Love-Hounds-request@GAFFA.MIT.EDU (08/02/90)
Really-From: ed@das.llnl.gov (Edward Suranyi) Here's more on the Madonna vs. Kate thread in rec.music.misc. By the way, in that same newsgroup Jon Drukman has been discussing Kate's "backwards-forwards" lyrics, quite interestingly. Ed ed@das.llnl.gov --------------------------------------------------------------- Article 49994 of rec.music.misc: Path: lll-winken!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!samsung!emory!mephisto!rutgers!cmcl2!sbcs!sbgrad12!rmiller From: rmiller@sbgrad12.cs.sunysb.edu (Robert Miller) Newsgroups: rec.music.misc Subject: Something other than...Re: MADONNA on MTV [all day] Wed, Aug. 1 Message-ID: <1990Aug1.183415.13471@sbcs.sunysb.edu> Date: 1 Aug 90 18:34:15 GMT References: <JP5$A4^@rpi.edu> <65592@lll-winken.LLNL.GOV> Sender: usenet@sbcs.sunysb.edu (Usenet poster) Organization: State University of New York at Stony Brook Lines: 63 In article <65592@lll-winken.LLNL.GOV> loren@tristan.UUCP (Loren Petrich) writes: >For Madonna detractors out there: please don't flame me. I'd like to >hear about some of your favorite singer / songwriter / >performance-artist / conceptualists. Okay, see below. >There is a whole newsgroup, rec.music.gaffa, devoted to Kate Bush and >related subjects, and I think that Madonna and Kate Bush have a heck >of a lot in common. I have long suspected that Kate Bush is the >Madonna of the alternative-rock set; if you think that comparison is >unwarranted, please explain why in reasoned, non-flaming words. The comparison is incredibly unwarranted for the following reasons: 1. Kate Bush makes an album every couple of years or so and then spends her time outside of the recording studio in seclusion. She gives interviews to those who want them, but for the most part prefers to live a private life. She does not promote herself, hype herself, or do or say something controversial for the sake of cheap publicity (which I maintain Madonna does, and nothing I've seen her convinces me otherwise). She has never used her music to sell (or attempt to sell) a product. To my knowledge she has never made a movie, but if she did she would certainly be there as an actress and not as a pop idol. She has not shown any desire to be a pop idol, or even to be well known. She wants to make music the way she wants to and is not terribly concerned about how well it's received. Such concerns would not affect her music in any case. Compare and contrast with Madonna. Their approaches to their music are totally different. 2. Kate Bush writes innovative music. Her music uses meters and chord progressions which, although they are not always pleasant to my ear, are unique to her musical style. Her music has more in common with Andrew Lloyd Webber's better music than to anything I've heard from Madonna. Madonna, although one of the better performers of dance music (which coming from me is damning with faint praise), uses standard meters, key changes, and instrumentation. There is no musical element in any Madonna song that I know that I would consider innovative or original. Their music is totally different. 3. Kate Bush writes lyrics that are nothing like the lyrics Madonna sings (and I'm still not clear as to what extent Madonna creates her own material, but that is not relevant here. I'll assume that Madonna's songs are written by Madonna for the sake of argument). Kate's lyrics border on the bizarre. She writes in what I would guess to be a very stream of consciousness fasion, with the result that her imagery is almost indecipherable. In fact, I attribute the fact that her following is small but incredibly loyal to this fact. Her lyrics are so personal that they resonate very deeply with some people. She also has the widest lyrical range of any songwriter I'm familiar with. Nothing that she could write about would surprise me. Madonna, on the other hand, writes lyrics which are based around mostly one topic (sex) and are very straightforward. In spite of the controversial nature of some of her lyrics, her songs tend to be bland and uninteresting. They certainly don't engage my mind or my heart. Their lyrics are totally different. Given that they are so dissimilar, I wonder what it is that you think they have in common? Robert rmiller@sbcs.sunysb.edu Article 50004 of rec.music.misc: Path: lll-winken!ncis.tis.llnl.gov!helios.ee.lbl.gov!ucsd!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!rutgers!cmcl2!sbcs!sbgrad12!rmiller From: rmiller@sbgrad12.cs.sunysb.edu (Robert Miller) Newsgroups: rec.music.misc Subject: Re: Something other than...Re: MADONNA on MTV [all day] Wed, Aug. 1 Message-ID: <1990Aug1.204835.14972@sbcs.sunysb.edu> Date: 1 Aug 90 20:48:35 GMT References: <JP5$A4^@rpi.edu> <65592@lll-winken.LLNL.GOV> <1990Aug1.183415.13471@sbcs.sunysb.edu> Sender: usenet@sbcs.sunysb.edu (Usenet poster) Organization: State University of New York at Stony Brook Lines: 24 X-Local-Date: 1 Aug 90 13:48:35 PDT In article <1990Aug1.183415.13471@sbcs.sunysb.edu> rmiller@sbgrad12.cs.sunysb.edu (Robert Miller) writes: [Discussion of Kate Bush's lyrical style deleted.] >Madonna, on the other hand, >writes lyrics which are based around mostly one topic (sex) and are >very straightforward. In spite of the controversial nature of some >of her lyrics, her songs tend to be bland and uninteresting. They >certainly don't engage my mind or my heart. Their lyrics are >totally different. I was a bit harsh here, and I've just been called to task about it. I did not mean to imply that Madonna did not write personal lyrics. I don't know if she does or doesn't, since the only Madonna songs I know are the ones that get played on the radio, i.e. the hits. Still, any comparison of Madonna's lyrics with Kate Bush's would have to conclude that there are no similarities, beyond the fact that they both write in English. By the way, I'm not a Kate Bush fan. I find her music a bit theatrical and off-the-wall for my taste, but I know enough about it to know it is not like Madonna's. Robert
Love-Hounds-request@GAFFA.MIT.EDU (08/03/90)
Really-From: ed@das.llnl.gov (Edward Suranyi)
Article 50026 of rec.music.misc:
Path: lll-winken!ames!ads.com!decwrl!ucbvax!pasteur!sim!ajoel
From: ajoel@sim.uucp (ANTIPUESTO JOEL CESORA)
Newsgroups: rec.music.misc
Subject: Madonna on HBO
Keywords: madonna, blonde ambition, HBO
Message-ID: <26687@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU>
Date: 2 Aug 90 16:39:56 GMT
Sender: news@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU
Reply-To: ajoel@sim.UUCP (ANTIPUESTO JOEL CESORA)
Followup-To: ajoel@athena.arc.nasa.gov
Distribution: usa
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Lines: 16
Could someone post or e-mail me when the Blonde Ambition concert will
be aired on HBO. Thanks in advance.
And as far as comparing Madonna and Kate Bush, I think that it's like
comparing apples and oranges. I enjoy both for different reasons.
Madonna makes good Top40 pop songs (IMO), regardless of how one
interprets her ideals or image. Kate Bush also writes good songs (again,
IMO), but a different kind of song involving a different musical and
lyrical content and vernacular. I'm not going to argue which is more
"worthy" of attention. I think they are just two artists who express
themselves differently (song reference not intended).
-Joel
janti@athena.arc.nasa.gov
"Mmm, yes..."
Article 50043 of rec.music.misc:
Path: lll-winken!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!samsung!umich!mailrus!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!watserv1!watmath!att!cbnewsl!laural
From: laural@cbnewsl.att.com (laura.l.la gassa)
Newsgroups: rec.music.misc
Subject: Re: MADONNA on MTV [all day] Wed, Aug. 1
Summary: Madonna ~= Kate Bush ? Naah.
Keywords: Madonna, Sarah McLachlan, Kate Bush
Message-ID: <1990Aug2.190948.1994@cbnewsl.att.com>
Date: 2 Aug 90 19:09:48 GMT
References: <JP5$A4^@rpi.edu> <65592@lll-winken.LLNL.GOV> <1990Aug2.141656.18407@cbnewsi.att.com>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 76
[Loren says he suspects that Kate Bush is the Madonna of the Alternative
Rock Set]
Disclaimer: I'm not a rabid fan of anything right now. (For a while I was
nearly religious over OMD, but that's another story).
Anyway, I have five of Kate Bush's albums (one is a compilation), and really
really like three of them, and aren't so thrilled with the other two. (I'm
telling you this so you'll get a sense of where I'm coming from).
One thing that I feel makes Kate Bush very different from Madonna is the
sheer variety of instruments Kate experiments with. In her music you can
hear Ullean (sp?) pipes (more melodic Irish relatives of the Scottish
bagpipes), didgeridoos (sp?) (deep droning Australian Aborigneal ceremonial
pipes), and some Southern and Eastern European relatives of the mandolin
and balaliaka (the exact names escape me now). I find these experiments
fascinating and beautiful.
I'm also intrigued by the range of subjects Kate Bush writes about. I've
heard songs about planning and executing a bank robbery, the fear and
excitement of love, a (short) biography of the death of Harry Houdini,
of the conflict between whites and Native Australians, of a woman who
plays a trick on her husband to see if he still loves her (and it back-
fires), an interpretation of Wuthering Heights, of what it is like to
be dying after falling overboard in a storm, of the emotions surrounding
a difficult birth . . . . Each song is unique. Each is like a little
short story in that a whole universe is created in each. I don't get
that from Madonna's music (the stuff that's played on MTV and the radio).
Madonna's musical universe appears to revolve around how Madonna has
created herself. Kate's universe is recreated in every song, with Kate
playing a different part every time, but still putting her unique
personality into each part. Madonna's pretty much type-casts herself
in her songs.
As a contrast, consider Sarah McLachlan. "Universe"-wise, she's more like
Madonna -- Sarah's universe of lost love is fairly consistant from song
to song. Her voice, however, is *incredible*. She has a much greater
range than Madonna, and her voice is fuller and more melodic, too. She
can hit the highs and lows of Kate Bush, but doesn't squeak in between.
So, while I find a varying "universe" more interesting, I feel Sarah's
voice more than compensates, and this is why I prefer Kate Bush and
Sarah McLachlan to Madonna.
Albums to try, albums to avoid:
The best way to start with Kate Bush is with her compilation,
_The Whole Story_. It's got a sprinkling of songs from all her albums.
As far as "real" albums go, the best to start with is _Hounds of Love_.
I wasn't too keen on _Never For Ever_, and don't have anything earlier
than that. Her latest, _The Sensual World_, does not hit me right
between the ears like _Hounds of Love_ did, _Hounds of Love_ makes a
better first impression (or a better impression on first-time listeners).
As for Sarah McLachlan, the only album I know of is _Touch_. What
follows is a review I wrote when I first got _Touch_:
McLachlan's songs are beautiful, but the lyrics are painful. Not as in
painfully bad, but as in showing pain. Her pretty instrumentations hide
a lot of deep painful reflections on loneliness and lovelessness. I don't
know if this is getting any airplay, but it seems "Vox" would be the ideal
single to put on the radio (on the type of stations that would play Enya's
"Orinoco Flow.") Anyway, "Vox" has a bright bouncy sound, but the lyrics
describe nightmares about a love relationship:
In the desert of my dreams I saw you there
and I'm walking toward the water steaming body cold and bare
but your words cut loose the fire and you left my soul to bleed
and the pain that's in your truth deceiving me has got me scared
Oh Why?
My other favorite track is "Touch," which is an "instrumental" where
McLachlan really unwraps her voice singing clear soprano (?) notes (not
real words). She sounds positively angelic (she doesn't shriek when she hits
the high notes). McLachlan plays 12-string guitar, and piano. There are
some nice string arrangements, too. Available in the US on Arista.
Laura
------------------------------------------------------------------
Ed
ed@das.llnl.gov