Pretender1978

Never been such a fan of Music live, for me it doesn't really work, but there's no need to stop doing it live. However, obviously she needs to retire Candy Shop, it's number 10 of her most performed songs, it makes no sense at all (unless ofcourse, unless there is a backwards subliminal message about global domination and/or devil worship hidden in it's lyrics)

Never been such a fan of Music live, for me it doesn't really work, but there's no need to stop doing it live. However, obviously she needs to retire Candy Shop, it's number 10 of her most performed songs, it makes no sense at all (unless ofcourse, unless there is a backwards subliminal message about global domination and/or devil worship hidden in it's lyrics)

yes to all of the above, but also fighting sports are a good metaphor for bdsm, where you can be brutal and hurt each other but in a safe enviroment where there's rules etc. I was always mesmerised by the boxers but maybe just because at the time I crushed on Luca ;-)

Ideal wishlist:

Wash All Over Me
- Either the piano ballad or even the dramatic album version.

Skin
- This is just screaming for an amazing performance.

Frozen
- I know she's done it but hearing it live, it's majestic and beautiful.

Bad Girl
- If she manages to remember the words, she shot it down on RHT because she couldn't remember it.

Nothing Really Matters

Physical Attraction
- The singalong on MDNA was perfect and she clearly remembers it.

Causing a Commotion
- With Who's That Girl being wheeled out after thirty years, this one is long overdue for a reinvention.

Rescue Me
- This is the ultimate song I'd love to see her perform. Wish she had done it on Girlie before the Evita training though.

This is beautiful 

You know what, I think I'm over it.
Over a year ago I was dying to see the broadcast version of this tour, hoping it would captivate what was in my opinion one of her most heartfelt and joyous concerts. To me the showtime version does not bring back that feeling at all. So wether they add the LDLHA bit, reinstall Lucky Star where it needs to be, exclude the unfitting cut to Detroit, realise why Edith Head wore shades all of the time (in b/w black on black on black doesn't translate into 50 shades of grey, just black) or see that the gimmick of showing aaaaaaalll unapologetic bitches is just that, a gimmick, and one that already tires you the first time you're watching it, it still isn't going to bring to life the experience that was RHT. I loved this tour, having seen almost every tour since the BA, this is one of my favorites and I'll cherish the memory of it, not so much the broadcast. neXt

You know what, I think I'm over it.
Over a year ago I was dying to see the broadcast version of this tour, hoping it would captivate what was in my opinion one of her most heartfelt and joyous concerts. To me the showtime version does not bring back that feeling at all. So wether they add the LDLHA bit, reinstall Lucky Star where it needs to be, exclude the unfitting cut to Detroit, realise why Edith Head wore shades all of the time (in b/w black on black on black doesn't translate into 50 shades of grey, just black) or see that the gimmick of showing aaaaaaalll unapologetic bitches is just that, a gimmick, and one that already tires you the first time you're watching it, it still isn't going to bring to life the experience that was RHT. I loved this tour, having seen almost every tour since the BA, this is one of my favorites and I'll cherish the memory of it, not so much the broadcast. neXt

You know what, I think I'm over it.
Over a year ago I was dying to see the broadcast version of this tour, hoping it would captivate what was in my opinion one of her most heartfelt and joyous concerts. To me the showtime version does not bring back that feeling at all. So wether they add the LDLHA bit, reinstall Lucky Star where it needs to be, exclude the unfitting cut to Detroit, realise why Edith Head wore shades all of the time (in b/w black on black on black doesn't translate into 50 shades of grey, just black) or see that the gimmick of showing aaaaaaalll unapologetic bitches is just that, a gimmick, and one that already tires you the first time you're watching it, it still isn't going to bring to life the experience that was RHT. I loved this tour, having seen almost every tour since the BA, this is one of my favorites and I'll cherish the memory of it, not so much the broadcast. neXt

You know what, I think I'm over it.
Over a year ago I was dying to see the broadcast version of this tour, hoping it would captivate what was in my opinion one of her most heartfelt and joyous concerts. To me the showtime version does not bring back that feeling at all. So wether they add the LDLHA bit, reinstall Lucky Star where it needs to be, exclude the unfitting cut to Detroit, realise why Edith Head wore shades all of the time (in b/w black on black on black doesn't translate into 50 shades of grey, just black) or see that the gimmick of showing aaaaaaalll unapologetic bitches is just that, a gimmick, and one that already tires you the first time you're watching it, it still isn't going to bring to life the experience that was RHT. I loved this tour, having seen almost every tour since the BA, this is one of my favorites and I'll cherish the memory of it, not so much the broadcast. neXt

Never been such a fan of Music live, for me it doesn't really work, but there's no need to stop doing it live. However, obviously she needs to retire Candy Shop, it's number 10 of her most performed songs, it makes no sense at all (unless ofcourse, unless there is a backwards subliminal message about global domination and/or devil worship hidden in it's lyrics)

Never been such a fan of Music live, for me it doesn't really work, but there's no need to stop doing it live. However, obviously she needs to retire Candy Shop, it's number 10 of her most performed songs, it makes no sense at all (unless ofcourse, unless there is a backwards subliminal message about global domination and/or devil worship hidden in it's lyrics)

luckely the releases are clear on this subject, I've neen in agony over spanish eyes vs pray for spanish eyes for years! ;-)

He's talking about that cover:  But his instragam is private, so I think that's why wasn't embeded.
 

 
 
 
There is a bunch of people tagging M with this image at instagram: Hopefully she see it and do something...    

I do miss both DYU and WTG, but I can see how all the other songs are superiour, so no swap is needed.
Apart from the unfortunate inclusions of the remixes of LAP and EY (the single edits are way way better) there is ONE HUGE FLAW with the IC that I still can't get over (almost 30 years later lol) and that is the horrible remix of ITG, sure the intro is dramatic and fierce, the mix is ok, but Shape ommitted the middle 8 not once but twice! the song lasts longer than it's original version so there really is no reason why it's not there other than that they really loved this super bland piano solo instead of "live out your fantasy here with me..." it is what makes the song great!
Same thing is done to Borderline and Lucky star, though with less dramatic outcome, but they both miss their defining adlips near the end, again they are there in the original single edits, so they're not cut because of time constraints, and therefor unforgivable haha!

And Warner meant to release it as the fourth single, but Madonna opted for 'Human Nature', and very rightfully so. I can't imagine what an even bigger disaster it would have been.

I do miss both DYU and WTG, but I can see how all the other songs are superiour, so no swap is needed.
Apart from the unfortunate inclusions of the remixes of LAP and EY (the single edits are way way better) there is ONE HUGE FLAW with the IC that I still can't get over (almost 30 years later lol) and that is the horrible remix of ITG, sure the intro is dramatic and fierce, the mix is ok, but Shape ommitted the middle 8 not once but twice! the song lasts longer than it's original version so there really is no reason why it's not there other than that they really loved this super bland piano solo instead of "live out your fantasy here with me..." it is what makes the song great!
Same thing is done to Borderline and Lucky star, though with less dramatic outcome, but they both miss their defining adlips near the end, again they are there in the original single edits, so they're not cut because of time constraints, and therefor unforgivable haha!

Don't stop anybody? I mean "sing ladedadee" c'mon
keep moving keep grooving

Sure, the whole dialogue can be included on dvd n. 2 ;-) there's plenty of room for an extended detroit segment, just not it in the middle of the show <3

Exactly my thoughts after having seen the video. In fact I even speculated there would be a new song released the following day with one of the instrumentals used. For the rest: Would love that too! :-)

I actually like some of the instrumentation on the her-story vid, it's all done by the same guy, David Chalmin. I would be curious if she'd work with him and include both the classical influences and crisp electronics used in the video.
In any case I'd like her music to be a bit more conceptual, like american life was acoustic guitars with beats, I'd like it if she'd use piano, cello and accordion in combination with dark electronics, and find variations on that theme, ranging from very classical to very cutting edge.
Also I would love for her to work with Johan Johansson for arrangements, I gues I'm just kind of ready for an album of more longlasting music aka LAP ROL and yes, AL
oh, and no to trapp ;-)

No politics? In this day and age? Come on... As an artist, there is almost a duty to be political with all the shit that's happening. she's not a Walt Disney character.

probably falling free, it's devestating

Nobody normal is offended by her comments. It is either:
 
a) Crazy right wingers who will take ANY excuse to attack left wing views and are jumping on the social media bandwagon.
 
b) Insecure fans who need the whole world to approve of everything their "idol" says and does.
 
There are of course sane people out there who think "Maybe she shouldn't have said that" or that her swearing is vulgar but they're not going on and on about saying she should be arrested or that she's "gone too far" and all kinds of bs.
 
Madonna isn't going to back down. She gets ATTACKED all the time in the social media era. What it actually means it's that she's making an impact which is what she wants. It's business as usual.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/742038099228946/permalink/1171243496308402/
 
Let’s Avoid Fake Outrage over Madonna's Violent White House Fantasy
http://reason.com/archives/2017/01/23/lets-avoid-the-fake-outrage-over-madonna
 
MENU
Let’s Avoid Fake Outrage over Madonna's Violent White House Fantasy
Safe spaces for me, but not for thee.
Brendan O'Neill | January 23, 2017
MadonnaFor proof that the snowflake tendency runs as deeply among Trumpites as it does among campus censors, look no further than the Madonna controversy.
 
Yes, the dowager duchess of pop, the 58-year-old who sings about being a "girl gone wild," has let her mouth land her in hot water again. Her speechcrime this time? To admit in public that she fantasized about blowing up the White House after Trump won it.
 
In an otherwise typically Madonna speech at the Women's March in Washington, D.C. — all "fuck you"s and "look-at-me"s — she said she had "thought an awful lot about blowing up the White House." She thought better of it, though, and decided it would be more effective to challenge Trump with a "revolution of love" and through her music. Ick. Maybe the blowing-up wouldn't have been so bad after all.
 
 
The outrage was instant and predictable. The right-wing bits of Twitter went into meltdown. This was incitement to violence, they said. Breitbart got stuck in, whipping its readers into a Twitter-frenzy with reports on Madonna's "profanity-laced speech" and claims that her violent remarks are going to be investigated by the Secret Service (it's not clear whether this is true.)
 
Then came the talking heads. Brit blowhard Piers Morgan charged Madonna with going beyond mere "rudeness" and instead saying something "incredibly offensive"—to which we might wonder what's wrong with being incredibly offensive. He accused her of "fueling an idea" to "assassinate" Trump. "Publicly threatening to blow up the White House is a serious criminal offence", he said, and "Madonna should be arrested."
 
Newt Gingrich was up next. He told Fox & Friends that Madonna is part of "an emerging left-wing fascism"—get a grip, Newt—and "she ought to be arrested." The inevitable petition wasn't far behind. There's always someone who wants to Change.org out of existence an idea or image they find offensive. So far 6,500 people have signed the petition calling on the Department of Justice to "Arrest Madonna for Making Threats Against the White House."
 
Here's the thing that these pearl-clutching wailers and tweeters, these right-leaning Safe Spacers don't seem to understand: Madonna made no threat to blow up the White House. Nor did she incite anyone else to. She merely talked about a fantasy she had had.
 
She "thought an awful lot" about blowing up the White House. She thought it. To arrest her for this would be to arrest her for committing a thoughtcrime, for imagining something. It would be as mad as arresting her for her murder of that bloke in the movie Body of Evidence, which she also didn't really do—that, too, was a fantasy, an image.
 
What next? Arrest film directors who have used CGI to depict the White House being destroyed? Feel the collar of anyone who's written fiction about the killing of a president? After all, those fantasies might also trigger some hothead to do something he shouldn't. Maybe all stories and dreams and thoughts of doing harm to politicians should be outlawed.
 
We shouldn't only defend Madonna because she didn't actually "threaten to blow up the White House," as the possibly illiterate Morgan put it. We should also defend her because heated speech, hyperbolic speech, even violence-tinged speech, is a legitimate part of political discourse and should remain absolutely free.
 
There was a Supreme Court ruling that put this very well. In Watts vs the United States in 1969, the justices said that political talk often includes "vehement" and "unpleasantly sharp" attacks on public officials and even forms of criticism that sound violent but which are really just crude or super angry.
 
They were ruling on the 1966 case of a young man who was convicted of knowingly threatening an individual's life—the President's—during a rally in D.C. against police violence, when he said: "They always holler at us to get an education. And now I have already received my draft classification... and I have got to report for my physical this Monday coming. I am not going. If they ever make me carry a rifle the first man I want to get in my sights is L.B.J." The Court threw the conviction out, ruling that it was not a realistic threat to kill President Johnson but was merely a "crude" way of expressing "political opposition to the President."
 
And so it is with Madonna. She was crudely stating political anger. She was expressing political exasperation in an unfiltered way. We must have space in the political realm for crudeness and nastiness and stupidity and all the rest.
 
Of course genuine incitement to violence, where you use words knowing that they could imminently and directly contribute to the physical harming of an individual, is not a free-speech issue. But violent fantasies are. Violent thoughts are. Violent-inducing speech is not a free-speech issue, but violent-sounding speech—"I could kill that son of a bitch," "I thought about blowing up the White House"—is. Feminists should bear this in mind. Some of them are defending Madonna today, which is cool, but in the past they've sometimes been too quick to depict porn or misogynistic music as forms of violence.
 
The Madonna controversy is striking for what it tells us about the Trump era. Which is that its promised war on P.C. might be a bit of a sham, and these right-wing railers against Safe Spaces and triggered youths might not be as big on free speech as they'd like us to believe. Their freakout over some throwaway comments by Madonna is as mad as when campus snowflakes lose the plot over scenes of sexual assault in Shakespeare. All of you, listen: these are fantasies; they won't harm you.