One thing that's different in recent years—it seems like major, established artists trip over themselves to be seen and/or perform with newcomers. Pet Shop Boys, Madonna, now Elton John...who HASN'T performed with Lady GaGa? (Okay, it's only three names, but still—the red carpet was not rolled out for newcomers so freely in the past.)

Loved GaGa's mash-up with Elton John. As I thought, it was "Speechless"—not "Bad Romance"—that they did. I liked that part more than the beginning, which almost got silly.

She is, of course, a giant talent and can sing, but I found Beyoncé's too effortful and defiant...yet she has nothing to prove, so I didn't get it. I mean, we already know she can sing anything. Perhaps there was some one-upping of GaGa going on? I'm sure each will reap the rewards of these appearances.

Pink's performance was gorgeous, but I had two thoughts: (1) Is near the illusion of nudity okay? Would it be okay if it were Adam Lambert? and (2) Is she ever performing again without the suspension?

It's already the best Grammys in ages, but...

...Taylor Swift and Stevie Nicks did NOT sound good together. At all. And I'm sick of Michael Jackson. But pretending that I love Michael, that's a pretty bizarre mix of singers (Smokey Robinson was fun to see again) and having his kids speak was pretty shameless. They are poor, scared little robots. They have no reason to be speaking in public or worrying about their dad's legacy. And Zac Brown = puke and Jamie Foxx = an untalented clown.

Twitter told me Roberta looks like Mother Jefferson...but I'd say the late Weezy (inset).

It's nice that Maxwell is allowed on the Grammys, let alone Robert Flack. (This is the first time ever I saw this version of her face.) Let alone together and near the end!

Taylor Swift is a nice girl, but I would have voted for GaGa or Beyoncé.

Okay, that's it. Even with what wound up being a lot of overblown performances, it was a shockingly relevant show with lots of vitality in spite of Eminem.

With thanks to David, check out this juicy little piece on Madonna from 1985. It's full of great clips! Give Robert Hillburn a cookie for the funny comment that "she's the Cabbage Patch Doll this year" and for giving her early props:

"It took her to the mass consciousness. I mean, she was already becoming a star in pop music...you could say that at the end of the first album, it was, 'Can she do it again?'—she had to prove herself again. She not only proved herself again, she stepped up a whole 'nother level."

Regarding the report's fair-and-balanced skepticism about Madonna's staying power, Hillburn is one of the only people from that era I've ever heard say anything remotely like this::

"They say that about everybody...Marilyn Monroe, Elvis Presley...until they prove themselves, everyone's open to question. I think she's gonna be around. I think she's gonna be around because she's got talent, but more than that, she's smart and she's got ambition."

(Here is Hillburn on Michael Jackson's death. And as for Madonna, by the time of Re-Invention, he was less effusive in his praise, but his respect shone through.)

 

I also loved that Madonna was asked if she wanted to be as big a movie star as Marilyn Monroe and she said, "Definitely. Yeah." (Every comparison back then was to Marilyn Monroe. Now, every female newcomer must do battle with Madonna's ongoing legacy.)

Bonus: The reporter is Maria Shriver, whose uncle JFK banged the very same Marilyn Monroe everyone keeps talking about.

Extra bonus, Madonna and Huey Lewis giving out the American Music Award for Best Black Album!

 

I once joined Angelyne's fan club on the strength of the above picture, as seen in the Moonlighting opening credits. Here is what she looks like today. Yes, I am a plastic surgery snob: 

 

Above, a great photo of Madonna in London from last night! Below, a photo of Madonna in London from last night!

This is hilarious—to protest the Supreme Court's outrageous Citizens United decision (lifting a 63-year-old ban on corporate money in political campaigns), the corporation Murray Hill, Inc., is running for Congress in Maryland. As a Republican!

Now THAT is a political attack ad. Hard to believe, but it's a real ad. I'm not sure what is more disturbing, that one of the candidates for coroner in New Orleans is accused of covering up murders that led to organ harvesting, that another candidate would stoop to this kind of stomach-churning distortion of it...or that coroners actually have to run for office!

So it appears that the Pentagon is for realz this time on lifting Don't Ask Don't Tell, however...the process is expected to take "several years." It's already ridiculous enough that it's supposed to take a year to review the policy (review it? are we not all just about clear on what it is and why it's ineffective and unfair?), but then to take another several years to fully implement? Progress is progress—it's better than nothing. But it's not very sensible-sounding already. Wouldn't it also be easy to lose this little bit of progress should a less friendly Congress, Senate and/or president move into the picture?

The president should, at the very least, issue an executive order. That's how blacks got into the military, and even that took five years after the order to happen.

As I'm sure was Mancrunch's plan all along, CBS has formally rejected their Superbowl ad. Mancrunch is apparently a gay dating site, one I'd never heard of (why should I, since I don't date, and yet...) that looks extremely sketchy. Can anyone vouch for it having been around and in use for very long? The front page looks like a hoax.

Of course it's silly for CBS to reject things for being gay, but they could also make a strong case that this ad has terrible production values and seems like a way to get a gay kiss on under the guise of a commercial spot.

Is this the best we can do? But then again, is this the best CBS can do—accepting an explicitly anti-abortion ad (funded by an equally anti-gay organization and about which doubts have been raised) while picking and choosing which other ads to accept?