Jump to content

Madonna being referenced heavily in news coverage of Jackson's death


Braby

Recommended Posts

Why does everyone say Elvis was a great musician. He really didn't write his own songs( yes the Col made him get writing credit on some songs but there is great controversy on his actual writing contributions). He was a phenomenal performer.

Michael as didn't invent the 'Moonwalk'. I saw a special last night on MSNBC about MJ and they said the 'Moonwalk' has been around since the 40's and they showed a guy doing it. They also said MJ looked to the streets to find his moves ( sound like someone else we know?). Yet he gets credited for "inventing" his moves while M is accused of stealing hers.

The ancient vagina vs. cock paradigm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael as didn't invent the 'Moonwalk'. I saw a special last night on MSNBC about MJ and they said the 'Moonwalk' has been around since the 40's and they showed a guy doing it. They also said MJ looked to the streets to find his moves ( sound like someone else we know?). Yet he gets credited for "inventing" his moves while M is accused of stealing hers.

The same thing with 'Vogue'. Madonna didn't invent vogueing, that was already part of the underground culture of New York, from what I've read. But she was the one to make it popular, as Michael did with 'moonwalking'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest jamesshot
The same thing with 'Vogue'. Madonna didn't invent vogueing, that was already part of the underground culture of New York, from what I've read. But she was the one to make it popular, as Michael did with 'moonwalking'.

Right. But with MJ, I heard celebrities on TV saying how Michael created everything. He was original. He invented all his dance moves out of thin air. These are direct quotes.

Yet, I never heard anyone say Madonna inventing vogueing. Yet she has always been ripped for "stealing" it from the underground gay scene. MJ is just as guilty of doing the same thing yet he is a "genius" who invents everything while M is a thief.

It is kinda amusing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest nothingfails0603
Right. But with MJ, I heard celebrities on TV saying how Michael created everything. He was original. He invented all his dance moves out of thin air. These are direct quotes.

Yet, I never heard anyone say Madonna inventing vogueing. Yet she has always been ripped for "stealing" it from the underground gay scene. MJ is just as guilty of doing the same thing yet he is a "genius" who invents everything while M is a thief.

It is kinda amusing.

Well, if it takes death for people to give Madonna due credit, I'd rather M not get any of her due for a very long time

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right. But with MJ, I heard celebrities on TV saying how Michael created everything. He was original. He invented all his dance moves out of thin air. These are direct quotes.

Yet, I never heard anyone say Madonna inventing vogueing. Yet she has always been ripped for "stealing" it from the underground gay scene. MJ is just as guilty of doing the same thing yet he is a "genius" who invents everything while M is a thief.

Exactly.

MJ wasnt the first to Moonwalk.

MANY Breakers and Dancers referred to it as "Back-Sliding."

Check @ 2:12

One Day Madonna Will Get Her Credit.

Before She is Dead, they'll see her TRUE GENIUS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest jamesshot

Also, MJ never quite hit his musical highs WITHOUT Quincey Jones. You don't hear anyone say he was just a product of QJ. Yet Madonna is always a product of her producers- "Madonna always goes and gets the hottest producers to give her a fresh sound." "She is just a product of Orbit, or Leonard".......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^ Exactly!

Madonna is Never given any credit.

It's the photographer, the producer, the choreographer:

DOES THE IDEA OF A "Talented Woman" SCARE PEOPLE THAT MUCH?

I'll let MJ have his 'Throne' but

when it comes to the Queen of Pop MUSIC

16ihyjn.gif

thats Madonna's Title.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Danny86
Also, MJ never quite hit his musical highs WITHOUT Quincey Jones. You don't hear anyone say he was just a product of QJ. Yet Madonna is always a product of her producers- "Madonna always goes and gets the hottest producers to give her a fresh sound." "She is just a product of Orbit, or Leonard".......

To be fair, MJ did write several songs all alone, including some of his big hits, like "Billie Jean", and in the 90s he even produced some tracks on his own. On the other hand, MJ was *always* about jumping on a currently hot sound after Quincy, first it was the Minneapolis sound, then New Jack Swing, then R&B/hip hop (with Dallas Austin, Jimmy & Terry, R. Kelly) & the ballad style of David Foster, and finally late 90s hip hop with Rodney Jerkins, obviously he needed collaborators to be able to have a sound.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Exactly.

MJ wasnt the first to Moonwalk.

MANY Breakers and Dancers referred to it as "Back-Sliding."

Check @ 2:12

One Day Madonna Will Get Her Credit.

Before She is Dead, they'll see her TRUE GENIUS.

and what about Bob Fose? nearly half of michael´s moves are taken from him! of course, he knew how to dance, he was incredible, but he didn´t create thoese movements

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest jamesshot
Exactly.

MJ wasnt the first to Moonwalk.

MANY Breakers and Dancers referred to it as "Back-Sliding."

Check @ 2:12

One Day Madonna Will Get Her Credit.

Before She is Dead, they'll see her TRUE GENIUS.

Maybe once she is dead, those here at MadonnaNation will actually praise her. Imagine that!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael didn’t continually revolutionize music videos after 1984, but he didn’t need to after having already done it. Following his raising the bar, however, he tended to be more consistent in making videos that maintained a certain level of majesty. While Madonna tends to average two especially spectacular music videos per album, in amongst them she also has a higher number of clips that are tedious and ordinary. Michael, by and large, hasn’t had (m)any as mundane or unremarkable as “Who’s That Girl,” “Fever,” “Love Profusion,” “Jump,” or “Give It 2 Me.”

Madonna’s made a plethora of music videos that have either caused controversy, had stunning cinematography, or both…and she’s certainly made a large number that have been outstanding/significant/iconic—so many, in fact, that it ultimately makes her a pioneer of the form. True. However, at no point has she ever revolutionized, or raised the bar, of the medium itself. Instead she’s co-opted multiple elements of what had already been innovated, added her personality to it, and from there charismatically ascended to the front of the line. The ‘quality’ of her product is generally top notch, but she’s never forever changed the way they were made or viewed the way Michael did with “Thriller.”

You are way off the mark.

MADONNA revolutionized AND raised th bar for music videos like NO other artist, Michael Jackson included.

She did so by moving beyond the Thriller conventions of the video as dazzling accompaniment to the music and a presentation of talents into something more profound: she turned videos as legitimate vehicles for artistic expression and not merely as a necessary thing on the side of music to sell music. That's her revolution, turning videos as distinct and parallel endeavors almost as important as the music they support. Thus her mindset of videos-as-art and mode of expression resulted in her making the most layered videos of any artist before her and since. As art results in cognitive engagement in the beholder (something even the best of MJ's videos never managed), one is left upon seeing her videos into thinking, What does it mean? What does it say? Why does it affect me beyond the entertainment value of it? Thus, for all its dazzle even Thriller doesn't have the depth of even just Open Your Heart. And that inspired (whether they admit to or not) other artists to explore videos as legitimate artistic outlets of their own. So, as an artist like Bjork may make some of the most conceptual and avant garde videos out there, or a band like Nirvana infused their own with profound subtext, there is no denying that such are merely the result of Madonna having edified the merits of videos. THAT is raising the bar.

And when your videos ushered thought, conversation, or debate, distinct from the entertainment of the music itself (through provocation or pushing the boundaries of social permission), then that's revolution.

Michael's videos, no matter how expensive or slick or glorious, are still one-dimensional and static representations of Michael the Great Entertainer. Each new one mere regurgitations of the previous. He made Thriller, then endlessly repeated it. They're facile in their intent. Even his "message" videos are facile and one dimensional in their sloganeering. Madonna's, on the other hand, are startlingly new expressions in that given moment, and meanings splinter into different color as like a light passes through the prism of the eyes seeing it.

Michael's videos are Norman Rockwells at Picasso prices; Madonna's are Jackson Pollocks or Picassos at any price. The other is still an illustration no matter how grandly and beautifully executed; the other is art.

And it doesn't stop there.

The Madonna Studies phenomenon in the GLOBAL academia (oh! that's one significant aspect of her legendarium that Michael never had!) is brought forth in large part due to her image and persona-mongering in her videos. Her iconic mutations (and the ideas behind them) as presented in videos so perfectly captured, or reflected on, our Postmodern times (the age of irony) where meanings are parsed and absolutes replaced by deconstruction. I'd venture that Madonna's videos elevated the estimation of videos from merely a new form of enjoying music or entertainment to one that has deep relevance in the larger socio-cultural scheme. That is a revolution.

On minor "raisings" of the bar, Entertainment Weekly in one of their millennial issues appraised the most influential videos through time and stated that Express Yourself informed the aesthetic of much of the 90s videos. And that is just one of the many things why her videos are benchmarks in either structure, content, or capturing of the zeitgeist.

As such, I read somewhere (though I forgot which) that Madonna's videos should rightfully be stored in the Library Of Congress. I couldn't agree more. This seriousness about videos might seem hokey and corny had hers were just pretentious attempts at "art", but her videos are also so stupendously fun!

But I leave it to Norman Mailer himself who best said it, thus:

[of her music videos]... There had been an organizing principle, a discernment in style, a characteristic irony, a sensuous sorrow, a wicked rebuttal of expectation, a hoydenish intimacy-- one can go on with such list; appreciations bear resemblance to the plucking of flower petals-- but the summary fact was that watching Madonna on music video was to encounter a high intelligence in an artist. There could be no question. She not only made the best music videos of them all, but they transcended personality. She was the premier artist of music video, and it might be the only new popular art form in American life.

If one wished to measure her stature, it was interesting to compare her work with the videos of Michael Jackson. His productions were virtuoso-- they depended on his person-- a product of his physical gifts, his speed, his agility, his voice, his astonishing looks, whereas Madonna had transcended her own limitations to create visualizations in sound equal to fine poems; one could measure their worth by the resonance they offered. Her best videos would prove richer on each viewing; one could not say as much about Michael Jackson.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

you know how you can give someone a huge house and all the money in the world but it's not going to give them taste when it comes time to decorate? I think that's something that seperates Madonna from a lot of her music video rivals of the 80's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are way off the mark.

MADONNA revolutionized AND raised th bar for music videos like NO other artist, Michael Jackson included.

She did so by moving beyond the Thriller conventions of the video as dazzling accompaniment to the music and a presentation of talents into something more profound: she turned videos as legitimate vehicles for artistic expression and not merely as a necessary thing on the side of music to sell music. That's her revolution, turning videos as distinct and parallel endeavors almost as important as the music they support. Thus her mindset of videos-as-art and mode of expression resulted in her making the most layered videos of any artist before her and since. As art results in cognitive engagement in the beholder (something even the best of MJ's videos never managed), one is left upon seeing her videos into thinking, What does it mean? What does it say? Why does it affect me beyond the entertainment value of it? Thus, for all its dazzle even Thriller doesn't have the depth of even just Open Your Heart. And that inspired (whether they admit to or not) other artists to explore videos as legitimate artistic outlets of their own. So, as an artist like Bjork may make some of the most conceptual and avant garde videos out there, or a band like Nirvana infused their own with profound subtext, there is no denying that such are merely the result of Madonna having edified the merits of videos. THAT is raising the bar.

And when your videos ushered thought, conversation, or debate, distinct from the entertainment of the music itself (through provocation or pushing the boundaries of social permission), then that's revolution.

Michael's videos, no matter how expensive or slick or glorious, are still one-dimensional and static representations of Michael the Great Entertainer. Each new one mere regurgitations of the previous. He made Thriller, then endlessly repeated it. They're facile in their intent. Even his "message" videos are facile and one dimensional in their sloganeering. Madonna's, on the other hand, are startlingly new expressions in that given moment, and meanings splinter into different color as like a light passes through the prism of the eyes seeing it.

Michael's videos are Norman Rockwells at Picasso prices; Madonna's are Jackson Pollocks or Picassos at any price. The other is still an illustration no matter how grandly and beautifully executed; the other is art.

And it doesn't stop there.

word. :thumbsup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are way off the mark.

MADONNA revolutionized AND raised th bar for music videos like NO other artist, Michael Jackson included.

She did so by moving beyond the Thriller conventions of the video as dazzling accompaniment to the music and a presentation of talents into something more profound: she turned videos as legitimate vehicles for artistic expression and not merely as a necessary thing on the side of music to sell music. That's her revolution, turning videos as distinct and parallel endeavors almost as important as the music they support. Thus her mindset of videos-as-art and mode of expression resulted in her making the most layered videos of any artist before her and since. As art results in cognitive engagement in the beholder (something even the best of MJ's videos never managed), one is left upon seeing her videos into thinking, What does it mean? What does it say? Why does it affect me beyond the entertainment value of it? Thus, for all its dazzle even Thriller doesn't have the depth of even just Open Your Heart. And that inspired (whether they admit to or not) other artists to explore videos as legitimate artistic outlets of their own. So, as an artist like Bjork may make some of the most conceptual and avant garde videos out there, or a band like Nirvana infused their own with profound subtext, there is no denying that such are merely the result of Madonna having edified the merits of videos. THAT is raising the bar.

And when your videos ushered thought, conversation, or debate, distinct from the entertainment of the music itself (through provocation or pushing the boundaries of social permission), then that's revolution.

Michael's videos, no matter how expensive or slick or glorious, are still one-dimensional and static representations of Michael the Great Entertainer. Each new one mere regurgitations of the previous. He made Thriller, then endlessly repeated it. They're facile in their intent. Even his "message" videos are facile and one dimensional in their sloganeering. Madonna's, on the other hand, are startlingly new expressions in that given moment, and meanings splinter into different color as like a light passes through the prism of the eyes seeing it.

Michael's videos are Norman Rockwells at Picasso prices; Madonna's are Jackson Pollocks or Picassos at any price. The other is still an illustration no matter how grandly and beautifully executed; the other is art.

And it doesn't stop there.

The Madonna Studies phenomenon in the GLOBAL academia (oh! that's one significant aspect of her legendarium that Michael never had!) is brought forth in large part due to her image and persona-mongering in her videos. Her iconic mutations (and the ideas behind them) as presented in videos so perfectly captured, or reflected on, our Postmodern times (the age of irony) where meanings are parsed and absolutes replaced by deconstruction. I'd venture that Madonna's videos elevated the estimation of videos from merely a new form of enjoying music or entertainment to one that has deep relevance in the larger socio-cultural scheme. That is a revolution.

On minor "raisings" of the bar, Entertainment Weekly in one of their millennial issues appraised the most influential videos through time and stated that Express Yourself informed the aesthetic of much of the 90s videos. And that is just one of the many things why her videos are benchmarks in either structure, content, or capturing of the zeitgeist.

As such, I read somewhere (though I forgot which) that Madonna's videos should rightfully be stored in the Library Of Congress. I couldn't agree more. This seriousness about videos might seem hokey and corny had hers were just pretentious attempts at "art", but her videos are also so stupendously fun!

But I leave it to Norman Mailer himself who best said it, thus:

[of her music videos]... There had been an organizing principle, a discernment in style, a characteristic irony, a sensuous sorrow, a wicked rebuttal of expectation, a hoydenish intimacy-- one can go on with such list; appreciations bear resemblance to the plucking of flower petals-- but the summary fact was that watching Madonna on music video was to encounter a high intelligence in an artist. There could be no question. She not only made the best music videos of them all, but they transcended personality. She was the premier artist of music video, and it might be the only new popular art form in American life.

If one wished to measure her stature, it was interesting to compare her work with the videos of Michael Jackson. His productions were virtuoso-- they depended on his person-- a product of his physical gifts, his speed, his agility, his voice, his astonishing looks, whereas Madonna had transcended her own limitations to create visualizations in sound equal to fine poems; one could measure their worth by the resonance they offered. Her best videos would prove richer on each viewing; one could not say as much about Michael Jackson.

:bow:

:queenbitch:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are way off the mark.

MADONNA revolutionized AND raised th bar for music videos like NO other artist, Michael Jackson included.

She did so by moving beyond the Thriller conventions of the video as dazzling accompaniment to the music and a presentation of talents into something more profound: she turned videos as legitimate vehicles for artistic expression and not merely as a necessary thing on the side of music to sell music. That's her revolution, turning videos as distinct and parallel endeavors almost as important as the music they support. Thus her mindset of videos-as-art and mode of expression resulted in her making the most layered videos of any artist before her and since. As art results in cognitive engagement in the beholder (something even the best of MJ's videos never managed), one is left upon seeing her videos into thinking, What does it mean? What does it say? Why does it affect me beyond the entertainment value of it? Thus, for all its dazzle even Thriller doesn't have the depth of even just Open Your Heart. And that inspired (whether they admit to or not) other artists to explore videos as legitimate artistic outlets of their own. So, as an artist like Bjork may make some of the most conceptual and avant garde videos out there, or a band like Nirvana infused their own with profound subtext, there is no denying that such are merely the result of Madonna having edified the merits of videos. THAT is raising the bar.

And when your videos ushered thought, conversation, or debate, distinct from the entertainment of the music itself (through provocation or pushing the boundaries of social permission), then that's revolution.

Michael's videos, no matter how expensive or slick or glorious, are still one-dimensional and static representations of Michael the Great Entertainer. Each new one mere regurgitations of the previous. He made Thriller, then endlessly repeated it. They're facile in their intent. Even his "message" videos are facile and one dimensional in their sloganeering. Madonna's, on the other hand, are startlingly new expressions in that given moment, and meanings splinter into different color as like a light passes through the prism of the eyes seeing it.

Michael's videos are Norman Rockwells at Picasso prices; Madonna's are Jackson Pollocks or Picassos at any price. The other is still an illustration no matter how grandly and beautifully executed; the other is art.

And it doesn't stop there.

The Madonna Studies phenomenon in the GLOBAL academia (oh! that's one significant aspect of her legendarium that Michael never had!) is brought forth in large part due to her image and persona-mongering in her videos. Her iconic mutations (and the ideas behind them) as presented in videos so perfectly captured, or reflected on, our Postmodern times (the age of irony) where meanings are parsed and absolutes replaced by deconstruction. I'd venture that Madonna's videos elevated the estimation of videos from merely a new form of enjoying music or entertainment to one that has deep relevance in the larger socio-cultural scheme. That is a revolution.

On minor "raisings" of the bar, Entertainment Weekly in one of their millennial issues appraised the most influential videos through time and stated that Express Yourself informed the aesthetic of much of the 90s videos. And that is just one of the many things why her videos are benchmarks in either structure, content, or capturing of the zeitgeist.

As such, I read somewhere (though I forgot which) that Madonna's videos should rightfully be stored in the Library Of Congress. I couldn't agree more. This seriousness about videos might seem hokey and corny had hers were just pretentious attempts at "art", but her videos are also so stupendously fun!

But I leave it to Norman Mailer himself who best said it, thus:

[of her music videos]... There had been an organizing principle, a discernment in style, a characteristic irony, a sensuous sorrow, a wicked rebuttal of expectation, a hoydenish intimacy-- one can go on with such list; appreciations bear resemblance to the plucking of flower petals-- but the summary fact was that watching Madonna on music video was to encounter a high intelligence in an artist. There could be no question. She not only made the best music videos of them all, but they transcended personality. She was the premier artist of music video, and it might be the only new popular art form in American life.

If one wished to measure her stature, it was interesting to compare her work with the videos of Michael Jackson. His productions were virtuoso-- they depended on his person-- a product of his physical gifts, his speed, his agility, his voice, his astonishing looks, whereas Madonna had transcended her own limitations to create visualizations in sound equal to fine poems; one could measure their worth by the resonance they offered. Her best videos would prove richer on each viewing; one could not say as much about Michael Jackson.

FINALLY someone brings the TRUTH :thumbsup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest nothingfails0603
To be fair, MJ did write several songs all alone, including some of his big hits, like "Billie Jean", and in the 90s he even produced some tracks on his own. On the other hand, MJ was *always* about jumping on a currently hot sound after Quincy, first it was the Minneapolis sound, then New Jack Swing, then R&B/hip hop (with Dallas Austin, Jimmy & Terry, R. Kelly) & the ballad style of David Foster, and finally late 90s hip hop with Rodney Jerkins, obviously he needed collaborators to be able to have a sound.

To me, the biggest difference between Madonna and MJ is that MJ worked with producers who were in awe of him and would spend so much time kissing his ass instead of doing their job as a producer. Whereas one thing Madonna is known to hate is having her ass kissed. She works with producers and wants them to do their own thing and bring her to it. To be fair, as much as I attacked the production on Hard Candy, it's perhaps refreshing that Pharrel and Timbaland did precisely their own thing and producing instead of being so far up Madonna's ass and making something totally unlike their normal productions. Madonna is that type of artist, while they likely would've been kissing MJ's ass and MJ could've given a half-hearted performance and the producers would never tell him "you can do better than this Michael". Madonna seems to like the constructive criticism and it seems like every producer she's worked with in the past has been a collaboration. Whereas MJ and whatever producer he worked with after Quincy seemed to just dictate the song he wanted and not take creative input.

Of course, while on paper the idea of him staying with Quincy would've been great, in reality, it would've gotten stale. Despite all the memories I have with the era and that I'd still rank it #3, Bad was nowhere on the same level as OTW or Thriller.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmmm...as much as I love Madonna (far moreso than MJ), I do have to concede that "Thriller" and "Smooth Criminal" were among the best music videos ever made - and some of the most ground-breaking. I do agree that Madonna did MORE of her music videos consistently BETTER than him, but I can't say that everything she did was superior in this area.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i'm a little bit dissapointed with the crowds gathered for michael. i saw only a few people lighting candles etc. on tv and mostly black people. i thought much bigger crowds would be gathering for the mourning like princess diana in uk. maybe his funeral will attract more people.

although im a madonna fan, i must admit michael's impact was bigger on public. conservative people liked him, because he had no problem with sexual boundaries of the public unlike madonna. rock fans (even heavy metal fans) also admired his work because he mixed rnb with rock motives. although madonnas influence is respected in music business all the time, she is still admired mostly by gays and liberal women. general public will remember her from "true blue" era and respect for her hardworking and endurance and it wont be like micheal. because she wasnt everybody's darling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest waiting
Hmmm...as much as I love Madonna (far moreso than MJ), I do have to concede that "Thriller" and "Smooth Criminal" were among the best music videos ever made - and some of the most ground-breaking. I do agree that Madonna did MORE of her music videos consistently BETTER than him, but I can't say that everything she did was superior in this area.

Maybe I haven't seen all of MJ's videos but from the ones I've seen I think Madonna's best videos were better than MJ's (but not necessarily more innovative/ground-breaking). MJ's work tends to be less sophisticated. Take Scream vs Human Nature for example. While Scream's special effects were impressive HN was so much better imo. Scream was just MJ doing the same moves he's been doing for years, except in a spaceship with Janet. Its pretty dull conceptually if you ask me. And while Thriller is groundbreaking I don't think its such a stunning artistic achievement (I mean... zombies, yea its cool and fun and shit but nothing really thought-provoking or anything). I don't think its as good as people say it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest dicktracy
Prince's impact goes way beyond the number of hits he had. For starters, after Thriller, MJ was basically copying the Minneapolis sound Prince put into the mainstream, and it's also the reason why Janet became star, because Jimmy Jam & Terry Lewis, who worked for Prince, gave her that sound in a watered down, more pop-sounding way.

Also, not only Prince is responsible for the "parental advisory" sticker, I believe he really set the template for dirty and explicit lyrics, like "Head" which was still the early 80s. And it can also be argued that Prince influenced Madonna herself in terms of live performance. Just before BAT, on the Lovesexy Tour Prince was already doing the mixing of sex and religion.

It's true that the number of his hits pale in comparison to Madonna or MJ, and his videos are only remembered for being typical 80s relics, his sound definitely shaped pop music. I think it was said on this forum recently, that super-producers like The Neptunes and Timbaland draw directly from Prince. Songs like "Hollaback Girl" or "Until The End Of Time" are almost Prince-tributes in terms of their sound.

His releases don't make any impact and were mostly flops in the last decade, because he rarely had any label support, and after Purple Rain he intentionally started to make "weird" music. His recent 3CD album has a lot of mainstream stuff, but he does not have a label to send the songs to radio etc, so it can't make any impact, but that's hardly the fault of the quality of his music.

:thumbsup: Prince will never be remembered solely for being the greatest seller (though he was huge in the 80's) but for creating a sound that is copied over and over. Sign O' The Times was one of the first (if not the first) major release to address the AIDS epidemic and Madonna obviously admired his work. Like A Prayer, one of her best albums, has Prince all over it. From the funk of Keep It Together to the guitar in Like A Prayer (especially the rock mixes) along with the Love Song duet.

I would definitely put him in the same category as MJ and M because all of them had major commercial and artistic impact that has lasted until today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Madonna has managed to maintain the production of striking videos. I must admit, after Black or White, you just don't see his videos anymore. If you look at the news, it's the 80s stuff that is shown. Certainly in the UK, his 90s videowork hasn't faired well and most people couldn't tell you about any of them - they just becamse expensive and bloated. I remember seeing "Remember the Time", a song I love, but the video is some over the top Egyptian theme but not actually that exciting.

I agree with your first point, but I do remember "Remember the Time" -- and I love the song and can find moments to appreciate the video (although, as I said in an earlier post, I think it's a bit flawed). I think the Ancient Egypt setting works -- it's as if to say, our love is timeless, it is centuries-spanning, etc. (Insinuating that perhaps the first time they met, as referred to in the song title's question, "Do you remember the time / we fell in love? / Do you remember the time / we first met?" is in another lifetime or something... Destined/fated to be together for all time.) The execution of it *was* over the top. But it has a concept that is a little more than one-dimensional -- it tries to heighten the love song idea above the cliche just a touch. (Which I guess could also be over the top, but... I see that as trying to raise it above the banal/mundane.)

And Iman is in the video. GORGEOUS. What is not to love about her?! :inlove:

Well, if it takes death for people to give Madonna due credit, I'd rather M not get any of her due for a very long time

Amen! (Although, jamesshot, I agree with what you were saying wholeheartedly. MJ gets credit for doing something; when M does similarly, she is villainized. It's not right, but that is an accurate description of how it's going. I do hope that one day she'll get the respect for her musical and performing talents that she deserves.)

MADONNA revolutionized AND raised th bar for music videos like NO other artist, Michael Jackson included.

...

As such, I read somewhere (though I forgot which) that Madonna's videos should rightfully be stored in the Library Of Congress. I couldn't agree more. This seriousness about videos might seem hokey and corny had hers were just pretentious attempts at "art", but her videos are also so stupendously fun!

But I leave it to Norman Mailer himself who best said it, thus:

[of her music videos]... There had been an organizing principle, a discernment in style, a characteristic irony, a sensuous sorrow, a wicked rebuttal of expectation, a hoydenish intimacy-- one can go on with such list; appreciations bear resemblance to the plucking of flower petals-- but the summary fact was that watching Madonna on music video was to encounter a high intelligence in an artist. There could be no question. She not only made the best music videos of them all, but they transcended personality. She was the premier artist of music video, and it might be the only new popular art form in American life.

If one wished to measure her stature, it was interesting to compare her work with the videos of Michael Jackson. His productions were virtuoso-- they depended on his person-- a product of his physical gifts, his speed, his agility, his voice, his astonishing looks, whereas Madonna had transcended her own limitations to create visualizations in sound equal to fine poems; one could measure their worth by the resonance they offered. Her best videos would prove richer on each viewing; one could not say as much about Michael Jackson.

:thumbsup:

This was great... and I love the Norman Mailer quote. That is almost pure poetry -- poetry about poetry, as he describes her videos.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kay Burley on Sky News said that not even Madonna comes close to him in terms of sales.

Supposedly, his sales are around 750million but I get the feeling everyone has just rushed to wikipedia to get the figures and they may have been exaggerated by fans. Radio 1 said Thriller sold over 100million sales! However, it had only sold 40 million ten years ago. I don't think 60 million people have gone out and bought it in the last ten years!

He's not had that many albums out and his single sales are below Madonna's in the UK.

Anyone got anymore accurate figures for his sales?

And yes, it's easier for male artists to be taken more seriously than female. Madonna's back catalogue is superior in terms of breadth and variety. Michael's legacy was the biggest selling album of all time and some choreography but overall he stayed in the same mould from a creative perspective.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...