Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site decwrl.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!prls!amdimage!amdcad!decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-curium!jackson From: jackson@curium.DEC (SETH JACKSON 297-4751) Newsgroups: net.music Subject: Re: Kate Bush meets a Deadhead Message-ID: <1150@decwrl.UUCP> Date: Tue, 29-Oct-85 22:15:02 EST Article-I.D.: decwrl.1150 Posted: Tue Oct 29 22:15:02 1985 Date-Received: Fri, 1-Nov-85 01:48:45 EST Sender: daemon@decwrl.UUCP Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation Lines: 64 >A long while ago I bought "Terappin Station". It was only natural that >I'd be interested in The Grateful Dead, being a Kate Bush fanatic and >all, because the way Seth and others talk about them, you'd think they >were Kate Bush or something! :-) Anyway, I like good music, so I >thought I'd give ol' Jerry and the gang a listen or 2. > >And the verdict is: Well, they're ok, but no Kate Bush. Yes, yes, they >are talented and sincere, etc., but so what? I didn't find the album >particularly challenging to listen to. I didn't hear anything >incredibly new or different. Some of the stuff on the album is kind of >neat, but as a whole, the album was just sort of pleasant. It didn't >have that irritating edge or grate on the nerves the way most *really* >interesting music does.... > >Etc.... Well, Doug it *almost* sounds as though you see my point, which is, of course, to each his own. The point of my posting was not to prove that the Dead are better or worse than Kate Bush, but of course you took it that way because that's the way your mind seems to work. The point is that everybody likes what they like, and there's no way you can say that Kate Bush is better than the Dead, The Beatles, Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd, The Who, Bach, or even Madonna. More precisely, you *can* say it if you want, but all you do is make a fool of yourself with that kind of statement. Your opinions are *your* opinions, but you have a very annoying habit of presenting them as though they were facts. >>(me) >> Doug loves to talk about how innovative Kate Bush is. Well, perhaps >> she is, but not to the level that Doug wants to believe. On much of >> the album, she seemed to me a lot like female version of Pink Floyd. >> That's certainly not the kind of comparison one would be ashamed of, >> but it's been done before. >(Doug) >Well if you want to accuse her work on "The Dreaming" of being >derivative, saying it is derivative of Peter Gabriel would be much more >appropriate. (Though you'd still be completely wrong.) Save the >"derivative of Pink Floyd" accusation for "The Ninth Wave" (half of >"Hounds of Love").... Ok, she's a cross between Peter Gabriel and Pink Floyd, with a lot of her own style thrown in. My statement still stands, that she may be original, but not as radically original as you insist she is. >I've never claimed that she's as historically important as The Beatles. >No one since them is. I just feel that her music is better, and that >she's the most important musician to emerge in the eighties. There you go again. I'm sorry, but her music is not "better" than the Beatles; you just happen to like it better. > Doug Alan > nessus@mit-eddie.UUCP (or ARPA) P.S. Nobody claimed that "Terrapin Station" was the world's greatest album or anything like that. In fact, if you paid attention to the Dead discussion, you would have read that Dead albums aren't the way to appreciate the Dead. They are a concert band, and they have never been able to capture their magic on an album. If you want to check them out, you must see them *live*. (There are a couple of albums that come close, however: "Live Dead" and "Anthem of the Sun." Agreed, Deadheads?)