Love-Hounds-request@EDDIE.MIT.EDU.UUCP (01/27/87)
Really-From: <DSR@CRNLNS.BITNET> Comment: forwarded by CRNLNS/FMAIL v2.0 Comment: REPLY may not work. Comment: Network-Source: _LNS61::DSR (HEPnet/SPAN) Comment: Originally-From: DSR Comment: Originally-To: EDU%"Love-Hounds@eddie.mit.edu" I would have mentioned Jane Siberry (and possibly Eno) in response to IED's challenge, if I could take the challenge seriously. However, a quick listen to these three artists (Kate is the third, of course) will reveal a wide disparity, not just in the methods they choose to use in creating music, but also, I think, in their ultimate goals in creating music. I would further contend that this makes it impossible to objectively call one of them better than the other. Seriously, how am I suppose to compare Kate to Laurie Anderson? What's the basis for comparison, the standard for judgment? OK, so IED did mention some specific areas for comparison, but I don't find those to be sufficiently specific to be usable. If they were, I'd say that they were so specific as to render the comparison meaningless. It may be fun to argue about (or it may not), but it's not resolvable, ok? -dan riley