Lz, Leonard Cohen is doing this business for a long time now. I always had the feeling he has a hard core, and I was glad to read it in the article "from his mouth". Somewhere he is a real though guy. I don't think that this could harm him. After all, he, in fact, was able to wrote something like BL. Besides, the public is well aware about the headlines and the mag covers purpose and people who are making fuss with headlines are likely to make fuss about anything. The others will take all this for what it is : a hooker and they will "buy" or not, which is more likely not. People are not stupid. Besides, this is not the journalist which choose the headlines, and the article is far from being bad.
Only what you are saying about agressive non ethical marketing strategy, I agree (yes yes...) but for any product. Not just for magazines.
This said, I suppose that Cohen did not like this very much, but it is
the thing to do. Under the circumstances.
To come back to being deceived, it is not the person who has been deceived to have to carry the burden of the consequences of the action of the abusers of trust. No need for complicated law codes when people are doing what they are suppose to do to leave in a healty society. (My dear 10 commands were are you
)
Charity? What charity? There is no charity here. First he worked on new stuff to put on Boogie Street, second, even if he would not do this, if he would receive direct money for his "ordinary job" of all those past years of entertainement and, and.... well just read the posts, over here and elsewhere, they are speaking by themselves better than anything, it would be justice not charity.
Linda it seems the best thing to do for CBC right now.
Well not bad this rest of article... not so good either. A piece to put in the file of the Defendant. Your Honour there is evidence about a modest lifestyle.
I prefer not to go that way 'cause my devil advocate side may done someting bad, like talking about his trips in India and may he have transfer his money to the new indian guru and blablabla, not that I think this is what happened, but just because this article, I don't like it very much. So I will stick to what I like about it.
I particularly savoured : "In a triumph of redundancy, the lawsuit against Cohen describes him as a "famous celebrity" -- not to be confused, one supposes, with all those unknown celebrities."
He he.
What annoys me, I think, is people who do not acknowledge any credit to the years he passed in the monastery and this journalist seems to be one of the pack.
"Those years of extravagant meditation on Mount Baldy have not been in vain. "
Years of extravagant meditation... phew...Ey baby, just try to do it for an hour or two :"internally, you must be "free of hope and desire," while outwardly you should "do what is to be done.""
You won't endure 15 minutes of this to begin with.
After you could talk about extravaganza.
I feel that Cohen is too great sometimes to be caught in all its real stature.
Still at 70, 71 this year I'm sure happy that he is under the spot again, but he has the right to rest. If he would prefer to stop the circus, I won't blame him, and any money he would get for the past work would certainly be all justice.
