dbx@olympic.atmos.colostate.EDU (Doug Burks) (06/07/91)
Greetings,
A day or two ago, someone posted a minor complaint about Love-Hounds
recommending non-KaTe artists who were just KaTe Klones. At first, I
let it pass, but a day later, I find it still sticks in my claw and demands
a response. Unfortunately, I saved neither the post nor the author. I
apologize for that, and any details I get wrong.
I am certain that no one who reads this newsgroup is unaware that
KaTe is a unique talent. If her talent is not unique, her expression of
it certain is. I question whether anyone can successfully duplicate the
style of her music. Even covering some of her songs may be impossible.
Anyone who has the ability to come close to copying KaTe's work and style
has enough talent to eventually find their own voice. Even so, aiming at
the same target as KaTe certainly is not the wrong way to start a career.
Besides, at least in America, KaTe is definitely not a commercial success.
No one would try to imitate her style just to make bucks. Heck, the world
could do with a batch of bands aping KaTe than the latest rap or heavy
metal group.
The poster raised two individuals specifically, both of whom I enjoy
thoroughly. Neither of them are KaTe Klones.
On the surface, one can find similarities between Jane Siberry and
KaTe. However, Jane is an artist who can stand fully on her own. For
example, I discovered Jane quite independently of KaTe. The name 'Jane
Siberry' kept popping up as a positive standard of comparison in record
reviews. Finally, I read a review of _Suzanne Vega_, which rated Jane
above Suzanne. I loved the album _Suzanne Vega_, so I just had to try Jane.
I bought a copy of _The Speckless Sky_ and was bowled over on the first
listen. In my opinion [He dons his best flame-proof suit], I like this
album better than any single KaTe album, [though to placate the howling
Love-Hounds, I'd take KaTe's whole opus over Jane's]. Outside of the heavy
synthesizer dependence and a woman's voice, I find few similarities with
KaTe. Jane's lyrics tend to be more personal, and the emotional depth and
complexity of the songs on _The Speckless Sky_ is incredible. I've
listened to it six or seven times, and my opinions of what certain songs mean
have changed tremendously. Comparatively, KaTe's lyrics show much less of
her soul or emotions. Musically, Jane's voice hops, jumps, leaps, and dances
around the melody, while KaTe sings her lyrics more straightforwardly, albeit
in her own unique style. As for the music itself, Jane's style varies much
more from album to album, but basically built around synthesizer, guitar, and
rhythm, without the international stamp that KaTe like to put in her music.
_The Speckless Sky_ has always strongly reminded me of XTC of _The Black Sea_
period. Most of the songs confidently walk the line between music and chaos,
occasionally falling off, then break into an incredibly catchy hook-laden
chorus. I dare you to listen to _The Speckless Sky_ and not have the chorus
of _Map of the World, Pt II_ rattling around your brain for the next day or
two! I hope this convinces you that Jane is no mere KaTe wannabee.
As for Happy Rhodes, since you haven't heard her yet, I'll excuse you
more :-). Just one listen will convince you she is not a KaTe Klone. Her
lyrics are emotionally raw, overturning the rocks in her soul to show the
maggots, worms, and mud underneath, light years away from KaTe's literary
allusions and playfulness. Her musical accompaniment is very simple,
straightforward guitar or synthesizer. Happy's voice is a treasure, gorgeous
at both ends of her range. Yet I do suspect that KaTe has influenced
Happy. The resemblance between Happy's and KaTe's voices at their higher
registers is uncanny. The phrasing is so similar that I can't help but feel
Happy does it intentionally. One song on Vol I (I forget which) struck me
very much as a homage to KaTe. Yet even with this, Happy is her own very
unique voice. I strongly, strongly recommend her music.
KaTe Bush, Jane Siberry, Happy Rhodes, and other artists frequently
mentioned in this group (and I personally will add a few others more rarely
mentioned, such as Suzanne Vega, Laurie Anderson, and Joni Mitchell) work a
large fertile field of music which has barely been planted. This field is
so large that lots of space separates the artists working on it, yet the
others are the only points of reference. It's hard to talk about one artist
working this field without pointing to another. Yet the difference between
KaTe and Jane alone probably would encompass the whole range of rap music
groups. One very useful feature of LoveHounds is to point out other artists
who work this field. So far, I have found none of them to be KaTe Klones.
Open up your own mind and try them!
Doug Burks _O_
dbx@olympic.atmos.colostate.edu |< She really is!!padraigm@well.UUCP (Patrick McFarland) (06/12/91)
Doug, I really agree with just about everything you've had to say. First, as to the JaNe Siberry's wannabeism, although I love certain of her songs, On the Beach, in particular, and I feel that no amount of criticism can take away the originality of these pieces, I can see how JaNe's material could be taken for imitation, and I think THAT is just the fear that results from hearing ANY woman express her TRUE views.. Secondly, as re Happy Rhoades, I love her music, and I think I can explain this misunderstanding: KaTe grew up in an evironment where one was forced into self-reliance. It is a happy accident of karma that this divine spirit was practically ordained to become a musical virtuosity of the highest order. Happy had no such fortunate soil. As anyone in the U.S. can attest, the artistic climate (as the political climate) caters to conformism, and I admire the (superhuman, actually) effort she has had to exert to accurately express her own Art. If it relies on KaTe's rather heavily, well so be it - I myself rely on a goddess. Pat -- "A thousand slimy things lived on, and so did I"-STC "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro"-HST "You're either part of the solution or you're part of the precipitate-Wilbur "If it's worth doing, it's worth overdoing"-Me
larry@csccat.cs.COM (Larry Spence) (06/13/91)
In article <25397@well.sf.ca.us> padraigm@well.UUCP (Patrick McFarland) writes: > >First, as to the JaNe Siberry's wannabeism, How cool... "JaNe" as a takeoff on "KaTe" in an argument as to why she's not a Kate wannabe. Aren't you missing a smiley there? %) >although I love certain of >her songs, On the Beach, in particular, and I feel that no amount of >criticism can take away the originality of these pieces, I can see how >JaNe's material could be taken for imitation, and I think THAT is just >the fear that results from hearing ANY woman express her TRUE views.. Uh, I missed something here, how did you get to that conclusion? If I think that Jane (er, JaNe) is a little Kate-derived, ergo I _fear her expression of her views_? What are you folks on the WELL smoking nowadays? %) If you'll recall, I posted a big-two-thumbs-up reviewette of Diamanda Galas' latest release, which is nothing but 75 minutes of "viewpoint expression." %) Compared to _that_, Jane is pretty sugar-coated, don't you think? >Secondly, as re Happy Rhoades, I love her music, and I think I can explain >this misunderstanding: KaTe grew up in an evironment where >one was forced into self-reliance. Huh? My incomplete knowledge of Kate's life is that her family was not poor, and that she got an advance from EMI and plenty of support for her artistic development when she was a teenager. She worked very hard, but was hardly a starving artist type. >It is a happy accident of karma that >this divine spirit was practically ordained to become a musical virtuosity >of the highest order. I thought the whole thing about karma was that it's _not_ accidental? Did you get the above line from a Yanni or Kitaro press release or something? %) >Happy had no such fortunate soil. As anyone in the >U.S. can attest, the artistic climate (as the political climate) caters to >conformism, and I admire the (superhuman, actually) effort she has had to >exert to accurately express her own Art. I've only heard one Happy song so far, so I can't say about "superhuman effort," but I agree with your comments about the current climate. >If it relies on KaTe's rather >heavily, well so be it - I myself rely on a goddess. First you say she's fighting against conformism to express her own art (uh, Art), but then it's OK if she "relies heavily" on the work of Kate? Non sequitur alert! BTW, KERA (Dallas public radio) played a Happy tune last night. I don't recall the title, but the lyrics mentioned Phobos repeatedly. It was pretty good, but definitely recalled a slightly Kate-ish backing track with Joni Mitchell singing through an octave divider (hoo boy, I hear the flamethrowers being started up now! %). The evening DJ, Liza Richardson, just eats stuff like this up, so I would expect her to give Happy decent airplay. >"A thousand slimy things lived on, and so did I"-STC Yeah, well, Sam Coleridge was smoking opium... >"When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro"-HST Known propensity for ether binges... >"If it's worth doing, it's worth overdoing"-Me Maybe, but these overblown "Female Singer/Deity X is the embodiment of artistic purity" foamings serve to make me, for one, very skeptical. There is such a thing as hyping something so much that people get unrealistic expectations, y'know! That's doing the artist a disservice, IMHO. -- Larry Spence larry@csccat.cs.com ..{uunet,texsun,cs.utexas.edu,decwrl}!csccat!larry
nrc@cbema.att.COM (Neal R Caldwell, Ii) (06/13/91)
In article <15373@ccncsu.ColoState.EDU>, dbx@olympic.atmos.colostate.EDU (Doug Burks) writes: > listened to it six or seven times, and my opinions of what certain songs mean > have changed tremendously. Comparatively, KaTe's lyrics show much less of > her soul or emotions. Musically, Jane's voice hops, jumps, leaps, and dances > around the melody, while KaTe sings her lyrics more straightforwardly, albeit > in her own unique style. As for the music itself, Jane's style varies much I could not possibly disagree more strongly. I have two Jane Siberry CDs, _No Borders Here_ and _The Walking_. And I personally fail to see even a fraction of the "soul or emotion" that I feel in Kate's music in Jane's work. Perhaps you don't consider it to be the same because Kate so often speaks through characters rather than personally but for me those characters typically develop more depth and emotion in one track than I can glean from either of Jane's works that I've heard. Further, I would swear that you have the names in your second sentence reversed. Jane's delivery strikes me at times as being virtually monotonic while it seems to me that Kate's "hops, jumps, leaps, and dances around the melody." Alas, Jane's music simply hasn't struck a chord with me and at this point I'm not even sure if we'll keep the CDs we have. It has it's moments but for me they are few enough and far enough between that I'd rather be listening to something else. "Don't drive too slowly." Richard Caldwell AT&T Network Systems att!cbnews!nrc nrc@cbnews.att.com
padraigm@well.UUCP (Patrick McFarland) (06/16/91)
In article <4326@csccat.cs.com> csccat!larry@uunet.UU.NET (Larry Spence) writes:> >>First, as to the JaNe Siberry's wannabeism, > >How cool... "JaNe" as a takeoff on "KaTe" in an argument as to why she's >not a Kate wannabe. Aren't you missing a smiley there? %) Nah, I wanted to see if anybody got it - Congratulations! (can't make things TOO simple, ya know) :> >>although I love certain of >>her songs, On the Beach, in particular, and I feel that no amount of >>criticism can take away the originality of these pieces, I can see how >>JaNe's material could be taken for imitation, and I think THAT is just >>the fear that results from hearing ANY woman express her TRUE views.. > >Uh, I missed something here, how did you get to that conclusion? If I >think that Jane (er, JaNe) is a little Kate-derived, ergo I _fear her expression >of her views_? Ok, ok, I'll admit I was in somewhat of an altered sate, er state, when I wrote this (actually I was just winding down from a good rant on alt.slack ;)) The key words here are "I think" - translation: IMHO. This is not a logical argument, just an expression of what I feel to be true. If you WANT a logical argument, I can outline one for ya: P1) In a patriarchal society, women are often misunderstood. P2) What people don't understand, they fear. P3) We live in a patriarchal society. P4) A group of people which is feared is stereotyped (taking away the individual members' identities) in order to render it an object of humor. (humor covers up the fear) P5) Art is an expression of individual identity. P6) Kate and Jane are artists. P7) Kate and Jane are women. 1) In a patriarchal society, women are often feared. ; P1, P2 2) In our society, women are often feared. ; 1, P3 3) In our society, women are often stereotyped. ; 2, P4 4) In our society, Kate and Jane often have their ; P7, 3 individual identities taken away. 5) In our society, Jane's art is often disregarded. ; P5, 4 (Kate's too, for that matter) 6) In our society, Jane is often regarded as a Kate imitator. ; 4, 5 .. or some such. Please understand that I am not accusing *you* personally of fearing the expression of Jane's views, but you asked! > What are you folks on the WELL smoking nowadays? %) Bahahahahaaaaaaa! *I'll* never tell! >you'll recall, I posted a big-two-thumbs-up reviewette of Diamanda Galas' >latest release, which is nothing but 75 minutes of "viewpoint expression." %) >Compared to _that_, Jane is pretty sugar-coated, don't you think? C'mon! Don't overreact! I like Jane's music mainly because it is in such a light vein (I wouldn't use the word "sugar-coated"). This is just an expression of her basically fun-loving personality. There are times when I like deep heavy stuff, but other times when I like to indulge in very unserious fanciful fun sounds, and Jane knows HOW! >>Secondly, as re Happy Rhoades, I love her music, and I think I can explain >>this misunderstanding: KaTe grew up in an evironment where >>one was forced into self-reliance. > >Huh? My incomplete knowledge of Kate's life is that her family was not >poor, and that she got an advance from EMI and plenty of support for her >artistic development when she was a teenager. She worked very hard, but >was hardly a starving artist type. You misunderstand. In *this* case, I'm talking about the general social environment in the U.K. as opposed to here -- not individual circumstances. There, it is generally supposed that a child will work to the best of his/her abilities to excel in some field of endeavor, whereas here, the pressure is simply to conform. Of course, the prime piece of support for this statement is an analysis of the educational systems of the two countries: Here, EVERY child is expected to attend 12 years of school, get a "standard" education, and then (if the family is rich enough) attend a larger version of the detaining area to put together the contacts he will need to "succeed in life". The system there is quite different - investigate it. >>It is a happy accident of karma that >>this divine spirit was practically ordained to become a musical virtuosity >>of the highest order. > >I thought the whole thing about karma was that it's _not_ accidental? Did >you get the above line from a Yanni or Kitaro press release or something? %) Nope! Karma is almost by definition accidental. If all existence were pre- determined, there would be no point to it. >>If it relies on KaTe's rather >>heavily, well so be it - I myself rely on a goddess. > >First you say she's fighting against conformism to express her own art >(uh, Art), but then it's OK if she "relies heavily" on the work of Kate? >Non sequitur alert! Yeah! It's OK to take inspiration from other artists. I just wrote a poem that has a verse that paraphrases one of Blake's, and a song I wrote last year has a tiny section ripped directly from one of Kate's songs, because it FIT. What of it??? >BTW, KERA (Dallas public radio) played a Happy tune last night. I don't >recall the title, but the lyrics mentioned Phobos repeatedly. It was >pretty good, but definitely recalled a slightly Kate-ish backing track with >Joni Mitchell singing through an octave divider (hoo boy, I hear the >flamethrowers being started up now! %). The evening DJ, Liza Richardson, >just eats stuff like this up, so I would expect her to give >Happy decent airplay. Hmmmmm, I think I'll leave this to the propane professionals :-) >>"A thousand slimy things lived on, and so did I"-STC > >Yeah, well, Sam Coleridge was smoking opium... Pardon this, the exact couplet is: And a thousand thousand slimy things Lived on, and so did I. vi SUCKS!!!!!!!! >>"If it's worth doing, it's worth overdoing"-Me > >Maybe, but these overblown "Female Singer/Deity X is the embodiment of >artistic purity" foamings serve to make me, for one, very skeptical. >There is such a thing as hyping something so much that people get >unrealistic expectations, y'know! That's doing the artist a disservice, >IMHO. You're absolutely correct. Don't listen to Happy Rhodes. After all, she's nothing but a KaTe imitator. You won't find anything new there. BTW, I am lying. In fact, I'm lying right now. Pat r .signature damn^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H "And a thousand thousand slimy things lived on, and so did I"-STC "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro"-HST "You're either part of the solution or you're part of the precipitate-Wilbur "If it's worth doing, it's worth overdoing"-Me -- "And a thousand thousand slimy things lived on, and so did I"-STC "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro"-HST "You're either part of the solution or you're part of the precipitate-Wilbur "If it's worth doing, it's worth overdoing"-Me