nessus@mit-eddie.UUCP (Doug Alan) (07/09/85)
["And we'll bask in the shadow of yesterday's triumph"] > You seem to hear Bach as a set of musical games and inside jokes. You > might want to reflect on the fact that Bach invented the Western > system of musical notation, something that EVERY other musician that > came later owes to him, including Kate Bush. So? Does that make his music better? I've already clearly said that Bach is much more important than Kate Bush is historically, and will probably always be. Bach existed at a time that was ripe for a total revolution in music. Probably there will never come a time again that is so ripe, and there will never be a another chance for anyone no matter how brilliant they are to become nearly as historically important as Bach. But is music that is historically important necessarily the most interesting music to listen to today? I don't think so. If Kate Bush has incorporated all of the interesting discoveries Bach made into her music, and added many of her own, then it only seems natural for me to enjoy Kate Bush's music more. For me to find Bach's music more ... dare I say ... primitive. Ultimately, I don't care much for history -- I care a lot about music, though. > She has done nothing (yet) that remotely resembles something this > colossal, which puts her at a severe disadvantage in any comparison to > old Joe Bach. Historically, certainly! >> [Me] Doing what Kate Bush does is a lot more time consuming that what >> Bach did. There are a lot more variables to worry about. There are >> unlimited studio effect, synthesizer timbres, envelope settings, >> etc............ she can only record a small amount of the music she >> writes. > Little of this paragraph has to do with musical quality. I never said that it did. It was just a response to the claim that Kate Bush couldn't be as good as Bach because she only comes out with 40 minutes of music every three years compared to Bach who produced 90 gigatons of written music every 3 picoseconds. > As to designing record covers and video costumes, I fail to see what > that has to do with music. It's all part of being an artist, rather than just a musical artist. You don't think everyone should just limit themselves to one domain do you? > Besides comparing apples and oranges, the fact is that Bach's > contributions to the body of world music TODAY dwarf anything that > Kate Bush has done. Now in 50 or 100 years we'll be able, perhaps, to > evaluate Bush's place in history a bit better (compariing her to Bach > will still be apples to oranges, however). Until then, al this talk is > a waste of computer cycles. Yeah, especially since I don't give a hoot about history. If I were born a hundred years from now, I probably wouldn't want to listen to Kate Bush either, because by then someone else will most probably come along and incorporate Kate Bush's discoveries into something that will be more relevant to the times. But I'm living in the here and now -- and that's where Kate Bush is too. "Pile on many more layers And I'll be joining you there" Doug Alan nessus@mit-eddie.UUCP (or ARPA)
nessus@mit-eddie.UUCP (Doug Alan) (07/09/85)
["Language is a virus from outer space."] There's another little point I forgot to mention. > From: mfs@mhuxr.UUCP (SIMON) > You might want to reflect on the fact that Bach invented the Western > system of musical notation, something that EVERY other musician that > came later owes to him, including Kate Bush. You might want to reflect, also, that there are many musicians, including Kate Bush, who don't use this extremely limiting system of musical notation. "This is the time And this is the record of the time" Doug Alan nessus@mit-eddie.UUCP (or ARPA)
mfs@mhuxr.UUCP (SIMON) (07/10/85)
> > From: mfs@mhuxr.UUCP (SIMON) > > > You might want to reflect on the fact that Bach invented the Western > > system of musical notation, something that EVERY other musician that > > came later owes to him, including Kate Bush. > > You might want to reflect, also, that there are many musicians, > including Kate Bush, who don't use this extremely limiting system of > musical notation. > > Doug Alan > nessus@mit-eddie.UUCP (or ARPA) But they learned it, at least in beginnings, used it, and then went on to less restrictive (to them; an amazingly broad range of music has been notated in Bach's system or slight extensions of it) So they still walked the paths cleared by old Joe, even if they later went beyond Marcel Simon
nessus@mit-eddie.UUCP (Doug Alan) (07/11/85)
["Now there's a look in your eyes like black holes in the sky."] > From: elf@utcsri.UUCP (Eugene Fiume) Regarding Bach: > Please please please stop discussing this stuff on the net. These > comparisons are unfair, unilluminating, unintelligent and undue. I > feel almost physical pain when reading this stuff (including this > message), because it's non-constructive and pointless. I feel even > more pain when someone says Bach lacks emotional feeling. Smarten up > and get constructive (this also applies to me). Jeez, you'd think I spit on the Pope or something! Since when is Bach god? I said that I thought he was a complete and total genius, but offered some suggestions on how I think his music could have been improved. Why is this unfair, unilluminating, unintelligent, undue, and unconstructive? In my opinion, Bach's music lacks the emotional power of a lot of the music that I listen to. This isn't to say that it is totally emotionless -- I find it "pleasant", but that's not a very strong emotion, and I'd rather listen to something that hits me more deeply. Of course, you're entitled to your opinion too. If you find love, hate, pain, fear, joy, dread, frustration, satisfaction, desire, repulsion, hunger, longing, satiation, desperation, hope, etc. in Bach's music, then good for you. I don't. I do find all of these things in one particular album I like by an artist I like better than Bach, though, and to a lesser degree in albums by other artists. I'm told that in some culture or another they thought minor scales were happy and major scales were sad, so I guess things are relative. Some people like driving around in Model T's because they're historically significant cars, or something. Me, I'll take a Porche 928 instead! > From: mfs@mhuxr.UUCP (Marcel Simon) >>> [Marcel:] You might want to reflect on the fact that Bach invented >>> the Western system of musical notation, something that EVERY other >>> musician that came later owes to him, including Kate Bush. >> [Me:] You might want to reflect, also, that there are many musicians, >> including Kate Bush, who don't use this extremely limiting system of >> musical notation. > [Marcel:] But they learned it, at least in beginnings, used it, and > then went on to less restrictive (to them; an amazingly broad range of > music has been notated in Bach's system or slight extensions of it) > So they still walked the paths cleared by old Joe, even if they later > went beyond. I'm not convinced that any of this is true. Many talented musicians don't read music because they are self-taught. From an interview with Kate Bush from 1982: Q: Can you read music now? A: No I can't.... Q: Do you work up from the root and then add the third and the fifth? A: No, I never work that way -- I just go for what sounds right.... Also, why do you say that Bach invented the Western system of musical notation? As far as I know, western musical notation goes as far back as the eleventh century. It even starts to look a lot like the notation we use today by the fifteenth century. This is three centuries before Bach's arrival on the scene. I won't argue if you tell me that he made some improvements, because I don't know much about it. Also, I'm beginning to think that Bach fans tend to greatly exagerate Bach's historical significance. Some will have you believe that Bach single-handedly pulled the world out of the depths of monophonicity, which is clearly false. Maybe Leonin or Perotin deserves instead to be considered the most significant figure historically in music. The book "The Enjoyment of Music" by Joseph Machlis says of Bach, "His position in history is that of one who consumated existing forms rather than one who originated new ones." This would seem to make him even less important historically. I appreciate those who perfect a style, but I respect more those who innovate more (even though I might rather listen to the music of the person who perfected the style rather than the innovator -- then there are those few who both innovate and perfect a style at the same time! ...). "She would rather be a riddle But she keeps challenging the future With a profound lack of history" Doug Alan nessus@mit-eddie.UUCP (or ARPA)
jeffw@tekecs.UUCP (Jeff Winslow) (07/12/85)
> You might want to reflect, also, that there are many musicians, > including Kate Bush, who don't use this extremely limiting system of > musical notation. > > Doug Alan A great variety (sic) of music has been written using this notation, so your notion that it is "extremely limiting" appears to be somewhat extreme on its own. Notation doesn't limit. Stupidity and lack of imagination limit. Where imagination is active, notation will follow. Jeff Winslow