I don't understand what your argument is. What you are talking about is the valency of fashion; the potential, the promise that clothes make to us before we put them on. Yes, they can be appropriated and collocated in different ways and yes, they can also yield a number of different effects and provoke different responses as you outlined. However, my proposal was not Madonna vs. Fashion as you have misconstrued. The idea that I wanted to put forward was to do with FORM. I'm saying that the combination of music with moving image, regardless of whatever label you choose to impose on it, is essentially the same thing, whether 30 seconds or two hours long. It requires all the same ingredients. You wouldn't say to me that I couldn't compare a miniature or limning from the Renaissance with a full-scale portrait, would you? Heck, at uni we had to compare poetry with paintings, brush strokes with syntax, music with film. You can't just earmark certain media to be cordoned off to their own little sphere of critique! That's tyrannical! I mean, it's the same shit, just a different toilet!
Secondly, you contradict yourself. What do you mean by by-products? By saying that Madonna doesn't offer anything you insinuate that fashion suddenly becomes redundant as soon as the wearer dresses himself. I don't really see how that caveat works. Is she just too mainstream for you to deal with her? And yes, she may have turnedwhat she does into an elaborate business, but is that not what everyone is doing, or at least trying to do?