me1981
-
Posts
1,386 -
Joined
-
Online
-
Wins
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Calendar
Videos
Posts posted by me1981
-
-
5 hours ago, mysweetaudrina said:
It is not disinginous, I have referred to both the contents of the Sex book and her statements in interviews, I've seen them a million times and you are wrong. The "I was a woman and making money off the book" thing came in 1994, Bedtime Stories EPK interview to be exact.
There have been many women working in media too all throughout the 20th century so that "men have controlled everything" is innacurate.
I never said men control everything
-
10 minutes ago, mysweetaudrina said:
People have a right to not want to see bondage, s&m, homosexuality and sexuality in the media and the mainstream, all the criticism she got she deserved, it was not misogynistic.
You criticized men's magazines and sexuality from a man's point of view but that's not what she says in the sex book or even during the period. That's what she said when she was whining like a nelly after 1993 after probably her yes men like Ingrid told her it was all misogynistic and you are repeating the revisionism. It wasn't.
I didn't criticise men's magazines at all. I pointed out a fact. Men have controlled women's sexuality in media. That is a fact. It is not a criticism. Madonna did say at the time she wanted to show a woman's point of view. This was pre 1993.
Why do you keep saying "that's not what she says in the sex book" You do know that book is fiction. It is disingenous to quote anything from that book and attribute it to Madonna. If you don't realise it is fiction than maybe Madonna is right "You don't get it"
Also she has barely whinged about the Erotica/Sex book era. She has barely talked about it. I think it has been brought up a handful of times in 30 years.
-
2 hours ago, mysweetaudrina said:
She wrote in the SEX book that porn magazines were not misogynistic and that no one was putting a gun to the women's head. All the arguments in this thread to defend her are deflated by what Madonna herself once said.
I also wish that people would stop it with the revisionism and stop watching her work through a woke ideology lens, using words as "narrative" and "claiming it back". That's not what she did or even attempted to do.
My point is that all her anger was stupid and shows her as not an artist and exactly what everyone accused her of, being manipulative and concerned with success and just being famous, which was never completely what she was, but her sorrness at criticism and walking back prove she was like that to a great extent.
First - I never said she said they were misogynist. I said through history men have always controlled the way women have been seen. We had mostly seen a man's view of a woman and a woman's sexuality, she wanted to express her view of a woman's sexuality as a woman. She said this at the time. Pretty simple and straight forward.
Second - She was playing a character in the SEX book. So take what Dita says with a grain of salt. That's like saying "Madonna said in Body of Evidence.....Madonna said in Shanghai Surprise........." Madonna said nothing in the SEX book, her character said plenty and was a fantasy character.
Last - She complained because she was treated like a bad girl who did bad things and was punished for doing what she did. Calling people out for treating a woman like Madonna like a tramp and a slut for being who she is isn't revisionist wokism. It happened and it wasn't okay then and it isn't okay now
-
For me the point was always that she was sick of seeing a man's view of a woman's sexuality. Look at Playboy, Penthouse and Hustler. These were all acceptable by 1992 and celebs were even starting to pose for them and had always done interviews with those magazines. These were all created and generally run by men.
She was saying that men had dominated a woman's image and sexuality and she was taking it back. The issue is that that seems to be as far as she got in the thought process for the project, and I don't think Meisel or anyone working on the book had the creative understanding to take the project where it needed to go.
Was it half baked? - Maybe. I don't think SEX was ever that amazing. The writing was not up to par for her and the photos were fairly bland. Though some are still iconic. The statement she made was far greater than the project itself.
The bigger issue was that it was hyped to the heavens. Every tv show and newspaper and magazine announced SEX COMING SOON and also Madonna has an album out the same day apparently. I don't think anything was ever going to live up to the hype that came before it.
For me 1992 was the last year of the 80's for M. It was the hype and scandal and pop culture impact and the mega fame. When we hit 1993 and once it was clear Erotica had flopped, Body of Evidence had flopped and everything she touched was failing, we hit the 90's.
I agree she was sombre and angry and depressed 93 - 95. I don't think it was just her career. I could write a whole thesis on this period or do a multi part video series on it. It can't be easy to hit heights like she did, and then fall from that and crash hard and have everyone spit on you and kick you and love the fact that you have failed. Mariah, Whitney and Janet were the 'good' girls playing by the rules (though it seems they were all being controlled behind the scenes) and they were getting all the praise. M was being treated like the naughty girl who had to be punished and put in her place. I understand her anger.
As for the Girlie Show. I felt it was brilliant. All of it.
- 50ft Queenie and Andreo
-
2
-
I think only she can decide who was a shitty ex and who wasn't. Or the people she wants to forgive and the ones she doesn't.
Out of curiosity has Sandra B been mentioned?
-
-
I thought it was odd that she didn't sing the bridge and the music over all didn't quite sound right. Oh well
-
This is amazing. Thank you so much for sharing
-
You never know. She may well pull a big tour out of the bag at some point. Start saving now and if she doesn't come to your area save the cash to go to her. If we do get a greatest hits tour, it would be worth it to save up and go.
-
2 hours ago, beautifulkiller said:
she said she had been finger fucked and looking at a bush in truth or dare ..wonder who else she slept with - i bet it was in her younger years
She said a few women, not many. I am now wondering if she did sleep with Ingrid, I mean Sandra and Madonna didn't bust up for nothing and Ingrid always hung off her like a lovesick puppy
-
-
7 minutes ago, Prince of Darkness said:
I have been worried about her for sometime now, that injury was really serious and to suffer it at her age is even more worrying. I have sympathy for people trying to battle severe pain because I was in that boat. I dont think Madonna has ever been one to use drugs recreationally but if she is still in pain we should all be concerned. I remember she was in so much pain at the premiere of her Madame X concert film that she was hanging onto the wall and limping.
Damn. I didn't know that about the premiere. That is worrying. I think it is so easy to get hooked, no matter who you are. I knew my neck pain was temporary, but if it had been ongoing, I don't know what I would have done. It is such an easy and slippery slope. I am sad that she is in pain and now worried what that might or has led to. Chronic pain is definitely a gateway to this kind of addiction.
You're right, at 60+ broken bones/fractures etc... are harder to recover from, and she was performing injured for a period of time which would have made it worse.
-
10 minutes ago, Prince of Darkness said:
I totally understand why some people take painkillers to manage levels of pain that they just cant deal with, its just unfortunate and worrying when I see someone showing signs of a dependency on dangerous drugs. Prince was not someone who liked getting high, he was just trying to use painkillers so he could function, manage that terrible hip pain he was in and still perform which I totally understand. I worry that Madonna might be in the same boat, or even worse because she openly talks about liking opioids. I seriously injured myself once in a biking accident and took very strong painkillers for a longtime while I was recovering and it was a battle to get off the pills. I can only imagine it would be much worse for an active performer like Madonna.
One time I wrenched my neck so bad I could barely move. The doctor prescribed a painkiller. It was the most disgusting thing I have ever had, and I have tried most every drug out there. I threw them away after one and then smoked a few J's until I was better. I don't trust the majority of prescription drugs and especially legal painkillers.
I am shocked if she is on opiods and weed. She must be in an enormous amount of pain or as is being implied maybe developing an addiction. I seriously hope not.
-
4 minutes ago, Andreo said:
What the?! Is she teasing a compilation with her dance songs or what?! I NEED THEORIES, SMART ONES WHERE ARE YOU AT
I said in the other thread, she has 50 #1 dance hits. Sounds likely that is what we are getting. All her 12" remixes
ETA: All her #1 12" remixes
-
1 minute ago, Brendanlovesu1 said:
Or she could be quoting lyrics from into the groove?
Yeah I assume she is. Here are all my dance #1's you can dance (to these hits)
-
-
27 minutes ago, lap said:
"Madonna had initially planned to release a music video for "Angel", but later decided to go against it, as at that time, there were already five Madonna music videos on-rotation in the music channels and were being broadcast continuously. Hence, Warner Bros. and Madonna felt that adding another video to the already saturated channels, might not be in her favour.[3] A promotional video, containing scenes from the music videos of "Burning Up", "Borderline", "Lucky Star", "Like a Virgin" and "Material Girl" was made by Warner Bros. Records and aired in the United Kingdom. The video was included on the promotional-only video compilations It's That Girl and She's Breathless".
Don't know it's true, but according to wikipedia the information was published in the book Blond Ambition, by Mark Bego, p. 186.
This is probably true. Freddy DeMann said in Mar 85 that he was already concerned about her being over exposed. It only got more intense by summer 85. I dare say he and others pulled the plug on a lot of promo for fear people would get sick of her.
-
3 hours ago, Régine Filange said:
I read somewhere that MTV asked Madonna's label to not release another music video during that period cause she was everywhere in the MTV channel and they didn't wanted to add another video of hers there. Is this true? Does anyone have a source?
MTV couldn't get enough of her. They didn't have to play any of her videos but often had 3 on the go at once in 1985 on heavy rotation. Also they played Gambler and that wasn't even a single. So I doubt this is true. Pretty sure they also briefly played Over and Over from the Virgin Tour as well.
-
9 hours ago, Roy said:
So, how did her team manage to get a GOOD HBO master?
I honestly feel M has access to anything she wants and it is more about the team she has working for her that makes things happen or not.
For example she may not think of certain things, but having the right person in her inner circle and in her ear about things can change what we get access to.
-
14 hours ago, luckystar908 said:
Yes, this is basically the HBO cut with the 5.1 audio mix. If they re-release the show at some point, I hope it will be standard mix.
I do have a feeling though that they might not know exactly what they are sourcing from the vaults, I'm inclined to think that they used the broadcast version by accident. Though it's cool to have it remastered.
That's what I was thinking too, though hopefully someone in the know is giving us gifts and for whatever reason they just preferred the 5.1 mix
-
-
4 hours ago, luckystar908 said:
It seems to be the original HBO cut judging by some shots and not the DVD version? They show more Madonna and less audience in some parts, like the beginning of D&D (Can You Feel It?...) I like it!
Yes, I double checked, it is the HBO cut. Amazing
-
In most countries the song did pretty well and had strong peaks. Not sure about longevity though, but it went top 10 and higher in many places.
Here in Australia people were getting tired of the broken touring promises and lack of any promo from her when tons of newer stars were making the trek here and paying us a lot more attention. M ignoring us hurt her more in Oz than anything else.
In the US it didn't fare well but lack of radio support didn't help and the backlash led by Perez Hilton didn't help much. Plus to be honest the bigger mistake was the front cover of the Hard Candy album. It will always get my vote as her worst album cover ever.
I also think her image during the promo (excluding the 4 minutes video) was so Beverly Hills housewife all while she was trying to push an urban flavoured dance album. I remember the BET interview being the moment I felt the whole era was so disingenuous and that is why I am convinced to this day it was another reactionary album, after Confessions failed to get her US commercial success.
So single choices were not her biggest problem back then, at least not for me. Give It 2 Me is a decent song and I still enjoy it.
-
14 minutes ago, Jet said:
I agree. 1985 is when she really landed and then like a prayer in 89 followed by blond ambition in 1990 took her to a higher place of superstardom only previously reached by Michael Jackson.
Yeah 85 was when the music took off, but also the myth and the legend really started being built. LAV both album and single hit #1, Material Girl #2, CFY another #1 Angel and Dress You Up in the top 5 and ITG never released but might as well have been another #1. The huge success of Desperately Seeking Susan, dating and marrying Sean Penn, the playboy/penthouse scandal, the Virgin Tour and Live AID. It was non stop all year.
This was the year every newspaper, tv show and magazine was talking about M non stop and the paps started stalking her and even flew over her wedding. The obssession had begun.
True Blue hitting big just cemented it and LAP gave her the critical approval that had been begrudging before that. 1989 was when music critics started taking her seriously. Yeah 1990 was another massive year, another 1985 and it too just shot her into the strasophere for sure.
- Voguerista, Aiwa08 and patrice1711
-
3
Why is the girlie show not as remembered as blond ambition?
in News ✖ Discussion
Posted
1. The controversy - LAV especially, also the church wanting to ban the show in Italy
2. Nothing as grandious and theatrical had really been staged before. The closest was Bowie's previous tour. People were blown away by the staging. The New York Times did a whole article about the staging of the show
3. M was at the peak of her career - LAP was a massive hit, Dick Tracy was super hyped, everyone was obsessed with her
4. Truth or Dare - this doco immortalised the show and brought it to people who had never seen her live before and kept the momentum of the tour going well into 1991
5. Girlie Show is much more subdued and sombre
6. She barely toured the US and didn't do nearly as many shows overall. She also barely toured Europe/UK either
7. She was coming off the failure of Erotica and BOE. I feel like 1993 was a big year for a lot of other artists. Mariah and Janet and Whitney were all scoring big and I feel M got lost in the shuffle
8. I do remember people complaining about the setlist. Not enough older songs. When your tour highlights an album that didn't sell well, people aren't going to remember it as well. BAT scored well because LAP was a massive hit and the singles were too
9. MTV covered this tour to death. They barely touched Girlie Show. I am sure more people saw coverage of BAT by accident and probably had no idea M even toured in 1993