Confessit

I see the essence of what your saying. The issue is complex and is hyper sensitive across the board. The issue with what JK said is that it was a sentence and a short reference that can be taken as transphobic. I think the consensus is if someone refers to a trans person as just that trans it is received negatively as a trans person has always been the gender they have chosen to become, not the gender they were born with. My issue with the whole debate considering JK Rowling and previous debates around the trans issue is what consummates transphobia? What is phobia anyway? What is homophobia? Well a phobia is fear if we are getting into the dictionary terminology. To me though it’s being negative with intention towards a trans person or a gay person. Some would consider all opposing opinions towards gay people homophobic, so anybody who doesn’t agree with it for religious reasons for one example they are a homophobe. I go to church sometimes and I have friends who attend who have an opposing view from me as I am gay but I do not class these people as homophobes. Some people have the opinion gay people shouldn’t marry. Again dependant upon the individual some would snap back and say your homophobic whilst others, like me, see it as an opinion. A narrow minded opinion but still an opinion. If someone is shouting discriminatory language to me on the street that I’m a fag that should die, well that goes from someone’s opinion to being hateful with intent. If someone incites harm to others for being gay or takes action against someone’s life for instance calling them names that’s homophobic. That’s just a very short perspective purely of ME I understand and accept some other gay people consider all religious people and homophobes straight away for the opinion they hold, and that’s okay it’s a belief we all have them! Back to the issue of trans. I have many friends who have both had and are having treatment to become the gender they were born as in their minds and hearts. I fully accept my friend is a man as much as I am, not a trans man just a man. But my personal belief is if someone believes the biology purely and not the fact that people are actually able to be born as a sex they go on to become and not the sex their bodies are I do not treat it as transphobic. I am not trans and I will not speak for them but there is a marked difference to having the opinion (my opinion is it is ignorant and not progressive) as oppose to someone who is cruel who will verbally or physically hurt a trans person. Not hate just the opinion they are a transitional male/female based on biology ideas. But it is an opinion and I don’t base someones gender on their biology I base it on what’s in their heads but some people don’t. Not all those people are hateful towards trans or the community and whilst it may not be the opinion of some it is the opinion of others. I don’t believe JK has been transphobic she has voiced an opinion regarding biology and basing that round her own life and how she feels. Not everyone agrees but some do.

I never said that or at least that’s no true the point I was making..... society has changed and continues to change but censorship is not the answer in my opinion. We need to accept that films are made in times when society wasn’t as civilised as it is today. I remember watching Birth of a Nation at school and being horrified as we all were but it should remain as a reminder these things have happened. Shall we shut Auschwitz in that case and forget about it? But it happened we need to remember. YES that’s an extreme example but I’m afraid the principal is the same. If we start censoring the Arts I think it can lead to just removing things that make people uncomfortable in different areas where does one draw the line? I am just trying to debate this from a different perspective. That’s all. If they put it back with some kind of disclaimer then that’s fine but there are calls now for it never to be put back.

I support the BLM campaign with all my heart but this is getting a tad ridiculous now (And is nothing directly to do with them it’s other people feeling a need to take action). Attempting to re-write history by removing films isn’t the answer. Surly these films are held up as a product of the times they were made and it’s a known fact racism existed as blatantly and disgustingly as depicted in GWTW. Removing it does nothing but hide away the fact it had the racist undertones. If we are going to open up the vaults and make decisions based on societies standards today then half of the films available would be taken down or given censor messages at the start. Take the bond films in the early days and how woman were treated for example absolutely disgraceful it wouldn’t happen in a modern Bond film now but does that mean we get rid of these and keep starting a fresh? I am not making this a contest between offences but where do we draw the line here there are so many films made that are a product of the day that are both old fashioned now and at times the content is viewed in todays pair of eyes as immoral. Trying to hide them is pointless they should remain and be lessons of shock to today’s audience particularly the younger audience to bring it home that such a world once existed. Because it did exist and we must all learn from it.

The problematic idea of celebrating a person who has made their fortunes on the back of the slave trade by erecting a statue of them on a podium so they can be marvelled at on the streets of Britain is a pretty remarkable feat is it not? Whilst I firmly don’t agree with mindless vandalism of monuments such as Queen Victoria who has nothing to do personally with the slave trade and actually embraced foreign cultures with open arms, we need to address the statue issue sensibly . There is no denying that many people who have built buildings and created institutions in this country did make fortunes from keeping slaves and selling them. And I take the point many historic landmarks in ancient history were built by salves such as the Pyramids, The Colosseum and The Great Wall of China, but these creations are not celebrations to the person or persons who decided for them to be built. They themselves didn’t have an erected statue built years afterwards as a celebration of them. There is a marked difference between what is created on the appointment of somebody and a statue of them which in itself is a admirable achievement to get one of somebody on a podium on a street, surely there is a distinct difference? History of humanity is steeped in cruelty, prejudice, imperialism, judgement and elitism. The world has changed many times through what’s accepted in different generations and hopefully we get a step further towards being “more civilised” with every change. You can’t erase actual history so we must all learn from it. That’s exactly how things have changed in this country from woman getting the vote, child labour being outlawed and gay people not being thrown in prison. I propose drawing a line when it comes to statues and considering is it right to put this person on that platform publicly or is it better to have them belong in a museum where the full story can and should be told? I believe this is the environment for the men who may of shaped the landscape of Britain but did so on the back of the inhumane act of keeping slaves and profiting from them. Many people in history who have a statue held ideas “of their day” that by today’s standards are simply immoral, and the slave trade is but one. It’s a painful and disgusting one but it is one of many. Don’t forget many people for centuries in this country didn’t allow woman the same rights of men you’d be wiping out half the monuments that exists if you start unpicking history by what we accept and dont accept in 2020. I fully understand people’s disgust at statues of men who have profited in slavery and I agree they have no place on the street alongside other statues of scholars, scientists, monarchs and people who have had an impact on our national identity. But who decides who gets a platform anyway? There are only opinions at the end of the day so I say let’s have a constructive look at who has a statue and why? I agree at the ones removed thus far but they need to be in a museum so we can remember the capability of the human reach and at what cost. That way they are not “celebrated” lives on public display but their important stories can be told in a museum because currently most people wouldn’t know the true horror of their back story anyway and you can’t squeeze their back story on a tiny plaque. We need to look at the person and ask ourselves does this person deserve the platform because there needs to be a measure and hopefully the positive to come out of this will be food for thought for future committees and councils when deciding to green light a statue for a person.

I agree with you totally IF we were having this debate a decade ago but she’s in her 60s now and had spent a decade away from the charts. The boats sailed but I believe as I think you are adhering to the fact that had she of remained with Warner’s she could of enjoyed charts hits well into her 50s like she always had.

Agree 100%. It was odd that they didn’t even try but I think after RH sank without a trace after she put the effort in I think she knew she was going to do a very exclusive small tour just for the fans so there was less effort put in to selling Madame X like we got last time round with RH. Had she of planned another world tour with arenas then all the things you listed would of been done and isn’t expect more promo from her. But she was only ever going to do the mini residencies which it at those ticket prices would of only (and did only) attract her hardcore fan base. I agree with you. I think she trew caution to the wind and made a great experimental pop record without thinking about the masses to much after RH sank. But I do think Maluma have everybody hope for big numbers online but it wasn’t ran with enough and as you say it isn’t a very mainstream friendly song.

Hmmm that’s the official story. But Maluma is hardly an unknown. He has a massive online profile with over a billion hits on YouTube. He is absolutley massive in the Latin markets. Whilst I agree he is not popular in America/Europe, no doubt Madonna and her team thought he would bring with him his online magic as he has done when he has collaborated with other artists. I think the plan was to try and get her on the streaming/YouTube platform as radio is a non-starter. Yes she admires Him and yes the album is a love letter to all things Latin, but he was chosen for his popularity online. I remember loads of fans in here were convinced she was going to have an absolute smash in the Latin charts when it was announced M was working with both Maluma and Anitta. And it’s easy to see why everybody thought that as his videos online have massive viewing figures. So there was certainly some strategy at play here.

Madame X didn’t have any commercial potential in terms of the charts. Crave is the only song that could if radio still played her have the ability to break through... (and she didn’t even promote that anywhere except the music video !) ...Madonna turned her back on playing by the rules after she went out and worked the hell out of Rebel Heart and it just sank everywhere. So she made an experimental album without thinking about singles or commercial potential because she knows as we all do she doesn’t compete in the charts anymore. God Control is by far one of the best and most interesting track on the album. I believe as many do it was front runner for lead single as the video was shot first but it was changed for whatever reason, I suspect because the Latin flavour of the album is stronger than the disco/dance so the Latin flavour track got picked to launch the project. I do agree that GC would of been perfect for Eurovision but an edited version. I think Madonna did what she wanted with her last release under LN/Universal without considering the game and indulged herself in artistry over sales which is why we have an extreamly diverse and cutting edge pop album.

I agree these few parents protesting don’t represent the Muslim community anymore than I do. They shame the whole faith. I would of thought the UKs Equality Act Law would of prevented these protestors stopping it I thought it was the law now for same sex love/commitment to be taught in UK schools.

Critically yes it did very well but not commercially.

No it didn’t but I think Graham’s comment was highlighting albums that are no where near as MX That did do well rather than a put down.

Oh God it was just as slow and boring from a different angle.

It’s shocking stuff. He lied to the Queen it’s a serious abuse of his position. Surley he will reign now how can he carry on when his actions have been found unlawful.

It's not signed and sealed yet hun.

Spot on baby! I don't think she would of made this type of album at any other point in her career. She is at a point where the masses just aren't exposed to her work anymore through the sheer demographics of the audience that defines the charts. So rather than try to appeal to it which I feel much of RH did she has chose to create an album where she can really be artistic and make statements that she wouldn't of otherwise. But MX is holding its own and through great reviews, stunning visuals and the exposure it has got it's been so warmly recived. MX challenges convention. The songs have interesting structures it's not about achieving an instant appeal, it has layers and stories and that's what she's brought to the videos. It's such a work of art the whole project and further proves after all these years she can still make music that has a lasting impact on the listener. I'm not saying she hasn't pushed the artistic boundaries before, she's made a career out of doing just that but we have arrived at a different phase of her career and my God it's so interesting and beautiful.