No, she wasn't. But most of her little girl fans do. Considering the audience she appeals to, she should set a better example. And don't get me wrong. I think she is a very attractive person. But I can walk down the street and see girls that are just as attractive, or more. Part of why she is so atttractive is because she's famous, that's all I was getting at. She's not as perfect as everyone thinks she is. Sarah Michelle Gellar has the most unattractive nose I think I've ever seen, but she's famous and most people don't look at her flaws. It goes along the same lines as Playmates. Part of why they look so good is because they have hair and makeup artists and they're airbrushed (and they're naked too).
First you said people wouldn't know Falco over these bands and now you're not surprised? Geez... Also, how could you know who Kid Rock or Limp Bizkit will influence in the next ten years? That's a little unfair to proclaim they won't influence anyone. They are just a wee bit more popular than Kraftwerk was no?
This is what I am talking about. She is a musical artist (or is supposed to be one) yet gets all this praise over everything else but her music. I never said anything about critics but you have all these people from Carson Daly to Jay Leno and many others calling her such a great artist when she really is not it's just what she does. She maybe a great icon but she is not a great musician and that's where I said she was overrated, in her music. Like I said earlier, most people talk about Madonna and how she set trends and stayed popular and hip, not not on how amazing her music is... When did I say this ^ up above??? Yes she is a trend setter but like I said her music is what is overrated to me everything else maybe alright but her musical talent is overrated.
manny, i am not sure about MB20 and Kid Rock and Bizkit being forgotten in 20 years...actually.. Of course they probably aren't the most criticlly acclaimed bands, but Bizkit has the most rabid fans in the world and kid rock had one of the best selling hard rock albums of the 90's...even though his 2nd full length major label album kind of sucks, he wasnt a total flash in the pan, American Badass was pretty good, IMO. as for matchbox twenty, i am probably a little biased since they are my favorite band of ever. But i really think they are a little underrated. I know Rob Thomas is a grammy winner, but i still think he's pretty underrated by fans as a songwriter. (I Think) he wrote the best song on Mick Jagger's new album. He's written songs for three living legends (Santana, Jagger, Wille Nelson), which says a little something about his talents...As far as how they will be remembered, no, they probably won't go down as an all time great band, but I do think they won't be totally forgotten. I think they'll only do one more album together...
We're all entitled to be wrong. Seriously, I think the key thing here is co-written. It's common knowledge that she doesn't write any of the music - that's why she hires all these European producers. She might write a lyric or two, but nobody's comparing her to Lou Reed or Dylan. There's a reason - her lyrics are pap. And the music isn't hers at all. Nope, just catchy little ditties that are remembered more for the video than the music. I will never deny that Madonna's ability to market herself is anything less than phenomenol. But musically, she's not contributed a single song that transcends the time it was made. 80s stations love her - they also love the Knack and Night Ranger (not to mention any station that plays strictly 80s music is basically playing off nostalgia). When another artist of standing does an album of Madonna covers that's not tongue-in-cheek, maybe you can argue she's a genuine musical talent. Personally, I don't take much stock in the Grammies, as they have consistently ignored the best music and rewarded artists who are long past their good days or simply got lucky and sold a bunch of albums. Ever notice that just about every Best New Artist has disappeared after that. It's not a coincidence - the Grammies wouldn't know talent if it fell on them. Great videos? - this thread is about music, not movies. I admit that I prefer music that challenges me (something Madonna has never done). However, I can also appreciate pop music when it's done right. Peter Gabriel, the Police, Chrissie Hynde and of course the Beatles made smart pop music with genuine feeling behind it. Madonna hires people to make soulless music and then adds lyrics contrived to outrage the most predictable of targets. And it's all a load of ****. She dances around burning crosses in her videos (what is she supposed to be - a KKK Centerfold?) then turns around and critcizes Sinead O'Connor for tearing up a picture of the Pope. Anyone else see the hypocrisy? Madonna is the world's greatest promoter, without question. She's a modern-day P.T. Barnum, except that instead selling Native American warriors and mermaids, Madonna sells herself. But in reality, those Native Americans (supposedly fighters from Little Bighorn) were white guys painted red and the mermaid was the top half of a monkey sewn to the tail of a tuna. Madonna's "art" is not much better.
Okay, Spears got famous because she is attractive and has some talent (as a singer and dancer). She can sing better than I can and lots of people I know (but I can dance just as well as she can, and not to be shallow, but I'm not an unattractive person-ask Lynus302...in fact, most of my friends are attractive as well). But she's not worth the money she is making or the fame she gets. I know people that would be just as pretty if they got the publicity that she gets. She has talent, is good looking and had GREAT marketing. You could take anyone with a little talent, a few good looks and put them in Disney's hands (like Spears) or another marketing company, and it would be THAT person's face on all the magazines, not Spears'. As for her fans and her message, I can't help out there. She started out singing teenie bopper songs and they all got hooked. She was wearing revealing clothes long before she started trying to "change her appearance." If she wants to appeal to a different audience, she needs to change venues. Pop music is not the way to attract an older audience. Celine Dion has an older audience (and is much more talented than Spears) because she sings in the "soft rock' genre of music. It would take a lot to change her image.
francis 4 prez I checked your contention (via allmusic.com) that Madonna wrote half the songs on her own. The only songs I see that are solely credited to her are from her first album (and even that's questionable - ever heard of ghosting?). On everything else, she was co-writer. Like I said, she does the lyrics but she doesn't have much to do with the music. Great songwriters usually have their songs covered by other people (how many albums are X-artist does Cole Porter?). Nobody covers Madonna unless they're cracking a joke. MTV and Rolling Stone suck. So does Spin Magazine for that matter (they recently did a Best Bands ever issue BTW). Almost as much as the Grammies. Speaking of which, I actually agree with you on the Grammies. The only reason I give them some credit is because sometimes (whether accidentally or not) they give an award to the right album. However, Santana was not one of those times. The Santana album blew chunks in my opinion. Enough about Madonna, here are some other massively overrated artists. Tool - dear God, could any band be less ham-fisted and one-dimensional? Stevie Ray Vaughn - another white guy playing the blues. It'd all been done before. Eric Clapton - his good music was made with other people (John Mayall, Cream). Yet he gets the credit. Why? Michael Jackson - (see Eric Clapton) his albums with Quincy Jones are awesome. His albums without Quincy Jones are horrible. Who deserves the credit? I would say that at one time Pearl Jam were overrated, although their overall appeal seems to have waned. Lauren Hill got way too much props for a really tuneless solo album. And of course, the fact that anyone takes the jailbait bands seriously makes them overrated. Just my opinion really. No matter how much I drone on.
Okay, I guess I confused you. I wasn't saying that you wouldn't know Falco, Toni Basil, M, etc. I was saying that you wouldn't know Kraftwerk or Joy Division. I don't know if Kid Rock or Limp Bizkit will be popular or influence anyone in the next 10 years...I seriously doubt it. The reason why is because they are what is popular right now. I don't think that their music will endure compared to a Miles Davis, Pink Floyd, Bob Dylan, or even a Radiohead (The Bends and OK Computer Radiohead). Just because a band is popular doesn't mean that they are great, Timing. Using that logic, then every band that sells millions and millions of albums should be influencing everyone out there. I think you will be waiting a long time to see BSB and N Sync "influenced" bands still being talked about for years and years. Do you think that "The Macarena" by Los Del Rio is a great and influential song? Damn, it sold over 2 close to 3 million copies and was #1 on the Billboard Hot 100 charts for over 10 freaking weeks! That has gotta mean that it is a great song, doesn't it? Sub: You are exactly right about the origin of New Order concerning Joy Division. I didn't make that clear enough. Agree with all your points.
I don't know if you're being sarcastic or serious, but New Order was the band of the '80's when it came to dance, new wave, and techno/electronica music. They are still doing stuff and released an album in 2001 entitled "Get Ready". Their influence can be found on bands like Enigma, Chemical Brothers, Electronic, etc. So, as tragic as it was to see the end of Joy Division, it was a good thing that the remaining members decided to carry on and form New Order. I would recommend any newcomer to New Order to pick up their double CD, "Substance". You will be amazed at how many songs you recognize if you grew up in the '80s.
She was being sarcastic. It isn't like New Order is ever going to be compared to the Beatles or something. They fit a genre that some people liked but it wasn't Gershwin. As for my singing voice, ahem, I don't really sing. I just play. As for this thread, it is too hard for me to comment on overrated because one person's overrated is another person's...well...New Order.
The part in bold was like a summary of what my whole point was. I wasn't quoting you. If it's so easy to be on top of the pop charts for 20 years, why doesn't anyone else do it? Trillions of Madonna records have probably been bought by the public over the last 2 decades, you might disagree, but I think that's quite an influence.
"Overrated" is way too broad a definition to try and narrow, so I won't try. But I do have two questions relating to it I'd like someone to answer: Question 1: If a musician is praised when her music isn't really worthy of it, doesn't that kind of fall under 'overrated'? I mean Madonna was part of a period in time when music, as related to the growth of videos, was going in a whole new direction. She was kind of just in the right place in the right time. And of course she has lots of fans - many of them grew up during that era, and let's face it, they are still a major sales force out there. But at the same time, people use to follow the 'big hair' fad, as well...does that put those bands on a higher plane? They set trends. Jackson probably fell far out of favor for -umm- other reasons rather than an inability to follow the times like Madonna. New Kids on the Block may have started the boy band thing...should they be considered pioneers? Growing up during the 80s, I liked Madonna's music...but pretty much grew out of it. None of her new stuff really appeals to me. Should I consider her overrated? Question 2: If a band influences the work of another band, does that necessarily raise their status while lowering that of the later band? I mean, people usually point out their music world IQ by pointing to earlier inspirations - but does that automatically make the earlier band better? Music, like many forms of entertainment, often follows (and builds on) past work. Everybody had to listen to somebody growing up. So I've never really bought into the ideal that a band doesn't deserve praise just because they built on something they probably enjoyed themselves. Unless its a note-for-note rip off, you have to start somewhere.
When it comes to Madonna, it depends on the context into which she is placed. If you are talking about influence on the music INDUSTRY, there is no question that she has been and will be a huge influence on the business of music. If you are talking about her influence on music, it has been negligible. Nothing that she has done has been that critically acclaimed and most of it was not even really that innovative. But, that really isn't her legacy anyway. It's like Barbra Streisand (I can't believe I've mentioned her twice in the same night!). Her influence on music, in general, isn't really all that tremendous because she mostly sung other people's music. But, her influence on singers, particularly female singers, is unquestionable.
You and Mrs. JB don't know what you are missing! (although, I am grateful to you for the Jazz picks).
