accessibility

[berns%lti.com@BU-IT.BU.EDU (Brian Berns x26)]

> On the other hand, what exactly is the use of trying to make Kate's
> work out to be accessible and comfortably attractive to someone,
> just in the hope that he/she will find it "nice" or something?

Some of her songs are more accessible than others.  I am not trying to
"make" it that way.  IED has become so comfortable in his Kate-world
that he has forgotten how difficult it is at first to understand what
the fuck she is trying to do.

> let Kate's music find its own partisans by itself.

Recorded music doesn't work on its own (last I heard anyway).  One
must play it for oneself or for others.  Should I not play Kate for
other people, or simply pretend they're not there when I play it for
myself?  Neither choice seems too appealing.

>>  P.S. IED, _The_Ninth_Wave_ sucks (relatively speaking, of course).
>>  Why not use HoL (the side, not the album) if you have to play that
>>  much at once?

>     There's just no accounting for taste. IED agrees with you that
>  _HoL_'s a-side is a powerful introduction.  But you must be the
>  first Kate fan ("casual" or not) to prefer side one to
>  _The_Ninth_Wave_.

I doubt it.

Personally, I find that there's just not as much _music_ on TNW.
Plus, it reminds me too much of Pink Floyd, and is not as good.  "I
put this moment here.  I put this moment... Over here."  Cmon.  Slay a
dragon for me, Kate.

      [ Well, it's a good thing that Kate has some Pink Floyd
	influence because the only bands that come close to Kate in
	quality are Pink Floyd (with Roger Waters), The Beatles, and
	The Butthole Surfers.  -- |>oug ]

>  Just what is it that attracts you to Kate's music, anyway? You seem to
>  think that Kate is at her best when she's somehow at her most
> "accessible".

In general (i.e. non-Kate music) this is not true.  But in this case,
you may be right.  I am much more attracted to Kate's music than her
lyrics, which I have no desire to plumb as you do.  Give me the simple
amazingness of "Oh To Be in Love" or "This Woman's Work" over Paddy
reading Poetry any day.  Simply put, I love her voice, I love to hear
her sing, I love the small-scale details (vocal and otherwise).  I am
not so impressed by her song-structure and sense of time.  Why is the
middle bit in "Breathing" so fucking long and the amazing bit at the
end so short?  I get bored listening to whoever it is tell me about
nuclear fireballs.  Why is "The Big Sky" so long?  Why does she repeat
the chorus so _many_ times in "Wuthering Heights"?  Why so many
pointless voices telling me to wake up in _TNW_?  Why the mule noises
at the end of GOoMH?  These things don't work for me as music, though
they may fit wonderfully into some Kate-ian master plan.

      [	Why does Kate do things the way she does in these cases?  The
	answer is very simple.  It's because all these things are the
	essense of perfection itself.  It's that simple.  I hope that
	answer's your question.  -- |>oug ]

> _Cloudbusting_ is a perfect example, in which there isn't a single
> sound or word that doesn't deal directly and plainly with
> _A_Book_of_Dreams_, or Kate's interpretation of it (while naturally
> allowing for a number of broader associations, as well).

I must've missed this analysis when it first appeared.  Could someone
tell me what the silliness regarding yo-yos in gardens and governments
refers to?

-- Brian

      [	It's not silliness at all -- it is a tragic and true to life
	story, and I must ask you not to ridicule poor Peter and
	Wilhelm in Love-Hounds again.  -- |>oug ]

P.S.  Suzanne Vega is my hero.  Her first album is definitely in my top 5.
      Let's bash on Skinhead some more instead.