Re: Tori--What do you really think?

[pwh@bradley.bradley.edu (Pete Hartman)]

In <9212100522.AA02152@syrinx.umd.edu> jeffy@syrinx.umd.edu writes:
>I think that _Little Earthquakes_ is a far more impressive debut than
>_The Kick Inside_.

Aside from the fact that _Little Earthquakes_ is not her Debut,
I'd agree.  I think _LE_ is easily as strong as most of Kate's work.

Tori's debut was embarassing--_Y Tori Cant Read_ or some such,
a "metal-lite" album from a couple years ago.

>		But what about the age difference between the artists
>at the time of their (solo) debuts?  And what sort of music was KaTe
>producing by the time she was Tori's age-o'-debut?  _Never For Ever_?
>_The Dreaming_?  (how old *is* Tori, anyway?).

29, according to the recent Spin.

>						Does this mean that in the
>span of 5 years time Tori will be releasing albums that make TD seem
>boring and lackluster?  I sort of doubt it.  I'd love to be proven wrong.

I don't think age can be used as any real basis of comparison.  But
if you like, my own personal opinion of Kate's recent output (since
reaching her 30's) is that it is nowhere near as good as her peak was
(which was well before she reached 29).  If Tori is peaking now at
29, I don't think that any age comparisons are fair--she took longer,
but then I think Kate has possibly burned out (we'll see if her next
album makes me a liar, but it sure seems that TWS was a big step
down from Hounds... and The Dreaming to me).

>KaTe's level.  Or maybe I won't.  But hey, Happy's only 27, she's got a
>few years to catch up.

What were you just saying about Tori?  Why is it that Happy can catch
up, but you seem to imply that Tori can't?

>There's an interesting phenomena that relates to modern music that wasn't
>nearly as much of an issue with most of what we refer to as classical music.
>This is the fact that modern music, like visual art, was often created without
>meaning to be reproduced after the fact.  The artist can spend as much
>time as necessary (assuming that they, like KaTe have full artistic control)
>getting the music recorded precisely the way they want.  There's no need to
>worry about how someone else might portray your idea.  I think there's
>a tendency to say something like "Tori's arrangements sound good on record,
>but the underlying songs are just as good, and this shows through when
>she performs with nothing but a piano.  Kate Bush, on the other hand,
>relies too much on the sounds and effects that she adds in the studio.  Much
>of her music would not translate well to the stage."  To me, this is
>irrelevant.  Kate Bush does not write music to be performed on the
>stage.  She creates sonic tapestries which she then allows the public to
>hear--as is.  

Which is more likely to withstand the test of time:

something that other people can reproduce

or

something that has to be kept safe to be reproduced in its original form

?


Note that I say *nothing* of the MERIT of either of these, but simply that
I think that reproduceable art has greater longevity simply because it can
be reproduced without having to have an original recording.
-- 
Pete Hartman		       Bradley University	pwh@bradley.bradley.edu
             "See you guys ar--see you.  Er.  Great.  Fine.  Ciao."
     As the Bently skidded off into the darkness Ligur said, "Wossat mean?"
            "It's Italian," said Hastur.  "I think it means 'food'."