Gaffaweb > Love & Anger > 1993-34 > [ Date Index | Thread Index ]
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]


Re: Kate is God

From: pwh@bradley.bradley.edu (Pete Hartman)
Date: 14 Sep 1993 17:07:33 -0500
Subject: Re: Kate is God
To: rec-music-gaffa@uunet.UU.NET
Distribution: usa
Newsgroups: rec.music.gaffa
Organization: Bradley University
References: <MAS.93Sep14103925@csa.bu.edu> <9309141702.AA03546@dlsun87.us.oracle.com> <1993Sep14.182326.14947@galileo.cc.rochester.edu>

In <1993Sep14.182326.14947@galileo.cc.rochester.edu> as010b@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Tree of Schnopia) writes:
>In <9309141702.AA03546@dlsun87.us.oracle.com> jdrukman%dlsun87@us.oracle.com (Jon Drukman) writes:
>>>Get ready for a surprise:  Kate isn't known for doing the expected.
>>absolutely.  so why the hell do these records sound like cookie-cutter
>>pop that anybody with a few hours to kill could've churned out?  (BSL
>>excepted, of course)
>Well, not just *anybody*.  Can you see Mariah Carey producing these singles? 
>Whitney Houston?  Even Natalie Merchant?

Actually, no.  I see all of them spending a lot more time to keep them
from sounding like casio auto-acompaniment.

Ok, so that's more harsh than is really justified, but it's the root
of my problem with ETM, that's for sure.  It sounds plastic.  The only
emotion that's really there is Kate's voice, certainly wonderful, but
not enough to override the bad points.  At least in the long version
there's a build up, so you can appreciate the seperate parts a little
better.

>>I wish those were the reactions to these new songs.  Unfortunately,
>>it's more like "god, this sounds like normal pop music!  whatever
>>happened to the weird freaky chick who sang Wuthering Heights?
>>where's the innovation?  the invention?  the INTELLIGENCE?"
>It's being poured into dabbling, not groundbreaking.  So what?  Enjoy it;
>you can't change it.

You can ignore it.  You can lament the loss of groundbreaking.

>>>If you don't like Her music, don't listen to it.  I can but only be
>>>sorry for you.
>>save your pity for happy rhodes fans.
>Now this was quite uncalled for.  This may be an act of masochism, but, so
>that we don't waste bandwidth on gaffa, could you e-mail me a reiteration of
>your beef with Happy?  On why, for example, you consider Bjork (whose album,
>I will admit, is wonderful, but Ecto still beats it hands down) superior to
>her?
>Because my pity goes out to Happy Rhodes detractors.

Uh oh.  Heh.
-- 
Pete Hartman		       Bradley University	pwh@bradley.bradley.edu
        There are always connections; you have only to want to find them