nessus@mit-eddie.UUCP (Doug Alan) (08/02/85)
["Some say that heaven is hell. Some say that hell is heaven."] > From: seb@mtgzz.UUCP (s.e.badian) > How can you compare what the Mafia does with what Madonna does? What > does Madonna do that is so awful? The Mafia kills people and Madonna kills people's minds. The Mafia degrades human life and Madonna degrades art, women, men, and sex. > Oh please! If we say that Madonna does damage to society by portraying > an image that doesn't agree with the status quo... I never said that the Madonna does damage to society because she doesn't agree with the status quo! I have the highest respect for those who challenge undesirable aspects of the status quo. I said that Madonna damages society by degrading art, glorifying manipulation, and projecting sex as something trashy. This portrayal of sex as being trashy agrees with the staus quo -- it does not challenge it! The only way she challenges the staus quo is to say that it's okay to be trashy. Great! Just what we need! Legitimation of fetishism! >>> [seb:] She plays on sexuality. She plays on the fact that sex is >>> still taboo. >> [Me:] And thus perpetuating that sex is taboo and all the unhealthy >> hang-ups about sex people have. This is good? > Are you making this up? I don't think Madonna's image reinforces the > idea that sex is taboo. I think it reinforces the idea that sex is > taboo among people who still believe sex is wrong because it scares > the living tar out of them. People who haven't come to grips with > their own sexuality are generally terrified of someone with a freer > sexual outlook. (I can smell smoke for that last comment :-)) What a pile of crap! In my original article on the subject, I compared Madonna with another female performer who presented a very strong but very positive sexual image. This other performer was much more explicit than Madonna ever has been and definitely painted a picture of sex as something that is to be enjoyed wholeheartedly and often, and said that it is great and wonderful and fun and as un-wrong as anything gets. So much for your reading comprehension! > Good thing you're not in music. You'd be starving. Probably, but at least I'd be doing something worthwhile -- which is MUCH more important to me than financial reward. It's cretins like Madonna that make it impossible for many true and genuinely creative artists to make a decent living at their art. > The music should be art (though to class any popular music in the same > class as Mozart is pretty disgusting) I cannot seriously respect the opinions on art of someone who thinks that garbage like Madonna's "music" is worth listening to. There are many many contemporary musical artists who are just as good as Mozart was (in my opinion many are much better) -- some of them are popular and some of them are nearly unknown. > but there is nothing that says that the presentation shouldn't attract > as much attention as possible. Image sells records just as much as > music. I never said that I have anything against images. I object to harmful images. (Actually, for a truly creative artist, if they are going to have an "image", it should be something that changes from song to song rather than remaining constant -- but that belongs in a different discussion.) >> There's nothing wrong with nudity. One can present a healthy and >> natural image with one's cloths on or off. And one can present an >> unhealthy, fetishistic image with one's clothes on or off. Madonna >> does the latter with her clothes on and (I presume) with her clothes >> off. > You couldn't convince me of this before and I still don't believe it. > From what I've heard the pictures were pretty tame. I think the > problem with Madonna is what goes on between your eyes and you brain, > Doug. I never tried to convince you of this before! I NEVER BEFORE MENTIONED Madonna's nude pictures. You brought them up. I haven't seen them. I don't want to see them. I could care less about them, and I have no opinion about them! They might be the most innocuous things in the world for all I know. Do you just invent things and put them in my mouth for fun? I have a problem, but it's not generated by me! > Ah, so we see that women like Madonna scare you? All manipulative people scare me! Manipulation is wrong! Manipulation is sick! Honest and compassionate people don't manipulate others. > Does Marilyn Monroe scare you? I have no incredible amount of respect for Marilyn Monroe either. > This is your opinion, to which you are entitled. I will continue to > enjoy some of her [Madonna's] songs, as will lots of other people. I guess it's just a sad sad world. There are people who enjoying watching such TV shows as "Three's Company" too. Sometimes it's enough to make me wonder why we call our society a "civilization". > From: hymie@sftig.UUCP (D.Carno) > As a matter of fact, I would like to hear what natural healthy > sexuality means to you also. Do you preach on the side also? Natural, healthy sexuality is something to be enjoyed by consenting people however they want to -- but not as something to manipulate others with! I would like to point out that there are many other people who agree with me about the image that Madonna projects. Here's an interesting bit from something that Jim Hofmann (hofmann@amsaa.ARPA) sent me. I don't know about the witchcraft bit, but it still seems worth looking into: >> [Me:] Hah! Madonna presents this discusting sexual image, where >> she becomes nothing but a sexual object. A boy toy, but one that bites. >> Sex is to be used to get what one wants. It is also something that is >> evil and wrong, and that's why it's so much fun, because its fun to be >> naughty. This type of portrayal of sex is disgusting and does no one >> any good. It just goes to perpetuate the vile hang-ups about sex that >> have infected society for so long. > Hear - hear ... other comments follow ... >> Kate Bush too presented a sexual image during her early career, but it >> was a positive image. Her sexuality was just one aspect of a >> well-rounded personality. Sex was presented as an important, wholesome, >> natural, and good part of life. There were no conotations of sex being >> dirty or wrong, or either partner being a master or slave. This image >> reinforces how sex should be viewed. > I am in the process of reading a book which addresses these very > subjects. It is entitled "Dreaming the Dark" it is written by a > witch-feminist (although not obnoxious feminist) - activist from > Livermore area in California. She too addresses this sexual image that > man and people like madonna have perprated as a manifestation of > 'power-over' which she claims is root of alot of other problems. { Russia, > race, etc. }. She uses the witch persecutions as a focal point to > explain her thesis that we must develop 'power-within' which Kate seems > to project.... > The author (Starhawk is her name, that's right ... just Starhawk) also > defines Magic as the ability to change conciousness which Kate > certainly has done for me.... Madonna, on the other hand, doesn't > challenge anything but the crotch which is incidentally very close to > the wallet in Western society and the ability to withstand monotonous > discobeats et al. What I'm really afraid of those is the coming spate > of look-alike performers who will be of even lower quality than > Madonna (no more Madonna!). Well I guess I'm glad I don't have MTV! "Manipulation, the danger signs" Doug Alan nessus@mit-eddie.UUCP (or ARPA)
rosen@ucbvax.ARPA (Rob Rosen) (08/04/85)
In article <4841@mit-eddie.UUCP> nessus@mit-eddie.UUCP (Doug Alan) writes: >["Some say that heaven is hell. Some say that hell is heaven."] > >> From: seb@mtgzz.UUCP (s.e.badian) > >> How can you compare what the Mafia does with what Madonna does? What >> does Madonna do that is so awful? > >The Mafia kills people and Madonna kills people's minds. The Mafia >degrades human life and Madonna degrades art, women, men, and sex. Well, I think this diatribe is rather amusing. I wouldn't go so far as to say that Madonna degrades art, women, men, and sex. The only thing she degrades is American society, which in my (admittedly humble) opinion could use degrading. The only thing she is doing is making money off of People's hangups and attitudes. SO WHAT! She's not the first person to do this sort of thing, and she certainly won't be the last. Her "music" really is sort of irrelevant; it serves only as a vehicle to launch her to "stardom" in the eyes of the millions of lemmings that populate this country. If she had no musical talent (I won't bother to comment on her musical talent), she'd figure out some other way to get into the public eye. She, like Prince, is trying to grab the attention of the populace by acting in a manner which infuriates many people because they feel that her behaviour is "inappropriate". As a result, a lot of arguments are generated and a rather profitable side- affect (even more publicity, which can be translated later into record sales) is generated. Now, to top the whole thing off, NUDE PICTURES come into being; even MORE publicity and income is generated! I'm sure Madonna is not entirely displeased with the publicity that has been generated by the release of the photographs published in certain magazines; as a matter of fact, I wouldn't be suprised if it were suggested that Madonna herself instigated the release of the photos. The bottom line is that she (or her manager or whomever feels responsible for her career) has set a cute little trap for people to fall into. If you pay attention to her (through the purchase of her "music") and her little act, you give her a big hand because that attention will buy her a new end table, or a gram of cocaine, or a new copy of ESSAYS IN EXISTENTIALISM (by Sarte), or whatever. If you really want to hurt Madonna's career, just ignore her. Get a couple million other people to ignore her, and watch her disappear. If you really consider Madonna's act to be a problem, relish in the fact that here is one of the very few problems that will go away if you simply ignore it. -- "No one ever went broke underestimating the taste (or inntelligence) of the American public." --H.L. Mencken --Rob Rosen ...ucbvax!rosen rosen@ucb-vax.berkeley.edu
jer@peora.UUCP (J. Eric Roskos) (08/05/85)
> > Good thing you're not in music. You'd be starving. > > Probably, but at least I'd be doing something worthwhile -- which is > MUCH more important to me than financial reward. It's cretins like > Madonna that make it impossible for many true and genuinely creative > artists to make a decent living at their art. Actually this has been a common problem throughout history. Most of the historically "great" artists have managed to survive, not by popular support, but most often by their having some benefactor: in the past, some king or person of nobility who sponsored them (I believe many of the great composers were in this category); or recently, some wealthy person who considered their work sufficiently worthwhile to buy it from them with regularity to make up a collection (Andrew Wyeth (a painter) is an example of this). The popular tastes have always tended to be superficial and transient; this is a sad thing, but true. It is only recently that by appealing to a large number of people could you earn great wealth. -- Shyy-Anzr: J. Eric Roskos UUCP: ..!{decvax,ucbvax,ihnp4}!vax135!petsd!peora!jer US Mail: MS 795; Perkin-Elmer SDC; 2486 Sand Lake Road, Orlando, FL 32809-7642 "Frr ubj Tbq jvgu uvf yvtugavat nyjnlf fzvgrf gur ovttre navznyf, naq jvyy abg fhssre gurz gb jnk vafbyrag; juvyr gurfr bs n yrffre ohyx punsr uvz abg." -- Negnonavf
smithson@calma.uucp (Brian Smithson) (08/08/85)
Gawd, I never thought I'd post anything remotely having to do with Kate Bush, but a couple of comments really frost my *: > ...lots of crap... > > Good thing you're not in music. You'd be starving. > > Probably, but at least I'd be doing something worthwhile -- which is > MUCH more important to me than financial reward. It's cretins like > Madonna that make it impossible for many true and genuinely creative > artists to make a decent living at their art. This is ridiculous. I'm well aware of many "true and genuinely creative artists" in the Jazz realm who don't make a decent living. Such, I'm sure, is the case in other musical forms, and other other art forms in general. The people who like that stuff either support it or they don't. The same goes for your "cretins", though: people who like them either support them or they don't. Who knows? Some "cretins" probably starve too. 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. > ...lots more crap... > I never said that I have anything against images. I object to harmful > images. ... Fabulous. This reminds me of the harmfulness that was warned of early rock and roll, and likewise of Jazz in a number of periods. Perhaps some musicologist can help me out, but I'd bet that most popular forms of music have been met with "warnings" of some destructive capacity in their early stages. Jeez, I'm glad you're not the Minister of Censorship around here... -- -Brian Smithson Calma Company ucbvax!calma!smithson calma!smithson@ucbvax.ARPA Graphitti seen on dispenser for disposable toilet seat covers: "Bibs for eating at [corporate headquarters] cafeteria"