Subject: Re: Ron Hill UPdate
Newsgroups: rec.music.gaffa

rhill@netrun.cts.com (ronald hill) writes:


>        I guess I'm in the minority regarding Peter Gabriel's US album. 
> IE, I don't like it so much.  People have in the past drawn analogies 
>between Kate and Peter's albums as in Security and The Dreaming being 
>simulur and The Hounds of Love and So being simular.  I would tend to 
>extend this to say US and The Sensual World being simular, in that they 
>both are somewhat disappointing.

No way do I want to get into a flame war about this, but I will say 
that I disagree strongly.

>  I think the best way to sum up how I 
>feel about US is that the songs all seem to be _about_ things more so 
>then being _experiences_ of things.  A famed review of Peter's past 
>work said something like "you don't listen to a Peter Gabriel album so 
>much as _experience_ it" and that's what is missing, for me. 

Each to their own of course, but I agree with the reviewer. It *is* an
_experience_ for me. Maybe it's just because of my own current personal
explorations, but there are songs on US that dig into my psyche very
deeply. of course, I'd love it anyway, anytime, no matter what, but
for me it is the _experience_ of emotions Peter's singing about. This
is, to me (aka IMHO), Peter's *most* personal album.   

>Apparently Peter's gone through a lot of therapy lately and the album 
>sounds a lot like someone _sitting_ and talking about various parts of 
>their life, rather then projecting the experience through the music.  

Really? I don't hear it that way at *all*!

>So far none of the songs have effected me like several of the songs 
>from each of his last couple of albums.

_Security_ will always be my favorite Gabriel album, and PGIII will
always be second. This album threatens PGI for 3rd place.

>        Needless to say this is simply my opinion and it may change 
>tommorrow, five years from now, etc. 

I understand that. Keep listening.

>        Regarding the description of the Trio that someone (no name 
>that I could find), firstly you state that Kate was not the first 
>"popular" musician to notice them.  Kate first "noticed" them back 
>around 1985 and went to work with them before they became "big", though 
>the album came out after. 

There's a real confusion here between the Choir and the Trio. The Choir
were unknown when Kate first "noticed" them, but big when she started
working with the Trio. She worked with the Trio in 1988 and the Trio's
album _The Forest Is Crying_ came out in 1989, before TSW. 

> Were there other "popular" artists that 
>worked with them before they were popular in the west? 

Kate is, as far as I know, the *only* Western musician the Trio has
worked with (unless something's come out recently) though other
musicians have sampled the Choir and used that for their own music.
The ones I can think of off the top of my head are Holger Czukay
and Danse Macabre. So, popular or not, Kate was quite honered when
the Trio agreed to work with her.

>Also, you state 
>that you presume she worked with the Trio rather then the whole choir 
>due to "economics".  I don't believe Kate has mentioned the Choir at 
>all, and has always said that it was the _Trio_ on the tape that she 
>heard way back when, though it's almost certain she's heard the whole 
>Choir by now.

I believe that it *was* the Choir, via _Le Mystere des voix Bulgares,
Vol. I_ that Kate first heard. The date of release of that album in
England times just right with when Kate said Paddy gave her a tape
to listen to. I could be wrong, but that's what I believe.

Perhaps Peter & Krys have information as to how Kate went from hearing
the Choir to actually working with the Trio.

>So I think it's more likely that she worked with the 
>Trio only cause that's what she wanted.  

I agree, but not because it was the Trio she heard first.


>        In regards to RUTH and the sexual element, I should say that 
>when I first heard it, and the first couple of years after that, it 
>seemed to me to be entirely a song about sex.  I never took the trouble 
>to try to read the lyrics (which I didn't have anyways) and that 
>reading of the song made sense, due to the feel of the song.  ALthough 
>I've, of course, since learned that Kate wrote it about two lovers who 
>wish they could swap place so that they could understand each other 
>better, etc.  Still, the sexual aspect of the song is (for me) still 
>very strong, as it is for many people when they first hear the song.  
>It's also difficult to know to what extent the "problems in their 
>relationship" were sexual.

Since sex is part and parcel of the entire relationship experience,
I don't think it's too far out to say that swapping sexual places
is intertwined with the song's meaning, though the main focus is
about emotional feelings.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Vickie                                   "My ears are lucky to hear
vickie@pilot.njin.net   or                  these glorious songs" HTR
katefans@chinet.chi.il.us     _________
                             |_  _ | _   The Happy Rhodes mailing list
"Imagination sets in, then   |__|_ ||_|  ecto-request@ns1.rutgers.edu
 all the voices begin" KB                Jessica Dembski-Ecto Goddess Lady
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

x-gateway: rodan.UU.NET from love-hounds to rec.music.gaffa; Tue, 13 Oct 1992 08:01:53 EDT
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 08:01:21 -0400
From: uli@intellektik.informatik.th-darmstadt.de (Ulrich Grepel)
Errors-To: Love-Hounds-request@uunet.uu.net
Message-ID: <9210131200.AA13373@kino.intellektik.informatik.th-darmstadt.de>