KateMagic

[rlm@ms_aspen.hac.com (R. L. McMillin)]

David Gavender posted some very interesting comments on criticism.  The
trouble I always run into with dissecting music is that so much of it
fails to make the translation from right to left brain.  Very few
musicians are good writers; since Berlioz, I can't think of one.  I am
not a rabid Kate fan, but have been appreciatively listening for some
time now, and like her better as she ages.  In some wise, it reminds me
the anecdote wherein Plato attempts to analyze humor, and puts his
audience to sleep...

> What i think we want once we've 'agreed' that "magic" in Art has
> somthing to do with being a "reminder... of the possibility of God"
> (as  IED quoted peter manchester as writing) is a way to measure the
> extent to which any given art or artist achieves such a state. In
> other words, i think we are wanting some basic (as in fundamental)
> aesthetic criteria, or at least aesthetic notions. There seems to me a
> quite distinct difference between Kate and, say, the New Kids on the
> Block which makes me think that the "experience of Kate" is and can be
> shown to be different in quality from the "experience of the New
> Kids"--that is, to be perhaps more clear about it, that there exist
> _objective_ critical (i.e. aesthetic) standards which can show the one
> "magic"  true (i.e. well-grounded) and the other a delusion (insofar
> as it purports or is purported to be a "magic" of the first-order,
> which is the kind we are concerned with here).

Well, yes -- but remember, art should also be judged on its aims, as
well.  New Kids don't make any transplendant promises with their works,
or at least, none are expected of them.  Without being presumptious
with regard to Ms. Bush's intent, I suspect that she has loftier goals
than those set by the management of the Kids.  I listen to, and enjoy,
the music of, say, the Beach Boys, or the Ramones, but again, their
aims are a bit different.

I also reject, at least partially, Schiller's precept that, "The right Art
is that alone which creates the highest enjoyment."  I'll go along with
that -- as long as you're talking about your aesthetics, for your own
enjoyment.  Lots of people like -- gag -- Guns 'n' Roses, but from my
own perspective, they are just so much forgettable sound and fury.  For
Axl Rose fans, perhaps, G'n'R is Art.

(I admit to some curiousity, David -- who is this 19th century critic
matthew arnold? Is he any relation to e e cummings? :-) I'd like to
know how you were introduced to him and why you selected his writings
for your post.)

> It is the presence in Kate's music of these [qualities of appeal to the
> intellect and to the heart] to which it is, i think, we have all
> responded, and greatly and rightfully prize.  The "magic" then is not
> insubstantial or vague, but exists to the degree that her music (or
> anyone's art) interests us--captivates us--by its achievement of an
> accurate, precise representation of an action or mood or thought, AND
> its conveyance of charm, its infusion of delight, through the "proper"
> (i.e. well-suited), "high" or serious choice of theme and treatment. We
> may have all been at fisrt attracted to KaTe's music by its unusual
> SOUND, but that is not what has kept us attracted, nor deepened nor
> enhanced our interest. It is the intelligence and talent and what i can
> only imprecisely term 'innocence' or 'sympathetic sincerity' BEHIND
> that sound--the bases for WHY it is as it is--tht has won our hearts
> and ears, and has made that sound all the more intriguing and
> inspiring. These are all fairly general reasons (though to a particular
> point!), but not i hope the lesser-deemed for it--for indeed it is in
> KaTe's peculiar "generality" that her greatness lies. She writes Music
> that defies categorization, and has a more organic character to its
> structure (while working within the bounds of traditional structure)
> than does most (all?) of the other music it is classed with in stores
> these days.

Perhaps you needn't be so tongue tied.  Hemingway called it not
"innocence" or "sympathetic sincerity", but "honesty".  Kate delivers
the hardest thing any artist can, a true feel for an emotional event,
with clear remembrance and image.  The difficulty comes in writing
after something happens so that the true feeling is replaced by what
you thought you should feel or wanted to feel.  Kate's lyrics have the
"ring of truth" to them, and I would almost grant her that ability of
honest recall, though I do not know her. 

You also raise a point I alluded to earlier: the left and right brains
are somewhat at odds with each other on the subject of music.  Trying
to analyze music, and particularly music as wildly different as Kate's,
is like "nailing Jell-o to a tree", to steal from a famous systemantics
book.  The organic feel is by nature inexpressible.  Her music just is.

----

		"A pleasant walk, a pleasant talk,
		    Along the briny beach!
		We cannot do with more than four,
		    To give a hand to each!"