Alchemical matters

[Doug Alan <nessus@athena.mit.edu>]

Yes, Kate is a vegetarian.  She feeds her cats cat food, however, and
wears leather, so she clearly is not fanaticly so.

Reagarding all the ferver IED has created over his claims about Kate's
unique alchemical approach...  I think most people are completely
misinterpreting what he said.  IED never said that Kate was the first
person to use synthesizers, or the first person to produce her own
album, or anything like that.  I don't know if I've correctly
interpreted IED either, so I'll just tell you my opinions about Kate's
unique innovation on *The Dreaming*, which I think is quite related to
what IED had to say.

Most often throughout the history of recorded music, production
techniques in the studio have been used to add something to already
existing music.  Most often this studio production has been used to
smooth and polish the music; to remove rough edges and turn the music
into a glossy commercial product.  Sometimes it has been used to add
embelishments to the music.  And sometimes the studio has been used
itself as a primary artistic tool.  In recent years, we have seen
music that could not exist without the studio -- music, where the
studio production is so integral to the music that if you removed the
studio production, there would not be enough left to stand on its own.
This is not a bad thing -- in fact it is a quite good thing, because
it's a whole new art form.  Groups like Tackhead and M|A|R|S come to
mind.

The Beatles did some of the earliest interesting art using the studio.
*Sgt. Peppers* was a showcase for the state of the art in studio
production.  And everything was done on 4-track tape recorders!  The
Beatles didn't take this approach to it's conclusion, however.  They
didn't have the technology to, nor probably the desire.  Parts of
*Sgt.  Peppers* could not have existed without the studio production
(some of "A Day in the Life", for instance), but for the most part,
the music could have existed in a form without the studio embelishing
and still have been darn good and recognizable.  On the White Album,
Revolution Number 9 is completely a studio production and could not
possibly exist without the studio.  However, Revolution Number Nine
can not really be though of as a "song".  It is more a collage of
sounds.  In the seventies there were many avant-garde musicians who
did works that could only be studio creation, but almost all of this
is more apropriately classified as sound collages.  Pink Floyd did a
lot of interesting studio work that greatly enhanced their music.
Listen to all of the sound effects and sounds on *The Wall* and try to
imagine the album without these.  I think it could be done -- it
wouldn't be as good, but it would still be good.  The same thing can
be said about Peter Gabriel's third album.

What about *The Dreaming*?  Could *The Dreaming* exist in any
recognizable form with the massive studio effort that was put into it?
Without samplers, and overdubbing, and all the weird little sound
effects, sound processing, and sounds?  I don't think so.  There are a
couple of songs which might be recognizable in an unproduced form,
played on more convential instruments, but for the most part, the
"instrument" the songs were played on is the studio.  *The Dreaming*
would not of, could not of existed without the studio.  *The Dreaming*
is the first album of music (as opposed to sound collages) which took
studio production to the maximal artistic extreme, and thus it
deserves a place in history just for this (not to mention for also
being the greatest album ever recorded).

> From: adams%bosco.Berkeley.EDU@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Jeffrey P. Adams)

> "Commercially successful music has no artistic integrity."

> That seems to be an underlying attitude of many recent postings.  Do
> people really believe that?  Even if you deny it, is there something
> inside you that feels that it's true?  Do you think Phil Collins is
> a lightweight just because he has become phenomenally successful,
> or is it something about his music?  Same for Tears for Fears, The
> Beatles, etc..

I don't think that anyone here thinks that "commercially successful
music has no artistic integrity".  What many people here might believe
is that "music designed only to be commercial successful has no
artistic integrity."  Phil Collins is a lightweight, not because his
music is successful, but because half of it seems made with the sole
point of making bucks.  It is awful to boot.  The other half of his
music is just completely derivative, and thus of no interest.  (I can't
speak for his work in Brand X because I haven't heard it, but I have
no burning desire to at this point.)

> Hypothetical situation: If KaTe's next album were somehow to become
> incredibly popular, outselling all other albums in history, and
> winning fans among all age groups, cultural backgrounds, and
> educational levels, would you somehow feel "It can't be as good,"
> or, "Too bad she sold out."?

Well, her music is incredibly popular in some places in the world
(like England, for example), and I sure don't feel that way.

|>oug