Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site decwrl.UUCP Path: utzoo!utcs!lsuc!pesnta!greipa!decwrl!joel From: joel@decwrl.UUCP (Joel McCormack) Newsgroups: net.music Subject: Whoaaa...Doug. Bach vs. Bush vs. Madonna Message-ID: <3021@decwrl.UUCP> Date: Sun, 7-Jul-85 20:33:51 EDT Article-I.D.: decwrl.3021 Posted: Sun Jul 7 20:33:51 1985 Date-Received: Mon, 8-Jul-85 09:24:13 EDT Organization: DEC Western Software Lab, Los Altos, CA Lines: 59 Well Dougie, I think you just screwed up. Ron baited you, you put your foot firmly in your mouth, then tried to kick. Bad news. 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.) You have not made a case for "Bush is better than Bach." 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. 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. 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." Now can you understand Ron's view, though I believe he overstated it a bit? Get off your high horse, Doug, music is what is appreciated by persons, not the single person Doug Alan. 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 :-) Two asides: A friend bought "The Dreaming;" I have yet to listen to it enough times to decide whether or not I like it. I will make the decision whether she is "creative and original" independent of Doug's harangues, thank you. I doubt I will conclude she writes music as complex Bach, but acknowledge the possibility. (I do suspect, though, that true genius produce quality AND quantity...can you imagine Bach writing 40 minutes of music every 3 years?) 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. -- - Joel McCormack {ihnp4 decvax ucbvax allegra}!decwrl!joel joel@decwrl.arpa