Re: The Sensual World: maturing or icing?

[aurs01!aurxc3!whitcomb@mcnc.org (Jonathan Whitcomb)]

>Jon Drukman (jondr@sco.com) writes: 

>No one yet knows why whitcomb@aurxc3.UUCP (Jonathan Whitcomb) said:
>>Then came Hounds of Love.  [specifics deleted] The production was 
>>excellent, but there didn't seem to be much substance behind 
>>all the effects.  Where were the compositions that fueled her
>>first four albums?

>I'm really amazed to hear you say this.  Why I like Kate songs so much:
>they are ABOUT SOMETHING.  Or they tell stories.  At least, the good ones
>do.  This is why, to me, "Between A Man And A Woman" is not a good Kate song.
>It's not about anything that anyone over the age of 16 hasn't dealt with a
>million times.  On the other hand, Wilhelm Reich is very much unexplored
>territory for lots of people.  Glow in the dark yo-yos?  Orgone energy?
>Whoa...

Turn this around.  Anyone over the age of 16 can relate to a song like
"Between A Man And A Woman", whereas few will be able to relate to 
a song about a story by Wilhelm Reich unless they've read it.  If Bush
wants to write literary commentary, fine, but I (and I expect most people) 
buy an album to enjoy the music.  And I appreciate literary references,
but not when they are very obscure.  What I really miss is the balance
between melody, lyric, arrangement and performance that were present
in her earlier songs.

>Anyway, almost everything on HoL is about *something* particular, and the
>songs that aren't (like the title track which can be summed up in three
>words: "fear of love") are at least musically interesting enough to merit
>repeated listening.  The fact that the sound effects on The Ninth Wave are
>not only sonically interesting but actually crucial to the story helps push
>this album into the realm of genius.  
            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This is the same line Gene Wilder uses when he introduces the Creature 
about to sing "Puttin' on the Ritz" in Young Frankenstein .  I find
the Ninth Wave embarassing.  A group of song fragments, loosely linked
by an uninteresting concept and no coherent musical theme, and the
listener is supposed to accept it as High Art?  This kind of pretention
went out of style in the 70's.  I find that this is a result of Bush
trying too hard to develop a concept, and forgetting to develop *songs*.
Waking the Witch?  Noise.  Studio effects.  Horrendous lyrics.  
Sure, her fans will eat this stuff up, but it won't help to expand
her audience.  I would never have believed it if someone told me
that Bush could turn me off after The Dreaming, but this did it.

>Ditto stuff like the policeman
>whispering and the aircraft sweeps on The Dreaming.

The Dreaming worked because Bush added all the detail to songs
that were strong to begin with.  On The Ninth Wave all we got
was detail. 

>>The Sensual World continued in this vein.  Bush had become 
>>very proficient in the studio, and the sound quality was great.

>I think the sound quality is actually really bad.  [Specifics deleted]

I was referring to musical arrangement and layering, not post-production.

>>I just missed what used to be underneath.  I have tried, really
>>tried, to like this album, but I felt like I was eating
>>cotten candy... a sweet, sticky taste was left in my mouth, but
>>I still felt empty afterwards.  I think much of this is due to the 
>>difference in how Bush used to compose, and how she composes now.  

>I disagree.  Not that I think it's a good album, but that it's a bad album
>for different reasons.  The songs aren't about anything in particular.  The
>title track is at least based in literature, and combined with the beautiful
>music it is a winner.  

The title track is perhaps the most annoying song in the past five years.
Here is a prime example of something that works in print but fails as
a song.  Melodically it is very weak.  Is it intended to impress or 
entertain?  I'd argue that this really isn't so much a song as a tone poem.  

>But "Love and Anger"?  Feh.  It's not about anything,
>and it doesn't do anything musically interesting.  

Funny... this one works for me.  We're not going to agree much on
music, but then, I wasn't trying to convince anyone of anything.  If
you like Bush's recent work, great.  I'm happy for you.  I've just
been seeing so many postings about people feeling sorry for those
of us who don't like TSW that I thought I'd post why it didn't work
for me.  Are you criticising me for disliking it for the wrong
reasons?  

[more stuff deleted]

>"This Woman's Work" is
>superbly effective, despite (or maybe because of) the sparse arrangement.

Exactly what I'm talking about.  "This Woman's Work" can stand on it's 
own without alot of fluff to prop it up.  Remember that this song was 
not written for an album.  It was written for a film, and Bush wrote a 
simple, direct *emotional* song based on the piano part.  I wish she would 
write like this more often.

>>When writing on a piano or guitar, a song has to stand up on its
>>own merit.  When you take that song and then bring it to the
>>studio, then new dimensions can be added to it.  However, when
>>you start writing a song with all the studio effects and
>>gadgets, a fundimentally weak composition can be sonically
>>pleasing... but leaves you unsatisfied.  

>I don't see any correlation between the songs I like and the relative ease
>which they may be turned into simple voice-and-piano tracks.  Besides, I'm
>not one of these "you've got to be able to hum the tune" purists.  If Kate
>just sang scat noises over a Muslimgauze track I'm sure it would be totally
>orgasmic.  (Muslimgauze is all percussion)

I think you have gotten my idea backwards.  I'm not talking about stripping
the production off of a song to judge it's merit, I'm talking about if
the song has merit before you add the production on.  Remember, Bush's
earlier work was usually written before she entered the studio.  Now
she composes in the studio.  Very different process, and I think the
reason I don't relate to her recent work.

Take "Flight of the Swallow", for instance (or any song from The Dreaming).
This is a complete song, and doesn't depend on the context of the album 
for it's strength.  The song's arrangement builds and expands upon
the song, and makes it greater than it was, but it could have worked
without it.  "The Sensual World" would fall flat without it.

>>There's been lots of discussion about whether this represents
>>a "maturing" process for Bush.  I think rather it represents what
>>happens when a very talented songwriter gets so caught up in
>>the new music technology that she loses track of her fundimental
>>talents as a songwriter.

>But you're absolutely wrong about this!  
[A description of specific equipment deleted]

Forgive me.  I didn't mean "the absolute cutting edge" of the new
technology, I meant using samplers, synths, effects and arrangements as 
songwriting tools instead of production tools.  The point (again) being, 
that she is worried about a song's presentation before concentrating on
it's essence.

I don't know how I can make my point any clearer... instrument and
studio technology are no substitute for good songwriting.

>>Of course I expect an artist change
>>as she progresses through her career.  I welcome that change,
>>but I feel that Bush's fascination with studio tricks has become
>>less of a tool and more of a crutch.  Less emphasis on songs
>>and more on production.  To me it shows that Bush has progressed
>>as a producer, but regressed as a songwriter.

>I wish she'd put MORE emphasis on production, specifically: not relying on
>preset sounds and getting some more attention to sound quality.  I think the
>songs *are* weaker, in general, on TSW, as well.  So clearly work is needed
>in both areas.  But if you took the TSW tracks and redid them with good
>arrangements and engineering, you'd have an amazingly great record instead
>of just a pretty good one.

Are you saying that if you took any average joe songwriter into
a studio and gave him a top notch producer that he could create a
great album?  No! There are hundreds of examples of well produced
trash that contradict you.  It takes outstanding songs to make an
outstanding album, regardless of how the album is produced.

I think that you are of the school that thinks if you take any piece
of music, be it Gregorian chant or nursery rhyme, wrap it up with 
enough whiz-bang technology and effects, that you'll create a better
song than you had before.  Nonsense.  A song has to stand up on it's
own merit first.  Then you can enhance it with studio technology.  
Like any process:  put crap in, you get crap out.  Sugar coat it and
it's still crap.

>>There seems to be lots of attention paid to the literary and
>>film references Bush makes in her songs.  While much of this is
>>interesting, I think Bush has been overreaching a bit in this
>>area recently.  While I enjoy lyrics that challenge me, I get
>>frustrated by obscure references that seem to be left as Easter
>>eggs for die-hard fans to ponder.

>This one I completely disagree with.  Admittedly, I never listened to HoL
>much until I started reading love-hounds and hearing that the songs were
>actually ABOUT things, but one can live and learn...  The obscure references
>are occasionally painful, but if you read love-hounds you can figure them
>out with a minimum of fuss.  The thing that first stunned me about
>Kate was, in fact, the level of detail in the lyrics and how EVERYTHING
>meant something.  My favorite example of this is the glow in the dark yoyo
>on Cloudbusting.  "What made it special made it dangerous."  Now this means
>nothing unless you know about Peter Reich and the supposedly toxic paint
>they used to make those yoyos glow, but once you know, it makes the song
>resonate in an amazing way.

It's like going to a party where you don't know anyone.  The private
jokes have no meaning to you.  Does Bush really expect us to go out
and read a book just so we can appreciate her song?  I don't expect
to pick up every reference, but when a whole song is based on one
specific piece of generally unknown fiction, I don't buy it.  A
reference to "Wuthering Heights" will be more generally recognized.
I don't have to know specifics to enjoy "There Goes A Tenner". 

>>What this all boils down to for me, is a wish that Bush would lose
>>all the electronic gadgets, lock the door to the library, and
>>just write from the heart again.

>Please, god, NO!  I can't think of a more surefire route to total boredom.
>If this sort of brainless emotionalism turns you on, listen to Happy Rhodes,
>but leave the rest of us poor love-hounds alone with our film and literary
>references.  If only people would stop "writing from the heart"... oh, what
>a great world it would be!

Do you really believe emotion = brainless?  Jon, I think you've missed my
point.  Bush's great strength is her ability to tantalize sexually, stimulate 
intellectually, and touch emotionally.  I feel that she has substituted
studio wizardry for passion in her last two albums, and I miss the
passion and honesty of her earlier work.

-- 
>Jon Drukman (love pantry)                      uunet!sco!jondr   jondr@sco.com
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Always note the sequencer - this will never let us down.
 ^
 |
This explains alot.

Remember a few years when MIDI was introduced?  People claimed that now
anyone could make a hit record.  It hasn't happened.  Technology doesn't
produce great music.  Great composers produce great music.  Modern
composers may take advantage of the new technology to explore areas
that were not availible in years past, but they still need to rely on
their talent, not the tools.  Kate Bush has the talent, but I believe
that it's taken a back seat to the technology in her last two albums.  I
eagerly await a return to form.

-Jonathan
whitcomb%aurgate@mcnc.org