Escape Into My Past
With the performance of the song “Bad” at the Live Aid Concert in 1985(?) the group U2 cemented their place as “kings of pop/rock which lasted, I would argue, to Nirvana, Pearl Jam and the advent of grunge in the early 90s. Yes there were the “hair bands” of the late 80s (Poison, Ratt, White Snake, etc. with the semi-legitimate Motley Crüe and Guns & Roses leading the way) which was quite popular but they never earned the “respect” of U2 which, in my opinion, was predicated on that one concert and that one performance of that one song. A truly pivotal moment of the rock era (1955-Present)
Just a thought as I ponder the upcoming hardline oppression.
Sixth Army
Listening to a Cyndi Lauper CD an esteemed colleague of mine lent me brings me back to 1984 (?) when both Cyndi Lauper and Madonna were coming on like gang busters achieving phenomenal success.
At the time there was a raging debate between rock critics about the staying power of these two new stars with the general consensus being Lauper will be around along time and Madonna was just a flash in the pan, “Gone before I get back from lunch.”
Well the early returns are in and obviously the critics were wrong. Ester is still gyrating well into her 40s while Lauper is reduced to “Where are they now?” type inquiries and degrading hand out Dr. Pepper commercial appearances. Score one for “regular Americans” and screw the “elitist Hollywood/NY types.” You know the types I am talking about. Those A-holes who think the Velvet Underground and The Clash were more important than Hall & Oates and Journey. Didn’t they once look at the record sales? How could they possibly think like this?
Well a closer examination of the material tells a very different story. I think the critics of the time were absolutely correct. Just compare two songs from each. Both are solid “pop” and all four were hits around the same time.
Madonna:
Lauper:
Listen to these four songs again today. The first thing that will probably strike you is they are VERY 80ish. The synths dubbing for “real instruments” etc. But there is somewhat of a difference. Lauper’s voice has what I would call character that shines through the production.
In “Time After Time” there is a real sense of sadness in her voice that truly elevates the sterile techno-pop arrangement. She glides from high pitch “Queenslike” intonation to real deep base tones with no effort at all. The end result is a vocal that emanates emotional change from joy to sorrow. Terrific.
“Money Changes Everything” the song itself is thin, but the overall recording is potent. A standard “rock riff” over a hard drum beat. If a garage band you’re friends were in were playing it you would probably think of it as impressive but as art... light. There are only, I believe, two verses of lyrics and a chorus that consists of the title. Lauper’s register is one of disgust and anger which is perfectly suited for lyrics of fraud, lack of honor and shallowness. Again what elevates this song is the vocal.
Madonna’s two offerings, on the other hand, are quite catchy but through 2004 ears have the same disadvantages of the Lauper tracks. They are synth 80s pop and sound it. The big difference is the lead singer. Madonna, on these two songs sounds completely unremarkable and monotone. These are producer’s records and the star in interchangeable like Britney Spears of today.
Even look at the videos for these four songs:
In other words, the Madonna tracks are dated while the Lauper tracks still have some bite.
Just my opinion
Sixth Army
Just a thought as I ponder the upcoming hardline oppression.
Sixth Army
Listening to a Cyndi Lauper CD an esteemed colleague of mine lent me brings me back to 1984 (?) when both Cyndi Lauper and Madonna were coming on like gang busters achieving phenomenal success.
At the time there was a raging debate between rock critics about the staying power of these two new stars with the general consensus being Lauper will be around along time and Madonna was just a flash in the pan, “Gone before I get back from lunch.”
Well the early returns are in and obviously the critics were wrong. Ester is still gyrating well into her 40s while Lauper is reduced to “Where are they now?” type inquiries and degrading hand out Dr. Pepper commercial appearances. Score one for “regular Americans” and screw the “elitist Hollywood/NY types.” You know the types I am talking about. Those A-holes who think the Velvet Underground and The Clash were more important than Hall & Oates and Journey. Didn’t they once look at the record sales? How could they possibly think like this?
Well a closer examination of the material tells a very different story. I think the critics of the time were absolutely correct. Just compare two songs from each. Both are solid “pop” and all four were hits around the same time.
Madonna:
Like a Virgin
Borderline
Lauper:
Money Changes Everything
Time after Time
Listen to these four songs again today. The first thing that will probably strike you is they are VERY 80ish. The synths dubbing for “real instruments” etc. But there is somewhat of a difference. Lauper’s voice has what I would call character that shines through the production.
In “Time After Time” there is a real sense of sadness in her voice that truly elevates the sterile techno-pop arrangement. She glides from high pitch “Queenslike” intonation to real deep base tones with no effort at all. The end result is a vocal that emanates emotional change from joy to sorrow. Terrific.
“Money Changes Everything” the song itself is thin, but the overall recording is potent. A standard “rock riff” over a hard drum beat. If a garage band you’re friends were in were playing it you would probably think of it as impressive but as art... light. There are only, I believe, two verses of lyrics and a chorus that consists of the title. Lauper’s register is one of disgust and anger which is perfectly suited for lyrics of fraud, lack of honor and shallowness. Again what elevates this song is the vocal.
Madonna’s two offerings, on the other hand, are quite catchy but through 2004 ears have the same disadvantages of the Lauper tracks. They are synth 80s pop and sound it. The big difference is the lead singer. Madonna, on these two songs sounds completely unremarkable and monotone. These are producer’s records and the star in interchangeable like Britney Spears of today.
Even look at the videos for these four songs:
Time After Time has a little mini-drama of a couple (played by Lauper and her manager I think) in love and then breaking up at a bus depot.
Borderline has Madonna gyrating animalistically with a “bad boy” dressed in “street cloths” ogling her on the rooftop of a tenement building in a vague urban ghetto.
Money Changes Everything is a straight performance video which was obviously of a real live performance even though they used the studio vocal track. She is belting out those cynical lyrics with body movements of total rage almost as if she was yelling the sentiment that her society has sold her out.
Like a Virgin has a scantily clad Madonna shaking her ass in Venice while vaguely European “cultured” men ogle her.
In other words, the Madonna tracks are dated while the Lauper tracks still have some bite.
Just my opinion
Sixth Army
posted by Larry B | 2:24 AM
|
0 comments
