joel@decwrl.UUCP (Joel McCormack) (07/08/85)
Well Dougie, I think you just screwed up. Ron baited you, you put your foot
firmly in your mouth, then tried to kick. Bad news.
First, you claim Madonna is not interesting because "it requires no
intelligent thought on the part of the listener." Then you claim "Kate Bush
is better musically than Bach...because Kate Bush realizes that music should
be emotionally powerful.... [Bach] plays all sorts of cute little games....
all this is lost on the listener who isn't a musician, and this makes his
music boring and sterile." (Later, you go on to claim Bush IS as complex as
Bach; I think you should decide one way or the other.)
You have not made a case for "Bush is better than Bach." You have merely
described a level that is too simple for you to enjoy (Madonna), and a level
too complex for you (Bach), found someone who plays at the right level for
you (Bush), and claimed she is the best, and implied that anyone who
disagrees is closed-minded.
Now, if you had merely said that Bush creates music of the right complexity
for you, I wouldn't have a problem. But you have dismissed anything below
this complexity with a VALUE judgement - evidently Madonna IS the right
complexity for millions, because she sells so many records. I personally
don't like it, but I see no reason for you to get down on the people who do
like Madonna as being lazy, if you are not willing to learn enough music to
thoroughly appreciate Bach. Pretend you just spent 7 years getting a Masters
in Music: with this much training you might find Kate Bush to be a "totally
formulated, predigested product."
Now can you understand Ron's view, though I believe he overstated it a bit?
Get off your high horse, Doug, music is what is appreciated by persons, not
the single person Doug Alan. If you are going to razz people who don't want
to put the effort into listening to Kate Bush, you should expect, and accept,
criticism from people who find it amusing you won't put in the effort to
listen to Bach. I mean, not just listen to it a little and claim it's no
better than Kate Bush, but REALLY LISTEN, so you can appreciate how superior
it is to that simplistic junk :-)
Two asides:
A friend bought "The Dreaming;" I have yet to listen to it enough times to
decide whether or not I like it. I will make the decision whether she is
"creative and original" independent of Doug's harangues, thank you. I doubt I
will conclude she writes music as complex Bach, but acknowledge the
possibility. (I do suspect, though, that true genius produce quality AND
quantity...can you imagine Bach writing 40 minutes of music every 3 years?)
I don't find Bach sterile at all. Try the last movement of the 6th
Brandenburg Concerto for a great pick-me-up. Try nearly any of the Cantatas.
Try the Mass in B minor. THIS IS STERILE???!!! Doug has been subject to
some pretty weird fits, but this is too much.
--
- Joel McCormack {ihnp4 decvax ucbvax allegra}!decwrl!joel
joel@decwrl.arpanessus@mit-eddie.UUCP (Doug Alan) (07/08/85)
["You cannot achieve the goal without suffering."] > From: joel@decwrl.UUCP (Joel McCormack) > Well Dougie, I think you just screwed up. I don't think I screwed up Joely. I still stand by everything I said. > First, you claim Madonna is not interesting because "it requires no > intelligent thought on the part of the listener." Then you claim > "Kate Bush is better musically than Bach...because Kate Bush realizes > that music should be emotionally powerful.... [Bach] plays all sorts > of cute little games.... all this is lost on the listener who isn't a > musician, and this makes his music boring and sterile." (Later, you > go on to claim Bush IS as complex as Bach; I think you should decide > one way or the other.) Nothing I said contradicts itself. In my opinion, music should be emotionally powerful. This doesn't mean that it shouldn't also be intellectually powerful. Emotion and intellect aren't independent entities -- they're strongly connected. Music should be both emotionally and intellectually powerful, and if it is one, it will most likely be the other, at least with respect to intelligent people. Both Kate Bush's music and Bach's music is complex. My complaint with Bach is not that his music is too complex (it isn't -- I think it's simpler than the music on "The Dreaming"), but that the emphasis in his music seems to be in filling it with "inside jokes" rather than making it interesting to listen to by the intelligent layperson. (Inside jokes can be put in something very simple, so this has nothing to do with complexity.) You shouldn't have to be a writer to appreciate a novel. You shouldn't have to be a film-maker to appreciate a movie. You shouldn't have to be poet to appreciate a poem. You shouldn't have to be a musician to appreciate a piece of music. Of course, this is all just my opinion, and I don't want you to think that I believe that Kate Bush is better than Bach by some absolute standard. All art that is original and creative is in some sense equally good, because I don't really believe in absolute standards, but art that is neither original nor creative is not good. (If you don't accept that unoriginal equals bad then please move to "Good music vs. bad music" discussion -- I don't want to reargue that all here.) In any case, both Kate Bush and Bach have produced original and creative works and both deserve a lot of credit. > You have not made a case for "Bush is better than Bach." I'm not trying to. Maybe I haven't been making this clear (though I think I have), but I'm not trying to prove that Kate Bush is better than Bach, only describe why I like Kate Bush much better than Bach. If you're a musician, and can get all of Bach's inside jokes, and for that reason you love him, that's fine with me. > You have merely described a level that is too simple for you to enjoy > (Madonna), and a level too complex for you (Bach), found someone who > plays at the right level for you (Bush), and claimed she is the best, > and implied that anyone who disagrees is closed-minded. I don't remember anywhere equating quality with complexity! Perhaps this is because I never did? There's lots of good minimalist music around. Madonna's "music" is bad because it's musically unoriginal and her lyrics and image are offensive (more on this in an article to follow sometime soon). And I don't like Bach so much, not because he's too complex for me (he's not -- I can easily remember melodies in Bach's music -- much more easily than I can remember the melodies in "The Dreaming"), but because I don't find his music emotionally powerful. If I were a musician, maybe I'd catch all his little jokes, and go "tee hee hee" and therefore find his music very emotionally powerful -- but again, this has nothing to do with complexity. > Now, if you had merely said that Bush creates music of the right > complexity for you, I wouldn't have a problem. But you have dismissed > anything below this complexity with a VALUE judgement - evidently > Madonna IS the right complexity for millions, because she sells so > many records. Madonna sells so many records because she uses a formula that has been proven for years to be commercially successful. Provide people with what they're already familiar with, that won't challenge them or make them think too much. Throw in some scandal so that people will look up from their National Enquirers. Voila! Millions of bucks role in. Also, there is lots of good music that is simpler than Madonna's music. > I personally don't like it, but I see no reason for you to get down on > the people who do like Madonna as being lazy, if you are not willing > to learn enough music to thoroughly appreciate Bach. Pretend you just > spent 7 years getting a Masters in Music: with this much training you > might find Kate Bush to be a "totally formulated, predigested > product." Bullshit! Kate Bush's music is original. Getting a Masters in music won't change that fact. It will never appear to be a formulated product! At worst, I might be somewhat dissapointed that she didn't put in enough nifty inside jokes for me to find. Then again, maybe I'd find that she did indeed put in lots of nifty inside jokes and even be more enthralled. > If you are going to razz people who don't want to put the effort into > listening to Kate Bush, you should expect, and accept, criticism from > people who find it amusing you won't put in the effort to listen to > Bach. I mean, not just listen to it a little and claim it's no better > than Kate Bush, but REALLY LISTEN, so you can appreciate how superior > it is to that simplistic junk :-) What makes you think that I haven't put any effort into listening to Bach? > (I do suspect, though, that true genius produce quality AND > quantity...can you imagine Bach writing 40 minutes of music every 3 > years?) 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. that all have to be explored. Kate Bush produces her own albums which means she has that much more work to do -- operating lots and lots of complicated equipment. Then when she finishes recording an album, she designs the record cover, designs the covers for the singles, designs, choreographs, and designs the costumes for her videos. Then she has to spend a year going around the world promoting the album, so that it will sell enough so that she can afford to do the next one. Also, you should realize that she only puts a small fraction of the music she writes on her albums. She's written hundreds and hundreds of songs that have never been committed to vinyl. Why not? Because she's a perfectionist and because of that her recording process is very time consuming, and because of that she can only record a small amount of the music she writes. Also, Kate Bush wants all her albums to be in a completely different style. And they all are (except for "Lionheart" which is in almost the same style as "The Kick Inside" -- and Kate Bush is disatisfied with "Lionheart" because of this, but she was pressured by the record company to do this -- this was back in the early days when Kate didn't have the complete control she requires)). This takes a lot of work and time. Bach changed his style a lot more slowly. For example, I can often tell if something is by Bach, even if I've never heard it before (though sometimes I get confused by people who imitated Bach). I truly doubt if I could tell if a song were by Kate Bush if I never heard it before (except for the fact that I'd recognize her voice). > I don't find Bach sterile at all. Try the last movement of the 6th > Brandenburg Concerto for a great pick-me-up. Try nearly any of the > Cantatas. Try the Mass in B minor. THIS IS STERILE???!!! Doug has > been subject to some pretty weird fits, but this is too much. If it reaches you fine! Some people I know think mashed potatoes taste interesting. They taste bland to me. (I'm not comparing Bach to mashed potatoes, so don't get too upset). How music affects one is a psycho-cultural phenomenon, and how different people are affected is going to be related to their backgrounds, which are going to be different. But in any case, if Bach wasn't limitting himself so much by playing cute games with the notes on a piece of paper, he would certainly have had a lot more freedom to explore the possibilities of the different ways music can sound and how those differences affect listeners. "I focussed the magnifying glass That brought the downfall of Icarus" Doug Alan nessus@mit-eddie.UUCP (or ARPA)
mfs@mhuxr.UUCP (SIMON) (07/08/85)
> Doug Alan > My complaint with > Bach is not that his music is too complex (it isn't -- I think it's > simpler than the music on "The Dreaming"), but that the emphasis in his > music seems to be in filling it with "inside jokes" rather than making > it interesting to listen to by the intelligent layperson. > .... > In any case, both Kate Bush and Bach have produced original and creative > works and both deserve a lot of credit. > > .... If > you're a musician, and can get all of Bach's inside jokes, and for that > reason you love him, that's fine with me. > > .... I don't find [Bach's] music emotionally powerful. If > I were a musician, maybe I'd catch all his little jokes, and go "tee hee > hee" and therefore find his music very emotionally powerful -- but > again, this has nothing to do with complexity. > > .... But in any case, if Bach wasn't limitting himself so much by > playing cute games with the notes on a piece of paper, he would > certainly have had a lot more freedom to explore the possibilities of > the different ways music can sound and how those differences affect > listeners. 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. 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. > 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. > that all have to be explored. Kate Bush produces her own albums which > means she has that much more work to do -- operating lots and lots of > complicated equipment. Then when she finishes recording an album, she > designs the record cover, designs the covers for the singles, designs, > choreographs, and designs the costumes for her videos. Then she has to > spend a year going around the world promoting the album, so that it will > sell enough so that she can afford to do the next one. Also, you should > realize that she only puts a small fraction of the music she writes on > her albums. She's written hundreds and hundreds of songs that have > never been committed to vinyl. Why not? Because she's a perfectionist > and because of that her recording process is very time consuming, and > because of that she can only record a small amount of the music she > writes. Little of this paragraph has to do with musical quality. Bach perfected the tehnology of the clavinet, lost his eyesight transcribing music. He depended on the good graces of the nobleman in whose court he lived to feed his numerous children, which is at least as pressure packed as standing up to a recording company. As to designing record covers and video costumes, I fail to see what that has to do with music. In general, this particular discussion is a bit silly, wouldn't you say? 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. Marcel Simon
elf@utcsri.UUCP (Eugene Fiume) (07/09/85)
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). Eugene Fiume