All I know is that she is shaking her tits in my newspaper today, and daring to return to the Toronto which got her skank ass busted a decade and change ago. And, hey way to go, I think you made Eric cry.

Sold out concerts in Toronto I hear. I have been informed by a person close by what she was busted for. Although there was an outcry from her fans when she did not include Canada in her tour in 1993. When Prince is shirtless in his tight pants for his pictures, is he shaking his tits and all else at you, Mr carruthers? I am really trying hard to see all your points about Sandra. Instead, I find myself glaring at evidence of all her points about you guys. Double standards.

Only a depraved man would look at the tour advert picture of Madonna and refer to it as her shaking her tits.

Depraved, what a great compliment, thanks!

But when there are full page newspaper ads with a photo right down her mom-jugs with her arse in the air just begging for a doggy-styling, what the hell else am I supposed to think?

The ad reminds me of the Marie Antoinette room at the Chicken Ranch - I have been told.

No tears here, I agree with most of it. She HAS wasted her own, and a shitload of other people's time with a bunch of stupid, pointless crap. But she has also made a lot of great records, and I do not include Dick Tracy among them, by the way.

As far as the last few records: Ray of Light is among her best, Music has a few great moments, I haven't even heard most of American Life but I don't have the sense it's all that good.

"She's nowhere even in a league with serious artists like Prince or the Beatles."

Was there ever any doubt?

Yeah, it seems silly even to have to say that she's not a major artist, but you couldn't tell it by the way some people talk about her. If someone doesn't state the obvious though, the more gullible amongst us are apparently ready to believe in the empress' new clothes.

Neither Prince nor the Beatles are anywhere in a league with serious musicians such as Mozart, Tchaikovsky or Beethoven. We can play this game, boys. Everyone always thinks there is a higher class of music.

I am not a Prince fan. I like the Beatles. Lennon is a legend. In the 90's, Prince released too many songs where looking for the true quality in his work became like looking for a needle in a hay stack. I consider Madonna a serious Artist. The variety of things she is creatively involved with does not diminish my opinion. It shouldn't. Matter of fact, Prince co-wrote a song with Madonna on her Like a Prayer Album. Love Song. I am told it's the worst song on what is one of her Albums. What is the great Prince doing co-writing a song with a woman you guys have called a non-musician and un-serious Artist?

I remember when Prince was leaving his record company, he wrote an open letter published in magazines to Madonna as his contemporary to leave Warner. He wanted them both to make a point. He sure has a lot of time and respect for someone you guys needlessly discredit.

I can say I became distracted from Prince's music when he went about changing his name. Was it a publicity stunt? He became a Jehovahs witness. Knocking on doors trying to convert people. Can he really play all those instruments or must he have back-up as he always needs big bands behind him. New Power Generation. The Revolution. If Prince was female, it's things like this that a Prince critic would say. A male Artist does it and it is par for the course. I have lived with 3 women for years. I can see the female perspective on things.

The only thing that differentiates Prince from Madonna or Michael Jackson is his ability to play musical instruments. These are things that could be learned. If MJ sat at a Piano and sang Man in the Mirror, what difference would it make? If Prince was the guitarist for Blondie, nobody would make a squeak.

All these are subjective opinions. You can wax lyrical all you want about the Beatles, the Monkees or Prince. Some will say, it's not Beethoven. Some will always say. I think that is what makes the great Artists great. They provoke a lot of thought and discussion. Make no bones about it, boys. Madonna is a great Artiste. You may not like it, you may not think so, but it is not your place to categorically state. You can have your opinion.

I hope we all live very long lives. I am getting into Madonna at this age and I have a sneaky suspicion that history will judge her well.

"Neither Prince nor the Beatles are anywhere in a league with serious musicians such as Mozart, Tchaikovsky or Beethoven. We can play this game, boys. Everyone always thinks there is a higher class of music."

This a far more difficult comparaison to make, as Mozart, Tchaikovsky and Beethoven did not make pop music. I'm no expert, but I'm sure Mozart and Beethoven, at least, could have written some kick-ass 3 minute pop songs, had they been born a bit later. However, this is not the issue: let's compare apples to apples.

I like Madonna, but that doesn't mean she's a *great* pop artist. She has a lot of good/great songs. The difference between Prince and Madonna is that the former can actually sing (interestingly, both of them have put in embarassing attempts to rap). Beyond that, he took various strands of Black American popular music and wove them together in his own way.

I don't much like the term "serious artist." I certainly don't put it above the term "fun-loving artist." I'm a fun-loving listener. Sometimes listening to music and stroking your chin is cool, but mostly I want to be entertained and moved and possibly impressed.

Madonna is a succesful artist. She's done her thing very well, both artistically and business-wise. So has P. Diddy, but no-one's calling him a great artist. Again, I like a lot of the Madonna singles I've heard, I would simply put Prince's contributions to music abover her's.

Prince can sing? He could have fooled me. I am joking. I don't rate by your standards Mwanji. I think Prince and Madonna can sing. I don't think the singing capabilities of both are their strongest assets.

The thing about singing is first and foremost, making sure you can carry a tune. It's knowing when to breathe. It's knowing what tone the actual song was written in. It's knowing how to maintain the consistensy of the tone you are using. It's knowing not to add inflections when they are not necessary. There are many great singers in the world. It might be that in your opinion Prince is a better singer than Madonna. I am not convinced.

Madonna in her early days seems to have been a young girl having fun singing and dancing to songs that she had helped write and produce. I think any honest observer will notice that Madonna has become more advanced lyrically and her voice has improved immensely. This is where she is sensible in not relying on others to write her songs. She is able to write songs that she knows she can sing. She sticks within her range. She understands her limitations. It's unfair to use that against her by saying she actually can not sing. That is a sweeping statement and erroneous in every sense.

If Madonna is not a "great" pop Artist. Then there are no great pop Artists. If there is one thing she is, it's a great pop Artist. She may be a bad actress but she is a great pop Artist.

NYDaily News. March 28, 2004

The annals of pop music have long been filled with tales of men behaving badly. From the Beatles' and the
Stones' drug experiments and Led Zeppelin's grotesque treatment of groupies to Snoop Dogg's star turn in a
porn video, MALE STARS' MOST DEPRAVED ACTS HAVE OFTEN BEEN ACCEPTED-AND LIONIZED. Following the trail blazed by the likes of Grace Slick and Janis Joplin, women have finally caught up to
their Y-chromosomed counterparts. From drug abuse and stripteases to outright assault, today's most successful pop divas just aren't complete without a
back story full of bizarre antics.

After analyzing headlines from the past five years, it can now be determined exactly who is the worst possible role model for today's youth. With our eye on
the next Courtney eruption, the Daily News is proud to present a portfolio of the 10 wildest women in pop.

1. Madonna - Yes, Madonna once baited us by writhing in a wedding dress, singing about God being a fantastic lover and publishing a graphic book of
erotica called "Sex." But now when she French-kisses Britney Spears (above) and Christina Aguilera, it reeks of a has-been provocateur trying to regain her formerly outrageous glory by capitalizing on the notoriety of her followers. Still, don't write her off
- despite marriage and kids, the Material Girl is unlikely to turn into a 21st-century Doris Day. End of Article.

The emphasis in block letters is mine. I posted the article because it's a point I made on this thread. It's interesting to note that they refer to her as a "has-been provocateur". The "kiss" would not have caused so much uproar if she was a "has been provocateur". The press can't get enough of that kiss. They keep re-printing the picture as is done in this paper. They talked about it for months on news channels all over the world. Something was provoked for good or bad. The middle belt Americans wanted her stoned to death. That is not the reaction a "has-been provocateur" can cause. I am not sure Madonna can ever be a "has been" anything even if she tried.

I've never been a pop fan, so I really only appreciate Prince for what he does, not how commercially successful it is. For the same reasons, I only really like Madonna for how others see her such as "Into the Groovy" by Sonic Youth or "Ray of Gob".

So aside from wank-off material in my local newspaper, I don't really care for her body of work (but nice tits by the way Mrs. Richey can we see them down the local next Tuesday?).

Please explain to me why the only times that I see the words "epochal" or "eponymous" are in connection with some 2-bit hack who thinks he has tapped into the essence of all of Rock and Roll History?

Go ahead and trash Madonna - are there any "pop-shock" (see, I made that one up...that must make me an "auteur") artists who have been "in the groove" for TWENTY YEARS! That's half of my lifetime.

aside....
You know, it is easy to come off with a sort of detached and "I'm in the know" perspective, a la "Headliners and Legends." If Matt Damon and his very close friend stone-faced "Affleck", the Beantown Buddies can get on the show, "Who's Next?":}

And to the writer who mentioned the "centrifugal" forces pulling the Beatles APART? That would be a centripetal force, Niels "Bore"....

"Snoop Dogg's star turn in a
porn video, MALE STARS' MOST DEPRAVED ACTS HAVE OFTEN BEEN ACCEPTED-AND LIONIZED"

Certainly not by me. When I found out about Snoop's dealings in porn, I felt deep embarassment.

I agree with your assessment of "The Kiss."

Maybe Madonna can sing decently. If that's an acceptable standard for someone with 20 years of chart success, so be it.

"It might be that in your opinion Prince is a better singer than Madonna. I am not convinced."

Are you arguing that in terms of straight, no other considerations, singing, Madonna might be as good as - or better - than Prince? Is she also as good as/better than Stevie Wonder? (I actually prefer Wonder to Prince and know his music better) How about Aretha Franklin?

Jeffrey,

I'm not too sure what most of your post refers to.

"Please explain to me why the only times that I see the words "epochal" or "eponymous" are in connection with some 2-bit hack who thinks he has tapped into the essence of all of Rock and Roll History?"

I don't see any antagonistic relationship (or any kind of relationship at all) between "eponymous" and 2-bit hack.

From Merriam-Webster:
Main Entry: ep·onym
1 : one for whom or which something is or is believed to be named
2 : a name (as of a drug or a disease) based on or derived from an eponym

"Go ahead and trash Madonna - are there any "pop-shock" ...artists who have been "in the groove" for TWENTY YEARS!"

Congratulations to her. It's actually impressive how she's managed to find the right concepts and producers to remain current for 20 years.

And to the writer who mentioned the "centrifugal" forces pulling the Beatles APART? That would be a centripetal force, Niels "Bore"....

Cute. Too bad you got your definitions reversed.

Jeffrey:
The poster had the centripetal/centrifugal force thing correct.
Centrifugal forces do indeed induce separation.

Thanks JR, I was about the mention that, and normally I wouldn't characterize such a mistake in any particular way, but given the tone of smugness, I will add the characterizations "douchebag" in addition to "dumbass."

There are some major objective underpinnings in music. Lomu, you're wrong in comment 8 "All these are subjective opinions."

There certainly are plenty of subjective judgments. If you want to argue that Chuck Berry was a better songwriter than Buddy Holly, or that Jackie Wilson was a better vocalist than Sam Cooke, there is plenty of room for reasonable debate over what constitutes "better" singing and so forth.

However, if you come up saying that Milli Vanilli were better than the Beatles, then you're just an idiot. OBJECTIVELY this is not true in any even half reasonable judgment of any part of the artistic equation, ie singing, songwriting, production.

Now, Madonna's obviously more accomplished than Milli Vanilli, but still. If you try to argue that she's even vaguely in a league with, say, Prince artistically, this only says that you don't know much about MUSIC. That's just objectively true. The stylistic breadth, sophistication, and emotional depth and nuance of what Prince has accomplished absolutely dwarf Madonna artistically.

Now, "sophistication" isn't everything, and that has to be figured in as well. I'll take the moving simplicity of Little Richard over the boring sophistication of the corporate law firm of Emerson, Lake and Palmer any day. But that's starting a whole different argument.

Nor, I might add, am I (somewhat) down on Madonna because of her little depravities, as you seem to be implying that some of us bad old double standard men are. I don't care one whit who she's humping.

She was just NEVER a major artist. Her first few albums were pretty good. Like a Prayer and the Dick Tracy album were somewhat exceptional.

Because of her commercial success, however, and because she fits so perfectly into a lot of different kinds of PC feminist crapola, she's been puffed up in some circles far beyond any real artistic merit.

al, please list all of the Madonna albums that you have listened to from start-to-finish.

i sorta-halfway agree with you here but i get the feeling you've never listened to any of her records.

Lomu, you continue to expose your weaknesses. I wouldn't mind, but you come off so dismissively, that I can't help but to forego my usual good manners and comment. Your recent pontification --- "The only thing that differentiates Prince from Madonna or Michael Jackson is his ability to play musical instruments. These are things that could be learned." --- is naive at best. Prince resides in the stratosphere of pop/rock musicians. He is one of those few who not only knows how to play several instruments, but knows how to play them well. One can learn the rudiments of a musical instrument, just as one can learn the rudiments of singing. The point is that he DID learn how to play those instruments, and then went on to master them. Madonna, instead of learning to become a musician, devotes her energies to PR, fashion, making stupid political comments, pretending to study religion and philosophy, and, through her sexualized personna, making sure she stays in the limelight.

So, it's not enough to say that "these things could be learned." You could learn Riemannian geometry --- uh, no you couldn't, nevermind --- uh... OK ... you could learn to speak Latin, but until you do, you won't qualify for consideration as a Latin scholar.

Madonna is definitely a musician, but she is not a good musician. It's not opinion. It's an objective reality (also refer to Al's post #18). She lacks the skills and knowledge that are prerequisite to being a good musician. It is fine to enjoy her music, nevertheless. For example, I like Gary Numan, and he is a terrible musician. Nobody argues with your opinion as it pertains to what you like or don't like. But you delude yourself if you think you like Madonna because of her musical aptitude. That just tells us that you don't know anything about music. You only know what you like. Madonna is an excellent businesswoman and self-promoter. She knows what needs to be done to convince teenagers --- and you --- to spend their allowances on her products. That's her strength.

I'd like to agree that there are objective criteria for judging music; but every time someone makes the argument, they seem to resort to subjective judgements.

Certainly some musicians play faster than others. And some composers write more songs than others. And some artists sell more records. But so far, nothing we can measure seems to get us any closer to agreement on how good the music is.

Actually Mark, I've owned copies of most of her albums. To be more specific per your request in comment 19, I've definitely owned and listened to

Madonna (w/Lucky Star, Holiday)
Like a Virgin
Who's That Girl?
Like a Prayer
True Blue
I'm Breathless
The Immaculate Collection
You Can Dance (remixes)
Erotica

My attention to Madonna has waned in the last decade, as I haven't heard any impressive songs since Dick Tracy. However, I will admit to not having heard every song off the more recent albums.

Maybe the songs I've heard on the radio (which names I've largely TOTALLY forgotten) represent the crappy side of really good albums, and I've just missed out. But I doubt it. I'm sure I've listened to one or two of her other more recent albums that I haven't listed here, but they just made so little impression that I can't remember for sure.

In short, a body should have a copy of The Immaculate Collection and the Dick Tracy album, and maybe Like a Prayer. That's about as much Madonna as any actual MUSIC fan would have any need for.

Al and Duane, boys, give it up. The circus act is getting old. Act your age. You boys are going to extra lengths to convince me that you know nothing. Your posts show this. Anyone who can argue about objective criteria when it comes to judging the good or bad quality of music clearly has no clue. Using examples like Milli Vanilli doesn't validate the fact that judging of music is objective. It will always be subjective and any music teacher will tell you so. Most of Art is subjective and any Art teacher will tell you so.

The point remains that Madonna is a credible Artist and Musician in the eyes of millions. There are also many that think otherwise. That's true of many aspects of life. Whoever you think is the greatest, there's always somebody better or somebody who thinks there's somebody better.

How do you argue with people who tell you that because a woman writes books, lives her life making good and bad judgments along the way, living life to the fullest while doing her work instead of being some strange recluse(Prince) or drug addict(rock stars), she is incapable of doing her work properly. Her work is music. Her work is writing books. Her work is interviews and photo-shhots. Her work is acting however bad you may think she is at it. Her work is whatever creative outlet she wants to throw herself into.

I guess the fact that some of us spend an inordinate amount of time on Blog, might go for a drink every now and then, do things that are not related to our profession, doing a course while working means we are not good at anything at all. We are Jacks and Jills of all trades and totally crap at everything we do. Eric writes for so many outlets. He must be shortchanging one. He's writing about different topics. Which topic does he excel in? It's a ludicrous line of reasoning and unheard of in a gathering where we are led to believe the contributors are above 21 atleast.

I think a writer above got it right. I am not one to throw insults at people but you are all beginning to sound like two bit hacks who think they know it all. When the truth is, you really know nothing about anything. It's preposterous.

Another error. Madonna's fans have not been teenagers since the late 80's. Beginning to clutch at straws here, boys. I am in my 40's as is my wife. My daughters and their friends are in their early 30's. Sandra Smallson can't possibly be a teenager. I watched the Truth or dare documentary following her Blonde Ambition Tour and it did not look like a teenage crowd to me. She's one of those Artists with fans of all ages. Except the dyed in the wool ones who have set rules on how things must be done and women must behave and can't abide anyone breaking those grounds.

Mwanji, that's the trouble with music listeners like you who think you know it all. I never compared Madonna to Stevie Wonder, Aretha Franklin or anyone. I don't like comparisons. Each individual I appreciate, I appreciate on whatever merit I think they deserve. I am not being held at gun point to make a choice. I can choose all. It's not a contest.

I said in my opinion, I am not convinced that Prince is that great a singer or his singing abilities are better than Madonna by any discernible level. No number of big words you write is going to convince me. I am not a teenager. I am too old to be swayed either way by such things.

Wonder and Franklin are better singers than Madonna in my opinion. Luther Vandross and Ella Fitzgerald are better singers than Wonder and franklin in my opinion. It's a rootless point you've made. What does it mean who we think can sing better than who? Nothing. The argument is not that Madonna is the greatest Musician in the world. Matter of fact, there is no argument. The simple fact is that Madonna is a Musician that you may not think is good but that is your opinion and not a matter of fact. Why are you unwilling to accept that? I can't understand what is so difficult for you guys to accept. Have you all gone through life with people thinking everything you said was right? Fools Paradise.

Your last point shows that you really do not know as much about music as you have convinced yourself that you do. Are you implying that Madonna is where she is because of Producers? That's like saying that but for Burt Bacharach and dozens other songwriters there would be no Aretha Franklin. Newsflash! Aretha Franklin would not know how to write a half decent song if all the notes and keys were drawn out for her on a flourescent music sheet. Neither would she know how to produce a song. What is your point? Phil Spectre ring a bell? Are we to say but for Phil Spectre the Beatles would not have existed. You are aware of the rubbish that was released without Spectre's additions? That would have been the Beatles. Not good enough.

It's what critics resort to when they have nothing else to say. Musician A does not play instruments. There are zillions of musicians dead and alive who never played a single musical instrument in their lives. If you can't appreciate them, that's to your tastes. By all means, stick to what you like. To say that you discredit a musician's ability because he or she can't play an instrument is where you lose your base. Madonna relies on producers? Madonna co-produces and writes or co-writes a majority of her songs. You are free to allocate all the credit to the co-producers and co-writers if it validates your point and convinces you that you know what you are talking about. When the harsh truth is that you are blinding yourself to the obvious. Ashford & Simpson wrote and produced classic songs for Marvin Gaye. John & Taupin write classic songs for Elton to sing. Lennon & Mcartney wrote classic songs that the Beatles sang. You can't pull out one of the writers or producers simply because you do not appreciate them.

Madonna has co-produced and written many classic songs with Patrick Leonard, Shep Pettibone, Babyface, Dallas austin, Nile Rodgers, William Orbit and most recently Mirwais. As Sandra said in one of her posts I read from the archives on a google search, Leonard's other works are there for you to check out. Orbit's other works are there for you to check out. All these people have done many other things. Not many of them have produced the same timeless tunes they have with Madonna. Sometimes there's chemistry, sometimes there isn't. She clearly has great chemistry with Leonard because I like her quieter songs and most of them are with Leonard. They've written great classic pop tunes together. Together being the operative word. Why should you make Madonna the exception to the rule? There have always been producing and writing duets. It is stretching the realms of your opinion when you struggle to take away one partner and give credit to the other. Nobody tells Paul that if not for John you would be a nobody. Let's face it, Paul's solo efforts do not hold a candle to the Beatles work in my opinion. On the other hand, some of Johns solo efforts can stand up to Beatles work. Was John the better writer? Who knows, Who cares! It's a matter of opinion. The point is that together they wrote classic sing-a-long pop tunes. I mean it is unbelievable the extents you guys are willing to go to.

You are aware of the rubbish that was released without Spectre's additions?

You mean like Hard Day's Night, Rubber Soul, Revolver, Sgt. Pepper's, The White Album and Abbey Road?

Yeah, I think I've heard some of it.