Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!mit-eddie!CLUTX.CLARKSON.EDU!woiccare@CLUTX.CLARKSON.EDU
From: woiccare@CLUTX.CLARKSON.EDU (woj)
Newsgroups: rec.music.gaffa
Subject: Re: Love And Anger
Message-ID: <9001031745.AA20858@clutx.clarkson.edu>
Date: 3 Jan 90 17:45:24 GMT
Sender: daemon@eddie.mit.edu (Mr Background)
Organization: MIT
Lines: 29
Approved: nessus@eddie.mit.edu

Jon Drukman will no doubt deny writing:
>>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. 
 
While I agree with you regarding the questionable social value, she does
have a few decent songs. The only though that springs to mind is "Tale to
Tell" that is just plain eerie. _Like_A_Virgin_ and the latest album, though,
are trash imho.

>>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...)

WWWWWWWHHHHHHHHHHHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSSSSSSSSSHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!

woj