Saturday, September 12, 2009
How not to respond to a bad review: Writing a letter to the reviewer, calling them 'bitter and unfulfilled' and inventing childish names. Like Chris de Burgh just has. Hasn't the stumpy peddler of mediocrity got enough money not to give a tinker's cuss what anyone thinks of him? Also, does he not realise that this very act shows him to be 'bitter and unfulfilled' himself? Why else would a multi-million selling artist need the validation of a newspaper critic? Is it because he knows he's NBG? Finally, referring to the reviewer, Peter Crawley, as 'Creepy Crawley' is a bit rich coming from one of the most sinister-looking creatures in the pop business.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
"Is it because he knows he's NBG?"
What? You mean he thinks he's the National Bank of Greece? As supremely talented as he is, I think he's gone beyond the pale with this one.
I thought NBG was universal shorthand for 'no bloody good'. Just me, then.
He was at Marlborough with Nick Drake. As Mr Norman says 'the wrong person died''.
Also, he genuinely can't sing; last night's Proms performance was baffling.
He's multi-talentless. If he'd sent a note to the critic saying "I've sold x million records. Now, remind me, what's your circulation?" that would almost be permissible. However, the name-calling and the 'bitter and unfulfilled' comments say more about CdB than the review or the reviewer. Oi, Chris, we're over here. You're a badger-browed little cuntpiece and your 'music' sucks tramps' cocks. Let's make him stamp his twatty little foot through the floor.
Post a Comment