From: greg_bradt@msmgate.mrg.uswest.com (Greg Bradt)
Subject: Re: I wanna do her over...
XUserAgent: Nuntius v1.1b3
Organization: US West Marketing Resources
NntpPostingHost: greg_bradt.mrg.uswest.com
Date: 16 Nov 92 16:18:24 GMT

In article <1992Nov12.222424.170@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> Joseph J.
Marcheso Jr., Joseph.J.Marcheso.Jr.@dartmouth.edu writes:

>     I should not comment negatively about Madonna at the risk of
>becoming a "pathological woman hater" however I feel that some
>perspective is neccesary. The bottom line of Madonna is her shock
value
>and her manipulation of social mores to make money and controversy. 

It almost sounds like you are implying that this is something less
than commendable.  In fact, she is exercising two of our most valuable
ane useful provledges in this society.

>     Secondly her music is terribly derivitive and does not hail the
>attention or praise that you all are heaping on it. Good music starts
>with knowledge of musical principles and the ability to craft melody
>harmony and rhythm. I doubt if Madonna even knows the key signature of
>Bb major (Bb Eb). Her melodies are terribly derivative of other rock
>musicians and she seems mired in the same musical mediocrity no matter
>what style she "writes" in.

It is more than a little elitist to define someone's "artistry" in
terms of "craftsmanship."  I have no idea how skilled Madonna is in
music theory, nor do I have any reason to care.  While
"craftmanshiporiented" artists have a valid place, "Natural" artists
differ from them inthat they have no need for such structured,
craftsmanlike approaches to their form.  I do not agree with your
implication that one approach is inherently more valid or valuable
than the other.

>     Finally as a cultural icon Madonna is negligible. 

I'll allow you your opinion on this, although you must admit, it's not
very widly held, even among her detractors.

>Musical and
>cultural icons like Beethoven, Verdi & Wagner sought more
comprehensive
>(and radical) social changes (For Verdi the independence of his
>country!) and they influenced their zeitgeist far more than Madonna
has
>or will influence hers. 

Interestingly enough, the parallels to Madonna are more profound that
the differences.  They, too, were widely condemned for their "social"
views.  They, too, were criticized as pandering to the masses.

>Madonna's only claim to social status is that
>of "artist" 

Traditionally one of the most respected forms of social status.

>The aforementioned greats used their music to change
>generations. 

If anything, they used their notariety (which, during their lifetimes,
was negligable compared to after their passing), as a pulpit for their
views, as many people have.  (Sound familiar?)  Their actual impact in
"changing generations" was also negligible and certainly no factor in
their enduring appeal.

>Madonna doesn't have that skill, her music is consistently
>of cafemusic banality. 

It is a real reach to suggest that "music changes things."  At best,
artists make people think, and thinking people change things.  Nothing
about the classical artists made people think.

>Madonna's influence is marginal compared with
>the exposure she has, and that is sadly because her only ture talent
is
>marketing.

>Madonna, a decent entertainer but no artist. 

To entertain well is a valid art.  So, at least by that definition,
I'm glad that you can acknowledge Madonna as a "decent artist."  

However, to compare her "art" to that of a vastly different style in a
vastly different form in a vastly different era does not speak well of
your skill or validity as a critic of that, or any other art form.

Greg Bradt  aka  ()The Lensman()