Kate-echism VII.4.xiv

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

>Come on Andrew, how could you lump No Self Control in with "a couple other
> tracks"?
>Good work locating the "Cloudbusting" CD at such a reasonable price.
>Maybe a few copies will appear "up north".
>
>-Doug-

You're right, what can he say? "Mea culpa"? No, if he said that
he'd be referring to himself in the first person...
As for locating the "Cloudbusting" CD at a reasonable price,
IED cannot really take credit for the foolishness of the record
store. He would have paid up to $50.00 for it, probably, being
the sucker he is.

Thanks to Neil for his eloquent and bracing defense of IED's
position re the Sun-Ferry Aid single. And anyway, remember
that IED DID recommend the thing, if only for Kate's twelve seconds.
So Neil, who is this compatriot of yours named "Hugh Messenger/
Angry of Mayfair", do you know him? And
where does he get off sending edited versions of L-Hs' mail to Kate
without asking if it's ok with the writer? And what address does he
think he's able to reach Kate at, anyway?

>How about when the tape is full someone sends it over to G.B. for us limeys
>to listen to. I could then send a tape of good British stuff back. O.K. who
>said it will be a pretty short tape - stand up that man!

You're on the L-Hs Master KompilaTion tape list as of now, Neil.
Don't expect the tape for a while, though.
All of the round robin/chain letters ideas re the compilation tape
are appreciated but too late. The tape project is already well
advanced. We were all tired of the Love-Hounds' usual endless-planning
stages, where no real action is ever taken. As for
regulating the noise reduction to be used, it's
too much to ask everyone to use the same thing, since some people
may not have any NR. IED used Dolby C, and if you think it sounds
weird because you don't have Dolby C to play it back on, don't
worry: IED's ten minutes are extremely weird anyway; a little
sonic distortion will only enhance its effect.

>From: Dave Hsu <hsu@eneevax.umd.edu>
>Subject: Re: Big Time CD Maxi-single
>
>But the REAL question is: how are you supposed to store this bogus
>packaging?  The sleeve is too tall to fit in a jewel box; it's too
>flimsy to survive the harsh environment of the Backpack(tm) Portable
>CD Archive System.
>
>-- dave

IED has the same beef, but has solved the problem re the "Cloudbusting"
CD by having a color xerox of the front cover made, trimming it to
fit a jewel box, gluing it to a bit of shirt-board of jewel-box size,
xeroxing the back cover and spine in b&w and cutting them to the
right size, then fitting the works into a jewel box and storing the
CD in it, keeping the original paper CD-single cover in storage elsewhere.

>From: hsu%uicsrd.CSRD.UIUC.EDU@a.cs.uiuc.edu (William Tsun-Yuk Hsu)
>Subject: review/redundancy
>Re: IED's recurrent thought
>Just for the record, if IED posted that in rec.music.misc, his ass would have
>been flamed so bad he could bring Lake Titicaca to a boil by sitting in it...
>
>-- Bill

That's one reason why IED never posts there: you guys are so much
more tolerant!

>From: Dave Hsu <hsu@eneevax.umd.edu>
>Subject: Re: Myself.
>-dave, depressed, mulling over a response to IED's observations

Dave, don't be depressed, IED didn't think your comments were bad.
He disagreed with a couple of them, but they weren't indefensible.
And IED'll bet you're actually very distinguished-looking.

>>ME:
>>->Oh c'mon... there's never enough weirdness in the world :-)... maybe you
>>->just never had that much tolerance for the outre in the first place.
>>
>>Phil:
>>>Outre?  Depends on just why it is "considered to pass beyond the bounds
>>>of what is normal or proper".
>>        ^^^^^^    ^^^^^^
>>
>>Uh-oh, my pet peeves... How do you DEFINE "normal" or "proper"? Who
>>makes these "standards"? And why must music need a good reason to "pass
>>beyond the bounds of what is normal or proper"? I would have no problems
>>with your statement had it been something like "I like what's normal and
>>proper", but you claimed to like "weirdness".
>>
>>My point is that *you* are defining your own normal and proper to reject my
>>taste, and defining outre in terms of violating what some people you hate
>>(you parents? teachers?) consider normal and proper.  Just another turn of
>>the idiotic wheel.
>>
>>
>>The guy [Hof] I just called a little boy?   :-)
>>
>>Hof has shown open-mindedness and sophistication in his appreciation of
>>music. You have not.

etc., etc., etc. Just for the record, L-Hs are urged to note that
IED hasn't had anything to do with the above ongoing row.

>the comparison I would make would be if TD were "Sgt Pepper" and HoL were
>"Abbey Road", then NFE would be "Rubber Soul". Anyways, for what my
>opinion is worth...

IED loves this sort of comparison, even though it is completely
misleading. The problem is that Sgt. Pepper is generally thought
to be the Beatles LP that put the experimentation of Revolver into
a form that a larger audience could accept. If that's so, then
The Dreaming is analogous to Revolver, not Sgt. Pepper; which would
make HoL analogous to Sgt. Pepper. Which means Kate's next LP
will be a double album with a loose, non-thematic structure and
a bunch of outtakes; and then we'll get her ultimate "Abbey Road"
masterpiece, still only a gleam in Kate's eye. And then she'll
split up, and EMI will hire Phil Spector to schlock up a bunch
of her abandoned tracks and put them out as a post-Kate-Bush
Kate Bush LP. Thereafter she'll put out three or four LPs each
year, each under one of four names, and none of them will be as good
as when she was still together.

>I do have a question though. "Blow Away" seems to be talking about
>a musician that died, and has the reference: (for Bill) in the title.
>Any idea who this is?

Bill was Bill Duffey, to whom Kate, with Peter Gabriel and
Steve Harley, dedicated their performance of "Let It Be" several
years ago. As IED remembers it, BD was an engineer, or a lighting
man on rockstars' tours, or something like that. |>oug will set
the record straight, if he's even reading this forum anymore...

>I haven't had a chance to listen to the backwards tracks in "Watching
>You Without Me", but I did stumble upon something interesting. When I
>slowed down the "scattered" or "chopped" voices something comparable
>to say, going from 45 to 33 rpm, the voices were much more understandable.
>I tried this on X4, but haven't gotten much yet. Also, thanks to Scott ?
>for the suggestion on using a 4-gap head from an auto-reverse tape deck
>to convert my cassette player. I just plan to flip the head over since
>the player I will be using is an inexpensive walkman-type player and
>I have no other use for it.

That's the problem. How do you get a 33 1/3 RPM record to
play at a slower speed, unless you're an electronics genius
with a bunch of unneeded Walkmans?

-- Andrew Marvick