Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site mit-eddie.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!ucbvax!decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!nessus
From: nessus@mit-eddie.UUCP (Doug Alan)
Newsgroups: net.music
Subject: Re: Whoaaa...Doug.  Bach vs. Bush
Message-ID: <4636@mit-eddie.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 9-Jul-85 08:04:21 EDT
Article-I.D.: mit-eddi.4636
Posted: Tue Jul  9 08:04:21 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 11-Jul-85 07:51:27 EDT
References: <3021@decwrl.UUCP> <4623@mit-eddie.UUCP> <373@mhuxr.UUCP>
Organization: MIT, Cambridge, MA
Lines: 68

["And we'll bask in the shadow of yesterday's triumph"]

> You seem to hear Bach as a set of musical games and inside jokes. You
> might want to reflect on the fact that Bach invented the Western
> system of musical notation, something that EVERY other musician that
> came later owes to him, including Kate Bush.

So?  Does that make his music better?  I've already clearly said that
Bach is much more important than Kate Bush is historically, and will
probably always be.  Bach existed at a time that was ripe for a total
revolution in music.  Probably there will never come a time again that
is so ripe, and there will never be a another chance for anyone no
matter how brilliant they are to become nearly as historically important
as Bach.

But is music that is historically important necessarily the most
interesting music to listen to today?  I don't think so.  If Kate Bush
has incorporated all of the interesting discoveries Bach made into her
music, and added many of her own, then it only seems natural for me to
enjoy Kate Bush's music more.  For me to find Bach's music more ... dare
I say ...  primitive.  Ultimately, I don't care much for history -- I
care a lot about music, though.

> She has done nothing (yet) that remotely resembles something this
> colossal, which puts her at a severe disadvantage in any comparison to
> old Joe Bach.

Historically, certainly!

>> [Me] Doing what Kate Bush does is a lot more time consuming that what
>> Bach did.  There are a lot more variables to worry about.  There are
>> unlimited studio effect, synthesizer timbres, envelope settings,
>> etc............ she can only record a small amount of the music she
>> writes.

> Little of this paragraph has to do with musical quality.

I never said that it did.  It was just a response to the claim that Kate
Bush couldn't be as good as Bach because she only comes out with 40
minutes of music every three years compared to Bach who produced 90
gigatons of written music every 3 picoseconds.

> As to designing record covers and video costumes, I fail to see what
> that has to do with music.

It's all part of being an artist, rather than just a musical artist.
You don't think everyone should just limit themselves to one domain do
you?

> Besides comparing apples and oranges, the fact is that Bach's
> contributions to the body of world music TODAY dwarf anything that
> Kate Bush has done. Now in 50 or 100 years we'll be able, perhaps, to
> evaluate Bush's place in history a bit better (compariing her to Bach
> will still be apples to oranges, however). Until then, al this talk is
> a waste of computer cycles.

Yeah, especially since I don't give a hoot about history.  If I were
born a hundred years from now, I probably wouldn't want to listen to
Kate Bush either, because by then someone else will most probably come along
and incorporate Kate Bush's discoveries into something that will be more
relevant to the times.  But I'm living in the here and now -- and that's
where Kate Bush is too.

				"Pile on many more layers
				 And I'll be joining you there"

				 Doug Alan
				  nessus@mit-eddie.UUCP (or ARPA)