Kate-echism XV.viii.2: mailbag; and "Talk about stubborn!"

[IED0DXM%UCLAMVS.BITNET@MITVMA.MIT.EDU]

 > It may offend the trully pure KT devotee, but the rest of you
 > should be very amused.

     Since he probably qualifies as a more or less "truly pure KT
devotee", let IED assure everyone that he was not at all offended.
_The_Leotard_Song_ is a pretty clever pastiche. Some of the lyrics are
unfair, because they imply that Kate intentionally exploited her
sexuality in her early career, and IED thinks that is largely untrue.
But most of the lyrics and all of the music (the near-quotations of
motifs from her first _3_ LPs) seem very inventively constructed to
this listener.

 > Does anybody know how to order ["The Singles File"]? Thanks.  --
 > Andrew Elliott

     Only from Japan, if you want an NTSC version. Good luck.  IED
exaggerated the price of the Japanese video-cassettes recently in
Love-Hounds. It seems the current price of both the _Hammersmith_ and
_Single_File_ cassettes is Y13,000 (just about exactly $100.00).
Usually that price is raised a bit by the retailer at this end (on top
of the conversion rate), so you should expect to pay somewhere in the
neighbourhood of $120.00, IED would guess. If you got four Japanese
cassettes at that price, you'd have spent about as much as a new
Pioneer 838D laser-disk player costs, and all you'd have to show for
it is four junky-picture VHS cassettes. By contrast, IED just picked
up a new Japanese import laser-disk of _Hammersmith_ -- complete with
new _digitally_remastered_ sound -- for $49.00.  It's worth it.

 >    Five will get you ten (whatever the hell that means!). One shiny
 > coin of the realm against one crumply green piece of paper says
 > Kate will do less than 5 venues in GB, and most likely no US dates
 > during 1989.  So start saving for your airfare now IED (we need the
 > currency over here!).

 >     Be seeing you.
 >     No. 6 waiting for KBVI

 > -- Neil Calton

     You're on, Neil. Shall we say if IED wins you'll defray the cost
of the group charter air travel for the North American fans (New
York/London round trip) for the concerts, and if you win IED will send
you a _personally_signed_photograph_of_George_Takei_of_Star_Trek_
(pock-marks and all)? Howzat sound?

 >  From: blblbl!henrik@WONKO.MIT.EDU (Larry DeLuca)
 >  Subject: Kate Bush's Videos
 >  Date: 22 Jul 88 06:31:25 GMT

 >    I've always wondered why Kate Bush choreographed her early
 > videos (and let Keefe direct so many of them).  I really respect
 > her as a musical artist, but frankly she's a *terrible*
 > choreographer (though I will admit that her cinematic view (as well
 > as her choreography) have improved somewhat with _Hair of the
 > Hound_).  How does she feel about the videos?  About her
 > choreography?  Why doesn't she hire out to someone who can do a
 > better job (I understand the DIY feeling and find it runs heavy in
 > myself, but still...)?

 > -- larry...

 > [ Well, you don't have to like Kate's choreography, but that certainly
 >   doesn't make it "terrible".  It's certainly unique, and that alone
 >   is worth a whole lot.  -- |>oug ]

     |>oug's comments are of course true and should be obvious. Beyond
all that, though, it's ridiculous to make the blanket statement that
_all_ of Kate's earlier choreography was bad. Some moves and ideas
were better than others; and several routines ca. late-1979 were and
remain virtually unsurpassed in elegance of line and depth and breadth
of expression for a modern popular song. IED will give you the benefit
of the doubt and assume that you have never seen Kate's performance of
_Ran_Tan_Waltz_ or the "Mrs. Mop" version of _Army_Dreamers_. If you
haven't, though, you should. If you have, then you have no business
passing judgment on anyone's choreography, much less Kate's. There's
never been anything in pop music that even came close to those in
terms of multiplicity and subtlety of meaning through motion, etc.
For Godsake, Kate is a fucking _brilliant_ choreographer! How could
anyone fail to see that?

 > Also I saw a reference to some backwards masking in one of Kate's
 > songs, what is that all about??  Finally, what is the significance of
 > the name "gaffa"?
 >                     thanks in advance
 > -- steve.

 >    [ Hey, if you are going to claim Kate as your favorite artist,
 >       you should show good faith and own her best album.  Buy
 >        *The Dreaming* and then you will know the significance of
 >        the name "gaffa".  -- |>oug ]

     As for the backwards-masking, Steve, there's actually only one
certain backwards message in all of Kate's work, so far, and that's
the line "We see you here" in _Watching_You_Without_Me_.  The other
"backwards" messages either are definitely or possibly
backwards-_backwards_ messages, or something like that...  Listen to
the end of _Leave_It_Open_; the passage following the "SOS" Morse code
signals in _Watching_You_Without_Me_; and the sounds just preceding
the line "But that dream is your enemy" in _Experiment_IV_ (album/7"
version in particular).
     If you develop any theories about these (particularly the latter
two), please share them with Love-Hounds, as the puzzles have not yet
been resolved.

 >     Recently, I purchased _The Whole Story_ video, hoping to see
 > the same video of "Running Up That Hill (A Deal With God)" that I
 > had seen on MTV.  However, the video on the tape was different than
 > the one I remember from MTV.  Does more than one version of the
 > video exist?  If so, where can I find the MTV version?

     Actually, there are three video performances of
_Running_Up_That_Hill_: the official video, the "Wogan Show" (podium)
lip-synch, and another lip-synch from "Top of the Pops" (quite similar
to the "Wogan" version).  In addition, there may by now be a video of
the Amnesty concerts on sale in the UK, which would probably feature
the live version of _Running_Up_That_Hill_ with Dave Gilmour on
guitar.
     Perhaps Neil Calton could find out?
     As for where you can find these videos, only the official version
is available commercially, on the compilation video _The_Whole_Story_.
Try swapmeets for the other stuff...

 > From: Jonathan S. Drukman

 >    I don't think the message at the end of WYWM is backwards at
 > all.  Joe Turner and MarK T. Ganzer and IED had basically convinced
 > me that it was FORWARDS, but produced by kate listening to her
 > forwards message played backwards and then singing it that way so
 > that when the tape was reversed yet again the message she was
 > singing was coming out in the right direction, but the vagaries of
 > singing it backwards had added an unearthly timbre to it all.  Try
 > it yourself with your trusty four track!  Sing "and they said they
 > were buried here..." or whatever you think it sounds like and flip
 > the tape - you'll find that you're suddenly singing "we let the
 > weirdness in" only because you couldn't perfectly replicate the
 > waveforms with your voice, you've got a very weird sounding "we let
 > the weirdness in".  I have done this, and it's a bitch!  Only thing
 > is, I can't quite recall what the consensus was on what Kate was
 > supposedly saying.  I'll go check out the track again and see what
 > I can come up with.  Anyone want to take a stab at this?
 >
 > -- Jon Drukman

     Well, IED appreciates hearing that his powers of persuasion are
in good working order. Unfortunately, he is no longer as confident in
his "backwards-_backwards_" theory as he once was. After two years and
ten months of painstaking, obsessive listening, IED has decided that
he basically hasn't the slightest idea what Kate is saying in
_Watching_You_Without_Me_.

 >  Date: Sat, 16 Jul 88  14:04:51 EDT
 >  From: Updike%UMASS.BITNET@MITVMA.MIT.EDU
 >  Subject: drums

 >      Jon and I are having a bet:
 >      Are the drums at the beginning of sat in your lap sequenced or
 > programmed or drum-machined (non-human) OR are they done by a real
 > drummer?

 > -- Damian

    It'll be hard to divvy up on the bet. In a way, you're both right.
Since Kate said that the "demos" were more or less retained in all ten
of the tracks on _The_Dreaming_ (though not so completely as on
_HoL_), it's safe to assume that at least a tiny bit of the original
Roland sound still exists in the final mix (especially perhaps the
single mix, which has an earlier date than the LP mix). But she says
that she eventually "replaced" the rhythm-box with a real drum sound.
Also, of course, we have to remember that Kate _never_ explains the
_real_ details of her technical methods. IED doesn't think he's ever
read or heard a complete and satisfying explanation by Kate of the
recording process of any of her music to date.
     In the interests of accuracy, here is Kate's own commentary:

 > _Sat_In_Your_Lap_

 >      I already had the piano patterns, but they didn't turn into a
 > song until the night after I'd been to see a Stevie Wonder gig.
 > Inspired by the feeling of his music, I set a rhythm on the Roland
 > and worked in the piano riff to the high-hat and snare. I now had a
 > verse and a tune to go over it but only a few lyrics like

 >     "I see the people working,"
 >     "I want to be a lawyer," and
 >     "I want to be a scholar,"

 > so the rest of the lyrics became "na-na-na" or words that happened
 > to come into my head. I had some chords for the chorus with the
 > idea of a vocal being ad-libbed later. The rhythm box and piano
 > were put down, and then we recorded the backing vocals "Some say
 > that knowledge is..." Next we put down the lead vocal in the verses
 > and spent a few minutes getting some lines worked out before
 > recording the chorus voice. I saw this vocal being sung from high
 > on a hill on a windy day. The fool on the hill, the king of the
 > castle... "I must admit, just when I think I'm king."
 >      The idea of the demos was to try and put everything down as
 > quickly as possible. Next came the brass. The CS80 is still my
 > favourite synthesizer next to the Fairlight, and as it was all that
 > was available at the time, I started to find a brass sound. In
 > minutes I found a brass section starting to happen, and I worked
 > out an arrangement. We put the brass down and we were ready to mix
 > the demo.
 >      I was never to get that CS80 brass to sound the same
 > again--it's always the way. At The Townhouse the same approach was
 > taken to record the master of the track. We put down a track of the
 > rhythm box to be replaced by drums, recording the piano at the same
 > time.
 >      As I was producing, I would ask the engineer to put the piano
 > sound on tape so I could refer to that for required changes.
 >      This was the quickest of all the tracks to be completed, and
 > was also one of the few songs to remain contained on one
 > twenty-four track tape instead of two!

     In the continuing story of the Love-Hounds _Suspended_
debate, |>oug writes:

>      [ Why can't it have multiple and self-contradictory meanings?  There
>        is death in life and life in death.  Without death, life is
>        impossible.  Without life, death is impossible.  Life and
>        death are one.  Everything is one.  You are too immersed in
>        Western culture, IED.  Study some Zen.  I'm sure Kate has.
>        Besides, John Carder Bush says that Kate's writing is like
>        religious writing.  All religious writings have multiple,
>        contradictory interpretations.  -- |>oug ]

     With due respect, |>oug, this is horseshit. Not "all" "religious"
writings have "contradictory" meanings.

      [	Sure they do?  Can you think of a religion where there aren't
	multiple factions who want to kill each other because they
	each interpret their holy writings differently?  And don't say
	"Oh, yeah, I know of a tribe in Wagadogoo that has only ten
	people in it, and they are all in total agreement about what
	the almighty god Etak has to say."  -- |>oug ]

The assumption that Kate's lyrics contain self-contradictory meanings
is what leads you, it seems, into tying such vague and largely
uninterpretable lines as "Out in the garden there's half of a heaven"
to specific and totally unsupported references as Kate's eight-track
studio.

       [ Actually, IED, I don't think that the line "refers" to Kate's
	 eight-track studio at all.  If I ever said this, it was a
	 slight typo.  I meant that it *alludes* to Kate's 8-track
	 studio, and I fail to see how this allusion contradicts
	 anything.  -- |>oug ]

     Don't get him wrong: IED isn't denying that Kate's words often
carry a huge multiplicity of meaning. But that's a long, _long_ way
from saying that if Kate writes about life, we can all assume she's
also talking about death. Sure, the two are interrelated, but that
doesn't mean she must _always_ be taking into account _all_ the ideas
associated with a given image or subject. As Freud never really said
but probably should have: "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, |>oug."

      [	IED, I never said that "if Kate writes about about life, we
	can all assume she's also talking about death.  All I said is
	that "the garden" being a a possible allusion to death, as
	well as to life, is plausible.  Not that it is a certainty, or
	even likely.  Just that it is plausible.  That is all I said.
	(And if you think about it, right after the word "garden",
	there is the word "heaven" which is also a possible allusion
	to death, as well as to eternal life.  Not only that, but
	"half of heaven".  We are all stuck halfway between life and
	death....)  -- |>oug ]
      
     Of course, you _may_ be correct that Kate is deliberately
referring to both life and death in the line in question. IED didn't
mean to exclude the _possibility_. It's just that such a possibility
is quite _remote_, and certainly is not one that can be built upon as
though it were somehow a proven fact!

      [	I never said that it was in any way a "proven fact".  Where's
	your evidence that the possibility is "remote"?  -- |>oug ]

     It's one thing to suggest that a given line in Kate's music
_might_ accomodate a widely diverse set of possible meanings, and
quite another to assert that Kate very probably intended to mean
exactly the _opposite_ of what her words _say_.
     Meanwhile, |>oug, IED noticed that you failed to acknowledge the
body of _evidence_ that IED presented to support his (nevertheless
still tentative) theory that _Suspended_ is a song that deals
primarily with experiences from Kate's early childhood, or at least
from someone's early childhood. IED offered three strong reasons for
his theory, all based on concrete and relatively unambiguous examples
from the song's text.

       [ I make no argument against the painfully obvious fact that to
	 some degree "Suspended in Gaffa" alludes to childhood.  The
	 phrase "I'm scared of the changes" is most likely a reference
	 to the oncoming of puberty.  However, this is a far cry from
	 the claim that "Suspended in Gaffa" "deals primarily with
	 experiences from Kate's early childhood".  You have shown no
	 little evidence whatsoever to support this hypothesis and
	 furthermore, it seems highly unlikely.  -- |>oug ]

     You, on the other hand, |>oug, have yet to offer a single bit of
such evidence to bolster your _insistence_ that "half of a heaven" is
a deliberate reference to Kate's post-1978 8-track studio. Basically
you just say it's so, and we're all supposed to fall into line. Let's
get some facts, |>oug, or failing that, at _least_ a little humility.

       [ I have repeatedly offered plenty of evidence, Andy, that
         "half of a heaven" is an *allusion* to Kate's demo studio,
         but you have just refused to listen.  I will sumarize the
         evidence again: (1) The allusion in question fits in
         perfectly with the major theme of the song, which Kate
         herself says is working towards "something that we dearly
         want".  (2) The title of the song refers to a type of gooey
         tape that musicians use.  This is not a matter of debate.
         Kate herself says that "Gaffa" refers to this.  Furthermore the
         word definitely has this meaning.  Furthermore, this meaning
         of the word fits in perfectly with the major theme of the
	 song.  Thus, the song, in part alludes to being a musician.
	 (3) It is awfully likely that Kate would draw in part on her
	 own experiences when writing on a topic as emotional as one
	 about trying to achieve one's goals in life.  (4) At the time
	 Kate wrote the song, what was in Kate's garden?  You guessed
	 it!  An 8-track demo studio.  (5) For a musician working to
	 to make her album, which is obviously "something that [she]
	 dearly want[ed]", would an 8-track recording studio be "half
	 of a heaven"?  Why, yes, I think it would.  IED, all these
	 pieces fit together like the gears of a clock.  I suppose
	 there is the chance that is is all just coincidence, but that
	 seems pretty unlikely.  -- |>oug ]

> [ Firstly, Andy, I *never*, EVER, *NEVER* said that "mule is mainly
>    understood 'in our country' as a symbol of infertility"!

     If IED's interpretation was unjust, he apologizes. Here, though,
for the record, is the relevant passage from your interview, with
IED's comment:

	 |>: Oh...well...Mules are sterile...uh...A donkey and a
	horse...you know...have a sexual relationship, and then they
	have mules, and mules don't have children, but they really can
	have sex. They just can't have children, but a lot of people
	actually think that they just don't have sex. Which isn't
	really true.

	 KT: "Right! Well, um...I think you...It's kind of weird the
	level of interpretation that you are reading into things,
	because...I mean, a mule--in our country--all it represents is
	a stupid animal. They are considered stupid...

<This, of course, is still the generally understood reputation of the
mule in the United States, as well. The expression "stubborn as a
mule" is considerably better known in both countries than the sterile
condition of the animal--as the interviewer ought to know.>

	...And that's the allusion that was being used in that case.
	And it's very much a play on a traditional song called _The
	Two_Magicians_ about someone who's trying to escape someone,
	and they keep changing their form in order to escape them.
	But the other thing keeps changing its form. And that's
	actually what the whole song is about--someone who is
	running away from something they don't want to face, but
	wherever they go, the thing will follow them. Basically,
	you can't run away from things--you've got to confront
	things. And it's using the person as the imagery of a
	house, where they won't let anyone in, they lock all the
	doors and windows, and put a guard on the front door. But I
	think the essence of the song is about someone trying to run
	away from things they don't like and not being able to
	escape--because you can't."

        |>: But if the symbol of mules is just stupidity, at the end,
	then it would seem like it would be a negative ending, and it
	just sort of seems to me, most of your songs...a lot of
	them...end on up notes. And it sort of seemed like it was a
	positive note at the end.

        KT: "Yes, I think the mule is that kind of...the stupid
	confrontation...I mean, there's not really that much to read
	into it. It was the idea of playing around with changing
	shape, and the mule imagery was something I liked
	inordinately. The whole thing of this wild, stupid, mad
	creature just turning around and going, you know, 'Eeyore!
	Eeyore!' (Kate makes convincing eeyore sounds.)..."

 >  I merely said that the mule as a symbol of platonic love seemed
 >  like a likely interpretation with respect to the song, in that a
 >  mule *is* a symbol of infertility, the song is about being scared
 >  of being involved in a sexual relationship.  Thus, that connection
 >  makes sense.

     Perhaps it _might_ have made sense if Kate had even known about
the sexual condition of the mule one way or the other. It's pretty
damn likely, however, that Kate _did_not_ know about that aspect of
her subject. And even if she did know, she _definitely_ did not intend
it to be taken into account in the case of this song. So given these
facts, "that connection" pretty clearly _doesn't_ "make sense", |>oug.

      [	No, the connection still makes perfect sense, IED.  That
	doesn't mean that is what Kate intended, however.  And since I
	interviewed Kate, I have never once made the claim that this
	what Kate intended.  I don't know why you think I have, but
	this seems like just part of an ongoing effort to attribute to
	me things I haven't said.  -- |>oug ]

 >   Secondly, a mule is *not* a castrated donkey.

     OK, IED was hitting below the belt on that one: He _knew_ that
was qoing to annoy you! You do seem to be excessively concerned with
the exact nature of donkeys' private parts, though, |>oug...

      [	Actually, IED, I find the idea that two different species can
	breed and give birth to a third species that is sterile, a
	fascinating concept.  I suppose you have no interest in the
	incredible programming system that is responsible for your
	existance?  -- |>oug ]

 >  Thirdly, Kate said that the mule symbolized "stupidity" -- not
 >  stubornness.  Fourthly, at least in our country, Kate is wrong.
 >  Mules don't symbolize "stupidity" -- they symbolize stubbornness.
 >  Stubbornness and stupidity are not the same.  The symbol of a
 >  donkey (i.e.  jackass) is one of stupidity.  A donkey is not the
 >  same thing as a mule.  A donkey's as close to being a mule as a
 >  horse is.

     |>oug, |>oug, |>oug! You're missing the essential point, which is
that whether or note Kate is _correct_ is not the issue -- the
significant fact is that _she_knows_what_she_meant_, not you.  If Kate
incorrectly associated the mule with stupidity rather than the donkey
(and this is an _extremely_ vague distinction!), that doesn't make
_your_ interpretation of _her_ song's symbolism correct, and _hers_
incorrect! Rather, it makes your interpretation _irrelevant_.

      [	IED, IED, IED, it is you who are missing the point!  I *never*
	said (at least after I interviewed her) that my original
	interpretation is what Kate intended.  All I said is that it
	makes sense.  Furthermore, it certainly does not make my
	interpretation of the song irrelevant.  There are those
	(Deconstructionalists) who say that the artist's intentions
	are irrelevant.  That the only relevant thing is how the art
	affects the observer.  I happen to disagree with this.  I
	think that both are relevant.  However, the
	Deconstructionalists are closer to being correct that you.

	Furthermore, there is nothing at all vague about the
	distinction between a donkey and a mule.  The only thing that
	is vague is the mind of the person who refuses to acknowledge
	the distinction.  In fact, the term "mule" is often used by
	biologists to refer to a sterile breed that is usually a
	hybrid.  Have you ever heard a biologist call a sterile breed
	a "donkey"?  I certainly doubt it.  Furthermore, the Mirriam
	Webster Disctionary gives as a definition for mule: "a very
	stubborn person".  In contrast, the corresponding definition for
	donkey is "a stupid or obstinate person".  (Please keep in
	mind that "obstinate" does not mean the same thing as
	"stubborn", and "stubborn" isn't even similar to "stupid".)

	-- |>oug ]

     Anyway, mules' sexuality may be distinct from donkeys', but IED
would be very surprised to hear that mules are noticeably less
"stupid" than donkeys. Furthermore, Kate made it pretty clear that
whether or not there is a distinction between the association of mules
with "stubbornness" and that of donkeys with "stupidity", _she_ wasn't
aware of it. (IED calls attention to her words
"_the_stupid_confrontation_", a phrase that shows some ambiguity in
Kate's mind between stupidity and the stubbornness associated with
mules.) And if Kate wasn't aware of it (or didn't care), then it
bloody well isn't "correct" of you to insist on the accuracy of your
interpretation, because "correct" or not, it just doesn't apply.

      [	It certainly does apply.  It also certainly wasn't what Kate
	intended.  -- |>oug ]

 >      Again you misquote me, IED. I never, ever said that "half of
 >  a heaven" can "only be" a reference to Kate's 8-track studio.
 >  I only said that it *is* a reference to Kate's 8-track studio.

     OK, IED will accept that you never claimed it was the
only interpretation. But you _have_ been quick to express doubt
about IED's idea that the term ("half of a heaven") might equally
(or more plausibly) refer to a much earlier or at least much
more generic "place for artistic creation" -- despite the
fact that IED has presented several very sturdy facts to support
his theory, whereas you have thus far failed to present any
sound evidence for your own.

      [	I have never said that "half of a heaven" can't allude to a
	multitude of other things.  However, I truly doubt that even
	Kate, at an early age, would refer to her mouse-infested pump
	by foot organ, which had many keys that didn't work and lived
	in the barn, as "half of a heaven".  I'm sure she loved it,
	but I doubt that at such a young age, she thought of the
	contraption as something that simultaneously advanced and
	hindered her goals.  At the point she outgrew the rotting
	organ, she was always allowed to use the family's
	well-maintained piano.  -- |>oug ]

     When you recall that even with his evidential support IED _still_
is hesitant about insisting upon a definite meaning for the line,
whereas you, on the basis of no clear evidence at all, continue to
insist with astounding arrogance that "it *is* a reference to Kate's
eight-track studio," it becomes abundantly clear who is being
unreasonable. Saying it's so just doesn't _make_ it so, |>oug, no
matter how hard you believe.

      [	Meaning and reference are two completely different things IED.
	Haven't you even read the basics, like Frege?  -- |>oug ]

-- Andrew Marvick