Why Madonna and not Cyndi Lauper?

Because Cyndi is much more talented and deserving in my opinion. I was kind of hoping i wouldn't have to explain.

 

I think it's simple. Madonna wanted it more. I don't think Cyndi, in the end, wanted that huge fame Madonna did. By the time 1986 came around, Madonna was releasing True Blue which would make her an international superstar; Cyndi released True Colours, which did well and the title song became an anthem, but it was her second album and already by the third single, Cyndi was struggling to hit top ten. Madonna on the other hand had five top 5 hits from True Blue.

Madonna had a long-term vision whereas I don't think Cyndi did. Madonna kept growing and progressing with each album; Cyndi didn't. As much as I like True Colours and A Night to Remember, they easily come off as watered-down versions of She's So Unusual. As someone said earlier, She's So Unusual was such a strong debut that there was a lot of pressure to match it, not just in terms of success but in quality and I don't think she did.

Madonna's ambition and shrewdness along with finding the right songs were keys to her success.

 

She's not. "Oh Father" (which is primarily written by Madonna) is superior to anything that Cyndi has written. She's also a far better performer.
I love rooting for the underdog/unsung artists too but to undermine Madonna as an artist,innovator,performer and more is simply wrong.

 

Madonna changed and evolved at seemingly every turn. Cyndy was a study in sameness.

 

I'm not particularly a fan of this type of music. But it's hard to deny that Madonna is one of the most gifted and innovative pop entertainers ever. I probably like Cyndi more, mostly on the strength of an interview I heard on NPR. But Madonna is what she is because of who she is, not because of anyone else. Did she work with others? Naturally. But if the Beatles were geniuses despite their dependence on George Martin, then so was Madonna. Frankly, some of the criticism here has a tinge of misogynism. No one has a problem when male pop stars use their sexuality to sell records.

 

Madonna wanted success.. as she said on her first appearance on American Bandstand, she wanted to "rule the world." I don't think Cyndi Lauper had that same goal or drive.

 

People still get caught up in the "Madonna reinvented herself again" party line. That was always released through her publicist, and the press ate it all up. All Madonna did was change her hair, her clothes and hire new producers. That was following the Bowie strategy. She also realized that any publicity is good publicity. That was following the Jagger strategy.

 

That's it right there. A chameleon.

 

I think that excerpt from Cyndi's book and the article JQ summarised answers 'why'. However, I think a few of you guys are a bit off in your opinions on Cyndi Lauper's image and talent. Cyndi wasn't seen as a 'clown' or a 'novelty act' like a few of you said. That was 80s fashion, guys. Look at video clips from the 1983/84. A lot of pop acts had what looks to us today like quirky, silly hairstyles/outfits. A lot of girls wanted to look like Cyndi, with her colourful hair and clothes. She was cute and empowering. So, no: in the She's So Unusual period, Cyndi's image/look was very appealing and marketable, not off putting.

And two: talent really wasn't the issue. Both Cyndi and Madonna were talented and smart. If it was all about talent, both would have been megastars. But Cyndi wasn't as motivated or committed to the pursuit of stardom as Madonna; she lacked that ambition. And she didn't have the support of her label, which Madonna always did. That's all it was. It absolutely wasn't a lack of talent that saw Cyndi drop off. Just a lack of focus and motivation, and not having Madonna's brilliant radar for knowing what was hot and what her fans wanted (often even before they knew they wanted it).

 

I like them both. That said, I still feel Cyndi's SHE'S SO UNUSUAL is more consistent, track-for-track, than any Madonna album.

 

I thought they were both great in the 80s. They both kinda dropped off soon after for me. Always preferred Laupers authentic Queens accent. Madonna had some better stuff in the 90s. But these days I prefer Lauper simply because she's matured as a woman much better IMO. Madonna reeks of desperation these days which is a total bummer, she has shown that she can make mature music well (Dick Tracy album). But I guess she'd rather party with the kids, kiss whichever pop star has the number one single at the moment and pretend she's still a cheerleader. *sigh*

EDIT: And I also want to point out that quantity doesn't necessarily mean more drive/better. It could mean a wealth of things related to selling out or industry favors. I've found that many times people with LESS material are the ones more dedicated to the actual art.

 

I like Cyndi, but I never took her as seriously (if you can say that) as Madonna.

 

You also have to factor in that in the 1980s (pre-internet/social media) the idea of celebrities didn't exist quite like it does today. It wasn't so 'integrated'; that is, the extracurricular stuff a pop star did didn't affect their pop stardom like it does today. So Madonna could star in a flop/terrible movie (Shanghai Surprise) and be married to a renowned Hollywood 'bad boy' (Sean Penn) who punched paparazzi and it didn't really substantially affect her pop career or image at all. That stuff didn't have an effect on how True Blue did on the charts. So talking about Cyndi and the WWF and Vibes isn't really that relevant. That stuff was peripheral to her pop star career; it didn't really have the level of effect on it you think it would (or that it would today).

 

Cyndi was Madonna's first big opponent wasn't she? Lol

What's been said is correct Cyndi always came off as a novelty act anyway, regardless she's still an 80's icon.

Of all the other female pop stars Madonna had to compete against based on her interviews it seems she felt Whitney was her biggest threat/competition. Back in the 80's at least Whitney was the only other female pop artist giving Madonna a run for her money on in terms of sales. By the Time the 90's came along you had Mariah, Janet and Celine all dominating the pop scene, I could even throw in Toni Braxton though she fell almost as quickly as she rose as well as Paula Abdul.

 

I think the reason why Madonna became bigger than CL is because Madonna had more songs on the radio, many of them solid hits. Madonna did it like the old saying "strike while you're hot" with album after album with several hits on each. Especially after Madonna's first album came out, she soon followed it with Like a Virgin and then True Blue. By that time she had many hits from all three albums. CL simply did not keep up that kind of pace. Had CL's second album been released sooner (after her first album) and contained a couple of more hits then we might be telling a different story.

Scott

 

Sorry, dude, but I just can't see how that's true. If Cyndi Lauper was a 'novelty act' because of her looks/image and certain songs, then so were Prince, Michael Jackson, Wham!, Duran Duran, Culture Club and, well, a lot of pop stars from 1983/84 (even Madonna). And we all know they weren't. It was the early/mid 80s, fashions were bizarre, MTV was becoming an unprecedented influence on presentation. That's all I can say.

 

Madonna sold music and sex, Cindy sold music and fun...SEX won.

 

Camille Paglia certainly leaned towards Madonna and her ethos, even going so far as to proclaim her the epitome of feminism and how the "quirky" and "gimmicky" Ms. Lauper "went nowhere" after being given a Woman of the Year award by Ms. magazine.

 

Remember, Madonna released a whole lot more music between 1983-86. That helped.
There was a stream of catchy or simply great Madonna songs on the radio then, while I mainly remember Girls Just Wanna Have Fun from Cyndi.

Also, I wouldn't put down Cyndi's involvement in the Rock n Wrestling Connection.
The WWF was very hot then.

 

Were you around at the time? Lauper may have had her critical backers, but at street level she most certainly was regarded as a cartoonish, borderline novelty act at the time. I mean, how many other popular acts came off as cartoony as she did? Even the likes of the Thompson Twins seemed pretty straightlaced compared to Lauper.

 

Dudley said,

"Lauper may have had her critical backers, but at street level she most certainly was regarded as a cartoonish, borderline novelty act at the time."

++++++++++++++++++++++

I'm not actually disagreeing with you but I think it's more than that. While CL had more of a quirky and kooky image than Madonna's more mature and sexy image the fact is that Madonna had way more hits from her 80s albums. While both started out with hit filled debut albums, Madonna followed up more quickly. Like a Virgin was a big, hit filled follow up to her already successful debut. Had CL followed up her first album more quickly and had more hits on the radio then we would be having a different discussion.

Scott

 

The press didn't necessarily like Madonna more per se. It's just that her videos, the way she dressed, the way she behaved in public, her songs, and her interviews all made for better-selling papers. They had no choice but to cover her. And when the records flew off the shelves, the industry came to love her, as they do all top-selling artists.

As someone who was in college then, let me try and give an idea as to what happened when Madonna's popularity first exploded into the mainstream in late 1984 and early 1985.

Millions of teenage girls chose to dress like Madonna, and they even got a nickname "Madonna wannabes." For a brief period in early 1985 I remember thinking things were getting like Beatlemania, but with Madonna at the center. Everywhere you went you saw her image. Clothing stores started to stock Madonna knock-off tops and jewelry. Her songs were always on the radio -- not just hits from the first two albums but soundtrack songs like "Crazy for You" and "Into the Groove." And, of course, there was MTV.

Andrew Loog Oldham promoted the Rolling Stones initially with the phrase "Would you let your daughter marry a Rolling Stone?" With Madonna, it unofficially sort of became a matter of "Would you let your daughter be like Madonna?" Because at the time, she generated controversy with parents, who were freaking out about her sacrilegious imagery (crucifixes) and scandalous videos and photos.

The impact of the songs "Like a Virgin" and "Material Girl" was huge. The first was important because it used the word "virgin" -- a big deal then -- and Madonna's performance of it on the MTV awards that year was the stuff legends are made of. A year or two earlier, it would have been unthinkable to have a woman dress in a wedding gown, roll around on stage, and sing this song -- and have people take to it. But Madonna made it work.

"Material Girl" might seem silly now, but at the time really shook a lot of people up with its frank talk about the power of money. (Yes, I know the video undercut this message at the very end, but the song itself had a major impact outside of that.) The phrase "Yuppie" was just coming into the public sphere and Madonna had chosen just the right song to capitalize (heh) on the trend of materialism that would come to mark the '80s. Putting this song out at just that time was the musical equivalent of a grand slam.

When Time magazine did its cover on Madonna in May 1985, that was a turning point. That anointed her as a cultural phenomenon, not a mere pop star. Almost immediately, she moved into the realm occupied by Springsteen, Michael Jackson, Jagger, etc. When the talking heads and parents are regularly having conversations about an artist, that's when they've left the realm of "pop star" and become something bigger.

This might not have worked for another performer. There was always the chance that the public could have seen her as a novelty or an offensive joke and not bought into this. Dale Bozzio from Missing Persons came and went pretty quickly, as did Berlin. But Madonna had the right songs and the right image at just the right time.

 

I was (I was 11 in 1984, so not a pop cultural expert, no, but I was a pop geek. Particularly so from 1985-1991, when I was 12-18). Our experiences were different, that's all. (I'm from New Zealand too, so that factors in). But as for 'cartoony' acts: Culture Club? Wham!? Prince in his Purple Rain period? I'm not saying I think they were 'novelty' acts or cartoony (at all), but if you wanted to, you could say they weren't all that different from Cyndi Lauper in their overall presentation (image/costume/videos/certain songs). And on top of that, what is so cartoony about "Time After Time", "All Through The Night" or "True Colours"?! It seems to me like a few of you are being very selective in your memory and depictions of what Cyndi Lauper was all about.

 

I think Cyndi Lauper was more interested to make artistic statements, with the hope that they would sell. Madonna was more driven to go up the ladder and she had tremendous support from her recording company. From several documentaries on Cyndi, she broke up with her boyfriend/manager David Wolff precisely on this issue. Wolff wanted her to churn hits while she was insistent on more experimental 'creative' stuff and making strong artistic statements that 'impact' the world (something to that effect, no wonder she is now very active in her LGBT rights foundation). By 1988, after VIBES flopped and "Hole in my heart" failed miserably in the charts, execs from her recording company were pressuring her to churn more hits and repackage herself. She tried to come up with a record that was some sort of a concession, "A Night to remember" (spawned the top 10 hit, "I Drove all night"). She would later detest this album and would call it, "A Night to Forget."

From VH1's BEHIND THE MUSIC documentary (2002):



"But Cyndi's desire to be true to herself ultimately derailed her pop career...
'I wanted something more than that' (Cyndi Lauper).
and tore apart a love affair.
Cyndi emerged more determined than ever to express herself at any cost."
Cyndi Lauper was once the biggest pop star in the universe. But, she says she had to give up fame to let her true colors shine."

At 28:51
"By early '87, fame was driving a wedge between Cyndi Lauper and her manager/boyfriend David Wolff.
'It was all the pressures of the business and we just started to drift apart' (David Wolff)
'HE JUST WANTED ME TO BE SUCCESSFUL. AND I JUST WANTED TO WRITE THAT SONG, THAT GREAT SONG AND HAVE AN EFFECT IN THE WORLD, AND CONTRIBUTE AND BE PART OF SOMETHING MUCH LARGER THAN ME.' (Cyndi Lauper)"

While Madonna did attain her much-wanted fame (Kudos to her), I think Cyndi Lauper sort of achieved what she really wanted in her career. Her achievements (she's almost an EGOT) say something about her creativity:
GRAMMY AWARDS (1985, 2013)
EMMY AWARD (1995)
TONY AWARD (2013)
SONGWRITER HALL OF FAME (2015)

And as for Madonna, she is still at it. She still gets a lot of media attention and is still a household name in the industry. Kudos to her.

In the end, both Cyndi and Madonna got what they really wanted.