Drukman v. Whitcomb, Round 3

[Dances With Voles <jondr@sco.COM>]

Yo! whitcomb@aurxc3.UUCP (Jonathan Whitcomb) raps:
>Folks, keep in mind that I like Kate Bush!  It is not unhealthy to
>criticise people you admire!

I'm with you, but there is a serious force of torch-wielding superstitious
katefans just ready to toast us for daring to use our brains.  Watch
yourself.

>I commend her for experimenting (how else do artists progress?),
>but it didn't work for me.  I know many people disagree.

OK, fine.  This I can deal with.

>If you don't agree with why I don't like it that means I should like it?

Erm... yeah.  Unless you can come up with a good reason that I should agree
with you.  I guess, "it just doesn't push my buttons" is valid but with
something that is so universally revered as The Ninth Wave, I have to
question your logic.  Can you blame me?  It's like claiming that "Citizen
Kane" is an overly ostentatious and confusing piece of film.

>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.

It's just that when you come out with such an amazing minority opinion,
people want to know why you feel that way.  But if you don't want to talk
about it, that's OK.

>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.

That is becoming clear.

>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.

Maybe the points at which we discovered Kate have something to do with it.
I hadn't heard of her until Hounds Of Love, and that was the first LP I
bought by her.  So, I was plunged headfirst into the "more experimental"
Kate.  You, on the other hand, appear to have started out liking her during
the earlier, simpler phase.  Perhaps what attracted us to her are two
remarkably different facets of her work.  Wild...

>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).

Actually, most of the sounds she used on TD/HoL *were* original.  That's why
I liked her so much.  No more of those damn Fairlight sample library
sounds.  Someone's actually PROGRAMMING the thing!  (Of course, Stewart
Copeland has produced two absolutely phenomenal records using just the stock
sounds, but I digress...)  I could even excuse the orchestral hit in The
Dreaming because it was used slightly tastefully and the rest of the song
was so strong.  (Actually, most of my friends will tell you that I'm a
sucker for an orch. hit.)  The problem of her using ridiculous cliche sounds
has only come up since she's got her Series III.

>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).

My argument comes down to this: you just cannot make this distinction.
I see absolutely no reason why this is a meaningful, useful or valid
distinction.  I don't even think you can reliably say where the sonic
context ends and the song begins.  This is really the crux of the whole
debate, to me.

>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 that WHERE SHE'S ACTUALLY TRIED TO BE A SONIC INNOVATOR she has
succeeded admirably.  My key point is that I don't think she's *tried* on
TSW.  It's a far more pedestrian album in every sense, with only a few
moments of greatness.  It doesn't *sound* as if she was aiming for some
bizarrely innovative sonic textures and just missed the boat.  It sounds
like she was trying to do relatively simple songs with just a bit of
dressing up.  Unfortunately, the songs weren't up to it, and so the sprucing
up efforts were wasted.

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

I don't think anybody would argue with that.

>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.

It seems to me that you only appreciate sonic tricks if they help to enhance
an already good song.  They can offer nothing in terms of THEMSELVES.  So
you probably wouldn't dig an album of nothing but middle eastern percussion,
but slap some tablas on the end of Never Be Mine and you're happy...  I love
albums full of nothing but middle eastern percussion.

>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.

It's just too difficult to say that a composition doesn't REQUIRE them.  Of
course you COULD do This Woman's Work without the orchestra, but it's just
not the same.  You could argue that it might be better, but I wouldn't
agree.  (I have a feeling that you wouldn't agree either, because orchestras
are widely accepted compositional tools.  Now what if we changed "orchestra"
to "andean nose flute" or "sampled Balinese monkey dance choir")

>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.

Ah, I'm sure that everyone is in harmony on this list, BUT you seem to have
been saying that she has succumbed to point 3 already, whereas most people
(at least those that post) disagree!

["Always note the sequencer - this will never let us down.  Let it have its
wicked way."]
>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?

There is no contradiction.  My .sig quote wasn't intended to be fully
appreciable without knowing the source, unlike The Sensual World which can
be mostly appreciated without knowing Ulysses.

Incidentally, I *do* think that not providing ANY explanation for The Ninth
Wave was a fatal error.  I bought the record long before I'd heard of
love-hounds and I was totally baffled by side two.  I liked bits of it
(particularly "Waking The Witch," as fate would have it!) but it just didn't
click as a total composition until I read an interview.  Maybe in the UK her
public visibility was higher and it was easy to find out that TNW was a
concept album about a woman drowning, but over here, if you didn't read
love-hounds, you were basically sunk. (pardon the pun)

>It depends on the song, really.  And let's keep this in perspective here, 
>we're talking pop music here, not fine art.

Uh oh, I can hear the flame guns being loaded now.  So long Jonathan, nice
sparring with you.  We'll be sure to send your ashes to the appropriate next
of kin.

>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.

Yeah, but I would argue that when you cover a song, you create something
separate.  Few people would seriously compare my version of RutH to the
original, but you can still appreciate my take on it as "good clean fun" (or
"sick twisted fun" if you prefer).

>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!

There's you weird artificial production boundary problem again.  I have the
Joe Jackson double live album, and it sounds to me like "Is She Really Going
Out With Him" has gotten SERIOUS production gloss on each of the three
versions.  I think you're trying to separate "arrangement" from
"production."  The a capella version of ISRGOWH is no less "produced" than
the band version.  At least, that's how I see it.  The instrumentation might
be considered simpler, since it's all just human voice, but that's not the
sum of the production.

Again and again you say that the melody and lyrics are what's important and
that the arrangement is incidental.  If that's the case, then why does anyone
bother producing intricate music?  Is it solely to amuse jaded technophiles
like my good self?  I certainly hope not.

>Why has MTV Unplugged become so popular?

I don't know, I personally hate it.

>People are refreshed to hear the songs in a new setting, without all
>the electronic claptrap.

Or they are sickened and switch it off, except for the Paul McCartney
special which was cute but hardly musically challenging.  When Kate did
"Breathing" for the Comic Relief special it was nice, but not orgasmic the
way the album version is.  I *like* layers of synths, bass, John Carder
explaining how to tell the size of a nuclear blast, all that stuff.  I would
just want to lie down and die if everyone gave up ornamenting their songs
just because someone told them that "hey, you only need the melody and
lyrics to have a good song... all the rest is incidental."  Incidental to
YOU, buddy.  For some of us, it's crucial.

>'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.

Few would argue that the hummed in the shower version would make a good
record.  Unless you're Barney Rubble... (anybody remember THAT episode?)

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