Organization: University of Rochester - Rochester, New York
	<9212111726.AA12473@syrinx.umd.edu>
Apparently-To: rec-music-gaffa@uunet.uu.net
Newsgroups: rec.music.gaffa

In <9212111726.AA12473@syrinx.umd.edu> jeffy@syrinx.umd.edu (Jeffrey C. Burka) writes:

>Drewcifer responds to me:

>>In <9212100522.AA02152@syrinx.umd.edu> jeffy@syrinx.umd.edu writes:

>>Well, consider the fact that...okay, the opinion (mine) that LE is a much
>>more *perfect* album than anything Kate has ever done.

>As you've surely noticed, this is a minority opinion around here.

Weeeeelllll, not a minority of one, anyway.  Kate's had some lame songs on
every album so far; Tori's produced an album with no lame songs. And I know
that some people here do agree with me on that.

>>Yes, perhaps she
>>wrote herself out on this album.  So what?  Quality, *not* quantity, is what
>>makes genius.

>>Ten good albums do not necessarily surpass two great albums. 

>Depending on the level of "goodness", think they _can_ surpass a fewer
>number of better albums.  I dunno about you, but I can't listen to the
>same thing over and over and over and over and over and over again.  There's
>as _reason_ I own close to 300 CDs.  And with the _variety_ in KaTe's work
>I'm more likely to be in the mood for any one of her albums at any given 
>time than I am to hear LE. I listened to LE more this year than any single
>KaTe album.  But I've listened to more KaTe than Tori.  That's why this whole
>discussion strikes me as ludicrous at this point in Tori's career.

It depends on whether you're saying this as a music listener or a detached
music critic (and by critic I do not mean "journalist").  There's something
to be said for both points of view.

However, BTW, ten good albums *do* surpass two great albums and four crappy
albums.  But there's a difference between that inequality and the above
equality.

>The way I see it, KaTe is a certified genius.  Tori *may* be the same; she
>may have had a flash of brilliance which quickly faded.


>>Age makes no difference whatsoever.  Experience does.

>Age and experience, for most people, are tightly intertwined. 

Key word: most.  See below.  And experience is what counts; the two may have
a direct relationship but they are not interchangeable.

>>I definitely agree that LE is more impressive than TKI

>LE was written with 10 years worth of life experience more than TKI.

Correction: LE was written with 10 years worth of age more than TKI. 
Experience cannot truly be measured in years; I know teenagers who have
experienced more in their lives than eighty-year-olds.  It's not just how
long you live, it's how you live.  I think that number should be
reconsidered in terms of difference in experience as well.

>>However, I agree that enjoyment of music is entirely subjective...I have
>>albums by artists who I find utterly lacking in musical quality, but I still
>>enjoy listening to them.

>You're buckling under to canonical concepts of musical quality that I find 
>outdated.  As an example, many, many people might listen to The Pixies
>and call them horrid noise with a leadsinger who can't hold a note.  But
>the emotions that they call to mind for *me* make them just as important
>as a lot of more commonly accepted artists.  I don't think there's any
>universal music that appeals to everyone, no matter how classical perfect it
>is.  The world is too big now, with contributions from too many societies
>with too many ideas of what music should sound like.

Um, no, I'm not "buckling under" to anything.  The Pixies *are* horrid noise
with a lead singer who can't hold a note.  They are also quite brilliant. 
When I said "musical quality" I was referring to people like The Thompson
Twins, or Madonna.  I still listen to them; I just don't consider them
musically gifted.


>>Again
>>we have the quality vs. quantity thing; if you set me down with a Fairlight
>>and all the resources at Kate's command, I think I could probably dish out
>>some pretty amazing stuff too.

>This is pretty arrogant, don't you think?  

Nope.  I didn't say it would be as good as Kate's music, I just said it
would sound pretty amazing.  If you set a monkey in front of that stuff you
might get some interesting output, too.  When you enter a relatively new
frontier, everything sounds fresh and exciting.

>>Let's face it; when you're working with
>>non-traditional instruments, you can make things sound really inventive.

>You can also make things sound really shitty because you don't understand
>how to use diverse sounds together to weave that sonic tapestry to which
>I've referred.  It's not just a matter of sounding "inventive" because you've
>got a sound nobody's heard before; it's a matter of using that sound 
>*correctly*.  I shudder to think how many people have used that orchestra
>stab now--but "The Dreaming" is, I feel, one of the most *proper* uses of
>the sound.

True, but it doesn't take as much talent to use new equipment and sound
original as it does to use a piano and sound original.  Kate's genius, I
think, lies more in her songwriting and lyrics than in her use of
instruments.

>>It's harder to sound original on piano; Tori does it, Kate doesn't.  I
>>wonder just what Tori would come up with if she had Kate's set of sounds to
>>work with.

>I don't know how well it would work for Tori to try KaTe like productions.
>It might work exceedingly well, it might not.  While I don't think that
>most of the arrangements on LE are original, they are mostly appropriate.  
>I do know that a number of people I know didn't care for  Tori until they 
>saw her live _without_ the trappings of a full-blown production.  For those 
>people, the arrangements on LE _obscured_ Tori to the point of insignifiance.

I wouldn't give Tori that stuff either, just because I don't think her songs
would really *need* to make use of them.  Kate's artier; she would be
confined by conventional instruments.  And I don't know what you mean by
LE's arrangments not being original; methinks you need another listen. 
Also, tell those people who thought the arr'ments obscured Tori to listen
again too.

>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   |

Ain't this fun?  :)

Drewcifer
-- 
***************************************************************************
** Andrew David Simchik, registered Scorpio ************* SCHNOPIA! *******
***************************************************************************
as010b@uhura.cc.rochester.edu
x-gateway: rodan.UU.NET from love-hounds to rec.music.gaffa; Sun, 13 Dec 1992 22:19:35 EST
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 22:16:34 -0500
From: cjm@iris.mincom.oz.au (Chris Moran)
Errors-To: Love-Hounds-request@uunet.uu.net
Subject: Re: Sound quality / Peter Gabriel's "Us"
Message-ID: <3858@iris.mincom.oz.au>