Dylan hasnt made a folk album since the 60s other than 2 albums of covers in the mid 90s
I used to like Madonna when she first came on the scene but imo she does try to hard to appeal to an audience that simply has no interest in her
I'm using folk in a very general layman's meaning, not in a very specific way. I understand he uses other genres as far as rock, country, blues etc, but it's done in a rather stripped down way based around guitar which I see as generally folk/Americana music.
You say you used to like Madonna when she first came on the scene. But she started out doing dance/electronic music. Dance music is not just for teenagers or was something that was just created. It has its roots in the disco of the 70's, though house music of the 80's. People in their 30's and 40's do like and grew up with various forms of electronic music so to say she is purely trying to appeal to a younger audience is not the case. She is appealing to her fanbase who generally like dance/electronic with a few ballads. People have this idea older people only like ballads or very serious songs, but they do enjoy uptempo dance stuff, especially if they are Madonna fans.
I guess we are speaking two very different languages musically here. Since I am not very familiar with Dylan's catalogue since it really hold no interest to me since I don't enjoy folk or his form of rock (when I do listen to rock I like indie/alternative forms). And it doesn't seem to me, you are familiar with the kind of artist is or forms of dance/electronic music so I doubt we can understand each other.
I think it is true of any older artist who has an extensive back catalogue of hits that people react more to the older tunes. But I don't think it's necessarily because the newer songs are lower in quality than the older ones. It has more to do with the fact that with older songs you have memories associated with them, it bring up certain nostalgic feelings and emotions where you were in your life when you first heard a song. You have 20 or 30 years of memories connected to the older songs, whereas with newer songs you are not going to have those set of memories. So the fact that people connect more to the older stuff is not necessarily related to the quality of it but how people connect with music and relate to their lives. People relate say to movies or theatre productions very different than do their favorite music. Most people don't have the compulsion to watch those multiple times, but people tend to listen to their favorite albums and songs over and over and thus build up memories associated with the older material which they want to relive by hearing them again.
I've seen Springsteen a number of times, the last time 2 years ago and like many artists, he was touring the album ('Wrecking Ball') and playing from albums from throughout his career. U2 do the same, they are touring 'Songs of Innocence' at present and that album is a step up from at least the two before it. I don't know how many times I've seen Van the Man and he seldom plays anything from his seminal album 'Astral weeks' but again does an entire jazz set when he feels like it.
I notice there are a number of threads on Madonna, she's not that interesting.
I definitely think some of Madonna's best work is on Rebel Heart. If she'd released tracks like Messiah, Living For Love, Ghosttown, Hold Tight, Inside Out, Wash All Over Me and Addicted in the late 80's/early 90's they'd have all been number 1 hits, for sure! She's still producing great music. It's just a shame it's mixed in with (in my opinion) complete rubbish like Bitch I'm Madonna and some of the other tracks with tiresome rent-a-rappers that completely spoil what could be good songs otherwise. I absolutely cannot stand generic, monotonous, lazy sounding rapping at the start or a breakdown in middle of a good pop song, like it's been shoehorned in there just to try and appear "with it". Especially when they keep rapping their own name and the name of the artist they're performing with. Sounds so stupid and egotistical and so dated! I love Madonna's upbeat dance music as much as her ballads. I just don't like the "featuring so and so" guests. That to me is so dated and boring now. For me, when I listen to Madonna I want to hear just Madonna and only Madonna. I really don't like collaborations on the whole, whether it's guest rappers or duets with other singers.
I notice there are a number of threads on Madonna, she's not that interesting.
She clearly is that interesting or there wouldn't be so many threads on her in the first place! Madonna has always been the topic of many discussions throughout her long career and it's not really any different today. She is still an extremely fascinating and compelling artist to listen to and watch and talk about.
I think it is true of any older artist who has an extensive back catalogue of hits that people react more to the older tunes. But I don't think it's necessarily because the newer songs are lower in quality than the older ones. It has more to do with the fact that with older songs you have memories associated with them, it bring up certain nostalgic feelings and emotions where you were in your life when you first heard a song. You have 20 or 30 years of memories connected to the older songs, whereas with newer songs you are not going to have those set of memories. So the fact that people connect more to the older stuff is not necessarily related to the quality of it but how people connect with music and relate to their lives. People relate say to movies or theatre productions very different than do their favorite music. Most people don't have the compulsion to watch those multiple times, but people tend to listen to their favorite albums and songs over and over and thus build up memories associated with the older material which they want to relive by hearing them again.
clearly that's what you think...
however that doesn't wash when you consider that new fans can discover old artists for the first time, and have the entire back catalogue to listen to at the same time, so they start with no memories of any of the songs, and after listening to everything, with the exception of the time taken to actual hear the tracks, which is negligable, they won't have had much in the way of memories of the past. people could still of course appreciate some work more than others. so new fans could still prefer older material to the new, and of course with some bands and artists you can find that the early period isn't particularly popular or at least not as popular as later periods, but still have a more recently period that's less popular
so for example fleetwood mac are popular, but many people prefer the later 70s period to the peter green period. they haven't really done much since the late 70s and i imagine many people going to their gigs these days are probably unaware they released anything since tango
or pink floyd, many people don't like the early period before DSOTM, many more won't like anything before AHM, especially the first 2 albums. and the post 70s stuff isn't really a patch on the 70s stuff, especially after roger left
you could even say the same about michael jackson, with folk not caring about his pre solo work, and again the 90s stuff
with both these bands, in the next few years there will be people who haven't yet been born who will discover those bands and quite possibly appreciate their peak 70s work and not care too much about the rest, and they will start off with no memories as point of reference. of course it's unlikely they would see those bands play live, but the same applies to other acts
For me, American Life was her last great album. It's introspective, raw and unlike anything she had recorded up to that point.
I think that if AL had been a success, Madonna would have gone in a very different direction.
COADF is a great album but when listened to alongside AL it's a hollow affair.
Hard Candy and MDNA have their moments but overall they are poor.
Rebel Heart could have been amazing but there is so much going on. Far too many songs, the track listing is a mess whichever version you have - and having the title track not appear on the standard version is a baffling choice.
As for what is next, who knows?
A more stripped back, serious Madonna album would be fantastic but I really don't think thats what Madonna wants to do.
Like a Virgin, True Blue, Music and COADF did very well commercially, but they’re NOT critically acclaimed albums. The majority of their reviews are positive, but positive isn’t acclaimed. Some people assume that an album is a classic, critically acclaimed piece of work because it's sold millions of copies worldwide, but that isn't always the case. A lot of critically acclaimed albums are amongst the best-selling of all time (Dark Side of the Moon, Thriller, Rumours), but there are huge selling albums that are not acclaimed pieces of work (Come on Over, Falling Into You, Spice). 21 by Adele has sold 30 million copies worldwide, but it’s not an acclaimed album, it's the same with Like a Virgin and True Blue. Both are very popular albums that yielded big hits, but their reviews range from just good to positive.
I think it’s fair to say that the only universally acclaimed albums that Madonna has released are Like a Prayer and Ray of Light. The Immaculate Collection is a classic compilation album, but it’s not a studio album, so I don’t count that one. I don’t think Madonna has ever released a truly bad album. American Life, Hard Candy and MDNA aren’t that good, but they have some great songs on them. Just because American Life is a fan favourite doesn’t mean critics don't dismiss it, they do. Erotica is very popular amongst her fans, but critically it's a different story. Bedtime Stories contains Madonna's longest-running U.S. number one single (Take a Bow) but the album isn't referenced or even talked about today outside of her core fan base let alone acclaimed by critics.
It’s impossible for an artist to have a long music career that doesn’t have ups and downs when it comes to commercial success and artistry. A lot of people forget that many critics dismissed Madonna for a good portion of the 1980s and again between 1992 and 1995 and 2008 and 2014. Her record sales tailed off big time in the early to mid-1990s, especially when compared to Mariah Carey's. I think it’s accurate to say that Madonna has been more miss than hit since the turn of the millennium. Rebel Heart is a great record, but I’m very wary now as Madonna fan, her quality control has been mostly off since 2003. Don't get me wrong, I don’t buy albums based critical approval, but I think it's silly for people to try to re-write how critics received every Madonna album. Not every album she has released is a classic, lauded piece of work.
Can we just admit that Madonna has a lot of help with the making of her music? I don’t understand why fellow fans are so offended by the notion. She’s not the first pop star to have writers and producers help her, and she won’t be the last. You only have to look at the quality of the songs she wrote by herself in the early-1980s to know that she needs talented people to help her in the studio. I love her debut album, but the songwriting on it is simple. To even entertain the notion that Madonna’s catalogue of music is as universally acclaimed as The Beatles is ridiculous, and I say that as a Madonna fan.
Madonna is one of the biggest selling artists of the 21st century so far, plus she has reinvented herself as one of the top live acts in the world, certainly far and away the number 1 touring solo act. Her tours have grossed over $1 billion from 2001 alone.
To even entertain the notion that Madonna’s catalogue of music is as universally acclaimed as The Beatles is ridiculous, and I say that as a Madonna fan.
I think her back catalogue holds up well to mostly anyone in music, she certainly has the most extensive and diverse body of music than virtually anyone (and she ain't done yet).
Even her lesser hits like 'Rain', 'I'll Remember', 'Bedtime Story' are fantastic tracks.
When her career is finally examined from a perspective in the far future, I think probably 'Like a Prayer' or 'Vogue' will be regarded as her peak.
It is sad that Michael Jackson wasn't as prolific, especially in his peak years of 1982-1993, he was too consumed in chasing and repeating the phenomenon of 'Thriller', trying to make the follow up bigger and more blockbuster than before, but never quite managed it, even though 'Bad' and 'Dangerous' are excellent and in fact better than 'Thriller' in my opinion.
She clearly is that interesting or there wouldn't be so many threads on her in the first place! Madonna has always been the topic of many discussions throughout her long career and it's not really any different today. She is still an extremely fascinating and compelling artist to listen to and watch and talk about.
Well I can't disagree if these threads keep appearing. One of them about Madonna's DVD range was interesting enough as music on video is one of my interests and Madonna does seek to impress with her stage shows.
I think her back catalogue holds up well to mostly anyone in music, she certainly has the most extensive and diverse body of music than virtually anyone (and she ain't done yet).
Even her lesser hits like 'Rain', 'I'll Remember', 'Bedtime Story' are fantastic tracks.
When her career is finally examined from a perspective in the far future, I think probably 'Like a Prayer' or 'Vogue' will be regarded as her peak.
It is sad that Michael Jackson wasn't as prolific, especially in his peak years of 1982-1993, he was too consumed in chasing and repeating the phenomenon of 'Thriller', trying to make the follow up bigger and more blockbuster than before, but never quite managed it, even though 'Bad' and 'Dangerous' are excellent and in fact better than 'Thriller' in my opinion.
That's kind of the point of the thread though, whether she is artistically done or not? Some may feel she wasn't all that artistically at any time because there is a presumption against artists who don't solely write their own songs. I understand that but Madonna is in the business of being a pop star and an iconic one at that. That has it's own set of artistic sensibilities. If Madonna is intent on reaching a teenage audience it's probably not going to work. I would expect a middle-aged woman/artist like herself to be more in tune with her older fans and to grow old gracefully or ungracefully with them. I thought that might inform what she writes (or gets others to write) about. ;-)
A stripped down reflection on what it is to live your life in the public eye over 30 years as perhaps the most successful female artist in pop history to follow? (Are there not hints of this in some of the 'Rebel Heart' songs?)
I think her back catalogue holds up well to mostly anyone in music, she certainly has the most extensive and diverse body of music than virtually anyone (and she ain't done yet)..
Do you even know what "diverse" means? Madonna has an extensive back catalogue of, well, ... pop/dance pop music (oh and one album of covers from musical theatre). She's no Bjork (who hasn't just made pop music all her career).
Madonna is one of the biggest selling artists of the 21st century so far, plus she has reinvented herself as one of the top live acts in the world, certainly far and away the number 1 touring solo act. Her tours have grossed over $1 billion from 2001 alone.
I assume you are talking financially here and not claiming Madonna is the best touring solo act?
Do you even know what "diverse" means? Madonna has an extensive back catalogue of, well, ... pop/dance pop music (oh and one album of covers from musical theatre). She's no Bjork (who hasn't just made pop music all her career).
She clearly is that interesting or there wouldn't be so many threads on her in the first place! Madonna has always been the topic of many discussions throughout her long career and it's not really any different today. She is still an extremely fascinating and compelling artist to listen to and watch and talk about.
Yeah and it's always the same people writing long essays trying to diminish Madonna's legacy too and replying to every post. LOL
however that doesn't wash when you consider that new fans can discover old artists for the first time, and have the entire back catalogue to listen to at the same time, so they start with no memories of any of the songs, and after listening to everything, with the exception of the time taken to actual hear the tracks, which is negligable, they won't have had much in the way of memories of the past. people could still of course appreciate some work more than others. so new fans could still prefer older material to the new, and of course with some bands and artists you can find that the early period isn't particularly popular or at least not as popular as later periods, but still have a more recently period that's less popular
so for example fleetwood mac are popular, but many people prefer the later 70s period to the peter green period. they haven't really done much since the late 70s and i imagine many people going to their gigs these days are probably unaware they released anything since tango
or pink floyd, many people don't like the early period before DSOTM, many more won't like anything before AHM, especially the first 2 albums. and the post 70s stuff isn't really a patch on the 70s stuff, especially after roger left
you could even say the same about michael jackson, with folk not caring about his pre solo work, and again the 90s stuff
with both these bands, in the next few years there will be people who haven't yet been born who will discover those bands and quite possibly appreciate their peak 70s work and not care too much about the rest, and they will start off with no memories as point of reference. of course it's unlikely they would see those bands play live, but the same applies to other acts
Yes, there are some people that are discovering newer artists now. but the majority of fans at concerts did grow up with their music. I don't see a lot of teenagers at Fleetwood Mac concerts.
Do you even know what "diverse" means? Madonna has an extensive back catalogue of, well, ... pop/dance pop music (oh and one album of covers from musical theatre). She's no Bjork (who hasn't just made pop music all her career).
Bjork is more avant garde than Madonna but she definitely has a unique "Bjork" style. So I wouldn't really use Bjork as an example of someone really diverse. Madonna is really diverse within the genre of pop music.
Bjork has never made conventional pop music so I don't see the comparison.
Yes, there are some people that are discovering newer artists now. but the majority of fans at concerts did grow up with their music. I don't see a lot of teenagers at Fleetwood Mac concerts.
Probably true about Fleetwood Mac when I saw them at the Hydro in Glasgow but my daughter who is 16 is one and she is more of a FM fan than I am.
i kind of disagree.... her music interests as a songwriter have clearly become more folk/soft rock inspired ....
but true to herself she has created a hybrid of songs that are a) pop mainstream - current music output and fashion b) dance/disco c) her folk/rock pop style
in the last 12 years this is where she has steadily evolved.... perhaps more 'underground' and ' less mainstream' than her popular stuff....
she is making music that she likes - every artists surely wants that. 'Rebel Heart' should have been as she imagined a double album with a contrast. Such a shame she never got the chance to do that owing to the leak and mass panic. But artistically there are some stellar tracks:
1. Messiah
2. Heartbreak City
3. Joan of Arc
4. Wash all over me
5. Ghosttowm
6. Devil Pray
7. Tragic girl
8. God is Love
9. Revolution
10. Body Shop * (this is a pure early 90s epic pop superstar song - so underrated )
11. Queen (a flashback to bedtime stories - babyface)
12. Two Steps behind (such a strong piano drive - lyrics a little clumsy but so catchy and with sass)
Songs for:
Madonna current pop - radio current :
rebel heart (avicii version); unapologetic bitch ; hold tight; bitch I'm madonna; illuminati; living for love
Madonna - classic dance:
inside out; beautiful scars
Madonna artistic:
messiah; heartbreak city; joan of arc; ghosttown; devil pray; tragic girl
Bjork is more avant garde than Madonna but she definitely has a unique "Bjork" style. So I wouldn't really use Bjork as an example of someone really diverse. Madonna is really diverse within the genre of pop music.
Bjork has never made conventional pop music so I don't see the comparison.
Bjork began as an indie rock artist (Sugarcubes), then found success within dance music and is now experimental art pop. That is a 'diverse' back catalogue. Madonna has spent four decades doing pop/dance pop. ie not very diverse. .
Bjork began as an indie rock artist (Sugarcubes), then found success within dance music and is now experimental art pop. That is a 'diverse' back catalogue. Madonna has spent four decades doing pop/dance pop. ie not very diverse. .
The poster you replied to said Madonna is diverse within the genre of pop. He/she agrees that Bjork is a diverse artist but not quite a valid comparison. Is it that hard to comprehend?
if she ever had any credibility, it was left behind a few decades ago
remember of course that's she's reliant on other people to make her music for her, so she's not completely to blame, although at the end of the day the tracks offered to her record company for potential release will have been approved by her, so ultimately she is responsible for what she allows to be put out under her name
it's pretty common than an artist has a good stream of output followed by a stream of stuff that's not as good. from bowie to steve wonder, they can have an almost faultless set of releases for a while and one day it dries up. the only thing that the artists have in common is the quality ends as the artists age and/or get successful financially
"tracks offered to her record company for release approved by her"???
Thats certainly not how Madonna works. Yes, she creates her albums with co-writer(s) and co-producer(s) but noone can deny that she is the creative force behind most of her music, creating the music with them. There is a huge difference in creating songs with someone and have whole songs created for you.
Some artists work the best when they are writing with other person, because they creatively push each other and need a dialogue to give their best out of them, thats where there is a lot of successful writing and producing partnerships, some were just for one project or album, and some are lasting longer, especially those in bands (for example McCartney/Lennon, Richards/Jagger etc.).
Madonna used to work with different writing/producing partners to help her to develop a fresh sound for her and this constantly changing sound and image helped her to not become stale, because she understood that she has to reinvent herself to stay interesting /fresh for the audience and she managed to do that for quite a long period of time. This strategy is common in music industry and has been even for the most acclaimed artists. It was a very clever and effective strategy. She was not just picking songs offered to her label for release on her albums. She creates and writes the songs and she is the best when she writes with just one person involved in the creative process (LaP, Erotica, RoL).
American Life was her last good album. Ever since, she done nothing but chase trends, which make the legend she is seem desperate and artiscally weak. It's kind of depressing how she's turned into a parody of herself.
The poster you replied to said Madonna is diverse within the genre of pop. He/she agrees that Bjork is a diverse artist but not quite a valid comparison. Is it that hard to comprehend?
"Diverse within the genre of pop music" is a contradiction in terms. If your music has just been from one genre for over 30 years then it's not diverse... Is that hard to comprehend?
Maybe you just mean "she's made a lot of pop music which doesn't all sound the same"?
Comments
I'm using folk in a very general layman's meaning, not in a very specific way. I understand he uses other genres as far as rock, country, blues etc, but it's done in a rather stripped down way based around guitar which I see as generally folk/Americana music.
You say you used to like Madonna when she first came on the scene. But she started out doing dance/electronic music. Dance music is not just for teenagers or was something that was just created. It has its roots in the disco of the 70's, though house music of the 80's. People in their 30's and 40's do like and grew up with various forms of electronic music so to say she is purely trying to appeal to a younger audience is not the case. She is appealing to her fanbase who generally like dance/electronic with a few ballads. People have this idea older people only like ballads or very serious songs, but they do enjoy uptempo dance stuff, especially if they are Madonna fans.
I guess we are speaking two very different languages musically here. Since I am not very familiar with Dylan's catalogue since it really hold no interest to me since I don't enjoy folk or his form of rock (when I do listen to rock I like indie/alternative forms). And it doesn't seem to me, you are familiar with the kind of artist is or forms of dance/electronic music so I doubt we can understand each other.
I've seen Springsteen a number of times, the last time 2 years ago and like many artists, he was touring the album ('Wrecking Ball') and playing from albums from throughout his career. U2 do the same, they are touring 'Songs of Innocence' at present and that album is a step up from at least the two before it. I don't know how many times I've seen Van the Man and he seldom plays anything from his seminal album 'Astral weeks' but again does an entire jazz set when he feels like it.
I notice there are a number of threads on Madonna, she's not that interesting.
She clearly is that interesting or there wouldn't be so many threads on her in the first place! Madonna has always been the topic of many discussions throughout her long career and it's not really any different today. She is still an extremely fascinating and compelling artist to listen to and watch and talk about.
clearly that's what you think...
however that doesn't wash when you consider that new fans can discover old artists for the first time, and have the entire back catalogue to listen to at the same time, so they start with no memories of any of the songs, and after listening to everything, with the exception of the time taken to actual hear the tracks, which is negligable, they won't have had much in the way of memories of the past. people could still of course appreciate some work more than others. so new fans could still prefer older material to the new, and of course with some bands and artists you can find that the early period isn't particularly popular or at least not as popular as later periods, but still have a more recently period that's less popular
so for example fleetwood mac are popular, but many people prefer the later 70s period to the peter green period. they haven't really done much since the late 70s and i imagine many people going to their gigs these days are probably unaware they released anything since tango
or pink floyd, many people don't like the early period before DSOTM, many more won't like anything before AHM, especially the first 2 albums. and the post 70s stuff isn't really a patch on the 70s stuff, especially after roger left
you could even say the same about michael jackson, with folk not caring about his pre solo work, and again the 90s stuff
with both these bands, in the next few years there will be people who haven't yet been born who will discover those bands and quite possibly appreciate their peak 70s work and not care too much about the rest, and they will start off with no memories as point of reference. of course it's unlikely they would see those bands play live, but the same applies to other acts
I think that if AL had been a success, Madonna would have gone in a very different direction.
COADF is a great album but when listened to alongside AL it's a hollow affair.
Hard Candy and MDNA have their moments but overall they are poor.
Rebel Heart could have been amazing but there is so much going on. Far too many songs, the track listing is a mess whichever version you have - and having the title track not appear on the standard version is a baffling choice.
As for what is next, who knows?
A more stripped back, serious Madonna album would be fantastic but I really don't think thats what Madonna wants to do.
I think it’s fair to say that the only universally acclaimed albums that Madonna has released are Like a Prayer and Ray of Light. The Immaculate Collection is a classic compilation album, but it’s not a studio album, so I don’t count that one. I don’t think Madonna has ever released a truly bad album. American Life, Hard Candy and MDNA aren’t that good, but they have some great songs on them. Just because American Life is a fan favourite doesn’t mean critics don't dismiss it, they do. Erotica is very popular amongst her fans, but critically it's a different story. Bedtime Stories contains Madonna's longest-running U.S. number one single (Take a Bow) but the album isn't referenced or even talked about today outside of her core fan base let alone acclaimed by critics.
It’s impossible for an artist to have a long music career that doesn’t have ups and downs when it comes to commercial success and artistry. A lot of people forget that many critics dismissed Madonna for a good portion of the 1980s and again between 1992 and 1995 and 2008 and 2014. Her record sales tailed off big time in the early to mid-1990s, especially when compared to Mariah Carey's. I think it’s accurate to say that Madonna has been more miss than hit since the turn of the millennium. Rebel Heart is a great record, but I’m very wary now as Madonna fan, her quality control has been mostly off since 2003. Don't get me wrong, I don’t buy albums based critical approval, but I think it's silly for people to try to re-write how critics received every Madonna album. Not every album she has released is a classic, lauded piece of work.
Can we just admit that Madonna has a lot of help with the making of her music? I don’t understand why fellow fans are so offended by the notion. She’s not the first pop star to have writers and producers help her, and she won’t be the last. You only have to look at the quality of the songs she wrote by herself in the early-1980s to know that she needs talented people to help her in the studio. I love her debut album, but the songwriting on it is simple. To even entertain the notion that Madonna’s catalogue of music is as universally acclaimed as The Beatles is ridiculous, and I say that as a Madonna fan.
I think her back catalogue holds up well to mostly anyone in music, she certainly has the most extensive and diverse body of music than virtually anyone (and she ain't done yet).
Even her lesser hits like 'Rain', 'I'll Remember', 'Bedtime Story' are fantastic tracks.
When her career is finally examined from a perspective in the far future, I think probably 'Like a Prayer' or 'Vogue' will be regarded as her peak.
It is sad that Michael Jackson wasn't as prolific, especially in his peak years of 1982-1993, he was too consumed in chasing and repeating the phenomenon of 'Thriller', trying to make the follow up bigger and more blockbuster than before, but never quite managed it, even though 'Bad' and 'Dangerous' are excellent and in fact better than 'Thriller' in my opinion.
Well I can't disagree if these threads keep appearing. One of them about Madonna's DVD range was interesting enough as music on video is one of my interests and Madonna does seek to impress with her stage shows.
That's kind of the point of the thread though, whether she is artistically done or not? Some may feel she wasn't all that artistically at any time because there is a presumption against artists who don't solely write their own songs. I understand that but Madonna is in the business of being a pop star and an iconic one at that. That has it's own set of artistic sensibilities. If Madonna is intent on reaching a teenage audience it's probably not going to work. I would expect a middle-aged woman/artist like herself to be more in tune with her older fans and to grow old gracefully or ungracefully with them. I thought that might inform what she writes (or gets others to write) about. ;-)
A stripped down reflection on what it is to live your life in the public eye over 30 years as perhaps the most successful female artist in pop history to follow? (Are there not hints of this in some of the 'Rebel Heart' songs?)
Do you even know what "diverse" means? Madonna has an extensive back catalogue of, well, ... pop/dance pop music (oh and one album of covers from musical theatre). She's no Bjork (who hasn't just made pop music all her career).
I assume you are talking financially here and not claiming Madonna is the best touring solo act?
Madonna's music is diverse,
Yeah and it's always the same people writing long essays trying to diminish Madonna's legacy too and replying to every post. LOL
Yes, there are some people that are discovering newer artists now. but the majority of fans at concerts did grow up with their music. I don't see a lot of teenagers at Fleetwood Mac concerts.
Bjork is more avant garde than Madonna but she definitely has a unique "Bjork" style. So I wouldn't really use Bjork as an example of someone really diverse. Madonna is really diverse within the genre of pop music.
Bjork has never made conventional pop music so I don't see the comparison.
Probably true about Fleetwood Mac when I saw them at the Hydro in Glasgow but my daughter who is 16 is one and she is more of a FM fan than I am.
but true to herself she has created a hybrid of songs that are a) pop mainstream - current music output and fashion b) dance/disco c) her folk/rock pop style
in the last 12 years this is where she has steadily evolved.... perhaps more 'underground' and ' less mainstream' than her popular stuff....
she is making music that she likes - every artists surely wants that. 'Rebel Heart' should have been as she imagined a double album with a contrast. Such a shame she never got the chance to do that owing to the leak and mass panic. But artistically there are some stellar tracks:
1. Messiah
2. Heartbreak City
3. Joan of Arc
4. Wash all over me
5. Ghosttowm
6. Devil Pray
7. Tragic girl
8. God is Love
9. Revolution
10. Body Shop * (this is a pure early 90s epic pop superstar song - so underrated )
11. Queen (a flashback to bedtime stories - babyface)
12. Two Steps behind (such a strong piano drive - lyrics a little clumsy but so catchy and with sass)
Songs for:
Madonna current pop - radio current :
rebel heart (avicii version); unapologetic bitch ; hold tight; bitch I'm madonna; illuminati; living for love
Madonna - classic dance:
inside out; beautiful scars
Madonna artistic:
messiah; heartbreak city; joan of arc; ghosttown; devil pray; tragic girl
Bjork began as an indie rock artist (Sugarcubes), then found success within dance music and is now experimental art pop. That is a 'diverse' back catalogue. Madonna has spent four decades doing pop/dance pop. ie not very diverse. .
The poster you replied to said Madonna is diverse within the genre of pop. He/she agrees that Bjork is a diverse artist but not quite a valid comparison. Is it that hard to comprehend?
"tracks offered to her record company for release approved by her"???
Thats certainly not how Madonna works. Yes, she creates her albums with co-writer(s) and co-producer(s) but noone can deny that she is the creative force behind most of her music, creating the music with them. There is a huge difference in creating songs with someone and have whole songs created for you.
Some artists work the best when they are writing with other person, because they creatively push each other and need a dialogue to give their best out of them, thats where there is a lot of successful writing and producing partnerships, some were just for one project or album, and some are lasting longer, especially those in bands (for example McCartney/Lennon, Richards/Jagger etc.).
Madonna used to work with different writing/producing partners to help her to develop a fresh sound for her and this constantly changing sound and image helped her to not become stale, because she understood that she has to reinvent herself to stay interesting /fresh for the audience and she managed to do that for quite a long period of time. This strategy is common in music industry and has been even for the most acclaimed artists. It was a very clever and effective strategy. She was not just picking songs offered to her label for release on her albums. She creates and writes the songs and she is the best when she writes with just one person involved in the creative process (LaP, Erotica, RoL).
"Diverse within the genre of pop music" is a contradiction in terms. If your music has just been from one genre for over 30 years then it's not diverse... Is that hard to comprehend?
Maybe you just mean "she's made a lot of pop music which doesn't all sound the same"?