Re: All this KBS

[nessus (Doug Alan)]

> From: ranjit%cory.Berkeley.EDU@BERKELEY.EDU (Ranjit Bhatnagar)

>> [Me:] Likewise, Kate Bush's music has had a profound effect on a
>> vast number of people and has gathered an intensely dedicated
>> following among a wide spectrum of musicians, critics, and normal
>> people.  This makes Kate a great musician.
 
> I hate to even say it, but that criterion makes Madonna a great
> musician too.  Well, perhaps she is.

This criterion does not make Madonna a great musician!  Sure, Madonna
has a lot of fans.  But how many people really think she's a great
musician, rather than someone who just makes "fun" music.  How many
people, other than thirteen year-old girls who suddenly get an urge to
wear their underwear on the outside of their clothes, would say
"Madonna's music has profoundly effected my life"?  I'm sure you could
find *some*, but not a huge number.  Furthermore, I doubt that you
could find very many critics or musicians who would say that Madonna
is a great musician.  Sure, Sonic Youth, when they do record reviews,
rant about how awesome Madonna is, but it's hard to believe that they
are really serious.  These days it's almost common to find reviews of
Kate Bush appearing in British magazines that say things like "Kate
Bush is the rarest solo artist our country has ever produced".  When
have you ever seen any similar statement about Madonna?

> I enjoy this album at least as much as the later ones, perhaps
> because it's simpler.  I played _The Dreaming_ for a friend, whose
> comment was "Sounds like someone trying to be artsy-fartsy."

Sure you weren't playing him "Big Science"?  I really don't see how
somone can say that about *The Dreaming*.  It doesn't use any of the
cliches of artsy-fartsyness (except for an ethnic rhythm here and
there and the Fairlight, but in 1982, these weren't cliches yet).  It
just sounds weird.  If someone equates weird with artsy-fartsyness,
then that's their problem.  If anything, *The Kick Inside* sounds more
"artsy-fartsy" than *The Dreaming*.

> This could be considered a fault.  I would suspect that _Kick
> Inside_ is more accessible, since it follows "the rules" more of the
> time.

*The Kick Inside* is definitely considered a more accessible album
than *The Dreaming*.  (I don't consider accessibility a positive
feature, however.)  Just look at the sales figures.  In England, *The
Kick Inside* has sold close to a million copies and *The Dreaming*
only sold only a bit over a hundred thousand.

Strangely, enough, in the U.S., *The Dreaming* sold better than *The
Kick Inside*, but perhaps that was because no one had heard of her
here when *The Kick Inside* came out.  I bet *The Kick Inside* sells
better these days; however, I do know people who like *The Dreaming*,
but don't like *The Kick Inside* because they say her voice on *The
Kick Inside* effects them like chalk on a blackboard.

> I get the impression that _The Kick Inside_ came after _Never for
> Ever_.  Is this true?

Why do you get that impression?  Does "Breathing" sound like it was
recorded before "The Man With The Child In His Eyes"?  *The Kick
Inside* is Kate's first album.  *Never for Ever* is her third.

> As long as I'm here, I would like to cast my votes for albums as complex
> and interesting as _The Dreaming_.

>	Pink Floyd, _Dark Side of the Moon_

No way!  Look, before I was fanatic about Kate Bush, I was fanatic
about Pink Floyd.  I've listened to every post-Meddle album hundreds
of times, so I think I can safely say that I'm a serious fan.  But
Pink Floyd's strength has never been complexity.  As Kate Bush has
said, one of their main strengths was in being able to say so much
with relatively simple music and just a few instruments.  Bsides,
*Wish You Were Here* and *Animals* are much better than *Dark Side of
the Moon*.

			|>oug

"Wave upon wave of demented avengers march
 cheerfully out of obscurity into the dream"