Batting Practice

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

>gatech!chinet.chi.il.us!katefans@eddie (Chris n Vickie) writes:
                                                 ^^^^^^
>Jon Drukman and Jonathan Whitcomb have had me rolling on the floor with
>their highly amusing posts. Where _is_ IED anyway? Oh yes, I think he's 
>in England now actually. Too bad. He's missing some great stuff. It's
>probably better for his blood pressure that he's blissfully ignorant
>of some of the things being said.

I'm so glad someone else finds this amusing!  I was worried that it was 
becoming tiresome.
 
Folks, keep in mind that I like Kate Bush!  It is not unhealthy to
criticise people you admire!

Jon Drukman writes:

JD>Yo! whitcomb@aurxc3.UUCP (Jonathan Whitcomb) raps:

Yep, MC Whitcomb here...

JD>If I want music that anyone with a semi-functional brain can appreciate,
JD>then I can turn on the radio, or MTV or just stick my head in a lawnmower.

And you'd probably end up with a hairstyle that they'd love on MTV.  

JD>If I want something that requires a little mental effort on the part of the
JD>listener, then I'll grab Kate, or practically anything else in my CD
JD>collection (not that I don't have a large chunk of braindead music as
JD>well...)

No question that I have a different standard for Kate Bush than I have
for most musicians.  I listen to different groups and artists for
different things.  From artists like Bush, Paul Simon, XTC, Elvis
Costello, Robyn Hitchcock etc, I expect more lyrically.

JW>Waking the Witch?  Noise.  Studio effects.  Horrendous lyrics.  

JD>Uh oh, them's fighting words!  I love WTW.  Absolutely LOVE it.  What's
JD>wrong with noise and effects?  Why are they less "song-like" then
JD>drums/bass/guitar?  Is a composition less valid because it is rendered with
JD>bells and helicopters than if it is played on a violin?  Who decides what is
JD>then valid?

Nothing's wrong with it.  To me the song just sounds like Bush having fun
in the studio, and I have no problem with it as such, but that doesn't 
make it a good song.  Perhaps I wouldn't have been so critical if I hadn't 
been breathlessly waiting for the album for 3+ years.  And frankly, there
are many, many artists who have done far more interesting things with noise 
than Bush.  I commend her for experimenting (how else do artists progress?),
but it didn't work for me.  I know many people disagree.

JD>I disagree.  I think that's about as far as we can take this discussion.

But it was fun while it lasted, don't you think?

JD>You can dislike TSW for whatever reasons make you happy.
JD>On the other hand, if you're going to bad-mouth TNW you might as well have
JD>some supportable arguments.

If you don't agree with why I don't like it that means I should like it?
Music is mighty personal (and the response to my comments attests to 
this!), and it's just as valid to write a 50 page dissertation on the
pros and cons of a piece as it is to fold your arms across your chest,
puff out your lower lip and say "I just don't like it."  I've tried
to give my reasons, but not because I feel obligated to support them to 
you or anyone else.  But this topic is getting stale.

[skipping ahead a bit] 

[whee!]

JD>In TSW, the melody
JD>isn't in the lead vocal, it's in the arrangement.  So, you could conceivably
JD>play it all in a simple two-hand piano arrangement and get some of the
JD>impact, but what's the point?  These aren't songs that are written to be
JD>easily transposable to other interpretations - they are written to be
JD>complete sonic experiences.  You can't separate out pieces and say, "this is
JD>the SONG and this is the PRODUCTION."  The whole thing is a complete unit
JD>and it has to stand or fall on its own.

JD>So what is the ESSENCE of a song?  Is your point that songs written out on
JD>paper after being composed at the piano are intrinsically better because of
JD>some weird Whitcomb-specific criterion that other people can't understand?
JD>I strongly dispute this claim (if indeed you are making it) because TD and
JD>most of HoL, not to mention practically every record I own, are
JD>counter-examples.

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

JD>Instrument and studio technology are part and parcel of good songwriting.

This is a far more interesting topic for discussion than why we either
like or don't like a specific piece of music.  Obviously you and I
take close to opposite approaches about the importance of the production
process in the creation of a song.

It is difficult to make broad and sweeping statements about what is
fundimentally more important, because I'm sure both of us could bore
the other readers to tears with specific examples to prove our points.
Some artists have built careers around their studio prowess.  Bush,
however, built hers around her strong songwriting and performing
skills.  More recently, she has been branching into new areas.  I
felt that her initial attempts with a broader sonic pallet were very
successful.  She seemed to have a good handle on her songwriting
skills and the new sounds that she was discovering (and yes, I know
she didn't really discover the Fairlight sounds, but they were new to 
Bush).  Then, starting on HoL, and continuing on TSW, more and more
emphasis was placed on the sonic context of the song, and less on the
composition itself (and yes, I do make the distinction).

Am I saying that this is not a valid way to write?  No.  Many artists
have taken this route with brilliant results.  I just don't feel that
this has been entirely successful for Bush.

I think I can summarise my thoughts this way:

A good composition that is well arranged and produced yields an excellent 
record.

An average composition that is well produced and arranged may work well 
on occasion, but depends on the skill of the producer to make it work.  
I find these to be lesser works.

Bush's earlier compositions fall into the first category, while her
later ones often fall into the second.  I believe that the reason
that some of Bush's more recent songs aren't as strong is due to her 
reliance on the studio to flesh out weaker compositions.

JD>Obviously you can dress up crap in expensive production and
JD>you'll have expensive crap.  However, I am not so snobbish as to think that
JD>a well used production trick can't enhance an already great song.  We have
JD>this discussion on the XTC mailing list at least once a year concerning this
JD>little repeat echo on one word of a certain track.  One camp feels that this
JD>is a totally gratuitous piece of trickery that does nothing.  The other camp
JD>feels that it just puts the right punch at the right place and is thus
JD>totally orgasmic.  Obviously I belong to the latter camp.  The airplane
JD>screaming across the stereo field on Pull Out The Pin is very obvious, but
JD>highly effective.  Would it be just as good a song without it?  I don't
JD>think so.

We seem to be in basic agreement on this point (will wonders never cease)!
I do like the extra touches, but feel a strong composition doesn't 
require them.

JW>A song has to stand up on it's
JW>own merit first.  Then you can enhance it with studio technology.  
JW>Like any process:  put crap in, you get crap out.  Sugar coat it and
JW>it's still crap.

JD>Let's take this food metaphor to ridiculous extremes, shall we?  

Um, I thought it was a crap metaphor, but please proceed...

JD>OK, first
JD>we've got something like the piano demo of Babooshka which is bread and
JD>butter - filling, vaguely nutritious and somewhat appetizing.  Turn it into
JD>a real song and you've got a BLT (or a wheatgrass, avocado and creamcheese
JD>sandwich for you Californians).  Now, TD and HoL are Full Seven Course Meals
JD>with soup and nuts.  On the other hand, every once in a while you've just
JD>got to grab a nice candy bar, which is all sugar and no nutrition.  Scritti
JD>Politti records are the aural equivalent of candy bars and I must say that I
JD>would never part with my Scritti Politti CDs.  The point is that there's a
JD>place for everything.  I would not like to live on a diet of bread and water
JD>for the rest of my life.

Bravo!  Very funny!

JD>I've never read Wuthering Heights, and I still like the song.  I've never
JD>read A Book Of Dreams and I still like Cloudbusting.  I'm working on
JD>re-reading all of Ulysses now (only read part of it in college) but I still
JD>like TSW.  What are you trying to prove?  Yes, There Goes A Tenner succeeds
JD>on its own, but isn't it so much more resonant when you find out what
JD>Strangeways is?  Or see some Monty Python episodes where the bobbies bust in
JD>and shout "what's all this then"?  Or know who Edward G. Robinson is?  What
JD>if you're an American and you don't know what a solicitor is?

I've been failing miserably trying to explain my point here (probably my
own fault).  Here goes:

1.  Literary references in pop music are great.

2.  Sometimes part of a song's charm is in not being able to figure 
    everything out the first few listens.

3.  Sometimes artists begin to get tedious by dropping names and
    references all the time (Lloyd Cole is a prime example).

4.  It is my hope that all the attention that Kate Bush's fans have
    given to her references doesn't pressure her into the mistake of
    point 3.

5.  Spam is good with anything.

Sorry, I wanted to keep up the food metaphor.

JD>Always note the sequencer - this will never let us down.
JW> ^
JW> |
JW>This explains alot.

JD>Have you got the slightest clue where I took that line from?  I didn't think
JD>so.  Now drop it.

Eek!  Seems I touched a nerve!  Of course, you seem to be arguing that I
can't appreciate your quote without knowing the reference (which seems to
contradict your earlier arguments).  Would you care to enlighten me with 
an explanation?

JD>So, you're saying that whistling Beethoven's Ode To Joy is just as good as
JD>hearing it performed by a full orchestra and choir.  It's great music by a
JD>great composer, after all.  All this "it just has to be well written" cant
JD>makes me want to go shoot someone.  It's like showing a pencil sketch of the
JD>mona lisa and saying you don't need the full painted version, because all
JD>the important stuff is here.  Choice of sounds, arragement, etc is totally
JD>crucial to a song.

It depends on the song, really.  And let's keep this in perspective here, 
we're talking pop music here, not fine art.  Many great pop songs
have been covered using very different arrangements from the original,
and yet the songs have stood up to the different styles.  Many pop
artists like to take out their older compositions and totally revamp
them for their tours (Elvis Costello, Joe Jackson, Paul Simon), and
the songs worked very well, but because they were great songs, not
because of any production!  Why has MTV Unplugged become so popular?
People are refreshed to hear the songs in a new setting, without all
the electronic claptrap.

JD>You can't have a good song without good production.

'fraid I don't agree with that one, amigo.  A good song can stand
up on it's own under any number of interpretations, or even just
hummed in the shower.

-Jonathan
whitcomb%aurgate@mcnc.org