w/a mind that renders everything sensitive, what chance does I. have?

[IED0DXM%UCLAMVS.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu]

KT news:
For laser-disk player owners, there is good news:
Kate's "Hair of the Hound", a video compilation
consisting of "Running Up That Hill", "Hounds of Love",
"Cloudbusting" and "The Big Sky", has been released
in Japan as an import 8" LVD with digital sound. Incidentally, if
IED understands rightly, "Hair of the Hound" is included in its entirety
in the video version of "The Whole Story"; but nothing (except |>oug's
PAL machine!) compares with laser disks. Count on the Japanese to
deliver long before the Americans, as usual. It
seems reasonable to assume that they will eventually release
"The Whole Story" on laser disk also.
 
Now, for the mailbag:
At this point IED has no choice but to become more
selective in choosing which of the L-Hs postings either addressed
or concerning him are worth taking the time to reply
to. For the benefit of his supporters, let them be assured
that this decision honestly does not reflect a reaction to the
sentiments of the vocal dissenters. The problem is sheer volume:
IED has been getting a ton of L-Hs mail both public and private
(and nearly evenly divided between approval and disapproval), and he
can't write fast enough to meet the demand! He
now has a backlog of over thirty readers' comments
to reply to, so until further notice, please don't
be offended if your message to or re IED goes
unanswered. (Try not to be offended if it IS answered, either.)
Today's will be the last posting by
IED in which all public messages to him are considered,
however briefly.
 
Thanks first of all to Sue for pointing out that
a long posting of extracts from earlier IED postings,
pasted together to form meaningless non sequiturs
(other than those originally committed by IED himself)
was not actually posted by IED at all, but by a
cowardly imposter. IED was saddened to read Sue's
final comment, however.
 
>Unlike IED, I have too little time to engage in an endless debate.  However,
>I would suggest that IED first confirm that he, himself, exists before trying
>to logically argue his way out of a fanatical position.
 
Still this pathetic hangup with the way IED identifies himself,
as though that had anything at all to do with the substance of
his arguments. You have a lot of catching up to do.
 
>...very much like having conversations with
>religious fanatics.  In this regard, IED has coroborated the basic idea in
>dismissing my last posting as an attack against his Bushian religion...
 
That is a complete fabrication. IED dismissed your attack because it
was uncorroborated by factual evidence. And his religious beliefs are
not known to this forum.
 
>for Bill Hsu's commandment list... I think it's a good one.  Now, I don't
>really see IED as a God, but more like a Moses or Joseph Smith.  Remember
>in the Bushian religion, Kate is God and IED only her humble servant who has
>been sent to earth to convert as many people to acknowledging her as the
>one true god.  Proof of IED's divinity will be demonstrated if he can be
>directed, by whatever spirit (some angel with an Italian sounding name, or
>some unearthly spectre, perhaps), to uncover the buried chest containing
>the first condom ever used in a relationship with Kate, her first dildo,
>pictures of her fucking (collectively) Pink Floyd bandmembers, and that
>poor excuse for a 'How to use a Fairlight, for fun and profit!!' manual
>she read before trying to imitate Tomita on Never for Ever.  He will never
>prove himself by demonstrating his ignorance by using dialectic to try
>to examine concepts of esthetics.
>
>-- John
 
The above sort of posting has become so
common in this forum as almost to constitute a kind of ritual
among a small group of Love-Hounds. The line of thinking seems to go
something like this:
 
"Uh-oh, IED has gone and made another specific point to
demonstrate my error. Damn, another clear, unequivocal
citing of fact to prove his point! Jeez, wuddamigunnado? Oh, well,
I guess I can always just ridicule his i.d., or his style of writing, or
his admission that he is fiercely devoted to Kate Bush's music. Of
course, I've already done those things several dozen times. I know!
I'll compare him to religious fanatics again
(haven't done that for more than a week, almost!)
and polish off my posting with
some really low, sexist bathroom humour at Kate
Bush's expense! Yeah! Jeez, I'm really pretty smart, huh?
Anyway, probably most of the
Love-Hounds won't notice that I still haven't found
a way to refute the substance of his last dozen postings..."
 
] IED, obviously, is one of these revisionists. And, looking at our
] subject with a view unclouded by this acursed century's bizarre
] obsession with The New, he is able to see the superiority of Kate
] Bush to Eno, because he has been able to appreciate the paucity of
] the AN-INNOVATIVE elements of Eno's undoubtedly INNOVATIVE, but
] relatively shallow and frequently sloppy work; and, conversely, the
] profundity, thoroughness and integrity of Kate's every idea, whether
] it should happen to seem "progressive" or not.
 
>Please post this to net.humor
 
See what IED means? There's another one. No attempt to understand
the actual point being made, no consideration of whether there
might be a legitimate thought in IED's comparison. The writer
seems to think that points in an argument's favour will just
blow away if they are simply made fun of rather than tested and
responded to with opposing points.
 
] You STILL don't seem to understand the distinction between judgments
] of overall artistic QUALITY -- inevitably SUBJECTIVE, and
] distinguished by such words as "good", "bad"; "interesting",
] "uninteresting"; "inspiring", "uninspiring"; "valuable", "worthless"
] -- and analyses of qualifiable and quantifiable elements of artistic
] language -- analyses which can frequently be OBJECTIVE, and which
] are distinguished by considerations of such things as the relative
] complexity of two works of art; the relative sophistication of their
] content, vocabulary and language; the coherence of their
] organization; the number of issues or themes which each may be seen
# to address; and the relevance which those issues have to the art's
] modes of expression.
 
>What do they teach you kids in college these days?  OBJECTIVE
>analysis?  You yourself use the word "relative" in your list of
>"objective" elements.  Relative to what?  Relative to your own
>emotions and prejudices, I suspect.  These elements are just as
>inevitably SUBJECTIVE as judgements of overall artistic QUALITY.
 
Typical. The statement was perfectly clear, and easily demonstrable.
Relative to EACH OTHER, obviously! Please, just say so if the points
are too difficult for you.
In fact, of course, IED has already provided at least three
carefully considered and presented examples of how the above
comparative analyses can be made, and without ever introducing
objective standards of judgment.
IED hasn't the time to re-print those postings here, nor is
there any reason why he should do so simply for the sake of those
who didn't bother to read them -- or failed to understand them --
the first time.
 
>I believe what your
>challenge boils down to is to name any album made since the early 70's
>that is more like The Dreaming or HoL than The Dreaming or HoL.  I
>give up.  There probably isn't.
 
Another comment that's been made several times before, and
considered seriously by IED at the time. (Remember the "Kate-like"
exchanges a couple of weeks ago? IED partially accepted the
idea then; while still pointing out specifically why it was
not strictly true.) If you are still two weeks behind in this
discussion, please catch up before commenting again.
 
]] Actually, I don't consider SOPHISTICATION or REFINEMENT to be
]] positive traits.
 
>> Insert IED's admittedly impatient but eminently logical reply to
>> the effect that whether one LIKED sophistication or refinement
>> was entirely irrelevant to a discussion of whether a given piece
>> of music POSSESSED such sophistication or refinement. L-Hs will
>> recall that IED apologized for his burst of temper over this
>> point at the time, and they will understand why he sees no need to
>> apologize again.
 
>Why is this beside the point?  If you can fill this group with your
>inane blathering, why can't I?  Do you RULE this discussion, dink?
 
Again, a comment that perfectly conforms to type:
"I better not try to understand the objective content of IED's
point (see summary above). No, no! I'll just SAY it's inane without
giving a reason, and then I'll call him names."
 
] "Refinement" DID give us Bronzino, Pontormo, late Michelangelo, late
] Rembrandt, Titian, Khnopff, Moreau and Whistler, to name just
 
>Late Rembrandt?  Take an art class before you get out of college.
 
With due respect to the many serious contenders for the prize (some
of which have been re-printed above), this
comment questioning IED's knowledge of painting takes the
cake for idiocy.
A description of the late portraits of Rembrandt
as "sophisticated", "complex" or "refined" is upheld by virtually
every scholar in the field. His last paintings constitute the
subtlest and most instinctive mastery of his mature aesthetic.
 
Incidentally, since you have seen fit to make condescending remarks
about our relative knowledge of art, it's not out of line for IED
to mention that he graduated from Harvard (with high honours) in art
history; received his M.A. in nineteenth-century painting from UCLA; and
will receive his Ph.D. in same from Columbia this October. Please
let him know if your own credentials greatly exceed his; and while
you're at it, you might explain how you came to doubt the appropriateness
of his reference to late Rembrandt.
 
>From: nessus (Doug Alan)
>Subject: Re:  Message from A. Marvick re IED
>I wonder if this means that IED has finally seen the light that it is
>*The Dreaming* which is the greatest entity of all space and time --
>not *Hounds of Love*?
>
>-- |>oug
 
Well, it does mean he's thinking about it.
As of now, he thinks The Dreaming is more brilliant and more powerful,
but that HoL is more masterful and profound.
Of course, these are infinitesimal differences we're talking about;
and anyway, he might change his mind at any moment.
 
>IED, Diane (this girl's name), challanges you
>to name an album which is as cohesive, inspirational, or of better quality
>than Slippery When Wet, with other Bon Jovi albums excluded, has been
>produced in the last decade.  Now, who is right here?  Diane can argue
>her point as effectively as IED, and with all the evidence at hand, based
>on her description of how she dresses for Bon Jovi concerts, I personally
>would believe she is probably right (pardon the sexist implications of the
>last sentence, please).  Jesus, maybe IED and Diane should get together and
>discuss the meaning of life without the existence of their idols.  What
>about it IED, maube she'll show you hers if you show her yours.
>
>John
 
The above is the first posting directly addressed to IED
that he will not bother to answer. There's just not enough time.
 
>SO THERE!   NYAAH, NYAAH, NYAAH!
>EAT THAT, TRUE BELIEVERS!
>
>-- Jim Puccio
 
Well, fine, Jim. But do you think you could
scrounge up one or two verifiable reasons
to back up your claims? IED has learned
that it's a lot to ask, but try.
 
>From: "ROSSI J.A." <rossi@nusc.ARPA>
>Subject: Getting the facts straight
>I must indeed apologize for having better things to do with my time than
>memorize all the musicians and their instruments on any given album I listen
>to.  Now, I realize that there are those of us on this list that must include
>Kate into every aspect of their lives.  I really don't care that it wasn't
>Kate who played the Fairlight on Never for Ever, I guess that the old axiom
>about assuming making an ass out of u and me holds here.  However, even though
>Kate may not have been playing the Fairlight, and I will even go so far as to
>say that the sounds which I consider Tomita-like might have even been made
>using a CS-80 (afterall Tomita didn't use sampling synths, either), I still
>maintain....
 
To those who may not have noticed, the above message
is Mr. Rossi's idea of a magnanimous and graceful
admission of error.
 
>The glove is down.  Can the IED back up his challenge?  WE DOUBT IT.
>
>-- wicinski
 
Fortunately IED will not have to, since |>oug has already
undertaken the task. Thanks, |>oug.
 
>As far as the "fan" interpretation of Hounds of Love, although Andrew
>Marvick says that "there isn't a shred of evidence in the song to support"
>the interpretation that the pursuing hounds are her fans, I think that
>Doug's interpretation is really accurate. Judging from her behavior in
>the past, Kate consistently has been very skittish about letting her
>fans get too close to her, which is totally understandable, since she's
>a really private person and deserves to be left alone, without thousands
>of fans from all over the world "hounding" her down with requests for
>locks of hair, personal advice or what have you. So although she is too
>polite to come right out and say, "Lay off!" I think the song contains
>a really strong (even subconscious) message to her fans to give her some
>room to breathe.
>
>Of course, this doens't invalidate the fact that the song can also be
>applied to a one-on-one relationship type of situation.
 
Oh, you mean you don't reject the subject of the song as
manifest in the lyrics themselves, and which Kate has
repeatedly confirmed in interviews? How generous of you!
So now we can interpret "Hounds of Love" as a song
about Kate's fans -- even though she has expressly denied that it
has anything at all to do with her fans, and simply because she has
a lot of them, and because you've decided that she must be "afraid"
of them (though there was NO sign of "fear" in her whatsoever at the
convention, and even though it was the Bush family themselves who
suggested having another convention the next year, one in which Kate
could socialize with her fans even more intimately than at Romford).
In that case, IED has some new
interpretations of other songs to suggest: "Running Up That
Hill" is actually about New York City ca. 1979. After all, Kate went
to New York around then, didn't she? "Cloudbusting" isn't REALLY
just about Peter Reich, it was also inspired by "Wuthering Heights"
-- well, she did see "Wuthering Heights" on TV once, didn't she?
"Houdini" isn't just about the escape artist, it's also
a reference to Kate's love of British comedy. After all, we all know how
much Kate likes contemporary British comedy, don't we? Hey! IED KNOWS
that it's unlikely that Kate would agree about these interpretations,
and that she's already explained their subjects quite differently
on many previous occasions, but what does that matter? We all know
you can't take these pop-stars seriously when they give interviews!
 
>The new Kate Bush interview picture disk is in no way related to the
>official Canadian EMI interview record.  It's a totally different
>interview.  I'm not really sure that it's appropriate to call these
>records "bootlegs" as they may be completely legal.  For example,
>I own the rights to the interview I did with Kate and could presumably
>do anything I want to with it, including pressing records of it.
>
>-- |>oug
 
Thanks and sorry, Doug. Actually, IED had realized his error on this
point last week, when Adrian's explained that they were all
different from each other in a recent ad in one of the British
music weeklies.
 
Speaking of errors, IED misspelled cowardice in a recent posting,
and made one other error of tense agreement. Nobody seems to
have noticed them, or perhaps you were all being sweet, but
they bothered IED, so he thought he'd mention them.
 
>There is an instrumental arrangement of "The Wedding March" and "The Handsome
>Cabin Boy" recorded live circa 1968 on Frank Zappa's latest "Mystery Disc"
>which is included in the second 9-album Old Masters Box Set.
>
>(Sorry if this sounds like a digression, but there are some who feel there are
>many close links between the musical careers of Zappa and Bush.)
>
>Nullis Pretti - John Kitamura
 
Interesting to hear of a new version of the song (IED has
been collecting them since last year), but not in itself
a very strong link between Kate and Zappa, since
there are at least half a dozen recordings of it, and since Kate
cites a quite different version of the song as her favourite.
If there are "many close links", could you let us know what
they are? Seriously, interested to learn.
 
>The distinction which I attempt to draw between minimalism and Minimalism
>(the new Grove Encyclopaedia uses the capital letter, too. Are they
>as narrow as I am, I wonder?) is a simple one, andrew: one word
>describes a kind of perceived economy of use, and the other refers
>to a specific critical label which is specifically and descriptively
>applied to a body of composition and a number of composers located
>in this century-the earliest references I can account for refer to the work
>of LaMonte Young and the Theatre of Eternal Music in the mid-sixties
>and beyond. Although such a distinction may seem arbitrary to you,
>I do think you might have a little trouble finding a critic who
>would describe Bach as a Minimalist.
>
>I'll check it out in this nifty Ninth Collegiate Dictionary that
>has seen fit to include dates for entry of what it concludes are
>new usages in English:
>
>minimalist: adj (1967): of, relating to, or done in the style of
>minimalism.
>
>I'd have assumed that it made its way into the language through the
>visual arts first, although there's some contemporary writing on the
>Fluxus group (63-64) that makes mention of the ism as well.
 
Minimalism with a capital M probably first appeared about 1902, in
connection with the early experimental works of a group of Russian
avant-garde artists who would eventually come to be known as
the Constructivists. The best known painter in this group was
Malevich. His "white-on-white" canvases of the first two decades
of the twentieth century are quite commonly referred to as
manifestos of Russian Minimalism. However, the group included
not only painters, but sculptors, architects, writers and
composers. The best known of the Minimalist composers was Matyushin,
active in Russia from 1910 through at least 1925.
In Austria, of course, the originators of twelve-tone music,
in particularly Schoenberg and Webern, were also frequently
referred to, especially during the 'teens, as leaders of the
"Minimalist school". In particular, Webern's opp. 5, 7 and 10,
and Schoenberg's op. 19 have been known both as
minimalist pieces, and as examples of Minimalism as an
aesthetic. It's interesting, by the way, that Minimalism during this
period referred to an entirely different principle than it
does in the works of, say, Reich and Glass, since the former
was based on the reduction of repeated notes, whereas the
latter frequently involved the persistent repetition of
a small number of notes.
 
Quoting Walter Kolneder: "This variation <in Webern> embodies
a principle of Viennese Minimalism which was an essential
part of the aesthetics of the Schoenberg school at this time:
avoidance of any note-for-note recapitulation."
 
Quoting Moldenlauer: "The fourth movement of <Webern's> op. 10 has
long been known as the ultimate statement of Minimalism in music,
and has long been known as the most minute in orchestral literature.
Encompassing only six measures, it lasts, according to the
metronomic direction, a mere nineteen seconds -- a non plus ultra
of formal compression and emotional concentration, the very
antithesis of the expansive rhetoric of the late Romantic era."
 
Now will you please drop the patronizing attitude, or at least concede
that life, and art -- and even "isms" -- existed long before they were
buried in the squalid and pathetic mire of our own benighted era?
 
>Oooh. I missed this part of the exchange, I guess. You and the twins
>and little caligula actually stood up before the assembled masses and
>defended your elitism heartily-elitism as in "the consciousness of
>being or belonging to a socially superior group?" I gotta see this
>stuff (anybody got any back postings to mail out? Bill? Doug? Rossi?),
>since the only stuff I've got says "HOW CAN YOU BE SO STUPID" and
>"it is obvious that...." and "you've shown that you know nothing at all
>of...." I definitely wouldn't like to beat that dead horse.
 
Mister, you've missed alot of things. IED, for one, has no intention of
rummaging through old files to fill you in on what you've missed. Bill or
Rossi or |>oug can, if they want to, but why can't you keep track
yourself?
To admit the legitimacy of the principles of what
is nowadays disparagingly referred to as "elitism" is
quite a different thing from believing ONESELF
to be the ultimate authority on every subject. It should go without
saying, however, that everyone has his/her strengths and weaknesses,
and that it is foolish to reduce everyone's opinions about everything
to the lowest common denominator. That, of course, is essential elitism,
and IED subscribes to it.
 
>Wow. You're off the hook just like that. This is an even better
>view of your own accountability than even the andrew/IED dodge
>I alluded to in my last "nasty" posting. "Hey, shucks folks:
>sure I was patronizing once in a while. Sure I skirted that old
>ad hominem toilet. Sure I sounded sanctimonious once in a while.
Sure I called you all a bunch of idiots [IEDiots?]. But "my entourage"
>and I were under pressure."
 
Look, IED has apologized more than once -- and more humbly than some L-Hs
on this list do -- for his heated language, as well as his
errors of fact, English usage, and spelling. In his defense,
it's fair to say that there have not been an excessive number
of any of these transgressions in his postings to date, at
least not when seen in relation to those committed by the
L-Hs as a group. And there's nothing ignoble about mentioning
the mitigating circumstances which caused IED's very occasional
lapses of self-control. As for the patronizing attitude, IED has been
far outstripped by several other L-Hs recently on that score.
 
"Devil's advocacy" is a general term with a well understood meaning
-- even poor, ignorant IED knows what it means, thanks. Anyway,
that wasn't quite the term he used. As for misuse of the language, you'd
be well advised to look at your own postings again before listing what
you consider to be IED's mistakes.
 
>I would hope that you will be as
>inclined to use framing language like "I think" and "I
>mean to say that" as you have so readily accused others of avoiding:
 
Looking through a randomly selected clump of old postings,
IED finds qualifiers like "IED believes that" and "in his opinion"
all over the place -- twenty-two of the former, twelve of the
latter, at last count. On the other hand, when he makes a statement
of fact, he does not weaken it with such phrases. If it's more or less
indisputable -- as, for example, his conclusion that the studio
"Breathing" is a more "sophisticated" and "complex" recording
than the live version -- then there's no need for a qualifier,
and none will appear.
 
>the combination of that with the cutesy third-person English (you are
>aware of how utterly sanctimonious that sounds to anyone used to
>the Monarchial term of self address, I am sure)
 
The monarchical (no doubt that is the word to which you refer)
term of SELF-address is the first person plural. Subjects of a
royal personage refer to the STATUS by using the third person.
Neither is remotely connected to the use of the third person in
IED's postings.
 
>In short, you get the respect you extend to others. Honi soit....
 
A maxim IED tries hard to keep in mind, and which you yourself could
benefit from remembering.
 
>And by the way, until such time as we do meet, you *are* what you
>show up as on the net.
 
Everyone knows who IED is. There has never been any question who
IED is. IED's associates may be vague, but IED has always been
fully answerable for everything posted in Love-Hounds under his userid
(with the exception of the counterfeit posting which appeared
under his i.d. yesterday). Your continued inability to accept this
simple fact is, at this point, very peculiar.
 
>you take responsibility for what
>you say. Those words cannot be called back. I stand by everything I've
>posted here-can you make the same claim without claiming stress of
>blaming it on giro or caligula or whomever does the typing?
 
If you are foolish enough to stand by everything you have ever
posted in L-Hs, then you are a very stubborn person indeed. IED,
for one, stands by his postings until such time as they are shown to
be wrong or unnecessarily harsh. When that happens he apologizes,
with the hope that others will be more charitable than you.
 
-- Andrew Marvick