Re: Sinead O'Connor won't appear at Grammys

[amadeus@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Susan Harwood Kaczmarczik)]

In article <8816@hub.ucsb.edu> 6600kevc@UCSBUXA.UCSB.EDU (Kevin
Carhart) writes:

>[re: Sinead O'Connor boycotting the Grammys]
>I think it was something like superficial values in
>the music business.  She probably isn't talking
>about the superficiality in the songs themselves,
>but I'm sure they are sustained by superficial
>executives (e.g. $$$$), and if she is crusading
>against charts that keep out the likes of Kate Bush
>in favor of Madonna, more power to her.

Oh please.  It's not like the IRA kidnapped her as though she were
Patty Hearst, made her shave her head, and forced her to record
albums, makes videos and do concerts, all against her will.

None of what Sinead does is to get her noticed or to sell more
records; she just does it to fight oppression, discrimination and
superficiality in the music industry.

Riiiiiiight.

If Sinead O'Connor is opposed to the $$$$ (as you put it) aspect of
the music industry (and we said industry, this is a way to make money,
although luckily for us a way that gets us some wonderful music), then
she can donate all her money to charities, good causes, and the like.

Otherwise, why doesn't she admit that she's part of the same business
that she's thumbing her nose at, shut up, and make more wonderful
music for us?  (And you thought I didn't like her music either.
Wrong-o.)

Obviously this subject makes me disgusted and curmudgeonly, so I'll
sign off now.
-- 
-----Susan Harwood Kaczmarczik-------------------------------*<:-)-------------
"The whims that we're weeping for our parents would be beaten for."--Kate Bush
----------amadeus@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu---------The University of Texas @Austin---