Kate's "responsibility"

[IEDSRI@aol.com]

ron writes the following:

 > Studio trickery, retake upon retake.  Everything is calculated and thought
out.  

This smacks a little of philistinism.  It's a mistake to equate, a priori,
the act of studio production with an abdication of emotional involvement or
expression.  Certainly studio polish can sometimes -- even often -- inhibit
spontaneity.  It's also true, however, that spontaneity can -- and often
does, particularly in contemporary performance -- become a liability to
quality; in other words, live performance is very often the worse for its
spontaneity.  The value of spontaneity is not guaranteed in art -- it must be
tempered by, informed by, enhanced by an equal measure of judicious,
intelligent contrivance -- what used to be called "art".  The obvious point
is that  generalizations like the one above are useless.
     Anyway, it all depends on who's doing the studio/live work in the first
place.  Kate Bush doesn't use the studio as many others do:  she does not use
it simply to polish and tidy up a rough-hewn recorded performance.  The
studio itself is the medium with which she makes her art.  Kate Bush uses the
studio as her instrument, and she plays that instrument with vastly more
eloquence -- and emotional expressivity --  than *anyone* uses the stage (not
to mention the studio).  So the standards one might apply to the ordinary
artist simply are not appropriate for Kate Bush.  Suggesting that production
is not a good thing in the art of Kate Bush is like saying paint was an
inhibitor in the creation of the Sistine ceiling.

 > Only through live performances can we see the pure emotion that is
 > projected by the musicians and the music itself. 

This is just not true.  "Pure emotion" is projected by Beethoven in the
scores, not merely in  performance.  If it didn't exist in the original, it
could not be resuscited in performance.  What matters is the talent with
which the expression is made -- not the venue or the medium.  And however
spontaneous a score of Beethoven may sound in performance, it was not the
product of purely "spontaneous" creation, but was wrought over a reasonably
long period of time -- certainly long enough to permit extensive revision and
polishing up, sometimes well after the moment of "original" inspiration had
passed.  The intellect has as great a role in the creative process as have
the emotions:  in the great work of art each serves and is served by the
other.    

 >  ...the Dead have built their career on live performances as
 > opposed to recorded material.  Everynight they came on stage was a
 > new experience. 

A case in point:  what might have been a good thing for the Grateful Dead is
not by any stretch of the imagination bound to be a good thing for Kate Bush.
 In this fan's opinion it is one of Kate Bush's greatest virtues that she
will *not* go out on the road endlessly "jamming" on her songs, that she will
*not* put out an album every six months to a year, but that she will continue
to work at her own frustratingly slow pace.  It is a virtue because that is
the only way the art of *Kate Bush* can be created.  

 > This is an area where tori is about a light year ahead of Kate. Tori
 > tours to give back to the audience what the audience is giving to her.
 > If in doubt, watch the Little Earthquake video.  Tori, explains this
 > process herself. . . 

 > Kate as an artist is considered to be rather lazy and reclusive.  It's
 > alright to be that way...but once in a while, the artist must reach out to
 > her fans and give back all the love that is projected towards her.   

Must she?  Without getting into this "Tori" business again, it can still be
pointed out that an artist is under no obligation to "give back" anything.
 Kate Bush is paid what people feel she is worth.  She produces what art she
is able or willing to produce, and apparently she is satisfied with the
response and remuneration that her art earns her.  It is simply not true that
an artist "owes" her public live performances to pay them back for their
love.  If the love were real, it would neither expect nor demand repayment
from its recipient.  As for the accusation of laziness -- it ignores the far
more important issue of quality.  If Kate Bush were forced to produce and
perform to the nauseating extent that some fans would demand of her if they
could, how likely is it that the result would still be of the quality that we
have been fortunate enough to receive to date?  It may be well and good to
have a thousand Grateful Dead concerts on tape, and for all IED knows each of
these might possess some measure of greatness.  IED has only the seven albums
of Kate Bush instead -- should he really be worrying that he didn't get the
better deal?

 > Over the years, Kate has lost some of fan support.  Maybe it's because
 > we don't see her more often than we do. We're about to celebrate the
 > 3rd anniversary of The Red Shoes.  It was reported that she had no plans
to 
 > do anything in 1997 .... other than perhaps doodle on her piano,
composing.   
 > We won't see any significant Kate Bush release until 1998.... The waits
are getting
 > longer and longer.  Kate is slowly sinking into oblivion...perhaps by her
own doing.

Very likely by her own doing, and if so, so be it. (We don't really know yet,
by the way, that the waits are still getting longer and longer, but in any
case they are long.)  IED finds the vaguely contemptuous reference to Kate's
"doodling at the piano, composing" fascinating:  the implication --
consistent with the other remarks in ron's posting -- is that Kate Bush
should spend less time than she does composing her music and more time "just
performing".  And again, the answer from this quadrant is:  Thank God she
does spend the time it takes -- however much time that might be.  For one
thing is certain:  that's how long it takes to make the music of *Kate Bush*!

-- Andrew Marvick (IED)
   She     Really    Is