| Rath said: The Rolling Stones aren't a novelty act. Exile on Main Street, Let It Bleed, Beggars Banquet, I could go on. All of those are albums that would be considered amongst the greats - they're milestones in the development of rock. |
The three albums you listed were all released between 68 and 72; these are well before even I was born. Their gigantic success in the last 15 years is linked to the novelty of the celebrity of the Rolling Stones; not because they're top pop artists or leading pop trends current music currently (they did at a time, but that was all 40-45 years ago).
The point I was getting at is that Madonna's situation is similar. Pretty much all of her success since the 1980's is due to her being a well known celebrity, and not because she is leading any sort of pop trends. I feel that while she did shine brightly in her time, I felt Mariah Carey and Celine Dion shone at least as brightly in the 90's when they were leading the pop trends in music, and more brightly (in my opinion). At the very least, Madonna didn't totally outshine other female pop acts the way that Michael Jackson, the Beatles, and Elvis did; Elvis is the King of Rock, Michael Jackson is the King of Pop. The Beatles are the Beatles, and their name in itself is sort of anachronistic of the top band of all time; and Madonna completely lacks the sort of distinction that these acts have - calling her "The Queen of Pop" would be a gross exageration of her success as a pop star.
I describe myself as a little dose of toxic masculinity.
