hui@joplin.mpr.ca (Michael Hui) (01/06/90)
In article <9001051714.AA14270@GAFFA.MIT.EDU> Doug Alan <nessus@athena.mit.edu> writes: >What's the point of this little flame? I have certainly missed it. >First of all, *no one* has ever written music "more substatial" than >Kate's best work. Secondly, what does "substantiality" have to do >with accessibility? *Most* very accessible music is not very >substantial, but that does mean that there is not a great deal of very >substantial and accessible music. And there are certainly plenty of >musicians who completely *love* writing fluffy pop ditties, and there >are musicians who write very substantial music as a part-time hobby, >so this comment about devotion is pretty bankrupt. Thirdly, *no one* >is more devoted to his or her music than Kate is (or perhaps rather >*was* on her pre-*Sensual World* albums). Fourthly, most people don't >seem to find much of Kate's work very accessible at all. In fact, >that is one of the most common criticisms you hear about her music -- >that you have to listen to the album ten times (take *The Dreaming* >for example) before it makes any sense. So, all in all, I'd say your >message really pretty poorly constructed as an argument for whatever >it's supposed to be an argument for. I wrote in response to someone suggesting that Kate may be reading this news feed. My point was that many musicians think / socialize / have values and priorities different from engineers / scientists / stock brokers / lawyers, etc. So if I asked a composition student in a university what he/she thinks of our posts in rec.music.gaffa I will most likely get a bored reply: they always believe that they operate on a much higher intellectual plane than anyone in pop/rock out there. Since "academic" music is so much more intricate and symbolic, it is immensely more difficult to "enjoy", or even to understand. In fact, I doubt this stuff was ever meant to bring joy to any listener; it could well be written to only satisfy the whims of certain composition professors. I especially take issue with your fourth point: people generally have this feeling of superiority once they have acquired a liking of some type of music. This happens to all walks of life. Well, a composition student has had to STUDY a lot of different genres of music, including most stuff written after WW2. So their feeling of superiority may well be the strongest. If they can honestly claim that they have seriously listened to ALL kinds of music written after WW2, then perhaps you have to give them some credit for claiming that Kate's music is not as big a deal as you make it out to be. I encourage you to attend "new music" concerts given by faculty and students of a music school near by. Only then will you understand what I mean. Composers in academia are going in a completely different direction from what most pop artists are going (not that pop artists are going in any sense of a similar direction, I would readily admit).
nessus@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Doug Alan) (01/06/90)
> Since "academic" music is so much more intricate and symbolic, it is > immensely more difficult to "enjoy", or even to understand. Oh, phooey. This just isn't true. Sure most academic music is more intricate than your average pop song, but Kate's most intricate music is just as intricate and symbolic as *any* music. Furthermore, much "academic" music is not difficult to enjoy or understand at all. > In fact, I doubt this stuff was ever meant to bring joy to any > listener; it could well be written to only satisfy the whims of > certain composition professors. I'm sure that there is plenty of bad academic music, just as there is plenty of bad music of any given sort. Music that no one can enjoy is just plain bad. Certainly not all academic music is like this. > Well, a composition student has had to STUDY a lot of different > genres of music, including most stuff written after WW2. Hah! Plenty of composition students *never* study rock or jazz. Plenty of composition students are only trained in Baroque, Classical, etc. > So their feeling of superiority may well be the strongest. If they > can honestly claim that they have seriously listened to ALL kinds of > music written after WW2, then perhaps you have to give them some > credit for claiming that Kate's music is not as big a deal as you > make it out to be. They can claim anything they want to -- that doesn't make it true. I've known many people highly trained in music who were quite impressed with the complexity of Kate's composition. Are you trying to say that *everyone* who has ever studied lots of genres of music will say that Kate's music is simplistic? That's patently false. > I encourage you to attend "new music" concerts given by faculty and > students of a music school near by. Only then will you understand > what I mean. Composers in academia are going in a completely > different direction from what most pop artists are going (not that > pop artists are going in any sense of a similar direction, I would > readily admit). I've listened to plenty of "avant-garde" music. Some of it is wonderful. Some of it is atrocious. I've yet to find any, however, that is any more "substantial" than Kate Bush's music or that of several other composers who compose in the pop/rock genre. |>oug "W is for WINNIE embedded in ice"