Kurt420 Posted October 18, 2009 Share Posted October 18, 2009 A point made in the Brit thread is that Madonna hasn't been relevant since the early 00's. If she is indeed irrelevant now, how was she exactly relevant then? She wasn't HOT with the kids, she was just as much of a relic in the industry then as now. She was scoring some of the biggest hits of her career (like now), she was among the top album sellers in the world for that year (like now) and while she wasn't SHATTERING touring records like she is now, she was still close to the top when it comes to that back then too. Some say Madonna isn't relevant in the music world anymore but my gripe with that statement is she is equalling...maybe even outselling the "relevant" ones on a worldwide basis when it comes to album sales. She's had 2 of the biggest hits of her career in the past 4 years. Of course those songs topped the charts in nearly 40+ countries (another feat I highly doubt the most "relevant" acts of today can't match) and I don't even need to go into her touring numbers, which nobody who is deemed "relevant" at the moment could match. Are these not the ways we define "relevancy" in the music biz?? Or.... Is being relevant being "hot" with the youth? Is relevance having lots of buzz surrounding you? Is relevance putting a new sound out there that isn't mainstream yet? Can only someone who is a newer artist actually be relevant? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest SuperBriGuy Posted October 18, 2009 Share Posted October 18, 2009 I still believe Madonna is VERY relevant, but her level of relevance has changed. She is no longer the forerunner of trends as she used to be...most people think that means she has lost her relevance, as she is no longer the PRIMARY "look to" for what's hot in music and style. Does that mean she's lost her relevance? I don't think so...I just think it means she's at a different point in her career than many of the younger artists are, and rightly so; she's worked hard to achieve the level of success that she's risen to, and I still think she's a very good barometer of what is popular...regardless of whether she discovered it and brought it to the forefront or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Danny86 Posted October 18, 2009 Share Posted October 18, 2009 and while she wasn't SHATTERING touring records like she is now You're putting that too mildly. In 1990 she had to cancel Italian shows, downsize German venues, record the laserdisc show in a non-sellout venue and several American dates had to be axed because of "voice problems", even though that was her GODDESS and TRENDSETTING year. And even the Rhythm Nation Tour was bigger at least in the US, right? I guess a Madonna concert ticket back then didn't cost 30 times more than a Madonna LP (in the US) either. But people are only willing to spend on someone when she's not considered hot anymore, or so it seems... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
loomer Posted October 18, 2009 Share Posted October 18, 2009 And even the Rhythm Nation Tour was bigger at least in the US, right? Ewww. Nobody cares about Janice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Pud Whacker Posted October 18, 2009 Share Posted October 18, 2009 relevant - a word brought into the madonna fan world and THE MEDIA in 2003. she is the reason people use the word relevant in regard to stardom. is she relevant in the music business? of course - shes madonna the biggest female pop star that is up there with the beatles and elvis. she broke down barriers after the first wave of feminism where women were emulating men and suppressing their femininity. in the music business - for women - it will always go back to madonna. is she relevant to the public? well, i think her last tour answers that question. is she relevant to newspapers? not a day goes by where they dont pass a story along without her in it. is she relevant in the media? they cant get enough of her. is she relevant in fashion? she is fashion. is she relevant to her fans - of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Danny86 Posted October 18, 2009 Share Posted October 18, 2009 ^I think the last one might be debatable for some. Pud, what's the story about 2003 and "relevant"? You mentioned this not long ago in another thread, something about NY Times writing that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
loomer Posted October 18, 2009 Share Posted October 18, 2009 She is the IMMATERIAL Girl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Not4Pussies Posted October 18, 2009 Share Posted October 18, 2009 A point made in the Brit thread is that Madonna hasn't been relevant since the early 00's. If she is indeed irrelevant now, how was she exactly relevant then? She wasn't HOT with the kids, she was just as much of a relic in the industry then as now. She was scoring some of the biggest hits of her career (like now), she was among the top album sellers in the world for that year (like now) and while she wasn't SHATTERING touring records like she is now, she was still close to the top when it comes to that back then too. Some say Madonna isn't relevant in the music world anymore but my gripe with that statement is she is equalling...maybe even outselling the "relevant" ones on a worldwide basis when it comes to album sales. She's had 2 of the biggest hits of her career in the past 4 years. Of course those songs topped the charts in nearly 40+ countries (another feat I highly doubt the most "relevant" acts of today can't match) and I don't even need to go into her touring numbers, which nobody who is deemed "relevant" at the moment could match. Are these not the ways we define "relevancy" in the music biz?? agree with everything you've said i love the woman but she is not what she use to be last time she had some influence in music, fashion etc was for Confessions Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Pud Whacker Posted October 18, 2009 Share Posted October 18, 2009 ^I think the last one might be debatable for some. Pud, what's the story about 2003 and "relevant"? You mentioned this not long ago in another thread, something about NY Times writing that? yes, when matt lauer interviewed her for american life, there was a story in the ny times asking if madonna was still commercially relevant. as parrots do, they repeat. this was not something anyone discussed prior to this piece in music. they were either popular or a has been. it was ageist, sexist and was used only for madonna because how else can they get to a woman who has done it all and more? this is a woman who has sold over 200 million albums. this is an international star that everyone wants her stamp of approval. she was living in britian and americans felt betrayed. what i say is fact. everyone wants a piece of madonna. whats more relevant than that? http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/31/business/madonna-institution-and-rebel-but-not-quite-the-diva-of-old-she-once-was.html To sell records, many record labels are turning to the younger female pop artists, like Gwen Stefani of No Doubt, Avril Lavigne and Christina Aguilera, who dominate the music world, making Madonna appear less and less commercially relevant these days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
loomer Posted October 18, 2009 Share Posted October 18, 2009 Didn't they have a joke on Will & Grace about the last time Madonna was still relevant? They couldn't have liked her on the show after her guest appearance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Danny86 Posted October 18, 2009 Share Posted October 18, 2009 yes, when matt lauer interviewed her for american life, there was a story in the ny times asking if madonna was still commercially relevant. as parrots do, they repeat. this was not something anyone discussed prior to this piece in music. they were either popular or a has been. it was ageist, sexist and was used only for madonna because how else can they get to a woman who has done it all and more? this is a woman who has sold over 200 million albums. this is an international star that everyone wants her stamp of approval. she was living in britian and americans felt betrayed. what i say is fact. everyone wants a piece of madonna. whats more relevant than that? http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/31/business/madonna-institution-and-rebel-but-not-quite-the-diva-of-old-she-once-was.html To sell records, many record labels are turning to the younger female pop artists, like Gwen Stefani of No Doubt, Avril Lavigne and Christina Aguilera, who dominate the music world, making Madonna appear less and less commercially relevant these days. That article simply SCREAMS that they decided she was over. Incredible that this was just after one of her so called "peaks" (and before the AL video or album came out!) yet they acted like she did not matter for YEARS. But this is the worst: ''Radio is still searching for her relevance,'' said Robert P. Burke, vice president and managing director at Friday Morning Quarterback, a radio trade publication. ''There is some question of how much she appeals to kids. But she deserves the benefit of the doubt. Every time Madonna does something, she makes news, and program directors add her to their playlists to be on board, upfront if something happens.'' Radio no longer searching. Radio decided. Madonna does not get the benefit of the doubt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GimmeSomeMo Posted October 18, 2009 Share Posted October 18, 2009 Well what IS relevant? Yes she had two major hits but she also had the most songs that didnt chart on the Hot 100 in her career. Yes she sells out stadiums but so do the Rolling Stones. I dont think sales is what counts here. Does Madonna MATTER? Does her work have IMPACT? Does she get talked about (and not about her 22 yo boy toy or her adoptions)? Does she influence popular culture? Is she part of the zeitgeist? Is her music part of peoples lives? Thats what I think determines relevance. Loony proclamations that the sun shines out of her ass are fine but lets look at things objectively for a second. Is Madonna IMPORTANT in the music world now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
loomer Posted October 18, 2009 Share Posted October 18, 2009 To sell records, many record labels are turning to the younger female pop artists, like Gwen Stefani of No Doubt, Avril Lavigne and Christina Aguilera, who dominate the music world, making Madonna appear less and less commercially relevant these days. Hardly. That article looked like something from the Daily Mail. Very negative in tone. "She lipsynched Like A Virgin at the MTV Awards" - really, she did? Love the correction at the end Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 18, 2009 Share Posted October 18, 2009 A-FUCKING-MEN. SHE IS ONE OF THE MOST INFLUENTIAL AND MOST IMPORTANT MUSICIANS IN THE HISTORY OF POPULAR MUSIC. SHE IS OBVIOUSLY THE BIGGEST FEMALE POP STAR EVER AND I LOVE IT HOW U SAID... IT WILL ALWAYS GO BACK 2 MADONNA... COULDNT BE MORE TRUE. THE MOST SUCCESSFUL FEMALE RECORDING ARTIST IN MUSIC HISTORY. NUFF SAID! relevant - a word brought into the madonna fan world and THE MEDIA in 2003. she is the reason people use the word relevant in regard to stardom. is she relevant in the music business? of course - shes madonna the biggest female pop star that is up there with the beatles and elvis. she broke down barriers after the first wave of feminism where women were emulating men and suppressing their femininity. in the music business - for women - it will always go back to madonna. is she relevant to the public? well, i think her last tour answers that question. is she relevant to newspapers? not a day goes by where they dont pass a story along without her in it. is she relevant in the media? they cant get enough of her. is she relevant in fashion? she is fashion. is she relevant to her fans - of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neutrocks Posted October 18, 2009 Share Posted October 18, 2009 All that matters is that she's still relevant to me. And the fact is she's such a huge star, she will have a shit load of fans long after some of the newer acts are long gone and forgotten. She isn't just a musician. She's an entertainer. She'll be entertaining millions until the day she drops or decides to just hang it up for good. And I hardly believe Madonna will be hanging it up anytime soon, nor comes off as a person will let public perception of her "relativity" determine if she should stop entertaining. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IsaacHarris Posted October 18, 2009 Share Posted October 18, 2009 EVERYONE (LOVE HER OR HATE HER) KNOWS MADONNA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mattress Posted October 18, 2009 Share Posted October 18, 2009 <div><object width="480" height="389"><param name="movie" value="http://www.dailymotion.com/swf/x4acda&related=0"></param><param'>http://www.dailymotion.com/swf/x4acda&related=0"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.dailymotion.com/swf/x4acda&related=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="480" height="389" allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always"></object><br /><b><a href=</div></b> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian John Posted October 18, 2009 Share Posted October 18, 2009 If you don't have to be dead for major magazines to put you on their front cover, 27 years into your career, then you're still relevant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurt420 Posted October 18, 2009 Author Share Posted October 18, 2009 Well what IS relevant? Yes she had two major hits but she also had the most songs that didnt chart on the Hot 100 in her career. Yes she sells out stadiums but so do the Rolling Stones. I dont think sales is what counts here. Does Madonna MATTER? Does her work have IMPACT? Does she get talked about (and not about her 22 yo boy toy or her adoptions)? Does she influence popular culture? Is she part of the zeitgeist? Is her music part of peoples lives? Thats what I think determines relevance. Loony proclamations that the sun shines out of her ass are fine but lets look at things objectively for a second. Is Madonna IMPORTANT in the music world now? Who in your opinion is all of those things right now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apples388 Posted October 18, 2009 Share Posted October 18, 2009 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurt420 Posted October 18, 2009 Author Share Posted October 18, 2009 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. But what is this based on? And how was she then if she isn't now? I could see you saying since the early 90's...but she was pretty much in the same place in the early 00's that she is now. She was an established legend at that time already. Difference is she was riding the wave of a "comeback"....if we must call it that. She was at a peak yes, but she still wasn't neccesarily "cool" at that time....at least not here in the US. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apples388 Posted October 18, 2009 Share Posted October 18, 2009 But what is this based on? And how was she then if she isn't now? I could see you saying since the early 90's...but she was pretty much in the same place in the early 00's that she is now. She was an established legend at that time already. Difference is she was riding the wave of a "comeback"....if we must call it that. She was at a peak yes, but she still wasn't neccesarily "cool" at that time....at least not here in the US. She's older now. It's as simple as that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
afrolito Posted October 18, 2009 Share Posted October 18, 2009 Who in your opinion is all of those things right now? Are you kidding with that question? GAGA of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IsaacHarris Posted October 18, 2009 Share Posted October 18, 2009 In My Humble Opinion, CONCERT/ Ticket Sales/ Shows DO Determine Relevancy. Anyone can Download your Song. Anyone can Request Your Song on the Radio. Anyone can Burn a copy of your CD. NOT EVERYONE CAN DRAG THEIR ASS OFF THE COUCH TO GO SEE YOU LIVE. Hell, You May not Like Britney Spears but the Bitch SURE CAN SELL OUT A SHOW. In that Sense... MADGE is THE Most Relevant of Em' All. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GimmeSomeMo Posted October 18, 2009 Share Posted October 18, 2009 But what is this based on? And how was she then if she isn't now? I could see you saying since the early 90's...but she was pretty much in the same place in the early 00's that she is now. She was an established legend at that time already. Difference is she was riding the wave of a "comeback"....if we must call it that. She was at a peak yes, but she still wasn't neccesarily "cool" at that time....at least not here in the US. She made a difference. Her music was on the radio. People were talking about the phenomenon that was Madonna having hits so many years into her career. She was still a style icon. The Drowned World Tour was a FRENZY. A combination of lack of genuine inspiration, oversaturation of the touring circuit and age has made her irrelevant. That doesnt mean shes not an ICON and the most succesful female popstar ever. But when you think of pop music, you dont think of Madonna these days if youre part of the general public. You think of Lady GaGa. She has had tremendous success in the least year, inspired dozens of copycats both in sound and style and everyone is wondering what her next move will be. Thats what I consider relevant. Madonna is in her own space. She has her fans, she makes her music but especially in America, shes artistically irrelevant. Hopefully she can come back with something that will shake things up and make people care again. If anyone can do it, she can. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
loomer Posted October 18, 2009 Share Posted October 18, 2009 Why have all the posts went bold? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apples388 Posted October 18, 2009 Share Posted October 18, 2009 In My Humble Opinion, CONCERT/ Ticket Sales/ Shows DO determine relevancy No, they don't. Ticket sales determine being a live draw. And in that sense of course Madonna is a live draw. But then so are Barbra Streisand, Tina Turner, the Rolling Stones, Paul McCartney. Would you say they are relevant? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurt420 Posted October 18, 2009 Author Share Posted October 18, 2009 She's older now. It's as simple as that. The age thing has been a factor for many years now though. Even when I was in middle/high school in the 90's she was considered "old" by many. Do you have to be "cool" to be relevant? It just seems to me if she's not relevant now with all that she continues to achieve then I have a distorted definition of the word "relevance". Going by some of the implied definitions in this thread I would say she hasn't been "relevant" since 1985. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GimmeSomeMo Posted October 18, 2009 Share Posted October 18, 2009 Why have all the posts went bold? The board clearly thinks this is an important discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
afrolito Posted October 18, 2009 Share Posted October 18, 2009 Sorry, but no. Ticket sales determine being a live draw. And in that sense of course Madonna is a live draw. But then so are Barbra Streisand, Tina Turner, the Rolling Stones, Paul McCartney. Would you say they are relevant? So if her ticket sales were flopping, but she had a constant string of worthless #1's (like Mariah), then she would be a relevant?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts