If the visuals are truly stunning, if they pull you into the performance, if you truly are blown away by them... I could see that being better than Singing/Dancing for some.
I would rather watch someone and prefer the one who sings LIVE thus it is a better performance. Im not here for the props or so whatever gimmicks if i am, better watch a circus show much cheaper and still the same.
And she didn't redefine anything because no one tries to copy all that **** on stage. No one even has time to get all that mess together for a 6 minute performance at an award show.
No one copies her on tour either, she does her thing and they do theirs. People do however try their very best to serve Beyonce lite since they are forced to watch her perform her wig off.
Bottom line is you would rather go see a movie when you're supposed to be at a damn concert.
So you think all the Gaga/Rihanna/Britney comparisons to Madonna are just for the hell of it? You think every stan on this board arguing that their fave is the Queen of Pop is just for post count? Who do you think pioneered the importance of image for a pop star?
The reason why an artist like Rihanna, and Britney's last two tours, can be a lukewarm on stage, but can still sell out a show is because of Madonna. The lack of skill can be masked. This is not true for Madonna before you even try it lol.
Beyonce is an extraordinary performance, but so is Madonna and there is no need to discredit either.
Performing is about bringing the material to life....whether it be through singing, dancing, visuals, stage presence....if you want to include the greatest performers how can you not include so many rock, blues and jazz legends who gave the most extraordinary renditions of their songs live? Dancing in a leotard is cute but that's not all it is. Part of the performance is the song itself as well, the quality of the music is a huge aspect.
So you think all the Gaga/Rihanna/Britney comparisons to Madonna are just for the hell of it? You think every stan on this board arguing that their fave is the Queen of Pop is just for post count? Who do you think pioneered the importance of image for a pop star?
The reason why an artist like Rihanna, and Britney's last two tours, can be a lukewarm on stage, but can still sell out a show is because of Madonna. The lack of skill can be masked. This is not true for Madonna before you even try it lol.
Yeah the fanbase of Rihanna and Britney are going to their concerts because they're thinking of Madonna Britney can be lukewarm on stage because she has a loyal fanbase. I don't even see how this is relevant.
I would throw Madonna in there too so the girls can stop bitching, but it cannot be denied that people see Madonna for her visuals, not her "raw" talent like these other 5.
EXACTLY! Madonna has gotten MUCH better visually from where she began to where she is now. Shock value or not, she can still captivate her audience, i.e. "Vogue" at Superbowl.
NO. Madonna had the input of others to pull off these visuals. People act as if Madonna completely puts these shows together on her own and that no one is giving their input when it comes to these visuals. It's not the same as singing and dancing, or even instrumentation. No one is controlling what is coming out of your mouth but YOU, If you go flat it's ON YOU. With dancing, You miss a step in a performance, it's On YOU, You play a wrong note during your performance it's on YOU. In comparison to Madonna's visuals, say one of the props isn't working right, or one of the lights go out, etc it would be simply looked at as a Technical Difficulty, not because of something Madonna did. TO ME that is not a raw given talent. Now the talent to actually get away with half of the **** she does that other artist would be blackballed for I'd say that's a Raw talent. lol.
Making $5 million on tour is bombing isn't it niece?
In the 80s, where tickets were a lot cheaper and she didn't play nearly nearly as many places as she does now. You can't compare tour grosses from nowadays and 30 years ago, that's just stupid.
This goes back to comparing their strengths. Case and point, last page, this video was posted:
Obviously this video is highlighting Beyonce's singing and dancing.
Okay, let's flip it. Find me a Beyonce performance that's as visually stunning as this:
You have to compare HOW the artists perform, not just "raw ability".
Yes, & the way Madonna "performs" is by using props to substitute. We're just going to go around in circles. I understand what you're getting at, I just don't agree.
You can put a bad actor in a great movie & a great actor in a bad movie, it doesn't take away or add to their acting ability. & if the bad actor was the director of the great movie and the great actor was the director of the bad movie it still doesn't add or take away from their acting abilities. they are extra talents but not the central point of judging the person for their ability (acting).
Yeah the fanbase of Rihanna and Britney are going to their concerts because they're thinking of Madonna Britney can be lukewarm on stage because she has a loyal fanbase. I don't even see how this is relevant.
This,^^^, is what happens when you take things literally.
NO. Madonna had the input of others to pull off these visuals. People act as if Madonna completely puts these shows together on her own and that no one is giving their input when it comes to these visuals. It's not the same as singing and dancing, or even instrumentation. No one is controlling what is coming out of your mouth but YOU, If you go flat it's ON YOU. With dancing, You miss a step in a performance, it's On YOU, You play a wrong note during your performance it's on YOU. In comparison to Madonna's visuals, say one of the props isn't working right, or one of the lights go out, etc it would be simply looked at as a Technical Difficulty, not because of something Madonna did. TO ME that is not a raw given talent. Now the talent to actually get away with half of the **** she does that other artist would be blackballed for I'd say that's a Raw talent. lol.
Madonna is heavily, heavily involved in everything regarding her career, especially her tours. She is not the most naturally gifted pop star of all time, but she is the most creative, and that is a talent that is also worthy of being appreciated.
Everyone has different opinions about this sort of thing. I don't think I could name the best live performers of all time either. However, I think Beyonce is more than worthy to be considered one of the best.
This performance right here slays in terms of visuals, dancing and singing. It took a lot of hard work to pull of that stuff visually that most other artists couldn't pull off.
In the 80s, where tickets were a lot cheaper and she didn't play nearly nearly as many places as she does now. You can't compare tour grosses from nowadays and 30 years ago, that's just stupid.
It only brought in 300k ppl, Tina Turners Break Every Rule tour brought 4 million people in '87.
I would rather watch someone and prefer the one who sings LIVE thus it is a better performance. Im not here for the props or so whatever gimmicks if i am, better watch a circus show much cheaper and still the same.
Right. If I wanted to see visuals I would go to a circus or a play. Now if you can combine both visuals along with singing dancing like so
Then I can't doubt you, but I just can't praise someone for giving me visuals and not giving me vocals or dance, especially when you're supposed to be an artist. You can throw me onstage with a million props and the most gorgeous outfits, but does that make me extraordinary talented?
At the end of the day it is basically different strokes for different folks. Some love raw talent such as singing and dancing while others prefer visuals.
NO. Madonna had the input of others to pull off these visuals. People act as if Madonna completely puts these shows together on her own and that no one is giving their input when it comes to these visuals. It's not the same as singing and dancing, or even instrumentation. No one is controlling what is coming out of your mouth but YOU, If you go flat it's ON YOU. With dancing, You miss a step in a performance, it's On YOU, You play a wrong note during your performance it's on YOU. In comparison to Madonna's visuals, say one of the props isn't working right, or one of the lights go out, etc it would be simply looked at as a Technical Difficulty, not because of something Madonna did. TO ME that is not a raw given talent. Now the talent to actually get away with half of the **** she does that other artist would be blackballed for I'd say that's a Raw talent. lol.
But that's just my point from a few pages ago. When you credit the artist, the team behind the artist is implied in the credit being given. It's like an artist gets praised for an album. Sure they wrote and produced it, but there are other ppl who helped in the process. Similarly, Madonna does her visuals, and she has a team who helps her with them as well.
When you compare visuals with singing and dancing, they leveled. When you go flat, that's on the singer right. When costumes aren't align with the message of the song, that's on the artist. There are other factors that can make an artist go flat. Just like how Beyonce needs her fans because it keeps her cool, which prevents her body from overheating and effecting her voice. The visuals have to be operating in accordance with everything else to be effective.
You think every stan on this board arguing that their fave is the Queen of Pop is just for post count? 
Yeah the fanbase of Rihanna and Britney are going to their concerts because they're thinking of Madonna 
Shock value or not, she can still captivate her audience, i.e. "Vogue" at Superbowl.
