Jump to content

Madonna's relevancy


Kurt420

Recommended Posts

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.

Jesus Christ. She's not a FORCE in POP CULTURE. That's all it is. Stop whining. You can still enjoy her music you know. Why do you care how much how the WORLD views Madonna? Does it change your enjoyment of her? I adore the Pet Shop Boys and they havent been relevant in the US since Domino Dancing. Stop obsessing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Yes.

Just Because A New Generation of Phags (Myself Included :horn:) Aren't IN TOO Your Music,

doesn't mean your not relevant.

That $280,000,000 DID NOT Come From this Forum Alone. :dazed:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Not4Pussies

there are young people out there who like her and they like some of her songs but they wont admit it

like my coworker. she's 20. she is into hip hop/dance house music/top 40 crap, and she was playing her ipod at work and after she played

black eyed peas she played Get Together

they secretly like her

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hard Candy outsold Circus worldwide - granted not by a lot - but it did. It also outsold Kanye West's last record, the Jonas Brothers, and Mariah's E=MC2. All of those artists were considered very relevant in the pop culture climate. So sales-wise, she's still quite a powerhouse. Celebration (the album) is also on track to sell more than a lot of other current performers this year and it was only JUST released.

She was one of the first major artists to move to a 360 deal with a concert promoter in 2007. Her W Magazine cover with Jesus Luz sold out all copies within 1 month of being released. She worked with Stuart Price on her album in 2005 and now he's producing for the Killers and the Scissor Sisters - so obviously she can still spot a fresh sound.

I'd argue she has lasting relevance simply because she has such a dominant legacy and because she keeps going. If relevance to you is only having #1 hits in the U.S. only, then I guess she's not relevant anymore - but I think that is a very narrow way to look at it.

The very fact that people compare her to current up-and-coming talent is a sign that she is STILL the gold standard that all others are held to. I never read one article that said "Is Lady GaGa the new Janet Jackson?" When you are no longer relevant, people just stop talking about you altogether.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Danny86
Going by some of the implied definitions in this thread I would say she hasn't been "relevant" since 1985.

That's what I thought too. Kinda naive to put Madonna up against the different fads of each year and pretend what's "hot" is something that happens by coincidence. In the US Madonna had her comeback period like every "established" artist gets but otherwise you can say she was never the #1 pop artist after 1985 and there was always someone getting more attention.

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??

Well yeah, apparently a #1 single gets more excitement on blogs, forums and twitter = RELEVANT!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

She's older now. It's as simple as that.

As if that is going to have any "relevance" on how Madonna will continue to do what she does best which is entertaining. The thing is that Madonna isn't the only one who is struggling to get people to buy her records or get on radio. Yes, age plays a factor, but she is bound and determine she's going to be a public entertainer for years to come. The number of people who enjoy her versus 10, 20 or nearly 30 years ago doesn't matter. It shouldn't matter because in the end, she still has a much bigger following and always will. Even when she's dead, she will have a massive fan base. And for that fact, she is relevant. Not only that if someone is talking about someone regarding their relevance, only proves they are far more relevant than they give them credit for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jesus Christ. She's not a FORCE in POP CULTURE. That's all it is. Stop whining. You can still enjoy her music you know. Why do you care how much how the WORLD views Madonna? Does it change your enjoyment of her? I adore the Pet Shop Boys and they havent been relevant in the US since Domino Dancing. Stop obsessing.

Tell me about it. But then again I'm not too surprised. As with other artists of her calibre (most notably Michael Jackson), Madonna has a lot of fans who simply want to live vicariously in her 'bubble' forever. They want to believe that it's still 1985 and girls dress up like her. They want to believe that it's still 1992 and the whole world is at the palm of her hand for the pure shock factor of SEX. And so on and so forth. They know this is not the case but they just refuse to accept it.

Which is why people like Britney Spears and Lady GaGa make them uncomfortable. Because, at this moment in time, they are more relevant than Madonna. Doesn't mean they will still be relevant in 10 years of course, but let's not go there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Relevance or lack of is very difficult to define. It can be simply a feeling; a dismissiveness you catch on the edge of a remark, a seeping of potency which you can't pinpoint but is nonetheless there. Let's face it, we don't like it, but if we weren't all aware of it, this thread wouldn't exist. I think a lot of damage was done by the whole AL project. Then Confessions was a huge celebration and a return to form, but (and I exclude Europe from this) time had moved on. I won't bore you with what I think about Hard Candy. Don't get me wrong, Madonna will never go hungry, but that's not the same as being a force in the music world. Some of the problem is just age I guess, but some of it I feel is misguided decisions.

Do I think Madonna can turn it around? Absolutely. It's all about the music -it was always about the music. If she wants to be more than a heritage act, she needs to come up with something amazing. Playing to the gallery with shite (I don't really dislike it, but c'mon; it's shite) like Celebration won't do it. The question is does she want to? She's been at the cutting edge of her trade for 25 years -that's more than most. I guess we'll find out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tell me about it. But then again I'm not too surprised. As with other artists of her calibre (most notably Michael Jackson), Madonna has a lot of fans who simply want to live vicariously in her 'bubble' forever. They want to believe that it's still 1985 and girls dress up like her. They want to believe that it's still 1992 and the whole world is at the palm of her hand for the pure shock factor of SEX. And so on and so forth. They know this is not the case but they just refuse to accept it.

Which is why people like Britney Spears and Lady GaGa make them uncomfortable. Because, at this moment in time, they are more relevant than Madonna. Doesn't mean they will still be relevant in 10 years of course, but let's not go there.

People whose entire life revolves around a popstar and use the words 'devotion' when referring to her are obviously not the people to hold a rational conversation with. OH WELL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Coked Up Baby Boy

She's relevant, just in different ways. She can sell a good tour because she has a long career behind her. But she doesn't have her hand on pop culture anymore, and she most certainly isn't setting any trends now days, if anything, she's following them more obviously.

She's relevant as a historic part of pop music, she's a relic now, which isn't a bad thing. It's where she gets her longevity from, the fact that she's pop royalty. You think the people who saw S&S went because the album was so fantastic? :lol: no....it's because it was a new tour and she has a lot of fans who want to see her performing again, to ANY songs.

Her CAREER is still relevant, she still has one [cough, Janet]. Madonna as the "POPSTAR" we used to know though?, not relevant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Coked Up Baby Boy

Tell me about it. But then again I'm not too surprised. As with other artists of her calibre (most notably Michael Jackson), Madonna has a lot of fans who simply want to live vicariously in her 'bubble' forever. They want to believe that it's still 1985 and girls dress up like her. They want to believe that it's still 1992 and the whole world is at the palm of her hand for the pure shock factor of SEX. And so on and so forth. They know this is not the case but they just refuse to accept it.

Which is why people like Britney Spears and Lady GaGa make them uncomfortable. Because, at this moment in time, they are more relevant than Madonna. Doesn't mean they will still be relevant in 10 years of course, but let's not go there.

Well said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But The Question Was not WHOM Was More Relevant.

It Was Whether or not Madge is Relevant.

keepitcute.gif

She May not be Inspiring 50 Year Olds to Dress Up like her,

but Eh Eh, The Media/ Other Artist/ People in General Still Bring up Her name.

Is George Washington Relevant?

What about Elvis?

How About The Beatles? are They Relevant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Coked Up Baby Boy

She May not be Inspiring 50 Year Olds to Dress Up like her,

but Eh Eh, The Media/ Other Artist/ People in General Still Bring up Her name.

They bring up her name because she's FAMOUS, there's a difference.

Paris Hilton gets media coverage also, i wouldn't say she has any sort of important relevance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

She's relevant, just in different ways. She can sell a good tour because she has a long career behind her. But she doesn't have her hand on pop culture anymore, and she most certainly isn't setting any trends now days, if anything, she's following them more obviously.

She's relevant as a historic part of pop music, she's a relic now, which isn't as bad thing. It's where she gets her longevity from, the fact that she's pop royalty. You think the people who saw S&S went because the album was so fantastic? :lol: no....it's because it was a new tour and she has a lot of fans who want to see her performing again, to ANY songs.

I don't get why being pop royalty but not exactly the FACE OF POP MUSIC TODAY is so upsetting to people. She's the only one that has lasted this long in POP music. I mean look at the VMAs. They didnt ask her to perform but she came out to talk representing a huge part of the history of pop music. She doesn't really have the ability to shock or inspire or touch the general masses anymore but its ok. Her mark is indelible. In some cases I wish she would realize that herself and stop grinding her crotch or giving the finger in an attempt to shock and jumping on the latest 'hot thing' in an attempt to remain relevant. Its just not happening and it makes her look desperate and kind of ridiculous. Just realize her place in pop music and give us something worthwhile.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But The Question Was not WHOM Was More Relevant.

It Was Whether or not Madge is Relevant.

keepitcute.gif

She May not be Inspiring 50 Year Olds to Dress Up like her,

but Eh Eh, The Media/ Other Artist/ People in General Still Bring up Her name.

Is George Washington Relevant?

What about Elvis?

How About The Beatles? are They Relevant.

No, they are not relevant, their NAMES and LEGACIES are still relevant. Elvis, George Washington and 1/2 The Beatles are DEAD and you don't get much less relevant than that. No-one can take Madonna's past career from her, but the question is, 'Is Madonna the LIVING BREATHING ARTIST relevant?' that's what I took it as anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's no way britney is at the same level madonna was after ten years of making music.

After ten years, Madonna released the amazing vogue, like a prayer.

Britney? eh.. what's that song called? radar..? and the other song i forgot the title of..

britney is bubblegum

madonna is an ARTIST an ICON.

i can see and understand people's fascination with lady gaga. definitely. but britney? gosh, her name alone is an embarrassment. its low. ive heard one sixteen year old on the bus say she likes britney's last album; her friend replied by saying she listens to actual "good music". im not saying madonna's music has been of a high quality lately (except for a few good songs) but i dont think she needs to prove herself that she's a real phenomena. ive said this many times before.. madonna went from bubblegum songs such as like a virgin to brilliant works of art like "live to tell". britney still is in her baby shoes. and it looks like she aint growing. she's still where she was at the start.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is George Washington Relevant?

What about Elvis?

How About The Beatles? are They Relevant.

CUBB already answered those questions when he said that Madonna is relevant in "different ways", her pop legacy is relevant. And in the same sense, the legacy of the people you mentioned is relevant and always will be.

Lucky Guy also hit the nail on the head when he said relevance is not easily definable. It isn't necessarily record or ticket sales. But setting trends, or public anticipation, is certainly part of it. And like CUBB said, Madonna simply is not the trend-setter she used to be.

To be honest though, I don't think 'losing' her relevance is only because of her age (although it is a big part of it.) The other big part of it, which I find very frustrating as a fan, is the fact that she comes across as not having much interest in her career anymore. Of course she's still 100% with her live shows, but that's not good enough. Derivative stuff like "Celebration" may be dismissed as a one-off single to some, but to me it's very telling and symptomatic of the lack of interest she has in her own 'brand' so to speak.

But of course you never know. The next big trend-setting Madonna moment may just be around the corner. It's always like that. Which is why I love her so much. :wow:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Coked Up Baby Boy

I don't get why being pop royalty but not exactly the FACE OF POP MUSIC TODAY is so upsetting to people. She's the only one that has lasted this long in POP music.

I don't get it either. Her accomplishments speak for themselves. Like Sued said though, some fans [mostly the older ones] tend to like living in 1985. It's all they ever talk about :doh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's no way britney is at the same level madonna was after ten years of making music.

After ten years, Madonna released the amazing vogue, like a prayer.

Britney? eh.. what's that song called? radar..? and the other song i forgot the title of..

britney is bubblegum

madonna is an ARTIST an ICON.

i can see and understand people's fascination with lady gaga. definitely. but britney? gosh, her name alone is an embarrassment. its low low.

Its amusing how certain people are so obsessed with Britney. No one even mentioned her in here. I think that says something in itself :1251:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's no way britney is at the same level madonna was after ten years of making music.

After ten years, Madonna released the amazing vogue, like a prayer.

Britney? eh.. what's that song called? radar..? and the other song i forgot the title of..

Nobody said that.

Gosh, why do some of you have to be so precious about Madonna that you have to drop 50 IQ points whenever you discuss her?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Her music was on the radio last year in America. People are ESPECIALLY talking about the phenomenon of Madonna having hits into her career now with Celebration being released. The Drowned World Tour was a frenzy because she hadn't toured in 8 years. Do you TRULY think if Madonna hadn't toured since 2001 that S&S wouldn't have been just as anticipated? And while S&S may not have generated the initial media frenzy of DWT in the end, 99% of the shows on both tours were sellouts. So you must be referencing the MEDIA frenzy surrounding DWT. BTW Madonna's MASSIVE FANBASE of millions of fans across the world (you know the ones who buy her albums catapulting each one to #1 all over the world upon every release nearly)wonder what Madonna's next move will be. That's why she's still here.

Most of the headlines I see in regard to Gaga have to do with her outfits not her music. How is that different than Madonna's adoptions or boyfriends? The point is whoever is writing the article thinks someone cares enough to read about Gaga's outfits or Madonna's Brazilian Boytoy because they are GAGA AND MADONNA...OR you could say because they are relevant. I don't care if someone writes an article about Madonna's mole hair, the point is someone wrote it because they think someone will care to read it because it's about Madonna. That means someone must find you relevant.

How is Gaga changing anything with her actual music? It sounds like watered down Britney Spears. It's nothing new and as enjoyable as you may find it, I know you know it's nothing fresh. If Madonna is artistically irrelevant how is Gaga relevant?

BTW...who are Gaga's dozens of copycats?? I certainly don't see anybody dressing like her.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

calm down. i didnt read the whole topic. i was replying to this, and this only:

Which is why people like Britney Spears and Lady GaGa make them uncomfortable. Because, at this moment in time, they are more relevant than Madonna. Doesn't mean they will still be relevant in 10 years of course, but let's not go there.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, they are not relevant, their NAMES and LEGACIES are still relevant. Elvis, George Washington and 1/2 The Beatles are DEAD and you don't get much less relevant than that. No-one can take Madonna's past career from her, but the question is, 'Is Madonna the LIVING BREATHING ARTIST relevant?' that's what I took it as anyway.

So a Person's Legacy Can be Relevant, But not The Actual Person?

So MJ; Who's Is Dead, Is Not Relevant. But His LEGACY Is...

I See...

keepitcute.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Coked Up Baby Boy

BTW...who are Gaga's dozens of copycats?? I certainly don't see anybody dressing like her.

Have you not seen Rihanna lately? :lol: girls gone GAGA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would fucking LOVE Madonna to come up with a work of such breathtaking HONESTY and SIMPLICITY and POWER, but clothed in hooks and production that ONLY SHE can coax out of people and with her unfailing ear for melody, then sell it to the public with stunning videos and photoshoots and amazing new promotional opportunities, that she makes Gaga -who let's face it is now the biggest girl in the playground, look like a RANK AMATEUR that got lost in a dressing up box.

However, I'm realistic about the chances of this happening. If she does, she does. If she doesn't, what she's given us so far is more than enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Her music was on the radio last year in America.

Actually it was Justin Timberlake and Timbaland's music with Madonna on it. Big difference. "4 Minutes" is hardly "Sorry" or "Celebration."

How is Gaga changing anything with her actual music? It sounds like watered down Britney Spears. It's nothing new and as enjoyable as you may find it, I know you know it's nothing fresh. If Madonna is artistically irrelevant how is Gaga relevant?

Whereas Madonna's first album changed what in the music scene?

BTW...who are Gaga's dozens of copycats?? I certainly don't see anybody dressing like her.

Really? I've see plenty of them. Of course it's nowhere near approaching the Madonna mania of '84-'85 (not that we're comparing), but it's there.

You're just not getting the point really.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think music has become such a trivial commodity along with show business and celebrity that I find most pop stars irrelevant. I might like their music but most of them are just lining their pockets using good causes to promote themselves. Look at U2 going on about big business and world poverty but then move their business to the Netherlands to reduce their tax bill.

The industry is so fragmented now that each genre has its own heroes and in vogue artists but really I just pick and choose what I like for my own music collection.

The fashion, media and business worlds are so tied to each other that I'm ignoring them more and more as it just becomes one product placement and promotion deal.

Is Madonna irrelevant?

I don't care anymore. I just listen to her songs that I like.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Madonna is still A-list but in terms of her relevancy - well compare the overall "mood" surrounding her circa 2000/2001 to the "mood" that surrounds her now. Anyone who has been a fan for at least 10 years can sense the difference. And it doesn't boil down to hits or tours. It is a simple observation of how the public responds to her now. Back then Madonna was sheer event with everything she did. Now she's far less so.

Why people are having such a problem accepting this is beyond me. Madonna is still successful and still respected. But she's getting older. In less than a decade she will be 60. It's not rocket science people. The older you get, the less people are going to be interested in what you do. Do you think the collective media of today, with Twitter, TMZ, Lady Gaga, Dancing With The Stars, American Idol etc, really cares as much as they did 10 years ago? I'm sorry but they don't. And why does it matter? Do you care? Good. That's all you need.

I have to echo what some people are saying Kurt - it seems like you're REALLY preoccupied with how the world/fellow fans see her. Let it go.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Her music was on the radio last year in America. People are ESPECIALLY talking about the phenomenon of Madonna having hits into her career now with Celebration being released. The Drowned World Tour was a frenzy because she hadn't toured in 8 years. Do you TRULY think if Madonna hadn't toured since 2001 that S&S wouldn't have been just as anticipated? And while S&S may not have generated the initial media frenzy of DWT in the end, 99% of the shows on both tours were sellouts. So you must be referencing the MEDIA frenzy surrounding DWT. BTW Madonna's MASSIVE FANBASE of millions of fans across the world (you know the ones who buy her albums catapulting each one to #1 all over the world upon every release nearly)wonder what Madonna's next move will be. That's why she's still here.

Most of the headlines I see in regard to Gaga have to do with her outfits not her music. How is that different than Madonna's adoptions or boyfriends? The point is whoever is writing the article thinks someone cares enough to read about Gaga's outfits or Madonna's Brazilian Boytoy because they are GAGA AND MADONNA...OR you could say because they are relevant. I don't care if someone writes an article about Madonna's mole hair, the point is someone wrote it because they think someone will care to read it because it's about Madonna. That means someone must find you relevant.

How is Gaga changing anything with her actual music? It sounds like watered down Britney Spears. It's nothing new and as enjoyable as you may find it, I know you know it's nothing fresh. If Madonna is artistically irrelevant how is Gaga relevant?

BTW...who are Gaga's dozens of copycats?? I certainly don't see anybody dressing like her.

Timalands and Justins music was on the radio last year in America. You cant POSSIBLY be THAT naive. And yes Madonna has a MASSIVE fanbase but that has nothing to do with her being a VIBRANT, INFLUENTIAL force in pop culture. And Gagas outfits are an extension of her art. Madonnas brazilian 'model' is just her midlife crisis. And GaGa has pretty much CREATED the genre of music popular right now from the Sugababes to Rihanna to everyone queuing outside RedOnes door. Lastly, why is this such a big deal to you? Why is it so important that MADONNA IS RELEVANT? Does it lessen your enjoyment of her if she isnt?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...