U2 and Madonna - Giants in their genres!

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

Zoots

Blue Crack Supplier
Joined
Aug 22, 2002
Messages
36,802
Location
the great beyond
I just realized that U2 and Madonna have a lot of similarities...

- Both started in the early 80s and are still going strong

- Both have gone through several incarnations & image changes and have been referred to as chameleon-like by the industry

- Both are distinguished, well respected veterans in their respective genres that have very little competition if none left standing

- Both have inspired a whole array of new artists in their footsteps


1980/1983

U21980.jpg

Madonna1983.jpg


2006

U22006.jpg

Madonna2006.jpg


Love 'em both! :love:
 
Wow, you know I was just thinking about posting something to this effect, as the U2 and Madonna, while having obvious differences, have a lot of career similarities and longevity. We must have some sort of psychic connection, Zootelesque.

But....I don't think I've ever seen them mentioned together, photographed together, be in the same room together. In all my years of U2 fandom I don't think I've ever read an article where she was ever mentioned by a member of the band.

So what gives? Does anyone have any pics of a member of U2 and Madonna together? Or any part of an interview where she mentions them or they mention her? (And I know they've been at Live 8, etc. together and she was mentioned briefly in the Flannagan book.) I would be interesting to see them together.
 
Finally, someone says something right and totally full of reason.

Despite puting U2 in the first place, I'm a truly Madonna fan too in the similar way.
I didn't use to like Madonna (neither to U2:giggle: ), but a friend of mine lent me her "The Immaculate Collection" when we were in highschool and I enjoyed very much those songs I knew very well but that I didn't enjoy.
Then, it happened the same as to U2.
I became interested by other songs that were not in the compilation, started to explore her discography and then became a fan.

I always was even more critique and impartial to Madonna than to U2, and at the time I saw (and still see) her as a not a great singer but a truly great artist. This opinion changed a bit when Madonna came to Lisbon in her 2004 Re-Invention Tour and I had the opportunity to see her live for the first time. I left the place just like :shocked: . It was even bigger than what I used to watch in the DVD's. It was probably the greatest entertainment pop music show I've ever seen. And it proved me that she was not such a bad singer live as I thought, she had a few highlights in a few moments of the show (I won't forget "Lament" in the electric chair:drool: ). And it showed me that lots of people that didn't like her as an artist came only to see her and left there even more impressed than I.

In college, I have a scholar subject called Imagetic Analysis and we had an obligatory extensive written dissertation to do. As familiar to her work I choose the title "Madonna: deconstruction of a image machine". It was worthy, because I had 17/20 note:hyper: and because it helped me to discover even more about her and how she really is as a reference in our culture.

I do not admire her because of her singing (of course not), neither only because she has very original videos and images. I like her, because I believe that she is a cultural icon.
Many people hate her, het her music, hate the fact that she is a bitch that thinks she can make whatever she wants to, but no one can deny that she became a cultural symbol and a reference of the society of the late XX century and the beggining of XXI.

What captures my attention in her is her capacity to attract attentions, to turn publicity (whether good or bad it always works for her) in her favour and her capacity to dominate and to manipulate the media and the public opinion the way she wants to.
What I like in her too is the several messages she's been spreading and the last 25 years, the way she makes it and the way she obligates the viewer to receive them.
It interestes me too very much, the way she programms and evolutes her career, and the strategies she finds for when things go wrong. Another point that amazes me is that she controls and participates massively (contrary to the public's opinions) in the process of making an album, since the lyrics and arrangements (most of them created by her or the producer at that moment) through the recording sessions, producing and mixing. She decides (the publisher and editors don't make much pression, in a similar way to U2) most of the times what's good or not, what gets in an album or not and this is valid for her shows in which she is a real dominator master.

I admire her for mostly for her bravery and courage to push boundaries, to shake structures and to try break social conventions, causing controvesy about everything she does, and because those acts mostly obligate the viewer - at least - to think about it.

It still amazes me how can a woman have 48 years old and still be in the shape of a 35, still writes children books, sings, puts albums and singles in the world charts, sells millions, still provoques controversy and polemics, have her own businesses and then... have a life... and have a body and such energy like that!
I wish I can turn 40 with her wealthyness and physical resistance!

That's why I understand when people come talk to me and tell me that she's untallented, bad singer and that she only can cause controversy and sing shitty songs only to put a few more millions in her pocket.
But that doesn't erase from the public's mind all the images, stereotypes and characters she has interpreted and incarnated through her career.

I think Madonna and U2 have so much in common, more than we can think!
Zootlesque has resumed it very well, what's the similarity is about.

I'm sorry if my post is too loooooooooooong, but I couldn't contain... :reject:
Should I open a new thread about this with this same text in Just The Bang And The Clatter?

Thankx, Zoots:hug:
 
The comparisons of U2 and Madonna is not new and has been discussed many times in this forum - I know because I've done this. :D

While the differences are obvious, the similarities should be just as obvious. Both have enjoyed a plethora of looks. I look at a band like Aerosmith and I don't see them looking all that different from how they looked in the 70's! This isn't a bad thing, but usually people change over time. U2 and Madonna's reflect that change. But they also both take chances with it and work with what works for them at that point in their lives. We've given Bono a hard time about his longer hair, and admittedly, Madonna - while still attractive - is not exactly a sex kitten at her age. So both get knocks for some looks - but at least they are out there trying.

Musically, both have also experimented. Yes, they both have a signature sound and have returned to that sound several times over the years. While U2 fans have ripped apart U2 for daring to sound like, well, U2, I'm not so opposed to it. I don't find anything wrong with an artist producing his/her/their signature sound as long as there is still innovation. I feel both U2 and Madonna have done this. But more importantly, both have also gone out on a limb with their sound. "Justify My Love" is about as different from "Borderline" as one could get - yet both were big hits. "Discotheque" is about as different from "Pride" as one could get, yet again, both were big hits.

Both have also had their share of less successful albums. It happens. But both have recovered nicely from those missteps. Plus, it's all perspective. U2's "Pop" still sold 6-8M copies worldwide (depending on the source you read), which is a ton! Most artists dream of selling that well!

So while I may not love everything Madonna has done over the years and own only a few of her things, I am always interested in seeing what she has up her sleeve. To date, I feel the same about U2. Even though the Beach Clips failed to impress me, I have a feeling U2's next release will not. :yes:
 
:bump: Wow, I thought Madonna would be more popular around these parts!

Anyway, very interesting responses so far! :up:


On a sidenote, how sweet is that picture of U2 from 1980? :drool:
 
Yeah, I was hoping for more replies to this topic...
Well, maybe I open a new thread in Just The Band And The Clatter as I said and it has more popularity there...

Well, that 1983 pic (from the sessions to the first album) is not one of my favourites, but it gives a clue to those who don't remember Madonna before Like A Virgin...
 
Zootlesque said:
:bump: Wow, I thought Madonna would be more popular around these parts!
:applaud: I love this thread.

My brother is about as obsessed with Madonna as I am with U2, and as a result, I've been completely overexposed to her. But I do like her. In fact, I seem to be unable to not like her, even when she annoys me.

The U2-Madonna comparison is very familiar to me, as it seems to come up quite frequently in conversations between my brother and myself. I'm of course biased toward U2, but I'd like to think that they've done a bit better than Madonna. Particularly if you note that she didn't tour at all between 1993 and 2001. Though of course, one could argue that much of the reasoning behind the large gap was that she was busy filming Evita and becoming a mother during that time.

And now a bit of humour. My brother and I were watching Madonna's I'm Going To Tell You A Secret documentary, and featured on it was Madonna's concert at Slane castle. She was rained on, her opening act (Iggy Pop) freaked everyone out, and she generally had a terrible time. Watching it prompted this:

Me: U2 had a great time when they played there.
Him: What are you trying to say?
Me: That the god of Ireland hates Madonna.
 
According to Rolling Stone, there's another similarity that we may have missed....

"You wouldn’t know it from reading this review, but according to a source, Madonna’s opening bit where she emerges from a disco ball was plagued by technical difficulties at a show last night in Denmark. No one in the record 85,000 crowd seemed to notice, but our mole says that there was serious concern backstage that the ball wouldn’t open, which would have made for an excellent Spinal Tap moment. We shudder to think what the conversation was like later that night between Madge and the hapless disco-ball operator."

-- Rolling Stone


Copycat :tsk: :wink:
 
I read the title as U2 and Maradona. I guess both were at their best in the late 80's, early 90's.

Sorry couldnt resist that one:)
 
U2 are about music, Madonna is primarily about image. U2 are musicians, can the same be said about Madonna? Does Madonna play a musical instrument?

Has Madonna ever done a live accustic show by herself or played with just three other band members with no special effects or other things? When you strip all the video's and images away, and there is only the music, can you really compare the two?

Madonna may sing very well and she may have control of the creative process, but its not the same as what U2 do, where they write all the material and can perform it themselves live in any context.

U2 had a huge live following without blanket video play on MTV back in the early 80s. Without videos, where would Madonna and many other artist from back then be today?

I think the difference between them can also be expressed in who they have inspired. Madonna inspired the Spice Girls and Britney Spears, U2 inspired Coldplay and Snow Patrol.

Musically, there about as different as you can get within the Pop/Rock format.
 
Maoilbheannacht said:
Musically, there about as different as you can get within the Pop/Rock format.

But what they are trying to do is not all that different. In my mind it's' as important as everything else they do.

From an article I just sent to the new's forum:

Jeffery Sachs:

"Celebrity involvement, he acknowledges, may add to the air of unreality. But it also draws attention to people who would otherwise be invisible. "The biggest crime is negligence. The celebrity thing is not about charity. It is about urging us to practical action. Bono, Angelina Jolie, Madonna are urging us to take up real solutions."

Full article here: http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/news/story/0,,1858783,00.html
 
Maoilbheannacht said:
U2 are about music, Madonna is primarily about image. U2 are musicians, can the same be said about Madonna? Does Madonna play a musical instrument?

Has Madonna ever done a live accustic show by herself or played with just three other band members with no special effects or other things? When you strip all the video's and images away, and there is only the music, can you really compare the two?

Madonna may sing very well and she may have control of the creative process, but its not the same as what U2 do, where they write all the material and can perform it themselves live in any context.

U2 had a huge live following without blanket video play on MTV back in the early 80s. Without videos, where would Madonna and many other artist from back then be today?

I think the difference between them can also be expressed in who they have inspired. Madonna inspired the Spice Girls and Britney Spears, U2 inspired Coldplay and Snow Patrol.

Musically, there about as different as you can get within the Pop/Rock format.

Yes, BUT I don't think anyone was saying that their music is similar. Zoots specifically said Giants of THEIR genres, as in, respective genres--Madonna, vocal-based pop and dance, U2, 4 piece rock music. And, like it or not, U2 IS about image as well as the music. They are probably one of the most image conscious bands out there. This is where the two are similar---their longevity is based on experimenting with musical styles and different images.

Now, I'm starting to think a pic of Madonna with a U2 member does not exist. Am I correct? :(
 
Sken said:
I read the title as U2 and Maradona. I guess both were at their best in the late 80's, early 90's.

Sorry couldnt resist that one:)

Bono, Maradona and Madonna are 5' 4½ tall.
But i think that Bono lies about his height.
 
Maoilbheannacht said:
U2 are about music, Madonna is primarily about image. U2 are musicians, can the same be said about Madonna? Does Madonna play a musical instrument?

Has Madonna ever done a live accustic show by herself or played with just three other band members with no special effects or other things? When you strip all the video's and images away, and there is only the music, can you really compare the two?

Madonna may sing very well and she may have control of the creative process, but its not the same as what U2 do, where they write all the material and can perform it themselves live in any context.

U2 had a huge live following without blanket video play on MTV back in the early 80s. Without videos, where would Madonna and many other artist from back then be today?

I think the difference between them can also be expressed in who they have inspired. Madonna inspired the Spice Girls and Britney Spears, U2 inspired Coldplay and Snow Patrol.

Musically, there about as different as you can get within the Pop/Rock format.

Yes, pretty true! Madonna is about image mostly, but U2? U2 is not only music, or do you think that music made it all for U2? Where do you place the folk-rock image in the late 80's, the white flage rebel, the ZooTv and Popmart extravaganza full of huge screens and bizarre charaters, the Bono's poses and his association to humanitary causes and... to sunglasses? Doesn't that all count?

If Madonna plays an instrument? Yes!
Before going on solo and become a disco-dance singer in 1983, Madonna was the drummer of a band and then the vocals+rhythm guitar in another band.
Madonna has never made an acoustic show, but in the Drowned World Tour (2001), Re-Invention Tour (2004) and Confessions Tour (2006) there were always acoustic sets and in the last two shows there were even a "rock" set. Madonna played electric guitar and acoustic guitar in the last three world tours in 3-6 songs per show. She may not be a good guitar player, but she's not that untalented musically as many think.
Those who doubt should have seen her singing very well "The Lament" sitting in an electric chair after a 4 minute fast-dance'n'singing in "Die Another Day".

And I'm sorry but... would U2 be the U2 we know today if it weren't MTV, music videos, grossing tour starting in 1983? Of course not!

That is the proof that despite playing rock songs, U2 is not a rock band, is more like a pop/rock band and they're not imune to the media highlights. Perhaps not in a sooo exposed way Madonna is, but they certainly do...
 
yeah u2 are defo a pop/rock band , i;d still class them as rock rather than pop cos pop just reminds me of button bashing studio work where they dont write their own material.
 
Lemonfix said:
And, like it or not, U2 IS about image as well as the music. They are probably one of the most image conscious bands out there. This is where the two are similar---their longevity is based on experimenting with musical styles and different images.

:yes: :up:

I haven't really seen a pic of them together.


Pla! That was great! :lol:

I think my favorite may be Edgedonna. :shifty:
 
Back
Top Bottom