Re: All this KBS

[ranjit%cory.Berkeley.EDU@BERKELEY.EDU (Ranjit Bhatnagar)]

In article <8701291226.AA02864@EDDIE.MIT.EDU> Doug writes:
>
>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?
>
OK, you win.  I wasn't planning to fight hard for this one.

>> 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*.

Yet he did.  And he ain't entirely closed minded about such things.

>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*.
>
What about helicopters and a grating screech repeated over and over?

>> 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.
>
Hah!  I was right.  ...I don't consider accessibility a positive
feature, but neither do I consider it negative.  (I'll even listen
to Madonna once in a while.  A long while.)

>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.
>
And I know people who would probably like the jazzy sound of _Never for Ever_
but would consider _The Dreaming_ artsy-fartsy.  Whose friends are a 
better judge? : )

>> 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.
>
Interesting to know.  Thinking back on these albums, I can think of
as many clues that should have led me to the correct interpretation
as sent me astray.

>> 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*.

I disagree there- however simple their instrumentation or melodies are
- I don't believe their music is simple.  If we can disagree on a
definition of complexity, how will we ever agree on The Greatest Albums?

I like _Dark Side_ best, but I won't challenge your choices.  I have
not listened to those two albums.  Please be careful about ddclaring
what's better than what - instead, tell me what you LIKE better.  Then
I can believe you.
>
>			|>oug
>
>"Wave upon wave of demented avengers march
> cheerfully out of obscurity into the dream"

Oh yeah?  "Queen spelling bee, she stung me..."

Comments on the use of "leitmotifs" in _The Third Wave_.  I find Kate's
use of melodic motives to tie different songs together (eg "Look at it go"
to "the big sky") often unsubtle compared to, say, Pink Floyd, and
even annoying: when I hear "Just look at it..." the melody forces me
to think "under the big..."  (You're welcome to say that it's my problem,
for it IS, but you won't convince me of anything that way.)  If this
is intentional, I don't like it.  If it's not, I still don't like it.
Come to think of it, I'm also bothered by "Here comes the sun... king."
Conclusion: I think Floyd and Wagner handle leitmotifs better than
KaTe and the Beatles, at least in some cases.  

Thanks, someone, for reminding me of the name of the Eno album
I'd forgotten.  I'd put _Life in the Bush of Ghosts_ in my hall-of
fame too.  So there.

	r.