Re: A Kate and Kylie Fan Speaks His Mind.

[King Hell Wombat <jsd@gaffa.MIT.EDU>]

>Fr: Larry Hernandez (l-h@cup.portal.com)
(actually Bob Davis' remarks posted by Larry)

>not just "acts."  Just because not all pop acts write or produce
>their own material doesn't mean they aren't seriously involved
>in work, choices, and decisions in the making of the music, and 
>Kylie is.)  It's fine for Kate fans to not like Kylie or 
>Debbie Gibson, or whatever the pop act.  But to insult these artists
>or their music, or imply they are total crap, I think is unfair. 
>These singers aren't trying to imitate Kate anyway, they're trying 
>to honestly do the music that feels right to them.

Oh please, Kylie is just another in a long string of those acts that
are basically the creation of their producers.  Maurice Starr and his
revolting assaults on the ears of the world are in the same category.
Maybe Stock, Aitken and Waterman are a cut above Starr, but that's
like saying that vomit is a cut above shit.  I don't believe Kylie or
any of the rest of her ilk are honestly doing the music that feels
right to them, I believe that they are trying to make a quick buck by
purveying media-friendly sex.  Except at the end of the pitch, you
don't take these prostitutes to bed, you go down to the record shop
and buy their albums instead.

>If lyrics to a 
>song are simple, saying either something along the lines of having fun,
>or telling a love story or something like that, I think there is
>worth in that.

I agree completely, but how much investment can a singer have in
lyrics that they didn't write?  OK, maybe a lot, I've seen some people
do very heartfelt renditions of other people's music (Kate doing "Let
It Be," for instance), but look at someone like Tone Loc.  "Wild
Thing" is now the best selling single in HISTORY.  He didn't write the
words or the music.  Sure it may be a FUN TUNE (I don't like it) but
how much is it worth when faced with something like, oh, say, Public
Enemy?

>I don't want to get too philosophical, but music 
>is meant to be, or should be, a positive force, and what's wrong 
>with a basic, feel-good type of thing?

Nothing at all.  People sitting around the campfire, strumming a
guitar and singing along is a healthy basic feel-good type of thing.
But the large majority of pop music is mass produced, commercial
PRODUCT.  The record INDUSTRY is an INDUSTRY, a BUSINESS, and profits
are their bottom line.

>I think to totally slam any
>style of music, or any individual artist who is doing their best, 
>is similiar to slamming music as a whole.  To be accepting of 
>others' differences is a sign of maturity.

To offer constructive criticism is the best.  I do not accept the
differences of people who are in the KKK, so why should I make
exceptions for a seemingly harmless "entertainment industry"?  If you
don't know the answer, there's nothing I can do to help you.

>I apologize if I sound preachy or overly accusatory, but this is
>something I wanted to, and felt should, be gotten off my chest. 

Ditto for my remarks.

>Viva la Kate and viva la musical freedom! 

No argument from me on that one!

Let me leave you with the lyrical brilliance of Public Enemy:

	You singers are SPINELESS
	As you sing your senseless songs to the mindless
	Your basic subject, love, is MINIMAL
	It's sex for profit.


+---------------------- Is there any ESCAPE from NOISE? ---------------------+
|  |   |\       | jsd@gaffa.mit.edu | ZIK ZAK - We make everything you need, |
| \|on |/rukman | jsd@umass.bitnet  | and you need everything we make.       |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+