miscellany

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

Dan Kozak:

> >	David Byrne at the height of his abilities, before the drugs got
> >	to him.
> 
> Do you know something about David Byrne that I don't?

Not really -- that's a supposition on my part.  I have suspected him of
being on controlled substances for some time, probably cocaine.  I saw
Mr. Byrne on the Arsenio Hall (sp?) show with his eyes noticeably dilated,
and acting very disoriented and twitchy.  This was about two years ago,
so take it for what it's worth.

> >	Optimistic
> >	"take no prisoners" cynicism from Patty Donahue.
> 
> As best I can remember, the guitarist in the Waitresses (name long
> forgotten) wrote the lyrics, too.

You got me on that one, but the mistake was known at the time I wrote
it.  It's the same sort of thing as attributing, "Play it, Sam!" to
Humphrey Bogart.  (Notice I didn't misquote it as "Play it again, Sam!")

To Larry Spence -- a well-deserved (IMHO) easy!

> >...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_.

Down, boy!  This _is_ Love-Hounds... or would you like to start an anti-Kate
mailing list?

> >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.

At least this beats the "if you don't like musician X, you're no friend
of mine!" attitude expressed in some posts here.

> >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. %)

Or confusing verbosity with eloquence.

> >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?

Perhaps, but again, NKOTB addresses a narrow range of the human experience,
i.e., how to extract cash from pubescents.  There are others, Kate included,
that attempt more.

> >"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.

Or Beethoven, or Tchaivkovsky, or Goethe, or Schiller, or Shakespeare.
I've publicly assailed the idea that we can pin down Art or make subjective
comparisons.

> >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 [expletive deleted] way_!  That
> sounds like a sure-fire recipe for artistic pretention to me.  Hey,
> just MHO. %)

Perhaps.  Have you ever tried to create anything?  (By the way -- your
hostility is showing...)

> >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? %)

Where volume of words substitutes for thinking...

> 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? 

Interesting way to put it, but I'll second that notion.

> 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. %) %)

Not particularly, but I am certainly glad that I've in no way contributed
to the hateful, rancid, adolescent screamings that Axl Rose distributes
wholesale, and particularly so after I read his interview in the L.A. Times'
Calendar section.

> 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!