(No substitutions and no incredulous comments from my generation asking if this is a real question. It is.)
Well since Lady Gaga basically stole Madonna's act like 20 years later and modernized it, I will say Madonna. I don't think Gaga has proved herself long enough to even be in the same breath as Madonna. And yeah, I sound like a bitter old man, normally I'm not like that and appreciate new artists borrowing from past generations, but in this case it's a blatant rip-off.
Generational thing. Of course LG has borrowed significant portions of M's act. But the interesting thing about Madonna has long been not JUST her performance antics and carefully-cultivated image, it has been the fact that she's also created some really good music. Gaga has upped the ante with performance and image...but dismissing her is a little akin to dismissing rock and roll after the Rolling Stones (which some do :)), simply because they came after.
There's still well-crafted and executed songs to respect...and Lady Gaga has proven herself every bit the marketing machine that her forebear was - an inescapable tie that bonds them: an uncanny ability to grab people's attention with a blend of shock value, performance, and some actual music.
I think "kids these days" should have an awareness and appreciation of the roots of the contemporary music they love...but I don't think that music created yesterday by definition, is automatically superior to music created tomorrow. Or today.
...and, I think the ideas of Appropriation, Theft, and Re-using are fundamental currencies of the Arts in general. Building on what came before.
Joseph, let's see if this question is still relevant in 5 years. If it is, then I will concede that I could be wrong.
Vicki Lund Nutter.
I don't think this is about me being against the "New" and I am all for sampling and borrowing. Madonna has been around for 30+ years writing and performing hit songs. Lady Gaga does not have enough proven time to be compared to her. This is the case of one artist with talent who has a few hit songs over a few years being compared to an iconic artist. It's almost like comparing Elvis to Bruno Mars. Bruno Mars just beat Elvis in the category of youngest to have most #1 songs. That's a great start, but he has a LONG way to go before he can be in that same category.
How relevant is Madonna right now? To us, to some people, she is. But in terms of cultural relevance RIGHT NOW...Gaga certainly is in the drivers seat. Long-term relevance? Who knows. I suppose I'm interested in sacred cows and the language surrounding them. What if somebody simply likes LG's music...more? We're not talking sacrilege here and regardless of impact in the future, she has definitely had an impact, for better or worse, on the relationship between culture, music, politics, and fashion over the last several years. Just like Madonna did in the 80s.
Such a great topic, and I am not against the new, but when you are comparing two artists it's NOT about current relevance. Justin Bieber is much more culturally relevant right now than Mic Jagger. Should we compare them?
I like a few of the songs from both but not really a fan of either one.
If #1 songs is the metric of importance, then that's just the way it goes. Also: why I don't care about the Grammies.
I specifically chose Madonna and Lady Gaga because of their similarities. Mick/Justin? An analogy for a different conversation . Elvis/Bruno? Makes more sense...but I'm not going to wait for some of these artists' careers to unwind over three decades to have a conversation about them now. Every artist that now has iconic status has gone through growing pains and lack of respect issues.
Of course longevity is an important factor. I LOVE history, especially 20th century, so my foundational knowledge of the historical significance of different artists at different points is fairly solid I am fascinated by how the language changes between generations oftentimes, as the wagons circle to protect "our generation'a music" from the next. There will always be one-hit talentless wonders and undeserving chart-toppers. But that doesn't mean there's not a legitimate conversation to be had about different artists, regardless of what point in their career they're at.
In sports, the conversation is in some ways the opposite: it's hard to think of some of today's super mechanized athlete rockstars (LeBron, Michael Phelps, etc) in comparison to their forebears a half century ago (present trumps past, answer accept it as a natural(?) progression).. Interesting conversations to have...
Thanks for your perspective, Jeremy.
*and we accept it
Joseph, I too always appreciate your perspective. This is a good conversation. #1 hits are not the metric I am measuring by, it was just an example. I am all for the new and current and I even appreciate current pop-music more than many of my peers. I still think my perspective is that in this particular comparison I am not ready to compare these artists. I don't think Gaga has done enough yet. That too is a generational aspect. We are more willing to give people iconic type status in a short amount of time. A career spanning 5 years seems like 20 comparatively. It's all good, I would go with Madonna for various reasons. However neither are artists I have loved at any time.
Good point. And I find it a little surreal that I am defending Lady Gaga's honor on a mid-Tuesday morning... I listen to both infrequently as well. Now Nancy Sinatra, there's someone I can listen to all day...
So your asking whitch one is better looking? I'm confused? Lol
I think Lady Gaga studied and learned from Madonna and has been able to take what she has learned and use that as an agent for cultural change. I think Lady Gaga will have more of a long term impact than Madonna, but I don't think she could have done it without there first being a Madonna.
Nicely stated, Wolfgang.
I will give it to Madonna, for being behined her marketing, maddona coind the act. But I don't think gaga has much to do with hers! She has personal shock value but I think she is more of a pupet. She is on Maddonas shirt tail more or les! I think i would give more of the credit to her perducers then to gaga! But may be its because she scares me.....
Gaga, oo lah lah, roma, roma ma. If you tell me that won't be stuck in your head for the next week, I consider you to be a dishonest person. Wolfgang, I could not have said it any better. Madonna should be respected for the longevity of her career, but the impact Gaga has made as an artist and cultural icon over the last several years is undeniable. Like her or not, she has made a serious statement and will not be forgotten. Ben, since you're giving more credit to her producers, who are they? With that said, I'm not a huge fan of either, though I do believe they both deserve a huge amount of respect for the legacies they've made.
Lady Madonna it is then:)
I believe it is Teddy Riley. Same producer that worked with michael jackson, bobby brown ect.... i might be wrong not going to put money on it.
It is possible he is one of the 45! Haha
Holly I. D.
Yeah I can't think of all 45. I'm sure you know! But he a big wig I would say
Between those two, I would say Madonna, particularly after she schooled her voice for Evita; the quality of her music shifted after that, for the better.