Gaffaweb > Love & Anger > 1988-03 > [ Date Index | Thread Index ]
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]


Re: Hello fellow Bush wackers!!

From: ece-csc!jnh@ucsd.edu (Joseph Nathan Hall)
Date: 25 Mar 88 15:58:24 GMT
Subject: Re: Hello fellow Bush wackers!!
Newsgroups: rec.music.gaffa
Organization: North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC
References: <8803250427.AA00815@WONKO.MIT.EDU>
Reply-To: ece-csc!jnh@ucsd.edu (Joseph Nathan Hall)

> From: JONES%RPICICGE.BITNET@MITVMA.MIT.EDU

>  I think I've rambled on enough.  Please tell me a little about
> YOURself.  My electronic mail address: JONES@RPICICGE.BITNET.

OK, guys, guess it's my turn.  I've lurked here for about three months
and I'm both puzzled and a little ashamed.  (Bear with me.)

I bought Hounds of Love a couple of months after it was released,
knowing little about Kate other than 1) I liked "Running up That Hill"
and 2) she had cameos on P.G. 3.  I hate to say it, but this album did
not overwhelm me.  It rather underwhelmed me.  The tracks were
melodically repetitious, the keyboard work was rather bland and
sometimes overly sparse, and her vocals fell into a roughly one-octave
range, usually without a great deal of modulation.  It was a DULL
album, folks, is the only thing I could think about, and believe me I
really TRIED to like it.

      [	From this description, I really doubt that you have listened
	to the album.  Maybe you listened to the first couple of
	tracks with half an ear.  First of all, Kate can and does sing
	in a range spanning three or four octaves and is often noted
	(and hated by some) for her vocal gymnastics and decorations.
	On this album she's a bit more restrained than on her previous
	albums.  Some have said that this is a sign of maturation and
	her move away from gimmickry.  In any case, it's all still
	there -- she's just a little more subtle about it now.
	Melodically repetitious?  All songs have repetition.  A song
	wouldn't be a song without melodical repetition!  There are a
	couple songs on this album, however, that come closer to your
	a normal pop song than on any other album of hers, but they
	are still many times more complex than the vast majority of
	pop songs.  In any case, Kate has never even come close to the
	melodical simplicity of much Pink Floyd material, which you
	claim to like.  Did you even put on the second side of the
	album?  How could you call "Waking the Witch" or "Jig of Life"
	dull?  "Waking the Witch" is positively terrifying!  -- |>oug ]

I'm a big fan of pg, Genesis, Pink Floyd, Yes, King Crimson, etc. and
I'd love to add Kate to my list of favorite performers but on the
basis of Hounds I just can't do it.  Would someone suggest a different
album to me?  Or tell me what I've missed?

      [	Well, I think you missed listening to the album.  If you are
	in the more in the mood for Progressive music, with a capital
	P, rather than excellent pop music, you should devote your
	attention to the second side "The Ninth Wave", which, I might
	mention, is as almost as long as your typical album.  You
	should also buy and listen to her previous album *The
	Dreaming*, which is in many ways similar to Peter Gabriel's
	third album, only taken several steps farther.  -- |>oug ]

What's all the fuss about?

	-joseph hall

/*
 * NC State doesn't give a hoot about my musical opinions.
 */