Guilty! Guilty! Guilty! (Heh-heh-heh) Wake of the witch!

[IED0DXM%UCLAMVS.BITNET@WISCVM.WISC.EDU]

> Actually, I do know what "esoteric" means, I don't think it means
> "pretentious" (why that interpretation?), and I didn't say anyone
> should remain ignorant of anything.  You're right about my sentence,
> in a sense, but it seems a rather pedantic point.  I should know by
> now not to leave any such openings when saying something that might
> be interpreted as anti-Kate.

IED admits that it's a silly point to dwell on, but since your
sentence makes absolutely no sense because of it, and since you posted
it with the apparent aim of criticizing Kate thereby, it could not be
ignored.  IED was relieved to read the above concession, and confesses
that the atmosphere in any discussion with IED about Kate is likely to
be thick with defensiveness. Happy to discover that you didn't mean
"pretentious". But then you go on to say this:

> Whether reincarnation is an esoteric notion for Kate depends, I
> think, (and, from your message, it would seem you agree) on whether
> she regards it as such (or "has taken the trouble to learn something
> about it").  If your intent is merely to say that I'm wrong to even
> seem to suggest such things of Kate, then I'm willing to be
> corrected.  (Even though I didn't actually make any claim about
> Kate, only about the question being asked.)

The above follow-up sent IED back into his habitual distressed state.
Again with all due respect, Jeff, it still sounds as though you don't
know what the word "esoteric" means! Why do you still insist on using
the word in the phrase "esoteric 'for' Kate"? This is a meaningless
jumble of words. Do you mean "esoteric 'to' Kate"? If so, again, this
is patently false: if someone knows something about a subject, or even
if one is simply aware of the existence of said subject, then it
simply _cannot_ be "esoteric" -- either "for" or "to" that person.
And as for ideas as well-known throughout the world (whether adhered
to or not, whether fully understood or not) as those concerning
reincarnation, they simply cannot be considered "esoteric" ideas
anymore! Perhaps in some extremely isolated or culturally impoverished
parts of the West a few people may be found to whom the notion of
reincarnation is still novel, and to them it might still be an
"esoteric" subject.  But to a reasonably well-educated Englishwoman
like Kate, from a family as intellectually and culturally involved as
Kate's, the basic ideas associated with the subject of "reincarnation"
cannot _possibly_ be "esoteric"!

> However, when westerners refer to reincarnation, they're not
> necessarily talking about Hunduism or Buddhism; and when taking
> parts of Hunduism or Buddhism out of context it's hard not to
> distort or trivialize them.

Again, you seem confused. First, there is no need to have a specific
religion in mind when referring to reincarnation. Theories about
reincarnation have proliferated since the earliest moments of human
civilization. The idea that human consciousness, or the soul, may
return to mundane existence in another form and at another time is
so common in our history, that you could see it as a basic condition
of human thought. In other words, virtually every human being is
likely to conceive of the idea entirely on his or her own, whether
he/she is aware of its cultural and religious history or not. How,
then, can such an idea possibly be considered "esoteric"? It's like
saying that "names" are esoteric, or "walking" is esoteric.

> From: jsd%UMASS.BITNET@WISCVM.WISC.EDU
>          (Jonathan S. Drukman)
> Subject:  Be Kind To My Mistakes

> OK.  I've finally heard this "Be Kind To My Mistakes" thingie
> courtesy of IED and Michael Knight.  It's fantastic!

Yes, it is.

> It sounds like HoL era instrumentation coupled with Dreaming era
> vocals!

Wait a second. This is a completely unexpected description, Jon.
IED doesn't see the instrumentation as particularly like anything
on HoL. To IED's ears, the near-garage sound of the production
(especially in the drums, which sound very trap-drummish and "kit"-like,
and in the spiky rhythm/colour guitar) are more like the HoL b-sides
"Burning Bridge" and "Not This Time". But I guess those are Hol era,
so we agree after all. As for the vocals, however, where do you hear
vocals on The Dreaming that are like BKTMM's? To IED, there are
several specific sounds Kate produces with her voice on BKTMM which
occurred in other recent tracks: "Alternative Hounds" (especially
the line "I don't know what I want...", where the voice sort of swoops
in a manner almost identical to several sounds in "Alternative Hounds"),
and "Experiment IV" (the way key words at the ends of phrases drift
into a kind of voiceless exhalation ("It's all right, now....." from
BKTMM, "for the military...." from X4, for example). In other words,
the style, as far as IED sees it, is consistent with Kate's other
recent work, and BKTMM like those other recordings, was done on
a tight schedule: they are not Kate's most painstaking productions,
but were all done relatively quickly, almost hurriedly.

> If this is a taste of what KBVI is going to be like, then now I'm
> doubly ecstatic about its arrival.

This is really interesting. Some may be surprised to hear that IED
does not share this sentiment. To him, BKTMM, although a superlative
piece of music by normal standards, and packed with brilliant ideas,
is nevertheless -- in comparison with Kate's last two albums -- a
fairly unadventurous recording. There is furthermore some anticlimax
to the literalness of her narrative, in telling the story of the film
so strictly. But as music, the most exciting, most intriguing part of
BKTMM is in the last thirty seconds, when the structure of the piece
threatens to fall apart, to "de-compose". If this is the true direction
that Kate is travelling in, we have real reason to be hopeful. The
greatest likelihood, however, is that all of these interregnum
tracks ("Burning Bridge", "Not This Time", "X4", "BKTMM", "Make it
Go Away" -- if that one exists -- and "Rocket Man" ) will have very
little to do with KBVI stylistically. They are stopgap works, tidbits
thrown out on the streets to keep the wolves at bay during the long,
cold winter between HoL and KBVI.

> Frankly, I think BKTMM wipes "Experiment IV" but I know that I'm
> going to get flamed for that statement, so I better raise the heat
> shields on the computer...

Not really flamed, although IED does disagree with you. The
twelve-inch mix of X4 has at least two ideas in it which are totally
without precedent in popular music; and purely as melody, the string
part represents something absolutely unique in Kate's work.

Castaway is being released in theatres in the U.S. on August 29th.
Video likely within three months thereafter, probably, since it's
doomed to be a small box-office release.

> And just _why_ is Terry Gilliam on the list of acknowledgements in
> HoL?  Just for his inspirational filmmaking or was there a more
> specific KonTribution?
> Enquiring minds want to know...

As posted in L-Hs last October, Gilliam, on being asked by IED, said
that he had "helped Kate out without really getting personally
involved" on "Cloudbusting". Before making the film, Kate expected to
be able to have Gilliam direct, but in the event this was not
possible. Gilliam did look at storyboards, however. Kate developed the
storyboards herself, and thereafter she worked closely with Julian
Doyle, who was Gilliam's assistant on both "Time Bandits" and
"Brazil".  Kate also used Gilliamesque motifs in several parts of "The
Big Sky".

>    "What the hell is GAFFA?"
>
>      [    According to Kate, "Gaffa" is gaffer's tape (aka "duct tape")
>    -- |>oug ]

Andy and Dave, IED's advice is that you take the above answer with a
grain of salt. Kate responded positively to the suggestion that
"Gaffa" referred to "gaffer's tape", but this is clearly not the only
meaning of the word to her. It's all very peculiar and mysterious,
which is just the way she wants it.

      [	So why is it that if |>oug says Kate is alluding to more
	than she will admit, IED says that is popycock, but then IED
	presents his own unfounded theories as undeniable truth?
	-- |>oug ]

Finally, re Paul Dolber's colossally inane posting, IED has no further
comment to make, except to say that he hopes no further discussion of
Kate Bush from Dolber appears in Love-Hounds.

-- Andrew