Re: Nancy's friend's first Kate-echism (III.xii.19)

[kyle@CS.UCLA.EDU]

>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)
>
>Seriously, though, Kevin... If, as IED assumes,

WHy the hell do you refer to yourself in the third person?

>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.

And who/what does Kate sound like?  I've been able peg her everytime I heard
her.

>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".

I see she sounds like a "nobody".  You said it not me!

>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.

And what does a Stradavarius reflect?  You're starting to sound like
an Ethno-centric European.  You know Hitler would have agreed with you.

>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


Andy, I'll have to agree with you here.  One should not listen to her music
with expectations, but rather with reservations.


Joe Slime

CO:	kyle@zeus.cs.ucla.edu