Your web-browser is very outdated, and as such, this website may not display properly. Please consider upgrading to a modern, faster and more secure browser. Click here to do so.
The link to this post is to be sent to every little monster who says things like “the MDNA Tour is only more successful than the Born This Way Ball because Madonna has been around for a longer period of time”.
Let’s analyze this lame excuse and prove how this rationale is flawed and does not work for other music acts, especially for other women in music:
Too many moronic and ignorant little monsters, when they finally understand and admit Madonna’s MDNA Tour is kicking Lady Gaga’s Born Reductive High School Ball in the saggy ass (which is a fact based on the superior attendance and gross numbers reached by Madonna), they still manage to create an excuse for Gaga.
Every time you think there is light at the end of the tunnel and a little monster is being a decent human being, seeing facts and not denying them (MDNA is largely more successful than the BTW Ball), they come with the ignorant, unfounded, and uneducated excuse that “Madonna’s had a 29-year career, Gaga just four, they don’t compare”.
Well, sorry, monsters, but they do. And you’re flatly wrong.
In these circumstances, having a long career is actually worse for the artistic class. People that have been around for longer, have been seen for longer, have toured for longer, usually end up playing in smaller theaters a few years after their peak. Let me give you examples of other music veterans, with a similar career-time as Madonna to prove:
Cyndi Lauper has been around for as long as Madonna has. She doesn’t even tour arenas. Her shows are in small theaters, small amphitheaters, nightclubs. It’s very similar with Debbie Harry and Blondie, Belinda Carlisle and the Go-Go’s, Janet Jackson… Even Mariah Carey, who was one of the biggest stars in the 90s - with both her last tours having several gigs being canceled in arenas in the US for the lack of ticket sales.
You see, the FACT is longevity does not mean more people will pay to see you. It is actually the opposite:
People lose interest if you’ve been around for too long, overexposed in the media. Not with Madonna - she is a phenomenon. Only music legends like Madonna can pull similar numbers after a long career.
Stop fighting a fact, it will be easier on you all. Accepting the fact that Madonna is a legend, that Madonna is a phenomenon, and that today, Madonna still is more successful than a newbie like Gaga is not going to hurt you.
You see, most music veterans cannot have Madonna’s success, neither can “newbies” like Gaga, Katy Perry, Justin Bieber, Rihanna. That’s just a fact. Their tours do not come close to Madonna. And if the number gets close, it is only because they need to be on the road for a lot longer, changing the parameters for comparison completely. Just like the last time Gaga and Madonna were on tour:
It took Gaga three years on the road with the Monster Ball to make half of what Madonna made in seven months with the Sticky and Sweet Tour (which is the most successful tour ever made by a solo artist - male and female). Not to mention that in seven months, Madonna played for one million more people than Gaga in three years on the road. Why fight these facts? Why be so moronic in denying them?
This year, again, Lady Gaga is on a tour that has much more shows than Madonna and at this point, she’s made a lot less money in comparison to Madonna’s. Gaga’s attendance is also a lot smaller than Madonna’s.
Last time official numbers came out on both tours, in only 19 dates, Madonna had sold 678,066 tickets and made US$79,657,998.
Whereas Lady Gaga with 14 more shows than Madonna (that’s 42% more shows than Madonna), in 33 dates, sold less tickets, 525,909, and obviously, made less money, US$71,298,189.
So what is there to argue about?
Numbers don’t lie. The MDNA TOUR is bigger and better than the Born This Way Ball.
And not even the lame excuse of “longevity” will work. After all, if that rule was truth, other veterans like Cyndi Lauper, Cher, Debbie Harry, Mariah Carey, Janet Jackson would have their tours among the top grossing tours every year they go on the road. Note that Cher is on that list, but it also took her three years to make less than the Confessions Tour made in a few months.
If you monsters insist with this stupid, illogical and moronic argument, please explain why those other divas are not selling out arenas and stadiums worldwide in recent times.
Once and for all:
the attendance and gross of the MDNA Tour are higher than the Born This Way Reductive High School Ball. The Only thing bigger in the BTW Ball is Lady Gaga herself.
Artwork from here.
It’s 1992 all over again.
Have we all reached a level of absolute complete numbness that the only way we feel alive is by recreating moments from the past? By perpetuating notions and ideals that were long destroyed? The media surely thinks so.
Madonna was “over” and “desperate” when she showed her titties on the catwalk in a Jean Paul Gaultier fashion show in 1992.
The media also called her “desperate” and “over” when she showed her titties (and her vagina) in her SEX book that year too.
She was also “desperate for attention” when she posed with one tit out for Esquire magazine in 1994 - back when her career was already “over” and she was already “old” and “irrelevant”.
And now, 20 years after Madonna became “old”, “desperate” and “irrelevant” for the very first time, she’s still making headlines for flashing the same boob. Too much attention for someone whose career’s been said to be “dead” for so long.
Madonna has been a true catalyzer for the western media’s misogyny, sexism and ageism. But more than changing its core structure, she exposes its backwardness more than anything else:
Is it truly a scandal when a woman purposely flashes her nipple on stage in 2012?
Is Madonna showing her nipple in 2012 a real scandal?
The media seems to think it is. At least, they put a lot of effort to make people think it is still a taboo for a woman to do whatever she wants with her body and her sexuality.
The public figures who decided to talk about the Madonna-nipple-flashing tragedy are the best part of it: the ever interesting and poignant Piers Morgan (insert sarcasm here) called her “desperate”. And even Howard Stern called her “desperate”.
I understand Piers Morgan calling Madonna “desperate”. That man says she is desperate even when she avoids being in the public eye. But Howard Stern is the icing on the cake. The man who puts naked women on his show for ratings, the man who objectifies women, the man who flashed his ass on MTV thinks that Madonna is “desperate” because she flashed her nipple in her own show.
Howard Stern as Fartman at the 1992 VMAs.
In all honesty, flashing your ass and faux-farting butt-naked at an award show under the direction of someone else SCREAMS desperation. Madonna’s recent boob-flash seems genuinely irreverent. And she did it because SHE WANTED TO - not because she was directed by MTV to do so.
You can see it in her face that it was not part of a grand plan for publicity. The crowd was wild and the context in which it happened (within the show) was right.
Madonna and her irreverent moment.
There are many people who could feel insulted by Madonna’s boob-flash. Howard Stern certainly is not one of those.
Stern comes off as a dog that barks but never bites. He was spot on when he criticized Lady Gaga’s HBO special (which failed to beat Madonna’s HBO ratings). All the comments he made were right and funny. But as soon as he was face-to-face with Gaga, he was a different person. And obviously, there was no mentioning of her HBO special - Oh! The things a contract will do for you. Well, that’s how he rolls: he barks loud, but as soon as you’re around, he will even do a trick for a cookie. He does it all the time, with everybody.
But hey, leave it to the man who objectifies women on his show to judge a woman that shows her nipple when she wants to:
The Strongest Nude Woman contest on Howard TV
At the end of the day, Madonna is the one exposing this retrograde media. She is the one doing what she wants to do, and she is the one owning up to it:
Every single time we saw her nipple, it was done on purpose. Whether she had an agenda behind it or not, she showed us her body and owned up to her actions. We can’t say the same about other celebrities:
Lady Gaga, Britney Spears, Miley Cyrus, Janet Jackson, and so many others, we have all seen their “privates”, but they all used “wardrobe malfunction” as an excuse. They don’t even own up to it like Madonna does.
At the end of the day, Madonna still is the woman with the biggest balls in showbiz.
So let the media make you believe that an active 53-year-old woman showing her nipple and exhibiting an incredibly health-conscious lifestyle is a bad thing. The same media will make you believe that a young singer bleeding on stage on MTV in 2009 is “groundbreaking” and “flesh” (cut to underground electroclash queen Peaches doing the same in 2005).
We definitely are living in the age of perpetuating habits: the good and the bad ones.
Beware, Madonna, this man is judging you!
What's your take on why Madonna is getting so much negative press, especially majorly ageist press . . . . . ?
Madonna has always gotten negative press. Much more negative than positive - which makes her even more of a champ than she already is.
The ageist comments are what the press and her detractors can use against her now. But they always found other ways of trying to destroy her career through negative press.
Right after she released her first album, “Madonna”, Billboard editor Paul Grein predicted that ”Cyndi Lauper will be around for a long time; Madonna will be out of the business in six months,” but Madonna stuck around, and her second album (Like a Virgin) eventually sold 15 million worldwide in the 80s.
In fact, the rumor is that Cyndi Lauper and her team used to back-stab people in the showbiz, just like Lady Gaga’s team does now. Remember how Lady Gaga’s supporters made a very public campaign against Christina Aguilera’s BIONIC album? Cyndi Lauper’s team did the same with Madonna (though it didn’t work).
When members of the media couldn’t write anything negative about Madonna’s commercial success, they started attacking her talent based on NOTHING: “she has no talent”, “she doesn’t write her music”, “she doesn’t produce”, “she can’t sing”, “she can’t dance”, “she can’t act”, “she’s a whore”, “she’s not a good mother”, “she adopted kids for publicity”, “she has had plastic surgeries”. It goes on and on.
Michael Jackson lip-synced his entire shows and no one had a problem with it.
Janet Jackson lip-synced her entire shows and no one had a problem with it.
Even Mariah Carey (who has a great studio voice) used to lip-sync a big chunk of her shows (even though she barely moved on stage), still, no one had a problem with it.
When Madonna lip-synced 3 or 4 songs out of 20 in her shows (The Virgin Tour and the Who’s That Girl Tour were 100% LIVE), she was heavily criticized for it. And she still is.
For almost 30 years, the woman still makes good music, still puts on the best shows in the world, still tries new ventures and uses her fame and money with projects no one has the obligation to.
Ageist comments are the dumbest of all:
Every time one criticizes Madonna for her age, they should stop and remember that we all grow old at the same pace as Madonna. Not everybody looks as good as she does though. And that has nothing to do with plastic surgery:
Lady Gaga is half her age, she has the money and the resources, but she cannot dance or move like Madonna. Gaga does not have half the energy, or the creativity Madonna has at 53. So what’s the problem in being 53 again?
In fact, not a lot of 20-something-year olds I know can do what Madonna does now on stage. So, yeah… “Madonna is old” is the new “Madonna has no talent”.
I just think it’s very telling when someone still accuses Madonna of having “no talent”. Don’t they ever think that it is rather unusual for someone with “no talent at all” to have reached so much success for such a long time? And it’s not like the media covered up for her (like they do to Gaga), it’s quite the opposite, members of the mainstream media have always tried to end Madonna’s career since day one.
But you know, “haters gonna hate”. And they will not use logical arguments to reason their feelings. So let them hate on Madonna. It seems it has worked for her in the past 30 years.
The other day I was listening to a podcast by two gay guys and a comedienne who is well-known for playing Madonna throughout her entire show. All of them clearly disliked Madonna (including the comedienne who makes a living imitating Madonna).
The most interesting thing I noticed was that during the broadcast, they made fun of Madonna’s age, body and plastic surgeries right after talking about Cher. Cher - of all people: the woman who changed her teeth, nose, boobs, ass and even had her jawbone shaved. They also did not mention the fact that Cher started having cosmetic procedures in her 20s (Madonna at least waited as long as she could). It’s the same thing all over again: Everybody else can do it. Except Madonna.
And that’s the media’s relationship with Madonna: it’s very passive-aggressive and “hurt”.
I think because prominent members of the media failed to destroy Madonna’s career after so many campaigns, they will say anything when the opportunity comes. You can feel the resentment “in the air”.
I’ve said it many times before: unlike her own claims, Lady Gaga does lip-sync a lot. And when she doesn’t completely lip-sync, she sings over (in fact, under) several layers of pre-recorded vocals.
You don’t have to be a music expert or to be in the music industry to be able to perceive Lady Gaga’s clear lip-syncing moments. They have always been there.
Last night, on the second show of the Born This Way Ball, performed at the Asia World Arena in Hong Kong, it became even more evident: apparently, Lady Gaga’s microphone had a problem, so we could not hear what was coming out of her mouth. Did it hurt the songs and the show? Did it hurt the music spectacle? No.
Most of the people in the arena didn’t even notice Lady Gaga had a problem with her microphone. Why not? Because we still could hear the music being sung through the pre-recorded vocals she always plays during her songs.
We can all clearly see Lady Gaga lip-syncing to her pre-recorded vocals on her show. Her fans are already creating excuses, saying “she does sing live over the backtrack”. Yes, she does. We all know it. And that’s the problem: if one needs the support of backtrack, pre-recorded vocals under almost every song in the show, they shouldn’t be praising themselves for “doing it live”. If it’s not 100% live, don’t praise yourself for doing half the job.
In fact, it is clear that Lady Gaga does less than half the job in “singing live”. You can see in the opening number of her show that about 80% of all the lines in the songs are still there (and they all came from pre-recorded vocals). So what’s left? The other 20% she sings live?
Lady Gaga is not the only popstar who lipsyncs sometimes and only sings part of her songs, or a few songs live. Britney Spears lipsyncs her entire shows. Everyone uses of technology to cover up something in their show. Madonna, Prince, Mariah Carey, they all use vocal help too. I don’t have a problem with everyone, because some of them are honest about it. But I do have a problem with people who lie about it and misguide the audience, people like Lady Gaga, Michael Jackson, Janet Jackson and even Mariah Carey (whose voice used to be powerful).
Lady Gaga has said many times she never lip-synced, and that she “never will”. The problem is: she always has lip-synced, and she did it again last night. And not only during the opening of the show.
So it’s time the media said something about her hypocrite behavior. The entire mainstream media has joked about the fact that Britney Spears lip-syncs. So why won’t they say anything about Lady Gaga - a popstar that says she doesn’t, but goes on stage and lip-syncs during almost every song. In all honestly: singing “live” under layers of pre-recorded vocals should not be considered “live” after all. Especially when the pre-recorded vocals are louder than the “live” vocals - like it is with Lady Gaga.
Madonna, just like Britney Spears, is often accused of lip-syncing. But in reality, in her shows, very few tracks are lip-synced. 95% of her shows are live and only 5% lip-synced or performed with the help of pre-recorded vocals. Michael Jackson, on the other hand, lip-synced 95% of his shows and sang 5% live - but the media never had a problem with him. Check Michael Jackson’s History World Tour here (the entire show). He lipsyncs throughout the whole show! Only a handful of songs were sung live.
Same goes to his sister, Janet Jackson, who never really did anything special on her own. She surely had great hits, but she was simply doing what Madonna and her brother were doing. The difference is that Janet Jackson always lip-synced her shows. Entirely. Like Britney Spears does today. But Janet never took the heat for doing it. So how is this fair to Britney? It’s time for the media, and the people in general, to start being honest about the people we talk or write about. Start being fair.
So Lady Gaga had a problem with her microphone and it becomes evident that her shows are not exactly live. What happens when Madonna has a problem with her microphone? Well, considering that most of her shows are done completely live, it’s easy to find moments like this:
No matter what excuses Lady Gaga fans will create for last night’s vocal indiscretion and blatant lip-syncing, I would expect a moment like Madonna had - microphone failed - nobody heard her voice. For someone who vehemently says she “never have and will never lip-sync”, last night’s event proved Lady Gaga is nothing but a liar - and a bad performer.
Here are a few other clips from lady Gaga’s concert last night in Hong Kong. In them, it is clear that she was lip-syncing in other moments too, or blatantly chosing when to sing under her pre-recorded vocals:
During Born This Way, it is clear that she chooses not to sing the chorus of the song. Instead of singing, she just mimes. In other words, she blatantly lip-syncs during several moments in this one song. And no, she was not having problems with her microphone - she sings on it on and off whenever she decided to. In case it doesn’t open, here’s a link to YouTube.
Half of Bad Romance was sung over pre-recorded vocals. The other half Lady Gaga just danced and pretended she was singing. Take a look:
She has the best and easiest job on Earth!
She goes on stage, moves her arms and occasionally sings live under layers of pre-recorded vocals, then goes home richer, knowing that no one in the media will give her a hard time for not doing her shows 100% live as she promised.
During Poker Face, only the verses (which are spoken) are sung live by Lady Gaga. The first half of the chorus was sung live too, but the rest was lip-synced until the second spoken verse of the song [YouTube]:
What I don’t understand is: she’s not even really dancing here.
Her dance routines are easy, they are not demanding. So she has no excuse as “I needed to dance, so I stopped singing”. She basically just moves her arms! And she’s only 26 years old, above all. Can’t she work on her cardio? Resistance exercises?
It is sad that we live in a world that allows people like Michael Jackson and Janet Jackson to lip-sync their entire shows and never criticize them for it, but when someone like Britney does it, she needs to be humiliated for it.
It’s sad that this history is repeating itself all over again: the media allows Lady Gaga to go around pretending she is a real singer, when, in fact, she’s only doing less than half of the live singing in her shows. While Madonna goes on stage, uses pre-recorded vocals in three songs (out of 20), and is accused of miming her concerts.
In about four weeks, Madonna opens her new world tour. I bet that, if she lip-syncs one single song, the media will be all over it. Unlike they are with lady gaga, who lip-syncs most of the songs in her shows and gets a free pass.
But I guess we all know who’s got the last laugh. 30 very successful years in the music business with total global domination against all odds. Not everyone can do it.
Madonna did it again. She gave a flawless performance at the Super Bowl 2012. Yet, there are still a few uneducated ignorant haters who will open up their mouth to share their uneducated thoughts on her performance and spread hate.
First of all, how can one not appreciate Madonna’s performance? It was visually stunning. Musically great (she sang well-known hits and presented a new song). She vogue’d and even did cartwheels - I’m not gonna make that backhanded ageist compliment “she did cartwheels at 53” because I, at 28, cannot do them (and I do yoga too).
Where does this need for uncalled criticism come from? Lady Gaga fans are so afraid of Madonna that they would say anything to try to diminish her brilliant performance. What about Kylie Minogue fans? When did they get the “hate-Madonna-now” memo?
I have nothing against Kylie Minogue, but Madonna did not copy Kylie Minogue at all at her Super bowl performance.
People need to educate themselves a little more.
Cleopatra is not Aphrodite. Venus is not Cleopatra. However, Aphrodite and Venus are the same, they have different names according to Greek and Roman mythology.
Madonna was clearly personifying Cleopatra, as it can be seen in the iconography and symbolism in her carriage through Egyptian hieroglyphs and a pharaoh-shaped head:
The theme for Kylie Minogue’s latest tour was not Egyptian. It was Roman/Greek.
The opening of Kylie’s tour was a reenactment of the birth of Venus/Aphrodite (as Aphrodite and Venus are the same):
Kylie Minogue did the birth of Venus (Aphrodite in 2011), ten years after Madonna.
Madonna had already done the birth of Venus - as the opening number of the Drowned World Tour - 2001 (ten years before Kylie Minogue).
Madonna, as Venus, comes from the bottom of the ocean, the band moving from the center to the sides of her stage represented the separation of the continents.
So, I’m sorry haters, Madonna did not copy Kylie at all. If anything - and I am not hating on Kylie - it was the other way around. But yeah, Kylie Minogue did open her 2011 tour just like Madonna did in 2001.
Madonna was not personifying neither the Roman Venus, nor her Greek personality Aphrodite. Madonna was Cleopatra.
And yes, when she [Madonna] was on stage, there were some Roman symbolism present. And there is a historical explanation for that: she was representing Cleopatra’s arrival in Rome.
CLEOPATRA WENT TO ROME, FOLKS. History.
That’s why her carriage was ornamented by Egyptian icons and symbols, but on stage, the symbolism was Roman. Madonna was brilliant!
Here’s Cleopatra (Liz Taylor) entering Rome in the film “Cleopatra”:
Kylie has nothing on it (as I don’t recall Kylie doing Cleopatra). But then, there is only so much you can do to reenact icons such as Cleopatra, Venus, Aphrodite, Marilyn Monroe, and Madonna herself (after all, she is an icon often imitated by others).
That’s why I wouldn’t dare say Kylie Minogue copied Madonna’s Drowned World Tour opening. Yes, Madonna did the birth of Venus thing ten years before Kylie Minogue - but the approach they had was completely different. The inspiration (as a theme) was the same, the development and creation (and execution) were different. Madonna used the notion of the birth of venus and continents and the world as we know it, while Kylie went for a more “literal” visual translation of the same theme.
Madonna, once again, showed the world why she is the Queen of Life. There is no other artist like that woman. For just one day, little monsters, Janet Jackson fans, LAMBS… you should all just relax and appreciate a real talented performer. You can go back to hating her tomorrow.
There is a fact no one can deny: Madonna has done it all. Being the first at doing something, or not, she does it best. Everyone knows it. Even people like Kylie.
Minogue spent the first decade of her career copying Madonna. She eventually developed her own sense of style and aesthetics. Today, she influences Madonna in some respects. And Madonna still has a major influence upon her.
Like I said before, there is only so much you can do to reenact icons. The same goes for “reenacting an era”. Both Kylie and Madonna have had 80s-inspired sections in their shows. The thing is: there is a particular style, aesthetics and the icons of a particular era will be the same. Different people approaching the same theme from the same perspective (the street style of the 80s) will do similar stuff - even when they do not necessarily influence each other.
Kylie Minogue’s Fever Tour is a good example. She took on the New York 80s street/urban style when she sang “Cowboy Style” in 2001. To successfully achieve her goal, she used imagery of that era, that included street art and Keith Haring-inspired artwork.
Years later, Madonna also had an 80s-inspired section in her show. She also focused on the street/urban 80s aesthetics. The theme was the same, so the iconography would be similar too. Madonna also used a lot of street-inspired artwork, including a video inspired by her personal friend, Keith Haring.
Whether you say it is a similar approach or a copy, it’s up to you. But I wouldn’t jump into the “copy” conclusion so fast (it might come back to bite you in the ass).
Madonna has had Keith-Haring-inspired artwork on stage even before they both (Minogue and Madge) started using high-tech LED-screens and projections on their shows, as a setting. Same theme, different technology. Chronologically, Kylie Minogue did it AFTER Madonna.
Madonna singing Like a Virgin in a Keith Haring outfit and stage design.
Madonna: on stage in full 80s/Keith Haring attire before Kylie Minogue
Madonna and her friend, pop artist and 80s iconographer Keith Haring.
Speaking of that, Hello, Rihanna!
Who are the people that write for ONTD? Are they for real?
Look at the fucking title they put on one of their posts:
“Janet Only Has NICE Things To Say About Madonna’s Super Bowl Gig”.
The nice things she has to say are: “She’s cool. I think it will be fun, it’ll be exciting”. That’s it. [Of course, Janet said it in that boring druggie-like monotone speech pattern she has].
Come on… Seriously:
Janet “Oopsie-Nipple” Jackson has no moral to criticize any choice made by the NFL.
Miss “Classy” has no alternative other than expressing positivity towards anyone who is chosen to play at the Super Bowl halftime show.
After what she did (and no, that was no accident), she has no right to criticize anyone. Especially Madonna.
Watch Jackson spending about two seconds saying “NICE Things About Madonna’s Super Bowl Gig” on minute 06:02:
Whatever medication Janet is [probably] on now, it is working. If it had happened a few years ago, she would have been dissing Madonna. Remember when she said she had “class” and Madonna didn’t?
And what about that insulting interview she gave to Vibe magazine? Madonna was the only one giving a classy response, darling:
What’s pathetic about it all is the way [rather unprofessional] bloggers say stuff like “Madonna slams Janet” or [just like any bitchy gay men would say]: “Madonna throws shade at Janet”. All that because Madonna simply stated she will give a “nipple-free” performance at the Super Bowl. Seriously, folks?
It’s been a norm since Janet’s “nipple” incident that the NFL has been playing “safe” on their halftime show choices. However, this year they chose the most controversial female in music history, Madonna.
When questioned about if she had gone “mainstream” or if she was planning something “naughty”, Madonna’s message was clear: she has not calmed down, nor was she planning something naughty:
“I have not mainstreamed and I’m not planning anything naughty. I’m planning something super entertaining. Yep, yep! You don’t have to show nipples to be interesting. It doesn’t necessarily mean you’re cutting edge if you do, right?”
If you have half a brain, you understand that she was saying: “mainstream and cutting edge have nothing to do with being naughty or showing your nipples, and being naughty doesn’t necessarily make you cutting edge - and not being naughty doesn’t necessarily make you mainstream either” (as brilliantly put by Crude And Heavy-Handed on Pud Whacker’s Madonna Scrapbook).
But if you are a non-thinking low-life Madonna hater, you will say something like (as seen on ONTD):
“Holy shit, is she [Madonna] serious? Does she not recall the things she did in the 90s?”
You have to be a moron, a complete ignorant brainless motherfucker to ignore the different contexts (medium and time) where both (Madonna and Janet Jackson) have been “naughty:
When Madonna published her SEX book, you had to be an ADULT to buy it. When Madonna released the album “Erotica”, it came with a Parental Advisory sticker.
When Janet showed her nipple on national TV during the Super Bowl halftime show in 2004, there were children watching it. It was not an X rated event, nor was it directed to an adult-only audience.
Not to mention that in the early 90s, America was under an extremely prudish rhetoric. So Madonna’s nudity, her point of you on gay sex, safe sex, and Aids meant something. On the other hand, when Janet Jackson showed her nipple at the Super Bowl, the ”slutty way of life” was the norm in the media: Britney, Christina, they were all singing about sex to their teenage fans or performing in skin-color “see-through” outfits at the VMAs. Janet’s nipple had no purpose in 2004. Did it stand for freedom of speech or female empowerment in 2004? No. Madonna did it for her in the 80s and 90s.
So, yeah, that is the subtle difference between Madonna showing her nipples (and a lot more) in the early 90s, and Janet showing hers at the Super Bowl. Intentionality and appropriacy - have you guys ever heard of these?
Madonna’s risqué moments had a purpose and they happened at an appropriate time, and don’t forget: they were all age appropriate too. Can’t say the same about slutty desperate Janet Jackson and her ugly nipple at the family-oriented Super Bowl.
But yeah, if some sensationalist ignorant fucker wants to pretend Madonna is being utterly bitchy towards Janet Jackson, that’s okay. Karma is a bitch. Janet Jackson has dissed Madonna for years. Madonna’s always been silent about it. Consider this as a payback. But please, have some journalistic decency. Do not act as if Janet has always been graceful or nice, because [as you could see in those videos] she hasn’t.