Mailbag

[IED0DXM%OAC.UCLA.EDU@mitvma.mit.edu]

 To: Love-Hounds
 From: Andrew Marvick (IED)
 Subject: Mailbag

     Thanks to |>oug for his hearty defense of IED's observations
about _The_Dreaming_. IED agreed with virtually every word |>oug had
to say on the subject. |>oug and IED seem, oddly enough, to be of one
mind on most aspects of this particular issue.
     IED questions only one point of |>oug's--the idea that even one
or two of the songs on _T_D_ could stand on their own "without the
production". IED doesn't know how such a thing could possibly be
proved, unless Kate herself were to strip away the production and
make recordings of the simple "songs" themselves. I really believe
now that even the tracks that seem to have been "built up" around
"songs" (_Suspended_in_Gaffa_, _There_Goes_a_Tenner_, etc.) are
nevertheless inextricably mixed up with their production. For example,
one could certainly _recognize_ the song _Leave_It_Open_ if Frank
Sinatra, Jr. sang it on _Late_Night_ with Paul Shaffer on electric
piano. There's enough of a "song" for that to be possible. But
without the extremely elaborate and varied treatment of the different
parts of the vocal (to say nothing of the multiple effects in the
instrumental parts), _would_it_really_be_the_same_song_? IED thinks
it would be like listening to _Tristan_und_Isolde_ (to use Julian's
analogy) with just a single bel canto soprano and a piano accompaniment.
In other words, identifiable but hopelessly incomplete, and totally
at odds with the intentions of the music's creator.

 >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 commercially 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.

     IED never thought he would be coming to the defense of "Phil
Collins" in this forum, but |>oug's opinions should not be taken
as representing all Love-Hounds'. IED agrees that Collins seems
very often to be actively courting popular favour, and that much
of his music seems to be designed for commercial success, rather
than through what IED believes Kandinsky liked to call "inner necessity".
But that is not always a totally damning motivation for the creation
of art. On that point IED definitely does not agree with |>oug. It
seems to IED that the _reasons_ for someone's creativity--whether
"purely" aesthetic; related to questions of morality; or merely
commercial--are quite irrelevant to the end result. All that matters
to IED--or all that should matter to him--is the music itself. There
is much to admire in Phil Collins's work, although IED personally
never listens to it, and would never spend any money on it.
And God knows Collins has made a lot of music that is far superior
to some of the high-minded crap lauded in L-Hs in the past. (IED
won't be specific because he's a coward and doesn't want to bring
everyone in the group down on his head.) IED's point is that sure,
commercial motivations _can_ be terribly damaging to a person's
art. But _anti-commercial_ motivations can be equally damaging. So
_can_ any other motivating factor that isn't directly related to
the making of the music. But it's also possible that these factors
can have _no_ effect, or at least have no _ill_ effect on the art,
too. That's because there are just too many other possible
conditions that could affect the creative process--not the least
of which is _talent_--something which Collins unquestionably has
in considerable degree.
     (Anyway remember, Kate once raved about _In_the_Air_Tonight_. And
that's enough reason for IED, as all of you know.)
     The other thing about |>oug's criticism of Collins that IED
didn't agree with was his statement that because "the other half
of his music is completely derivative," it's "of no interest".
IED thinks that's a very dangerous kind of generalization to
make. It's _impossible_ to be "completely" derivative. No artist
in history has ever been "completely" derivative. Collins's
work is sometimes quite derivative of earlier musical styles
by other artists, and it is quite often very derivative of
his own earlier recordings. But that in itself is _not_
a damning quality. It's possible to identify virtually any
artist in history as "derivative". But the degree to which
a given artist is "derivative" is _not_ proportionate to the
"interest" level of that artist's work. One could easily argue
that Mozart (jeez, this kind of analogy always makes IED cringe--
sorry, people!) was _extremely_ derivative of Johann Christian
Bach; and that he repeated _himself_ endlessly, as well. One
could also condemn much of Mozart's work for having been
motivated by purely economic and/or extra-musical social
conditions in his life. (Even the _keys_ in which many of
his works were written were chosen by Mozart because they
were the "official" Court Keys for a given year!) But these
criticisms still wouldn't in any way touch on the ultimately
indefinable aspects of Mozart's work which have made them so
curiously moving to so many people over such a long period
of time. Without meaning in any way to compare Collins's
work to Mozart's (God forbid!), IED fails to see how the
fact (if it is a fact) that Collins's work is often motivated
by the wish to succeed with the public and in the marketplace
should in and of itself condemn the music which results from
those motivations. Nor can IED see how the fact that Collins's
work is closely derived from other music should in itself
mean that his music is "of no interest".

 >   I have just received a letter of application to the Kate Bush Club in
 >Kent, England.  Before I send off my application, plus the $25.00 fee,
 >I was wondering if anyone out there in gaffa-land is currently involved
 >with this club, and what benefits there are.

     Several L-Hs seem to be members of the Kate Bush Club. One of our
UK-based correspondents, Mike Palmer, just alerted us to the revival
of the Club's _Newsletter_ (which has been on hiatus since December
1987). From Mike's distressingly brief description (IED's copy of
the _Newsletter_ hasn't reached him yet) it would seem that the
long break between issues has not resulted in a marked improvement.
IED hates to sound critical of the _Newsletter_, because he
appreciates that most of its costs are footed by Kate herself,
and that she undoubtedly loses a lot of dough putting it out; and also
because it _is_ the only "official" mouthpiece Kate has to reach her
fans with; and because it has given the Club members many wonderful
things in the past--the _distant_ past...
     That's the problem. The fact is that not only has the _Newsletter_
been coming less and less often (which its costs and Kate's workpace
can go a long way toward explaining), but when it _does_ finally
arrive, most of its bulk has of recent years consisted of already
very familiar full-colour, full-page photographs of Kate herself.
This is a nice thing in itself, IED supposes, but it is _highly_
frustrating to this fan when he thinks of all the questions that
might have been printed and replied to by Kate in the photos'
place. There has been less and less sign of interest in the _News-
letter_ by Kate in recent issues, and IED regrets this.
     Lisa Bradley, the Secretary of the _Newsletter_, informed
members last year that there would not be another issue until
the new album was ready; and that in future the Club would try
to put out only one "bumper issue" per year. Well, if the issue
which Mike Palmer described in L-Hs yesterday is _that_ issue,
IED guesses he won't complain, since it should mean the album
is coming out. But that doesn't seem to be the case--Mike doesn't
mention any information about the new album in the issue. It sounds
more like another rather impersonal and superficial little stopgap
issue--perhaps just a kind of update of the swaps- and penpals-lists,
which Lisa said earlier had been getting too long and boring to
be included in full in future issues of the _Newsletter_ proper.
     Anway, IED cannot in good conscience say to new fans that the
KBC will give immediate entree into a whole new world of Kate
Bushological delights. It won't. Mainly, a membership in the KBC
means one more thing to get impatient waiting for. _But_: the _News-
letter_ that comes out after the release of KBVI _will_ certainly be of
tremendous interest to Kate's fans; so if such a single-issue
magazine is worth the cost of a year's membership in the Club to you
(as it obviously is to IED), then by all means join.
     If, however, what you're looking for is regular news information,
comprehensive lists of Kate's work and media appearances, and
a feeling of _involvement_ in the Kate Bush fan community, then
you'd be much better off subscribing to _Homeground_. And the
best solution of all, of course, is to join both--as well as the
other thirteen or so fanzines currently in production throughout
the world.

 >   Included, was an order form for the first book in the "Cathy" series.
 >The price was 36 pounds.  Is the current value of the pound still
 >about $2.00 (which would make the price extremely depressing) or am
 >I in luck and it has dropped somewhat?

     You're not really in luck. The going rate is about $1.80 or so,
and if you add the commission charge for the currency-exchange, it
gets up to about $2.00 per Pound. So yeah, _Cathy_ is a damn expensive
little book now. But it's also a very beautiful and touching little book.

-- Andrew Marvick