Laveaux Posted October 4, 2011 Share Posted October 4, 2011 Because we're always winning? I would be mad too. Madonna certainly is. you would be the one to respond. so predictable boo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThatOtherFan Posted October 4, 2011 Share Posted October 4, 2011 you would be the one to respond. so predictable boo. Yep, I am... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laveaux Posted October 4, 2011 Share Posted October 4, 2011 Yep, I am... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThatOtherFan Posted October 4, 2011 Share Posted October 4, 2011 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reyna ♔ Posted October 4, 2011 Share Posted October 4, 2011 And when debating the differences between the two, you're operating with bias because you clearly don't like Madonna. As I said, I've been lucky enough to attend both a Michael Jackson and a Madonna concert, and let me tell you the highlight of Madonna's show was just her and a guitar singing 'You Must Love Me'. Judging by the crowd that night, a lot of people felt that was their highlight too. I could've listened to that for hours, and millions more would also. Dayz was quite right to compare MJ and Madonna because they are the king and queen, respectively. And yes, I guess we could call her songs "hits". I mean, Billboard does. I'm actually indifferent when it comes to the chick. It's her stans that gets on my nerves. She doesn't hit a nerve until she discusses Mike or Jan, and that hasn't happened for a while. Now for your highlight, how many honestly would say the same thing? If you're right, entirely, then I don't mind at all accepting it. But the fact of the matter is, all of Michael's shows consist of low pyrotechnics and HIGH raw talent. Neglecting This Is It. And he sold out the shows like madness. Could you really say that Madonna could have done the same thing if all of her tours would be based on her alone and not the flash? Maybe for a portion of the show, but people would hardly attend her tours if the flash wasn't there. To each his own Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bu. Posted October 4, 2011 Share Posted October 4, 2011 I'mma go on record and say I really really do not like Madonna (bar the odd 5 songs). I think she cannot sing whatsoever and that her yoga/pilates moves do not equate to dancing. However I'm not going to kid myself in saying she hasn't ate up, spat out and then shat on a lot of the industry tour wise. She is in the history books and we will have to deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TwistedElegance™ Posted October 4, 2011 Share Posted October 4, 2011 I'm actually indifferent when it comes to the chick. It's her stans that gets on my nerves. She doesn't hit a nerve until she discusses Mike or Jan, and that hasn't happened for a while. Now for your highlight, how many honestly would say the same thing? If you're right, entirely, then I don't mind at all accepting it. But the fact of the matter is, all of Michael's shows consist of low pyrotechnics and HIGH raw talent. Neglecting This Is It. And he sold out the shows like madness. Could you really say that Madonna could have done the same thing if all of her tours would be based on her alone and not the flash? Maybe for a portion of the show, but people would hardly attend her tours if the flash wasn't there. To each his own Well it certainly doesn't read as indifferent, it reads as dismissive. It's understandable that her stans would get on your nerves because they get on mine too, but this isn't about them. I can't give you an exact number of how many would say YMLM was their highlight, but like I said, judging by the crowd that night it was a real showstopping moment (ask Roc, he was there too). It's so played out and a bit of a pass to say that Madonna can't sing or that she has to rely on the "flash". In actuality it's just a ridiculous statement and it clearly shows that the person simply doesn't know her work. It's also worth noting that Madonna releases the majority of her tours on CD, not just DVD. Think about that. All of Michael's shows consisted of low pyrotechnics? Really? Exactly which concert were you watching when he exited the stage via a fucking jet pack? Not to mention the fireworks, cranes and wind machines which were staples of his live shows. He was very much about props but could easily wow a crowd without them. The exact same applies to Madonna. I'm living proof of that. And Michael's tours were never based on him alone, so why should Madonna's be? No, hits are hits, regardless of opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Escapade Posted October 4, 2011 Share Posted October 4, 2011 The purpose of singing live is to entertain with your voice. There's no point in singing live if you sound like shit. So you lose there Dayz. Sorry. And some people do prefer RWUTour over TVRTour. So you lose again there, too. And when debating the differences between the two, you're operating with bias because you clearly don't like Madonna. As I said, I've been lucky enough to attend both a Michael Jackson and a Madonna concert, and let me tell you the highlight of Madonna's show was just her and a guitar singing 'You Must Love Me'. Judging by the crowd that night, a lot of people felt that was their highlight too. I could've listened to that for hours, and millions more would also. Dayz was quite right to compare MJ and Madonna because they are the king and queen, respectively. And yes, I guess we could call her songs "hits". I mean, Billboard does. :lmao: You guys are killing me! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reyna ♔ Posted October 4, 2011 Share Posted October 4, 2011 Well it certainly doesn't read as indifferent, it reads as dismissive. It's understandable that her stans would get on your nerves because they get on mine too, but this isn't about them. I can't give you an exact number of how many would say YMLM was their highlight, but like I said, judging by the crowd that night it was a real showstopping moment (ask Roc, he was there too). It's so played out and a bit of a pass to say that Madonna can't sing or that she has to rely on the "flash". In actuality it's just a ridiculous statement and it clearly shows that the person simply doesn't know her work. It's also worth noting that Madonna releases the majority of her tours on CD, not just DVD. Think about that. All of Michael's shows consisted of low pyrotechnics? Really? Exactly which concert were you watching when he exited the stage via a fucking jet pack? Not to mention the fireworks, cranes and wind machines which were staples of his live shows. He was very much about props but could easily wow a crowd without them. The exact same applies to Madonna. I'm living proof of that. And Michael's tours were never based on him alone, so why should Madonna's be? No, hits are hits, regardless of opinion. It doesn't read that way, now, because some irritation and my high favor of Michael. Even some artists I like can hit some heat from me, perspectively, just because of how strongly I feel about him. It was possibly show stopping as a break from all the craziness in most minds there. It was a decent bridge for them into the next set. My opinion that I don't feel she can sing doesn't matter here. My brother said that. My statement is that majority of the time when someone goes on and on about a Madonna show, they always stan for the flash. The very few moments it's just her and the band get totally overshadowed. You could see that in the thread with Switch's post. Flash. It's her trademark. Without it, it's safe to say save a few, her tours would be lax. Period. And compared to the DVD sales, how do her CDs sale? Releasing CDs is just another way to broaden her merchandise, I wanna know the ratio. Majority. And if you look, the fireworks were for a few songs, the crane/cherry picker was for Beat It and Earth Song only and the wind machines...really? That's high tech? Really? Going back to the jet pack, it was at the end of the show during thw Dangerous tour. You act like it was for the whole thing Michael had some techs but it NEVER overshadowed him, which is what he wanted. This Is It was the climax of a build from Bad to then. Most of Michael's shows highlighted him and him only. Madonna's weren't. Okay Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TwistedElegance™ Posted October 4, 2011 Share Posted October 4, 2011 It doesn't read that way, now, because some irritation and my high favor of Michael. Even some artists I like can hit some heat from me, perspectively, just because of how strongly I feel about him. It was possibly show stopping as a break from all the craziness in most minds there. It was a decent bridge for them into the next set. My opinion that I don't feel she can sing doesn't matter here. My brother said that. My statement is that majority of the time when someone goes on and on about a Madonna show, they always stan for the flash. The very few moments it's just her and the band get totally overshadowed. You could see that in the thread with Switch's post. Flash. It's her trademark. Without it, it's safe to say save a few, her tours would be lax. Period. And compared to the DVD sales, how do her CDs sale? Releasing CDs is just another way to broaden her merchandise, I wanna know the ratio. Majority. And if you look, the fireworks were for a few songs, the crane/cherry picker was for Beat It and Earth Song only and the wind machines...really? That's high tech? Really? Going back to the jet pack, it was at the end of the show during thw Dangerous tour. You act like it was for the whole thing Michael had some techs but it NEVER overshadowed him, which is what he wanted. This Is It was the climax of a build from Bad to then. Most of Michael's shows highlighted him and him only. Madonna's weren't. Okay Yes, it does. You're hard pressed to even call her hits "hits". That's dismissive and biased. Plain as day. How are you going to tell me that it wasn't showstopping - were you there? No. See, you want to throw up all these detractors for Madonna's shows but you quite simply don't know what you're talking about. I don't want that to sound snobbish or rude, but it's pretty obvious. And your opinion of her voice does indeed matter because if you're pushing for the "flash" and props to be taken away then we're not left with much else BUT her voice - of which I'm telling you holds up in concert. Like Roc said earlier, Madonna uses the accessories to lead you through her show. She doesn't rely on them to be her show. Her CDs are packaged with the DVD. My point isn't sales, it's quality. If her tours were only as good as her budget then time and money wouldn't be wasted manufacturing a soundtrack time after time. It's because people want to keep them. You said "all". What do you mean "if I look"? I was there. I didn't say the wind machines were high tech; I was talking props as a whole. And here again, you're breaking down Michael's accessorising into select songs and moments in his shows to justify your point. Do you think Madonna rides on the hood of a Rolls Royce for her entire show? It's further proof that you don't know enough about her tours for yourself. If you don't wanna know her or her work that's fine, we like who we like, but if you want to pick apart her tours based on secondhand opinions I'm afraid I see right through it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Wonder Posted October 4, 2011 Share Posted October 4, 2011 Ultimately, you all are just comparing apricots and peaches (apples and oranges is so cliche). Michael and Madonna both have separate means of putting on a tour. Michael is more of person-focused, if you will, type of person on tour. Contrastingly, Madonna is more of a spectacle-focused type of person on tour. Madonna uses a bevy of props on in her shows to take you through a journey. All of those props are done on a large scale, and are there to keep the attention of the audience. Her visuals are her strong points regardless of whether or not they actually have a purpose. But let's be honest, not all those props even correlate with the song, and serve no purpose on the stage at all. All those props are to mask the fact that she has the stage presence of a debit card, and can easily get lost in all the commotion that's going on on stage. With Michael, Michael has more mediums for his tours. Michael can take a song and make a dance routine out of it that mirrors the message of the song; that is he can tell a story through dancing alone. Michael can even put on an actual performance on stage ("Beat It" from the Dangerous Tour immediately comes to mind). His singing is superior to Madonna's, even if he is lipping. Madonna on her best day isn't as good as Michael's humming. But if you only gave Michael and Madonna a microphone and 8 dancers, 'tis clear who would put on the better show. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reyna ♔ Posted October 4, 2011 Share Posted October 4, 2011 Yes, it does. You're hard pressed to even call her hits "hits". That's dismissive and biased. Plain as day. How are you going to tell me that it wasn't showstopping - were you there? No. See, you want to throw up all these detractors for Madonna's shows but you quite simply don't know what you're talking about. I don't want that to sound snobbish or rude, but it's pretty obvious. And your opinion of her voice does indeed matter because if you're pushing for the "flash" and props to be taken away then we're not left with much else BUT her voice - of which I'm telling you holds up in concert. Like Roc said earlier, Madonna uses the accessories to lead you through her show. She doesn't rely on them to be her show. Her CDs are packaged with the DVD. My point isn't sales, it's quality. If her tours were only as good as her budget then time and money wouldn't be wasted manufacturing a soundtrack time after time. It's because people want to keep them. You said "all". What do you mean "if I look"? I was there. I didn't say the wind machines were high tech; I was talking props as a whole. And here again, you're breaking down Michael's accessorising into select songs and moments in his shows to justify your point. Do you think Madonna rides on the hood of a Rolls Royce for her entire show? It's further proof that you don't know enough about her tours for yourself. If you don't wanna know her or her work that's fine, we like who we like, but if you want to pick apart her tours based on secondhand opinions I'm afraid I see right through it. I say we just agree to disagree because neither of us are going to give on this. We both feel stronglt on the subject, but it is useless to debate to a dead end. My point from the start is exactly what Austin said just now. But you disagree. So let's just end it there. End the tension. Cool? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TwistedElegance™ Posted October 4, 2011 Share Posted October 4, 2011 Ultimately, you all are just comparing apricots and peaches (apples and oranges is so cliche). Michael and Madonna both have separate means of putting on a tour. Michael is more of person-focused, if you will, type of person on tour. Contrastingly, Madonna is more of a spectacle-focused type of person on tour. Madonna uses a bevy of props on in her shows to take you through a journey. All of those props are done on a large scale, and are there to keep the attention of the audience. Her visuals are her strong points regardless of whether or not they actually have a purpose. But let's be honest, not all those props even correlate with the song, and serve no purpose on the stage at all. All those props are to mask the fact that she has the stage presence of a debit card, and can easily get lost in all the commotion that's going on on stage. With Michael, Michael has more mediums for his tours. Michael can take a song and make a dance routine out of it that mirrors the message of the song; that is he can tell a story through dancing alone. Michael can even put on an actual performance on stage ("Beat It" from the Dangerous Tour immediately comes to mind). His singing is superior to Madonna's, even if he is lipping. Madonna on her best day isn't as good as Michael's humming. But if you only gave Michael and Madonna a microphone and 8 dancers, 'tis clear who would put on the better show. That's not a reason not to compare them. Dayz asked who appealed to us more. I'd say they were neck-and-neck when it came to spectacle-focused productions. And unless you consider maraccas and a skipping rope large scale props then it's probably safe to say you haven't had much to do with Madonna as a touring artist either. Not all of her props swallow the stage. She isn't Gaga. And we aren't arguing talent, we're arguing tours. So you can take that microphone and those 8 dancers and shove them up your ass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
janetDAYZ Posted October 4, 2011 Author Share Posted October 4, 2011 When did you start liking that hooker? I've always appreciated and respected Madonna. I've told you that. I like Michael more but Im not biased. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThatOtherFan Posted October 4, 2011 Share Posted October 4, 2011 Ultimately, you all are just comparing apricots and peaches (apples and oranges is so cliche). Michael and Madonna both have separate means of putting on a tour. Michael is more of person-focused, if you will, type of person on tour. Contrastingly, Madonna is more of a spectacle-focused type of person on tour. Madonna uses a bevy of props on in her shows to take you through a journey. All of those props are done on a large scale, and are there to keep the attention of the audience. Her visuals are her strong points regardless of whether or not they actually have a purpose. But let's be honest, not all those props even correlate with the song, and serve no purpose on the stage at all. All those props are to mask the fact that she has the stage presence of a debit card, and can easily get lost in all the commotion that's going on on stage. With Michael, Michael has more mediums for his tours. Michael can take a song and make a dance routine out of it that mirrors the message of the song; that is he can tell a story through dancing alone. Michael can even put on an actual performance on stage ("Beat It" from the Dangerous Tour immediately comes to mind). His singing is superior to Madonna's, even if he is lipping. Madonna on her best day isn't as good as Michael's humming. But if you only gave Michael and Madonna a microphone and 8 dancers, 'tis clear who would put on the better show. :clapping: :clapping: I say we just agree to disagree because neither of us are going to give on this. We both feel stronglt on the subject, but it is useless to debate to a dead end. My point from the start is exactly what Austin said just now. But you disagree. So let's just end it there. End the tension. Cool? No, I'm not ending the tension because they're mad! lol Madonna puts on a spectacle based show because she is dependent upon it. She can't sing. She can barely dance. Mike is the most successful solo touring act, and Madonna will always be #2 (or #3 if we add Janet to the mix) and they will simply have to deal with this. I refuse to let up, and I'm keeping my foot on their neck! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TwistedElegance™ Posted October 4, 2011 Share Posted October 4, 2011 I say we just agree to disagree because neither of us are going to give on this. We both feel stronglt on the subject, but it is useless to debate to a dead end. My point from the start is exactly what Austin said just now. But you disagree. So let's just end it there. End the tension. Cool? Okay, agree to disagree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Wonder Posted October 4, 2011 Share Posted October 4, 2011 That's not a reason not to compare them. I didn't say it wasn't. I'd say they were neck-and-neck when it came to spectacle-focused productions. Grand. And unless you consider maraccas and a skipping rope large scale props then it's probably safe to say you haven't had much to do with Madonna as a touring artist either. Please. Not all of her props swallow the stage. She isn't Gaga. Spare me. And we aren't arguing talent, we're arguing tours. I'm aware. So you can take that microphone and those 8 dancers and shove them up your ass. Don't use me to get your rocks off. Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TwistedElegance™ Posted October 4, 2011 Share Posted October 4, 2011 No, I'm not ending the tension because they're mad! lol Madonna puts on a spectacle based show because she is dependent upon it. She can't sing. She can barely dance. Mike is the most successful solo touring act, and Madonna will always be #2 (or #3 if we add Janet to the mix) and they will simply have to deal with this. I refuse to let up, and I'm keeping my foot on their neck! [hotboy]Oh OK.[/hotboy] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reyna ♔ Posted October 4, 2011 Share Posted October 4, 2011 No, I'm not ending the tension because they're mad! lol Madonna puts on a spectacle based show because she is dependent upon it. She can't sing. She can barely dance. Mike is the most successful solo touring act, and Madonna will always be #2 (or #3 if we add Janet to the mix) and they will simply have to deal with this. I refuse to let up, I'm keeping my foot on their neck! Bro, we all know this, but is there a point in the constant debating? It isn't really up for debate because Michael will continue to moonwalk that hoe regardless of what any of her people want to say. Agree to disagree, let her fans feel what they want and be done with it. We have the crown and the stats. What more is there? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bu. Posted October 4, 2011 Share Posted October 4, 2011 Ultimately, you all are just comparing apricots and peaches (apples and oranges is so cliche). Michael and Madonna both have separate means of putting on a tour. Michael is more of person-focused, if you will, type of person on tour. Contrastingly, Madonna is more of a spectacle-focused type of person on tour. Madonna uses a bevy of props on in her shows to take you through a journey. All of those props are done on a large scale, and are there to keep the attention of the audience. Her visuals are her strong points regardless of whether or not they actually have a purpose. But let's be honest, not all those props even correlate with the song, and serve no purpose on the stage at all. All those props are to mask the fact that she has the stage presence of a debit card, and can easily get lost in all the commotion that's going on on stage. With Michael, Michael has more mediums for his tours. Michael can take a song and make a dance routine out of it that mirrors the message of the song; that is he can tell a story through dancing alone. Michael can even put on an actual performance on stage ("Beat It" from the Dangerous Tour immediately comes to mind). His singing is superior to Madonna's, even if he is lipping. Madonna on her best day isn't as good as Michael's humming. But if you only gave Michael and Madonna a microphone and 8 dancers, 'tis clear who would put on the better show. That would imply both are amazing... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TwistedElegance™ Posted October 4, 2011 Share Posted October 4, 2011 I didn't say it wasn't. Grand. Please. Spare me. I'm aware. Don't use me to get your rocks off. Thanks. You compared it to peaches and apricots. What else could you be saying? Hardly. Watch her tours. Or you could just address it. Then you'll also be aware your point was irrelevant. Don't nobody want ya. Don't nobody need ya. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThatOtherFan Posted October 4, 2011 Share Posted October 4, 2011 [hotboy]Oh OK.[/hotboy] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Wonder Posted October 4, 2011 Share Posted October 4, 2011 That would imply both are amazing... They are. But one is liked a bit more than the other. You compared it to peaches and apricots. What else could you be saying? It was a joke. Hardly. . Watch her tours. I've seen 80% of Who's That Girl, Blond Ambition, Drowned, Confessions, and Stick & Sweet. Or you could just address it. Which I did. Then you'll also be aware your point was irrelevant. A point that sailed over your head like a boat on the 7 seas. Don't nobody want ya. Don't nobody need ya. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xt-f86-tD3A Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThatOtherFan Posted October 4, 2011 Share Posted October 4, 2011 Bro, we all know this, but is there a point in the constant debating? It isn't really up for debate because Michael will continue to moonwalk that hoe regardless of what any of her people want to say. Agree to disagree, let her fans feel what they want and be done with it. We have the crown and the stats. What more is there? Nope, I'm just making sure her stans know Madonna's place is beneath Mike and Janet and that they continue to deal with this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TwistedElegance™ Posted October 4, 2011 Share Posted October 4, 2011 Yay. Another pic war. *pass* It was a joke. . I've seen 80% of Who's That Girl, Blond Ambition, Drowned, Confessions, and Stick & Sweet. Which I did. A point that sailed over your head like a boat on the 7 seas. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xt-f86-tD3A Hilarious. I don't believe you. Clearly. Who do you think you're talking to? JoeJoe? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.