Love-Hounds-request@EDDIE.MIT.EDU.UUCP (12/20/86)
Really-From: IED0DXM%UCLAMVS.BITNET@WISCVM.WISC.EDU > I happen to think you {Kate} miss a few > times in Running Up That Hill, especially near the end when the > "other noises" come in; your usual adeptness at orchestration flags > there (Elvis wouldn't have missed on that one). Anyhow, it was > okay. ELVIS???!!! This is a worse word to use in conteKsT than "silly" was! ELVIS???!!! Seriously, though, Kevin... If, as IED assumes, you are referring to Elvis Costello, and you are comparing Kate Bush's voice unfavourably to his, then you still have something to learn about the basics of vocal style. Let's use this Costello character as a working example, since you brought him up. Whether Costello has talent or not is more or less irrelevant in this case. The point here is that the musical range of Costello has always been severely limited by the specificity and rigidity of his voice. Despite frequent attempts to alter his vocal style and timbre, he inevitably sounds like himself, and, as a result, his stylistic changes fail to make any substantive difference in the music. Kate Bush, on the other hand, has what one might call a kind of "Rorschach" voice: the actual physical vocal timbre of her voice is quite classic and pure -- a less flattering way to describe it would be "anonymous". The reason Kate's character is usually very recognizable in her singing is due entirely to her intentional departures from conventional vocal inflection. Her singing on "My Lagan Love" and "The Handsome Cabin Boy" are proof of the affinity that Kate's voice has to pure (or traditional) female vocal sounds. Never has Costello produced a vocal sound that transcended the narrow range of his ideosynchratic self. This is why a description of Kate's voice as "shrill" is so shortsighted and inaccurate. Where shrillness occurs in Kate's singing, it is because shrillness is applied by Kate deliberately to specific notes, phrases and songs in order to express the emotional content that is appropriate for the music. But her vocal instrument is self-LESS -- it is timeless and perfect. To put it another way, Kate's voice is to Costello's as a Stradivarius is to a banjo. the former is the product of centuries of cultural refinement, honed to a level of finish that defies the mundane plane of our mortal existence; the latter is a crude, innately vulgar contraption fashioned over a few years of rustic sub-culture, incapable of escaping its own limited range of sound, and ultimately reflecting nothing except itself. > I think the real thing I meant about your voice is this: if you just > put on one of your songs in a random room, the effect is dissonance. This is something to be proud of! Kate Bush's music is not supposed to "sound nice" in the background! If you're not ready to listen with all your heart and mind to her music, and stop whatever else you might want to be doing -- and above all, if you're not ready to play her music LOUD -- then you might as well not play it at all. You can't follow the aesthetic sense behind the dissonance in Kate's music if you're only playing it at normal volume and giving it only partial attention. > The sound of your voice is grating and unpleasant GIVEN THE > EXPECTATION ONE HAS THAT AUDIBLE MUSIC WILL BE ORGANISMICALLY > APPROPRIATE. Your mistake, Kevin, is in approaching Kate's music with "expectations" of any kind. Especially if those expectations are that audible music (what other kind is there?) be "organismically appropriate," a meaningless term if ever there was one. -- Andrew Marvick
Love-Hounds-request@EDDIE.MIT.EDU (12/21/86)
Really-From: kyle@CS.UCLA.EDU >Date: Fri, 19 Dec 86 14:27 PST >From: IED0DXM%UCLAMVS.BITNET@WISCVM.WISC.EDU >Subject: Re: Nancy's friend's first Kate-echism (III.xii.19) > >Seriously, though, Kevin... If, as IED assumes, WHy the hell do you refer to yourself in the third person? >Despite frequent attempts >to alter his vocal style and timbre, he >inevitably sounds like himself, and, as >a result, his stylistic changes fail to >make any substantive difference in the music. And who/what does Kate sound like? I've been able peg her everytime I heard her. >Kate Bush, on the other hand, has what one might call >a kind of "Rorschach" voice: the actual >physical vocal timbre of her voice is >quite classic and pure -- a less flattering >way to describe it would be "anonymous". I see she sounds like a "nobody". You said it not me! >To put it another way, >Kate's voice is to Costello's >as a Stradivarius is to a banjo. >the former is the product of centuries >of cultural refinement, honed to a >level of finish that defies the mundane >plane of our mortal existence; the >latter is a crude, innately vulgar >contraption fashioned over a few years >of rustic sub-culture, incapable of >escaping its own limited range of sound, >and ultimately reflecting nothing except >itself. And what does a Stradavarius reflect? You're starting to sound like an Ethno-centric European. You know Hitler would have agreed with you. >Your mistake, Kevin, is in approaching Kate's music with "expectations" >of any kind. Especially if those expectations are that audible >music (what other kind is there?) be "organismically appropriate," >a meaningless term if ever there was one. > >-- Andrew Marvick Andy, I'll have to agree with you here. One should not listen to her music with expectations, but rather with reservations. Joe Slime CO: kyle@zeus.cs.ucla.edu
Love-Hounds-request@EDDIE.MIT.EDU.UUCP (12/21/86)
Really-From: nessus (Doug Alan) > From: kyle@CS.UCLA.EDU > And who/what does Kate sound like? I've been able peg her everytime > I heard her. Kyle, Kyle, Kyle.... There's a lot that could be argued with in almost any of IED's postings, but you've found nearly none of it and have decided to just rant instead. It is clear what IED has been saying. To paraphrase, Kate's voice is a pure, versatile instrument which she often plays with a distinctive style. Elvis Costello's voice, on the other hand is a distinctive, limited instrument. > And what does a Stradavarius reflect? You're starting to sound like > an Ethno-centric European. You know Hitler would have agreed with > you. Almost a glimmer of point here! Amazing. I still think it would be safe to say that a Stradavarius is a more versatile instrument than a banjo. > Andy, I'll have to agree with you here. One should not listen to > her music with expectations, but rather with reservations. And why's that Kyle? [Enter IED Mode] Your entire posting is indicative of the lack of reasoning and expressive abilities that is so typical of those who malign Kate Bush. In the future postings, please try to exhibit some of those properties that separate us humans from the lower life forms. [Exit IED Mode] |>oug
Love-Hounds-request@EDDIE.MIT.EDU.UUCP (12/22/86)
Really-From: kyle@CS.UCLA.EDU >> And who/what does Kate sound like? I've been able peg her everytime >> I heard her. > >Kyle, Kyle, Kyle.... There's a lot that could be argued with in >almost any of IED's postings, but you've found nearly none of it and >have decided to just rant instead. It is clear what IED has been >saying. To paraphrase, Kate's voice is a pure, versatile instrument >which she often plays with a distinctive style. Elvis Costello's >voice, on the other hand is a distinctive, limited instrument. OK, I have a question for you, which is a more versitile instrument? a) a guitar b) a drum The answer in my opinion is very dependent on what one values in an instrument and one's personal cultural experiences. Are you going to tell me that the only valid way to evaluate these instruments/voices is relative to Classical European culture? Take a few moments to consider before you answer. Now, think about Kate VS. Elvis. >> And what does a Stradavarius reflect? You're starting to sound like >> an Ethno-centric European. You know Hitler would have agreed with >> you. > >Almost a glimmer of point here! Amazing. I still think it would be >safe to say that a Stradavarius is a more versatile instrument than a >banjo. My point is that they are entirely different instruments and such direct comparisons do not prove anything. In addition, I would say that you have been taught to think of a violin as a "better" instrument than a "banjo". AN insturment (or voice) should NOT be judged only in relation to its application to Classical Music. > >> Andy, I'll have to agree with you here. One should not listen to >> her music with expectations, but rather with reservations. > >And why's that Kyle? Because I find her voice quite annoying at times! >Your entire posting is indicative of the lack of reasoning and >expressive abilities that is so typical of those who malign Kate Bush. >In the future postings, please try to exhibit some of those properties >that separate us humans from the lower life forms. I have NEVER maligned Kate Bush (I own quite a few of her albums), so why do you accuse of such. She is an interesting "artist" and I like SOME of her work. What relation is there between my comments on IED and my appreciation of Kate's work? And just what qualities do you think I should exhibit? Must I refer to myself in the third person? Worship before the "perfect" Kate? Speak only in glowing tones about Kate? My we are sensitive!! Joe Slime Address: kyle@zeus.cs.ucla.edu