|
Post by Devil Marlena Nylund on Jul 8, 2011 23:01:11 GMT -5
But if it's a title given to someone, it's not like it's chosen lightly. And it only catches on if it's used by a LOT of people. It's not like one person decided Madonna was the Queen of Pop and suddenly it became a thing. It had to start with one person and then be picked up by other people who didn't necessarily disagree. If people didn't agree, it wouldn't catch on.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 8, 2011 23:06:06 GMT -5
Okay...? I'm just saying that Madonna isn't the queen of pop because she hasn't done enough lately to still carry the title. I don't care about the process as to how people name someone the queen of pop. I'm simply saying that I disagree with the statement that Madonna holds the title.
|
|
HolidayGuy
Diamond Member
Joined: December 2003
Posts: 33,882
|
Post by HolidayGuy on Jul 8, 2011 23:08:41 GMT -5
While we haven't seen recurrent airplay info in a while, at last check Madonna received very decent recurrent play, so your experiences are not that of the whole country there, 1488. Most recurrent play stems from AC and Hot AC stations. And, on a related note, Michael Jackson's recurrent airplay increased big time right after he passed.
It does not matter what condition Madonna's charts career is in now- her status was sealed eons ago, and that will not change, regardless of whether she scores another U.S. hit again. Just as no one can touch what Elvis, Beatles, etc. did. LOl @ "random women"- for "current" stars, that may fit. But, Madonna's only regarded as the most important female performer of the last 30 years, whose impact on a commercial, critical and cultural level is unparalleled. And who pretty much every female pop star (who cites her as a big influence) ends up getting compared to, even if they do not possess Madonna-like qualities.
|
|
|
Post by Devil Marlena Nylund on Jul 8, 2011 23:14:49 GMT -5
That's fair if you disagree with the title but that's just because you're making the mistake of considering it a "title" rather than a nickname. Do you disagree with Elvis being the King of Rock 'n Roll or Michael Jackson being the King of Pop? What have they done for us lately? Not a whole lot. Because they aren't actual "titles". They're just ways they are known in pop culture.
And as someone mentioned a few pages back, there can be more than one Queen of Pop if the media and pop culture population would be willing to use the title on someone else but that doesn't mean former "Queens" are no longer queens. Former presidents are still referred to as presidents, as are former popes, former kings and queens, etc.
|
|
|
Post by Push The Button on Jul 8, 2011 23:16:44 GMT -5
I think someone on VH1's coutdown said something to the effect of:
"When every single female Pop star is compared to you, it means you are the greatest female Pop star of all time."
:) Queen Madge. May she eternally reign.
|
|
|
Post by Peaches. [Ch, r. is] on Jul 8, 2011 23:18:54 GMT -5
"When every single female Pop star is compared to you, it means you are the greatest female Pop star of all time." I knew Mariah Carey was the real Queen of Pop :'( :'(
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 8, 2011 23:20:06 GMT -5
Fair enough. I see what you're saying, Haus. I think I misinterpreted some stuff in your posts, so that's my bad.
I just think that in order to have a title as broad as Queen of Pop, you need to have an applaudable career that is still going strong currently. Madonna's career is more than applaudable, obviously. However, Madonna's not current, therefore I think her title has faded. She may the comparison to current pop stars because she was such a strong force years ago, but the same will probably happen 30 years from now when we have another mega-pop star, and everyone will compare them to Mariah, Gaga, Beyonce, etc.
|
|
Eqbk
3x Platinum Member
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 3,175
|
Post by Eqbk on Jul 8, 2011 23:55:18 GMT -5
I just think that in order to have a title as broad as Queen of Pop, you need to have an applaudable career that is still going strong currently. Madonna's career is more than applaudable, obviously. However, Madonna's not current, therefore I think her title has faded. So does that mean that you don't consider MJ the "King of Pop"? Since he had been irrelevant to the current music scene longer than Madonna has.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 9, 2011 0:03:04 GMT -5
Being dead doesn't count. He has that title because his career never stopped (he made and released music even through his 21st century lawsuits, and had an enormous smash tour lined up; that's hardly irrelevant) until his death. That's kind of a title that can't be revoked from him. There might be another one in the future, but Michael will always be the King of Pop to me because his career lasted all the way up until his last breath. Being dead shouldn't be a penalty to whether you're a reigning king or queen of something.
|
|
Eqbk
3x Platinum Member
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 3,175
|
Post by Eqbk on Jul 9, 2011 0:10:20 GMT -5
Being dead doesn't count. He has that title because his career never stopped (he made amd released music even through his 21st century lawsuits, and had an enormous smash tour lined up; that's hardly irrelevant) until his death. That's kind of a title that can't be revoked from him. There might be another one jn the future, but Michael will always be the King of Pop to me because his career lasted all the way up until his last breath. Being dead shouldn't be a penalty to whether you're a reigning king or queen of something. I wasn't really referring to his death. Even before his death, he fell from relevancy and earlier than Madonna. He may have continued to make music but he hadn't had a big hit since "You Rock My World", back in 2001. Everything released past that had very little impact. And if you were to go by touring for relevancy, Madonna has every solo artist beaten in that regard.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 9, 2011 0:17:52 GMT -5
I see Michael on a larger page than Madonna because he still made music up until his death. Not as large-scale as his previous material, but he still produced new material consistently, whereas Madonna slowed. That's what it all comes down to for me. His tour just added to the fuel, IMO. Again, I'm not downgrading Madonna. Don't want it to come off like that.
|
|
horchata
6x Platinum Member
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 6,241
|
Post by horchata on Jul 9, 2011 0:52:22 GMT -5
Well in my world Kylie Minogue is the queen of pop anyways, but Madonna makes sense as well. From an overall standpoint, it makes sense that people consider Madonna as the queen. If we are talking about from a current pov, I suppose Gaga would be the only person that fits the bill due to what she has done these past few years. Okay, wait maybe she should just be called the Princess of Pop~ but when Gaga has the longevity and the acclaim for many years to come like Madonna has, then people can speak of her in that way. I think it's a little nonsensical to write off Madonna though (generally speaking), for the sake of the poll and the time frame though Gaga makes perfect sense.
|
|
Eqbk
3x Platinum Member
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 3,175
|
Post by Eqbk on Jul 9, 2011 0:52:34 GMT -5
I see Michael on a larger page than Madonna because he still made music up until his death. Not as large-scale as his previous material, but he still produced new material consistently, whereas Madonna slowed. That's what it all comes down to for me. His tour just added to the fuel, IMO. Invincible was Michael's last studio album, released in 2001. Any new music released to the public after was mostly one or two songs that were added for compilation and anniversary albums. Madonna's last studio album was released in 2008. How is he more consistent than her when Madonna has released 4 studio albums in the 2000's (along w/ music from non-studio albums) versus Michael's one? I don't think you are. Maybe I'm reading your posts wrong but I just don't see how Madonna doesn't fit your criteria to keep her title yet Michael does when, by your criteria (or as how I interpreted your criteria), Michael is less qualified than Madonna is to keep his title.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 9, 2011 1:00:15 GMT -5
It's a matter of personal taste, then, I suppose. Like Haus said before, someone isn't selected as King/Queen of something based off of a panel of judges, a magazine editor, etc. It's based off of cumulative data and a matter of taste. IMO, Michael's consistency in music and consistency in remaining as a large-scale legacy through his legal woes and personal downfalls shows achievement, while Madonna, although released material, slowed down compared to previous eras of hers. I'm not saying that Madonna's status should be REVOKED. I'm simply saying that I personally don't think she is the reigning queen anymore, while others do. I think that others such as Mariah Carey are the reigning queens of pop. There's no doubt that Madonna reigned for a long period of time before. However, a new era has ushered in a lot more forces that, IMO, have overtaken the title from her. This is all just my opinion.
|
|
floridagrl
3x Platinum Member
The Holy Queen of Music!
Joined: February 2011
Posts: 3,162
|
Post by floridagrl on Jul 9, 2011 8:13:32 GMT -5
Madonna's 2008-2009 Sweet and Sticky Tour grossed over $400,000,000. She was 51 years old when the tour ended. I'd say that is very relevant.
|
|
Oprah
9x Platinum Member
Joined: August 2008
Posts: 9,064
|
Post by Oprah on Jul 9, 2011 8:16:52 GMT -5
It's based off of cumulative data and a matter of taste. IMO, Michael's consistency in music and consistency in remaining as a large-scale legacy through his legal woes and personal downfalls shows achievement, while Madonna, although released material, slowed down compared to previous eras of hers. That's just not true. Madonna if anything proved far more consistent in the 90's and 00's in terms of commercial and critical success than MJ did.
|
|
HolidayGuy
Diamond Member
Joined: December 2003
Posts: 33,882
|
Post by HolidayGuy on Jul 9, 2011 9:13:31 GMT -5
^Indeed. Michael J. had not had a big hit since the mid-90s, and he had not scored a big critical success since the 80s. Off the Wall and Thriller are by far his biggest critical hits; Bad had a decent amount, but not comparable to those two; and then Dangerous' level was by far the least of those four. The works thereafter didn't muster much, in terms of year-end/all-time marks. However, none of that diminished his status as the King of Pop on a widespread level, no matter how much commercial success one had thereafter (as the title is about a heckuva lot more than that, anyhow).
Someone like Mimi Carey doesn't have anywhere near the acclaim, reverence, etc. to be regarded as the Queen of Pop. Now, for individual fans, there's always going to be someone who is *their* favorite or Queen/King, but the grand scope of things is a different story.
|
|
|
Post by Devil Marlena Nylund on Jul 9, 2011 9:18:43 GMT -5
Being dead doesn't count. He has that title because his career never stopped (he made and released music even through his 21st century lawsuits, and had an enormous smash tour lined up; that's hardly irrelevant) until his death. That's kind of a title that can't be revoked from him. There might be another one in the future, but Michael will always be the King of Pop to me because his career lasted all the way up until his last breath. Being dead shouldn't be a penalty to whether you're a reigning king or queen of something. That's where I'm confused with you. Even despite my thoughts on these titles actually meaning anything, Madonna also has successful tours still even if her singles aren't huge. Yet he singles and current albums still sold more than new MJ records. Madonna may not be as her peak but she's still doing quite well, likely better than MJ was for his last decade.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 9, 2011 9:56:33 GMT -5
Madonna was A LOT more successful last decade than Michael.
Madonna's nickname is the Queen of Pop. Michael's is the King of Pop. The reason people get annoyed is because they mistake nicknames for a post which they feel should be voted for based on current success. Which, when you think about it, is completely moronic (and also the opposite of what a King or Queen even is). But there you go.
|
|
Verisimilitude
8x Platinum Member
'90s Zealot
Joined: July 2010
Posts: 8,959
|
Post by Verisimilitude on Jul 9, 2011 9:59:35 GMT -5
Someone like Mimi Carey doesn't have anywhere near the acclaim, reverence, etc. to be regarded as the Queen of Pop. For some reason, I get the feeling you want the word "acclaim" planted on your tombstone. Like "always given tons of acclaim from his family and best friends".
|
|
slw84
7x Platinum Member
I only tolerate legends
Joined: August 2008
Posts: 7,896
|
Post by slw84 on Jul 9, 2011 10:17:31 GMT -5
MANdonna is NOT the Queen of Pop. You have to be popular for that. You also have to be CURRENT and RELEVANT. OLDonna hasn't been any of those things for over a decade, maybe two. 3 things that cross HAGdonna off the list. Another articulate message from Chris... :'( :'( :'( So yeah, Madonna is the queen of pop. I wonder if Michael Jackson is the king of pop using your logic...not that's chris brown/bruno mars I wonder if Aretha is no longer the queen of soul...nope that is Keyshia Cole/Beyonce/Jill scott. Must suck for them to not hold that title just because they are not selling records in 2011 Slaydele must be the queen of pop currently. LOL ;)
|
|
slw84
7x Platinum Member
I only tolerate legends
Joined: August 2008
Posts: 7,896
|
Post by slw84 on Jul 9, 2011 10:25:02 GMT -5
That's fair if you disagree with the title but that's just because you're making the mistake of considering it a "title" rather than a nickname. Do you disagree with Elvis being the King of Rock 'n Roll or Michael Jackson being the King of Pop? What have they done for us lately? Not a whole lot. Because they aren't actual "titles". They're just ways they are known in pop culture. And as someone mentioned a few pages back, there can be more than one Queen of Pop if the media and pop culture population would be willing to use the title on someone else but that doesn't mean former "Queens" are no longer queens. Former presidents are still referred to as presidents, as are former popes, former kings and queens, etc. Good point...it is hard to say that Janet, Mariah, Whitney and a couple others are not queens as well...but then there is an ultimate queen that reigns supreme. I'm fine with many queens, princesses, kings, princes but there is still an ultimate " " that rises to the top so...
|
|
Oprah
9x Platinum Member
Joined: August 2008
Posts: 9,064
|
Post by Oprah on Jul 9, 2011 10:43:42 GMT -5
That's fair if you disagree with the title but that's just because you're making the mistake of considering it a "title" rather than a nickname. Do you disagree with Elvis being the King of Rock 'n Roll or Michael Jackson being the King of Pop? What have they done for us lately? Not a whole lot. Because they aren't actual "titles". They're just ways they are known in pop culture. And as someone mentioned a few pages back, there can be more than one Queen of Pop if the media and pop culture population would be willing to use the title on someone else but that doesn't mean former "Queens" are no longer queens. Former presidents are still referred to as presidents, as are former popes, former kings and queens, etc. Good point...it is hard to say that Janet, Mariah, Whitney and a couple others are not queens as well...but then there is an ultimate queen that reigns supreme. I'm fine with many queens, princesses, kings, princes but there is still an ultimate " " that rises to the top so... I do believe this is the Official Endowment for Pop Royalty Titles Institution's stances on the matter.
|
|
Tea-why
3x Platinum Member
Joined: March 2008
Posts: 3,626
|
Post by Tea-why on Jul 9, 2011 15:56:28 GMT -5
MANdonna is NOT the Queen of Pop. You have to be popular for that. You also have to be CURRENT and RELEVANT. OLDonna hasn't been any of those things for over a decade, maybe two. 3 things that cross HAGdonna off the list. Another articulate message from Chris... :'( :'( :'( So yeah, Madonna is the queen of pop. I wonder if Michael Jackson is the king of pop using your logic...not that's chris brown/bruno mars I wonder if Aretha is no longer the queen of soul...nope that is Keyshia Cole/Beyonce/Jill scott. Must suck for them to not hold that title just because they are not selling records in 2011 Slaydele must be the queen of pop currently. LOL ;) lol great post :)
|
|
|
Post by Peaches. [Ch, r. is] on Jul 9, 2011 16:07:06 GMT -5
MANdonna is NOT the Queen of Pop. You have to be popular for that. You also have to be CURRENT and RELEVANT. OLDonna hasn't been any of those things for over a decade, maybe two. 3 things that cross HAGdonna off the list. Another articulate message from Chris... :'( :'( :'( So yeah, Madonna is the queen of pop. I wonder if Michael Jackson is the king of pop using your logic...not that's chris brown/bruno mars I wonder if Aretha is no longer the queen of soul...nope that is Keyshia Cole/Beyonce/Jill scott. Must suck for them to not hold that title just because they are not selling records in 2011 Slaydele must be the queen of pop currently. LOL ;) FINALLY! Someone who understands! I couldn't have said this better myself. Finally someone else who doesn't think Michael Harrassyourson is King of Pop and Urethra Fatlin isn't the Queen of Soul. I must admit, I was sleeping on you, but you understand me.
|
|
slw84
7x Platinum Member
I only tolerate legends
Joined: August 2008
Posts: 7,896
|
Post by slw84 on Jul 9, 2011 16:21:38 GMT -5
Another articulate message from Chris... :'( :'( :'( So yeah, Madonna is the queen of pop. I wonder if Michael Jackson is the king of pop using your logic...not that's chris brown/bruno mars I wonder if Aretha is no longer the queen of soul...nope that is Keyshia Cole/Beyonce/Jill scott. Must suck for them to not hold that title just because they are not selling records in 2011 Slaydele must be the queen of pop currently. LOL ;) FINALLY! Someone who understands! I couldn't have said this better myself. Finally someone else who doesn't think Michael Harrassyourson is King of Pop and Urethra Fatlin isn't the Queen of Soul. I must admit, I was sleeping on you, but you understand me. Sugarplum, we see eye to eye... ;) ...now keep your eyes wide open and stop sleepin' Muah.
|
|
slw84
7x Platinum Member
I only tolerate legends
Joined: August 2008
Posts: 7,896
|
Post by slw84 on Jul 9, 2011 16:22:31 GMT -5
Another articulate message from Chris... :'( :'( :'( So yeah, Madonna is the queen of pop. I wonder if Michael Jackson is the king of pop using your logic...not that's chris brown/bruno mars I wonder if Aretha is no longer the queen of soul...nope that is Keyshia Cole/Beyonce/Jill scott. Must suck for them to not hold that title just because they are not selling records in 2011 Slaydele must be the queen of pop currently. LOL ;) lol great post :) Muah, thanks boo. ;)
|
|
|
Post by Fat Ass Kelly Price on Jul 9, 2011 16:57:42 GMT -5
Mariah is the Queen.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 9, 2011 17:00:57 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Peaches. [Ch, r. is] on Jul 9, 2011 17:06:25 GMT -5
Precisely. Despite slw's failure to comprehend
|
|