Do you hate Madonna? Do you still listen to her music? Do you think she’s a supercilious, ladder-climbing, desperate-for-fame woman who did everything possible to make herself famous? Do you know what the word “supercilious” means? Do you think Madonna will even be remembered ten years from now? If so, why? Post it here!
My own answers to the above questions are:
Yes! Umm, yes. Yes! Vaguely. No. Because she never actually accomplished anything except getting here name in the paper.
Nah, too busy hating Spears to hate Madonna.
Hell no. Too busy with Pink Floyd.
Yes. Sorry, no extension to this answer.
Before reading this thread, no. After reading this (and after having looked it up), yes. Basically, it’s “arrogant”.
Yes. However, not fifty years from now. I mean, she really hasn’t done much except get stalked and make a couple babies in the past few years, and she’s still making headlines.
Madonna isn’t hateful. She worse.
She’s boring.
The vaulting ambition, the ruthless publicity seeking comes down to this: she’s a bore.
No artistry, just slick gimmicks. No insights, just spin. Yeah, she’s LaSpears on meth; she had youth, hormones and the usual sexual attributes. She rubbed glands and publicized the fact widely. Whatever surface legitimacy she garnered from twerps like Camille Paglia is more a disgrace to the academy than credit to Madonna.
::yawns::
Hype doesn’t translate into substance, achievment or myth. She’s just another publicity generated phenom who lacks the depth or insight to transcend the stale hype.
True fact? She’s boring as hell, and has been for years. The major offense is that a sterile, stupid media glommed onto her tedious, calculated sexual exploits over significance.
She’s Jayne Mansfield for the turn of the century. Cult? Probably. Memorable? Nah.
Veb
I agree with TVeblen. At one time, near the beginning of her career, Madonna at least performed enjoyable, tuneful dance-pop. Not memorable, not enough to go down in pop music history, but certainly harmless and you could tap your foot to it.
After Like A Virgin, however, she just became too interested in being shocking, with the result being exactly the opposite.
The other night, Mrs. pld and I caught a few minutes of that VH1 “100 Greatest Rock Moments on TV,” or whatever, and one entry was MTV’s banning of the “Justify My Love” video. As they talked about the “controversy,” I looked over and said, “Did it ever occur to anyone, in the midst of wringing their hands over this oh-so-shocking video, that this song is boring? It’s tuneless, unmelodic, meandering drivel. Why would anyone listen to this song?”
Madonna is, like, sooo 20th Century, she’s, like, positively archeological!
I don’t like Madonna. Many of the reasons have been mentioned already. She lives to shock, and change constantly. Who cares? Big deal! I thought it was boring when she did Like a Virgin, I still find her boring and useless.
That [I can’t say those words in this thread] should be convicted of first-degree murder for what she did to “American Pie.” She killed that song! And she treats religion like it’s some kind of commercialized fad. That’s one thing I find completely offensive.
Don Maclean on Madonna’s reworking of American Pie [paraphrased]:
“The song was a gift from God and the remake is a gift from a goddess.”
Eek.
Cordially,
Myron M. Meyer
The Man Who
This may be the single most cynical thought I ever had, but –
Yesterday, I was reading the paper and perused over a story about the birth of her son. The child (which she has CURSED with the name “Rocco”) was apparently born several weeks premature. The article also made a point about mentioning that she had a new record out. It occurred to me that Madonna, who was never one to pass up a publicity stunt no matter how crass and tasteless it was, could very well have arranged for a doctor to induce an early labor just for the sake of publicity. The single review of her new record that I’ve read spoke of how banal and hackneyed it was (on the other hand, I read that in the “New York Free Press” and their reviewers sneer at everything as being banal and hackneyed) and I thought that if anyone in the world would use their giving birth as a publicity gimmick to push their new record, it would be her.
Then I thought to myself “no, not even she could be that
opportunistic.” I thought that I was being the snide cynic myself by even conceiving that notion (no pun intended). But the thought still lingers with me. I just wondered what the rest of you thought – “is she the horrible cynic or am I?”
And she is so full of herself!
She gets on Letterman and kills time with useless small talk, not about anything, nothing really on her mind, and then demands a second segment.
The worst was the photos in Playboy where she had enough armpit hair to hide a rat. Grooooss!
She is, like, such a waste of bandwidth
Archeological, nice one.
I thought she had plenty of good songs, and whatever the reason, anyone in the music industry who’s managed to survive as long as she has deserves credit. She’s also been a real groundbreaker in both music and music videos…how often does MTV ban anything?
And yet…I can’t help but think that, had much of the country not held reactionary sexual beliefs, she’d have a much harder time surviving. What if she had to bet by purely on her talents without a media machine that jumped on every questionable lyric and gave her tons of free publicity?
Actually, you can say the same for any number of marginal and downright bad bands (2 Live Crew comes to mind); the difference is that they faded out quickly regardless, while Madonna still hasn’t completely gone out of the spotlight. Familiarity breeds contempt, I guess.