Michael and Madonna- did they help or hurt the industry?

There is no doubt about the fact that both Madonna and Michael Jackson changed the game in the music industry and generated millions of dollars. Although you can't blame any one person or artist for the negatives in the industry, did they hurt or help? I started this thread thinking about Nicki Minage and Chris Brown and what I consider to be the negative changes that have happened. IMO.

Michael Jackson- made it acceptable to dance and just lip sync. Now it seems that this is all you have. Dancers who portray themselves as "singers".

Madonna- made it acceptable to do things just for "shock" value- and I might add, has people now applauding her for "reinvention" and what they call "performance art" to cover up the fact that she is really not a singer.

Most "popular" artist fall into these 2 categories and I think it has been the downfall of the music industry.

Skooldem,

I do not agree with you. Michael Jackson was a singer, if you watch the movie "this is it" you can hear him singing live while rehearsing.

I don't think Madonna is just being applauded for shocking. She survived the music industry for almost 30 years now. That means she must have some talent besides shocking.

Okay, during concerts some segments are lip synced but that has several reasons. One of the reasons being the audience. Ticket prices are high and the audience is expecting a great show. In the 60s a show would be an hour and there would be several shows a day. So the artist could catch their breath. Now a show is at least 90 minutes and the audience is expecting the songs performed to sound just like the record.

During her last tour in Europe even Diana Ross lip synced "I Love You", she is moving above the orchestra, away from the audience and when the song is finished she comes close the the public again and is singing the rest of the show live.

Still, you can not compare Diana Ross' show to Britney Spears, who is lip syncing her whole show. Britney is more of a dancer [[and shocker). If an artist is a one trick pony I believe their careers will end.

Michael Jackson had a long spanning career, so has [[and still have) Madonna.

Neither hurt or helped the industry from a live performance standpoint, in my opinion. Michael Jackson had enough talent as a dancer and great enough music as an artist to make attending his show an event and worth it to those who had enough money to see him. Madonna is simply the largest beneficiary of the cult of personality that I can imagine. She started out as Jellybean Benitez's girlfriend and now has parlayed minimal [[at best) talent into an iconic career. Again, for the people who have the money and desire to pay to see her perform live: God bless her and them.

As for Nicki Minaj and Chris Brown, it's too bad that talented performers are more interested in riffing what has already worked for other artists than finding out who they truly are and doing they may do well.

l

https://fbcdn-profile-a.akamaihd.net..._6306778_q.jpgPiers Morgan
‎Madonna and I finally have something in common - neither of us has sung at the Super Bowl.

Like · · Unfollow Post · Share · 18 hours ago

https://www.facebook.com/permalink.p...&id=1200165163

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skooldem1

There is no doubt about the fact that both Madonna and Michael Jackson changed the game in the music industry and generated millions of dollars. Although you can't blame any one person or artist for the negatives in the industry, did they hurt or help? I started this thread thinking about Nicki Minage and Chris Brown and what I consider to be the negative changes that have happened. IMO.

---

First, since you can't blame any one person, how can you say those two helped or hurt? It's the industry's fault because they made so much money off these superstars, and others, their desire to keep the money rolling in is what hurt the industry.

And, Chris Brow and Nicki Minaj? The negatives are all what your opinion of them is. Artists have been violent since the beginning of time, and trhey have been flippint people off and using colorful language since the beginning too.

Quote:

---

Michael Jackson- made it acceptable to dance and just lip sync. Now it seems that this is all you have. Dancers who portray themselves as "singers".

---

Uh, do your history. Lip synching began before broadcast TV. People have danced forever. It seems like you are reaching now.

Quote:

---

Madonna- made it acceptable to do things just for "shock" value- and I might add, has people now applauding her for "reinvention" and what they call "performance art" to cover up the fact that she is really not a singer.

---

Shock value? What about when Jerry Lee Lewis set his piano on fire in the 50s? How about when Alice Cooper, and all those 60s and 70s shock rockers did gross things? You must be young if you don't remember all of that.

Quote:

---

Most "popular" artist fall into these 2 categories and I think it has been the downfall of the music industry.

---

The downfall had nothing to do with the artists. It's the economy, and the reality of the internet, and, most of all, corporate greed that caused the downfall.

Skooldem this is an interesting thought you have and I can see why you may have pinned the facts on MJ and Madonna
I disagree with MJ making it acceptable to mouth to records that has been going on since early American Bandstand. I DO agree with you about Madonna. Unlike some I DO think she can sing [[well at least carry a tune) and she can dance, not only that she has written some very catchy tunes. However people like Lady Gaga, and Miss Minaj have carried on this shock torch that I think Madonna has set a precedent for with women anyway. Of course we had [[his name escapes me now) the man singing I Put A spell On You laying in caskets, and the Who and Jimi Hendrix lighting up guitars and smashing them, we also have the Crazy World of Arthur Brown screaming "I am the God of Hell fire" and prancing around in a mask...interestingly enough ALL of these guys are supertalented. Oh Screaming Jay Hawkins is the one in the casket!

I cant think of that many women who are shocking so Miss Madonna may have started something in pop music along those lines but I wouldnt say she is responsible for destroying the industry. The MAJOR thing that has destroyed the industry is sheer corporate greed, and the rising price of CDs but the lack of true talent. There are plenty of people out there with talent look at Jill Scott, Jennifer Hudson, and others [[at least people are taking a look at Bruno Mars and Adele) maybe there is some hope. However such junk has been put out there people are sick of it.

Stephanie, that was Screamin Jay Hawkins.

I would add Grace Jones to the shockers list although she did have real talent and the ability to sing.

Back in the day: at The Regal, Fox and Apollo....you had Stage Shows. Quite a few artists from Motown/Philly/Chicago who had perfected their craft performed a show usually with a big band [[live musicians).

Today: The shows are Staged. Synths, Computers, Lip-sync's and pryro-techics by quite a few artists who haven't perfected anything but presentation.

What do they both have in common ? : Show Business

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paladin

Back in the day: at The Regal, Fox and Apollo....you had Stage Shows. Quite a few artists from Motown/Philly/Chicago who had perfected their craft performed a show usually with a big band [[live musicians).

Today: The shows are Staged. Synths, Computers, Lip-sync's and pryro-techics by quite a few artists who haven't perfected anything but presentation.

What do they both have in common ? : Show Business

---

The other thing that they have in common is legions of devoted fans who are more than happy to see their idols moving around in front of them, regardless of whether they're actually singing. They didn't "hurt" the industry so much as redefine it. I went to many concerts in the old days where the music was either faster or in another key than it was on the album. Maybe today's artists don't want to disappoint their fans with a set that doesn't sound exactly like it does on the cd, but that's exactly the appeal of live music to me. Can you imagine "Maze Live in New Orleans" if Frankie Beverly had his words played from a recording?

I don't think MJ lip-synced his concerts, did hey? Janet has been accused of this, but I don't think MJ.

I actually think both were good for the music industry. Disco was killed due to racist and homophobic feelings. Disco is really a form of soul/R & B but to hide the haters' racism they said they were just killing disco, when in reality they wanted to silence black and homosexual artists.

The 1980's need a jump start back to dance music on the airwaves and I think the two artists did that. Of course I may be an apologist because I have MJ albums [[and Jacksons and Jackson 5 albums) and some early Madonna albums [[she lost me a little bit later). It seemed like when those two were dominating the top 40, it was once again cool to like disco-type [[soul, R & B, etc.) once again, at least where I lived, in the Northwest, where redneck rock, metal, and country and western dominate.

If they hadn't come along we'd be stuck with Lynard Skynard and Foreigner and crap like that.

I think they helped the music biz, and not just the cash registers, but also the listeners. I went to a lot of dances that were great fun because of those two.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skooldem1

There is no doubt about the fact that both Madonna and Michael Jackson changed the game in the music industry and generated millions of dollars. Although you can't blame any one person or artist for the negatives in the industry, did they hurt or help? I started this thread thinking about Nicki Minage and Chris Brown and what I consider to be the negative changes that have happened. IMO.

Michael Jackson- made it acceptable to dance and just lip sync. Now it seems that this is all you have. Dancers who portray themselves as "singers".

Madonna- made it acceptable to do things just for "shock" value- and I might add, has people now applauding her for "reinvention" and what they call "performance art" to cover up the fact that she is really not a singer.

Most "popular" artist fall into these 2 categories and I think it has been the downfall of the music industry.

---

Michael Jackson, regardless of what I feel about his solo career, represents a standard of performer that will forever remained untouched.

Madonna has simply given birth a litter of glorified mall rats with minimal vocal talent and highly contrived stage presentation [[did someone say Lady Gaga).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by marv2

I would add Grace Jones to the shockers list although she did have real talent and the ability to sing.

---

That maybe true, but I still dig Grace Jones more than Madonna. Her hits [[Slave To The Rhyhm, Pull Up To The Bumper...) are far more innovative than anything Madonna ever recorded.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by timmyfunk

Madonna has simply given birth a litter of glorified mall rats with minimal vocal talent and highly contrived stage presentation [[did someone say Lady Gaga).

---

Completely agree, well said.

Beyonce dosent lip sync all her shows are live..and shes leader of the pack now..from a buisness standpoint the millions Madonna and MJ brought to Warners and Sony allowed those companies to invest,fund,promote and sign many other artists to those two prospective labels..anyone signed to Sire or Epic in the 80s and 90s should be greatful they did what they did..MJ was a brilliant live singer then after 1988 Bad Tour he just started Lip syncing which was a shame..I know for a fact Madonnas first two tours [[Virgin tour 85 and Whos That Girl 87) had NO lipsyncing what so ever..as for her shock value thing she took it too far with that dreadful porn book but giving birth to her daughter calmed her down alot..and in her defense she had worked with Mark Kamins and Reggie Lucas on two huge "12 singles before she ever met Jellybean so she was never just his girlfriend...Lady Gaga im not that impressed with..I just dont think her singles are that good..I dont think that electronic sound is gonna last the long haul even her first hits sound so dated to me I never play them at my gig..as for Grace Jones yes shes brilliant but there are tracks in Madonnas catalog that are innovative [[such as "Paradise not for me" from Music album)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nomis

Beyonce dosent lip sync all her shows are live..and shes leader of the pack now..from a buisness standpoint the millions Madonna and MJ brought to Warners and Sony allowed those companies to invest,fund,promote and sign many other artists to those two prospective labels..anyone signed to Sire or Epic in the 80s and 90s should be greatful they did what they did..MJ was a brilliant live singer then after 1988 Bad Tour he just started Lip syncing which was a shame..I know for a fact Madonnas first two tours [[Virgin tour 85 and Whos That Girl 87) had NO lipsyncing what so ever..as for her shock value thing she took it too far with that dreadful porn book but giving birth to her daughter calmed her down alot..and in her defense she had worked with Mark Kamins and Reggie Lucas on two huge "12 singles before she ever met Jellybean so she was never just his girlfriend...Lady Gaga im not that impressed with..I just dont think her singles are that good..I dont think that electronic sound is gonna last the long haul even her first hits sound so dated to me I never play them at my gig..as for Grace Jones yes shes brilliant but there are tracks in Madonnas catalog that are innovative [[such as "Paradise not for me" from Music album)

---

No lip synching doesn't insure a great performance. Madonna's live shows are still very much contrived, overly choreographed [[the last Super Bowl comes to mind) and generally boring. And unfortunately, the clones of Dr. Madonnastein [[Gaga, Britney Spears....) are very much in the same lame bag. And I'm sure that that at least in the case of Warners or WEA, they had lots of performers that were selling just as much as Madonna.

The only acts at Warners I know of that sold more than Ciccone is Led Zep and Fleetwood Mac back catalog,The Eagles greatest Hits and Tracy Chapmans debut album..Madonna's "Imaculate Collection","Like A Virgin" and "True Blue " LPs are the ones that made Warners a fortune...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nomis

The only acts at Warners I know of that sold more than Ciccone is Led Zep and Fleetwood Mac back catalog,The Eagles greatest Hits and Tracy Chapmans debut album..Madonna's "Imaculate Collection","Like A Virgin" and "True Blue " LPs are the ones that made Warners a fortune...

---

Correct on all counts!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nomis

The only acts at Warners I know of that sold more than Ciccone is Led Zep and Fleetwood Mac back catalog,The Eagles greatest Hits and Tracy Chapmans debut album..Madonna's "Imaculate Collection","Like A Virgin" and "True Blue " LPs are the ones that made Warners a fortune...

---

You better double check Phil Collins. He had many consistent top selling albums in the 1980's, without half the hype. And I'm talking about his solo career and with Genesis.

the Genesis catalog isnt Warners...

Yes it is. Their catalog is on the Atlantic label here in the U.S. and in Canada. Atlantic is a Warner Group label. It used to be known as "WEA", or "Warner/Elektra/Atlantic". It's been that way since 1968. It started out when Jerry Wexler convinced his partner Ahmet Ertegun to sell.

Attachment 4609

It depends upon where you live.

Genesis was on Charisma records over in the UK for many years. Later on they were on Virgin, after Charisma got absorbed.

Perhaps they weren't on a Warner label in NZ either, in which case Nomis is right, I'm right and you're right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sotosound

It depends upon where you live.

Genesis was on Charisma records over in the UK for many years. Later on they were on Virgin, after Charisma got absorbed.

Perhaps they weren't on a Warner label in NZ either, in which case Nomis is right, I'm right and you're right.

---

Ugly American here. I was under the impression Nomis lived here in the U.S.. A quick check of the profile would have told me that Nomis is in NZ. It would be nice if the forum software would list a poster's locale in the post, as i'm used to it on other forums. So, it seems we are all correct.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by soulster

Ugly American here. I was under the impression Nomis lived here in the U.S.. A quick check of the profile would have told me that Nomis is in NZ. It would be nice if the forum software would list a poster's locale in the post, as i'm used to it on other forums. So, it seems we are all correct.

---

Yes we all are.

My overall point is that WEA wasn't/isn't some ma and pa indie label. They are a multi-national recording organization that was making billions way before Madonna hit the scene.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by timmyfunk

Yes we all are.

My overall point is that WEA wasn't/isn't some ma and pa indie label. They are a multi-national recording organization that was making billions way before Madonna hit the scene.

---

That's right! They were the first biggest R&B label until it went head-to-head with Motown in 1965.

Genesis were on Virgin in NZ...damn good band...

Timmyfunk - the difference between Madonna and Warners other top acts was the rest mainly sold albums..Madonna did more..Led Zep and Chapman had what 4 hit singles each..Collins and Mac around 10...Madonna had that many by the end of 1985 alone..none of them even come close to her sales of "7 singles,"12inch,Cassingles and CD singles..not even close- no ones had more billboard hits than her..no ones had more UK top 10 hits than her and accordingly the label gave her prestige because she was leader of the roster..no question her combined number of units sold on all formats is more than any other Warner act in history....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nomis

Timmyfunk - the difference between Madonna and Warners other top acts was the rest mainly sold albums..Madonna did more..Led Zep and Chapman had what 4 hit singles each..Collins and Mac around 10...Madonna had that many by the end of 1985 alone..none of them even come close to her sales of "7 singles,"12inch,Cassingles and CD singles..not even close- no ones had more billboard hits than her..no ones had more UK top 10 hits than her and accordingly the label gave her prestige because she was leader of the roster..no question her combined number of units sold on all formats is more than any other Warner act in history....

---

Between the hit singles of Genesis and his solo career, Phil more than held his own against Madonna. Never mind the fact that no Madonna album sold more than Fleetwood Mac "Rumors". So let's not get into the 'no one comes close' bag. You are making Madonna sound like savior of WEA, when she clearly wasn't.

In other words, agree to disagree.

I don't know how much money she made for WEA and personally I don't care. I'm just proud of the fact that she didn't make a damn dime off of me

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by P-Shark: The Revenge

I don't know how much money she made for WEA and personally I don't care. I'm just proud of the fact that she didn't make a damn dime off of me

---

You and me both P-Shark. I don't think I've ever come across a more worthless entertainer. The eighties brought some prime crap into pop culture.

True Tim. But there were some quality artists that didn't get the recognition that they deserved. Joyce Sims for instance
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_H23...eature=related

you know Ive been around here a long time Ive seen this Madonna bashing thing before..I dont care I worked for Warners I was flown to meet Madonna in Sydney in 1993..I know how many multi platinium awards were on the office walls and who sold what..lets just agree to disagree...

I guess I missed my cue to be impressed.

You can find any anonymous member of a gospel choir who could whisper a song and blow Madonna out of the water. Yet SHE has gold and platinum albums on her wall. No, there is no justice in that whatsoever.

Yep, agree to disagree as I originally suggested.

like I said Ive seen these threads before..you missed the cue to be impressed because I didnt send one..I was stating a fact..what is sour to your ear is a symphony to someone else..and the world is a better place for different views..

Damn straight it is. And because nothing will ever make me forget how worthless this woman is to me, I treasure individual opinions all the more.

Madonna may have become a bit boring in recent years, but I much prefer her to some of the run of the mill gospel singer who wails away without any sort of character.

I think that their Gospel upbringing would prevent them from character-less wailing. And even that is preferable to anything that comes out of Madonna's mouth.

It should have been predicted that this thread would serve as a vehicle for some well overdue Madonna bashing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by timmyfunk

I guess I missed my cue to be impressed.

You can find any anonymous member of a gospel choir who could whisper a song and blow Madonna out of the water. Yet SHE has gold and platinum albums on her wall. No, there is no justice in that whatsoever.

Yep, agree to disagree as I originally suggested.

---

Singing isn't all there is to a hit album, you know. There's the musical production. That's what makes the difference between Madonna getting multi-platinum albums and #1 hits that if a superior singer goes in her place.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by soulster

Singing isn't all there is to a hit album, you know. There's the musical production. That's what makes the difference between Madonna getting multi-platinum albums and #1 hits that if a superior singer goes in her place.

---

I can easily cite someone like Teena Marie, who's albums have showcased superlative musical production throughout her career. She hasn't enjoyed the type of success that Madonna has. In fact, it could be said that Madonna has experienced the level of success that Teena Marie should have had. Singing still represents a huge part of the process.