The Pulled Pin or the Sleeping Sheep -- a question of temperament?

[IED0DXM%UCLAMVS.BITNET@WISCVM.WISC.EDU]

>>> You don't even need HoL in there.  But we should probably also give
>>> a nod to Stravinski and The Beatles....

>> I still cannot accept that HoL is somehow less significant
>> than The Dreaming, simply because it is more "accessible", or
>> less "threatening".

>But *The Dreaming* is clearly more significant than *Hounds of Love*,
>because it came first.  It is a landmark.  It did new things, created
>new sounds, explored new territories, used the studio as a
>compositional instrument to an unprecedented degree.  The rest of pop
>music is still catching up to it.  *Hounds of Love* is mostly a
>refinement and mixture of everything Kate had previously done into
>something more immediately muscial.  One might argue that it is as
>good (though it isn't), but it's certainly not as important.

There are two issues here. First is the distinction which you
rightly make between a work of art's "importance" and its "quality".
The problem is that a work of art's "importance" is only defined
by what other art shows its influence; and although it is unfair
to impute that a work is good or bad on the basis of its "importance"
-- on the basis of its influence on later art -- that nevertheless is
the usual conclusion drawn. Otherwise, why bother to assess influence?
Second, if, as you say, Hounds of Love is "mostly a refinement and
mixture" of The Dreaming's "innovations", then it is far more likely
that Hounds of Love will prove the more "important", since
its influence is likely to be broader.
Thus arises an old argument, namely whether "originality" is
more important than "quality". Simply SAYING that HoL isn't as
"good" does nothing to prove the point.
You offer no specific reason for ascribing a label of superior
quality to The Dreaming, only reasons for according it the
quite different distinction of greater "importance".
Innovative music --
this is a highly dubious term. I personally agree with you that
The Dreaming is highly original in ways that seem to us, living
in our period, significant. But there is really nothing
specific that can be pointed to in the LP that had never been
done before, at least as far as use of studio techniques goes.
As with all of Kate's music, it is the beauty and power of her
musical and (arguably) poetic imagination which gives The Dreaming
its lasting worth. And I simply cannot accept the contention that
that imagination is in any way dimmed in HoL. Many specific
works of art which have contributed relatively little to the development
of art in general nevertheless are "as good as" or better than
more "innovative" or influential works. Consider The Dreaming and
Hounds of Love in comparison with Gabriel's third solo
LP, for example: although it cannot be denied that Kate's recent work
shows the influence of that record, there is really no question that
The Dreaming towers above the Gabriel LP, not because it is in any
tangible way more innovative -- if looked at from a technical
standpoint Kate's record may even seem less innovative -- but
because the musical ideas, artistic sensibility and intellectual
substance of Kate's record are more complex without being less
powerful. Despite this, the likelihood is that
Gabriel's record has proved and will prove to be the better
remembered and more "influential". Yet whether other (and probably
inferior) artists benefit from exposure to The Dreaming or not
is as unimportant as whether Kate, a better artist than Gabriel,
benefited from exposure to Gabriel 3.
We both agree that the Beatles' music, especially when seen in
its entirety, is among the best of our century. But is its quality
in any way related to its influence on later music? Had no-one
ever heard it, would it be less good? Obviously not. So, if
"significance" is not an acceptable means of judging quality, then
what is? The problem is insoluble. In the end there are really only the
opinions of the influential few and those who seek or at least accept
guidance. I've just listed three admittedly personal criteria for
judging a work of art's "quality". What are your own?
One thing is certain, to my mind, and that is that there is as much
in Hounds of Love that is absent in The Dreaming as there is in The
Dreaming that is missing from Hounds of Love. I'm tempted to conclude
-- although I don't believe this myself -- that if all that's missing
from Hounds of Love is the "innovation" of The Dreaming, then Hounds
of Love comes out ahead. The fact is that, when considered for their
inherent qualities alone, one is no better or worse than the other.
It is possible, I think, to argue that these two LPs are clearly
"better" than her first three albums, because there it is possible
to find evidence of indecision, of less comprehensive planning or
less controlled execution of ideas, and of a sometimes inhibiting
influence from other less talented people involved -- mainly the
producers. None of these problems occurs in either The Dreaming
or Hounds of Love: finally we can hear the music as though pumped
straight out of Kate's brain into our ears. The shock of the new,
however, which we might have felt more strongly with The Dreaming,
is an incidental, temporal and ephemeral effect which has little or
nothing to do with the inherent value of the music itself.