hui@joplin.mpr.ca (Michael Hui) (01/05/90)
In article <705@dbrmelb.dbrhi.oz> johnm@dbrmelb.OZ.AU (John Mashford) writes: > >Given the obvious familiarity with and expertise of KT with digital technology >one also wonders whether KT reads this newsgroup, thereby obtaining some >insight and understanding (deeper or otherwise) of herself ?? A close relative of mine is studying composition at a university. She does not read news, does not read MIDI related magazines, does not own a Mac, is not fanatical about Kate Bush, but does not hate her either, does not socialize with any technologically oriented people, etc. But: she certainly can use a score editor to maximum effect, can control a whole array of synthesizers quite well with a computer, and, of course, composes music a lot more substantial than anything KT has done; but music of a different genre, hence perhaps "more substantial" is not a fair comparison here, objectively speaking. But music has always been subjective; those who love the work most usually end up writing a less accessible piece than those less devoted to it.
slh@ut-emx.UUCP (Susan L. Cecelia Harwood) (01/06/90)
In article <1996@eric.mpr.ca> hui@joplin.mpr.ca writes: (In answer to a query about KT reading news) >A close relative of mine is studying composition at a university. >She does not read news, [lots of computer-oriented things that she >doesn't do deleted]... But: she certainly can use a score editor to >maximum effect, can control a whole array of synthesizers quite well >with a computer, and, of course, composes music a lot more substantial >than anything KT has done; but music of a different genre, hence >perhaps "more substantial" is not a fair comparison here, objectively >speaking. My, but she's quite the talented girl, isn't she? I suppose, because she's a Student of Composition, it would be only natural to expect that she composed music of a substantial nature, as do they all. Right? And Kate Bush, who by her own admission is a songwriter (she does not say composer) would not write anything so earth-shattering and substantial. And how sporting of you to suggest that such a comparison is unfair, due to the respective natures of the women's work. I have not heard your relative's work, so forgive me if I decide the comparison is unfair to her, not to Kate, as you implied. >But music has always been subjective; those who love the work most >usually end up writing a less accessible piece than those less >devoted to it. Well, that was the proverbial straw. You didn't say in what genre(s) your relative writes, but I'm assuming you mean Serious Music, i.e. classical. Your implication seems to be that her music (and music of such ilk) is doomed to be less accessible than something like Kate Bush's because composer types are more devoted to their music than songwriters and the like and will thus not prostitute their art for accessibility. What a perfect martyr to the Cause of Serious Music you are. (By the way, Kate Bush could hardly labelled "accessible.") I too have studied music at a university; I even have a degree in performance. Furthermore, I consider Kate Bush to be an artist, and have seen nothing to make me think this woman who has only released six albums in twelve years is not wholly devoted to her work. The sarcastic tone I took about your relative's work was not due to any action on her part but arose from your exclusive attitude about music-- which by the way had little to do with the question at hand. It's attitudes like that that make "serious" music inaccessible, not the music itself. -- _______________________________________________________________________________ Susan L. Cecelia Harwood amadeus@walt.cc.utexas.edu *<:-) The University of Texas @Austin "...suspended in gaffa..." --Kate Bush _______________________________________________________________________________
hui@joplin.mpr.ca (Michael Hui) (01/06/90)
In article <23019@ut-emx.UUCP> walt.cc.utexas.edu!amadeus@cs.utexas.edu (Susan Harwood) writes: >The sarcastic tone I took about your relative's work was not due to >any action on her part but arose from your exclusive attitude about >music-- which by the way had little to do with the question at hand. >It's attitudes like that that make "serious" music inaccessible, not >the music itself. Your last sentence struck me as especially true, and may explain why I have always had difficulty reconciling "composition students'" opinions about pop music and fans' opinions about pop music. Yes, the attitude does matter. It certainly does matter a whole lot. But why did you say my attitude was exclusive? Allow me to restate my point, for the last time: There is a lot of other exciting music going on out there. I do find some of them to be more substantial, more interesting, and more emotionally intense than stuff written by Kate Bush. Where Kate stands in my own "scale" is a moot point. I simply do not put Kate miles above everyone else simply because I do not see evidence to justify it. But just to put things into perspective, I do have a complete collection of Kate's work. My entire album/CD/cassette collection is around 200. So that's not too bad as far as percentage goes? Can we calm down now?
slh@ut-emx.UUCP (Susan L. Cecelia Harwood) (01/08/90)
In article <2002@eric.mpr.ca> hui@joplin.mpr.ca writes: > >In article <23019@ut-emx.UUCP> walt.cc.utexas.edu!amadeus@cs.utexas.edu >(Susan Harwood) writes: >>It's attitudes like that that make "serious" music inaccessible, not >>the music itself. > >Your last sentence struck me as especially true, and may explain why I >have always had difficulty reconciling "composition students'" opinions >about pop music and fans' opinions about pop music. >Yes, the attitude does matter. It certainly does matter a whole lot. >But why did you say my attitude was exclusive? Exclusive in the sense of possibly preventing other people from exploring such music by your attitude, which (to me) seems off-putting. >There is a lot of other exciting music going on out there. Yes, I... I think I knew that. That was never in question. >Where Kate stands in my own "scale" is a moot point. Granted. >I simply do not put Kate miles above everyone else simply because I >do not see evidence to justify it. Nobody said you needed to, remember? I don't remember that as being a problem. >But just to put things into perspective, I do have a complete >collection of Kate's work. My entire album/CD/cassette collection is >around 200. So that's not too bad as far as percentage goes? >Can we calm down now? It's interesting that you're the one saying 'can we calm down now?' when you're also the one who started this whole string by throwing in your philosophies about music when the original question was simply "Does Kate Bush read news?" Where Kate Bush stands in your scale is indeed a moot point, but in your side of the argument as well as mine. Yes, we can stop this whole thing, if you'll just answer me one question. What exactly do you mean when you say substantial? You've been throwing that word around a lot (as in "more substantial than Kate Bush"). Once I know precisely how you're applying that word, your argument might sound a little less... ummm, inaccessible.-- _______________________________________________________________________________ Susan L. Cecelia Harwood amadeus@walt.cc.utexas.edu *<:-) The University of Texas @Austin "...suspended in gaffa..." --Kate Bush _______________________________________________________________________________