Re: 2 reviews and a Drukflame

[Jon Drukman <jsd@GAFFA.MIT.EDU>]

From: chris@world.std.com (Chris'n'Vickie of Kansas City)
>    A note re: Drukman; the above review is an example of what is called
>"criticism". The reviewer likes some things about the album and dislikes
>others. Some of his statements are valid, and the ones that are not are
>mostly a result of ignorance. The part about her being "too introverted
>and self-obsessed" is an example of what is called "constructive criticism".

Is it?  What right does this bonehead, who didn't even do enough
research to find out that "The Sensual World" (the song) was based on
Ulysses by James Joyce, have to criticize Kate's personality?  Maybe
he should've said the SONGS were too introverted and self-obsessed.
Personally I couldn't care less if Kate was a nazi skinhead and
tortured gerbils in her spare time.  The music is foremost.

>   It is an arguably valid statement. "Reaching Out is SHIT!", while
>arguable (as has been demonstrated ad infinitum), is not what could be
>"constructive" even by the the most desperate critic. Calling something
>"Shit" is an example of verbel bankruptcy. Some people on .gaffa have stated
>that they like Drukman's typing (I just can't dignify it as _writing_).

I started out providing a hundred reasons why Reaching Out didn't
appeal to me, and I degenerated into merely calling it "shit" when it
seemed that anything, no matter how personally reasonable it seemed to
me, was getting this response: "your opinions are SHIT!"  If you
really really want, I'll go into the Gaffan archives and pull out my
original critiques of the song.

>  My own thoughts are that these folks just like to see him goad IED, so
>IED will get amusingly irritated. These folks probably appreciate the
>Three Stooges too. Drukman can't possibly be as big a jerk as he seems
>to be, as it is doubtful anyone like that could have survived adolecence.
>He has stated that the model for his alleged "style" is the british music
>press (NME, Melody Maker, Sounds etc., one supposes). I can't imagine a
>more worthless and twisted role model than that pile of posers.

How about Wilhelm Reich?  (actually, I shouldn't say that - I kinda
like the guy.)  Anyways, listen up, my pathetic little fool.  While
attempting not to descend to my vulgar level, you have walked right
into the trap by insulting my ability to cope with the real world.
Obviously, it is thee, not me, with the reality-grasping problems.
You're right, I'm not as big a jerk as I seem to be, although you
might fit the job requirement nicely.  I started out a while ago
trying to have a reasonable discussion about the flaws that I perceive
in Kate's latest offering.  A few malcontents seemed to think that
this sort of behavior was sacrilege and not to be condoned in a forum
allegedly created to discuss this very topic.  Eventually, it became
very easy to piss off a few people with a few simple, yet powerful,
words.  I thought everyone was having a good laugh and getting into
the spirit of things.  If you think the level of abuse currently
flying is something, you shoulda been here a few years ago, that's all
I can say.

As for the British Music Press, they consistently entertain me.  So
far, you have not.  You can add SPY Magazine, Hunter S. Thompson and
The Weekly World News to the list of my influences, by the way.

>      I've avoided most direct quotes from Drukman's drivel as any attempt
>in the past, by anyone, to quote Drukman, no matter how completely,
>has been greeted by cries of "out of context" form him. I've gone
>back through past listings and in all cases _I've_ found the quotes have
>been well representive of the babble they've been taken from.
>       Drukman,get a life.

Look, I'm perfectly willing to discuss anything about Kate you'd care
to mention in an adult, mature fashion, but if you're going to start
spouting vacuous, banal and worst of all, PLAIGIARIZED insults at me,
then maybe I should just respond in kind.  Nah, I've no wish to be
contaminated by your vapidity.

>       Preferably your own, rather than Julie Burchell's.*
>   *Julie Burchell: British music writer- see Pete Townsends "Jules & Jules"
>                    and her review of "Never for Ever" entitled "Kate Grates".

I've moved your footnote up here because I want to attack this point
right away.  For one thing, I've heard that Burchell is a nasty little
woman, and she sounds like my dream girl, although I haven't read any
of her stuff.  I tried to find a review of "Never For Ever" called
"Kate Grates" but the one I found was written by someone named "Ronnie
Gurr," so unless we're dealing with an absolutely monumental printing
error, you've got your facts messed up.  I suppose the article could
have been printed under a pseudonym...  Anyway, the review here seems
to be mostly positive, although the reviewer says things like "Kate
annoys me enough to listen closely, whether that's good or bad I know
not."  This is a really cool thing to say, in my opinion, because it's
exactly the way I feel about TSW, except that I would use the word
"disappoints" rather than "annoys."  So much potential...

>called Heavy Metal. Note the presence of Jimmy Bain of "Dio" on "Leave It
>Open".

This is a truly ridiculous argument.  "Leave it Open" is not a heavy
metal song, by any stretch of the imagination.  You might as well say
that "Experiment IV" is a piece of classical music because the violin
solo is played by a fellow who plays classical music!  Sloppy thinking
such as this is not going to win you any points.

>well. The worst part about all this, is that I'm told that Drukman's
>intent is allegedly "humorous". That is so sad. Not one word of his
>has been even slightly funny. I've read past love-hounds postings and
>have found many funny things from many people. Not Drukman. Not
>unless you find systematic negativeity, hatred and spite
>rib-tickling.

You really should learn to lighten up, you'll live longer.  I bear
no malice to ANYONE on this list.  Sometimes the things said anger me,
and I respond in an angry fashion.  I would say from this venomous
poison-pen attack that YOU are the one with "systematic negativity,
hatred and spite."  Besides, I've seen a few letters (the recent one
from Vishal was very well timed!  thanks!) that say I'm useful and fun
to have around.  Maybe you could start a petition?

>      Well, I've said my piece. I have no intention to participate in a flame
>war. Vickie, reading this, has told me that this is probably not a good idea
>for a first posting to be like this, but I had to get this out. Drukman has
>slammed too many good people for me not to say something as soon as I could.

Having no intention to participate in a flame war and then flaming
someone violently does not seem very consistent to me.  I never slam
people.  I slam their opinions and thoughts.  I can't help it, it's a
curse.  IED has said that he will violently defend Kate from all
mud-slingers, so why don't you go after him for "slamming too many
good people"?  Is it because that you agree with him, and not me?
Hmmm...

> I've met a lot of Kate fans and generally they've been friendly introverts.
>I don't think many of these people could respond to Drukman with the proper
>level of vitriol necessary. Any hateful messages directed to me by Drukman
>will be ignored. If he'd like to act like a civilized human being, we could
>correspond. In his vist to Kansas City, (a mythical place somewhere between
>Boston and California) Joe Turner (Hi Joe!) asserted that Jon Drukman is,
>in fact, a nice guy. Andy is lucky to have IED as an alter-ego. Pompous?,
>Yes. Overbearing?, Maybe so. But it doesn't matter what IED says, as I know
>Andy as well. Drukman hasn't given himself an exit. I'll say no more, for
>now, on the subject of Drukman.

I'm beginning to think that you're not really the basket case that you
have projected throughout this blather.  I'm a friendly guy, you
oughta try to get to know me before destroying me.  I re-assert my
willingness to discuss any topic in a reasonable fashion, but if I
don't like something (whether it be by Kate or anyone else), I'm not
going to sugar- coat my thoughts because someone might disagree with
them.  As for the "friendly introverts" out there, I will say the
exact same thing that IED has been saying over and over: I am
infringing NOBODY'S rights.  They can respond any way they damn well
please, and if they are scared that they might be taken to task for
their fuzzy logic, then that is THEIR problem and NOT MINE.

The funniest part about your whole ramble (oh dear - I admitted that I
found it entertaining - so much for my credibility :-) is that you say
that it doesn't matter what IED says because you know Andy.  Maybe you
should try to get to know Jon before you freak out over what jsd@gaffa
has to say.  Oh I suppose that's just too much effort.  I'm saying
stuff you don't agree with, so you attack the person who says it
rather than what's been said.  (Footnote: IED and Andy are not as
close, personalitywise, as me & my mail message personae are.  that is
to say, I'm not that different from what you see on the net...  Maybe
a bit cuter...)

That's all for now.  If you (or anyone else) can overcome your
"friendly introversion" enough, get in touch with me.  I won't bite.
Much.

----------------------------
And now, some fun things from the "Kate Grates" article...

"You don't have to be a neurotic, well-to-do airy-fairy dreamer to
like Kate Bush but it probably helps."  "By no stretch of the
imagination could one describe Bush and her music as inspiring...
"Never For Ever" sounds like one of the most empty, dull packets of
poop one could ever hope to avoid."


+---------------------- Is there any ESCAPE from NOISE? ----------------------+
|  |   |\       | jsd@gaffa.mit.edu |      "Suck on this,                     |
| \|on |/rukman | jsd@umass.bitnet  |       planet of noise bimbo!"           |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+