Message from overseas (the heart of the Kentish veldt, actually)

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

Well, you did get IED upset, folks, he really
lost control for a while and had to make a
transatlantic call to get some sympathy from
Gi and Raf. Gi couldn't come to the phone,
he wasn't feeling well -- sore throat, get it? --
but Raffles told me to relay the following
response to you guys from him, on my behalf.

     'ey, you lot! Lay off my friend.
     IED never told anyone that he was
     impartial about Kate Bushological
     issues, but that doesn't mean that
     he isn't able to come up with a
     respectable argument in her defense,
     when the occasion seems to him to
     demand it! Why is it that whenever
     he presents a cogent and valid
     point about the music itself, you
     lot just ignore it and dismiss his
     whole posting as empty hero-worship?
     I think you owe his last message the
     benefit of another, more careful
     reading, and possibly a thoughtful reply,
     preferably without the usual nasty personal remarks (IUD, indeed!).

"Would you like to introduce this one yourself, Kate?"

"Yeah. 'ere it is! (giggle-giggle...)"

Date:    Fri, 19 Dec 86 14:27 PST
From: IED0DXM%UCLAMVS.BITNET@WISCVM.WISC.EDU
Subject: Re: Nancy's friend's first Kate-echism (III.xii.19)

> I happen to think you {Kate} miss a few
> times in Running Up That Hill, especially near the end when the
> "other noises" come in; your usual adeptness at orchestration flags
> there (Elvis wouldn't have missed on that one).  Anyhow, it was
> okay.


ELVIS???!!!
This is a worse word to use in conteKsT
than "silly" was!
ELVIS???!!!

Seriously, though, Kevin... If, as IED assumes,
you are referring to Elvis Costello,
and you are comparing Kate Bush's
voice unfavourably to his,
then you still have something to learn
about the basics of vocal style. Let's use this
Costello character as a working example,
since you brought him up.

Whether Costello has talent or not is
more or less irrelevant in this
case. The point here is that the musical
range of Costello has always been
severely limited by the specificity and rigidity
of his voice. Despite frequent attempts
to alter his vocal style and timbre, he
inevitably sounds like himself, and, as
a result, his stylistic changes fail to
make any substantive difference in the music.

Kate Bush, on the other hand, has what one might call
a kind of "Rorschach" voice: the actual
physical vocal timbre of her voice is
quite classic and pure -- a less flattering
way to describe it would be "anonymous".

The reason Kate's character is usually
very recognizable in her singing is
due entirely to her intentional departures
from conventional vocal inflection.
Her singing on "My Lagan Love" and
"The Handsome Cabin Boy" are proof
of the affinity that Kate's voice has
to pure (or traditional) female
vocal sounds. Never has Costello
produced a vocal sound that transcended
the narrow range of his ideosynchratic self.

This is why a description of Kate's
voice as "shrill" is so shortsighted
and inaccurate. Where shrillness occurs in
Kate's singing, it is because shrillness is
applied by Kate deliberately to
specific notes, phrases and songs
in order to express the emotional
content that is appropriate for
the music. But her vocal instrument
is self-LESS -- it is timeless and
perfect.

To put it another way,
Kate's voice is to Costello's
as a Stradivarius is to a banjo.
the former is the product of centuries
of cultural refinement, honed to a
level of finish that defies the mundane
plane of our mortal existence; the
latter is a crude, innately vulgar
contraption fashioned over a few years
of rustic sub-culture, incapable of
escaping its own limited range of sound,
and ultimately reflecting nothing except
itself.

> I think the real thing I meant about your voice is this: if you just
> put on one of your songs in a random room, the effect is dissonance.

This is something to be proud of! Kate Bush's music is not
supposed to "sound nice" in the background! If you're not
ready to listen with all your heart and mind to her music,
and stop whatever else you might want to be doing -- and
above all, if you're not ready to play her music LOUD --
then you might as well not play it at all. You can't follow
the aesthetic sense behind the dissonance in Kate's music if you're
only playing it at normal volume and giving it only partial attention.

> The sound of your voice is grating and unpleasant GIVEN THE
> EXPECTATION ONE HAS THAT AUDIBLE MUSIC WILL BE ORGANISMICALLY
> APPROPRIATE.

Your mistake, Kevin, is in approaching Kate's music with "expectations"
of any kind. Especially if those expectations are that audible
music (what other kind is there?) be "organismically appropriate,"
a meaningless term if ever there was one.

-- Andrew Marvick

     Now, try ANSWERING the above points this time, Kevo.
     Work that rusty mind of yours!

     -- IED's mate Raffles