Re: Plethora of hotfooting
Lagusta Pauline Yearwood (ly001f@uhura.cc.rochester.edu)
Thu, 30 Oct 1997 15:47:30 -0500 (EST)
Malcolm wrote:
> Over here, mate. Angry isn't nearly as interesting as what happens when it
> finally burns itself out and becomes sad. To me angry female singers are just
> as boring as angry male singers. It's not until you get a bit of sensitivity
> that you start to actually reach some depth rather than just blaming
> everything you can point at. Audiences will always want saviors, and little
i couldn't disagree more. where do you think anger comes from?
sensitivity. holden's angry a lot of the time. sad is...just sad. anger
makes you get off your bottom and go do something. sad sits a home and
writes bad poetry. angry writes the stuff that organizes the masses for
real change. my anger is probably my favorite quality, i never want to
lose it. carefully directed, it's my most valuable weapon.
ok, another ani quote:
"if you're not angry,
then you're just stupid or you don't care
how else can you react
when you see something so unfair
that the men of the hour
can kill half the world in war
or make them slaves to a superpower
and let then die poor..."
damn straight.
> girls and little boys will always want their saviors to be as angry as their
> own parents won't allow them to be. Perfect recipe for a puppet dictator, eh?
oh no oh **no**. maybe these angry singers let the "little girls and
little boys" know that it's okay to be angry, that they can use their
anger.
i don't know why i'm going so off on this. i guess because i think anger
is just so amazing. it doesn't need to involve blame, or shame or violence
or anything. i know i couldn't be so happy if i wasn't so angry some of
the time. make sense? i think i can only realize how achingly beautiful
everything can be when i've also seen how heartbreaching terrible it can
be, and faught against that side.
i don't think audiences want saviors...i think maybe individual
idiots do, but i think audiences want their emotions refected in someone
else. audiences of the music we've been talking about, anyway.
i go to ani shows because i think and believe like she
does, not because she's some diva that i bow down to. i like her
because she says things i say.
its the same with salinger. some people want to turn him into some savior,
but the smart people realize him for what he is all he is: a guy who
writes well about things other people feel. he makes me feel good because
i feel the same things buddy and seymour and frannie do, and i like the
way he writes. i don't expect him to perfect my world, i'll do that
myself, thank you very much.
> In a lot of ways, Sinead O'Connor is still the mother of that whole lot. When
> she was angry she could have eaten any of those other sistahs for lunch. And
> when her anger finally burned out and supernovaed and she got sad, she's the
> only one who you'd want to sing you to sleep.
ahhhhh!!! but who wants to be sung to sleep?? i'd rather be out there,
wide eyed, screaming about everything. ok, i know you're thinking
literally, and i'm interpreting it metaphorically (sleep), but, gosh. i
don't think the point was to eat those other sistas (not that you said it
was), i think the point was just that she didn't like the way the world is
and sung about it.
and i don't think anger burns out and becomes sadness. i think they can
and do exist at the same time, i think it's possibly the other way around:
you get sad about something then wise up and get angry and fix it.
well, there's my i'm-going-crazy-writing-all-these-papers rant.
lagusta