Re: Love And Anger

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

In article <|-G2W_@rpi.edu> kudla@PAWL.RPI.EDU (Robert J. Kudla) writes:
>One thing though.
>
>>There are some damn good dancers in the video market today.  Of
>>course, they are all uniformly terrible
>>singers/songwriters/producers.  Janet Jackson, Paula Abdul and
>>Madonna all spring (repulsively) to mind.
> ^^^^^^^
>
>Now, the other two are more or less horrible and even Madonna's no
>Kate when it comes to songwriting department, but I think she deserves
>a bit better of an adjective than "repulsive". I even sort of like her
>last album.

Gee, a better adjective than "repulsive" huh?  How about "hellspawn"?
How about "sludgy"?  How about "unbelievably appalling"?  I dunno, I
guess in terms of obnoxiousness there are far more stunning examples
of No Redeeming Social Value, but Madonna is just covered in slime...
Everything she touches turns to shit. 

>I haven't the foggiest idea, however, where you got the notion that
>she can dance. She can writhe much as I do when I wake up feeling
>particularly uninspired to face the world, and do it on many surfaces
>such as concrete or astroturf, but she can't *dance*.

Well, then she's a good twitcher or writher.  I find it eye pleasing.
Even more so than the Kate Hammersmith Odeon show...  (Ooh, I can hear
the flame guns warming up already...)
+---------------------- Is there any ESCAPE from NOISE? ----------------------+
|  |   |\       | jsd@gaffa.mit.edu |      "Suck on this,                     |
| \|on |/rukman | jsd@umass.bitnet  |       planet of noise bimbo!"           |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+