So why, exactly, is Madonna famous?
She seems, like Prince Charles some years ago, to have been turning fifty for most of this year. Even the so-called quality press have been slavishly reviewing her career with all the reverence normally reserved for Nobel Prize winners. But what exactly has she achieved during her lifetime? Well, there were a few catchy, if forgettable, hits in the eighties and a number of dodgy film roles. But the devotees tend to focus more or less entirely on her outfits. Apparently a few conical bras and other distinctive lingerie elevate her to the status of an Emily Pankhurst or Rosa Luxemburg. She is, apparently, an iconic, liberated, groundbreaking, post-modern, feminist role model. Or, is her success really just a triumph of American marketing techniques? Is she is nothing more than a tawdry product, well packaged and promoted, rather like those strange products advertised in the American comics in the sixties (X ray specs!), none of which amounted to very much in reality? It is time there was a full and frank debate.
- More from Richard Raftery.
- Login or register to post comments
-
Not liked by any music-lovers
Of course, the next comment will prove me wrong, but I've never met anyone who both:
a) Likes Madonna
AND
b) Is into music.
She tends to be favoured by the same people who say "Oh, I like all kinds of music", yet blank over when you mention anything remotely decent to them.
I've heard her hailed as a great innovator, which gives me distressing feelings of anotherplanetliness when I hear lyrics like "Play the music Mr DJ, I wanna dance with my baby..."
Truly awful
that woman. Liked only by those who value style over content. I read several reviews of the opening of her new tour today. All of them mentioned the costume changes, the size of her tour entourage etc. but not much about the actual music. Which just about sums it up. Her fans also seem to take criticism of her very badly. If you tell a hardcore Madonna fan that you think she's awful, you'll just get accused of being jealous.
Madonna made some good pop records....
when she was younger. That's about it.
Madonna is famous because
she wanted to be famous.
She worked her arse off to be famous.
Madonna became exactly what she always dreamed of and you've got to admire that determination.
There's a few decent tunes in there along the way as well.
she's famous
because someone wrote a blog piece about her in the middle of the night on a bank holiday sunday! She's way past the general critical debate much like the stones or Elvis she just IS. It doesn't matter if all her music isn't top draw as long as there's a twinkle every now and then, she'll sail on for ever. I think her music is better than all the splother about "icons" and "talk of re-inventions would lead you to believe. She suffers from an excess of media/gender studies dissetations and glib media shorthand coverage.
Most of the careerist accusations poured on her can just as easily be leveled at more critically favoured acts, it's just that she's better at it than them.
Lastly I love muisc and have lots of Maddonna records.
"Lastly I love muisc and have lots of Maddonna records."
I love chocolate and have lots of t-shirts.
I'm not sure what your ..
point is.
Johnny Walker summed it up
After he played her version of American Pie he said it took a special kind of talent to ruin that song!
Generally...
... I don't like Madonna but Ray of Light (which is arguably more of a William Orbit album than a Madonna one - listen to the Strange Cargo albums and you'll see what I mean) was rather good.
There were a couple of not-bad songs elsewhere too in Madonna's oeuvre, but it tends to be a result of canny choice of producers and co-writers rather than anything else.
she is the leader
of the pack of people who are famous for having little talent combined with a great ability to self-publicize or "brand" herself or whatever the "experts" call it these days. Which is fine and well except that she is now convinced she is an "Artist" and the rest of the pack of numb nuts have followed suit. Dumb Dumb Dumb ??
or Supersmart???
Was there not a Madonna -
Was there not a Madonna - for or against feature in Word sometime in the last year? A few points in Madge's defence - compared to other 80s superstars Prince and Michael Jackson, she's the only one who has done anything remotely interesting in the last 10 years - Confessions of a Dancefloor, the record with Stuart Price, was excellent and while there have been some tiresome moments in her career like any long career, there aren't many better runs of hit singles than her's in the 80s and early 90s.
Christ
the venom that some people reserve for dear old Madge still boggles me. Even her old supporters Julie Burchill and Germaine Greer have got the knives out for her now. Anyone would think she was personally pumping arsenic into your water-tanks or emailing KKK propaganda to children. Madonna is a SPECTACULAR performer, an absolute master of stagecraft, and clearly - lacklustre current album notwithstanding - has a brilliant ear for a hit and for the coolest collaborators on the block. Let us not forget that she began by harnessing the power of the Chic Organisation, and has kept up with dance music culture ever since, yet never sounds like anyone but herself. You might not think she has the strongest voice in the world, but does, say, Jagger, or Dylan? And yes, she DID break taboos and play with gender roles right up there in the heart of the mainstream; like it or loathe it she DID break new ground. She is more successful and consistent than any of her generation - marketing cannot create that, she clearly provides something that people WANT.
I'm not even that much of a fan - there are quite a lot of the songs I like as songs but find myself put off by the 80s production values, for example - but honestly, why the hatred?
Yes, I'm
always surprised the vitriol targeted at her.
She certainly knows
how to root out closet conservatives (big and small C).
Hmm, there are quite a few levels of innuendo in that sentence, aren't there?
in the single 'Like a Prayer' she
pretty much did *everything* a good pop song should be. Advertising tie-in? Check. Disgusted 'Harumphs' from the Catholic Church? Check.
THUMPING GOOD TUNE? C to the H to the E to the C to the K.
For that alone, she's okay in my book, and y'know, even her second greatest hits compilation wasn't as scraggy as *some* 'Volume 2s' have been. I appreciate she's only a mouthpiece for other very talented tunesmiths, but so what.
Now - i'll grant you, i fail to see the hoo-ha about her turning 50 and i'd find myself skipping over another fawning 800 words about her reaching that milestone, but that's not to take away from her achievements. If somehow we managed to do an 'It's a wonderful life' style removal of everything about her from the popular consciousness APART from the songs, I think she'd still be rated as a wonderful pop artist. It's fair to say that her singles certainly (and one or two of the albums) are as good as anybody in that particular part of the musical spectrum ever committed to vinyl/shiny disc.
She's a curate's egg alright
I'm not a fan. Never have been but she's responsible for some iconic pop singles; Like A Virgin and Ray Of Light to name but two. Both of which I won't switch off if I hear them on the radio, in fact quite the opposite - I listen and enjoy.
But I find her the most charisma-free popstar I can think of. The permanently unsmiling visage and the flat speaking voice I find odd. She's admitted to being a plagiarist and band-wagon jumper in her long career. And fair play to her for being honest. But that doesn't excuse the clinical opportunism that she sails along on all of the time. I remember when her 'Sex' book came out. She called it art and who are we to say she wasn't being sincere. Though as a fairly transparent pop artist she just knew that most of the copies sold were bought out of simple curiosity at seeing her raspberry ripples and Mary Hinge. I really couldn't warm to her after that.
To me
She's a humourless, demanding, bandwagon-jumping old windbag who appears to exist in a joyless bubble, and is the world's most embarrassing mum.
So, to sum it all up so far;
Madonna is great because:
·Lots of people think she is great
·She can trill a bit
·She got in with the ‘right’ people
·She has a big wardrobe
·She has taken her clothes off a lot
·She can do the splits at 50
·She has had some good songs written for her (like The Monkees?)
·She has upset the Catholic Church (Well done – no soft targets for her – not like that Salman whatsisname eh?)
·Lots of people don’t rate her which must mean that she is good really and they are all reactionary and pretentious
·She saved a drowning child (well, not exactly, but if the photo opportunity arose…)
BUT I still don’t see quite what she has done to get the amount of newspaper/magazine analysis which seems to place her on such an exalted level. The Observer on Sunday devoted a whole page in the main paper to reviewing a single concert and seemed impressed entirely by her costume changes. So again, what merits this saturation coverage (besides all of the above)?
She doesn't merit that level of exaltation.
Fact is if you hang on in there long enough you get to be called a legend, just by surviving and having a sustained, comercially successful career at a certain age, and that legendary status becomes an accepted 'truth' by being stated often enough. Sure it takes a canny mentality to keep one step ahead of the rest of the mainstream and maintain a continuous presence in the public eye but that's not about music as such. In fact it all became a bit desperate and blatant. Preferred her more naive early work really. 'Like A Prayer' period probably the peak for me. I get the turning the sex object idea around and using it as a source of power and strength. That was significant, but she ended up turning it into a career move and just another kind of sleazy, undignified exploitation.
I don't have hatred for her though and am fond of a number of the old girl's tunes to this day.
PEOPLE still love her
- they love her maybe as much as Elvis, or Prince, or Mick, or Sir Wacky Macca Thumbs Aloft are loved. And the commentators satisfy their interest by writing about her. I think you would have to ask the music fans (yes, that's right) who love her, and I think you would find a list of various reasons for her "exultation" a lot longer than this here discussion. For some it's the singing, for some it's the self-invention, for some it's the songs (and she is NOT a "mouthpiece", she chooses her collaborators and chooses her songs), for some it's the glamour, for some it's the celebration of gay culture, for some it's the "ambitious woman" role model... so it goes. There are MANY reasons she is loved.
So we return to the question, why do people get so upset that she is loved?
It's the music - stupid!
It's not just ruthless ambition. Jimmy the Hoover probably had a similar insatiable hunger for fame. But Madonna has consistently rolled out fantastic, unforgettable pop songs. I would say she averages one really good one every three years. Top of my head:
Borderline
Lucky Star
Material Girl
Into the Groove
Express Yourself
Vogue
Deeper and Deeper
Like a Prayer
Ray of Light
Beautiful Stranger
Music
Don't Tell Me
Hung Up
That was just ones that immediately spring to mind. I have probably left out some really obvious ones too. And I haven't even started on album tracks. Many artists in the pop arena base entire careers on just one or two songs of this quality.
It sounds like I am a big fan - but I am not particularly. But she is really good at pop music and my hat will forever be doffed in respect.
Erm, because she's very popular...?
As long as Madonna can still fill stadiums and sell millions of records around the globe - which she patently does - then she's going to get a lot of coverage. Its quite simple really. She's regarded as a major star and continues to put out the odd decent record or top the charts every now and then, which isn't bad going 25 years after she first appeared.
I can't imagine anyone coming on the board to say `Why are the Rolling Stones famous?' yet we continue to get regular updates in the national media on which cricket matches Mick Jagger attends.
And crikey, if Michael Stipe can occupy time on the One Show sofa, then we shouldn't be surprised that Madge gets a wodge of Sunday supplement coverage.
Like a burger?
She is a global phenomenon. Everyone has heard of her. Lots of people think she is great. Just as many people think McDonalds is fantastic. She can experiment with different types of music (or dip into acting of course) just as McDonalds can provide ‘healthy’ salad options and, of course, cheap curries. It goes without saying that anyone with even a passing knowledge of food will not go near a McDonalds, recognising it as inedible crap. Equally most people with a genuine love and appreciation of music will not be impressed by Madonna’s ability to:
‘…transform herself from a Givenchy-clad, dominatrix-style gangsta pimp into a Gothic goddess…’ (Observer-Sunday 24th August)
Apparently Business Studies teachers tell their students that McDonalds is a fine example of a marketable product – meeting the needs of the consumer. Madonna seems to fit the bill in this respect as well. As for the music… Anyone fancy a Baccara? – Yes sir, they could boogie.
I'm genuinely shocked
The presumption of "most people with a genuine love and appreciation of music will not be impressed..." is astonishing.
After all,
in some people's books, so easily writing off the brilliance of 'Yes Sir, I Can Boogie' would render all claims to "genuine love and appreciation of music" invalid... But we're more open-minded than that here, right?
Marketing
I am indifferent to Madge's music, she has some recognisable & reasonable songs which I'm happy to listen to on the radio but I don't own.
Much of her back catalogue is now dated, but were reasonably innovative at the time (in line with the then current trends)
Where Madonna has been far superior to her peers is with her marketing & self publicity & hooking up with the right people, that's how she can get away with her version of American Pie
Write off Baccara? No way!
I would never defame the legacy of Baccara. They produced perfect disco-pop. Hard to believe that their international career has not spanned 30 years. Maybe they should have produced a pornographic portfolio of themselves and called it .... er ... art. But they were far too classy an act for those types of shenanigans. As they might have phrased it, 'Sorry I'm a lady...'.
Madonna
Meatloaf, Prince, Kyllie, U2 (occasionally) and Uncle Tom Cobbley and all.
They have become more theatre presentation. More Les Miserables than Led Zeppelin. More popular with the masses but not the massive. I dare to say we prefer someone who can perform a tune or two equally well in bar or a dance hall.
"We"?
I'm not too sure who the `we' mentioned above might be, but I'd be happy to see Prince perform in bar or dance hall and be confident he'd knock spots off almost anyone.
Wise Old Owl Summarises Blog
Call me radical, but looking these comments over, it's tempting to concludee that what constitutes good or bad music is a matter of individual taste.
'Futuristic, Japanese influenced rave set - like we care!
Here is a list of 12 female singers chosen randomly from my c.d. collection. All have fine singing voices and, equally importantly, sound as if they mean every syllable rather than wondering how much cash will it bring or whether they are on the right bandwagon. Neither do they need an army of technicians and backing tapes to make sure that they have the ‘right’ sound as they would sound great singing unaccompanied in a bus shelter. True, they may not have a ‘post imperial phase; a futuristic, Japanese influenced rave set’ (Observer 24/08/08) but somehow it hardly seems to matter.
Billie Holliday
Kitty Wells
Lil Green
Dionne Warwick
Patsy Cline
Dusty Springfield
Aretha Franklin
Duffy
Cara Dillon
Rhonda Vincent
Iris DeMent
Dolores Keane