nessus@mit-eddie.UUCP (Doug Alan) (08/18/85)
> From: smithson@calma.uucp (Brian Smithson) > The idea that the "cretins" make it impossible for the "true" to make > a decent living is deeply silly at best, and at worst it reflects a > notion of scarcity which is more at the root of the world's problems > than Madonna will ever be. Tell this to someone like Bill Nelson, after his record company fired him (leaving him without the rights to the album he'd just recorded and heavily in debt) because his previous album *only* made it up to number 40 or so on the charts. Because of people like Madonna, who just want to make as much money and be as famous as possible without any regards to quality or integrity, record companies are not often satisfied with just making a profit on someone who works in the pop/rock domain. You have to have the potential to make megabucks. If you're not going to stoop to the level of Madonna so that you can compete, the record company isn't going to deal with you. It's not just the fault of people like Madonna. The record company's probably more at fault, but without people like Madonna to be symbionts with the record company in their notion of making money through formula commerciality rather than creativity and artistry, the record companies couldn't and wouldn't work that way. Like a version, Beta-tested for the very first time Doug Alan nessus@mit-eddie.UUCP (or ARPA)
robert@fear.UUCP (Robert Plamondon) (08/21/85)
In article <5020@mit-eddie.UUCP>, nessus@mit-eddie.UUCP (Doug Alan) writes: > > Because of people like Madonna, who just want to make as much money and > be as famous as possible without any regards to quality or integrity, > record companies are not often satisfied with just making a profit on > someone who works in the pop/rock domain... We need a new newsgroup: net.snobs. Too many people are using net.women as a forum for waving their blue noses in the air, with only the thinnest of ties to women's issues. -- Robert Plamondon {turtlevax, resonex, cae780}!weitek!robert
nessus@mit-eddie.UUCP (Doug Alan) (08/23/85)
> From: robert@fear.UUCP (Robert Plamondon) >In article <5020@mit-eddie.UUCP>, nessus@mit-eddie.UUCP (Doug Alan) writes: >> Because of people like Madonna, who just want to make as much money >> and be as famous as possible without any regards to quality or >> integrity, record companies are not often satisfied with just making >> a profit on someone who works in the pop/rock domain... > We need a new newsgroup: net.snobs. Better yet, why don't we all just become teases and manipulative bitches and bastards. And who needs or wants this pretentious "art" stuff! Who wants to pay attention to pretentious assholes like Steinbeck and Van Gogh and The Beatles? Why not just let Madison Avenue write Pepsi jingles for all our music, and who wouldn't be satisfied reading Harlequin romance novels? Who wants culture? We should tell all the artists in the world to take a hike. Let them starve! Who cares about them anyway? The only purpose in life is to take whatever you can grab. And no one should speak out against things they might find offensive, because it might make some people think, and that might hurt their poor sensitive little heads, and we wouldn't want that! "It may be February But it's always August under your arms" Doug Alan nessus@mit-eddie.UUCP P.S. Buy a Madonna album -- starve an artist!
cjbiggin@watmath.UUCP (Colin Biggin) (08/24/85)
> >Better yet, why don't we all just become teases and manipulative bitches >and bastards. And who needs or wants this pretentious "art" stuff! Who >wants to pay attention to pretentious assholes like Steinbeck and Van >Gogh and The Beatles? Why not just let Madison Avenue write Pepsi >jingles for all our music, and who wouldn't be satisfied reading >Harlequin romance novels? Who wants culture? We should tell all the >artists in the world to take a hike. Let them starve! Who cares about >them anyway? > Doug Alan > Here you go again.. Look at it this way Doug, if there were no *bad* music in the world (or for that matter *bad* anything), what would we have to compare the good things with ?? So Madonna is a "manipulative bitch", who cares... In a couple of years she'll be forgotten probably. Also, while on the subject of quality vs trash, I seem to remember an old English teacher telling me that William Shakespeare had to compete with rat races for patrons. So it just goes to show that things haven't changed much and probably will not change in the future. ---------------------- cheers, Colin Biggin cjbiggin!watmath!{allegra|ihnp4|clyde|utzoo} University of Waterloo Waterloo, Ontario
nessus@mit-eddie.UUCP (Doug Alan) (08/24/85)
> [From Colin Biggin cjbiggin@watmath.UUCP):] > Here you go again.. Look at it this way Doug, if there were no *bad* > music in the world (or for that matter *bad* anything), what would we > have to compare the good things with ?? Maybe then one wouldn't feel compelled to compare, and we could all just enjoy? > So Madonna is a "manipulative bitch", who cares... In a couple of > years she'll be forgotten probably. After all these impressionable young teenagers will have already been brainwashed into being manipulative teases! And a bunch more artists will have been told by record companies "Your music is no good, because it's not enough like Madonna's"! > Also, while on the subject of quality vs trash, I seem to remember an > old English teacher telling me that William Shakespeare had to compete > with rat races for patrons. So it just goes to show that things > haven't changed much and probably will not change in the future. Probably not, but that doesn't mean one should give up the fight. "For the words of the profits Are written on the studio wall" Doug Alan nessus@mit-eddie.UUCP (or ARPA)
robert@fear.UUCP (Robert Plamondon) (08/27/85)
In article <5076@mit-eddie.UUCP>, nessus@mit-eddie.UUCP (Doug Alan) writes: > Better yet, why don't we all just become teases and manipulative bitches > and bastards. And who needs or wants this pretentious "art" stuff! Who > wants to pay attention to pretentious assholes like Steinbeck and Van > Gogh and The Beatles? Why not just let Madison Avenue write Pepsi > jingles for all our music, and who wouldn't be satisfied reading > Harlequin romance novels? Who wants culture? We should tell all the > artists in the world to take a hike. Let them starve! Who cares about > them anyway? The only purpose in life is to take whatever you can grab. > And no one should speak out against things they might find offensive, > because it might make some people think, and that might hurt their poor > sensitive little heads, and we wouldn't want that! > Doug Alan (Must be testosterone poisoning.) I'll tell you what: I won't send my stooges to force you to buy pop albums, and you don't send your stooges to force me to buy whatever it is that snobs buy these days. It's still a relatively free country, and you can despise anything you want. But it's not as if the snobs and the artistic in-groups have a very good batting average at recognizing the good stuff. Where were the artists when Mozart died? -- Robert Plamondon {turtlevax, resonex, cae780}!weitek!robert
chabot@amber.DEC (All God's chillun got guns) (08/28/85)
Doug Alan > And a bunch more artists will have been told by record companies "Your music > is no good, because it's not enough like Madonna's"! What used to happen anyway, is that the company would say, "We already have a black group" or "We already have a woman" or something of this sort. It's pretty aggravating when you know that the artist turned down is so vastly different (and in your taste superior too). But what's more aggravating, to me, anyway, is the limitation of choices. Even our modern system of patronage for artists is still limited by the taste and foresight of the patrons: in our case the taste and foresight are usually based alone on the $en$itivitie$ of the record companies. Do you suggest we change the current way, or give it our inputs louder? L S Chabot ...decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-amber!chabot
ray@rochester.UUCP (Ray Frank) (08/29/85)
> > I'll tell you what: I won't send my stooges to force you to buy > pop albums, and you don't send your stooges to force me to buy > whatever it is that snobs buy these days. It's still a relatively > free country, and you can despise anything you want. > > But it's not as if the snobs and the artistic in-groups have a very > good batting average at recognizing the good stuff. Where were the > artists when Mozart died? > -- > > > Robert Plamondon > {turtlevax, resonex, cae780}!weitek!robert We need a new newsgroup when discussing Madonna and that type of decadence. How 'bout' net.weird or net.sanity_fringe. You're not being fair in labeling we who dislike Madonnaisms as snobs and you who like mind altering music as artistic in-groups. It is perhaps true that we do turn our noses up at you, but look at it this way, we could drown in a good rain storm, ahem.