Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site dartvax.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!harvard!talcott!panda!genrad!decvax!dartvax!merchant From: merchant@dartvax.UUCP (Peter Merchant) Newsgroups: net.music Subject: Re: When is it okay to make personal attacks in a review? Message-ID: <3499@dartvax.UUCP> Date: Tue, 20-Aug-85 10:41:49 EDT Article-I.D.: dartvax.3499 Posted: Tue Aug 20 10:41:49 1985 Date-Received: Fri, 23-Aug-85 06:22:19 EDT References: <4991@mit-eddie.UUCP> <3493@dartvax.UUCP> <5013@mit-eddie.UUCP> Distribution: net.music Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH Lines: 58 { ...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 Merchant