Re: writing up that hill....

[larry@csccat.cs.com (Larry Spence)]

In article <9107202140.AA03004@epas.utoronto.ca> gravende@epas.utoronto.ca (David Gravender) writes:
>
>...All of us who tune into
>Love-hounds obviously have had and continue to have some strong, positive
>responses to KaTe's music and 'theatre', responses that have placed
>kaTe for us in a singularly prominent position--we may like other
>artists, but usuually not nor even approaching to the same, well,
>fervour. 

Speak for yerself.  I can think of a number of artists who are in the same
category as Kate.  Some of us enjoy some of Kate's music very, very much,
but do not put her on a pedestal.  There are many kinds of fandom, not all
involving this "she/he is unlike all the others" bit.  

>And no doubt
>most of us have had occasion to play KaTe for friends or
>acquaintances, with the hope that they too will "feel" what we feel.

No, actually almost all of my friends think that Kate is overly precious,
lacking in a good sense of sarcasm, and the product of a sheltered childhood.  
At best, they like parts of _The Dreaming_.  I enjoy a lot more Kate than 
that, but I can sort of see their point, especially in view of _The Sensual 
World_.

>For these latter, i
>think it natural enough on our part to want to explain the grounds for
>what may seem to them a rather excessive or even misplaced admiration,
>juts as we might want to explain why we believe Candidate X a good
>choice for a certain position. 

There's a difference.  Whether someone likes Kate or not is no skin off
my nose.  Whether X gets elected can affect me for the better/worse.  Kate
is in no danger of losing her record contract, y'know.  %)

When I play something for a friend, if they don't like the way it sounds,
I don't try to "convince them" that they should like it.  It's no big deal.

>In any event, it seems a basic human
>tendency to want to understand well those things which we highly
>prize, those things which add significantly to our experience of life,
>and to explain to others our reasons for so highly prizing them. 

But only if we're feeling defensive would we go to such lengths, IMHO. %)

>R.L. McMillin writes,
>
>"...but remember, art should also be judged on its aims, as well. New
>Kids don't make transplendant (sic) promises with their works, or at
>least, none are expected of them. Without being presumptious (sic)
>with regard to Ms. Bush's intent, I suspect that she has loftier goals
>than thos set by the managemant of the New Kids."^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
  
I detest NKOTB too, but do you guys realize how elitist the above sounds?

>"There seems to be a uite 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 [blahblah]...

Jeez, you guys pick on easy targets... tell us why Kate is fundamentally
"better" or "different in quality" than Cocteau Twins or Peter Gabriel
or 808 State or (old) Pere Ubu or whoever... Music doesn't have to be
overtly "serious" or "lofty" to be good, does it?  That's a pretty
outdated definition of quality, IMHO.

>To put it another way, i think 'high aims' in art are necessary but
>not sufficient conditions for great art--             ^^^^^^^^^!

This is just my opinion, but.... _no fucking way_!  That sounds like a
sure-fire recipe for artistic pretention to me.  Hey, just MHO. %)

>Now when we talk
>about something like 'The right Art is that alone which creates the
>highest enjoyment,' we need to be clear on what the last two words
>mean, 'highest' and 'enjoyment'. To be brief, i take 'highest' as
>referring to the peak of emotional AND intellectual (and spiritual,
>yes) satisfaction, and 'enjoyment' as denoting a pleasure both
>physical and mental--moreover, i take them together to refer to some
>more or less objective state, that is, not simply that which I in my
>unique subjectivity arise to.

This is the biggest hunk of overinflated rationalizing I've possibly
_ever_ seen on the net.  Mental enjoyment as an objectively defined
state?  Let's stick with your "unique subjectivity," OK? %)

>So we could say to
>a Guns 'n' Roses fan who claimed a 'highest enjoyment' from their
>music--perhaps highest for you, but not for me nor for the world at large.

You really don't understand that there are fans of bands like G'n'R,
Depeche Mode, Morrissey, et. al, who derive even more enjoyment from
their favorite artist than you do from Kate, do you?  And that at this 
very moment, there might be someone in r.m.classical saying, "there are
people who listen to rock music, like Kate Bush, and delude themselves
that her excellence equals that of a classical composer, but of course
we know that they are sadly mistaken..." %)

>But we may want to say something of that order of magnitude about
>KaTe, especially when we look at the effect he music and being has had
>on our repective lives--we do seem convinced that she has "the face of
>genius" and that her music attains to a rather rare level of
>excellence, and not just as 'pop music'. 

Yeah, right.  See above.

>Although it seems that her
>music being 'pop music' has a large role to play in explaining Why
>KaTe for us? Why not Mozart? or opera? etc. Putting aside for the
>moment the question of the particular qualities of Kate's music that
>are so exceptional, i'd like to digress for a moment on the point of

Weaseling out, eh? %)

>Art IS an experience, true enough, and not a
>proposition to be debated--but like any experience it needs to be
>interpreted, and interpreted rightly or else be wasted. 

I'm sorry, I disagree strongly.  Pure unmitigated, uninterpreted
experience can sometimes be the best of all, IMHO.  Your posting is a 
great example of how to kill something by overscrutinizing it.

Put another way, is there a girlfriend or wife who you love?  Do you
think that you can "prove" to other people why you love her, and then
they, too, will be in love with her?  If this was the way the world
worked, wouldn't everyone be in love with Kate's music (assuming you
really have an objective demonstration of Kate's best-ness %) and your
girlfriend or wife? 

Do you enjoy the "exclusive" feeling of having better taste than the 
"unwashed masses" who listen to G'n'R?  Your posting gave me that impres-
sion, but I could be mistaken. %) %)

Didn't Kate say that one of her problems was deliberating and agonizing
over things too much, rather than just jumping in and _doing_?  The last
album was _not_ called _The Cerebral World_, y'know!

-- 
Larry Spence
larry@csccat.cs.com
..{uunet,texsun,cs.utexas.edu,decwrl}!csccat!larry