Jump to content

Madonna's relevancy


Kurt420

Recommended Posts

*sigh*

For all the blaming of others of mixing up their personal tastes with facts that you do, you sure refuse to see the facts. Nothingfails said it perfectly. Relevance is more than selling songs because you feature Justin or selling seats because you're gonna sing La Isla Bonita. Its a certain 'thunder in a bottle' quality that cant REALLY be put in words. But theres no arguing with loons.

So NOW relevancy "can't be put into words"....HOW RATIONAL!! :zombie:

Miley Cyrus nearly caused riots last year over her concert tickets. Isn't that enough "thunder in a bottle" to be considered relevant? Someone doesn't neccesarily have to be innovative to be relevant. You can't seem to wrap your pretty little head around that concept! :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, you summed up your speech by saying, "It all comes down to the music." Do you think about your legacy, or 100 years from now, how you'll be remembered?

Not necessarily. But when I do my shows and see how music transports people, what I'm aware of more than anything when I see people crying, or ecstatic, is how music affects people, and the power it has, over every other art form. I'm so moved and transported by other peoples music — I'm a human being like everyone else. We must all share that same connection, so I'm privileged and blessed to be a channel for music. At the end of the day, are they going to think about how I dove for my shoe at the VMAs or that I was naked in the newspapers, or are they going to remember "Live To Tell"? I think that at the end of the day, people remember authenticity. They remember what's true, and the rest falls by the wayside. They'll remember what comes from someone's heart.

from rolling stone.

LOVE LOVE LOVE. She is so succinct.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

She's a bit behind the times now in terms of her music (Celebration or Revolver anyone?) She's not making songs that have a cutting-edge sound anymore...lyrically her albums don't deal with themes that are current or relevant...they are more generic in theme (i.e. - anything on Hard Candy)...her image is not exactly current either...she's been on auto-pilot for most of the 00's with the exception of COAD.

When an artist is constantly referring to their past successes and living off of former glories it immediately tells you they are not relevant at this present time in popular culture because they are unable to bring anything new or meaningful to the plate...it indicates that they don't quite fit into the current cultural context. I just want her to create something original and inspired again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So NOW relevancy "can't be put into words"....HOW RATIONAL!! :zombie:

Miley Cyrus nearly caused riots last year over her concert tickets. Isn't that enough "thunder in a bottle" to be considered relevant? Someone doesn't neccesarily have to be innovative to be relevant. You can't seem to wrap your pretty little head around that concept! :)

URGH. Everyone else said that relevance is a FEELING. A situation. It CANT be quantified. George Michael sells out arenas. Prince too. Are they relevant? Its something MORE than ticket sales or even record sales. Of course Miley Cyrus doesnt have it. The tweens love her but her influence on POP CULTURE is zero. Anyway obviously as I said before you cant argue with someone whose entire belief structure will collapse if OMG MADONNA ISNT RELEVANT ANYMORE. So rock on. Madonna is the hottest thing out there. She dictates music, fashion and film trends. The world bops at Madonnas beat. You can relax now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just by posting in this thread you're making her relevant.

For all of you saying she's not relevant...what the fuck are you doing here? And don't turn this into a "we don't have to like everything she does, LOON!" bullshit. We're not debating her lastest CD. We're talking about relevancy, which is way more than a person's most recent work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest nothingfails0603

Just by posting in this thread you're making her relevant.

For all of you saying she's not relevant...what the fuck are you doing here? And don't turn this into a "we don't have to like everything she does, LOON!" bullshit. We're not debating her lastest CD. We're talking about relevancy, which is way more than a person's most recent work.

Well, with all respect, I do think you can be a fan and not think they are the hottest most hip act. I still follow and support blunt hasbeens like Cyndi Lauper and Jody Watley but I'd never pretend that either of them are popular like they were in the 1980's. Hell, I have played the latest a-ha cd to death yet I've noticed here and on several other boards that a lot of people had no idea they were even still around to break up.

Of course, Madonna's on a totally different career wavelength as Cyndi and Jody. Those two faded away from the mainstream while Madonna's never fallen out of the public eye. But still... You can be a fan of an artist and yet realize that the entire world isn't with you on them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest nothingfails0603

So NOW relevancy "can't be put into words"....HOW RATIONAL!! :zombie:

Miley Cyrus nearly caused riots last year over her concert tickets. Isn't that enough "thunder in a bottle" to be considered relevant? Someone doesn't neccesarily have to be innovative to be relevant. You can't seem to wrap your pretty little head around that concept! :)

Well, the kind of fame and impact Madonna had from roughly 1984-1992 was the kind that can't be predicted. It is lightning in a bottle when you think of it when you look at so many artists. No artist can truly try to strike lightning, it either does or doesn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, with all respect, I do think you can be a fan and not think they are the hottest most hip act. I still follow and support blunt hasbeens like Cyndi Lauper and Jody Watley but I'd never pretend that either of them are popular like they were in the 1980's. Hell, I have played the latest a-ha cd to death yet I've noticed here and on several other boards that a lot of people had no idea they were even still around to break up.

Of course, Madonna's on a totally different career wavelength as Cyndi and Jody. Those two faded away from the mainstream while Madonna's never fallen out of the public eye. But still... You can be a fan of an artist and yet realize that the entire world isn't with you on them.

This really has nothing to do with what i posted. At the end of the day, people (not just LOONS) still talk about the woman. SHE is still relevant. Her MUSIC is totally different (in terms of mainstream relevancy), it just depends on the moment and what she's going for which is true of ANY artist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest waiting

She's a bit behind the times now in terms of her music (Celebration or Revolver anyone?) She's not making songs that have a cutting-edge sound anymore...lyrically her albums don't deal with themes that are current or relevant...they are more generic in theme (i.e. - anything on Hard Candy)...her image is not exactly current either...she's been on auto-pilot for most of the 00's with the exception of COAD.

When an artist is constantly referring to their past successes and living off of former glories it immediately tells you they are not relevant at this present time in popular culture because they are unable to bring anything new or meaningful to the plate...it indicates that they don't quite fit into the current cultural context. I just want her to create something original and inspired again.

Isn't that the artist's fate? Most artists (not just musical ones), are known for one magnum opus or a period where they were most productive. They are then remembered predominantly for that work (or the work that came out of that period). Anything that came before or after is less relevant, pales in comparison, and is overshadowed. The artist has already expressed whatever it is she or he had to say about the world and has nothing else left to contribute on an artistic level. I kind of feel that way about Madonna. She already said what she had to say, and fought for the themes she felt strongly about through her work. What now? She's ran out of inspiration - everywhere is sex, gays are more accepted, religion is being challenged, the idea that a woman can be as powerful as a man is not as shocking anymore, so what does she have to say now? - The only thing I can think of is ageism. It explains why all her recent efforts involve her prancing around saying "hey I'm 50. I still look good and can still hang with the 20 year olds" Unfortunately most of it stems from her fear of aging and it hasn't translated well artistically because it comes out of insecurity rather than passion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

URGH. Everyone else said that relevance is a FEELING. A situation. It CANT be quantified. George Michael sells out arenas. Prince too. Are they relevant? Its something MORE than ticket sales or even record sales. Of course Miley Cyrus doesnt have it. The tweens love her but her influence on POP CULTURE is zero. Anyway obviously as I said before you cant argue with someone whose entire belief structure will collapse if OMG MADONNA ISNT RELEVANT ANYMORE. So rock on. Madonna is the hottest thing out there. She dictates music, fashion and film trends. The world bops at Madonnas beat. You can relax now.

All of the examples you've named in this thread like Prince, George Michael, Rolling Stones, Paul McCartney haven't had hit songs or albums in ages, so no they aren't relevant to the current music scene but they certainly aren't completely irrelevant either. If you can get thousands or millions of people to pay money to come see you live then you have some sort of relevance. Miley may not be INFLUENCING pop culture, but that doesn't make her irrelevant. She's a queen to little tween girls everywhere, they made her tour a HUGE success and the rate they buy her albums has made her one of the top selling female artists of the past few years, hit singles plus the TV show. Anytime I step foot into a store it seems like her face is on some product or another plus the magazine covers. Someone with that omnipresence and success is not irrelevant.

Obviously, you must not have thoroughly read my posts. I'm WELL AWARE Madonna isn't the "hot thing" or "it" girl of the moment and she hasn't been since 1985. I'm not saying she's the most influential out there right now or that the world is "bopping" to her beat. I'm simply laying out the cold hard facts of her achievements recently....and they are impressive. Calling someone irrelevant who's achieved that much recently is a bit inaccurate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, the kind of fame and impact Madonna had from roughly 1984-1992 was the kind that can't be predicted. It is lightning in a bottle when you think of it when you look at so many artists. No artist can truly try to strike lightning, it either does or doesn't.

I understand but I don't think you have to have THAT kind of success to be considered relevant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest nothingfails0603

Isn't that the artist's fate? Most artists (not just musical ones), are known for one magnum opus or a period where they were most productive. They are then remembered predominantly for that work (or the work that came out of that period). Anything that came before or after is less relevant, pales in comparison, and is overshadowed. The artist has already expressed whatever it is she or he had to say about the world and has nothing else left to contribute on an artistic level. I kind of feel that way about Madonna. She already said what she had to say, and fought for the themes she felt strongly about through her work. What now? She's ran out of inspiration - everywhere is sex, gays are more accepted, religion is being challenged, the idea that a woman can be as powerful as a man is not as shocking anymore, so what does she have to say now? - The only thing I can think of is ageism. It explains why all her recent efforts involve her prancing around saying "hey I'm 50. I still look good and can still hang with the 20 year olds" Unfortunately most of it stems from her fear of aging and it hasn't translated well artistically because it comes out of insecurity rather than passion.

That is true. What Madonna's going through now is the fate of all artists at one point or another. Just look at the roster in the Hall Of Fame. That is arguably the "cream de la cream" of recording artists but besides the occasional critically acclaimed album that might sell well, I can't name on HOF-er who is really at the apex of their career now. They are legends, they're in the HOF, whatever accomplishments they have now is just icing on the cake. By getting in the HOF, Madonna has fully established herself as a true music legend, she's made her mark. To have a 2 million selling hit like "4 Minutes" or a GH album that hits #1 on the global chart at this point in her career is just icing. She's left her mark, it's not going away.

There's a difference between fading away into hasbeenland and transitioning into an elder stateswoman who may not be one of the kids and are no longer in the zeitgeist they once were, but is still regarded as a legend and people still are interested in what they have to say. It's just like Paul McCartney or Bob Dylan or Prince or many other older acts who still make music and can still sell respectable numbers but can't compare to the groundbreaking impact their earlier music made. U2, who have long been called the "biggest band on earth" are finding themselves in the same transition right now as well. They're competing with bands that are young enough to be their sons and are finding themselves more as elder statesmen than being the "it" band they were in 1987.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest nothingfails0603

All of the examples you've named in this thread like Prince, George Michael, Rolling Stones, Paul McCartney haven't had hit songs or albums in ages, so no they aren't relevant to the current music scene but they certainly aren't completely irrelevant either. If you can get thousands or millions of people to pay money to come see you live then you have some sort of relevance. Miley may not be INFLUENCING pop culture, but that doesn't make her irrelevant. She's a queen to little tween girls everywhere, they made her tour a HUGE success and the rate they buy her albums has made her one of the top selling female artists of the past few years, hit singles plus the TV show. Anytime I step foot into a store it seems like her face is on some product or another plus the magazine covers. Someone with that omnipresence and success is not irrelevant.

I do agree with Miley. At least in the US she has really become a megastar that everything she does gets news, kinda like Britney. She quit Twitter and it made news as if it was something important. I think her fame will be short-lived since her fanbase are notoriously fickle (The Jonas Brothers are already "out" and it seems like only a week or two ago when they came out) but she will definitely have made her mark during her stay, kinda like how Debbie Gibson was really only famous for about 2 years there but everyone knows who she is. Hilary Duff (who was the proto-Miley IMO) never was as famous as Miley Cyrus is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just a reminder all of her studio album’s this decade debut at number one

Biggest solo touring act – current (i.e. relevant) record holder

Back in the 80’s people like to pit Prince and Michael Jackson against each other – Chris Rock says Prince won – but the reality is Madonna did – has it all – her life – sanity – children – young Latino dick (God I want me one of those!) – and future albums that she’ll base future tours off of.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do agree with Miley. At least in the US she has really become a megastar that everything she does gets news, kinda like Britney. She quit Twitter and it made news as if it was something important. I think her fame will be short-lived since her fanbase are notoriously fickle (The Jonas Brothers are already "out" and it seems like only a week or two ago when they came out) but she will definitely have made her mark during her stay, kinda like how Debbie Gibson was really only famous for about 2 years there but everyone knows who she is. Hilary Duff (who was the proto-Miley IMO) never was as famous as Miley Cyrus is.

Exactly! And I would never suggest Debbie Gibson is relevant now, but in 1987 she was indeed a relevant recording artist. She sold millions, teens adored her and she scored a string of hit songs that were unavoidable. She was never influential or at the forefront of music/fashion trends nor did she change pop culture in any way but she was certainly relevant at the time.

That's all I'm saying here. That it's ridiculous to call someone irrelevant just because they aren't the "pulse" of pop culture currently.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Selling out stadiums doesn't mean an artist is relevant.

Again, as I said in the other thread, it pains me to say it, but she simply isn't relevant to the general public. Hasn't been since the early '00s.

You missed that COADF sold almost 10 million copies worlwide? in an era where albums doesn't sell too good...

Hung Up and Sorry were HUGE worldwide hits

you must have missed that...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At the end of the day isn't it the must important thing the music.

Who cares if people still talk about her, if her concerts are sold out and her albums are at #1.

As long as the music is good everything else is just bullshit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isn't that the artist's fate? Most artists (not just musical ones), are known for one magnum opus or a period where they were most productive. They are then remembered predominantly for that work (or the work that came out of that period). Anything that came before or after is less relevant, pales in comparison, and is overshadowed. The artist has already expressed whatever it is she or he had to say about the world and has nothing else left to contribute on an artistic level. I kind of feel that way about Madonna. She already said what she had to say, and fought for the themes she felt strongly about through her work. What now? She's ran out of inspiration - everywhere is sex, gays are more accepted, religion is being challenged, the idea that a woman can be as powerful as a man is not as shocking anymore, so what does she have to say now? - The only thing I can think of is ageism. It explains why all her recent efforts involve her prancing around saying "hey I'm 50. I still look good and can still hang with the 20 year olds" Unfortunately most of it stems from her fear of aging and it hasn't translated well artistically because it comes out of insecurity rather than passion.

I agree with you. Irrelevance or a lull in artistic output is part of the artists fate although Madonna isn't dead yet so who knows...her classic period could be yet to come even though it's highly doubtful. There are a range of issues she could still cover though. She could address the whole concept of ageism as you mention and it's associated issues through her music. Issues such as sex/relationships with younger/older partners...raising children out of wedlock...trying to maintain anonymity and privacy while still under the glare of the media...social networking/relationships via the internet...the struggle to find meaning and the supposed death of meaning ('prophets are telling us, we're near the end')...the notion of renaissance...reincarnation...I can envisage M on the CD cover now...sat in a wheelchair dressed in a school girl uniform sucking on a candy cane waiting outside a kid's school...she could call the album 'Home Coming'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest nothingfails0603

What I find most funny about the media's obsession over her and Jesus is that if she was a man, nobody would think twice. Sean Penn has himself a 24 year old girlfriend and nobody frowns on that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All of the examples you've named in this thread like Prince, George Michael, Rolling Stones, Paul McCartney haven't had hit songs or albums in ages, so no they aren't relevant to the current music scene but they certainly aren't completely irrelevant either. If you can get thousands or millions of people to pay money to come see you live then you have some sort of relevance. Miley may not be INFLUENCING pop culture, but that doesn't make her irrelevant. She's a queen to little tween girls everywhere, they made her tour a HUGE success and the rate they buy her albums has made her one of the top selling female artists of the past few years, hit singles plus the TV show. Anytime I step foot into a store it seems like her face is on some product or another plus the magazine covers. Someone with that omnipresence and success is not irrelevant.

Obviously, you must not have thoroughly read my posts. I'm WELL AWARE Madonna isn't the "hot thing" or "it" girl of the moment and she hasn't been since 1985. I'm not saying she's the most influential out there right now or that the world is "bopping" to her beat. I'm simply laying out the cold hard facts of her achievements recently....and they are impressive. Calling someone irrelevant who's achieved that much recently is a bit inaccurate.

Prince had a hit album as recent as 2004. Would you have said he was relevant then?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest waiting

What I find most funny about the media's obsession over her and Jesus is that if she was a man, nobody would think twice. Sean Penn has himself a 24 year old girlfriend and nobody frowns on that.

That's not true. There definitely are people who do frown about it regardless of gender.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's not true. There definitely are people who do frown about it regardless of gender.

It would be incredibly naive to say that women and men are given equal treatment when it comes to that. Collectively, people brush off Sean Penn or Bruce Willis as "oh, those silly old men!" With Madonna (or another "cougar" ) people grimace and recoil.

I personally think its great that Madonna is enjoying her young FWB.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's not true. There definitely are people who do frown about it regardless of gender.

Bullshit.

There is no male celebrity on the planet who gets such intense media scrutiny for dating a 20 year old. Female celebrities who date much younger men are ALWAYS scrutinized more harshly, and ridiculed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest nothingfails0603

That's not true. There definitely are people who do frown about it regardless of gender.

True, but Sean Penn robbing the cradle isn't a punchline you hear on Chelsea Lately every single night, etc... Billy Joel married a girl who was only like two years older than his daughter (and he didn't have kids until he was in his late 30's) and nobody reacted with this moral outrage about a 60 year old man and 25 year old woman the way they do with Madonna. Even Demi Moore still gets a lot of shit over Ashton even though they've been together for years, when there's just as much a gap between Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes and nobody cares about the age gap. He isn't having a "midlife crisis" but she is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest waiting

Bullshit.

There is no male celebrity on the planet who gets such intense media scrutiny for dating a 20 year old. Female celebrities who date much younger men are ALWAYS scrutinized more harshly, and ridiculed.

I really don't see her being attacked or being scrutinized at the moment. Sure, there are the Perez Hilton posts, but they attack everything just for the sake of it. Most of comments are made in jest; nobody is protesting or outraged. This whole cougar thing is actually working in her favor. The whole idea of an older woman dating a younger man is becoming more and more accepted and even popularized. Isn't it one of the main themes in Courtney Cox's new show (which I do not watch, but have seen pics of her in tub with hot young man)... and Samantha's escapades in Sex and the City?

Also: she is clearly doing this partly to get attention. And its working. If she dated some 50 year old nobody nobody would give a shit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest nothingfails0603

I really don't see her being attacked or being scrutinized at the moment. Sure, there are the Perez Hilton posts, but they attack everything just for the sake of it. Most of comments are made in jest; nobody is protesting or outraged. This whole cougar thing is actually working in her favor. The whole idea of an older woman dating a younger man is becoming more and more accepted and even popularized. Isn't it one of the main themes in Courtney Cox's new show (which I do not watch, but have seen pics of her in tub with hot young man)... and Samantha's escapades in Sex and the City?

I've heard lots of jokes about Madonna "robbing the cradle" and usually they're saying it against her

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest waiting

I've heard lots of jokes about Madonna "robbing the cradle" and usually they're saying it against her

Perhaps. But at the end of the day, they're just jokes. Let's face it, Madonna loves this stuff. She spent most of her career to provoke these kinds of reactions... it's the fuel for her fire. She can't live without it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...