Re: Love-Hounds digest V12 #379

[Robb McCaffree <nsrjm@nursepo.medctr.ucla.edu>]

Brian J. Dillard wrote:

> Just as Kate has refreshed and enriched her sound over the 
>years by turning
>to a variety of musical styles and influences, she could (and 
>SHOULD, IMHO)
>turn to the myriad sounds of modern urban music for further 
>inspiration.
>what's the difference between collaborating with the Trio 
>Bulgarka and
>collaborating with a techno-wizard, except that DJs scare the 
>hell out of
>people who don't understand them.
>

The difference is that the Trio and other world 'instruments' 
are what Kate wishes to investigate -- and her foray into world 
music is what wins her her rave reviews. There are literally 
thousands of techno bands out there (well, maybe fewer now that 
we're deep into the 90s). Why should Kate veer away from that 
which makes her music so distinct into an area that (a) many 
consider vapid, and (b) is already so saturated?

There is something very 'real' and 'solid' about acoustic 
instruments. Kate's use of synthesizers (which, IMHO, should be 
completely replaced by real live, flawed and spontaneous 
human-type people) is always tempered by 'real' instrumentation. 
I think TRS is but a guilty pleasure for me. I listen to it for 
its hooks and melodies...but I'll always list HoL and TD as my 
favorite albums because the synthesizers and slick, 'fake' 
instruments are so much more apparent on TRS.
 
> Ron's argument rests on a number of flawed assumptions:
> 
> 1)that dance music sucks
> 2)that live instrumentation (the original celtic flavor of TRS) is somehow
> superior to electronic (those drum machines . . . .)
> 3)that remixing--the belief that songs can survive and even thrive in a
> number of incarnations--is always solely commercially driven.

These aren't assumptions, nor are they flawed. Ron simply posted 
his opinion, as you did (and I did), and they differ.


Robb