Organization: University of Rochester - Rochester, New York
	<9212111739.AA12567@syrinx.umd.edu>
Apparently-To: rec-music-gaffa@uunet.uu.net
Newsgroups: rec.music.gaffa

In <9212111739.AA12567@syrinx.umd.edu> jeffy@syrinx.umd.edu (Jeffrey C. Burka) writes:


>I do think these age comparisons are fair in that we get the privelege of
>owning KaTe's output as she progressed up to he point of TD and HoL and
>even TSW.  As I said to Andrew, I'd rather have the variety of albums
>than one single album at the peak.

First really good point so far.  When you put it that way, I
agree...although I'd rather have them both!  :)


>>Which is more likely to withstand the test of time:
>>
>>something that other people can reproduce
>>
>>or
>>
>>something that has to be kept safe to be reproduced in its original form
>>
>>?

>You're kidding, right?

>In the 18th and 19th century, there was no way of spreading music except
>in forms that others could reproduce.  In this age of communication, that
>is completely irrelevant and a moot point.  Great visual works of art
>are still in existence centuries (and even milennia if you include 
>aboriginal cave art) after their creation.  What's your point?

>Jeff
>-- 
>|Jeffrey C. Burka                | "Show what you are / Be strong, be true  |
>|                                |  Time for you to / Be who you are."      |
>|jeffy@syrinx.umd.edu            |                         --Happy Rhodes   |

Um, actually, I think this person has a halfway decent point here.  Of
course, until now, there has been relatively little music produced that
cannot easily be reproduced.  But it seems to me that we are far more likely
to hear Tori's songs covered (at an inferior quality, of course :)) than we
are to hear Kate's covered.  It would really demolish many Kate songs to be
deprived of Kate's intricate arrangements, while Tori songs can be covered
on conventional instruments.  And might I add that music and visual art are
*light-years* apart in the way they are enjoyed?  One looks at and possibly
studies visual art; one listens to and possibly studies music, but one also
performs it oneself, from singing along with the CD to covering the song on
a CD of one's own.  Be very, very careful when making comparisons between
these two art forms.  Dance might be a better simile; Tori would be stunning
choreography using conventional stage lighting, while Kate would be very
intricate choreography with lots of wild, weird lights.  Both would be just
orgasmic (excuse me, who said *that*? ;)) to watch, but which one would be
easier to perform oneself, and thus seen more often?
	True, the modern age has made live performance much less important. 
But as a theatre actor and a singer/guitarist, I know that there's something
that's there in live performance that can never be captured on CD.  This is
why I wish Kate would tour.  The harder it is to perform your work, the
worse off your listeners will eventually be.

Drewcifer
-- 
***************************************************************************
** Andrew David Simchik, registered Scorpio ************* SCHNOPIA! *******
***************************************************************************
as010b@uhura.cc.rochester.edu
x-gateway: rodan.UU.NET from love-hounds to rec.music.gaffa; Sat, 12 Dec 1992 18:14:33 EST
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 18:11:19 -0500
Message-ID: <m0n0ea1-000CpoC@chinet.chi.il.us>