Re: Does Kate Bush read news?

[mailrus!gatech!mit-eddie!eddie.mit.edu!henrik@uunet.UU.NET (Larry DeLuca)]

I think the problem here is that Mr. Hui is arguing in what he believes
to be objective, quantifiable terms, and the Gaffans are responding as
though they were subjective.

Let's say that we define "substantial" to mean:
 
	A piece of music written for a full (18-piece or larger)
	chamber ensemble that will consist of two or more separate
	movements that are thematically linked and display a
	definite progression and unity.  

Now, it is pretty clear that save _The Ninth Wave_ that Kate Bush
has failed this definition in one way or another (we'll fudge the
chamber ensemble definition - there's lots of stuff on _The Ninth
Wave_).  However, even that piece falls somewhat short of the
symphonic unity one expects from classical or (Gads, I hate this
term) 20th centry music.

HOWEVER --

Art is not a multiple-choice test, and there are no right or wrong
answers - just some that work better than others.  In a purely
qualitative light, I find Kate Bush's music more MOVING than a great
many other peoples'.  "Under the Ivy" is extremely simple in form -
very short and bittersweet, almost a musical haiku by comparison.  But it 
has an eloquence and piquancy about it that makes it shine above
even most of Kate Bush's other compositions, simple or not, at
least for me.

Who cares if other people write more complex music (and they do)?
I want to be MOVED, not read a fucking *SCHEMATIC*!

					larry...