The sound of Kate Bush

[Mark Woodruff <WOODRUFF%UCF1VM.BITNET@WISCVM.WISC.EDU>]

>> Re: The Top Ten (40? 100?)
>
>> Album sales do not correlate well to an album's quality,
>> performance, or musicality.  Unless you have some monetary interest
>> in the record, why pay attention to the charts?
>
>Because the significance of a work of art is in many ways a function
>of the degree of effect it has on the world.  And that is not
>independent of the number of people it reaches.

What makes a work of music significant?  Not how many people hear it,
or are influenced, but how many *musicians* hear it and are influenced
by it.  The charts do not indicate this at all; the only way to tell
a song's significance is to listen to its effects on other musicians.

>> Re: Kate Bush
>
>> The "Hounds of Love" album is the first work I've heard of hers.  I
>> think she has a good voice, but generally find her songs to be
>> pretentious and overly thick with sounds.  Why use 15 instruments,
>> or 15 synthesizer sessions, to play a simple three-part harmony?
>
>Because there's more to music than just melody and harmony.  There's
>texture, timbre, mood, etc., etc.  And to many people, these other
>elements are the most important part.

Since when does *more* texture make a better song?  The "Hounds of Love"
is *thick* with texture for textures sake.  Sure, you can make lots of
different sounds with a room full of synthesizers, Eastern instruments,
and a 48 track studio.  But *none* of these will help you write a
better song.

Which brings me to the point of this letter.  Listen carefully to the
string sections on "HoL".  Do they sound anything like real violins,
cellos, and double basses?  Unless you commonly listen to six foot wide
doubled violin synthesizers, I don't think so.  I find it hard to belive that
anyone willing to spend hours programming synthesizers just to get a
specific musical texture would be willing to completely ignore the
basics of high fidelity recording.  The ambience in her voice is
completely out of character with the thin echoless paper wall of sound
that surrounds her.  The sound is compressed, thin, and bright, with
a loud emphasis on each sibilant.  Ugh!  This is certainly not the worst
*sounding* album I've ever heard, but it certainly doesn't deserve the
unmitigated praise you're giving it either.

Thermonuclearly yours,
Mark