![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
some thoughts on performing art
Oct. 17th, 2009 09:07 pmMusic:
My sister bought the ultimate Madonna video compilation that came out this week, and mailed it to me. It's interesting to watch her very latest videos, in comparison with the others over the course of her career.
I've had a love/meh relationship with Madonna's stuff for 26 years (the same amount of time my sister's been around, curiously - I think "Borderline" came out that year), stretching back to when I was in the sixth grade. The "meh" has come mostly in the past few years (well, and to be honest, the "love" was mostly "like" but almost never "meh" before the last few years). I'm no music critic, but in the immortal words of paraphrasing what someone once said of art, I know what I like.
A disclaimer: Patti Lupone she ain't. I don't pretend she is. Madonna is an aggressively commercial artist with wannabe artistic tendencies and an average voice. She has sacrificed any art, to a large degree, to savvy marketing - at which she has been a ruddy genius. She knew what sold, she knew what pushed people's buttons, and she happily pecked away. Plus, she's had a good sense of humor and has largely had no problem both inflating and popping her own balloon.
Well. I don't know what happened to girlfriend after "American Life" (I consider that her last good CD, personally - she's had a couple of singles since that were OK, but otherwise - meh). But the past few years have not been a happy thing for the Material Girl's career, IMHO. She's trying WAYYYY too hard to be 25 again, which is odd considering there for a while in her 40s, she was doing pretty well at aging gracefully (for her, anyway). It's like somebody told her that her early dance hits were the best thing of her career, so she's trying to recapture that. Or she's just run out of ideas, which is also entirely possible.
Whatever it is, her latest stuff is suffering - again, IMO. In her early career, the lyrics and music were both OK. Both eventually improved - I think "Ray of Light" and "American Life" (the CDs, not just the singles) were the best of her career - but lately, both have gone back to just OK. I don't know if it's the producers she's picking, or her, or what. But she seriously needs an infusion of *something* - and to start acting her damn age. There's nothing wrong with being 50 ... unless you're punishing yourself to look 20. (Have you seen photos of her lately??)
Acting:
Speaking of performing and popular culture ...![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
metalkatt asked me a curious question: Which do you think would be scarier - performing on stage, or performing on camera? Me personally, probably on-camera. I've performed onstage and had absolutely no problem with it. (Yeah, I'm not exactly 100 pounds or an ingenue. I still have fun with it and I'm not half bad ... unless you ask me to sing. *G*)
Which led to a brief discussion that occurred to me: Fangirls and critics by and large worship Johnny Depp for his acting and usually trash on Orlando Bloom for the same. But as far as I know, other than playing guitar with his band, Depp has never acted live - as in onstage, in a play, what-have-you. Bloom, on the other hand, is classically stage-trained (at Guildhall, no less) and after two hugely successful trilogies, instead of going on to another (he was offered "Prince of Persia" and a couple of other things), he took a supporting role in a London stage play and is working on supporting and starring roles in four small WIDELY disparate films to come out in the next year or two.
But back to the question I had: I wonder if you put Depp and Bloom on live stage, who would do better? And is it fair to kick shit all over Bloom, who is (a) 14 years younger and less experienced than Depp on-camera, and (b) actually willing to potentially make a fool of himself with no re-takes in front of a live audience?
My sister bought the ultimate Madonna video compilation that came out this week, and mailed it to me. It's interesting to watch her very latest videos, in comparison with the others over the course of her career.
I've had a love/meh relationship with Madonna's stuff for 26 years (the same amount of time my sister's been around, curiously - I think "Borderline" came out that year), stretching back to when I was in the sixth grade. The "meh" has come mostly in the past few years (well, and to be honest, the "love" was mostly "like" but almost never "meh" before the last few years). I'm no music critic, but in the immortal words of paraphrasing what someone once said of art, I know what I like.
A disclaimer: Patti Lupone she ain't. I don't pretend she is. Madonna is an aggressively commercial artist with wannabe artistic tendencies and an average voice. She has sacrificed any art, to a large degree, to savvy marketing - at which she has been a ruddy genius. She knew what sold, she knew what pushed people's buttons, and she happily pecked away. Plus, she's had a good sense of humor and has largely had no problem both inflating and popping her own balloon.
Well. I don't know what happened to girlfriend after "American Life" (I consider that her last good CD, personally - she's had a couple of singles since that were OK, but otherwise - meh). But the past few years have not been a happy thing for the Material Girl's career, IMHO. She's trying WAYYYY too hard to be 25 again, which is odd considering there for a while in her 40s, she was doing pretty well at aging gracefully (for her, anyway). It's like somebody told her that her early dance hits were the best thing of her career, so she's trying to recapture that. Or she's just run out of ideas, which is also entirely possible.
Whatever it is, her latest stuff is suffering - again, IMO. In her early career, the lyrics and music were both OK. Both eventually improved - I think "Ray of Light" and "American Life" (the CDs, not just the singles) were the best of her career - but lately, both have gone back to just OK. I don't know if it's the producers she's picking, or her, or what. But she seriously needs an infusion of *something* - and to start acting her damn age. There's nothing wrong with being 50 ... unless you're punishing yourself to look 20. (Have you seen photos of her lately??)
Acting:
Speaking of performing and popular culture ...
metalkatt asked me a curious question: Which do you think would be scarier - performing on stage, or performing on camera? Me personally, probably on-camera. I've performed onstage and had absolutely no problem with it. (Yeah, I'm not exactly 100 pounds or an ingenue. I still have fun with it and I'm not half bad ... unless you ask me to sing. *G*)Which led to a brief discussion that occurred to me: Fangirls and critics by and large worship Johnny Depp for his acting and usually trash on Orlando Bloom for the same. But as far as I know, other than playing guitar with his band, Depp has never acted live - as in onstage, in a play, what-have-you. Bloom, on the other hand, is classically stage-trained (at Guildhall, no less) and after two hugely successful trilogies, instead of going on to another (he was offered "Prince of Persia" and a couple of other things), he took a supporting role in a London stage play and is working on supporting and starring roles in four small WIDELY disparate films to come out in the next year or two.
But back to the question I had: I wonder if you put Depp and Bloom on live stage, who would do better? And is it fair to kick shit all over Bloom, who is (a) 14 years younger and less experienced than Depp on-camera, and (b) actually willing to potentially make a fool of himself with no re-takes in front of a live audience?
