From: leo@ph.tn.tudelft.nl (Leo Breebaart)
Newsgroups: rec.music.misc
Subject: Re: SINEAD O'CONNOR AND THE PERILS OF FREE SPEECH
Date: 5 Nov 92 12:49:43 GMT
Reply-To: leo@ph.tn.tudelft.nl
Organization: Delft University of Technology

ben@cs.vu.nl (Bruschke BAH) writes:

> [...] I think tearing up the picture was a stupid act. I'm
> completely fed up with people that do things like this to get
> attention (and I do think that was the only reason she did it) just
> because their music is not interesting enough.

Just how do you reach the conclusion that Sinead's music is "not
interesting enough"? She is a critically and commercially very
succesful artist -- a combination that you don't see all that often,
incidentally.

I am not saying she didn't tear up the picture to 'get attention', but
if so I don't see what the quality of her music has to do with it:
both the critics and the buying public have found her music
interesting almost from the beginning.

> Tricks like "acting like a complete asshole to everyone" (most
> metal-bands, most notably Guns 'n Roses), 

Talk about *stupid* generalizations. This statement shows you don't
know much about 'metal' bands (and your silly disclaimer further down
won't help you), and makes me far less inclined to take your further
points seriously.

> "putting a message (f.e. about environmental issues) in your songs"
> and "dedicating a part of the money that a single makes to a good
> aim" increases your sales no end.

Uh-huh. So if someone "acts like a complete asshole", or tears up a
picture of the pope, it's all a trick to get attention. If they put a
message in their songs, or donate to charity, it's *also* a trick to
get attention. Not much middle ground left, is there?

Has it ever occurred to you that you should look at these things on a
case-by-case basis instead of making sweeping generalizations?

Sometimes people write a song with a message because they are honestly
concerned. Sometimes they do something controversial for exactly the
same reason. And sure, sometimes they don't. Still no need for
simplistic generalizations.

> Surrely they can't be proud of the crap that they produce, even if
> they make tons of money with it. 

Uh-huh. Please do go on, you've almost got me convinced...

> P.S. don't flame me with "Your wrong about Sinnead..." 

I don't care piffle about Sinead...

> and things like this `cause I've heard it all and I'm trying to make
> a general point rather than critisise Sinnead O'Connor.

... but I do think exactly this 'general point' of yours is fairly
ridiculous.

> Also I don't think the above is true of all bands, just some of
> them.

Come on, please make up your mind. Are you making a "general point"
(your words) about all artists, or are you only criticizing "some of
them"?

You can't have your cake and eat it too, and you can't feel an entire
article with incoherent ramblings about how everybody is an attention-
seeking crap-producer and then weasel out of it by saying in the last
sentence that you were only talking about *some* artists.

Let me guess, those artists that your general point applies to are
undoubtedly all artists whose music you happen to hate, right? Thought
so.
-- 
Leo Breebaart  (leo @ ph.tn.tudelft.nl)
Newsgroups: rec.music.misc