Jump to content
MadonnaNation.com Forums

cherbette

New Members
  • Content Count

    24
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About cherbette

  • Rank
    Virgin

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Have fucked off from this forum for good. . .good. 

  2. I guess we agree to disagree. I love them both...but in my opinion Cher deserves to be in the Hall of Fame just as much.
  3. Again, those are your opinions not facts. In my world, I'll take Cyndi over Madonna any day vocally...doesn't mean I don't still love Madonna. You should add "except movies or singing live". 9 out of every 10 live performances I've seen Madonna give she sounded terrrrrrrribly pitchy. It's a classic case of amazing on-record but can't reproduce it live.
  4. I think you're missing the point....Cher is so versatile as a vocalist that she can do any genre of music. Who wants to do the SAME kind of music for their entire career? Booooooooring! She can do any type of music. Just for the record when I hear "rock n roll" I hardly think Cher, Cyndi, or Madonna...it's more like Little Richard, Elvis, The Beatles etc... As far as Vegas goes, offer me 100 million and see how quick I go work in Vegas. It's easy work. Besides, Cher is 64 years old. The road is a tremendous strain on someone of her age so Vegas is convenient for her. Case closed!
  5. It's Cyndi not "Cydney" and she's not doing cheese pop....her current albums is blues with the likes of BB King etc. Again, there's no comparison as far as voices go. Cyndi is a far better vocalist. She has a solid 5 octave range. Madonna's voice is weak. I think Cher put it best when she said that Madonna has done incredibly well with what little vocal talent she has...and I agree. I love Madonna for that very reason. You gotta work with what ya got! With that said, I think Madonna sounded her best during the Evita era when she had proper vocal training then after Ray of Light it seems like she threw all of that out the window for later albums.
  6. She has made several completely solid albums...."It's A Man's World", "Stars" etc... Neither were successful but they are amazingly solid albums
  7. Again, that is just an opinion not a fact so there's really nothing wrong with anyone voicing their opinion on the two ladies. The only point I'm arguing is that Cyndi is a better vocalist and has put out some really amazing music during AND after the 80's...whether the latter was successful chart-wise or not is IRRELEVANT. There are plenty of artists who are just as talented as Madonna who don't get any airplay...do they deserve the title of "irrelevant"? I hardly think so.
  8. I think "she's never been acclaimed as a musical act" is just an opinion. If that were the case, she wouldn't have made it this far in the recording industry having had top ten hits in each of 4 decades...the only artist to have EVER done so. Cher was absolutely right in saying that Madonna hadn't done anything that she hadn't already done prior as far as being over the top with clothing etc....Cher fought the censors on the 'Sonny and Cher Comedy Hour' and her solo 'Cher Show' incessantly over the baring of her navel and her extremely revealing Bob Mackie costumes way before Madonna EVER came onto the scene. She'd already been there, done that. In fact, the "If I Could Turn Back Time" video was originally supposed to be shot on a dam & NOT on that ship...suddenly, Cher felt too naked in the outfit & added the leather jacket in an attempt to "cover up" a little more. Cher has also done just about EVERY genre of music to be had: blues, R&B, dance, disco, rock, country, pop, standards, folk etc. Madonna has done dance and that is about it. Again, there's really no point in comparing the two but previous posters labeled Cher as "irrelevant" in the entertainment industry which is ludicrous. Half of the people in the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame do not deserve to be there...and others who are far more worthy have been completely neglected. Cher deserves to be there just as much if not more than Madonna based on seniority and success alone.
  9. Cyndi and Madonna are too different to even compare really. The only thing they ever had in common was they both came out of the 80's and dressed oddly. Cyndi's first three albums were pretty much under the control of someone else...she wasn't really allowed to blossom on her own as an artist until the 90's and by then every one had moved on....which is a shame but with or without sales she has made some of the most amazing music. If you like the Ray of Light album, check out Cyndi's "Sisters of Avalon" album. Good stuff!!
  10. Wow, you are delusional! Cher is an Academy Award winning actress...something Madonna will NEVER accomplish (although I love Madonna her dearly). Not to mention, Cher's been successful in every possible avenue the entertainment business has to offer for over 46 years now. I don't think Cher would want to walk on Madonna's "ground" as she's made it very clear that she doesn't think Madonna is a very nice person. She's rude and disrespectful to the people who work for her. And as far as Cyndi goes, she could sing CIRCLES around Madonna! She has one of the most incredible voices to come out of the 80's...and her music since then has just gotten better and better regardless of whether it does well on the charts or not. She plays so many different instruments, writes all her own music, even produces. She's an artist in every sense of the word and has a voice to be reckoned with. Again, I love Madonna so this is in no way an attack...I'm just keeping it real.
  11. Is there a trade/sell section here on Madonna Nation. I have a very rare item I think some Madonna fans would be interested in. Perhaps some of you others could point me in the direction of a Madonna trade/sell forum?!
  12. Dear Guy, I love Madonna but please FEED her some sandwiches QUICK!! She looked fabulously healthy during the Ray of Light era but something has gone horribly wrong in the years since then.
  13. "I download movies all the time that are 700MB in size and they are 2 hours long and look just like a store bought DVD" I just wanted to say that this is absolutely scientifically FALSE. There is NO way that you can compress the picture that much and not lose IMMENSE amounts of quality in picture and audio. With that said, this dvd set could/should have easily been released on BLU RAY or at least DVD9 rather than a shitty DVD5.
×
×
  • Create New...