Re: You called, Ken?

[brownfld@rcnext.cso.uiuc.edu (Kenneth R Brownfield)]

vickie@pilot.njin.net (WretchAwry) writes:
>Vickie here.
>I'm not going to get deeply involved in this thread (which I find 
>pretty amusing) but my name was conjured up and so here I am.
>K R Brownfield (Hi Ken!) writes:

     Howdy!

>> What comes immediately to my mind is that female vocalists seem to
>> be much more popular than male vocalists. 

>In which alternate universe? (Besides gaffa & Ecto, I mean)

     In the entire world, I'm sure the male/female distribution is much
more equal.  But when you're in the realm of Kate and Tori (including artists
that could be considered in the same genre) ... the genre itself is
nearly defined by the sex of the singer.  What bands with male vocalists
would we put in the same genre with Kate, Tori, Jane, etc.?  Peter Gabriel
is as close as it gets, and that's pretty far, IMHO.
     I'm also not an in-depth reader of critiques.  They're pretty worthless
on the average.  In my limited experience, I have not noticed a sex
imbalance.  If there is indeed an imbalance, my point of "so what" still
stands.  I do hope that sexism has not become a default.

>> Especially in Europe, where the female vocalist & "etherial" guitar 
>> bands are getting a lot of talk.

>I'm curious, does this "talk" you speak of translate into solid sales
>and *equal* airplay on the radio?

     No, nor was it intended to.  It's the "hot, new" item.  It's getting
a lot of airplay and talk, equal to and by now probably greater than other
offerings in the alternative music scene.  Now, whether this major focus
outdoes all other music that can be found in Europe is not relevant to my
argument.  Unless popular female artists in the US are all being compared to
Janet Jackson or some such nonsense.  Comparisons define a genre.  Maybe
someone can explain why a genre is limiting (and there are some ways, like
an actor always playing the bad guy) but sexist, or "male chauvinist?"  Feh.

>> If I say that Happy Rhodes' upper range is a near-dead-ringer
>> for Kate's, is that an insult because I can't think of a single
>> bloody singer that's similar to Black Francis? 

>No, of course not. Then again, Happy's upper range *is* a near-dead-
>ringer for Kate's, so this example isn't a good one.

     In other words, what you're saying is that if Singer A is compared to
Kate, and it's not a really accurate comparison (in who's mind?) then it
_is_ insulting?  There's so much opinion in making comparisons that it can't
be seriously considered as an insult, can it?  Opinions are these harmless
little things that can only be harmful if there are contradictory facts.
Which there aren't, in this case.

[...]
>> ...Kate/Tori comparison. They are similar in some ways, different in
>> many others.  In explaining the style of Tori, how could the mention of
>> Kate Bush, an admitted major influence on Tori's style, be insulting?
>Who "admitted" that Kate's a major influence on Tori's style? Not Tori.
>She likes Kate, but hasn't really been influenced all that much by her.

     If Tori listened to Kate, she was influenced by her.  I think every
musician is always influenced in one way or another by any music they hear.
It could be "avoid that music at all cost" or "gosh, I really like that
stuff."  Either way, it will have an effect, miniscule or major.
     I hear it in Tori's music.  Nothing dumb-striking, but I am immediately
reminded of Kate's early work.  Some of Tori's music doesn't evoke this
comparison.  But it is a comparison, and it's my kindof-educated opinion
that it's similar to Kate.  Insulting Tori hasn't entered the equation yet,
which is what confuses me.  Kate isn't equal to Tori, but then again that's
not what I would say in the first place.

>> Besides the fact that the comparison is helpful for an explanation, 
>> the similarity is quite obvious.

>Very obvious. They're both 4I. (Intelligent, Interesting, Innovative
>and Independent). 

     I am unfamiliar with her intelligence, how interesting she is, how
innovative she is, or how independent she is.  This applies to both Tori
and Kate.  I would roughly agree that their music is "4I", but I refuse to
confuse that with the flesh and blood.

>> Tori is similar to Kate.  This gives me a bloody ROUGH idea of how she
>> sings.  And owning her album, I'll say that anyone who denies the 
>> hints and breezes of similarity is deluding themselves and ignoring 
>> Tori's art.

>No Ken, I hear no hints and breezes of similarity between Tori's music 
>and Kate's music, except that I love the music of both artists.

     None at all?  Zero?  No sense of influence?  Tori's musical style
was created with an entire lack of outside influence?  Feh.
     In one small way, your statement is true.  God only knows if Tori was
effected by Kate's music.  I feel very strongly that there was influence, and
I'm willing to make the comparison.  My opinion of similarity (and the
opinion of "journalists") has no limiting or insulting properties.  If
the reader wishes this comparison to be limiting or insulting, it is
entirely their responsibility to do so.  Readers can take "Hello" to be some
sort of insult, given a high enough dose of neurosis.

>I hear no hints and breezes of similarity between Tori's voice and Kate's
>voice, except that I love the voices of both artists.
>I hear no hints and breezes of similarity between Tori's lyrics and Kate's
>lyrics, except that I find them all interesting.

     Well, that's true.  But we aren't talking about voices, lyrics, and
chord progressions in detail, in separate.  We're talking "overall."  At
least that's what I'm assuming we're all talking about.  In general.
Similarities, taken by itself, is a word that does not specify what is or
is not similar.  General similarity.  "If you like Kate, you should give
Tori a try."  If, in the last few years of my life, I interpreted
statements like those as limiting or insulting, I would have but half of
my current music library, and not only in relation to Kate, by far. 
     Regardless of what similarities I agree with or disagree with,
comparisons are a form of review, description, and explanation.  Genre-
fitting.  Labelling can be very limiting (conservative, republican,
liberal,) but drawing similarites between Singer A and Singers B, C, and D
does not in any way create a label.  Now, saying Tori is a, oh let's see,
what would be good flame-fodder... saying Tori is an "immature Kate Bush",
or a "timid Kate Bush", or an "<insert adjective here> Kate Bush" would
be _more_ limiting.  You're putting some kind of "=" sign between two
names.  This can be limiting if the reader finds the writer's opinion to
be incorrect and thus misrepresenting an artist (a certain form of an insult,
I guess,) but IN AND ONLY IN THE OPINION OF THE _READER_.
     So I can't argue against the possible fact that you are insulted by
comparisons to Tori and Kate.  That's your prerogative.  But saying that
the person who made the comparison is being a pecker is rediculous.

     What seems to have slipped under the rug is that people's opinions are
their opinions.  Disagreeing with said opinions does not make the opinions
evil.  Comparing Tori's voice to a Yugo running on three cylinders would
be an insult to a Tori-lover.  But if the comparer finds this to be the case,
it's their opinion, not an everlasting stain on Tori.  It's every person's
right not to like Tori or Happy, or OH MY GOD, EVEN KATE!!!! *gasp*  Not
liking an artist, and criticizing their music is an expression of opinion.
"The music is bland" is a far cry from "Tori eats living gerbils."
     If the person's goal is to insult Singer A, not to compare or contrast
between another singer or other singers, then my argument does not apply.

>I love Kate, and I love Tori.
>I'm not deluding myself and I'm not ignoring Tori's art.

     Are you giving the same respect to peoples' honest opinions?
     Please keep in mind that the force of my argument was really pressed over
the edge, if you will, by flatulent burblings of sexism and male chauvinist-
pig-dominated societies, et.al.  They exist, but Gods, not in situations that
are utterly and obviously devoid of their influence.

>Vickie
>-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
>Vickie Mapes          "Fight for your right   "My ears are lucky to hear
>vickie@pilot.njin.net   to have a monster" TA   these glorious songs" HR
>                               _________
>"Imagination sets in, then    |_  _ | _   The Happy Rhodes mailing list
>  all the voices begin" KB    |__|_ ||_|  ecto-request@ns1.rutgers.edu
>-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
>    Searching for Happy Rhodes reviews, articles, interviews, mentions
>-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

--
                                                        Ken.
(217) 352-5679                                   brownfld@uiuc.edu