PDA

View Full Version : Madonna loathes hydrangeas



Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19

Andora
09-09-2011, 06:56 PM
One thing she did that wasn't in character was pulling the original video for 'American Life' back in '03. I've never seen Madonna be afraid of anything controversial, but that time she was. 9/11 changed things.

According to an interview I captioned around the time this happened, she claimed it was family life that changed her. Being a wife to a man whose career could be affected was something she mentioned. I wondered if she was more sensitive to Guy's career after Swept Away. :lol: It was a really interesting interview, seeing how she'd changed. She said she had no regrets, but if she had to make certain decisions now that she did then, she might have treated things like sex a bit less cavalier. That was really :eek: to hear after everything she's done.



I also think dissing Marilyn Monroe as nothing but a pretty face is rather unfair to her. Even the 'pretty face and body' had more to do with how she presented herself than just lucky genes. (She once demonstrated that walking down the street with someone who noted no one was even glanced at them--she asked "Do you want to see Marilyn?" and just made a tiny change in how she carried herself, and suddenly everyone was "OMG IT'S MARILYN MONROE!") She took her acting very seriously, she just ended up getting eaten alive by her persona.


ITA. Also, her singing voice wasn't especially good, but it wasn't terrible. She had that IT. I was obsessed with Marilyn as a teenager. There's a legend who's managed to hit all sorts of ages.

UGG
09-09-2011, 07:10 PM
Well, I did not mean to diss Marlyn as a pretty face. I guess I meant she is more iconic than many women during her time that were "better actresses". Same as Madonna is more iconic than women who are "better singers".

Andora
09-09-2011, 07:36 PM
Well, I did not mean to diss Marlyn as a pretty face. I guess I meant she is more iconic than many women during her time that were "better actresses". Same as Madonna is more iconic than women who are "better singers".

Well, you're right, too. :lol: I guess that's the tragedy of Marilyn Monroe.

allezfred
09-09-2011, 07:49 PM
Have you ever toured Eypt? Tips is expected for practically everything, and sometimes they're not shy to inform you that they're disappointed with what you gave them :lol: Of course I just ignore it and move on.

Haven't been to Egypt and it's not high on my list of priorities, but at least the above is more honest than smiling to someone's face and then going off and bitching about them on an internet forum.

Not that I've ever done anything like that. :shuffle:

jenny12
09-09-2011, 07:53 PM
I don't like hydrangeas either :slinkaway. However, it probably wasn't best for Madonna to say that while it could be heard by others. I think they way she said it was worse than what she actually said.

As far as celebrity tippers, although I've heard varying storied about Charles Barkley, he gave a tip to a busboy so large that the busboy was able to pay his college tuition.

Southpaw
09-09-2011, 07:54 PM
Would Madonna hit big if she'd come out now? Probably, because she's driven and smart-- just like Lady Gaga is. Lady Gaga's doing things Madonna didn't, and it's keeping her relevant in a very over-crowded music scene-- things many artists didn't have to do even as recent as the early 2000s. So what? If you have to re-write history to make someone unimportant, it seems a bit of a stretch.

Who's rewriting history? I brought up what was happening in the 80s and how it was relevant to Madonna and her success. I've been putting her in historical perspective. When MTV broke it was huge. I remember going to junior high one Monday morning in 1981 and everybody was like "holy crap, did you see THAT this weekend???" Nobody did anything that weekend but watch MTV. Everything changed. So yes, the arrival of MTV is definitely relevant to the story of Madonna. It's also very relevant to the story of Michael Jackson. And the story of Bruce Springsteen. And the story of U2. And even the story of Aerosmith because we all lurved that video of "Walk This Way" with RUN-DMC.

The AIDS Crisis is definitely relevant to Madonna. Who were our choices as teenagers to listen to when it came to the idea of safe sex? Nancy Reagan and the Pope. We didn't want to listen to no Nancy Reagan or the Pope. We listened to Madonna. We listened to George Michael. The 80s were a very confusing time for teenagers regarding sexuality. Hormones were bursting, but then everywhere we turned it was "If you do it you're going to die!!!!" When I went to my 20th reunion I had a conversation with some people and we were all like "Man, I'm still paranoid about getting AIDS. They really scarred us with all that talk."

All I'm doing is giving my 41 year-old perspective and analysis as someone who experienced the Madonna phenomena in the 80s as a teenager. And I can tell you that there were a lot of "What is Madonna doing NOW???" moments in the 80s. She thrived on creating controversy. Just wearing rosary beads as jewelry got a lot of people pissed off. She wasn't the only one who thrived on controversy, Sinead O'Connor did it, too, but Madonna was very very successful with it. Why? I don't know. Because her songs were more catchy and fun than Sinead's? Because she didn't go so far as to tear up a photo of the Pope on television? Because she didn't turn into a lesbian priest?


Bringing up Bruce and U2. :lol: Bruce will probably never be who he was around the time of Born To Run, but he's consistently made good music since, and had a very interesting and somewhat provocative album with Devils & Dust in 2005. And U2 is a legendary band because they have continued to make legendary music over the years, switching gears when they had to (Achtung Baby) and pumping out arena hits at worst, like their 2004 album.

The reason why I brought up Bruce and U2 is because they are 80s acts who are still selling out arenas. Madonna's not the only one who can do it. But my question is - are they still selling out arenas because they're still making relevant music, or are they selling out arenas because they still have a very strong fan base who are willing to put up the dollars to see them? Is Phantom of the Opera a groundbreaking musical now, or is it still a darn entertaining 3 hours 25 years later?

UGG
09-09-2011, 08:04 PM
Who's rewriting history? I brought up what was happening in the 80s and how it was relevant to Madonna and her success. I've been putting her in historical perspective. When MTV broke it was huge. I remember going to junior high one Monday morning in 1981 and everybody was like "holy crap, did you see THAT this weekend???" Nobody did anything that weekend but watch MTV. Everything changed. So yes, the arrival of MTV is definitely relevant to the story of Madonna. It's also very relevant to the story of Michael Jackson. And the story of Bruce Springsteen. And the story of U2. And even the story of Aerosmith because we all lurved that video of "Walk This Way" with RUN-DMC.

The AIDS Crisis is definitely relevant to Madonna. Who were our choices as teenagers to listen to when it came to the idea of safe sex? Nancy Reagan and the Pope. We didn't want to listen to no Nancy Reagan or the Pope. We listened to Madonna. We listened to George Michael. The 80s were a very confusing time for teenagers regarding sexuality. Hormones were bursting, but then everywhere we turned it was "If you do it you're going to die!!!!" When I went to my 20th reunion I had a conversation with some people and we were all like "Man, I'm still paranoid about getting AIDS. They really scarred us with all that talk."

All I'm doing is giving my 41 year-old perspective and analysis as someone who experienced the Madonna phenomena in the 80s as a teenager. And I can tell you that there were a lot of "What is Madonna doing NOW???" moments in the 80s. She thrived on creating controversy. Just wearing rosary beads as jewelry got a lot of people pissed off. She wasn't the only one who thrived on controversy, Sinead O'Connor did it, too, but Madonna was very very successful with it. Why? I don't know. Because her songs were more catchy and fun than Sinead's? Because she didn't go so far as to tear up a photo of the Pope on television? Because she didn't turn into a lesbian priest?



The reason why I brought up Bruce and U2 is because they are 80s acts who are still selling out arenas. Madonna's not the only one who can do it. But my question is - are they still selling out arenas because they're still making relevant music, or are they selling out arenas because they still have a very strong fan base who are willing to put up the dollars to see them? Is Phantom of the Opera a groundbreaking musical now, or is it still a darn entertaining 3 hours 25 years later?

Bruce Springsteen does not/has not needed to keep with the trends to stay relevent. What has been his biggest hit since something from the 80's? Has he even had one? If Madonna had not had a hit since "Holiday" I would imagine she would not be selling out arenas and having #1 albums over a 25 year span. So my answer to your question is that she has remained relevent as an artist as opposed to just having a loyal fan base from the 80's buy her stuff. There is no way she would be as popular/iconic as she is if she just played Holiday and Material girl over and over from 1988 until now, in the way that Bruce Springsteen can play born in the USA for three hours and have a huge attendance for his concert.

Southpaw
09-09-2011, 08:27 PM
Bruce Springsteen does not/has not needed to keep with the trends to stay relevent. What has been his biggest hit since something from the 80's? Has he even had one?

Yes! He had "The Rising" in 2002 which was very popular because it was written in response to 9/11.

OK, so Bruce is the new Grateful Dead. I guess it was bound to happen. :lol:

VIETgrlTerifa
09-09-2011, 08:28 PM
Just imagine using the word "coloratura" in ANY way associated with Madonna. Sure, Linda might not have been the perfect opera singer, but is being an opera singer the only criteria for being an artist? I think not. I linked to her "Songs of My Father" as an example of her artistry, to me, and that isn't opera. One could argue that Madonna is an artist, but I put her far down the scale...I think of her as an entertainer, which is a fine thing to be.

The point is that you're using a one standard to judge Madonna's artistry as the be all to end all when Madonna doesn't quite fit into the same mold as Linda Ronstadt (the same way some Broadway/opera fans were judging Ronstadt's singing). Nobody ever claimed Madonna had pipes or natural singing prowess. Madonna's art is in her performance (live and through video), music production, and bringing social contexts into her music (for better or worse). You can't apply the same standards all the time. It's like a critique judging New Orleans jazz with all its improvisation through European classical standards. It doesn't fit. You may not like it (and I know pop music fans who don't like Madonna), but you can't truly argue Madonna's merit in pop/dance music using singing ability alone.

Regarding Michael Crawford, I understand all of that was needed because of the big-scale production of Phantom and things got in the way that prevented him from singing without the assistance of vocal technology, but that doesn't stop Broadway purists from ridiculing him to this very day (and even with that in mind, I've still heard critics/fans still unimpressed with his singing).

Andora
09-09-2011, 08:37 PM
Who's rewriting history? I brought up what was happening in the 80s and how it was relevant to Madonna and her success. I've been putting her in historical perspective.



I forgot, that's never been done in reference to Madonna. Ever. Certainly not in plenty of biography shows on each and every music channel. :lol:



When MTV broke it was huge. I remember going to junior high one Monday morning in 1981 and everybody was like "holy crap, did you see THAT this weekend???" Nobody did anything that weekend but watch MTV. Everything changed. So yes, the arrival of MTV is definitely relevant to the story of Madonna. It's also very relevant to the story of Michael Jackson. And the story of Bruce Springsteen. And the story of U2. And even the story of Aerosmith because we all lurved that video of "Walk This Way" with RUN-DMC.



Yes, the arrival is relevant to the discussion. I'm not sure I disagreed with that. :confused: But it's not as if their work stopped there.

Aerosmith are also kings at reinvention without getting much credit for it. Maybe because their third wave in the late '80s and '90s had songs written by Diane Warren. But they continued to produce hits, considering Don't Wanna Miss A Thing was a big song at my prom.

Also, can we stop comparing Madonna to Linda Ronstadt? Cyndi Lauper was a better one. Maybe Linda could be compared to Barbara Streisand?



All I'm doing is giving my 41 year-old perspective and analysis as someone who experienced the Madonna phenomena in the 80s as a teenager. And I can tell you that there were a lot of "What is Madonna doing NOW???" moments in the 80s. She thrived on creating controversy. Just wearing rosary beads as jewelry got a lot of people pissed off. She wasn't the only one who thrived on controversy, Sinead O'Connor did it, too, but Madonna was very very successful with it. Why? I don't know. Because her songs were more catchy and fun than Sinead's? Because she didn't go so far as to tear up a photo of the Pope on television? Because she didn't turn into a lesbian priest?



Madonna was very good at walking that line where she didn't go SO far, and when she didn't she paid for it. But the "what is Madonna doing NOW" business was backed up with good music. Her sex appeal wasn't bigger than her music, unlike Britney of today, or Kylie Minogue then. (Though I loved her comeback in the late '90s)



The reason why I brought up Bruce and U2 is because they are 80s acts who are still selling out arenas. Madonna's not the only one who can do it. But my question is - are they still selling out arenas because they're still making relevant music, or are they selling out arenas because they still have a very strong fan base who are willing to put up the dollars to see them? Is Phantom of the Opera a groundbreaking musical now, or is it still a darn entertaining 3 hours 25 years later?

Madonna and U2 continued to make relevant, current music. They also offer a good show, still, vs. just coming out and playing their sentimental hits. Now, the Rolling Stones sold out tours for years based on an old playlist. So, sure, maybe some groups sell for that reason, but not all of them do. Madonna doesn't. U2 doesn't. I bet Bon Jovi doesn't, either.

Duran Duran haven't been interesting since they tried to make themselves happen again with Electric Barberella. :P I feel like you're just pushing everyone into a "was big in the '80s, the end" category. Some careers exist purely due to nostalgia, but some have continued on with success for more than that.

Vagabond
09-09-2011, 08:39 PM
Who were our choices as teenagers to listen to when it came to the idea of safe sex? Nancy Reagan and the Pope.

Was that some sort of holdover pop group from the 1970's like The Captain and Tenille or Tony Orlando and Dawn? :confused:

Southpaw
09-09-2011, 08:42 PM
Was that some sort of holdover pop group from the 1970's like The Captain and Tenille or Tony Orlando and Dawn? :confused:

:rofl: Now there's a band I would pay to see! The Pope on lead vocals and Nancy on guitar.

MacMadame
09-09-2011, 09:40 PM
Federal minimum wage does exist, and at times states have their own minimum wage standards that go above that. However, waitstaff are paid less than minimum wage because they get most of their earnings through tips.
It depends on the state. In California, waitstaff do get minimum wage so tips are over and above that.


Yes! He had "The Rising" in 2002 which was very popular because it was written in response to 9/11.

I never heard of it. Or maybe I heard it once and my response was :rolleyes: Anyway, I don't think a one-off song that was riding the coattails of 9/11 counts at proof that Springsteen is still making new music that is relevant and popular today.

taf2002
09-09-2011, 09:43 PM
Yeah, this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vWz9VN40nCA&ob=av3e) is how a girl gets ripped. :cool:

I've heard that song hundreds of times but strangely, I've never seen that video before. It was pretty stupid.


Not only that, but it's not as music was made up of entirely homely-looking people pre-MTV either. A lot of artists used their looks and sex appeal in order to sell records way before MTV.

Very true. Even at the time I recognized that Fabrian didn't have much of a voice but I thought he was awfully cute & didn't care. (Of course, now I cringe at the thought.)


8. Celebrity has its own price. I once heard an interview with Tom Hanks in which he said that he had been pretty much required to accept a limousine ride of about a mile to go from his home to some awards ceremony. (It may have been the Oscars, but I'm not sure.) He said that he expected to give the driver a $20 tip, but the driver expected $100.

I think $100 for a 1 mile limo ride is excessive. Last time we used a limo for about 5 hrs the bill was under $400. We gave the driver $100 because we took up his whole evening. I would have never done that for a 5min trip.

I don't understand people who are chinzy on big bills, esp if they tie up one or more waitstaff for the evening. And restaurant policy that doesn't add an appropriate tip on big bills is crazy.

mkats
09-10-2011, 01:41 AM
I love that this thread now has three separate discussions going - 80's music, hydrangeas, and tipping. :rofl:

And I love hydrangeas. Particularly PURPLE ones.