Mailbag (including a response to this Larry person)

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

 > ...her choreography was THE PITS. In other words: we've discussed
 > this before, let's not discuss this again, why on earth am I
 > perpetuating it, I think I'll just shut up now, I could never argue
 > this shit anyway...

     Your last words constitute the one undisputed remark in your posting.

 >     Oh...
 >     You know, it's just a hunch, but I don't think that these
 > methods would work very well.  The idea, when introducing a new
 > concept to anyone, is to put _your_self in _their_ shoes, not the
 > other way around.  You can't just assume that someone will
 > understand, you have to teach.  It's a process, not an event. It's
 > a path, not a door.  I'm all for crazy passion abandon intensity
 > etc., but it's not some sort of contest to see who can "take it"
 > loudest purest whatever.

     No, of course it's not a contest. That's not what IED meant.
Sorry if it seemed that way. On the other hand, what exactly is the
use of trying to make Kate's work out to be accessible and comfortably
attractive to someone, just in the hope that he/she will find it
"nice" or something? The best thing is just not even to try at all --
let Kate's music find its own partisans by itself. But if you have to,
|>oug's suggestion seems best for a single-song introduction: _GOoMH_.

 > -- Brian (a "casual" Kate fan)

      Ssh! Don't say those words out loud.

 >  P.S. IED, _The_Ninth_Wave_ sucks (relatively speaking, of course). Why
 >  not use HoL (the side, not the album) if you have to play that much
 >  at once?

     There's just no accounting for taste. IED agrees with you that
_HoL_'s a-side is a powerful introduction.  But you must be the first
Kate fan ("casual" or not) to prefer side one to _The_Ninth_Wave_.
Just what is it that attracts you to Kate's music, anyway? You seem to
think that Kate is at her best when she's somehow at her most
"accessible".

 > Well, I'll tell ya', if I had never heard of Kate, and someone had
 > played for me the A-side of *Hounds of Love*, I would have yawned
 > and said, take off this wimpy pop drivel.

     |>oug jests, of course.

 >  From: bradley!bucc2!frodo@A.CS.UIUC.EDU (Pete Hartman)
 >  Subject: Wuthering Heights, WOW, other femmes

 >     I still really dislike _Wow_.  The majority of the melody is
 > monotonic, and the music backing it up doesn't help much to
 > alleviate it, and I myself had much more trouble swallowing two
 > choruses of "WOW (x6), Unbelieveable" than I did "I kill a Dragon
 > for you".  But that's just one opinion....generally, I'll take
 > interesting music long before interesting/"deep" lyrics.  I *DO*
 > like the cover of _Lionheart_ better though...  :-)
 >

 >  [ Well, you are certainly entitled not to like "Wow".  No one
 >    said you *had* to like it.  Personally, I also think "Wow",
 >    musically is one of Kate's very worst songs, and I much prefer
 >    the music to "Troy".  However, that doesn't mean there is
 >    anything wrong with the lyrics.  -- |>oug ]

     Nothing sounds quite so silly as two people sharing their
opinions about which of Kate's songs is "musically" one of her "very
worst".  The critics immediately become identified as the Katian
equivalents of the guy in line for _Le_Chagrin_et_la_pitie_ in
_Annie_Hall_ who starts mouthing off about Marshall McLuhan. The only
difference is that, unlike M. M., Kate isn't around to say "You don't
know my work at all. You don't know what you're talking about." But
then, she'd be too sweet to say anything like that anyway.  But IED's
not.

      [    The 12-inch single version of "Experiment IV" is indeed much
	   better than the album version.  -- |>oug ]

     Totally, utterly asinine. What makes the 12" "better" or "worse"?
The 12" is _different_. It makes some of the musical ideas more
explicit, and changes some of the sounds a little. It's a good deal
less succinct than the definitive album version, and it may be a bit
more "danceable". Finally, it alters the mix in the "secret message"
section so that it becomes even less intelligible.
   These are technical distinctions. If you _like_ them "better", say
so.  But for god's sake, can't you refrain from making these
ridiculous statements that one of Kate's works is "better" than
another? Since they're all the product of her mature artistic efforts,
they're all sufficiently "good" -- whatever "good" means -- to be
quite beyond our ability as mere Love-Hounds to rank them.  Have you no
humility at all?

 > I still don't know the meaning of "Gaffa."  Since it's capitalized, I
 > guessed that it must be some sort of place, possibly imaginary?

 > -- Nick

 >  [ "Gaffa" is a European term gaffer's tape, which is the same
 >     thing as duct tape.  It is what musician's use to tape down
 >     wires and the like.  It is very sticky, and if you get stuck
 >     in it, it no fun at all.  -- |>oug ]

    Like talking to a BRICK WALL. For the record, Nick, you make an
excellent point in observing the capital 'G' in 'Gaffa'. This (as well
as the extremely ambiguous use of the word -- or name -- in the song)
makes it virtually impossible for us to know exactly what Kate had in
mind when she used the word.
     IED and other Love-Hounds have pointed these facts out to our
pseudo-moderator _several_ times over the years, but nothing seems to
penetrate his monumental edifice of self-confidence.
     Just fyi, however, the Oxford E. D. lists (IED was recently told
by another Love-Hound) some _twenty-five_ possible definitions of the
word and its variants, any of which bears as much resemblance to
Kate's spelling "Gaffa" as does |>oug's "gaffer's tape".

 > ...as to offer an interpretation of "Suspended in Gaffa" that no one
 > has yet presented during my brief time on the mailing list? Yes, I
 > admit it's rather superficial, and you will all strip the flesh from
 > my bones for it, but I feel compelled to say my piece.

 > -- Lizooshka

     Not IED. He likes your interpretation. It's really brilliant, and
it seems to work consistently all the way through the song. IED is not
yet convinced that Kate actually had that story in mind when she wrote
it, but he has to admit that he has no way of proving it one way or
the other.  Extremely clever, Lizooshka. The only problem is in the
many little details in the song which, while not militating _against_
your interpretation, don't exactly seem to re-inforce it, either.  In
the past, when a Kate song's narrative source has been solidly
identified, all the pieces seem suddenly to drop right into place, so
to speak -- _Cloudbusting_ is a perfect example, in which there isn't
a single sound or word that doesn't deal directly and plainly with
_A_Book_of_Dreams_, or Kate's interpretation of it (while naturally
allowing for a number of broader associations, as well).  At least as
you have described your interpretation here, that "falling into place"
doesn't seem to have happened yet.
     Still, the more he considers it, the more plausible it sounds.
IED wonders if the song isn't in fact illustrating a specific book (or
story or painting, etc.). "Gaffa" might just refer to something -- or
someplace -- quite particular, which appears in some text or other.
     IED doesn't know whether the song must necessarily be dealing
with a divorce, per se. Couldn't the story work with other, more
straightforward romantic situations, as well? But what's really
attractive about your idea is that, looked at in such a light, the
song _tells_a_story_.  And it was the _absence_of_narrative_ that
always made _Suspended_in_Gaffa_ seem such an anomaly in Kate's work,
and that made it so resistant to a single, integrated reading. Your
way of looking at it opens up a whole new range of possibilities.

 >     According to many sources, our beloved Kate has a four octave range.
 > I believe IED once said she exhibits over four octaves on her first
 > four albums, and over three octaves on "Hounds of Love."  I'd be very
 > interested in her lowest and highest notes on each of her albums
 > (i.e., where does she sing her highest notes, where does she sing her
 > lowest notes, what notes are they, and what is the range?).  I'm told
 > this is getting into esoteric trivia, but...

 >                         LAters.
 > -- Paul M Carpentier

     If IED did in fact claim a "four-octave" range for Kate, let him
apologize here. Actually, this matter was investigated with some care
by IED and other Love-Hounds about a year or so ago, and it was found
that Kate's range extends -- at least in her publicly released
recordings -- about three half-tones shy of three octaves. IED decided
(without, however, making a systematic search of Kate's entire
recorded work) that Kate's highest note to date can be heard on the
track _Don't_Push_Your_Foot_ on_the_Heart_Brake_, specifically in the
brief preamble to the second set of verses which begin with the line
"She's losing that inner flame." At that point the words "She's
losing, she's losing, she's losing, she's losing..." can be heard, and
they are sung in extremely high two-part harmony by Kate's overdubbed
voice.  The higher of the two overdubs repeatedly hits high C --
that's "_the_" high C of operatic soprano fame -- the note which, by
the end of the nineteenth century, had become a sort of _sine_qua_non_
for the great divas. Probably the most famous example of the magical
effect of a high C in opera comes at the very end of the first act of
_La_Boheme_. Mimi's last note of that act is a long, sustained,
pianissimo high C. She really hits that note and lets it float.
     IED isn't really sure that this is the highest Kate goes,
however.  Other possible tracks to check out are _The_Big_Sky_,
_Burning_Bridge_ and _Not_This_Time_, all of which contain some raw,
shrieking choruses which may contain some very high notes. (Half a
dozen other songs come to mind already as this is being written.)
     As for Kate's _lowest_ note, IED thinks it might be an E-flat
below middle C (on the piano), which she might be singing in the
extended mix of _Running_Up_That_Hill_, during a long section in the
last third of the recording when Kate repeatedly sings (again in
two-part harmony, though this time at the very bottom of her voice)
the words "Come on, come on, baby/Come on, come on, darling," etc.,
with minimal instrumental obligato. (This is not just a remixed
section from the LP recording, but an additional vocal section which
appears only in the 12" a-side.)
     However, after prolonged listening, IED still can't be sure that
Kate really reaches that note. In the track _The_Dreaming_, though,
she definitely comes down to at least an E-natural below middle C,
toward the end of the LP track with the last utterance of the words
"in the road."
     All of this may sound like an anti-climax, since the term
"four-octave range" has been bandied about quite a lot in Love-Hounds
over the months (as well as in the media: Take Laurie Brown's spoken
introduction to her Canadian TV interview with Kate).  In fact,
though, from what preliminary research IED has done over the past day
or two, there is _no_confirmation_ of _anyone_ having consistently
sung a full four octaves. It's virtually a fiction in operatic
singing. Three octaves, or three octaves and a half at the outside,
seem to be about the limit of the soprano voice. (This includes the
castrato soprani of olden times, who were famous more for the timbre
of their voices, than for any miraculous range.) Perhaps the
misunderstanding comes from the fact that a full three-octave range
actually includes _four_ octaves of its lowest tone, even though the
_number_ of complete octaves could only be three.
     IED thinks Jamie Andrews was really getting at the crux of this
problem in talking about how Kate exploits her instrument.  The trick
is not in the range, but in how that range is used. Obviously, an
E-natural below middle C doesn't sound particularly "deep" when sung
by a male baritone voice. In Kate's 12" mix of _RUTH_, however, it
sounds _really_deep_. In other words, it's all in the timbre: Kate
makes the note sound deep because she sings with evident effort,
loosening the throat muscles as much as possible to meet the challenge
of the pitch, and at the same time attaining that pitch with authority
and consistency. By the same token, the solidity with which she hits
high C in _Don't_Push_Your_Foot_, coupled with the audible strain to
her voice which the effort causes, combine to create that indefinable
effect of "singing very high" -- even though high C for the human
voice is no longer even close to the official record, and in fact is
nearly two full octaves short of the piano's highest limit.

 > While Pete is right about "Wow" having less lyrical impact than many
 > Kate songs on a superficial listening, careful listening (or reading
 > the lyric sheet) reveals a lot more than the obvious (the rather plain
 > refrain).  I'll leave it to Pete to listen closely, read the lyric
 > sheet, or to Doug to post the address of the Kate lyric server, since
 > I would rather leave the interpretation of the lyrics to Pete (and
 > everyone else who's reading this).
 >
 > -- Steve Schonberger

                            Wow

      Emily...

 We're all alone on the stage tonight.
 We've been told we're not afraid of you.
 We know all our lines so well, uh-huh.
 We've said them so many times:
 Time and time again,
 Line and line again.

      Ooh, yeah, you're amazing!
      We think you're incredible.
           You say we're fantastic,
           But still we don't head the bill.

           Wow! Wow! Wow! Wow! Wow! Wow! Unbelievable!
           Wow! Wow! Wow! Wow! Wow! Wow! Unbelievable!

 When the actor reaches his death,
 You know it's not for real. He just holds his breath.
 But he always dives too soon, too fast to save himself.

      He'll never make the screen.
      He'll never make the 'Sweeney',
      Be that movie queen.
      He's too busy hitting the vaseline.

      Ooh, yeah, you're amazing!
      We think you are really cool.
      We'd give you a part, my love,
      But you'd have to play the fool.

           Wow! Wow! Wow! Wow! Wow! Wow! Unbelievable!
           Wow! Wow! Wow! Wow! Wow! Wow! Unbelievable!

 We're all alone on the stage tonight.
 We're all alone,
 On the stage,
 Tonight.

 > Larry DeLuca

 > It's not unique at all.  First of all, the poor girl is hell-bent
 > on symmetry.  Doris Humphrey, in her book _The Art of Making
 > Dances_ (required reading for anyone *anywhere* in the arts) says,
 > "Symmetry is death.".  She's right.  For when you know that every
 > movement done on the left will be exactly repeated on the right,
 > boredom sets in quickly.  Much of the excitement of dance comes in
 > surprise.

     This is a terrible simplification of both Kate's choreographic
style _and_ of the rudiments of choreographic technique in general.
Whether Doris Humphrey said it or not (and IED is strongly inclined to
believe that her remark was taken out of context), the idea that
symmetry is, _de_facto_, an undesirable quality in dance is absurd.
Symmetrical lines, gestures and movements are so much a part of
virtually all forms of dance that whether an "innovative" piece of
choreography contains symmetry or not has _nothing_ to do with
deciding its level of "innovation". Furthermore, the avoidance of
symmetry for "innovation's" sake sounds like the _opposite_ of true
creativity. If all "innovative" dance must necessarily avoid symmetry,
then there _is_ no real "innovation" at all: everyone is following the
same pattern of avoiding symmetry.
     Moreover, the idea that "surprise" cannot be achieved through
symmetry is as absurd as the idea that "surprise" cannot be _avoided_
if symmetry is consistently avoided. Rather, it's _how_ symmetry is
used, and _how_ it's broken up that makes for "surprise" in dance --
or in any other art form, for that matter. Any choreographer who
scrupulously avoids symmetrical movement is going to be as
_un_-surprising as one who unremittingly _uses_ symmetrical movement.
     Finally, of course, the fact is that Kate's movement is _not_
unremittingly symmetrical. If you think it is, you clearly haven't
given it any serious study yet. Take a good look at the patterns of
Kate's part in the _Ran_Tan_Waltz_ choreography, for example; and then
take into account the interconnection of that part with the two other
dancers' parts. You'll learn something.

 > Second, her approximation of the choreographic art is crude, at
 > best.  Her efforts (especially in early videos -- the reader is
 > referred here to "Wuthering Heights" ("It's me your Cathy I've come
 > home and I'm so cold"), "The Man With The Child In His Eyes" ("Oh,
 > I'm so worried about my man"), "Wow", ("Hitting the Vaseline" --
 > here I refer to the _The Single File_ compilation and not to _The
 > Whole Story_, which features a different video composed of her
 > concert footage from the _Live at the Hammersmith Odeon_ tape)) are
 > more akin to pantomime -- much telling of the story and repitition
 > of things already said in the song.

     That's close to being correct. The point is that Kate is
combining dance movement with the pantomimic telling of the narrative.
This is a totally deliberate artistic decision on Kate's part. She has
said as much in at least half a dozen different interviews. Now
whether you think so or not, that combination of formerly discrete
mediums of body movement is quite _innovative_.
     Personally, IED doesn't particularly care whether Kate's body
expression is "innovative" or not, however. That was |>oug's point,
not IED's. |>oug's right, but the fact of her work's novelty seems
relatively unimportant in comparison with its primary effectiveness as
a vehicle for communicating the story and emotions of her music.  And
in this respect Kate has succeeded with amazing consistency since at
least 1980, maybe earlier.

 > Dance is a compressed language. It will, at its best, make clear
 > new inroads of interpretation and understanding.  However, the
 > choreography in the early videos (even up to the loathsome
 > "Suspended in Gaffa" -- a huge disappointment as it's one of my
 > *very* favorite songs and deserved a *much* better treatment than
 > it got in the video -- it was seeing that video again after slaving
 > over my videodisk player with a warped disk for four hours that
 > made me write my first posting) doesn't serve to do anything other
 > than weakly mirror the words in most cases.

     That's utterly false. In fact, your choice of
_Suspended_in_Gaffa_ to illustrate your point is embarassing proof of
your poor study habits.  Without any doubt in his mind that the
choreographic routine for _Suspended_ is a _brilliant_ piece of work
in its own right, IED would just like to point out that there's not a
single movement in that particular routine that doesn't carry a
serious purpose and meaning; and that furthermore their purpose is
_not_ merely one of "mirroring the words", but is one of _amplifying_
and _expanding_ the meaning (and the emotion) _behind_ both the
_words_ and the _music_. Kate uses her body in remarkably varied ways
in that routine, emphasizing narrative, rhythmic, melodic, and even in
one case _harmonic_ undercurrents in the song. Choreographer or not,
Larry, you have clearly failed to discover these obvious facts.

 > Kate Bush's choreography is hardly unique.  I see reams of the same
 > stuff put on little girls in their first jazz classes because they
 > are too young to learn anything more complex or their
 > teachers/choreographers...

     Larry, all that this statement tells us, unfortunately, is that
your eye for dance, despite whatever marvellous training you may be
able to boast of, is still astonishingly crude. Please don't
misunderstand: IED is not trying to argue that Kate's natural flair
for movement is anything special. Not at all. In fact, she's never
been a particularly elegant dancer. The issue here has been the
serious value of her choreography, and to liken Kate's ideas to those
of school-children is ridiculous. If anyone ever found a child capable
of understanding, let alone concocting on his/her own, the expressive
and narrative subtleties that are contained in Kate's _Suspended_
routine or her _RUTH_ routine, that child would be the director of the
Kirov right now. You need to go back to school yourself, Larry.

 > I hope the trend I've seen in _Hair of the Hound_ continues --
 > she's improved quite a bit, and letting other people do some of it
 > has helped.

     Your patronizing tone carries like the sour smell of a bad onion.

 > She still needs to give up symmetry almost altogether -- she
 > can say a lot more without it.

     Again with this symmetry bug-a-boo of yours! Your views smack
pitifully of the typical condescending attitude of the "modern" artist
-- ignorantly confident in the "enlightened" ways of twentieth-century
artistic "pace-setters", thoughtlessly following the emperor with no
clothes. Take heart, Kate!  Be strong, symmetry! Show strength,
history of dance! Be patient, tradition! The brilliance of the light
which you cast on art will outlast the insidious, temporal, mundane
power of myopic modern "vision".

 > From: Doug Alan <nessus@ATHENA.MIT.EDU>
 > Subject: Re: Kate Bush's Videos
 > Date: Mon, 01 Aug 88 23:59:27 EDT

 > Who made Doris Humphrey God?  To say that "symmetry is death" is
 > like saying "melody is death".  It's the epitome of arrogance.
 > There's a place in the world for many things.  Including both
 > symmetry and asymmetry, both consonace and disonance.  Also to say
 > what Kate is hell-bent on now, at the age of 30, is a little
 > presumptuous an extrapolation from what she was into at the age of
 > 20.

     Though we may have our differences, and though |>oug's way of
expressing himself is a good deal less overblown than IED's, our
moments of solidarity of thought and sentiment are heartening to this
Love-Hound. Having written his rebuttals to Larry's pathetic posting
above, IED now discovers |>oug's commentary, and can find fault with
not a word of it. In fact, Larry's screed even suggested the same word
to us: "myopic".

 > Who declared pantomime an invalid form of art?

 Larry, apparently. Or was it his guru and false idol, Doris Humphrey?

 >     No one, including Kate, would call Kate a dancer. She just
 > doesn't have the years and years of training and practice to be
 > technically exceptional in this area. Kate, and other people with
 > plenty of experience in dance, however, felt that she had enough
 > artistic vision to express something worthwhile with what dancing
 > ability she did have.  Not that she could achieve the same level
 > with her dancing as with her music (without devoting half her life
 > to dance), but that she could do something that would be more
 > interesting that watching her stand there at the microphone.
 > Considering the amount of training she had in dance, I think she
 > did a pretty incredible job.

 >     Your saying that "you see reams of the same stuff put on by
 > little girls in their first jazz class" strikes me as the same sort
 > of snobishness that you hear from classical music experts about
 > rock music, or from 70's Progressive Rock experts about Punk. What
 > they are criticising doesn't meet some arbitrary, myopic, and
 > ultimately meaningless measurement of quality that just doesn't
 > apply to the work of artists with different views and different
 > goals. I've seen plenty of bad talent shows, and I've yet to see
 > someone who dances or choreographs like Kate. But then again, I
 > guess I just don't have the training to see how all dancing I don't
 > like, is, in essence, the same...

     Ditto! Ditto!

 >      Well, I think you better give up on the idea of Kate achieving
 > her potential as a dancer.  She long ago decided that others are
 > much more qualified at dance than she, and she would leave the
 > dancing to them.  The video for "Running Up That Hill" was her one
 > last shot at dance -- she wanted to do one last piece of dance that
 > she could be proud of -- and something that she thought would be a
 > better presentation of dance than in other rock videos she had
 > seen. Then she would hang up her tutu, and put on her director's
 > cap, which is what she currently wants to work on.

 > -- |>oug /\lan

     IED isn't so sure about this last bit any more, |>oug. Kate made
that statement more than a year ago, maybe even as long as two years
ago. Since then anything could have happened to her way of thinking.
Also, she's going to have to do a lot of thinking about choreography
of one kind or another for the TOUR OF LIFE II!! And finally, remember
that even at the time of that statement of hers, she added that she
might still use dance in some capacity in later works.

 > |>oug, wasn't it "The Big Sky" that was nominated for best female
 > video of the year?  (I voted for it in the USA Today poll.)

 > - mike

     IED believes that was the next year. _RUTH_ was up for an award
in 1986, _Big_Sky_ in 1987. _Experiment_IV_ should have been nominated
for an award in 1988, but IED guesses it wasn't (?).

 > From: mcvax!tcom.stc.co.uk!lkt@UUNET.UU.NET

 > Kate Bush made an appearance in London this weekend (30/7/88) in
 > support of an event called "Shop Assistance", in which celebrities
 > became shop assistants, waitresses and barmen for the day. In addition
 > to fund raising events the shops concerned also donated a percentage
 > of their takings to the event, which was in support of AIDS charities.

 > Kate had a surprise when the shop she was "working" for, presented her
 > with a birthday cake.

 > The event is set to reach its 100,000 pounds target.

     Thanks _very_ much for this bit of info, L.K. Because of its
timely appearance in Love-Hounds IED was able to go right out and pick
up the three London papers that carried photos of Kate dutifully
cutting her birthday cake at Blazers.  Another day later and those
papers would have been library-only material for L.A. residents.
     Kate looks fantastic, by the way, in these, the first photos to
have appeared in the press (that IED knows of) in about a year.
Judging by her glorious smile in the photos, she had not yet read
Larry's foolish comments in Love-Hounds. Let's hope she never does.

-- Andrew Marvick