Love-Hounds-request@GAFFA.MIT.EDU (07/12/90)
Really-From: IED0DXM%OAC.UCLA.EDU@mitvma.mit.edu To: Love-Hounds From: Andrew Marvick (IED) Subject: Katechism XXXVI.7.xi Richard Caldwell, apparently feeling some heat from his earlier criticism of Del Palmer, has posted a lengthy and certainly thoughtful explanation of his views. Though IED takes Richard's opinions in good part, he cannot find a way to agree with them. Here's why: > _The Sensual World_ really isn't > superior to her other most recent efforts in any way. Not musically > as a work of art and certainly not technically as a recording. > Therefore, if we can a assume that Kate is at least as capable as > ever we must conclude that Del's increased participation did not have > a positive effect, i.e. it did not make TSW a better record. Your premise is unsupported by evidence here, Richard. IED for one dislikes your terminology. Although IED would not try to argue that _TSW_ is a "better" record than _The_Dreaming_ or _Hounds_of_Love_, he would certainly not feel sanguine judging it a "worse" one. Such one-word appraisals of Kate's albums seem to IED to have less than no practical value. Kate's albums--_TSW_ included--are so rich and multi-faceted that to dismiss one over another in such cavalier fashion seems to IED unwise, to say the least. IED would answer, however, that _TSW_ is a _departure_ from _The_Dreaming_, as it is from _Hounds_of_Love_. Kate herself has explained that she was emphasizing a different side of her aesthetic on _The_Sensual_World_. Therefore, simplistic "better-or- worse" rating games serve no useful purpose in this context. How does such a valuation benefit us? What new insight do we gain from the unsupported statement that one album is "better" than another? Such judgements don't even begin to address the myriad artistic elements, large and small, which make up the intricate and _unique_ fabric of _The_Sensual_World_. > After having lived with TSW for some time and coming to love it > dearly I must still conclude that it is not as great a work as > either _The Dreaming_ or _Hounds of Love_. IED has no doubt that you have listened to the album very carefully over a long period of time, Richard. But this doesn't in itself tell your readers anything about what you learned about the music, or what standards you used to judge it. How can IED accept your judgement that "<_TSW_> is not as great a work as either _The Dreaming_ or _Hounds of Love_" if your only specific discussion of these three musical cornucopiae is confined to a brief and extremely vague discussion of sound quality and drum samples? IED is amazed that these are apparently your primary criteria for judging the quality of the work of Kate Bush. They may have some relevance on the quality of _Del's_ work, but you have several times gone to some effort to use your discussion of Del's contributions as the foundation for a judgement of Kate's entire album _The_Sensual_World_. It makes no sense to IED. > First there's the sound. The longer I live with TSW the more the > assorted audio flotsam and jetsam that were allowed to creep into the > album annoy me. There has been enough talk here about the noise level > on TSW that I'd say that many, and perhaps most, Love Hounds agree. > So if TSW is a less than ideal recording who gets the blame? > Ultimately Kate does because she's responsible for the finished > product but more specifically Del is credited with "Recording" the > bulk of the album. Note that the credit is for "recording" not > "engineering" and to me that just about sums it up. Well, sorry, Richard, but IED hasn't seen anything summed up here. IED agrees that there is perhaps a slight--a _very_ slight--diminution in the clarity of the recorded sound on _TSW_ as judged against that on _TD_. _HoL_'s sound, however, is scarcely any clearer, and there are many passages on that album which bear even stronger audible tape hiss and blurred definition. Two other points which IED has made twice before in this forum: first, the final character of the sound on _TSW_ is certainly as much the responsibility of the mixer, Kevin Killen, as it is that of the engineer (or "recorder"--an interchangeable term, for all practical purposes), Del Palmer. In fact, if the sound is, as you say it is, distinct in character from that of _The_Dreaming_ and _Hounds_of_Love_, does it not make more sense to ascribe the differences to the newcomer to the project--in this case Killen--rather than to the veteran--Del--who didn't, after all, do that much more on _TSW_ than he had already done on _TD_ and _HoL_? The second point is that the UK import CD has slightly, but noticeably, cleaner sound than the US version. Have you taken that into account? > Andy Marvick counters that Nigel Kennedy had high praise for Del's >engineering ability. It's does seem that Del is capable of capturing >some superb sounds on tape and Kennedy's parts on TSW are a good >example of this. If you take only the recording of Kennedy's part of >the album I can see why Kennedy would have praised Del. Unfortunately >the sound quality of the rest of the album simply doesn't measure up. >Kennedy's praise is based on one of the high points of a rather >spotty recording. Here IED simply disagrees with you outright, Richard. How are the sections of _TSW_ which happen to include Nigel Kennedy's parts "high points" of the album? Your judgement is unexplained, and in IED's view capricious. There is nothing about the recorded sound of Kennedy's instruments which sets them apart and above that of Davey Spillane's or Paddy Bush's or David Gilmour's. If you disagree, perhaps you can describe just that ephemeral quality of sound that you feel puts Kennedy's sections on a higher plane, and how that quality is missing from the other parts of the album? This leads IED to what he considers a basic contradiction in your argument, Richard. First, you write: > It strikes me that TSW is very much the sort of album that might come >about from not having someone to provide feedback who could view the >work more objectively. Having someone there in this capacity doesn't >"water down" Kate's work, it provides an point of reference where >Kate can see how a track is coming together through the eyes of someone >who hasn't been listening to the same piece of tape for a week. On the face of it, this seems to be a reasonable opinion, at least in regard to the average recording artist (a type to which Kate Bush certainly does _not_ belong). But you then go on to say: > _Normally_ Kate wins. How often is normally? How many decisions on >this album didn't go her way? First you seem to be criticizing Kate for not allowing herself to be influenced by other people's opinions--a quality which IED has always respected Kate for, by the way. But in the next breath you criticize Kate for--according to you--_allowing_ herself to be influenced by Del's opinions! Besides, it's just not true that Kate accepted no outside opinions other than Del's on _TSW_; just as it isn't true that she worked completely on her own in earlier days. The fact is, Kate has always been relatively open to the ideas of a variety of other musicians during recording sessions--the _TSW_ sessions included--just as she has always been essentially her own master when it came to selecting the final sounds for her songs--the _TSW_ sessions included. Whatever change in the ratio of insularity to openness can be detected in _TSW_'s final mix cannot be safely ascribed by us outsiders to one specific person, such as Del. >How effectively can she maintain that position when her opposition is a >loved one who is in all probability more important to her than her >music? Again, IED thinks you're just making too much of Del's part in all this. Kate has _always_ taken her music to her family for their judgement, usually as soon as a song was written. This was true at the beginning and when proximity allows, it is true today, as well. But Kate has also made it clear in interviews on several occasions that her own judgement of her work always takes precedence over that of even her closest and most respected friends and family. IED doesn't see that the situation has changed in any significant way since _Hounds_of_Love_. > Maybe Del pushed for an album full of songs > like _Reaching Out_ or maybe he hated that track, maybe the uninspired > percussion was his doing or maybe Kate wanted it that way. In either > case Del is clearly taking a greater role in Kate's music... Well if Del hated _Reaching_Out_, how does Kate's inclusion of it on _TSW_ constitute evidence that Del's influence is too great?! The truth is, Richard, you are indeed speculating wildly about just what influence Del had on the album; yet you nevertheless insist on blaming him for what you consider the album's weaknesses. It just doesn't seem fair to IED. (IED also disagrees with you that the percussion on _TSW_ is "uninspired". The percussion patterns and sounds on tracks like _Never_Be_Mine_ and _Deeper_Understanding_ are absolutely brilliant, and reveal, in typical Bush fashion, more and more subtlety with each successive listening.) > Andy was surprised at my remark that MTV Unplugged would have provided > an excellent venue for a live Kate performance. I'm not sure why that > would be such a surprise. Unplugged has seen some excellent > performances from a wide variety of acts. I suggested it as a likely > venue because it would have given Kate the opportunity to perform > without feeling any need to reproduce her complex album tracks. A few > simple tracks performed on piano with minimal accompaniment would provided > enough material for the show. IED didn't say he thought it would be a bad idea for Kate to go on a show like _MTV_Unplugged_--hell, IED is a Kate fan, he'd be happy if Kate went on _any_ damn show! What IED did say was that it was an extremely unlikely venue for Kate, because Kate has no interest in giving a simple performance of a sequence of her songs with minimal acoustic accompaniment. Here's what Kate had to say on just exactly this subject, in a 1985 _Musician_ interview with Kate, Del and Paddy. The interviewer was Peter Swales: But in these performances, Kate--and really they are what I wanted to talk about, not your videos--there are only a couple of songs which you yourself perform _on_the_piano_, usually one or two of the more gentle and intimate ones like _The_Man_With_the_Child_in_His_Eyes_. Yet someone like me, at any rate, would like to see you as a performer, as a serious musician, singing at the piano and leading the band, which I know you could do very well if you wanted to. I told you earlier how the first time I saw Kate Bush was early on, around 1978, when you did two or three numbers in that manner on a TV show, and it was then that I recognized in an instant, that this young kid was an exceptional artist who had to be taken very seriously, I mean _musically_. Am I right in thinking that one of the reasons you've never toured in the States is because you suppose you need this big show with all the people involved and all the expensive props? Do you not feel--and I suppose this is really what my argument comes down to--that you could come to America just with your band and play more or less straightforwardly? "No, no, I would feel that that was such a cop-out. I don't think I'd be able to feel that I had any effort or sense of challenge left in me. I don't really feel that happy doing something, in a way, unless I've really pushed myself to the limit. And, you know, it's like when we do videos and things, I don't really feel right unless we're all filthy and exhausted by the end of the day. Otherwise it doesn't feel like you've put enough effort into it. When you hear an album you listen to the music; but when you go and see a show, you're going there to _see_ that person or the band come alive, and hopefully give you everything that they've got, so that you can really have a good evening and enjoy the music within the concept of a _show_. And I think, if I was just going to stand up there, then, you know, what are the audience getting apart from seeing me just standing there that they can't get on an album? On the albums, they get much better arrangements, much better vocals which are in tune, all that sort of thing..." Except Except that there are of course artists who can give a straightforward performance yet who do it in such a way that they invest it with something quite special in terms of musical spontaneity and so on... "You see, I don't think I _want_ to be up there on the stage being _me_. I don't think I'm that interesting for people to see. I think what I want to do is to be up there actually being the person that is there in the song. I think that is much more interesting for people and it is much more of a challenge for me. If I can be the character in the song, then suddenly there's all this strength and energy in me which perhaps I wouldn't normally have, whereas if it was just me, I don't think I could walk on the stage with confidence. It's very hard for me to be _me_ on a stage, I just stand there and twiddle my fingers." But Kate, it seems to me that all those in the States who've taken Kate Bush so deeply to heart and who are feeling deprived not to have had a chance to see her perform, what they love perhaps more than anything is precisely that so much of your music is so deeply personal. The personae you assume are fun, but it is the real Kate Bush whom your fans love more than anyone else. Could you not come to the States to perform and simply be yourself? "Well, that is great if you think people would like that, but I cannot help but feel it is very important to give people something visually special. That was what made me feel there was something special when I saw Lindsay Kemp all those years ago. He opened up a whole new world for me that I had not really thought about before, the fact that he was doing something so incredible without even saying anything! It really affected me emotionally, like when I was younger and used to listen to records and the way they affected me was incredible and I used to think, if I could ever do that one day to other people through music, that would be great. I think in a way Lindsay had a similar influence on me; what he was doing was so exciting and powerful, I thought to myself, if you could possibly create music _and_ have it accompanied by such strong visuals, then it would just have to be good; and really interesting. And I don't think, by any means, that the tour which we did some years ago was perfect, there were a lot of things that were experimental, and we didn't know if they were going to work, but I think we did explore new territory, visually speaking, and the reaction was so positive--I mean, I think that probably opened up more people to listening to my stuff than the records themselves ever did. Partly, I think, because people didn't expect me to be quite like that and they all enjoyed it. And I see that as a very positive, rather than a negative, thing. Had they not enjoyed it, then that would be a different thing and perhaps I would not feel so inclined to want to do it again. But I have had an extraordinary amount of encouragement from people not just on the musical side but also on the visual side, maybe even more so! And I do feel that, when eventually I get the time and money to do another show, I hope we will continue working along those lines of combining music with dance and with theatre and it would be even better and much more interesting than the last time. I think that is a very untouched area in rock music, and it has great potential." Del: "Yeah, anyone can set up their gear and sit down at a piano and sing for an hour. But not everybody can put on a whole integrated show. And as soon as we got our little band together years ago, right from the word go it was theatrics and show. We were only playing little pubs on tiny little stages like at _The_Rose_of_Lee_, but we had a whole light show, we used dry ice, and all that. What you are saying is that Kate's fans in America would love it even if she just came over and set up and played. But think how much more they would love it if she was there with a whole show." Well, are there any plans yet for a return to the stage? Kate: "No..." -- Andrew Marvick
Love-Hounds-request@GAFFA.MIT.EDU (07/12/90)
Really-From: 8-Track Maniac <jsd@gaffa.MIT.EDU> Well folks, you knew it was gonna come some day, and sho nuff it did! The big whopping near 300 line IED slam... Despite the fact that poor ole Richard stated at the outset that this was all based on speculation, conjecture and idle flights of fancy, IED walloped on it anyway. But that's OK, cos now I'm gonna wallop on IED. >Really-From: IED0DXM%OAC.UCLA.EDU@mitvma.mit.edu > > Your premise is unsupported by evidence here, Richard. IED for one >dislikes your terminology. Although IED would not try to argue that _TSW_ >is a "better" record than _The_Dreaming_ or _Hounds_of_Love_, he would >certainly not feel sanguine judging it a "worse" one. Such one-word >appraisals of Kate's albums seem to IED to have less than no practical >value. Kate's albums--_TSW_ included--are so rich and multi-faceted >that to dismiss one over another in such cavalier fashion seems to IED >unwise, to say the least. Yes, they're all different - but they all offer something similar: an audio trip for ~45 minutes. Although one's perception of such an experience is necessarily subjective (music being a wonderfully un-quantifiable art), one can certainly rate one's enjoyment of an aural experience on a scale. In the sound quality arena, things are even simpler because phenomenae like "hiss" and "clarity" are concrete and quantifiable, although of course there are variations from stereo to stereo. > Two other points which IED has made twice before in this forum: first, >the final character of the sound on _TSW_ is certainly as much the >responsibility of the mixer, Kevin Killen, as it is that of the engineer >(or "recorder"--an interchangeable term, for all practical purposes), >Del Palmer. In fact, if the sound is, as you say it is, distinct in >character from that of _The_Dreaming_ and _Hounds_of_Love_, does it >not make more sense to ascribe the differences to the newcomer to the >project--in this case Killen--rather than to the veteran--Del--who >didn't, after all, do that much more on _TSW_ than he had already done >on _TD_ and _HoL_? Don't go blaming Mr. Killen. He did Peter Gabriel's album and it sounds dynamite - hardly any hiss or noise there at all. Besides, mixing involves balancing track levels, EQ and effects - the technical job of getting the instruments on tape usually falls to the engineer, and I think there's a lot of shoddy engineering on TSW, whether one cares to 'blame' Del or not. There's several "rumbly" piano passages, and I think the whole tone of the reverb could've been adjusted to better effect, but that's me... OK, the clarity of the US CD might not be as great as the UK, but we've got to go by what we have to work with. I have never seen an import TSW, ever, so I am stuck with judging the album I have got. Of course, there are those in this group who would prefer it if we never judged anything and just sat there quietly accepting second rate material from a first rate artist. +---------------------- Is there any ESCAPE from NOISE? ---------------------+ | | |\ | jsd@gaffa.mit.edu | ZIK ZAK - We make everything you need, | | \|on |/rukman | -Fight The Power- | and you need everything we make. | +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Love-Hounds-request@GAFFA.MIT.EDU (07/12/90)
Really-From: keving%gaffa@sgi.com (Kevin Gurney) [ Talk of sound quality ] An even better indication of my personal disapointment with the sound quality of TSW is the fact that when I hear a track from TSW on the radio, it almost *always* sounds flatter, fainter, and muddier than the songs on either side of it. It sounded this way a week before its release when KITS started pre-viewing it, so don't even bother to suggest that the radio station's copy of TSW is just worn-out. Also, many of the dj's at KITS are big Kate fans also, so if the track is on a cart (very common practice) and the quality of the cart were bad (it does happen) I'm sure they would have had a new cart made by now. Maybe the cart (if it's even on a cart) sounds so bad because the source (the cd) sounds bad. So whether or not TSW sounds better compared to TD or HoL is immaterial. What matters is that tracks on TSW, when compared to tracks by other artists, display a noticably worse sound quality. This has nothing to do with "artistic intent" either, unless Kate wants my radio to sound like the cheesy AM box like I had in my 1970 Ford station wagon! (In case anyone is wondering, I'm not particularly fond of over-punched bass lines and equalization that looks like a steep parabola.) I don't care whose "fault" it is, but I hope she gets it right for the next album, cuz it's downright embarrassing to hear such truly wonderful material (yes, even "Reaching Out"!) displayed in such a less-than-adequate manner. ---- "Is it hot in here?" keving@gaffa.wpd.sgi.com
ed@das.llnl.gov (Edward Suranyi) (07/13/90)
>Really-From: keving%gaffa@sgi.com (Kevin Gurney) > Also, many of the dj's >at KITS are big Kate fans also, so if the track is on a cart (very common >practice) I had a phone conversation with Mark Hamilton, one of KITS's DJs, back in October when "The Sensual World" was hot. He told me that that song *was* on a cartridge. You're right about many of the DJs being Kate fans. Hamilton told me he had just been to an album release party put on by CBS at a San Francisco record store. They played the album, and showed the video for "The Sensual World," which he said was very nice. I was incredibly jealous; it was to be several weeks before I got a chance to see that video. Also, Steve Masters once called "Wuthering Heights" "one of my favorite songs of all time." Ed ed@das.llnl.gov
Love-Hounds-request@GAFFA.MIT.EDU (07/13/90)
Really-From: wisner@hayes.fai.alaska.edu (Bill Wisner) IED: > Your premise is unsupported by evidence here, Richard. IED for one >dislikes your terminology. And I don't care much for pseudo-lawyerspeak. So? > Although IED would not try to argue that _TSW_ >is a "better" record than _The_Dreaming_ or _Hounds_of_Love_, he would >certainly not feel sanguine judging it a "worse" one. Such one-word >appraisals of Kate's albums seem to IED to have less than no practical >value. New Kids on the Block are worse than Kate Bush. Worse. One-word appraisal. No practical value? > Kate's albums--_TSW_ included--are so rich and multi-faceted >that to dismiss one over another in such cavalier fashion seems to IED >unwise, to say the least. So are Security, Skylarking and Sergeant Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band. What's the point? > IED would answer, however, that _TSW_ is a >_departure_ from _The_Dreaming_, as it is from _Hounds_of_Love_. It's a worse album. >_ Kate >herself has explained that she was emphasizing a different side of her >aesthetic on _The_Sensual_World_. She was emphasizing a worse side of her aesthetic. > Therefore, simplistic "better-or- >worse" rating games serve no useful purpose in this context. Well-prepared duck a l'orange is better than a Spam sandwich. No useful purpose? > How does >such a valuation benefit us? Getting a $300 tax refund is better than paying $700. How does such a valuation benefit us? > What new insight do we gain from the >unsupported statement that one album is "better" than another? Such >judgements don't even begin to address the myriad artistic elements, >large and small, which make up the intricate and _unique_ fabric of >_The_Sensual_World_. Put a cork in it, IED. Bill Wisner <wisner@hayes.fai.alaska.edu> Gryphon Gang Fairbanks AK 99775 "Put a cork in it, Wisner." -- Karl Kleinpaste <karl@cis.ohio-state.edu>
Love-Hounds-request@GAFFA.MIT.EDU (07/14/90)
Really-From: ag@sics.se (Anders G|ransson) Bill Wisner, how dare you send such a message! ---------------------------------------------- I'm not saying that TSW is better or worse than for example HoL, I just don't play it very often. -- name(!): Anders G|ransson