Re: Mailbag

[CCJS@cc.nu.oz (James Smith)]

Michael T. Sullivan writes:

> Does anybody remember an interview with Kate where she says she
> absolutely cringes at some of here old work?  She went on to say
> that any artist should criticize their work because an artist has
> to keep improving.  Something to that effect.

Perhaps she meant "changing," rather than "improving."  One could
certainly say that Kate's music changes with every outing; whether
it improves each time is a little harder to substantiate.  Certainly,
Kate tries to improve with each new release.

I guess it's fair to say that Kate has always been a little unsure of
her work.  She strives for perfection, but never feels that she has
succeeded.  The fact that she took two years to make TSW, and wanted
to rerecord all the songs on TWS is a strong indicator of this.

> Now, if this is true then we can assume Kate tries to improve on her
> work with each outing.  If this is true then the previous outing can't
> be perfect.  And if it can't be perfect then Mr. Marvick is disagreeing
> with Kate.  And if that is the case then he can't be a _true_ Kate Bush
> fan, because by his own example a _true_ Kate fan can't find flaw with
> her work.  But not only has he found flaw with her work, he disagrees
> with her about it.  Sounds like blasphemy to me.

By this logic, an artist can only be perfect if he doesn't try to
improve; in other words, you are either born perfect or you never
are.  The flaw in your argument is that striving to improve on
perfection does not have to produce something that is more than
perfect.

I guess it is fair to say that a _true_ fan (read fanatic) is one who
reguards his idol as perfection.  He minimises, or just can't see, her
faults, and maximises her good points.  The idol becomes something
separate from, and different to, the actual person.  Eventually the
fan develops a blind spot where the idol is concerned, and tends to
go off the rails when the subject of his idolatry is raised.  This is
not necessarily an unhealthy condition so long as the fan can recognise
his blind spot for what it is.

I think that recently too many people have been taking what Andrew says
too seriously, rather than recognising that it is in fact his mania
speaking.  If you object to what he says, either ignore it, or answer
with your tongue planted firmly in your cheek.  Don't get bitter.

I've recently had a bit of a spat with Jon Drukman over "Reaching Out."
It doesn't mean that I don't enjoy his postings, or that I don't value
his opinion (though I may not always agree with it).  He's a
"character," and he and the other characters in this group are what
give it life.  IED's the same.

Andrew Marvick writes:

>> nay-sayers who plague this group would go do it someplace else.

Ignore this.  Andrew doesn't mean it, though IED may.  I'm sure if you
reread the original section of Andrew's posting you could not fail to
see that this was supposed to be tongue-in-cheek.  I'm surprised to see
that it drew a reaction.  Or perhaps not.

Jim

-- 
James Smith          | Spelter was thinking, eight sons, that means he
Computing Centre     | did it eight times.  At least.  Gosh.
Newcastle University | 
ccjs@cc.nu.oz.au     |                 -- "Sourcery", Terry Pratchet