Re: Katejism XXXVI.7.xi

[Larry Spence <csccat!larry@texbell.swbt.com>]

In article <9007112004.AA03702@EDDIE.MIT.EDU> IED writes:
>
>    Richard Caldwell, apparently feeling some heat from his earlier
>criticism of Del Palmer, has posted a lengthy and certainly thoughtful
>explanation of his views. Though IED takes Richard's opinions in good
>part, he cannot find a way to agree with them. Here's why:
>
> > _The Sensual World_ really isn't
> > superior to her other most recent efforts in any way.  Not musically
> > as a work of art and certainly not technically as a recording.
> > Therefore, if we can a assume that Kate is at least as capable as
> > ever we must conclude that Del's increased participation did not have
> > a positive effect, i.e. it did not make TSW a better record.
>
>   Your premise is unsupported by evidence here, Richard. IED for one
>dislikes your terminology. Although IED would not try to argue that _TSW_
>is a "better" record than _The_Dreaming_ or _Hounds_of_Love_ 

OK.  Richard said "_TSW_ isn't superior to her other most recent efforts in 
any way," while IED said "IED would not try to argue that _TSW_ is a 'better' 
record than _TD_ or _HoL_."  Sounds like there's _some_ agreement there.  It's 
just that...

>he [IED] would
>certainly not feel sanguine judging it a "worse" one. 

Hmm, says he wouldn't feel good about it, but doesn't rule out the possi-
bility.... %>

>Such one-word
>appraisals of Kate's albums seem to IED to have less than no practical
>value. 

RC tried to describe _some_ of the reasons _why_ he came to his conclusion.
Naturally, it's much easier to pin down technical deficiencies than aesthetic
ones.  For example, when people criticized "Reaching Out," IED's defense was
_purely_technical_, based upon song structure.  One's _emotional_ reaction
to an album is difficult to describe without using terms like "sounds tired,"
"MOR strings," etc., none of which are terribly precise, although perhaps
very effective in conveying subjective feelings.

>Kate's albums--_TSW_ included--are so rich and multi-faceted
>that to dismiss one over another in such cavalier fashion seems to IED
>unwise, to say the least. 

A good point, and I'm not going to suggest "dismissing" _TSW_.  But you can
reason and argue and debate all day, and it won't change the basic, gut-level
reaction you get to an album, especially one as emotionally involving as
a Kate album.  Personally, when I listen to an album, I spend most of my time
immersed in it, not analyzing "pre-choral refrains."  The fact that IED takes
the time to post extremely analytic defenses of "Reaching Out" is swell, but
the fact is that _many_ (not all) Kate fans are a little disappointed with
_TSW_.  Does IED have a theory as to some conspiracy or cynical intent that
motivates all these people to feel let down?  I suspect that he would say
that we simply haven't listened hard enough and/or done enough analysis.  Well,
I've listened to it at least fifteen or twenty times, and it's not getting any
better.  It's OK, but just not up to par.  The fact that IED has to resort to
highly academic-sounding analyses of song structure to "prove" otherwise 
seems like rationalizing to me.  It's as if I didn't love someone, and IED
piped up with "proofs" of why that person is so lovable.  I might mentally
revise my opinion of that person, but it probably wouldn't "make me" fall in
love with them.  

I'm not going to try to "prove" why _TSW_ is only so-so; I'm not going to try
to make IED fall out of love with the record.  I just think it's pathetic that
when someone brings up a couple of valid (to me!) points about why they're not 
too crazy about it, they get a sneer.  Any artist as _great_ as Kate Bush 
deserves more than a pool o' drool from rabid fans.

>Therefore, simplistic "better-or-
>worse" rating games serve no useful purpose in this context. How does
>such a valuation benefit us? What new insight do we gain from the
>unsupported statement that one album is "better" than another? 

If the difference is very subtle, then we gain no insight at all.  However,
when a lot of people claim that _TSW_ is worse than _TD_ or _HoL_, and no
one, _including_IED_, is willing to say that it's better, that should tell
you something: that _TSW_ may be different than those two albums, but it's
not a major step forward.  I'm not saying that it's awful; there are a few
excellent tracks.  A few...

The value of saying that _TSW_ is "worse" than _TD_ or _HoL_ is that it
indicates, to readers of Love-Hounds who infrequently participate due to the 
unreasonable ridicule and scorn that are heaped on anyone who dares to raise 
a criticism, that perhaps a more even-handed appraisal of Kate's works might 
be possible (killer run-on, I know...).  I thought that _maybe_ after Kate
said that man's creations are imperfect (or words to that effect) and she
said "shit" in an interview, that things would lighten up a bit.  But no...

>How can IED accept your judgement that
>"<_TSW_> is not as great a work as either _The Dreaming_ or _Hounds of
>Love_" if your only specific discussion of these three musical
>cornucopiae is confined to a brief and extremely vague discussion of
>sound quality and drum samples? IED is amazed that these are
>apparently your primary criteria for judging the quality of the
>work of Kate Bush. They may have some relevance on the quality of
>_Del's_ work, but you have several times gone to some effort to
>use your discussion of Del's contributions as the foundation for
>a judgement of Kate's entire album _The_Sensual_World_. It makes no
>sense to IED.

The albums bear Kate Bush's name.  _She_ is responsible for the albums.
Even though others engineer and record the albums, she is the one who gives
thumbs up or down on the production.  The recording may be hissy, but it was
her responsibility to tell Del or Kevin or whoever to fix it!  It's not as
though the finished product were the first thing she heard and she had no
opportunity to replace Killen, or no time to write better songs, etc.  

> >   First there's the sound.  The longer I live with TSW the more the
> > assorted audio flotsam and jetsam that were allowed to creep into the
> > album annoy me.  There has been enough talk here about the noise level
> > on TSW that I'd say that many, and perhaps most, Love Hounds agree.

I agree, for what it's worth.

>IED agrees that there is perhaps a slight--a _very_ slight--diminution
>in the clarity of the recorded sound on _TSW_ as judged against that on
>_TD_. 

Wow!  I was still recovering from (George) Bush saying that "new tax revenues 
may be needed"!  %> %> 

>_HoL_'s sound, however, is scarcely any clearer, and there are
>many passages on that album which bear even stronger audible tape hiss
>and blurred definition.

Yes, but _HoL has such outstanding songs, playing, and arrangements that 
it would've seemed picky to gripe about the tape hiss.  _TSW_, on the other
hand, is so relatively mediocre that the recording defects are yet another
letdown, not an exception.  This is just my opinion.  I'm not going to try
to prove anything, I simply insist that my opinion be respected as such, 
and that IED's opinions be recognized as such.

>     Here IED simply disagrees with you outright, Richard. How are
>the sections of _TSW_ which happen to include Nigel Kennedy's parts
>"high points" of the album? Your judgement is unexplained, and in IED's
>view capricious. 

Aw, c'mon, IED.  You're making it sound like he's going to be cited for
contempt of court! 

_Why_ do I care in the least what IED says?  He is extremely well versed in
all sorts of Kate data, and he could make an invaluable contribution to any
true _critical_analysis_ of Kate's work, as opposed to pooh-poohing any 
attempt to start such an analysis.  My hope is that once we all go into 
terminal boredom waiting for another album, that perhaps He might entertain
the idea of re-examining the Sacred Scriptures, as it were.  The alternative
is waiting for a Kate album that sucks _so_ badly that even IED will finally
admit dissatisfaction with some aspect of it.  That could take a while...

-- 
Larry Spence
larry@csccat
...{texbell,texsun}!csccat!larry
Internet: larry@csccat.lonestar.org
---
Larry Spence
larry@csccat
...{texbell,texsun}!csccat!larry
Internet: larry@csccat.lonestar.org