Which is extremely good ground on which to disagree with you, when all is said and done. You made a point of dissing her recent live appearance, because you'd sooner have her in wire-rimmed spectacles, sitting in a rocking chair with her knitting. We're not under men's thumbs any more cc, we're your equals (we're actually your superiors, but that fact takes more typing). She looks incredible without having resorted to extensive plastic surgery, and can out-dance and out-perform most acts half her age. She's made a critically acclaimed album, which is quite a feat for any act 20+ years into their career. The NME praised her for the very reasons you've criticised her when they gave the new album 9/10. Q gave it 4/5, and a 'Recommended'.

If you don't like her, then that's fine. But saying that she's 'too old' and that she 'should be making music more appropriate for someone her age' is ridiculous, and it's hardly a surprise that people have taken issue with you over it.

It's not harsh at all. What would be harsh would be for a woman to peruse your comments and read between the lines. Then they may assume that you don't like strong, confident women because you know that they're unobtainable. That you know they'd blow you out - perhaps even laugh at you just for daring to try. And probably beat you in an arm wrestle, too. But we're not harsh here at all, so it's all good on that score. :thumbs:


As far as Sharon Osbourne's recent comments are concerned, the reply reads as follows:

"We're shocked by her outburst. Only a few years ago, she wrote to us asking if her daughter Kelly could cover Madonna's track Papa Don't Preach. She gushed about how she admired Madonna as a mother and businesswoman and how both she and Kelly were long-time fans of her music. Maybe she changed her mind because the single flopped." And what does Madonna think of it all? "She's not too fussed and just thinks 'so what?'"

cc100, Madonna is only 47 - I'm not sure what you mean when you say that she should act her age (I'm paraphrasing). How is a 47 year old woman supposed to act anyway?

Why would I sooner have her in wire-rimmed spectacles in a rocking chair? Thats putting words into my mouth.

Why do you have the impression that Im anti-women because I dont like Madonna as an artist or her dance routines?? Surely thats taking it a bit too far? Im surrounded by women in my life- I live with my girlfriend and her 2 sisters and have nothing but respect for them, my mother and ALL the female friends I have.


Maybe I did not explain my opinions in the correct manner.

It has nowt to do with age either. Did you see Kim Cattrall on Paul O'Gradys show the other day? She looks stunning at the age of 49. Helen Mirren, Goldie Hawn and Joanna Lumley are some of the most beautiful woman/biggest sex symbols in the world, and are in their late 50's.

My point regarding her age is also aimed at men in the music business. Michael Jackson is past it. U2 are past it. The Happy mondays are an embarrassment nowadays. My favourite band ever, Oasis, are getting near the age where they should give up (Noel is 38, Gem is 41). And as for the Rolling Stones, dont get me started. Rock 'n' roll is a young mans game.
It seems acceptable for people to call the Stones 'geriatrics' and 'grandpa's' because they are men. I suppose you think Ross Kemp 'deserved' his assault from his wife? If it was the other way round, it would be classed as domestic abuse and Kemp would have been vilified, and rightly so. But surely it works both ways?

You also state that Madonna has had no plastic surgery. Well the consensus of all the magazines such as heat, Closer and Reveal is that she HAS had some kind of, erm, enhancements. This is her choice and I do not vilify her for that, its her body.

Reading between the lines of ALL your posts, Charlotte, to most of my contributions to this forum on all subjects, YOU have a problem with me. I cant help but feel that you are using this debate on Madonna as a stick to beat me with. Thats what I think is harsh. Sticks made a comment that she was past it, but you dont have a pop in that direction do you?

Its clear we dont agree on Madonna, but lets not make it personal. You know nowt about me, and I know nowt about you, for which I am glad.

A 47 can act how they please, within the law. As Ive said earlier in this post, I think that that type of music is for the younger generation IN MY OPINION.

Have you seen Johnny Lydon? he is one of my all time heroes, yet he is an embarrassment nowadays.


Just for the record, I think Madonna is very attractive and does look great for any age.








From PopBitch

"It was very courageous of MTV to start the
show with a genuine transvestite." - Sascha
Baron Cohen (aka Borat) on Madonna

I don't think that rock n roll is a young man's game at all. The Stones are still making fantastic music (I agree that they don't have the 'raw' quality they had in their younger days, but I guess that's being multi-millionaires does for you), and rocking and rolling better than a lot of the current groups around (who are half or even a third their age)! I've seen the Stones live, and believe me, they have the energy of a group of teenagers. They're still one of the biggest bands in the world, as are U2.
And they sell a hell of a lot more records - sorry CDs - than most other groups.

As for Madonna, she's the queen of pop! She's more original and innovative than most other people in the charts.

I think rock n roll is about attitude, not age. There are young 47 year olds and old 20 year olds.

I agree about the Happy Mondays though. There are an embarrassment, and always were. Shaun Ryder looks a complete mess nowadays. I was surprised at how well Bez scrubs up though!

I agree with cc100.....Madonna should pack it in.

I dont know, one side of me says, "you've had you're fair share Madonna, now move over!"
and the other side says "Yer, go for it girl, you show those 20 somethings"

:conf:

Excuse me? I'm hoping that one was a joke. :rolleyes: I admit women are men's equals, in my eyes they always have been and always will be, but superiors? *rolls around on the floor with laughter*

Why? Because she's 47? What gives her less rights than any 17 year old artist? She should be allowed to do what she wants, nobody controls her. :rolleyes:

At the moment, im liking her, her new single is great, however, pride before a fall, it would be nice to end on a good note (soz pun) :nono: ................

Madonna doesent know what she is or what she wants to be.

One minute she is wearing tweed and pretending to be the English Rose because she thinks England is 'twee and fashionable', the next we are supposed to take her serious as a disco diva??

And dont even get me going on that cod English accent.:conf:

Charlotte, you do seem to have a chip on your shoulder, and seem to be anti men for some reason.

Instead of having digs at people, why not post sensibly?

Having just read (and reported) your blatantly homophobic posts on the BB6 forum, I think you should be looking a little closer to home before being so pious, don't you?

As a metaphor, it's not particularly alien to the nature of your original post/s.

I don't have any such impression at all - now you're putting words into my mouth. But I don't think it's particularly outlandish on my part to draw a parallel between a request for pictures of Britney Spears' bottom, and criticism of Madonna because you think she's too old to be recording 'trendy' music and dancing/performing in a manner entirely suitable to the genre.

The question should only be whether they can still cut it or not. Yes, more often than not they tend to go on for far too long and it ends up as a bit of a sham. But if Noel can carry on writing good songs and Liam can still deliver, then I see no reason for them to stop. New Order's last album wasn't their best work by any means, but there was still enough there to justify them carrying on. And what about Lou Reed, or Iggy Pop, or R.E.M? Bowie and The Rolling Stones are still getting critical acclaim for their work, and although personally I don't think either has done much worth bothering with for the last 20 years, global record sales, tour revenue and critical acclaim suggest otherwise.

Actually, no I don't. I said that I don't think she's had extensive plastic surgery. It's nice to see that you're so au fait with women's magazines, though.

You’re labouring under quite a marked misapprehension, I’m afraid. You often post along the lines of; ‘If a man did that, there’d be an outcry. But because she’s a woman, it’s okay’ (you’ve done so in this very thread, as it goes), and also have a tendency at times to reduce women to isolated body parts. So it’s okay for you to subvert when the mood takes you, but not for anyone else to do the same? If a little gentle ribbing bruises your male pride so easily, then I’m genuinely sorry. But please be assured that I have no desire to sap your testosterone while you sleep. I don't recall Sticks' post, but there is something of a distinction (loving your 'He did it first, Miss!' overtones here, by the way). You frequently comment on pop culture, which to me would suggest a more open-minded, sagacious appraisal could be anticipated.

Nobody made anything personal, but if you think it’s necessary to read things that aren’t there into the thread to safeguard your virility, I won’t stand in your way. :thumbs:

Oh dear

I seem to have this habbit of using obscure abstract concepts that nobody ever seems to have heard of. Part of being the senile old fogey that I am :rolleyes:

Maybe this link might be enlightening.

I am so Victorian Era :bored:

Sheesh, if she can still hang in there and act like she's the same age as the likes of Britney- no wait, Britney's out of it-/Christina, then let her do it.

I am very interested in popular culture and enjoy talking on this subject. I have varied opinions on people in the entertainment industry and television shows. In fact Im very open minded, apart from not enjoying movies very much.

As for this thing with regards Britney Spears bottom- as I explained in the u2u I sent you, I do not recall asking specifically for those pictures.

Ive been a member on this forum for over 4 years and have never had anything remotely like a run-in with another member, but then you come along with a bee in your bonnet claiming Im a woman-hater! I notice you didnt mention the fact that I live with 3 women, one of whom is my girlfriend who I love dearly. How can I be anti women?? I love women.

Do you like every male popstar out there? and if not does this make you a man-hater?
Have you not seen my avator or banner in my signature? Im one of the biggest fans of Helen Adams, who, last time I checked, is a woman.

My girlfriend cannot stand Madonna, so what does this make her? Individual? An adult who can make her own mind up without being influenced by the mass media? Well thats me as well. I dont subscribe that every woman or man out there being a star is brilliant purely because The Sun or NME says so.

Just because I mentioned that Britney is attractive and not being a fan of Madonna, Im some kind of mysogynist? How can you make such a statement when you only read a few lines of comment from me a day?:puzzled:
In one breath Im obssessed with Britney, the next Im a woman hater! Have you never found a man attractive?

As for 'often posting along the lines of; ‘If a man did that, there’d be an outcry. But because she’s a woman, it’s okay’ , I only did that in one thread. And as for 'a tendency at times to reduce women to isolated body parts', when exactly?? Please dont majke things up just to bolster your 'points'.

Should I worry about not posting in case you dont like my opinion??

As for the Stones and Bowie- they are not prancing around in a leotard. Did you read my comments on Madonnas image? One moment she is an English country lady, the next we are supposed to take her seriously as a disco diva. And whats with the cod English accent?

(James Bourne of Busted, now with Son of Dork, is the opposite and just as bad for talking in a cod US accent when he is from Southend. Does this make me anti youngsters with bad hair?)

How about getting better things to do then posting lenghty essays on how much of an idiot I am? Its a shame you feel the need for this. Why do you feel the need to have a pop at me? I would thank you not to make unfounded and wholey untrue claims about me.

For the record Sticks said that Madonna is so 1980's, which is more or less my opinion.

Please ignore my posts in the future, darling.

From my dim understanding of the music industry, some artists who were big in times past, see those people who followed them in the past as still their principal audience. So the pitch is at those loyal fans, which explains why the Rolling Stones and the likes of Cliff Richard still continue.

They had their time in the sun, times moved on and so they play to their old fan base as both recede into the past.

Madonna was very big in the 1980's, and dominated them. Maddona's fan base is from then, and why should they be deprived of their nostalgia kick.

However, If the music scene is to remain fresh and cutting edge, then a new generation must be allowed their time in the sun.

Endless "reinvention" just gives to impression that someone is desparate and can not accept that their allotted 15 minutes is over. It is like the senior citizen who insists on trying to look a few decades younger and trying to hang out with people old enough to be their grandchildren insisting they still have "it", but in reality all they do is embarrass themselves.

If they accept how things are, they gain greater respect, and the new generation can have their turn in the sun.

This is the way things work.

Excellently put Sticks.

Madonnas fans should realise that a lot of the time, people who have been around as long as her are partly trading on past glories.

Would Madonna get a record deal nowadays at her age? No, no matter how good her album is. The same for a lot of other artists.

New artists shouldnt be overlooked in lieu of the new Madonna or Michael Jackson album.

Im not saying that she or others of similar age should clear off altogether.

When you go and see Bowie live, you want to hear Heroes, Rebel Rebel etc. For Madonna you want to hear Vogue, Holiday etc.

I was merely using Madonna as an example.

Well, I definitely agree that new artists shouldn't be shunned in favour of people who have been around a long time, especially now that there is (finally)! some great new artists coming up.

I also take Sticks' point about the Rolling Stones et al, still appealing their fan base who have loved them for years. That's true, but the point is that when bands such as the Stones started out, they built their fan base, who have stuck with them since, because they have been consistently good. I mean can you honestly see bands such as Westlife and Liberty X still going in 20 years time, with the same loyal fans? Because I really can't. True talent will (hopefully) always win out in the end, whether it's from young or old.

All I hope is that Robert Plant doesn't decide to throw the towel in yet!

Just out of curiosity, which new or relatively new artists do you class as having true talent, and think will be around for many years to come?? :puzzled:

The first person that comes to mind for me is Joss Stone :bigsmile:

Would you like me to link you to your own thread?

Why do you feel the need to explore all these tangents, none of which have any connection whatsoever to anything I've posted in this thread?

Or rather, how can you make such an extreme assumption when I've said no such thing, at any point? I disagreed with your ageist condemnations. Claiming that you're being bashed as a 'misogynist' is a little desperate, particularly as you do so repeatedly.

As they (almost) say on Blue Peter, here's one you made earlier: "Britney has one of the best bums in the world. Please feel free to post your faveourite or best pics of Britneys arse." Please don't accuse me of fabrication, when it's right before your eyes.

It's a forum. A place where people share opinions - sometimes agreeing, sometimes disagreeing.

Of all the artists you could pick, you've chosen the two that are indeed very likely to be seen "prancing around in a leotard"! Well actually, those are Sharon Osbourne's comments, not yours. She's lived in the UK for a while now. It's hardly a surprise that she's picked up some of the idioms. Have you ever heard Bjork speaking, or Jan Molby, the Scandinavian Scouser?

What you really mean, of course, is that all feedback is welcome - as long as it conforms to your opinion. Well hey, it's all right here in this thread. :thumbs:

That's true, more often than not, but there's always an exception to the rule. When was the last time Cliff Richard or The Rolling Stones had a hit single? Most radio stations, music channels, etc. won't touch them, because they don't appeal to their target audience. Radio One got Madonna in to perform a live set, they've played album tracks, the single was A listed as soon as it was available, and even got plays on Pete Tong's Friday night show. The music channels promoted the time-slot for the premiere of the new video. All of this media is aimed at the younger market - would they bother if there wasn't any interest from their target audience? Of course not. So yes, I don't doubt that she still has many fans from 20 years ago. But the sections of the media that are currently promoting her material clearly show that her fan base has a much broader demographic than you'd imagine.

Gosh, what a lot of discussion my envious original email about Madonna has thrown up!

This woman really doesn't need to try to be anything. I think she is just doing what she enjoys. She certainly isn't short of a bob or two.

It would be sad if she looked dreadful, or if her music was ghastly, but let's face it, neither of these things is true.

I think as a musician/artist, she is entitled to perform, experiment with concepts etc as long as she wishes.

To say she should stop and move over is like saying that anyone with skill, wisdom, and experience should just sit and quietly cogitate in the corner and let it all fade away.

Not a great idea. As they say you've got to use it if you don't want to lose it!


My skills and experience are different, but I think I still have a lot to offer in my field. I dream about not having to work for a living, but you know, if I didn't HAVE to work, then I'd probably still want to do something.

I dont see how you can claim that I dont like women!! Thats completely untrue.

Youve skipped over my comments on Kim Cattrall, Helen Mirren, Joanna Lumley etc (who are all older than Madonna), just to suit your points. And what about the points that all the women in my life are strong and independant, and I love them for it.

As for my comments on Britney, please, feel free to post the direct link. If I had said such thing, you would have linked it. I would never swear on this forum, so I would never say a*** on here at all. Here is the exact link of what I said: http://www.thisisbigbrother.com/foru...d=36807&page=4 , its about half way down.

Its hardly what you said. It says 'How about this?'. Why do you feel the need to lie, and manipulate the facts to suit your own opinions and alienate people Ive known for over 4 years on here?? Pathetic. Id rather be accused of being anti Madonna than a liar.

Perhaps the other readers of this thread will see you for what you really are- a nasty piece of work.

Are you insecure?

Get your facts right.

I didn't. You claimed that I made such a claim, but I made no such claim. To claim otherwise would be an erroneous claim. :bigsmile:

Indeed, as they were irrelevant. You included them to bolster your defence of opinions I never expressed.

I don't recall saying that it was on this forum. But here it is, as requested: LINK.

What isn't? I can't see any lies in this thread at all, at least not on my part. I can see a lot of blind, desperate, paranoid accusations though, if it helps? And the '4 years' line is getting tired now, don't you think? Even if you'd founded the forum yourself on the eve of BB1, it still wouldn't mean that only your opinion counts.

Again, everyone is entitled to their opinions. Pretty much everyone that's posted in this thread so far disagrees with yours. That's not my fault, and neither is the fact that you chose my post/s on which to vent your frustration over the situation.

I don't know, can you describe the symptoms?

In this thread, I did. When I get them wrong, I say so. People generally have more respect for someone that willingly admits they made a mistake than someone that keeps claiming they were right all along. Check my post history and you'll see that I've done exactly that in the past here, on occasion. But in this instance, there's really no need.

It's true that the Stones and such like haven't had a hit single in years, but they still sell their albums (sorry - CDs:spin:) by the bucketload. They have longevity, which a lot of current bands don't have. But I am pleased to see that in the last couple of years, a lot of new bands with actual talent are coming through.

On the subject of Madonna, as long as she can keep making new music, and as long as it keeps selling, why shouldn't she continue?

Piperz, to answer your question about current bands who I think will be around for a long time, Coldplay, Athlete, Razorlight and The White Stripes come to mind. I've left out artists such as the mighty Ian Brown, the Chilis and of course Robert Plant, because they have already been around for years, and I think they will still be around for a long time yet.