CCJS@cc.nu.OZ.AU (James Smith) (11/13/89)
Path: cc!ccjs From: CCJS@cc.nu.oz (James Smith) Newsgroups: rec.music.gaffa Subject: Re: Reaching Out (was Re: The album's cover + Melody Maker) Message-ID: <11167@cc.nu.oz> Date: 13 Nov 89 19:32:57 -1000 References: <8911050413.24387@munnari.oz.au> <1989Nov6.181858.12939@eddie.mit.edu> Organization: University of Newcastle Lines: 55 Jon Drukman writes (in reply to me): > I'm really intrigued by the fact that you say that this song more than > any other is "Just Kate." Because it really isn't. When I listen to music, I generally listen for the sound of the music and the effect it has on me. I don't generally listen to the words, other than to enjoy the rhythm they add to the music. I much prefer a song with a good strong melodic line and an interesting rhythm to one with a message, or one that tells a story. For me Kate's most beautiful work has always been that in which she shows off her voice rather than that in which she shows off her skills as a producer. I much prefer The Kick Inside to The Dreaming, because the songs feature her singing and her voice. The reason I say that Reaching Out is "Just Kate" is because everything in it is there to emphasise the beauty of her voice; the strings and synthesisers don't overpower it, and the violin adds a beautiful counterpoint to emphasize it. As a counter example, in Heads We're Dancing, or say Waking The Witch, Kate's voice is really just there as another instrument. > It's more like > Barbara Streisand or Bette Midler or (god forbid) Jon Bon Jovi. What has Kate's style to do with the beauty of her work? If she's choosen a style akin to Barbara Streisand, so what? She's still produced a beautiful piece of music. Or are you saying that the style of music Kate chooses to produce in some way affects how good or bad it is? > My personal opinion is that Kate > is at her best when telling us stories. This is, I guess, why I posted. You are saying "Reaching Out is horrible" instead of "I think Reaching Out is horrible"; you are putting forth your own opinion as though it were the absolute truth, albiet unintentionally. I'm sure this rubs a lot of people up the wrong way--it certainly does me. Reaching Out is a perfect example of the sort of song that it is. It is well produced, has a beautiful melody, is arranged beautifully, and features great performances from those who made it. Are you really objecting to the quality of the song, or to its style? And if so, is it fair to brand this song as bad just because it doesn't appeal to you? Jim -- James Smith | When a man fell into his anecdotage Computing Centre | it was a sign for him to retire from Newcastle University | the world. ccjs@cc.nu.oz.au | -- Benjamin Disraeli
CCJS@cc.nu.oz (James Smith) (11/14/89)
Jon Drukman writes (in reply to me): > I'm really intrigued by the fact that you say that this song more than > any other is "Just Kate." Because it really isn't. When I listen to music, I generally listen for the sound of the music and the effect it has on me. I don't generally listen to the words, other than to enjoy the rhythm they add to the music. I much prefer a song with a good strong melodic line and an interesting rhythm to one with a message, or one that tells a story. For me Kate's most beautiful work has always been that in which she shows off her voice rather than that in which she shows off her skills as a producer. I much prefer The Kick Inside to The Dreaming, because the songs feature her singing and her voice. The reason I say that Reaching Out is "Just Kate" is because everything in it is there to emphasise the beauty of her voice; the strings and synthesisers don't overpower it, and the violin adds a beautiful counterpoint to emphasize it. As a counter example, in Heads We're Dancing, or say Waking The Witch, Kate's voice is really just there as another instrument. > It's more like > Barbara Streisand or Bette Midler or (god forbid) Jon Bon Jovi. What has Kate's style to do with the beauty of her work? If she's choosen a style akin to Barbara Streisand, so what? She's still produced a beautiful piece of music. Or are you saying that the style of music Kate chooses to produce in some way affects how good or bad it is? > My personal opinion is that Kate > is at her best when telling us stories. This is, I guess, why I posted. You are saying "Reaching Out is horrible" instead of "I think Reaching Out is horrible"; you are putting forth your own opinion as though it were the absolute truth, albiet unintentionally. I'm sure this rubs a lot of people up the wrong way--it certainly does me. Reaching Out is a perfect example of the sort of song that it is. It is well produced, has a beautiful melody, is arranged beautifully, and features great performances from those who made it. Are you really objecting to the quality of the song, or to its style? And if so, is it fair to brand this song as bad just because it doesn't appeal to you? Jim -- James Smith | When a man fell into his anecdotage Computing Centre | it was a sign for him to retire from Newcastle University | the world. ccjs@cc.nu.oz.au | -- Benjamin Disraeli
stewarte@UCSCC.UCSC.EDU (The Man Who Invented Himself) (11/16/89)
Hairy frogs from Neptune forced CCJS@cc.nu.OZ.AU (James Smith) to type: >What has Kate's style to do with the beauty of her work? If she's >choosen a style akin to Barbara Streisand, so what? She's still >produced a beautiful piece of music. Or are you saying that the >style of music Kate chooses to produce in some way affects how >good or bad it is? How can the style _not_ affect how good or bad it is? The style in which a song is written & performed is just as much a part of it as its production, or musicianship, or lyrical profundity, or whatever. Perhaps what you meant to imply is that an entire genre shouldn't be condemned in this way (e.g., "all reggae sucks"), and I agree with that. But if the genre is particularly cliche-ridden, and the song largely follows those cliches rather than varying them or breaking them, the style can definitely weaken the song. >This is, I guess, why I posted. You are saying "Reaching Out is >horrible" instead of "I think Reaching Out is horrible"; you are >putting forth your own opinion as though it were the absolute truth, >albiet unintentionally. I'm sure this rubs a lot of people up the >wrong way--it certainly does me. It is my opinion that people on the net take this kind of thing way too personally. What else would Jon mean when he says "Reaching Out is horrible", other than his own opinion? The very nature of such a statement is a value judgment, and therefore subjective. Why do people get so upset about these things? >Reaching Out is a perfect example of the sort of song that it is. Can you say "tautology"? Sure you can. >It is well produced, has a beautiful melody, is arranged beautifully, and >features great performances from those who made it. See, even you do it! Is calling the song "beautiful" any less an opinion than calling it "horrible". I think it's ridiculously awkward to expect people to qualify absolutely everything that isn't verifiable fact as opinion, when it should be quite obvious from context. -- Stewart -- "Personally, I think that weapons are dangerous..." -- Arthur Evans /* uunet!sco!stewarte -or- stewarte@sco.COM -or- Stewart Evans */
jsd@GAFFA.MIT.EDU (Jon Drukman) (11/16/89)
In article <8911130835.7827@munnari.oz.au> CCJS@cc.nu.OZ.AU (James Smith) writes: >For me Kate's most beautiful work has always been that in which she >shows off her voice rather than that in which she shows off her skills >as a producer. I much prefer The Kick Inside to The Dreaming, because >the songs feature her singing and her voice. Well that's the fundamental difference between you and me, quite obviously. >What has Kate's style to do with the beauty of her work? If she's >choosen a style akin to Barbara Streisand, so what? She's still >produced a beautiful piece of music. Or are you saying that the >style of music Kate chooses to produce in some way affects how >good or bad it is? I don't think "style" as an abstract concept is separatable from the work that embodies it. They are necessarily intertwined! If Kate did a song with bone-crunching guitars and huge drums and a nasty guitar solo in the middle, wouldn't it be called "heavy metal"? Particularly if it followed the proper metal chord changes... Would we not have a right to say that it's utter shit in this case? I'm not suggesting that it would be crap, but I certainly don't like many songs done in the heavy metal genre. >> My personal opinion is that Kate >> is at her best when telling us stories. > >This is, I guess, why I posted. You are saying "Reaching Out is >horrible" instead of "I think Reaching Out is horrible"; you are >putting forth your own opinion as though it were the absolute truth, >albiet unintentionally. I'm sure this rubs a lot of people up the >wrong way--it certainly does me. OK, let's not beat around Kate Bush here -- YOU ARE NOW BEING FLAMED. What the hell are you talking about, bozo? I am putting forth an absolute truth? Well, here's an absolute truth for you: You are a complete illiterate. Does it not say IN THE VERY LINE YOU QUOTED that "MY PERSONAL OPINION IS..." Does this mean anything to your moth eaten brain? Currently the vogue acronym on losenet is "IMHO" standing for "In My Humble Opinion" but in my very pompous opinion, you need a basic lesson in reading skills. Flame continues. >Reaching Out is a perfect example of the sort of song that it is. It >is well produced, has a beautiful melody, is arranged beautifully, and >features great performances from those who made it. Are you really >objecting to the quality of the song, or to its style? And if so, is >it fair to brand this song as bad just because it doesn't appeal to >you? It is a perfect example of shit. And shit is very definitely what it is. It stinks like last week's garbage. Every time I hear more than five seconds of it I am seized with uncontrollable nausea and want to puke violently on those near me. I object to EVERYTHING about it. The lyrics are trite to the point of inanity, the music is revolting to every aesthetic twinge I am capable of feeling. The vocals are histrionic rather than powerful. In short, it sucks. It is perfectly fair to call it BAD because anybody who heard me say that with an IQ higher than that of a demented iguana will understand full well that I THINK IT SUCKS. You can love it, I will leave it. Flame over. +---------------------- Is there any ESCAPE from NOISE? ----------------------+ | | |\ | jsd@gaffa.mit.edu | "To serve God, you gotta be stupid and | | \|on |/rukman | jsd@umass.bitnet | freakish and poor." -- ?? | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
rjc@eusip.edinburgh.ac.UK (Richard Caley) (11/19/89)
This song has been getting a bit of a slagging, so I think I shall put in my two hapenth ( How man Britishisms can I get in one message... ). I love it. It gets back to basics. It is there to show that beyond all the complex arrangments and wierd lyrics KT is still what we always knew she was, a damn good song writer. On the subject of Her depatures from the truth... This is the woman who couldn't remember the lyrics to a song off the _current_ album in an interview, you expect her to remember all the petty details of B sides from N years ago? Maybe she has better things to think about... Like getting the next album out before the turn of the century :-( -- R.Caley@edinburgh.ac.uk This quote intentionally left empty.
CCJS@cc.nu.OZ.AU (James Smith) (11/19/89)
Path: cc!ccjs From: CCJS@cc.nu.oz (James Smith) Newsgroups: rec.music.gaffa Subject: Re: Reaching Out (was Re: The album's cover + Melody Maker) Message-ID: <11249@cc.nu.oz> Date: 19 Nov 89 17:13:34 -1000 References: <8911130835.7827@munnari.oz.au> <8911160632.AA07535@GAFFA.MIT.EDU> Organization: University of Newcastle Lines: 101 >> What has Kate's style to do with the beauty of her work? Stewart Evans writes: > How can the style _not_ affect how good or bad it is? The style in > which a song is written & performed is just as much a part of it as > its production, or musicianship, or lyrical profundity, or whatever. > Perhaps what you meant to imply is that an entire genre shouldn't > be condemned in this way (e.g., "all reggae sucks"), and I agree with > that. But if the genre is particularly cliche-ridden, and the song > largely follows those cliches rather than varying them or breaking > them, the style can definitely weaken the song. But preference for style is really just opinion, not fact. A C&W fan might say HM sucks, and vice versa; it means nothing. Each style is capable of producing great music, and personal preferences don't affect how great that music is. Apples and pears. And you can't rate one style against another, you can only express a preference for one over another. Rap music is a style that is very repetitive and very cliche-ridden. Does that make it a bad style, or just different? Personally I don't like rap, but I don't label it as 'shit'. Jon Drukman writes: > If Kate did > a song with bone-crunching guitars and huge drums and a nasty guitar > solo in the middle, wouldn't it be called "heavy metal"? [...] Would > we not have a > right to say that it's utter shit in this case? I'm not suggesting > that it would be crap, but I certainly don't like many songs done in > the heavy metal genre. But aren't you still just expressing an opinion? Aren't you just saying "I don't like heavy metal, therefore it is shit"? And if you are so narrow minded, are you really qualified to judge how good or bad any song is? -- >> you are >> putting forth your own opinion as though it were the absolute truth, >> albiet unintentionally. Stewart Evans writes: > It is my opinion that people on the net take this kind of thing > way too personally. What else would Jon mean when he says "Reaching > Out is horrible", other than his own opinion? The very nature of > such a statement is a value judgment, and therefore subjective. > Why do people get so upset about these things? See his posting. But point taken; I do tend to be too sensitive about such things. Mind you, how many people do say such things without at least mentally qualifying it with an "in my opinion"? It's a great way of producing very narrow-minded people. >> It is well produced, has a beautiful melody, is arranged beautifully, and >> features great performances from those who made it. > See, even you do it! Is calling the song "beautiful" any less an opinion > than calling it "horrible". I think it's ridiculously awkward to expect > people to qualify absolutely everything that isn't verifiable fact > as opinion, when it should be quite obvious from context. Arh, but this was a statement of fact, not an opinion! Perhaps I should have said "perfectly" rather then "beautifully," then it would not have been seen as an opinion, but a truism. :-) (And perhaps I should have put a smiley after it.) -- Jon Drukman writes: >>> My personal opinion is that Kate is at her best when telling us stories. >> you are putting forth your own opinion as though it were the absolute >> truth, albiet unintentionally. > You are a complete illiterate. Does it not say IN THE VERY LINE > YOU QUOTED that "MY PERSONAL OPINION IS..." This was a reply to a reply to a reply to your original message, in which you did not say any such thing. If you had said "IMHO, Reaching Out is horrible", I would not have posted, but you did not. Perhaps *you* should have read more carefully. > [Reaching Out...] You can love it, I will leave it. Which is fair enough. But if you are going to hold opinions so contrary to others who read this net, perhaps you should be a bit more careful as to how you express them. Jim -- James Smith | When a man fell into his anecdotage Computing Centre | it was a sign for him to retire from Newcastle University | the world. ccjs@cc.nu.oz.au | -- Benjamin Disraeli
CCJS@cc.nu.oz (James Smith) (11/20/89)
>> What has Kate's style to do with the beauty of her work? Stewart Evans writes: > How can the style _not_ affect how good or bad it is? The style in > which a song is written & performed is just as much a part of it as > its production, or musicianship, or lyrical profundity, or whatever. > Perhaps what you meant to imply is that an entire genre shouldn't > be condemned in this way (e.g., "all reggae sucks"), and I agree with > that. But if the genre is particularly cliche-ridden, and the song > largely follows those cliches rather than varying them or breaking > them, the style can definitely weaken the song. But preference for style is really just opinion, not fact. A C&W fan might say HM sucks, and vice versa; it means nothing. Each style is capable of producing great music, and personal preferences don't affect how great that music is. Apples and pears. And you can't rate one style against another, you can only express a preference for one over another. Rap music is a style that is very repetitive and very cliche-ridden. Does that make it a bad style, or just different? Personally I don't like rap, but I don't label it as 'shit'. Jon Drukman writes: > If Kate did > a song with bone-crunching guitars and huge drums and a nasty guitar > solo in the middle, wouldn't it be called "heavy metal"? [...] Would > we not have a > right to say that it's utter shit in this case? I'm not suggesting > that it would be crap, but I certainly don't like many songs done in > the heavy metal genre. But aren't you still just expressing an opinion? Aren't you just saying "I don't like heavy metal, therefore it is shit"? And if you are so narrow minded, are you really qualified to judge how good or bad any song is? -- >> you are >> putting forth your own opinion as though it were the absolute truth, >> albiet unintentionally. Stewart Evans writes: > It is my opinion that people on the net take this kind of thing > way too personally. What else would Jon mean when he says "Reaching > Out is horrible", other than his own opinion? The very nature of > such a statement is a value judgment, and therefore subjective. > Why do people get so upset about these things? See his posting. But point taken; I do tend to be too sensitive about such things. Mind you, how many people do say such things without at least mentally qualifying it with an "in my opinion"? It's a great way of producing very narrow-minded people. >> It is well produced, has a beautiful melody, is arranged beautifully, and >> features great performances from those who made it. > See, even you do it! Is calling the song "beautiful" any less an opinion > than calling it "horrible". I think it's ridiculously awkward to expect > people to qualify absolutely everything that isn't verifiable fact > as opinion, when it should be quite obvious from context. Arh, but this was a statement of fact, not an opinion! Perhaps I should have said "perfectly" rather then "beautifully," then it would not have been seen as an opinion, but a truism. :-) (And perhaps I should have put a smiley after it.) -- Jon Drukman writes: >>> My personal opinion is that Kate is at her best when telling us stories. >> you are putting forth your own opinion as though it were the absolute >> truth, albiet unintentionally. > You are a complete illiterate. Does it not say IN THE VERY LINE > YOU QUOTED that "MY PERSONAL OPINION IS..." This was a reply to a reply to a reply to your original message, in which you did not say any such thing. If you had said "IMHO, Reaching Out is horrible", I would not have posted, but you did not. Perhaps *you* should have read more carefully. > [Reaching Out...] You can love it, I will leave it. Which is fair enough. But if you are going to hold opinions so contrary to others who read this net, perhaps you should be a bit more careful as to how you express them. Jim -- James Smith | When a man fell into his anecdotage Computing Centre | it was a sign for him to retire from Newcastle University | the world. ccjs@cc.nu.oz.au | -- Benjamin Disraeli
jsd@GAFFA.MIT.EDU (Jon Drukman) (11/21/89)
In article <8911190615.900@munnari.oz.au> CCJS@cc.nu.OZ.AU (James Smith) writes: >But aren't you still just expressing an opinion? Aren't you just saying >"I don't like heavy metal, therefore it is shit"? And if you are so >narrow minded, are you really qualified to judge how good or bad any >song is? Of course I am, you silly boy. No matter how narrow your mind you are always entitled to your opinion. That's what makes Amerika great. Of course, when people read *my* opinions they realize that they are reading the work of an exceptional being and that my opinions have ten times more weight than the average bimbo. To paraphrase Kostabi, even now in this half awake state my statements are more riveting than the average love hound's. >Jon Drukman writes: > >>>> My personal opinion is that Kate is at her best when telling us stories. >>> you are putting forth your own opinion as though it were the absolute >>> truth, albiet unintentionally. >> You are a complete illiterate. Does it not say IN THE VERY LINE >> YOU QUOTED that "MY PERSONAL OPINION IS..." >This was a reply to a reply to a reply to your original message, in >which you did not say any such thing. If you had said "IMHO, Reaching >Out is horrible", I would not have posted, but you did not. >Perhaps *you* should have read more carefully. This really pisses me off royally. First of all, the thing I was calling you illiterate about you didn't even re-post in this argument. It is by such sneaky and underhand tactics that wars are started. If you bothered to actualyl READ the lines you were REPLYING to in the original message, the sentence started with "to me personally..." or somethin. In any case, THIS quote HERE ALSO starts with "My personal opinion is that..." How could ANYONE mistake this for absolute word of god? Other than the fact that what I say *IS* the word of god? >> [Reaching Out...] You can love it, I will leave it. >Which is fair enough. But if you are going to hold opinions so contrary >to others who read this net, perhaps you should be a bit more careful >as to how you express them. NEVER! As long as there's life in my fingers, I will type whatever it pleases me to type and if you don't like it, then stick a line to obliterate my postings in your KILL file. I happen to think that my highly offensive and overwritten postings bring a little life to an otherwise boringly factual net. If you don't like 'em, then don't read 'em. +---------------------- Is there any ESCAPE from NOISE? ----------------------+ | | |\ | jsd@gaffa.mit.edu | "To serve God, you gotta be stupid and | | \|on |/rukman | jsd@umass.bitnet | freakish and poor." -- ?? | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+