Louise Mensch, former Conservative MP for Corby, never struck me as much of a feminist, despite what she may say. Real feminism engages with serious issues, such as the vote, pay, workplace and violence. Yet, when put to the test, self-styled feminists such as Louise Mensch fail to campaign effectively for their comrades. Her feminism, if it can be described as such, is more of the individualist variety.
Other than pointing out occasional outbursts of male chauvinism, I am uncertain what her principles are. That is, of course, a more general criticism of her that Labour, and even some Tories, would offer. On the whole, the sum total of her feminist achievements seems to be a demonstration that she can climb up any corporate ladder. That is not solidarity though with women who are aiming to achieve equal pay, trying to campaign against domestic violence, or protesting for more effective rape convictions.
Unfortunately Mensch is not alone. From the heavyweights of the past, we now have those who write about matters so trivial it barely qualifies as feminist scholarship. A great place to start for the evidence gathering is Mensch's Twitter page. (No link provided - it's easily searchable, and I do not wish to give her any more hits than necessary.)
The page is a masterclass in light Internet trolling. It is not the sort of trolling associated with vile people who, for example, threaten others. It is trolling of the variety where Mensch, as a conservative, has digs at her political opponents, then retweets the inevitable reactions she gets. Dare I say it, some of the responses use sexist language.
Bravo! That's how to change the world! Mensch tweeted and retweeted reactions for hours because Labour peer Lord Sugar called her "dear" on Twitter. This was certainly not the most outrageous act of sexism that Mensch has been subjected to, but of course she - as Sugar's political opposite - was deeply offended by it. I am frequently called "dear" by older women. I am no longer sure how to interpret it. Maybe I will dismiss it as a generational thing and be a little less chippy than Mensch.
The problem is, there is something decidedly "me, me, me" about Mensch's individualist ravings. The truth is, as someone on the right, Mensch cannot begin to appreciate the oppressor/oppressed dynamic that often constructs gendered interactions.
When put to the test, Mensch falls down. While her feminist comrades are campaigning for The Sun to abolish the antiquated (and rather embarrassing, it has to be said) daily topless page 3 girl, Mensch is writing for the newspaper.
This is the newspaper owned by Rupert Murdoch - the man who she was drafted upon to interrogate as part of a parliamentary committee into the conduct of his newspaper researchers in the phone-hacking scandal. The outcome saw Mensch as one of the MPs who publicly distanced herself from the eventual report condemning Murdoch's suitability to run a newspaper. Now she is working for Murdoch.
That is not just a middle-finger to the feminism she supposedly stands for, that is a sequence of events ripe for a parliamentary inquiry.
Also counting against Mensch is her decision to quit as an MP little over two-years into her term for family reasons, something else which is not going to help the cause of other ambitious women hoping to enter Parliament in future. However, apart from marriage, little seems to have changed in her circumstances. It is now widely reported that it was fear of inevitable defeat from the embarrassed and angered Corby electorate that led Mensch to step down.
In summary, I feel that feminism is better off without Louise Mensch. However, as a male, I am no feminist writer and as I explain in this article I believe it is not for the place of men to speak on behalf of women. Therefore, all I offer here is mere advice, and a narrative into how I believe one particular bad apple can bring with it many contradictions.
Showing posts with label Celebrity. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Celebrity. Show all posts
Sunday, 4 November 2012
Wednesday, 13 June 2012
Being a good Internet user rather than a troll can be a learned process
Hate campaigns against individuals, some of which disturbingly includes targeting tribute pages to the deceased, have become an unwelcome by-product of the growth of Internet social networking. The pure violence behind the words and actions of these so-called "trolls" is clearly something to be addressed. Legal powers exist to convict offenders, as with the case of the student who posted racist comments about the critically ill footballer Fabrice Muamba. I also believe that people need to be educated about appropriate behaviour on the Internet.
Public figures have started to speak up about some of the language and threatening behaviour they are subjected to online. There is some excellent writing emerging on the subject. One individual used a social networking site to threaten a Member of Parliament, Louise Mensch, with killing her children - above and beyond what you would imagine the very worst trolls could be capable of.
I urge caution at this point: the Internet phrase "trolling" has a broad definition and is used expansively. Many web forum and social network users will describe others as trolls, purely because they disagree with them. Anyone who has used forums over the years will already be aware of debating against the 'tyranny of the majority', and being classed as a "troll" - itself surely an act of trolling! Some may be described as trolls for constantly repeating the same points, which in fairness may become tiresome. Others may be described as trolls for repeatedly seeking out the same person on a social network in order to hassle them, something which can be more accurately described as stalking.
Trolling is also often described as someone writing with the distinct purpose of gaining a reaction. Using that definition, it could be argued that Mensch herself is a troll. That might be stretching things a little far. At the very worst, I would argue that the time Mensch spends on Twitter could be better spent working for her constituents. Yet however offensive you find Mensch's celebrity politics, there is no excuse for some of the material she has been subjected to. The word "troll" does not begin to capture the significance of it. The poison pen letters are criminal. It is not just celebrities being subjected to it either - a Brighton resident won a court battle to order Facebook to release the names of those who waged an online hate campaign against her.
While those who write the nastiest of material should be dealt with, there is also a risk of misunderstanding the behaviour of those who are yet to realise the Internet is no different to the outside world. Perhaps the most unforgivable fact about Mensch's tormentor is his age. At 60, he should be aware of what is acceptable and what is not.
I recommend a structured plan to improve conduct on the Internet without criminalising the immature, who simply need bringing into line. There should be a simple set of rules, which are brief and are displayed when someone logs on to the Internet for the first time. One one hand, the young person currently sitting in prison over a nasty racist tweet can only reflect on the big mistake he made. On the other hand, there is no way the ranting of a 60 year old man can be dismissed as life inexperience. These are challenges we must overcome.
Public figures have started to speak up about some of the language and threatening behaviour they are subjected to online. There is some excellent writing emerging on the subject. One individual used a social networking site to threaten a Member of Parliament, Louise Mensch, with killing her children - above and beyond what you would imagine the very worst trolls could be capable of.
I urge caution at this point: the Internet phrase "trolling" has a broad definition and is used expansively. Many web forum and social network users will describe others as trolls, purely because they disagree with them. Anyone who has used forums over the years will already be aware of debating against the 'tyranny of the majority', and being classed as a "troll" - itself surely an act of trolling! Some may be described as trolls for constantly repeating the same points, which in fairness may become tiresome. Others may be described as trolls for repeatedly seeking out the same person on a social network in order to hassle them, something which can be more accurately described as stalking.
Trolling is also often described as someone writing with the distinct purpose of gaining a reaction. Using that definition, it could be argued that Mensch herself is a troll. That might be stretching things a little far. At the very worst, I would argue that the time Mensch spends on Twitter could be better spent working for her constituents. Yet however offensive you find Mensch's celebrity politics, there is no excuse for some of the material she has been subjected to. The word "troll" does not begin to capture the significance of it. The poison pen letters are criminal. It is not just celebrities being subjected to it either - a Brighton resident won a court battle to order Facebook to release the names of those who waged an online hate campaign against her.
While those who write the nastiest of material should be dealt with, there is also a risk of misunderstanding the behaviour of those who are yet to realise the Internet is no different to the outside world. Perhaps the most unforgivable fact about Mensch's tormentor is his age. At 60, he should be aware of what is acceptable and what is not.
I recommend a structured plan to improve conduct on the Internet without criminalising the immature, who simply need bringing into line. There should be a simple set of rules, which are brief and are displayed when someone logs on to the Internet for the first time. One one hand, the young person currently sitting in prison over a nasty racist tweet can only reflect on the big mistake he made. On the other hand, there is no way the ranting of a 60 year old man can be dismissed as life inexperience. These are challenges we must overcome.
Sunday, 1 April 2012
Galloway by-election win needs Labour reflection, not revolution
This was meant to be Ed Miliband's finest week since taking up the reins as leader of the Labour party. As one scandal after another hit the Tories, Miliband found himself suddenly in the driving seat; the likely victor of a future general election. The Tories floundered under the weight of criticism against taxes on pasties and pensioners, the creation of a fuel crisis and NHS reforms. At one point, Labour built up a massive 17 point lead in the polls. Nothing could go wrong. Then along came George...
George Galloway, Labour's self-created nemesis when he was expelled from the party in 2003, triumphed in the Bradford West by-election on Thursday to remind Labour he still has great nuisance value. While the rest of us were busy point-scoring off the back of the Tories' nightmare week, Galloway was putting the final touches to a typically well-crafted campaign. In the campaign, he used every available resource to communicate with voters, found out what was troubling them (probably jobs, the economic outlook and welfare provision, in addition to locally specific concerns over foreign policy and alienation with the political system). From this starting point, his job was simply to tell them the words they wanted to hear. There was no photo finish. Galloway mopped up 56 percent of the vote. He won fair and square. The margin of victory suggested votes came from all sections of the community, not just Muslims and leftists whom he built the solid foundations from.
I would not have voted for Galloway, for I already have my party loyalty towards one I deeply care about - probably the same party that Galloway too still holds a torch for. However, I think if public attitudes towards politics in general is to be truly reshaped, then the attitude from politicians must change, but so too must the attitude of those who discuss politics in the media. The overall reaction to Galloway's win, from all areas of the discursive political sphere, smacked of sour grapes.
Of course, Galloway's shoulders are more than big enough to withstand the critical onslaught in the aftermath of his victory. He will happily take on those who criticise or merely attempt an inquisitive interview with him, in some cases quite brutally. A particularly unpleasant exchange was between him and the interviewer Cathy Newman of Channel Four News. From the interview, it was immediately apparent that Newman is no Jeremy Paxman, nor is she ever likely to be, though she gave it her best shot. The mildly challenging questions she posed were batted away with the well-rehearsed "I can see you and I are not getting on very well" and "I really do have a lot of very important interviews to do". Seasoned Galloway-watchers will be familiar with this tactic. He was working from an fairly similar script to the one he used in his post-2005 General Election interview with Jeremy Paxman (who unquestionably deserved to be brought down a couple of notches). Although the video is incomplete, I recall the interview was also terminated by Galloway.
Galloway should realise though that the hostile Paxmanesque inquisition is now the norm for political interviews. To some extent, they're all Paxmans now. As soon as a politician is being interviewed, that politician must not just explain their work, but explain their entire existence. Nobody working in any other field would be spoken to so universally in that fashion. Doctors, teachers and other professionals would be required to explain themselves when they fail to reach the standards expected of them. Those who desire to be an elected representative have to explain themselves the moment they hit the campaign trail, before they have even won an election.
It is true that people have become sick of politicians because they are sick of being lied to. This was never more blatant than when Liberal Democrats walked around university campuses with camera crews on hand to witness their worthless signed pledge regarding university tuition fees. The expenses scandal also lives in the recent memory. Despite these facts, there is no excuse for the media contributing to the loss of respect for politicians by wrongly presenting a narrative that it is acceptable to speak them as though they are scum. Galloway therefore must realise he is not being treated any differently to anyone else, and to not take the media jibes so personally.
The media coverage of his victory has been harsh and unfair though. Aside from the prickly interviews, the print media (including the more leftist newspapers) have taken aim at his tactics, notably Nick Cohen, from the Observer, and David Aaronovitch. In typical Galloway style, he responded to the pair in the strongest of terms. The BBC meanwhile showed its usual disregard for editorial impartiality by playing a montage of his past 'crime-sheet' before his Radio 2 interview with Vanessa Feltz, including predictably the notorious fawning speech he delivered to Saddam Hussein and the cat impersonation on Big Brother. Vanessa handled the interview itself admirably, and did not fall for the Paxman 2005 script - unlike Cathy Newman over at Channel 4.
He has not only received media criticism, but individuals have also been quick to condemn Galloway's success. Here is a clip of a man expressing his dissatisfaction with a democratic outcome by aiming eggs in the direction of the victor.
Most of the soul-searching must come from Labour. How bad was the result for the party? Should there be reflection or revolution? Is it time to chuck out Ed Miliband and replace him with someone of greater presence? Such an idea represents a huge gamble. There are elections coming up in May, and Labour candidates are set to do well. I believe the Bradford West by-election is an isolated setback, orchestrated by an experienced, aggressive and well-known campaigner. Some are suggesting that to dismiss it as a freak result is reckless complacency, but on this occasion maybe the result is just extraordinary. Galloway is, after all, a man of great political skill and oratory, but he cannot be cloned and sent to every area of the country to campaign - imagine that! In any case, there are many places where the conditions would not be right for him to win. For example, when he stood in Scottish Parliament elections, the Scottish sent him packing.
The Respect Coalition is not much of a force outside of the Galloway bubble either. There will also be no influx of celebrity candidates for future elections as a result of Galloway's success. That has been tried before and did not work. The public are wiser than to vote for political lightweights who were not as popular as TV casting executives thought they were in the first place. Galloway's victory is not the start of a wave of independent election candidates that will radically alter the way elections are conducted.
The Labour man in me remains optimistic about what remains an awful week for the Conservatives. Few newspapers led with the story of Galloway's triumph, as government incompetence continues to give them more mileage. For now, it is a time for reflection in the Labour ranks; not revolution. Galloway captivated Bradford. A refounded Labour can captivate the rest of Britain.
George Galloway, Labour's self-created nemesis when he was expelled from the party in 2003, triumphed in the Bradford West by-election on Thursday to remind Labour he still has great nuisance value. While the rest of us were busy point-scoring off the back of the Tories' nightmare week, Galloway was putting the final touches to a typically well-crafted campaign. In the campaign, he used every available resource to communicate with voters, found out what was troubling them (probably jobs, the economic outlook and welfare provision, in addition to locally specific concerns over foreign policy and alienation with the political system). From this starting point, his job was simply to tell them the words they wanted to hear. There was no photo finish. Galloway mopped up 56 percent of the vote. He won fair and square. The margin of victory suggested votes came from all sections of the community, not just Muslims and leftists whom he built the solid foundations from.
I would not have voted for Galloway, for I already have my party loyalty towards one I deeply care about - probably the same party that Galloway too still holds a torch for. However, I think if public attitudes towards politics in general is to be truly reshaped, then the attitude from politicians must change, but so too must the attitude of those who discuss politics in the media. The overall reaction to Galloway's win, from all areas of the discursive political sphere, smacked of sour grapes.
Of course, Galloway's shoulders are more than big enough to withstand the critical onslaught in the aftermath of his victory. He will happily take on those who criticise or merely attempt an inquisitive interview with him, in some cases quite brutally. A particularly unpleasant exchange was between him and the interviewer Cathy Newman of Channel Four News. From the interview, it was immediately apparent that Newman is no Jeremy Paxman, nor is she ever likely to be, though she gave it her best shot. The mildly challenging questions she posed were batted away with the well-rehearsed "I can see you and I are not getting on very well" and "I really do have a lot of very important interviews to do". Seasoned Galloway-watchers will be familiar with this tactic. He was working from an fairly similar script to the one he used in his post-2005 General Election interview with Jeremy Paxman (who unquestionably deserved to be brought down a couple of notches). Although the video is incomplete, I recall the interview was also terminated by Galloway.
Galloway should realise though that the hostile Paxmanesque inquisition is now the norm for political interviews. To some extent, they're all Paxmans now. As soon as a politician is being interviewed, that politician must not just explain their work, but explain their entire existence. Nobody working in any other field would be spoken to so universally in that fashion. Doctors, teachers and other professionals would be required to explain themselves when they fail to reach the standards expected of them. Those who desire to be an elected representative have to explain themselves the moment they hit the campaign trail, before they have even won an election.
It is true that people have become sick of politicians because they are sick of being lied to. This was never more blatant than when Liberal Democrats walked around university campuses with camera crews on hand to witness their worthless signed pledge regarding university tuition fees. The expenses scandal also lives in the recent memory. Despite these facts, there is no excuse for the media contributing to the loss of respect for politicians by wrongly presenting a narrative that it is acceptable to speak them as though they are scum. Galloway therefore must realise he is not being treated any differently to anyone else, and to not take the media jibes so personally.
The media coverage of his victory has been harsh and unfair though. Aside from the prickly interviews, the print media (including the more leftist newspapers) have taken aim at his tactics, notably Nick Cohen, from the Observer, and David Aaronovitch. In typical Galloway style, he responded to the pair in the strongest of terms. The BBC meanwhile showed its usual disregard for editorial impartiality by playing a montage of his past 'crime-sheet' before his Radio 2 interview with Vanessa Feltz, including predictably the notorious fawning speech he delivered to Saddam Hussein and the cat impersonation on Big Brother. Vanessa handled the interview itself admirably, and did not fall for the Paxman 2005 script - unlike Cathy Newman over at Channel 4.
He has not only received media criticism, but individuals have also been quick to condemn Galloway's success. Here is a clip of a man expressing his dissatisfaction with a democratic outcome by aiming eggs in the direction of the victor.
Most of the soul-searching must come from Labour. How bad was the result for the party? Should there be reflection or revolution? Is it time to chuck out Ed Miliband and replace him with someone of greater presence? Such an idea represents a huge gamble. There are elections coming up in May, and Labour candidates are set to do well. I believe the Bradford West by-election is an isolated setback, orchestrated by an experienced, aggressive and well-known campaigner. Some are suggesting that to dismiss it as a freak result is reckless complacency, but on this occasion maybe the result is just extraordinary. Galloway is, after all, a man of great political skill and oratory, but he cannot be cloned and sent to every area of the country to campaign - imagine that! In any case, there are many places where the conditions would not be right for him to win. For example, when he stood in Scottish Parliament elections, the Scottish sent him packing.
The Respect Coalition is not much of a force outside of the Galloway bubble either. There will also be no influx of celebrity candidates for future elections as a result of Galloway's success. That has been tried before and did not work. The public are wiser than to vote for political lightweights who were not as popular as TV casting executives thought they were in the first place. Galloway's victory is not the start of a wave of independent election candidates that will radically alter the way elections are conducted.
The Labour man in me remains optimistic about what remains an awful week for the Conservatives. Few newspapers led with the story of Galloway's triumph, as government incompetence continues to give them more mileage. For now, it is a time for reflection in the Labour ranks; not revolution. Galloway captivated Bradford. A refounded Labour can captivate the rest of Britain.
Saturday, 19 November 2011
Chiles and Bleakley lose Daybreak gig
After some rather poor ratings for ITV's Daybreak, the finger of blame has finally been directed towards the overexposed presenting duo of Christine Bleakley and Adrian Chiles. It has been reported in the press that they have fallen on their swords and will no longer present the breakfast programme.
Christine Bleakley, I know little about outside of her television work but seems harmless enough. Chiles, the slightly grumpy person who used to present Match of the Day 2, has shown more than a glimpse of character on his own Sunday evening television programme.
The problem was never the duo themselves, but a combination of pay and height of expectation from the pairing. ITV paid them a fortune to present Daybreak, off the back of their work on The One Show. The lesson to be learned is that before paying people a small fortune to present a programme, check whether the programme they presented before is genuinely popular or only watched because there is little else worth watching at the time!
Christine Bleakley, I know little about outside of her television work but seems harmless enough. Chiles, the slightly grumpy person who used to present Match of the Day 2, has shown more than a glimpse of character on his own Sunday evening television programme.
The problem was never the duo themselves, but a combination of pay and height of expectation from the pairing. ITV paid them a fortune to present Daybreak, off the back of their work on The One Show. The lesson to be learned is that before paying people a small fortune to present a programme, check whether the programme they presented before is genuinely popular or only watched because there is little else worth watching at the time!
Sunday, 20 March 2011
Introducing... controversial teen singer Rebecca Black
If you have been anywhere near Twitter or any other social media over the past week, you may have heard of the latest Internet phenomenon, Rebecca Black. As I type she is still trending on Twitter (as she has been for much of the week). I had no idea who she was until I saw the name enough times for me to take notice.
It did not take much research to realise that this is not another Internet phenomenon based on admiration - quite the opposite. This young 13 year old girl has seemingly become the most hated person in America, for the alleged crime of singing the most atrocious song ever, entitled Friday. It has had the best part of 20 million views on YouTube, largely by people queuing up to sneer at it. There is clearly a shortage of people in the world to hate if this is what it has come to.
Curious to discover the level of atrocity leading to this public display of ranting and raving, I decided to have a listen and yes, the song is atrocious.
Oddly enough, I did not find myself paralysed with rage, or wanting to smash my laptop to relieve myself of this aural nightmare. In fact, poor though it is, the song is not the most obnoxious assault on our eardrums in the history of popular music. It is fairly typical of the rest of the rubbish that has polluted much of the airwaves since early 2010.
Vocals with the soul autotuned out of it? Check. Generic electronic backing track? Check. Banal and meaningless lyrics? Check. If anything, it fits in perfectly with the present music scene. Thank goodness for Adele.
It is mainly the lyrics that have been roundly condemned:-
"Yesterday was Thursday Thursday,
Today it is Friday Friday,
Gotta get down to the bus stop, gotta get my bus,
I see my friends and and we we we so excited, we so excited."
It is not hard to see why, but are they any worse than these abominations?
"I spent my time just thinkin thinkin thinkin bout you,
Every single day yes, i'm really missin' missin' you,
And all those things we use to use to use to do,
Hey girl, wuz up, it use to be just me and you,
I spent my time just thinkin thinkin thinkin bout you."
or
"No, no, no, no, don’t phunk with my heart,
I wonder if I take you home, would you still be in love, baby, in love, baby
I wonder if I take you home, would you still be in love, baby, in love, baby"
or
"What you gon' do with all that junk?
All that junk inside your trunk?
I'ma get, get, get, get, you drunk,
Get you love drunk off my hump.
My hump, my hump, my hump, my hump, my hump,
My hump, my hump, my hump, my lovely little lumps."
These crimes against literature have all been part of songs by the absurdly successful bubblegum pop act (and do not try to argue otherwise), The Black Eyed Peas. The main protagonist in this group, will.i.am has gone on to produce for many artists including Cheryl Cole and Michael Jackson, and surely made a fortune doing so.
When put into context, Rebecca Black should fit in comfortably. Bad though her efforts are, we must remember she is only 13 (What is will.i.am's excuse?). Though her song is rubbish to our ears, it would probably score at least an A minus as a GCSE music coursework project. And when I look at it like that, I cannot share the contempt that others display. I can think of many people in the world more worthy of hatred than a harmless teen.
It did not take much research to realise that this is not another Internet phenomenon based on admiration - quite the opposite. This young 13 year old girl has seemingly become the most hated person in America, for the alleged crime of singing the most atrocious song ever, entitled Friday. It has had the best part of 20 million views on YouTube, largely by people queuing up to sneer at it. There is clearly a shortage of people in the world to hate if this is what it has come to.
Curious to discover the level of atrocity leading to this public display of ranting and raving, I decided to have a listen and yes, the song is atrocious.
Oddly enough, I did not find myself paralysed with rage, or wanting to smash my laptop to relieve myself of this aural nightmare. In fact, poor though it is, the song is not the most obnoxious assault on our eardrums in the history of popular music. It is fairly typical of the rest of the rubbish that has polluted much of the airwaves since early 2010.
Vocals with the soul autotuned out of it? Check. Generic electronic backing track? Check. Banal and meaningless lyrics? Check. If anything, it fits in perfectly with the present music scene. Thank goodness for Adele.
It is mainly the lyrics that have been roundly condemned:-
"Yesterday was Thursday Thursday,
Today it is Friday Friday,
Gotta get down to the bus stop, gotta get my bus,
I see my friends and and we we we so excited, we so excited."
It is not hard to see why, but are they any worse than these abominations?
"I spent my time just thinkin thinkin thinkin bout you,
Every single day yes, i'm really missin' missin' you,
And all those things we use to use to use to do,
Hey girl, wuz up, it use to be just me and you,
I spent my time just thinkin thinkin thinkin bout you."
or
"No, no, no, no, don’t phunk with my heart,
I wonder if I take you home, would you still be in love, baby, in love, baby
I wonder if I take you home, would you still be in love, baby, in love, baby"
or
"What you gon' do with all that junk?
All that junk inside your trunk?
I'ma get, get, get, get, you drunk,
Get you love drunk off my hump.
My hump, my hump, my hump, my hump, my hump,
My hump, my hump, my hump, my lovely little lumps."
These crimes against literature have all been part of songs by the absurdly successful bubblegum pop act (and do not try to argue otherwise), The Black Eyed Peas. The main protagonist in this group, will.i.am has gone on to produce for many artists including Cheryl Cole and Michael Jackson, and surely made a fortune doing so.
When put into context, Rebecca Black should fit in comfortably. Bad though her efforts are, we must remember she is only 13 (What is will.i.am's excuse?). Though her song is rubbish to our ears, it would probably score at least an A minus as a GCSE music coursework project. And when I look at it like that, I cannot share the contempt that others display. I can think of many people in the world more worthy of hatred than a harmless teen.
Sunday, 20 February 2011
Lady Gaga: Original?
Whether she is popping out of an egg or wearing an abomination made out of raw meat, Lady Gaga is prepared to scrape any barrel in her ongoing quest to be both original and outrageous.
It is a shame then that this level of individuality does not extend to her music. I have listened to her latest this week, Born This Way, which at best is an over-produced mess. It also happens to bear more than a little resemblance to the Madonna classic, Express Yourself.
I thought it was just me, until I witnessed similar sentiments expressed widely on the World Wide Web. Surely she can do better.
It is a shame then that this level of individuality does not extend to her music. I have listened to her latest this week, Born This Way, which at best is an over-produced mess. It also happens to bear more than a little resemblance to the Madonna classic, Express Yourself.
I thought it was just me, until I witnessed similar sentiments expressed widely on the World Wide Web. Surely she can do better.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)