Gaffaweb > Love & Anger > 1994-12 > [ Date Index | Thread Index ]
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]


Re: What does it matter?

From: wagreiner@ucdavis.edu ()
Date: Thu, 28 Apr 1994 19:31:10 GMT
Subject: Re: What does it matter?
Newsgroups: rec.music.gaffa
Organization: University of California, Davis
References: <CMM-RU.1.4.767523271.vickie@pilot.njin.net> <CoyzDI.uI@newcastle.ac.uk>
Sender: usenet@rocky.ucdavis.edu (News Guru)

In article <CoyzDI.uI@newcastle.ac.uk> P.R.Houghton@newcastle.ac.uk (P.R. Houghton) writes:
>
>In article <CMM-RU.1.4.767523271.vickie@pilot.njin.net>, vickie@pilot.njin.net (WretchAwry) writes:
>> Why say *anything* about Kate's looks in the FAQ? There's no need to
>> say "yes, she's a fox" or "yes, she is beautiful" or anything else.
>> Those with eyes can see. It's as silly as saying "yes, she is a woman"
>> or even "yes, she has two arms and two legs" because it's irrelevant
>> to her *MUSIC*.
>> 
>> Vickie
>> 
>It may be for you, but for most male Kate fans, I shouldn't think it is.  Kate's
>music relies very heavily on her sexuality, as does our appreciation of it. 
>Divorcing Kate from her physical and spiritual attractiveness is like saying the
>fact that Michaelangelo's David is naked has nothing to do with its quality.  It
>is completely impossible.

Well, just my ever-so-humble opinion, but I must agree with Vickie on this
one.  I can't speak for all male fans of Kate, but I think there are many
of us for whom her attractiveness (physical) does not significantly contribute
to our appreciation of her work.  My first Kate experience was buying    
_The Dreaming_ on a friends recomendation back in '83 and although, sure,
the face on the cover is certainly lovely, I can't say that I would have
gone out and bought any more Bush recordings if I hadn't enjoyed the music
inside of the cover so much.  Maybe her music does rely, at least in part,
on a sexuality (I would have said "sensuality" instead as I don't find all
of her works to be sex-related) but it is the sensuality of the *music* not
her body.  The analogy to David is inapposite since David *is* the work
itself.  Do we really care whether or not Michaelangelo had as well formed
a bod as David?  I don't.  And Kate is really not a performing artist.  She
is a recording artist and popular music composer.  And although I am sure 
I am in the minority on this one in this group, judging from the released
vidio from her only tour I, for one, think she should stick to recordings.
She didn't really seem to add anything musically in her live performance
and (for me) all the silly costume changes and attempts at dancing, etc.
kinda damaged the material.

Wade