Love-Hounds-request@EDDIE.MIT.EDU.UUCP (02/03/87)
Really-From: IED0DXM@UCLAMVS Someone named ../ray\.. has made some very aggressive remarks re IED's challenge, and these are considered now. >On the other hand, you haven't given us *any* indication >of what your arbitrary definitions of "complexity", "refinement", >and/or "sophistication" mean. Or, rather, by your replies to people's >attempts to come up with examples, you have demonstrated that you >mean "Kate-like". So, what you're really asking is: (as shown by your >refusal to discuss things reasonably) "Have there been any albums >made since the early 70s that have been as "Kate-like" as >The Dreaming and HOL?" >Depending on what you may have been *trying* to ask, one could make an >argument for many of the following: (all subjectively true to me) > >Anything Stan Ridgeway has been involved in. >Art of Noise. (that they can say so much with only 1 or 2 sentences > says a lot for their "refinement" etc.) >Much of Peter Gabriel's stuff. >Laurie Anderson (in a different way than Kate, certainly) >Some of the Stranglers stuff. >Hell, even Yaz. >Or Aztec Camera. >Or XTC. >Or... Let's consider your comments in detail. In a way, of course, you're right that the qualities IED chose were, to his mind, most fully realized in Kate's recent work; so that one might call the ideal result "Kate-like". This is just ONE form of ideal, however. Just as The Dreaming and Hounds of Love remain very different in their respective aesthetic orientations while still qualifying (in IED's view) with equal success as works of the highest order of sophistication and complexity, so there are infinitely MORE possible means of reaching this level. In other words, the fact that Kate's last two albums achieve this level of intricacy does NOT mean that other artists have NEVER produced music of comparable sophistication and complexity -- though it happens that none has in more than twelve years. It is clear, in fact, from IED's stipulation about the date, that he believes certain works,dating from before ca. 1973 DO contain comparable degrees of "Kate-likeism", albeit very, very few. The only ones IED will mention here are "Sgt. Pepper's LHCB" and "Abbey Road"; so, if you insist (as you have) on replacing the latitude allowed by the terms which IED chose, with more exclusive and limiting terms like "Kate-like", then it would be more accurate to describe The Dreaming and HoL as the most "late Beatles-like" of post-1973 recordings. The point is that both recent KT and late Beatles show a multiplicity of sonic expression unparalleled almost anywhere else -- even though (OBVIOUSLY) their respective works sound very different from each other. Nonetheless, if you can appreciate the qualities which have distinguished Sgt. Pepper and Abbey Road over the years, then you ought to be able to see the aesthetic continuity from them to late KT. To make clearer the rarity of the kind of recording to which IED refers, compare the qualities of Sgt. Pepper, Abbey Road and (marginally) Magical Mystery Tour with those of the so-called "white album". A reasonably astute listener should be able to see the sparsity of sonic expression in the white album RELATIVE to that in, say, Abbey Road's second side. An even more obvious aesthetic gulf can be seen to exist between Sgt. Pepper and the Let It Be album. Despite this, IED is quite willing to accept the opinion (although he doesn't share it) that Sgt. Pepper is not a "better" album than Let It Be. THERE CAN BE LITTLE SERIOUS DISPUTE, HOWEVER, THAT SGT. PEPPER IS MORE DENSELY PACKED, RIGOROUSLY PREPARED, SONICALLY AND STYLISTICALLY VARIED AND ELEGANTLY ORGANIZED THAN LET IT BE. By the same token (though not with the same result, of course), The Dreaming and Hounds of Love are filled more completely with sonic and musical information, demonstrate far greater diversity of sound and more intricate exposition of themes than Kate's own earlier albums. If you are capable of hearing these elementary distinctions, then you ought to be able to see, for example, why Doug rejects Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon as a work comparable to The Dreaming in terms of complexity and sophistication. If you want to get more specific, IED is more than happy to do so. Tomorrow he will introduce some very specific variables to our little hypothetical argument. Please bear with him until then. >Before you reply that anyone who thinks that any of the above is more >S/R/C than Kate is full of it, ask yourself whether someone could say that >pink noise is more complex than any music, or that someone might think >Duran Duran was the height of sophistication (ick) or that Musak(tm) >is the most refined form (double ick), or... >Also think about it before >you talk about the "objective" quality of these measurements. Of course, "someone could say" this, and "someone might think" that, but what significance would such statements and thoughts have? The first example you give -- pink noise -- may be complex in ONE of the criteria required by IED's original challenge: that is, it may be sonically complex. But it has no lyrical, thematic or structural content at all, let alone sophistication in those areas. And furthermore, its complexity of sound is entirely undirected and is solely the result of chance. So, although its sound may be "complex", it can hardly be "sophisticated". And finally, how does it qualify as "an album of "rock or rock-related music made since the early 70s"? As for Duran Duran and Muzak, leaving aside the usual criticisms about them that they are emotionally shallow and intellectually empty, they both fail to distinguish themselves from the normal professional standards of production in terms of sophistication of sound, structure -- or even melody, since this is utterly inane in the former and borrowed in the latter. Perhaps before you start making supercilious recommendations to IED that he "think about it before" replying, you might take the trouble to think a bit yourself. These ARE objective terms, and they CAN be applied objectively in comparisons. The only way confusion can arise from the use of these terms is when parties such as you fail to pay any attention to the context in which they are being used, witness your above remarks. >Kate has an amazing voice (even if it is computer enhanced), and is >incredibly proficient at production, and has some really interesting things >to say...but to religiously maintain that no one can *validly* have a >different opinion is incredibly fascist. (not to mention ) Speaking of careless thinking, take a look at the above! You begin by stating -- as though it were FACT -- that Kate is this, Kate is that. But in the conclusion of the SAME sentence, you complain that IED is not allowing others to have "a different OPINION"! How can one reply to objections as confused and inaccurate as this one? Must IED point out -- again that he has NEVER maintained any such thing AT ALL, but that he has only challenged L-Hs to prove the existence of other recent records which possess several very specific properties? >Also, does anyone out there really believe that IED wasn't *strongly* >implying that these qualities defined "good" simply by the way he >couched his terms? Does IED really expect us to believe that he wasn't? Is it reasonable to object to positions which you THINK IED takes, even when the issue as defined in the digest quite explicitly differs from those supposed positions? Whether IED holds such properties as "sophistication", "refinement" and "complexity" personally dear to him or not is entirely his affair, and has no relevance whatever to the claims he chooses to make in this forum. If you can't argue successfully the points he makes here, it hardly seems fair to ascribe new ones to him! -- Andrew Marvick