYCRA wrote: It's a bit depressing when her looks and artistic validity seem to be confused in everyone's mind.

fully agree with this. the questions 'why is madonna still around in 2008?' and 'is madonna sexy?' are completely separate, surely?

well actually, maybe they're not, and maybe that's partly her own doing, and maybe that's the real issue here...

has she been hoist by her own petard/leotard?

Yes that's the problem I've got with the issue. You stand under a cow, you get your head shat on. If you stand on the front of Vanity Fair in a silver leotard, you get comments about your body.

Still, I bet she earns more than me this month

BIGINLYCRA wrote: Does it matter how the sound was achieved?

i don't know. is it justifiable to have such spectacular success in a creative medium with such mediocre talent?

BIGINLYCRA wrote: Sounds like a big bunch of sour fuckign grapes to me.

i can't agree. sour grapes implies JB is personally envious of madonna's career, which i don't believe is the case. our julie think she's better than everyone else. and - for all the faults of the self-styled ex-queen of the groucho - she's long been a champion of those she considers talented female performers.

Helen Mirren's far sexier and how old is she? getting on 60?

bloodynora wrote:

BIGINLYCRA wrote: Does it matter how the sound was achieved?

i don't know. is it justifiable to have such spectacular success in a creative medium with such mediocre talent?

Amazing how 'mediocre talent' has changed the sound of pop music more times than one. Maybe pop music isn't yer thing (it isn't really mine), but give her her due. My guess is that you haven't given any of her albums a listen and yer basing this all off assumptions. Listen to at least "Something to Remember", and you might come away with a different perspective.

I'll give another band that reinvents itself--- radiohead. No two albums sound alike, yet I don't see people saying Yorke has no talent because he keeps changing himself. Madonna keeps reinventing herself because pop music is fickle and changes fast... Aretha Franklin wasn't pop music, so no need to reinvent.

BIGINLYCRA wrote:

Still, I bet she earns more than me this month

i think you mean she earns more in a day than you earn in a month! (or a year, for that matter)

She's amazing. Never that mad on her in the eighties to be honest.I only grew to like her stuff when someone lent me EROTICA on holiday.Liked her ever since. EDELBROCK's right.Anyone in any doubt of her singing ability ,listen to Something To Remember and/or Evita. RE-INVENTION's not a cop-out, people are fickle.I'd recommend buying or borrowing the CONFESSIONS TOUR CD/DVD. It's one of the best live concerts you'll ever see/hear.

i'd argue that radiohead evolve rather than reinvent, but perhaps that's just semantics.

my question really was intended to be rhetorical. obviously she must have many and varied talents to be where she is, but i don't think she's wildly musically talented. i just don't know where i stand on the 'natural talent' vs 'nature of the industry' debate.

this:

EdelBrock wrote: Madonna keeps reinventing herself because pop music is fickle and changes fast...

is a brilliant point. if we have a musical genre which is essentially of the moment and disposable, then yes, pop careers are limited by definition. her longevity is testament to her understanding the rules of that game and playing it well.

(i have a lot of time for madonna, actually. and i love just about everything she did - musically - pre-1990. i'm a total pop whore.)

Well, Barney's a fan! :)

Did she really deny ever having performed at The Hacienda on The Tube for her first ever British appearance or was that all a myth /waffle?

Dunno how she could deny it seeing as there is video evidence! I recall watching live on TV at the time.

Quality Actually this clip says Feb 83 but it was Jan 84

BIGINLYCRA wrote:

bloodynora wrote:

i read it.

the journo in question pointed out that what's most perplexing about a female singer that's been around for 25 years is that she hasn't really got a voice.

I thought someone else might provide me with a synopsis, cheers.

I suppose it comes down to a question of authenticity. La Burchelle's point seems to be that Madonna is 'faking' ie feeding what voice she has through effects so it sounds good. The end result is surely how she should be judged? If people buy the record, it's successful. Does it matter how the sound was achieved?

Sounds like a big bunch of sour fuckign grapes to me. A bit like everything else she's written since she got on the Guardian payroll.

It's horseshit. Everyone gets better at things over time, so her voice now would require less "fairy dust" than it did back in the early 80's. Sadly there WERE no such devices back then. The first time I heard shit electronicly dressed as silk was Sinead O'connor, MANY year later.

Besides, you can spot a modern software based pitch corrector at 1000yards (think Cher's do you BEELLEEEEEVE shite, or in a more subtle and correct usage...Krafty )

So that's Pitch correctors out, which leaves dynamic and time domain effects, the same ones every single musician or singer has applied to their work on every single recording since the invention of the vacum tube and magnetic tape.

i don't think that was madame's original point. i thought it was more along the lines that a less-than-stunning vocal can be carried by good songwriting/music/production.

(see also tiny weeny kylie and her bot*)

Doctor? wrote:

BIGINLYCRA wrote:

bloodynora wrote:

i read it.

the journo in question pointed out that what's most perplexing about a female singer that's been around for 25 years is that she hasn't really got a voice.

I thought someone else might provide me with a synopsis, cheers.

I suppose it comes down to a question of authenticity. La Burchelle's point seems to be that Madonna is 'faking' ie feeding what voice she has through effects so it sounds good. The end result is surely how she should be judged? If people buy the record, it's successful. Does it matter how the sound was achieved?

Sounds like a big bunch of sour fuckign grapes to me. A bit like everything else she's written since she got on the Guardian payroll.

It's horseshit. Everyone gets better at things over time, so her voice now would require less "fairy dust" than it did back in the early 80's. Sadly there WERE no such devices back then. The first time I heard shit electronicly dressed as silk was Sinead O'connor, MANY year later.

Besides, you can spot a modern software based pitch corrector at 1000yards (think Cher's do you BEELLEEEEEVE shite, or in a more subtle and correct usage...Krafty )

So that's Pitch correctors out, which leaves dynamic and time domain effects, the same ones every single musician or singer has applied to their work on every single recording since the invention of the vacum tube and magnetic tape.

* by which i mean her derriere, doc, not some kind of voice-manipulation robot.

johnny wrote: Helen Mirren's far sexier and how old is she? getting on 60?

I think thats the best thing you've ever said johnny boy!

leather_girl wrote: She's popular over here in Japan....

I think she has talent as a female singer (and I don't even listen to much female singers in the first place---besides Madonna and the French singer Mylene Farmer), and as long as her voice, her looks are kept in decent shape (for her age), and her CDs sell, I think she will continue to do what she does.

There's nothing wrong with having a long musical career, generally speaking. Does the original poster think that all female singers should have to quit their singing career once they've hit a certain age??????

He obviously does and personally, I think that's wrong. As far as I'm concerned, Madonna is the queen of pop (with Kylie being the princess, of course). If I look as well as she does when I'm her age, I won't be complaining!

I wouldn't shag her for a fuck.

Her image has always been frigid, no matter what PR tricks she conceived, like that of Marlene Dietrich, so only very sick journalists and men can call her sexy or even "hot".

she has not never been sexy