Kate Bush vs. Pat Benetar

[Doug Alan <nessus>]

Here is another article from net.music:

From: nessus@mit-eddie.UUCP (Doug Alan)
Newsgroups: net.music
Subject: Kate Bush vs. Pat Benetar
Posted: Tue Aug 27 22:06:14 1985

["You had a temper, like my jealousy"]

Hey, how about this:  For every message I see telling me to shutup about
Kate Bush, I'll post another article, that I wouldn't have otherwise,
about her.  This message I am posting is an example.

> From: boyajian@akov68.DEC (JERRY BOYAJIAN)

>> From: mit-eddie!nessus (Doug Alan)
 
>> On Pat Benetar's debut album, there is a horribly butchered version of
>> KB's "Wuthering Heights".

> Oh, give me a break. I really think that your fanaticism for Kate Bush is
> interfering with your critical judgement.

Oh, give me a break!  That's a load of crap!  How do you explain the
person I know who was a Pat Benetar fan, until he heard the original
"Wuthering Heights" on the radio, and then threw out all his Pat Benetar
albums?

> I will grant that the *music* for "Wuthering Heights" as played by
> Kate Bush is superior to that as by Benetar's band, but I think that
> Benetar's *singing* of the song is far superior to Bush's.

You must be joking! People aren't Kate Bush fans for the quality of
her backing band.

> First of all, Benetar (in my humble opinion) puts far more emotion
> into the song than Bush does.

And 1 + 1 = 53, right?  You call belting it out in typical programmed
heavy metal Benetar fashion putting emotion into it?  I think that Kate
Bush puts more emotion into her voice than any other singer I've ever
heard.  Only Peter Gabriel even comes close.  This is one of the most
very important features of Kate's music!

> Secondly, the lower register of Benetar's voice is much more
> palatable.

Who wants "palatable" music?  I want challenging music!

> "The Man with the Child in His Eyes" (which precedes "Wuthering
> Heights" on THE KICK INSIDE, as you well know) proves that Bush can
> sing quite well in a lower register. That she then chooses to sing
> "W.H." in a shrill falsetto which is high enough to give one
> nosebleeds is especially irritating.

It's not falsetto, but yes it is painful.  Wonderfully painful and
wonderfully irritating!  And that's what is so good about it.  It is
sung that way, because Kate made the wonderful artistic choice of
singing it that way.  The song is sung by the ghost of Cathy who has
come back from the dead to try and steal away Heathcliff's soul.  It it
sung in a wailing, brittle, painful voice that so perfectly conjures up
the desperation and jealousy and hateful love of the ghost of Cathy.

> There's certainly nothing wrong with you preferring Kate Bush's
> version over Pat Benetar's, but to call the latter "horribly
> butchered" is silly.

But it is butchered!  It isn't different enough to be interesting.  It
has all the wailing pain stripped from it.  It has heavy metal guitar
riffs thrown in at all the wrong places for no good reason.  Benetar has
her voice chorused in a manner totally inappropriate for the song -- it
destroys the intimacy.  Some of the melody was rewritten in assinine
ways.  Pat Benetar rewriting Kate Bush is tantamount to Sidney Sheldon
rewriting Shakespeare!

> Besides, it served what you might consider a useful purpose --- it was
> one of the reasons that tempted me to try one of Kate Bush's albums.
> :-)

Well, perhaps.  A significant fraction of the people who I know that
have ever heard of Kate Bush, have because of Pat Benetar's version of
"Wuthering Heights".  Even some of Kate Bush's most fanatic fans (most
of whom now dislike Pat Benetar).  This doesn't mean Benetar didn't
butcher the song though.

			"Ooh, let me have it --
			 Let me grab your soul away"

			 Doug Alan
			  nessus@mit-eddie.UUCP (or ARPA)