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!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!ihnp4!mit-eddie!nessus
From: nessus@mit-eddie.UUCP (Doug Alan)
Newsgroups: net.music
Subject: Re: Whoaaa...Doug.  Bach vs. Bush vs. Madonna
Message-ID: <4623@mit-eddie.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 8-Jul-85 03:05:57 EDT
Article-I.D.: mit-eddi.4623
Posted: Mon Jul  8 03:05:57 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 9-Jul-85 05:36:23 EDT
References: <3021@decwrl.UUCP>
Organization: MIT, Cambridge, MA
Lines: 163

["You cannot achieve the goal without suffering."]

> From: joel@decwrl.UUCP (Joel McCormack)

> Well Dougie, I think you just screwed up.

I don't think I screwed up Joely.  I still stand by everything I said.

> First, you claim Madonna is not interesting because "it requires no
> intelligent thought on the part of the listener."  Then you claim
> "Kate Bush is better musically than Bach...because Kate Bush realizes
> that music should be emotionally powerful.... [Bach] plays all sorts
> of cute little games....  all this is lost on the listener who isn't a
> musician, and this makes his music boring and sterile."  (Later, you
> go on to claim Bush IS as complex as Bach; I think you should decide
> one way or the other.)

Nothing I said contradicts itself.  In my opinion, music should be
emotionally powerful.  This doesn't mean that it shouldn't also be
intellectually powerful.  Emotion and intellect aren't independent
entities -- they're strongly connected.  Music should be both
emotionally and intellectually powerful, and if it is one, it will most
likely be the other, at least with respect to intelligent people.

Both Kate Bush's music and Bach's music is complex.  My complaint with
Bach is not that his music is too complex (it isn't -- I think it's
simpler than the music on "The Dreaming"), but that the emphasis in his
music seems to be in filling it with "inside jokes" rather than making
it interesting to listen to by the intelligent layperson.  (Inside jokes
can be put in something very simple, so this has nothing to do with
complexity.)  You shouldn't have to be a writer to appreciate a novel.
You shouldn't have to be a film-maker to appreciate a movie.  You
shouldn't have to be poet to appreciate a poem.  You shouldn't have to
be a musician to appreciate a piece of music.

Of course, this is all just my opinion, and I don't want you to think
that I believe that Kate Bush is better than Bach by some absolute
standard.  All art that is original and creative is in some sense
equally good, because I don't really believe in absolute standards, but
art that is neither original nor creative is not good.  (If you don't
accept that unoriginal equals bad then please move to "Good music vs.
bad music" discussion -- I don't want to reargue that all here.)

In any case, both Kate Bush and Bach have produced original and creative
works and both deserve a lot of credit.

> You have not made a case for "Bush is better than Bach."

I'm not trying to.  Maybe I haven't been making this clear (though I
think I have), but I'm not trying to prove that Kate Bush is better than
Bach, only describe why I like Kate Bush much better than Bach.  If
you're a musician, and can get all of Bach's inside jokes, and for that
reason you love him, that's fine with me.

> You have merely described a level that is too simple for you to enjoy
> (Madonna), and a level too complex for you (Bach), found someone who
> plays at the right level for you (Bush), and claimed she is the best,
> and implied that anyone who disagrees is closed-minded.

I don't remember anywhere equating quality with complexity!  Perhaps
this is because I never did?  There's lots of good minimalist music
around.  Madonna's "music" is bad because it's musically unoriginal and
her lyrics and image are offensive (more on this in an article to follow
sometime soon).  And I don't like Bach so much, not because he's too
complex for me (he's not -- I can easily remember melodies in Bach's
music -- much more easily than I can remember the melodies in "The
Dreaming"), but because I don't find his music emotionally powerful.  If
I were a musician, maybe I'd catch all his little jokes, and go "tee hee
hee" and therefore find his music very emotionally powerful -- but
again, this has nothing to do with complexity.

> Now, if you had merely said that Bush creates music of the right
> complexity for you, I wouldn't have a problem.  But you have dismissed
> anything below this complexity with a VALUE judgement - evidently
> Madonna IS the right complexity for millions, because she sells so
> many records.

Madonna sells so many records because she uses a formula that has been
proven for years to be commercially successful.  Provide people with
what they're already familiar with, that won't challenge them or make
them think too much.  Throw in some scandal so that people will look up
from their National Enquirers.  Voila!  Millions of bucks role in.

Also, there is lots of good music that is simpler than Madonna's music.

> I personally don't like it, but I see no reason for you to get down on
> the people who do like Madonna as being lazy, if you are not willing
> to learn enough music to thoroughly appreciate Bach.  Pretend you just
> spent 7 years getting a Masters in Music: with this much training you
> might find Kate Bush to be a "totally formulated, predigested
> product."

Bullshit!  Kate Bush's music is original.  Getting a Masters in music
won't change that fact.  It will never appear to be a formulated product!
At worst, I might be somewhat dissapointed that she didn't put in enough
nifty inside jokes for me to find.  Then again, maybe I'd find that she
did indeed put in lots of nifty inside jokes and even be more
enthralled.

> If you are going to razz people who don't want to put the effort into
> listening to Kate Bush, you should expect, and accept, criticism from
> people who find it amusing you won't put in the effort to listen to
> Bach.  I mean, not just listen to it a little and claim it's no better
> than Kate Bush, but REALLY LISTEN, so you can appreciate how superior
> it is to that simplistic junk :-)

What makes you think that I haven't put any effort into listening to
Bach?

> (I do suspect, though, that true genius produce quality AND
> quantity...can you imagine Bach writing 40 minutes of music every 3
> years?)

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.
that all have to be explored.  Kate Bush produces her own albums which
means she has that much more work to do -- operating lots and lots of
complicated equipment.  Then when she finishes recording an album, she
designs the record cover, designs the covers for the singles, designs,
choreographs, and designs the costumes for her videos.  Then she has to
spend a year going around the world promoting the album, so that it will
sell enough so that she can afford to do the next one.  Also, you should
realize that she only puts a small fraction of the music she writes on
her albums.  She's written hundreds and hundreds of songs that have
never been committed to vinyl.  Why not?  Because she's a perfectionist
and because of that her recording process is very time consuming, and
because of that she can only record a small amount of the music she
writes.

Also, Kate Bush wants all her albums to be in a completely different
style.  And they all are (except for "Lionheart" which is in almost the
same style as "The Kick Inside" -- and Kate Bush is disatisfied with
"Lionheart" because of this, but she was pressured by the record company
to do this -- this was back in the early days when Kate didn't have the
complete control she requires)).  This takes a lot of work and time.
Bach changed his style a lot more slowly.  For example, I can often tell
if something is by Bach, even if I've never heard it before (though
sometimes I get confused by people who imitated Bach).  I truly doubt if
I could tell if a song were by Kate Bush if I never heard it before
(except for the fact that I'd recognize her voice).

> I don't find Bach sterile at all.  Try the last movement of the 6th
> Brandenburg Concerto for a great pick-me-up.  Try nearly any of the
> Cantatas.  Try the Mass in B minor.  THIS IS STERILE???!!!  Doug has
> been subject to some pretty weird fits, but this is too much.

If it reaches you fine!  Some people I know think mashed potatoes taste
interesting.  They taste bland to me.  (I'm not comparing Bach to mashed
potatoes, so don't get too upset).  How music affects one is a
psycho-cultural phenomenon, and how different people are affected is
going to be related to their backgrounds, which are going to be
different.  But in any case, if Bach wasn't limitting himself so much by
playing cute games with the notes on a piece of paper, he would
certainly have had a lot more freedom to explore the possibilities of
the different ways music can sound and how those differences affect
listeners.

			"I focussed the magnifying glass
			 That brought the downfall of Icarus"

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