|
Post by Steve Marinucci on Aug 12, 2008 19:03:29 GMT -5
www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26164523/That's the question asked at the link. The author obviously is hoping to get a rise out of Beatle fans, and no doubt he will by claiming Madonna has surpassed the Beatles. But this has got to be one of the stupidest statements I've ever heard. Madonna surpass the Beatles? In her dreams, maybe.
|
|
|
Post by GeoffB on Aug 12, 2008 20:51:02 GMT -5
With just a bit of editing, some of this would be nearly pitch-perfect Stephen Colbert. This, for example: Madonna, like Elvis, recast the focus of popular music. By emphasizing modern R&B grooves where most singers used rock beats, she was the catalyst that changed music from being rock-centric to being dance and R&B-oriented. (Disco, which influenced Madonna, might have done the same thing had it not died because of rock resentment.) It’s worth noting that before Madonna, most music mega-stars were guy rockers; after her, almost all would be female singers.Like Elvis? The catalyst? Dance and R&B didn't figure much into music before the eighties? Toto, I've a feeling we're not in Kansas anymore (maybe in a galaxy far, far away, in fact).
|
|
|
Post by Panther on Aug 12, 2008 22:34:39 GMT -5
I knew before I clicked the link that this article was going to be unbearably stupid, but I gave into the temptation... OK, here I go:
...it’s looking like her influence on pop music has outshone that of the Beatles.
Er, excuse me? The one incontrovertible area in which an 80s MTV dancer could never "outshine" the Beatles is in influence. If he wanted to say she's outshone them in style-icon status or in pop hits or something, I can roll over. But...influence? Sorry, governor, that's just idiotic.
It’s Madonna’s impact on the course of pop music that bests the Fab Four...
Er, no. The Beatles epitomized and popularized the rock band as we forever learned it and still know it. Madonna took street and gay club style into the white mainstream. As far as her musical influence goes, there is none of significance.
While the Beatles influenced scads of artists in their time, after their breakup, their sound became yesterday’s news.
The Beatles albums in catalogue -- at 40 years old -- probably sell more than Madonna's from last year or whenever. Without Madonna's influence in the 80s, the direction of 80s/90s pop-dance music was inevitable. Without The Beatles, all of pop and rock music's subsequent direction would have been in question.
The mentally-challenged writer then goes on to state that Britney Spears and Boy-Bands are/were "modern" and "edgy." Uh-huh.
By emphasizing modern R&B grooves where most singers used rock beats, she was the catalyst that changed music from being rock-centric to being dance and R&B-oriented.
Wrong again. She was merely the 2nd major artist -- after Michael Jackson -- to re-focus dance music into the 80s-MTV culture. And she was considerably less successful than MJ in doing it.
OK, that's enough... I can't even read the article any further. Don't they have higher standards for culture/music commentary than this??
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Aug 12, 2008 23:10:33 GMT -5
Actually, this writer makes a sobering point when he specifically qualifies his opinion:
"It’s Madonna’s impact on the course of pop music that bests the Fab Four, not her sociological importance, songwriting skills or recording innovations."
I would agree that Madonna has had an incredible impact on the course of pop music but unfortunately it has been negative in my opinion. It has at least been the antithesis of The Beatles' impact.
I do disagree when this writer seems to suggest that The Beatles only influenced bands like Badfinger, the Raspberries, and Squeeze. I would say that the Beatles greatly influenced some much higher rock hierarchy including Dylan(go electric), The Rolling Stones, The Byrds, and many others. The Beatles were the template of rock bands, even for those who had a whole different sound. The Beatles set the standards.
|
|
|
Post by Steve Marinucci on Aug 12, 2008 23:31:43 GMT -5
Actually, this writer makes a sobering point when he specifically qualifies his opinion: "It’s Madonna’s impact on the course of pop music that bests the Fab Four, not her sociological importance, songwriting skills or recording innovations."I would agree that Madonna has had an incredible impact on the course of pop music but unfortunately it has been negative in my opinion. It has at least been the antithesis of The Beatles' impact. I do disagree when this writer seems to suggest that The Beatles only influenced bands like Badfinger, the Raspberries, and Squeeze. I would say that the Beatles greatly influenced some much higher rock hierarchy including Dylan(go electric), The Rolling Stones, The Byrds, and many others. The Beatles were the template of rock bands, even for those who had a whole different sound. The Beatles set the standards. His view of the Beatles' influence couldn't be much narrower than if he was peering through a two-foot piece of pipe. Of course, the Beatles had a much wider influence than Badfinger. Good God. There are so many groups that cite them as an influence.
|
|
|
Post by GeoffB on Aug 13, 2008 0:41:34 GMT -5
It’s Madonna’s impact on the course of pop music that bests the Fab Four...Er, no. The Beatles epitomized and popularized the rock band as we forever learned it and still know it. Madonna took street and gay club style into the white mainstream. As far as her musical influence goes, there is none of significance. I agree: without the Beatles, pop music would be a radically different thing than it is now; on the other hand, without Madge we would probably still be getting more or less the same thing that we do in fact have. She has a place, but not a large one.
|
|
|
Post by vectisfabber on Aug 13, 2008 3:21:24 GMT -5
I have no interest in reading this. Let him think what he wants to. The music speaks for itself.
|
|
|
Post by sayne on Aug 13, 2008 11:41:13 GMT -5
I guess now we know how people felt when John made his "Beatles bigger than Jesus" remark. Maybe the writer should have said that "Madonna has surpassed television".
|
|
|
Post by mikev on Aug 13, 2008 12:07:15 GMT -5
In 1984 I claimed that Cyndy Laupier (sp.) had more talent that Madonna and would outlast her. I was wrong about the outlasting part-but one thing Madonna has always been good at is reinventing herself-a sure fire recipe for longevity.
I'm still baffled that she is in the Rock-n-Roll Hall of Fame, and Kiss and the Monkees are not.
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Aug 15, 2008 9:22:22 GMT -5
Read and weep kiddies, Madonna is a music revolutionary as now confirmed by the Rock And Roll Hall Of Fame in its recent press release as reported by our Webmaster Steve today on his News Site:
"Cleveland, OH- This fall, New York City’s love of music will hit a high note. The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame and Museum will open a 25,000 square foot ANNEX location in the heart of Soho at 76 Mercer Street. This experiential, technologically advanced exhibition will focus on the greatest moments in rock history and will resonate with everyone from the casual music fan to the seasoned rock enthusiast.
The Annex will take visitors beyond the typical museum experience, and engage people in a dynamic and immersive music journey that recalls some of the defining moments in rock and roll history through the artists that changed our world. Visitors will discover the moments ignited by music revolutionaries like John Lennon, Madonna, Jimi Hendrix and Bob Dylan. The exhibits will highlight rock and roll’s impact on music, allowing visitors to discover, or rediscover, their connection to it all. "
Maybe the article starting this Thread isn't so goofy after all!
|
|
|
Post by Steve Marinucci on Aug 15, 2008 13:15:55 GMT -5
Maybe the article starting this Thread isn't so goofy after all! Me goofy or the original article? Which is it, John?
|
|
|
Post by John S. Damm on Aug 15, 2008 14:35:01 GMT -5
Maybe the article starting this Thread isn't so goofy after all! Me goofy or the original article? Which is it, John? The article!! Sorry Steve for not being more specific. Man, I hope you are joking. I thought that while the writer grossly underestimated The Beatles' influence on popular music, he might be right that Madonna changed the "biz." Not that that was a good thing.
|
|
|
Post by Steve Marinucci on Aug 15, 2008 15:05:42 GMT -5
Me goofy or the original article? Which is it, John? The article!! Sorry Steve for not being more specific. Man, I hope you are joking. I thought that while the writer grossly underestimated The Beatles' influence on popular music, he might be right that Madonna changed the "biz." Not that that was a good thing. I was. Just goofing ya...
|
|