nessus@mit-eddie.UUCP (Doug Alan) (08/18/85)
> From: merchant@dartvax.UUCP (Peter Merchant) >> [Me:] Do you have to be able to make vile, vicious and >> unsubstantiated personal attacks at honest and sincere artists, just >> because you don't like their music? How could anyone with a human >> soul say such things about about someone who makes an honest and >> sincere artistic effort, even if they did have no talent? > However, I have seen many personal attacks on Madonna and their like > in this newsgroup. People who say all sorts of nasty things about a > performer just because she shows off her belly-button, has a high > voice, or has "sold-out". Madonna isn't an artist, and is neither honest nor sincere nor nice. She doesn't care about art. She's in it for the money and the fame. She degrades and commercializes art and presents a harmful manipulative image of sex that rubs off on and affects people. She deserves the abuse she gets (though certainly not for her voice -- who give a shit about her voice?). Maybe I'm being vicious, but at least I supported my reasons. What did Kate Bush ever do to hurt anyone? She's incredibly nice person, and does not deserve any kind of personal attack. She doesn't care much about money and fame -- she just wants to be able to continue her art -- she puts most of her profits into being able to make more music and videos, etc. If you're a reviewer and don't like her music, wouldn't a review saying you don't like her music be most appropriate? The Melody Maker reviewer thought her music was dated and dull, and because of this and the fact that others like her a lot, that she should be burned at the stake! And her nipples must be phony! Someone should be burned at the stake for making music you don't like?!? There are lots of artists that I consider honest and sincere, but whom I don't like, who maybe I find dated and dull. Joni Mitchel, for example. Lots of people like her. That's fine with me. I'd be just as upset if someone went on a tirade about how Joni Mitchel should be burned at the stake, and how her nipples must be phony, etc. I don't like Joni Mitchel's music, and don't think she's all that inspired, but that's just my opinion. She is an honest and sincere artist, and deserves respect. "Is there so much hate for the ones we love?" Doug Alan nessus@mit-eddie.UUCP (or ARPA)
merchant@dartvax.UUCP (Peter Merchant) (08/20/85)
{ ...oh no...not again... }
> > From: merchant@dartvax.UUCP (Peter Merchant)
>
> >> [Him:] Do you have to be able to make vile, vicious and
> >> unsubstantiated personal attacks at honest and sincere artists, just
> >> because you don't like their music? How could anyone with a human
> >> soul say such things about about someone who makes an honest and
> >> sincere artistic effort, even if they did have no talent?
>
> > However, I have seen many personal attacks on Madonna and their like
> > in this newsgroup. People who say all sorts of nasty things about a
> > performer just because she shows off her belly-button, has a high
> > voice, or has "sold-out".
>
> Madonna isn't an artist, and is neither honest nor sincere nor nice.
> She doesn't care about art. She's in it for the money and the fame.
> She degrades and commercializes art and presents a harmful manipulative
> image of sex that rubs off on and affects people. She deserves the
> abuse she gets (though certainly not for her voice -- who give a shit
> about her voice?). Maybe I'm being vicious, but at least I supported my
> reasons.
>
> What did Kate Bush ever do to hurt anyone? She's incredibly nice
> person, and does not deserve any kind of personal attack. She doesn't
> care much about money and fame -- she just wants to be able to continue
> her art -- she puts most of her profits into being able to make more
> music and videos, etc. If you're a reviewer and don't like her music,
> wouldn't a review saying you don't like her music be most appropriate?
> The Melody Maker reviewer thought her music was dated and dull, and
> because of this and the fact that others like her a lot, that she should
> be burned at the stake! And her nipples must be phony! Someone should
> be burned at the stake for making music you don't like?!?
>
> Doug Alan
What'd Madonna ever do to hurt anyone? Does she kick babies? How do you
know she is not nice? She isn't sincere? She's in it for the money and
the fame. Just because she doesn't produce music that YOU like and aims
towards a wider (and less intelligent, perhaps) audience, she is obviously
doing great harm and should have her nipples burned at the stake (Ouch!).
Now, before I start my third paragraph, I want the Kate Bushites in the
audience to know that I have never heard Kate Bush and am making these
comments just to prove a point. Any nasty remarks are not meant seriously.
Now then, Kate Bush on the other hand is like many of the modern artists
of our time who throw paint at a wall and call it art. Lots of random
noise with no discernable meaning to any of it. She babbles a few words
and is loudly proclaimed an artist by those who fans who listen to her
only so that they can say they are not part of the mainstream. If it's
not mainstream, it's good because mainstream is so bad.
Get the idea? I can justify any nasty remarks. You're saying that
Kate Bush is an "artist" where Madonna is not. How do you define an
artist?
--
"Hot lovin' every night..." Peter Merchantsmithson@calma.uucp (Brian Smithson) (08/20/85)
In article <5013@mit-eddie.UUCP> nessus@mit-eddie.UUCP (Doug Alan) writes: [...] >Madonna isn't an artist, and is neither honest nor sincere nor nice. >She doesn't care about art. She's in it for the money and the fame. >She degrades and commercializes art and presents a harmful manipulative >image of sex that rubs off on and affects people. She deserves the >abuse she gets (though certainly not for her voice -- who give a shit >about her voice?). Maybe I'm being vicious, but at least I supported my >reasons. > >What did Kate Bush ever do to hurt anyone? She's incredibly nice >person, and does not deserve any kind of personal attack. She doesn't >care much about money and fame -- she just wants to be able to continue >her art -- she puts most of her profits into being able to make more >music and videos, etc. If you're a reviewer and don't like her music, >wouldn't a review saying you don't like her music be most appropriate? >The Melody Maker reviewer thought her music was dated and dull, and >because of this and the fact that others like her a lot, that she should >be burned at the stake! And her nipples must be phony! Someone should >be burned at the stake for making music you don't like?!? > >There are lots of artists that I consider honest and sincere, but whom I >don't like, who maybe I find dated and dull. Joni Mitchel, for example. >Lots of people like her. That's fine with me. I'd be just as upset if >someone went on a tirade about how Joni Mitchel should be burned at the >stake, and how her nipples must be phony, etc. I don't like Joni >Mitchel's music, and don't think she's all that inspired, but that's >just my opinion. She is an honest and sincere artist, and deserves >respect. > First of all, I don't give two shits for your opinions on who you consider to be "artists", "sincere", "honest", "in it for the money" or not, or (give me a break already) presenting a "harmful manipulative image of sex...". It might be okay if you presented these opinions as though you considered them to be opinions, but there are certain opinions which you consistently present as though they represented fact. After reading some of your postings, I have a hard time getting that you really have anything to say, but I could imagine that you do have some insights into music, poetry, and even artistry, that you could share on this net. What I do get from your postings, however, is that you are much more committed to your opinions about "true art", commercialism, and the effects of sexual imagery in videos, etc., than you are to whatever it is that you *really* have to share about your experience of the art which you *do* like. Face it, Doug -- there will likely always be performers whom you do not consider to be artists, some of them will probably be successful, some more so than performers whom you do consider to be artists, and there will be reviewers and others who flame the hell out of your "artists". But consider this: I suggest that the difference between many of your postings and those postings that you so ahbor is in their point of view, in their justifications, and in their supporting "reasons". Take the above posting as an example: you flame the hell out of Madonna, and justify the admitted viciousness using the content of the viciousness itself. Doesn't that give you a clue to something? I could ask how it is that you "know" that Madonna is dishonest, insincere, doesn't care about art, etc., but it would be a great deal more valuable if you asked that to yourself. Now, what if some reviewer thought similarly of Kate Bush? Wouldn't they be "justified" in their viciousness? Perhaps. Perhaps not. More to the point, who cares? I think that you'd be a lot more effective in sharing Kate Bush (or whoever) with the world if you'd just get off of that bandwagon. -- -Brian Smithson Calma Company ucbvax!calma!smithson calma!smithson@ucbvax.ARPA No kidding -- I don't have an opinion of Kate Bush! Really! :-)