Re: The sound of Kate Bush

[nessus (Doug Alan)]

> From: Mark Woodruff  <WOODRUFF%UCF1VM.BITNET@WISCVM.WISC.EDU>

>> [Me:] 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.

You're greatly over-simplifying things.  What makes a work of music
significant is *not* just how many musucians are influenced by it.  It
is a factor of a lot of things, and what you mention is just one.
It's a function of the influence on musicians, on filmmakers, on TV
news announcers, on future civilizations, on invading aliens, etc.,
etc., and on just normal people.  Charts reflect part of this, and I'm
interested in *all* of them.

>> 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, in the same way that most music contains melody for melody's
sake!

I never said more texture makes a better song.  But that doesn't mean
it makes a worse song either.  Kate Bush does wonderful stuff with
lots of texture, and I'm sure there are people who have done lousy
stuff with lots of texture.  You say its "texture for texture's sake".
I say it's interesting and evokative texture which results in
wonderful music.

> 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.

Sure it might help you!  But then again, it might not.  Who knows what
kind of music Kate Bush would be doing these days if she didn't have a
Fairlight and 48 track studio.  It might be just as good.  Her simple
piano ballads and a capella songs are also wonderful.  But I prefer
her forays into texural depth, like "Waking The Witch" or "Get Out Of
My House".

> 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?

Why *should* they sound like "real strings"?  They sound like
distortions on real strings.  Most of the time they *are* real
strings, and then processed electronically.  Sometimes they are
Fairlight strings (which in a sense are also electronically processed
real strings).  They sound the way they do because they are supposed
to sound that way.

On the album "The Dreaming", piano is the main instrument, rather than
Fairlight.  But often the piano has been treated  beyond recognition.
It always sounds interesting and delicious, however.

> 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.

You were probably silly enough to buy the US pressing, which is pretty
mediocre in terms of fidelity.  But it's not the fidelity that's most
important anyway.  It's the music.

The British pressing is much better.  The fidelity is not as good as
on "The Dreaming", but Kate has even said that some of the equipment
in her new home studio is not up to the standards of fidelity she
would prefer.  But that she couldn't afford at the time what she
really wanted, so that what she had would have to make do until the
money from this album came in.

> 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.

Why not?  Because you say it doesn't?  No one's saying you have to
like it.  But you haven't provided any good reasons why *I* shouldn't
like it.  And if you aren't trying to say that I shouldn't like it --
only that *you* don't like it, then who cares?

The fact that there are as many totally devoted fans as there are for
Kate Bush in the United States, where she's gotten nearly no support,
publicity, or hype from her record company, is in itself strong
evidence that her music deserves the praise that she has received.

And I think you'd be awefully hard pressed to find another musician as
young as Kate Bush that as many *musicians* admire (or even idolize) --
which was your criterian for significance, was it not?

			"Breathing the fallout in out in out in..."

			 Doug