they're still looKing down aT the ground, missing...

[IED0DXM%UCLAMVS.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu]

>Has anyone inquired about IED's sexual predisposition lately?
>
>-- John
 
O.K., O.K., he admits it!
IED admits that he's saving himself for Kate.
Andrew Marvick has very different ideas, however,
and we won't even mention the twins' intentions.
 
>And if we try "andrew marvick is IED" we get....
>
>dank view miscarried
>i view mr ransacked id
>mackinaw diver dries
>maverick rewind aids
>divers wick marinade
>draw indecisive mark
>i snicker via mr wad
>i smirk draw deviance
>
>Isn't Structuralism wonderful? This week's essay question requires
>that you choose one of these phrases and briefly describe the way
>in which the chosen phrase describes andrew's recent aesthetic
>gauntlet pitching. You may open your examination book and pick up
>your pencils NOW.
>
>--gtaylor
 
IED is impressed and flattered.
"It's got that energy."
 
>Wow,  I read love-hounds today and only 5 Kate Bush messages-- let's see
>if we can cut it down to 2 next time...
>
>-Paul Kirsch
 
Wow, even better idea: let's try to cut your messages down to zero.
 
Doug's comments about Eno are incontrovertible.
It is amazing that anyone could actually still maintain
that Eno's music is "consistently more crafted" than Kate's --
especially someone who purports to understand the principles behind
Eno's music, and who dares to question others' ability to understand
them.
 
>The man SINGLE- HANDEDLY introduced the rebirth of Minimalism in
>today's music.
 
As Doug says, this is absolute bullshit, and it reveals the sore
limitations of your own expertise on the subject in which you claim
such superiority. Have you never heard of John Cage? Hell, there are
even several pieces "composed" by Satie in the twenties, which are
widely recognized as prototypes of conteporary minimalism.
And of course, parts of the Well-Tempered Clavier, The Art of the Fugue,
and the sixth Suite for solo cello (all by Bach) are masterpieces
of extreme minimalism.
 
>Subject: Re:  Experiment IV and Andrew Awards
>>Really-From: nessus (Doug Alan)
>>I really don't see how anyone who has listened to *Running Up That
>>Hill*, can be surprised by the level of commerciality of "Experiment
>>IV".  "Experiment IV" sounds *much* less commercial and performed much
>>worse commercially in the singles market than "Running Up That Hill",
>>"Hounds of Love", "Cloudbusting", etc.  How often do you hear a long
>>violin solo in a top-40 song?
 
>Don't like "Running up that Hill" either.  Sounds too much like
>"Experiment IV."  And whether the rest of the world likes it doesn't
>matter to me - I'm sure "Pia Zadora Sings the Great Librettos" would
>be as much a commercial "flop" as "Experiment IV" was, but that
>doesn't make it better than "Cloudbusting."
 
How can you expect to have your musical opinions taken seriously
when you dismiss "Experiment IV" as "sounding too much like 'Running
Up That Hill'"! Quite apart from whether one is better than the other,
the simple fact is that the two recordings DO NOT sound like each other!
That is the kind of idiotic, simplistic flippancy that undermines
whatever shred of credibility your musical opinions may still possess. Go
ahead and criticize "Experiment IV" and "Running Up That Hill", but
THINK a little before you do it!
 
>Long violin solos --
>there was something that was popular last month that always started
>with such a haunting instrumental that I was sure it had to be Kate,
>but then the drums set in - BOOM boom Boom boom BOOM diddy Boom boom -
>and the guitars and the (urp) singing, and I had to turn it off.
 
The fact that you could actually mistake anything for Kate that WASN'T
Kate is evidence of your complete and utter inability to appreciate the
true virtues of "Experiment IV".
 
>>>The lyrics are stupid, the rhythm boring, the melody unoriginal.
 
>>I think you forgot to mention the chilling story line, the subtle and
>>intricate texture, the hynotizing groove, and the haunting violin
>>combined with a suprisingly catchy melody.  As I've said before, this
>>song (at least the 12-inch) sounds as close to Klaus Schulze and
>>some Windham Hill as it does to a pop song.
 
As much as IED dislikes the specific comparisons (the twelve-inch
is eons ahead of Windham Hill or Klaus Schulze), there is no doubt that
|>oug's general assessment is substantially accurate.
 
>I forgot to mention the cliched story line, the droning texture, the
>sleep-inducing groove, and the - well, OK, the violin's not bad.  Oh
>yeah.  I also forgot to mention the friggin' HELICOPTER.
 
To IED's knowledge there has NEVER -- repeat, NEVER -- been
a popular song dealing with the subject of sound as a military
device before. How, then, could the story of "Experiment IV"
POSSIBLY be described (except by an utter moron) as "cliched"?
You may disagree that the "groove" is hypnotizing, but it is a simple
fact that the omission of the expected snare on the fourth beat of every
other bar, coupled with the introduction (following the
second verse) of overlaid march tattoos in an opposing direction,
simply cannot be accurately described as sleep-inducing; unless, as seems
to be the case here, the listener is perpetually near an unconscious
state anyway.
 
>"Windom" Hill?
 
Hey, lay off |>oug's spelling. IED agreed not to slag off L-Hs'
spelling, and you would be wise to do the same. If you don't, people are
likely to start pointing out some of the many mistakes that have
appeared in YOUR postings. For example, someone might point out to you
that the plural of libretto is libretti; and that anyway, you don't sing
a libretto, you sing the music which is set to the words in the libretto;
and that even IF Pia Zadora were to sing "the Great Librettos", and if
they were to be "as much a commercial 'flop' as 'Experiment IV' was,"
that WOULDN'T "make it better than 'Cloudbusting'", not "doesn't".
(A hypothetical statement always takes the conditional).
So take it from IED (who has learned his lesson), and
watch your attitude; it's likely to fly back in your face.
 
>NOW!  As promised!  This month's presentation of the Andrew Award
>for Sophistication, Originality and Complexity in a Post-70's Album!
>Established in honor of Andrew Marvick in 1987, the Andy can
>be given ONLY to those albums which EQUAL or BETTER the work of
>Kate Bush in ALL THREE of the above categories.  Here comes Spuds
>McCollins with the envelope... the winner is...
>
>    XTC, _SkyLarking_
>
>Any argument and I'll lock you up with Spuds.
>
>-- Ranjit Sahai Bhatnagar
 
Argument? No, you'll get no argument from IED. Just his pity and
contempt.
 
>Can IED explain what he means when he uses the term FREE WILL.
>
>John
 
IED will resist sarcasm in his reply, and simply explain
what he meant in the context of yesterday's posting.
Kate is not a baby, nor was she ever a particularly naive
pop star; nor was she ever easily manipulated by managers,
publicists and photographers, as far as we know. From the
very beginning of her career it appears that Kate struggled
to obtain more and more control over every aspect of her career,
and by 1982 or so she had obtained more or less complete control.
In 1978 she was certainly weaker, but IED would find it very
hard to believe that she was so recessive at age twenty that she
could be made to put on revealing clothing and wrap cords around
her body against her will. It is much more likely that she saw
nothing wrong with the idea herself, and even partially condoned
the touch of amorality and rebellion from conformity that such
a pose represented. Remember, it was way back in early 1980 that
Kate said there was absolutely nothing wrong with showing a man's
head exploding -- but that she would rather see the head explode
in slow motion in a movie than in a news report because the movie could
make the flying brains look "beautiful".
 
>P.S.  Does this mean that she was not induced to participate in those unKate-
>like behaviors by promise of Phil Collins dick (or other such thing)?
 
Just what is it that induces you to make such infantile remarks?
 
>Subject:  Experiment IV revisted, and Skylarking
>Let me take this opportunity to second Ranjit's nomination
>of "SKYLARKING" by XTC... This is definitely one of the top two
>albums of last year... (Don't ask me what number one is, I haven't
>the faintest idea)
 
You're sure that Skylarking is one of the two best,
yet you have no idea what the other one is.
Just the kind of sloppy thinking that makes your judgments so hard
to take seriously.
Actually, IED might even be willing to agree that Skylarking
is one of the best LPs "of the year." The obvious point to make
is that this isn't saying much, since there were NO very good LPs made
in 1986. Think of the kind of mark in history an LP like Sgt. Pepper's
made; surely you are capable of seeing that 1986 produced no such record.
 
>And, for those of you hardcore love-hounds who may remember my
>letter that took slight exception to the "flat" production and
>musical values expressed in "Experiment IV" let me just clarify
>my position (then and now):
>First, I said that I thought it was "a bit flat (compared to the
>level of stuff Kate is capable of producing)"  I was told that
>the 12" version is slightly superior to it.  Well, I finally
>got hold of a copy and have listened to it extensively.  I think
>the violin solo is VASTLY OVERRATED.  Sure, it's *good* and it's
>not something you'll find in a lot of modern music output, but
>it also sounds incredibly melodramatic and weepy.  This could
>count in its favor, though, when you consider the theme of the
>song.  But, overall, I find it no great shakes.  And when I said
>that I considered the music and production "flat" I didn't mean
>flat in the sense of "lacking depth and technical quality and/or
>polish" but flat in the sense of "not filled with the vibrant
>dynamism and sheer inspirational musical and productional ideas
>that Kate brought us in such intense *classics as Sat In Your Lap
>and Jig Of Life" -- it STILL seems like a mediocre Top 40 song!
>(to me anyway, if you get off on it, more power to yoa)
>
>Jon Drukman
 
One remarkable thing about the violin solo (quite apart from
the mere rarity of a real violin -- as opposed to typically
foolish hick fiddling) is that the music is NOT "weepy" at all;
the root of the melody is modal, not tonal, and completely
unrelated to usual formulae; in this sense (as said
before) it is similar to "The Lark Ascending" by Vaughn-Williams,
which also derives much of its melodic and harmonic content from
ancient native (usually Celtic) sources. Another exceptional thing
about this violin line is the fact that Kate has incorporated it
seamlessly into the SEVEN-inch version -- and, especially, into
the video re-mix -- despite its apparently unrelated mood. The
mystery therefore arises whether the violin passage was conceived
first, or built up after the rest of the track had already taken
shape. NO-ONE else in pop music has been able to turn one recording
in such radically different expressive directions AT THE SAME TIME.
There are at least five unprecedented touches of production in
"X4". How many innovations are required before you deem something
"dynamic", anyway?
And how on earth can you single out "Jig of Life" as an example of
a track having more "dynamism" than "X4"? That's just ridiculous.
 
>Of course "Experiment IV" isn't as good as "Sat In Your Lap" or
>"Jig of Life"!  The latter are FUCKING GODLIKE, and the former is
>merely excellent.  But what do you expect from a single?  "Jig
>of Life" wasn't a single and nothing off of *The Dreaming* paid
>any of Kate's bills.
>
>            |>oug
 
The fact that |>oug shares this bizarre preference in no
way adds weight to your argument. The bias in favour of
"Jig of Life" (one specific track from The Ninth Wave --
that's just WEIRD, you guys) over "X4" doesn't gain credibility
simply because you agree that it's better! In IED's
opinion "Jig of Life" is considerably less subtle work than
"X4". By that I don't mean to imply that it's worse, but only
that there are a great many exceptional qualities that are
found in "X4" which are absent in "Jig of Life". Furthermore,
a large part of "Jig of Life" isn't even Kate's music, for chrissake.
As for |>oug's remark about singles, the fact that "X4" was released
as a single has nothing to do with whether it's good music or not.
Especially with Kate Bush's music. The only advantage that an LP
track has over a single is that it is bolstered by other tracks
which amplify the impact of the artist's versatility and personality.
The music must stand on its own or not at all; and "X4" will be
standing long after the whole shaky edifice known as XTC has crumbled
into dust.
 
>Please note that |>oug in no way encourages the illegal use
>of controlled substances.  He does however encourage an intellectual
>curiousity in all legal and moral activities.
 
This implies (however facetiously) that an intellectual curiosity in
illegal and immoral activities is not to be encouraged.
It's the activities that ought to be discouraged, but intellectual
curiosity in them is to be commended (as corroborated by Kate's
opinions re exploding heads, see above).
 
>RE: IED's challenge regarding craftsmanship.
>
>As much as this sounds like blaspamy, I have to disagree that ALL of
>Kates music is HIGHLY crafted.  Remember Lionheart?  Now if you want
>to qualify your challenge to refer to only her OTHER albums, and the
>last two in particular (I don't count 'The Whole Story' as an album),
>then I have just blown your challenge out the door, and made this
>discussion of consistency and craftsmanship irrelevant.
 
First of all, it was |>oug who brought up the issue of
whether Kate's albums were "the most crafted" (a term
better described as "the most elaborately or extensively
crafted," if you want to get picky about syntax).
But you are quite wrong in supposing that because Lionheart
is the least interesting and weakest of Kate's five albums,
it is also the most flimsily "crafted". This is simply not
the case. Lionheart is as artificial in sound and as finely tuned
as The Kick Inside; it's just that Jon Kelly turned the production,
which was extreme, in the direction of blandness, rather than
what Kate calls "weirdness". But just listen to the production
on tracks like "In Search of Peter Pan", and especially "Don't
Put Your Foot on the Heart Brake", and you'll hear a great many
very advanced touches of production.
 
>I believe most of us can think of a few artists that we FEEL
>(comprehend/grok) to have made a number of albums that are of
>comparable or higher craftsmanship than Lionheart.  All HUMANS are
>subject to making misstakes, including the production of 'imperfect'
>albums.
 
This is all probably true. IED agrees that there are LPs showing
greater sophistication (insert all the terms he's been using, and
which have been getting everybody so upset) than Lionheart OR
The Kick Inside, or even than Never For Ever. Why do you have to be
reminded AGAIN that IED's challenge was to name an LP more sophisticated
than "anything Kate has produced SINCE 1982"? So far, nobody has
been able to do that.
 
>I guess the key word of my argument here is 'consistency'. I'm saying
>that ONE of Kate's albums is not as crafted as say, some of Eno's
>albums. 'Before and After Science', 'Another Green World', and 'Taking
>Tiger Mountain' spring to mind.
 
That makes sense. IED agrees with the above.
 
>Anyway, assuming that 'Lionheart' is
>Kate's 'bad' album, that makes her score 1 of 5, or 20 percent. Now how
>many of Eno's albums and collaborations can be 'uncrafted' and still
>have only 20 percent 'bad'.  I admit I can't remember all the Eno and
>Eno collaborations/productions there are. I'd guess 15 or 20.  That
>allows him to have quite a few 'misses' and still be in the 80 percent
>good category.
 
Ignoring your re-introduction of the term "bad", which everyone else
has been at pains to keep out of the discussion, let IED point out
why this percentile business is specious. If you
really wanted to be scientific about it, it would be necessary to
eliminate all the extraneous variables before adding up your totals.
This would mean deciding first of all which of Eno's and Kate's
albums were REALLY THEIR work, and entirely their work --
in other words, which LPs must Eno and Kate, respectively, claim
FULL responsibility for. It wouldn't be scientifically justifiable,
for instance, to compare Linda Ronstadt's LP success ratio with
Eno's (not only because Linda Ronstadt makes IED sick to his stomach,
but) because Linda Ronstadt only SINGS -- the songs are not by her,
the lyrics are not be her, the production is not by her, the arrangements
are not by her and the orchestrations are not by her; whereas, with
the exception of one or two LPs, Eno has made all the artistic
decisions himself -- whether those decisions meant allowing other
musicians leeway for their own experimentation or not, and whether
they meant letting randomness play a large role or not. In other
words, Eno's responsibility must be assumed for nearly all of his
approximately twenty LP records. Since Kate, on the other hand,
has had full control over only two of her own LPs, an unbiased,
scientific calculation of her success ratio would have to be 100%.
Now, Eno's ratio -- even by your own judgment -- is only 80%. IED
would say the conclusion is very clear. However, the fact is that
Eno has deliberately allowed for a high
degree of improvisation and random musical input in AT LEAST 50%
of his albums. Just to name a few: No Pussyfooting, Evening Star,
On Land, Eno/Roedelius/Moebius, Music for Films, Music for Airports
1 and 2, Thursday Afternoon...there are several more.
So, looking at this comparison as dispassionately as possible,
simply by noting the presence of spontaneous and uncrafted sound
in records made under the full control of their respective authors,
one has no option but to conclude that Kate Bush's success rate
has been 100%, and Eno's barely 50%.
 
The point to remember, of course, is that Eno doesn't place
much importance on the degree to which every aspect of his music
is "crafted" -- in fact, he has often deliberately rebelled
against such thoroughness of craftsmanship. So feel free to
admire Eno, but don't go trying to redefine
his achievements as something they never were, and which he
never wanted them to be.
 
>I kind of think of Kate as being something like a big gun on a
>battleship.  It doesn't fire very often, but nothing else even comes
>close to its power.
>
>--Mike
 
That's very apt.
 
>P.S. I think I know why we sometimes see the song 'Cloudbusting' call
>'Cloudbursting'.  The spelling checker here assumes that cloudbusting is
>a misspelling of cloudbursting.
 
Interesting.
 
>IED struggles with Philosophy 101:
>
>>... Although it is not possible to set up a standard of
>>aesthetic value with which all can agree, it is certainly
>>possible to DESCRIBE and analyse specific aesthetic characteristics.
>>YOU may "see" as much complexity in Eno's lyrics as you do
>>in Kate's, but that does not change the fact that Kate's
>>generally possess a considerably higher degree of multivalence,
>>both structural and thematic.
>
>I began to see convergence in this paragraph:  sure, we can describe and
>analyze.  But then you blow it in the last sentence -- one can't usefully
>compare aesthetics.  In the quote, your first phrase contradicts your last.
 
This is just simply not true. It is you who are still struggling --
and with a very rudimentary distinction, IED might add. What IED
said in the last sentence was that it was quite possible to
make COMPARATIVE analyses between, say, two different pieces of
music, providing one is comparing definite, quantifiable
and recordable elements of the music. This is an obvious fact.
Here's a hypothetical example (more than you've yet given): |>oug
and IED are listening to Kate Bush's "Breathing" from
the Never for Ever LP. |>oug says, "I love this studio-produced version,
but I find it less moving than the version Kate performed live at the
British Comic Relief shows." IED AGREES with Doug; but adds that THERE
IS NO QUESTION that in terms of harmony, structural design and
number of hidden messages the studio version is FAR MORE COMPLEX,
and even FAR MORE SUCCESSFUL."
 
This would be a simple fact, since the live version doesn't HAVE any of
these musical elements -- all of the power of the live version comes
from Kate's interpretive power as a pianist and singer. Though it may be
MORE or LESS successful, artistically speaking, the live
version is UNQUESTIONABLY LESS complex insofar as harmony, production,
instrumentation, lyrical content, and even song structure are
concerned.
 
Do you STILL not understand? IED is NOT saying that
you have to have complexity to be good, but there's no doubt that
complexity is identifiable, quantifiable and comparable.
 
>>If you could possibly have cited an example to refute this, no doubt
>>you would have by now. However, here's another chance for you --
>>PROVE IED wrong! But don't just SAY he's wrong.
 
>You've missed the point again:  there can be no proof.  Note that I made no
>specific references to artists in my last note, but you've chosen
>to reintroduce specific mention of Eno, egging on another futile
>combative debate. Sorry.
>My pick for you is "draw indecisive mark", for obvious reasons.
>
>Rob
 
Obviously, Rob, it is you who are still missing the point, as IED's
clear and incontrovertible example above proves. Now, perhaps you
could stop attempting to dismiss the argument on the grounds that
IED doesn't understand, and try FACING the argument by supporting
your contention with a counter-example.
 
>In summary: Kate Bush makes the most Katelike music around.  But give
>"Skylarking" a listen, it comes close.
 
Well, Peter, IED has listened to the record, but he cannot
even begin to see how you could compare it with "X4", let
alone HoL or The Dreaming. It's clever, inventive pop music,
but it seems to founder in terms of production style and has very
little musical depth; and the lyrics are insipid to say the least.