She is a talented musician... that's what women in MUSIC needs. That's the fact cause she is above your fave in this list, she is successful by her music.

The problem is that you have dismissed Madonna as passable, ignoring her songwriting and musical skills and creativity.

There is a difference between singing and voice, yes. Whitney was gifted with a phenomenal, colorful voice, Madonna wasnt. But just because Madonna hasnt a great voice doesnt mean she is not a singer. Whitney and Madonna were at the top of their singing artistry while doing soundtracks (Whitneys magnum opus Bodyguard, Madonnas Evita, when she underwent an extensive vocal training and prooved herself to be a very skilled singer. Sadly, both werent treating their voices right after that). But believe it or not, a great technique and expression wouldnt be enough to make Whitney such a wonderful singer. Her beautiful, colorful, strong and open voice was her most important devise.

The point of my post was that it makes absolutely no sense to judge an artists greatness on what they DONT have/werent born with. A singers lack of good voice has nothing to do with their greatness if thats not the type of artist they are. But too often people underestimate creativity and artistry because the first thing they notice is the voice, and they often behave like if voice is the most important talent an artist can have, which I strongly disagree with. This is especially evident here on ATRL, when people often describe artists without a great voice as talentless.

And if you think that respect and acclaim is a random thing which has nothing to do with quality, then bye. There is a reason why is Whitney one of the most acclaimed and respected vocalists ever, or Madonna one of the most acclaimed and respected female artists ever

Katy has people FURIOUS! I love it

No. Me saying her musical skills are passable is not me ignoring her songwriting and creativity. It's me saying they are passable.

Madonna is not a great or skilled singer, nor has she ever been. That's ok. Evita was just the pinnacle of her limited singing ability. The kind of musicianship Whitney displayed during her own singing was far greater than that of Madonna's. A skilled singer without an amazing voice is someone like Billie Holiday. However, Madonna's claim to greatness is not her singing, nor has she ever pretended it was. But it is not her "strong, poetic lyrics" either.

Whitney's colorful, open, beautiful voice made what she did sound amazing, pleasing and enjoyable. But what made the things she did musical was the singing. She was an immense singer who was blessed with The Voice.

Seeing as how I didn't judge Madonna on what she lacked, once again, save your posts for when they're appropriate. Nowhere did I say that she wasn't a great artist because she isn't a great singer or because she doesn't have a good voice.

Your "lemme flip your point around" thing isn't working, because you end up just stating what I've already said. All you're telling me is that your point is my point, but applied to songwriters instead of singers. But like I said before "You cannot judge an ARTIST (whether singer, songwriter, producer, arranger, instrumentalist etc.) on what they don't DO". If it makes no sense for a singer to be judged on their lack of songwriting, then clearly it wouldn't make sense for a songwriter be judged on their limited singing ability. That's a no-brainer.

You keep talking about a "good voice", which I clearly said does not make an artist. Voice=/=singing. Once again, Whitney Houston was a fantastic singer, who just so happened to have the perfect voice. Her SINGING is what made her great.

Then you go and speak to THOSE people.

Some of the greatest artists ever, such as Bessie Smith, were completely disrespected and not given their due until decades after. Aretha, back in the 60s, was not as praised and as worshiped as she is today. So please, keep that respect and acclaim nonsense away. Critics, especially today, just know how to write, not how to critique what they write. Ironic, given their name.

As I said, singing is an art, thus if Whitney is one of the most respected and acclaimed vocalists ever, that makes her a respected and acclaimed ARTIST. But the acclaim and respect is not what makes her a GREAT one.

Passable huh...

So what then? Do you really believe that being controversial is enough?

Madonnas discography, especially from late 80s and 90s, is artistically, musically and lyrically very strong. Or do you want to deny it? Do you think that her music, lyrics and albums lack quality? I am curious now.

And she is very well aware of that. Thats why she is not working more on her voice, because she knows that its limited. She worked hard during Evita, but she just doesnt have the voice, so she is focusing on other things.

Of course the kind of musicianship Whitney displayed in singing cant be even compared to Madonnas, but she had the phenomenal voice to start with. It was recognized, so Whitney focused on perfecting her singing technique and style, a natural thing to do when you have something so beautiful to work with.

But I have to say that even when Madonnas voice is not as powerful, the way she sings on her records is beautiful, it fits the atmosphere of her songs.


So do you really believe that she would be so widely regarded as one of the greatest vocalists ever if she had her style and technique, but Madonnas type of voice? I seriously doubt it. Lets not be hypocritical now.

Everyone works with what he got, remember?

No, you dont get it. I am not trying to opose that statement, I am openly agreeing with it in my comment, just showing that it works both ways.

But what Im trying to say is that even when you dont like it, artists are and always were judged on what they do (or can do) just as much as on what they dont. And you, even when you claim otherwise, are doing the same now. So do I. Its how things work, people are comparing artists all the time and the things someone lacks are getting noticed. Thats how we form our opinions on who or what is superior. Thats why we have this talk right now.

I am. Now.



Oh dear. Your definition of respect and acclaim is very close-minded. I was definitely not talking about contemporary critics when I mentioned it.

Havent you heard that time is the best critic?

Some of my favorite artists were not always received well when they were active. But as the time passed by, the quality, influence and impact of their work are the reasons why people are still getting back to them and young generations rediscover their music, so they do indeed finally get the true respect and acclaim they deserve, years after their albums were released, when charts, sales or prejudices are not important anymore. Bessie and Aretha only proove my point. They are now getting respect and acclaim based purely on the quality of their work. So all in all, its only about the quality, because only good music is timeless

It's not about what I believe. It's about what's happened. Madonna is who she is because she has a great mind when it comes to musical image. Each album of hers has a unique image to accompany whatever kind of music she's doing at the time. Add in her spark for controversy, in her song subjects and live performances, her ideas for the visuals that accompany her music, and her passable musical talent and you have a very interesting artist who ends up completely changing the industry, because she understands how to perfectly meld all these things together when crafting work.

I feel Madonna writes some nice melodies, lyrics and hooks and overall has been consistent, but they are by no means exceptional for the most part. And I feel there are times when she is more reliant on the collaborators, especially when it comes to R&B/hip-hop stuff. It sounds like she's adapting to their sounds and ideas instead of the other way around.

That's lovely, but as I said, voice doesn't make an artist, whether in Madonna or Whitney. Whitney's artistry is in her singing, Madonna's in other things.

But technique=/=style=/=musicianship. Technique deals with how healthy and effectively the sound is produced to give it the best quality possible. That's not being an artist. Style is the kind of singing one does that pertains to a certain musical genre or form (R&B style, rock style, gospel style). Still doesn't make a singer an artist. Musicianship refers to how musical the singer is (interpretation, sense of melody, rhythm, phrasing etc.). It is the ONLY thing that makes a SINGER an artist because it is the realm in which creativity comes into play. It is the reason Billie Holiday is a towering artistic giant and why Jessica Simpson is not, even if she has more vocal capabilities.

Amazing. Absolutely amazing.

I don't care what she'd be "regarded" as. Being "regarded" as something and actually being something is not the same thing. I'm talking about the latter, not the former. So the only hypocrisy you're seeing is the one you've created.

She wouldn't be the great vocalist she is without her voice and technique, but if her singing instincts were the same, she'd still be the same great singer. Again, voice=/=singing. The singer is the artist. The voice is just the instrument. If Paganini played a small, cheap violin as opposed to a high-quality violin, he's still the same artist, just working with a different instrument. Whitney Houston's voice was imperial and her technical skill with it was untouchable, which is why she's a divine vocalist. Her singing (how she builds the song, where she accentuates certain parts in a phrase, how she uses melisma to construct whole melodic ideas, how rhythmically sound she is etc.) is what makes her an artist.

I know it works both ways, hence why I said what I said. Good God. My first post in this thread was addressing singing. It wasn't lifting up singing while putting down songwriting, thus your posts weren't necessary.

Speak for yourself. I never judge an artist on what they don't do (unless they don't do anything). I judge them on what they do and how well they do it. If I judged an artist on what they didn't do, there'd be no "great artists" to me. Not even Stevie Wonder, who sings, writes, composes melodies, arranges and plays a million instruments incredibly well. I could easily say "he doesn't dance" or "he doesn't have a creative mind when it comes to musical image and the visual art form".

Whenever I talk about a musician "lacking", it's lacking in quality of the art in which they do, not lacking in terms of the number of artistic avenues they (don't) take. I don't judge the artistry of instrumentalists on them not singing, but on how well they play their instrument(s).

OMG...I can't....are you serious? Let's see your post again:

Show me where I said Madonna was talentless because she didn't have a great voice. Never mind the fact that in my first post in this thread, I said "singing, like songwriting, is an avenue for artistry". Never mind the fact I've said multiple times that having a great voice doesn't make a person an artist. Please, find me the post where I said Madonna was talentless due to her not-so-great voice. I can wait.

That is not my definition of respect and acclaim. That was me citing the first thing that came to mind when I saw those words.

Exactly. They're great BECAUSE of the quality of their work, not because they're respected and acclaimed. Reflection and acclaim is a REFLECTION of greatness at best, but a cheap handout at worst, because it can be given to anybody. Why? It is rooted in what an individual likes and doesn't like. You'd be hard-pressed to find someone call a piece of art that they don't like "great", regardless of their own personal feelings.

You sure about that? What about classics, such as The Macarena, Ice Ice Baby, Baby Got Back, Mambo No. 5, Achy Breaky Heart and Kung Fu Fighting? They're not necessarily good songs, but they have lasted from their own respective decades to this one.

the first 11 positions are kinda alright (Taylor is my only complaint, Janet should be #9)

But then it gets REAL messy

P.S: at this page's responses, some people have too much free time

Another list Britney Jean didn't make. Talk about impact

I agree with many things you have said, but I do feel that Madonna is a very talented artist even when you take away the visuals and controversy.

Just because she is changing her sound doesnt mean she relies on her collaborators. She is carefully choosing people with whom she works on her albums. It is well known from people she collaborated with that she is working with them on her own ideas, or they create the ideas together.

Its not easy for me to express what I mean, because in my language we recognize four different terms strictly used for this. English doesnt and is more benevolent in using them. I used to sing in a professional childrens choir and even when it was a long time ago, you dont have to explain me that style, technique and musicianship are not the same things.

Technique does deal with effectivity and healthy way of singing, yes. But there are different techniques of singing required for specific types of music like opera, classical choral music etc., which have to be taught. Then there are music genres like rock, pop etc. for which exists a common, often used style of singing, but no specific technique is required to be taught.

Most importantly, every singer, no matter what genre of music he does, develops his unique style of singing (interpretation, expression, how are the technical aspects of singing applied etc.), in other words what you described as musicianship. And thats what I meant with style, because the term musicianship is used to describe more the technical skills and abilities of a singer. At least in my language, but I dont think its that different in English

Maybe you are forgetting that even you saying that Whitney is a great artist/vocalist is your opinion, its how she is regarded from your own point of view. And the majority of people including me agree with you, thats why she is "widely regarded" as such and on lists like this one.

Why do you think Paganini played some of the best violins there are? Because he knew that if you dont have the right instrument to do something, you will be not able to do it. Its a circle. A singer who doesnt have a good voice is like a violinist who doesnt have his instrument. Maybe there is another Paganini among us, but noone gave him violins.

Whitneys voice is essential for her as an artist. Whitneys style and technique were good, but not flawless or exceptionally creative, you know. There are many artists who are more creative with how they use their voices than Whitney, but they simply dont have that great, powerful "instrument".

Whitney had good intuition as a singer, she was not one of the best artist when it comes to signing style tho (or musicianship according to you). It was her imperial voice what impressed the whole world. Its my opinion and I will stand behind it, because I strongly believe its true. We can continue to write essays here forever or simply agree to disagree. Its up to you

Then reread your reply to that initial comment, where you acted as if the only thing Madonna is doing for people to pay her attention is stripping herself on stage. You are judging her in favor of Whitneys vocal talent, because Whitney can awe the audience with it and Madonna cant. You are so obvious...

Yes, they are great because of the quality of their work, and the quality of their work is bringing them respect and acclaim of the next generations. Its related.

Music is not only about quality, but also about entertaining and these songs excell at that. People love to bop to them simply for fun. But where is the respect and acclaim for these songs?? Exactly...
People treat them differently.

Also the songs you listed are not that old, most of them (except for one) are from the 90s and people working on radios remember them and play them. If songs are really good at entertaining, then they can survive for a long time before they will be slowly replaced, because every generation has their own songs of this kind (I bet you cant name fun songs like this from the beginning of the 20th century for example, even when they certainly were there).
People dont come back to them like they do with respected music because they have plenty of new ones and also because they are of little artistic value. Its natural for people to try to preserve and later study and enjoy for decades or centuries music of high artistic and cultural value tho.
So its songs quality, but also its power to entertain what determines its faith.

And she very well may be. But this wasn't about: "whose more talented out of Whitney or Madonna". The fact is they are both different kinds of artists, talented in different ways, but TALENTED nonetheless and ARTISTS nonetheless. Whitney not being a songwriter isn't anymore of a hindrance to her artistry than Madonna not being a virtuosic singer.

In regards Whitney Houston, while she didn't write her songs, the producers and musicians that worked with her constantly mention her creativity in vocal arrangement and how the melodic ideas she expressed (not the already written melody) were completely her own. And when it comes to live performances, they praise her for her creativity in carving out fresh interpretations of her songs in such a way that no two performances are the same. Goes back to what I said about the creative mind working with the vocal.

Interesting. Not even being facetious here.

Absolutely. Especially when it comes to breathing, resonance, where the sound is "placed" etc.

Yep. But I'd say for music genres, there's are often used "approaches" to singing, most/all of which combined then leads to the "style" (hence "rock style", "gospel style", "pop style" etc.).

I understand what you mean and agree with it, but that wasn't the way I was using "style". The way I was using style: see the blurb above.

Of course it's my point of view, the same way it's yours that Madonna is very talented even when you take away her visual and controversial genius. However, just because something is a point of view doesn't mean it isn't truth.

Eeeeh....not really. The human voice is far greater than any man-made instrument. Billie Holiday was one of the greatest singers this world has ever seen, but she lacked a Whitney Houston voice. However, she was fully able to express what she wanted and needed, because she was such a great musician. The difference between Whitney and Billie is that the things Whitney did were technically complex because of her multi-octave instrument and solid technique. And because of that reason, people were amazed by her vocal prowess. Billie didn't have that luxury because she didn't have that kind of instrument.

That's because we came to know her as The Voice. There's no alternate reality that tells us how we'd react to her if she just had a good or ok voice. And when her voice declined, people reacted badly based on what her instrument had been before.

Whitney Houston combined gospel power virtuosity and style with pop sensibility. There was no one who had done it like her before. Aretha was fully gospel-styled singer, with jazz, blues and R&B flair. Sam Cooke was able to streamline his soulful style enough to cross over to pop. Same with Dionne Warwick and Darlene Love. Whitney's style was unlike anything in pop music.
As for her technique, she sang in a way that deviated from the usual teachings, which is why many vocal coaches accused her of having bad technique, because they couldn't figure out what she was doing.

That's wonderful, but I don't care, because it's not even related to my statement of judging an artist on what they don't do period, rather on the quality of what they actually do. Your own opinion of Whitney is your own. Notice how you said "she's not one the best artists when it came to singing style/musicianship". You DIDN'T say "she's not one of the best artists because she didn't write songs", which is what I've been addressing all this time. Your opinion of her is based on your own view of how well she does what she does. The same goes for me. That's the point I'm making: an artist should be judged on what he/she does as opposed to something he/she is just not involved in.

WHAT? LMAOOO.
In my last post, I said "Madonna is who she is because she has a great mind when it comes to musical image. Each album of hers has a unique image to accompany whatever kind of music she's doing at the time. Add in her spark for controversy, in her song subjects and live performances, her ideas for the visuals that accompany her music, and her passable musical talent and you have a very interesting artist who ends up completely changing the industry, because she understands how to perfectly meld all these things together when crafting work."

And you put it down to me acting like she is who/where she is because she strips onstage. Trust me, if I wanted to say that, I would have said it LMAO.

And in my initial post, I also responded to the person saying Whitney wasn't a great performer. I said Whitney was a different KIND of performer than Madonna and proceeded to explain HOW. She's a flat-footed performer who awes the audience with her voice and singing. Madonna captures their attention in other ways. That's just what it is. I don't tell Madonna how to perform onstage. You have an issue with what I said, take it up with Madonna. And BTW, that was me speaking about Madonna and Whitney in the context of PERFORMING, not overall artistry. If you want to know what I think about Madonna's artistry, just read the comment I re-posted above.

Correlation is not causation. They are not great BECAUSE of acclaim.

Ooop. There we go. That's completely different from what you previously said, which was "only good music is timeless".
Those songs are very acclaimed for exactly what you just mentioned: entertainment value.

Is the context we're speaking in not the contemporary popular music scene? Why would I start talking about dance ditties from over 100 years ago?

How many times have people said, esp. on this site, "this song is not remembered because I've never heard it or they never play it?" How do you measure "survival of music?" The greatest standards of all time are "unknown" to people of the newer generations. That doesn't stop them being timeless or classic.

A song existing for decades is forever in popular music, whether the song is good or not.

Because, like you pointed out, their purpose is different. However, that doesn't stop each side from existing for a long time, which ends up refuting your previous statement of only good music being timeless.

In the case of Madonna and Whitney, Madonna has been studied by singers, musicians, musicologists and such on her unique approach to the industry and her own catalogue: in visual creativity in image and video, song subjects, controversy and variation of musical styles per album and the combination of all these things in her studio and live performances. Whitney Houston has been studied by singers, musicians, musicologists etc. not just because of her immense instrument, but the WAY she sang, the kind of songs she sang, the image she presented in performance and the kind of genres she used to express her talent.

So........