Was it Bjork?

I believe last I heard she was still in beta.
Oh sis you ought to hear what they're saying now......

Yah but Madonna was born in the 1950's... She was in her 20's when she hit the scene. Sure, she made songs that were hits with young kids, but it was definitely clear that she wasn't a little girl... So parents would know what to expect sending their kid to a Madonna concert. Britney's new image kinda just happened in between the albums. Was the innocent little girl image manufactured, or is it the new image that's manufactured? I agree, Britney is doing well to further her career, I guess I'm just confused as to who her target demographic is.

Both of the images were manufactured, of course (and, BTW, I am not that certain that 'innocent little girl' image of someone who obviously is not exactly that 'innocent' and 'little' was targeted only at pre-teens ). As for her target demographics, well, that's for her label execs to worry about...

We all know that young people (preteens through college) carry the music industry on their back, and they always have... But I think Britney is putting a lot of parents in some tough positions.. I mean Elvis and The Beatles did the same thing but they weren't dancing half naked. I guess I'm just wondering how far the envelope of sexuality in music videos and the like can get pushed before it gets really really really old. It's not even sexy anymore because it's so overt and in your face. I feel like I should mail Britney some dollar bills or something. If I want that I'll go to a strip club where there's better music.

As Doug noted, a generation ago appearing on TV in tight trousers (with some socks stuffed in front, undoubtedly, for greater, er, effect ) or using semi-explicit (what euphemysm) vocabulary was as shocking as dancing half naked today (or more). Besides, remeber John Lenon and Yoko Ono being photographed naked (I think it was during that 'stay in bed' protest)?

But, what I really don't understand is why are we all 'buying' Christian and Freudian nonsense that exposure to sexuality, however indirect, is harmful for children? I mean, female breasts mean food and comfort for them untill we teach them they are object of mysterious, occult and dirty rituals some people do at night, but parents don't, haeven forbid. Perhaps it's time we stop teaching our children that the very fact we have bodies, and that we were born as the result of certain pleasurable activity are sins.

BTW I was saying "so were you" in the plural sense, in that a lot of people were Madonna fans but hesitate to admit it.

I was repulsed from Madonna 'operation' by her too elaborate and carefully though-of stage act (including choice of deliberately controversial stage name). I am not intersted in discussions of suitability of a crucifix as jewelry on a woman publicly displaying a rather tasteless bra. That said, when I do happen to hear her music, I must admit that some of it has certain merit. I think I will wait for another style change, then buy a decent compilation .

The English language needs a distinct plural form of "you" like the romantic languages have. Here in Philadelphia it's "youse" as in "youse guys" but that hasn't exactly caught on.

But 'you' is plural. English has lost singular, thou (objective thee, possesive thy or thine, reflexive thyself).

Oh and I agree, Britney's music is putrid tripe.

I wouldn't know. Reputation she has on this board is such that I have managed to avoid hearing knowingly anything of her work (which illustrates high esteem I hold this board in ).

Yeah but what I'm saying is where is it going? The boundaries keep getting pushed. It seems like it's only a matter of time before we start seeing full frontal nudity in prime time on MTV as a matter of course. Hey, I think I'll rather enjoy that if it happens, but does it really do anything for the music or is it just eye candy? And what will people feel the need to do next just to make a splash? Once all the chicks are naked on TV, I think I'll actually be looking for the ones wearing something just to see something different.
I dunno here, I'm torn between my appreciation of female nudity and my feeling that it's all just getting played out.

Of course it's just eye candy, and it is getting played out. It will be used as long as it has some shocking value, which, I hope, will not be long. I personally prefer music videos with a story or strong atmosphere (whether that includes sensual or sexual references or not), but they are very rare nowadays. I realize they are much more expensive to do and require an actual director, though, as well as music that is not too empty to provide pretext for such a work. For other kinds of 'music', well, perhaps we should consider pretty ladies hopping around as MTV equivalent of Toby's work .

I saw one in which Alanis Morissette looked nude (staying in a street among passers-by), but with camera so soft it was impossible to tell what was actually being shot. Nice video, BTW.

But, what I really don't understand is why are we all 'buying' Christian and Freudian nonsense that exposure to sexuality, however indirect, is harmful for children? I mean, female breasts mean food and comfort for them untill we teach them they are object of mysterious, occult and dirty rituals some people do at night, but parents don't, haeven forbid. Perhaps it's time we stop teaching our children that the very fact we have bodies, and that we were born as the result of certain pleasurable activity are sins.

I'm neither partial towards devout Christian nor Freudian philosophies, yet I find the selling of a blatantly sexual image to pre-teens as a bad thing. I wouldn't bring a 12 year old kid into a strip club, for instance. Would you? Sending them to a Britney concert is basically just that. Of course kids are going to learn about sexuality when the time is right, but shouldn't they learn from the parents and not from Britney?

I was repulsed from Madonna 'operation' by her too elaborate and carefully though-of stage act (including choice of deliberately controversial stage name). I am not intersted in discussions of suitability of a crucifix as jewelry on a woman publicly displaying a rather tasteless bra. That said, when I do happen to hear her music, I must admit that some of it has certain merit. I think I will wait for another style change, then buy a decent compilation .

Deliberately controversial stage name? Madonna is her real first name... Not much thought put into that "stage name" if you ask me!

I wouldn't know. Reputation she has on this board is such that I have managed to avoid hearing knowingly anything of her work (which illustrates high esteem I hold this board in ).

Impressive, that's like avoiding raindrops in a thunderstorm. I don't see how one can own a radio and a television and not be assaulted by Britney at least once or twice.

Nah, not the Alanis one (I know the one you're talking about.) I'm surprised nobody got this.

The video in question was Prodigy's "Smack My Bitch Up." It's basically a drunken and drug-filled first-person view of a night out on the town. Not only does it depict heavy drinking and drugs, but also a nice bit of nudity and sex. The sex is more implied than overt, but the nudity was very obvious. MTV caught some heat for showing it, so they only showed it a few times, all late at night. I just happened to be tuned into MTV at the time.

So when our grandchildren are watching MTV in the year 2050 and ALL videos on MTV have nudity in them, we can tell them who started it all...

The video in question was Prodigy's "Smack My Bitch Up." It's basically a drunken and drug-filled first-person view of a night out on the town. Not only does it depict heavy drinking and drugs, but also a nice bit of nudity and sex. The sex is more implied than overt, but the nudity was very obvious. MTV caught some heat for showing it, so they only showed it a few times, all late at night. I just happened to be tuned into MTV at the time.

Don't you think that, concerning young audience, depicting heavy drinking and drugs as 'cool' lifestyle (if that's what the video did - I don't recall seeing it) is far more of a problem that nudity and sex?

So when our grandchildren are watching MTV in the year 2050 and ALL videos on MTV have nudity in them, we can tell them who started it all...

I certainly hope that by 2050 nudity will not be something that can sell videos or music. I am affraid to try and imagine what could replace it, though .

That has to be a handy feature. Retrieving tags and updating the files automatically.

I'm neither partial towards devout Christian nor Freudian philosophies, yet I find the selling of a blatantly sexual image to pre-teens as a bad thing. I wouldn't bring a 12 year old kid into a strip club, for instance. Would you? Sending them to a Britney concert is basically just that. Of course kids are going to learn about sexuality when the time is right, but shouldn't they learn from the parents and not from Britney?

Market value of 'blatantly sexual images' is relatively high precisely because of predominant hypocritical treatment sexuality receives in our society. I agree that exposing kids to messages that sexuality is something to be sold instead of shared is harmful.

Deliberately controversial stage name? Madonna is her real first name... Not much thought put into that "stage name" if you ask me!

Hm, I didn't know that... Anyway, she used it pretty well to build 'controversial' image. I prefer artists selling their music on music's merits, more or less...

Impressive, that's like avoiding raindrops in a thunderstorm. I don't see how one can own a radio and a television and not be assaulted by Britney at least once or twice.

Well, radio stations I listen to don't play too cheap pop. I watch television very little, but probably yes, I did see one of BS videos; I just didn't bother to connect and remember performer and material.

Don't you think that, concerning young audience, depicting heavy drinking and drugs as 'cool' lifestyle (if that's what the video did - I don't recall seeing it) is far more of a problem that nudity and sex?

Absolutely! Society has many more problems than the ever-increasing amount of tushy shown on TV, but that's not what we were really talking about... I agree that the glorification of drug use might will have more negative effect on kids than Britney Spears dancing naked on TV. Sometimes I just wonder how much is too much, though.

"Smack My Bitch Up" doesn't glorify nor condemn drug use, it's really just a first-person story of a night out. There's no real statement made. The video certainly didn't go out of its way to say "drugs are bad" but it does show some the negative effects of too much drinking and drugs, albeit very quickly.

I see an even bigger problem in the material that Britney sings. Here's some sample song titles: "Hit Me Baby One More Time", "Born To Make You Happy", "I'm a Slave for You". The overt (sexual) submissiveness really bothers me. And it bothers me even more to consider that someone else wrote these songs for her. Now, if someone's into BSDM or whatever, that doesn't really bother me, but promoting these ideals to young girls does.

There's a good bit of nudity in U2's "With or Without You". It's filmed in BlurryCam^TM, but it's right there -- some naked woman (with dark areolas) squirming about under some thin lace or gauze or something. And MTV showed that a lot.

Here's some sample song titles: "Hit Me Baby One More Time", "Born To Make You Happy", "I'm a Slave for You".

Ugh!

Now, if someone's into BSDM or whatever, that doesn't really bother me, but promoting these ideals to young girls does.

That is very much my problem with it, although I think that the image and the nakedness and the boob job all factor into it as well as the lyrics and titles. Continuing the Madonna comparison, whereas Madonna's deal was more about being powerful and being in control, Britney seems to be saying she's property of whatever guy she's singing about. Those messages, combined with the slutty presentation, make what I think is a rather questionable impression on kids.

There's a good bit of nudity in U2's "With or Without You".

No way! I've probably seen that video a hundred times and never noticed... Are there two versions of the video? Now I'll have to look for it the next time I see it.

Madonna is her real first name...
Hm, I didn't know that...

Madonna Louise Veronica Ciccone, born 16 August 1958, Bay City, Michigan, USA.

Madonna Louise Veronica Ciccone

Yup... think she's Italian?

Don't you think that, concerning young audience, depicting heavy drinking and drugs as 'cool' lifestyle (if that's what the video did - I don't recall seeing it) is far more of a problem that nudity and sex?

As a parent, I can agree with that to a certain degree. The only problem I have with sexual imagery on television is that it's uncomfortable for the parents to explain it to a child who hasn't had the Birds and Bees talk yet. "Mommy, what were they doing?" "Ummm..."

I think George Carlin said it best when he did the routine about word substitution in movies. He said that he agreed with the person who once said "I'd rather have my children watch a movie about two people making love, than a movie about two people trying to kill each other".

Of course, he took it a step further and gave examples of substituting the word "f*ck" for the word "kill" in all the old movie cliches: "All right, Sherrif, we're gonna f*ck you now. But we're gonna f*ck you slow." Damn, that was funny.

Yup... think she's Italian?

Well, technically, she's American.

I thought she was Brazilian descent, but I could be wrong.

Heck no, she's definitely of Italian descent.

I was thinking that there was an video long ago by whitesnake, maybe "here i go again" that featured Tawni Katane(sp?). There was a shot of her hanging out of a car where her breast pops. This was only on for about a week, before some 14 boys got caught playing it back frame by frame and their mothers got the video re-edited

Oh hmm didn't know that there was a pop-out in that one. Damn those meddling mothers.

I'm sure that's happened other times too. If I was a rock band I'd defintely try to sneak stuff past the censors. But MTV actually endorsed the Prodigy video for some reason even though there were obvious and sustained shots of nakedness. I never did figure out why they allowed it to be played. I guess it qualified as "artistic" enough or soemthing.

Well, I think so, that's where we're going. Whether we think it is good or bad, I believe it is just a matter fo years, and we will not anymore consider nudity, of both sexes, as something negative or offensive or immoral. Somebody says that's a relaxation" of the sense of morality, or whatever. Maybe. But maybe we are just getting rid of the sense of guilty which is usually attached to sexuality and nudity, and hopefully this will help us to consider sex in a more "sound" way. I may be wrong, I don't want to be an extremist, and I totally understand your concerns, but I am just asking myself, simply, in the end what's so bad in a Britney dancy half naked, sexy, andwhatever else? Nothing, in the end... I would go even further and ask what's so bad in nudity or sensuality in general. That's what we are and how we look like. The point is what is the meaning that we give to it, and that is exactly what's changing, the meaning of singing half naked on stage in 2001 is different than what it was in 1950 and than what it will be in 2050, as well.

As an Italian 100% living in Rome I feel obliged to clarify this.
Madonna's real name is Veronica Ciccone. She has Italian origins, but she is American (meaning, born in the US, not here in Italy). Her parents were born in Pacentro, a small village few km from my home town, L'Aquila, which is in its turn 100Km far from Rome (60 miles, more or less, if I am not mistaken).

Madonna is a exclusively Christian RELIGIOUS name, meaning EXCLUSIVELY "Holy Virgin", and it is definitely NOT a common first name for a woman. When she became popular world wide, she definitely had a "scandalous" name, in "Catholic" terms, here in Italy, since nobody would dare, and actually even think, to use such a name as an artistic name. That would exactly be as using the name "God" (Dio, in Italian) for a male singer or, even more unusual, for your son! Actually, you never can tell, people give their children strage and unusual names, but I have never heard of a woman named "Madonna", as well as I have never heard of a man named "God", or "Christ", or "Saint Joseph". :)
I have to say that, although a child, I myself was a bit shocked when I heard of a singer named "Madonna", and I still remember all the debates and polemics on some talk shows, magazines, newspapers here in Italy. I mean, try to imagine what it means to see a pretty sexy and trasgressive singer singing "Like a Virgin" and "Material Girl" named "Holy Virgin". And rememebr that "Madonna" is still today used in an exclusively religious sense, not for anything else!!! .

And now consider, even to that "technically" blasphemous usage of the therm "Madonna" we got totally used, and now she is just considered an artist who tryed to shock the audience, as usual. Not a big deal at all anymore. This is a proof of how things change, and how rapidly.

For those who are interested, "Madonna" comes from the Latin "Mea Domina", meaning, literally, My Lady, same origns and meaning as "Madame" in French.

Acting as devil's advocate (NPI), I'd like to point out that ``Jesus'' is a very common Hispanic name.

Hey Taym, thanks for the interesting lesson, (no sarcasm.) I never knew that Madonna was a such sacred name. However I do believe her real first name is Madonna. Every internet site I've seen cites her full name as Madonna Louise Veronica Ciccone. It came up when she was fighting for the domain name madonna.com and she provided papers to prove it. Also, record execs have stated that they never believed her real name was Madonna until she showed her birth certificate. Birth papers are very difficult to forge here. If she somehow did, then it's amazing she'd have kept it secret this long without someone from her past telling the world.

Not like it matters in the grand scheme of things, but she certainly is an interesting figure in pop culture. No matter what her real name is.

Oh, I did not know that! I thought her real full name is Maria Louise Veronica Ciccone. I may be wrong, though. Ok then, as I said people give to their children the most strange names . That's interesting, however, since I always thought, and I guess most people here in Italy, she deliberately chose that as her art name to impress the audience, to shock. I'll ask around to see whether ppl know about that, here :)
Just a thought... "Maria" is "Mary", that is the Holy Vrigin's first name. Now, maybe there's confusion about her first name being Maria and Madonna? Well, again, I don't know.

However, don't misunderstand me, I am not saying she did something wrong in using that as a "art" name, and I also think she's a very good artist, but I was just observing, once more, how the perceprion of what is acceptable and what is not changes... When Madonna became popular many people considered her very offensive to the religious sentiment of the catholics, which is much worse than just being considered a too sexy and allusive, at least here in Italy where you see nudity on the front cover of most magazines and on huge advertisements on the streets, every day! And now nobody cares, most people just like Madonna and I am quite confident that if a new singer named "God" came up, people would not care that much anymore. At this point I would not be surprised if somewhere in the world somebody called his son "God" Big expectations as a parent, I would say

I kinda like Italy's attitude there. Nudity is great, but don't mess with religion. A little different than the attitudes over here in the states, that's for sure.

It is quite common though for latin american couples to name their male children Jesus, pronounced "heh-soos". If you're in Texas, it's pronounced "hayyy-soooos"

greg