MisK. (mailbag): Kate-echism XVI.10.iii

[IED0DXM%OAC.UCLA.EDU@MITVMA.MIT.EDU]

 >    Are you trying to convince me that you are more objective than
 > "fans" because you dislike some of Kate's songs?  What makes you
 > think that fans like every song?  I don't like "Wow".  I don't like
 > "Babooshka".  I don't like "Watching You Without Me", "Hounds of
 > Love", "Coffee Homeground", etc.  I think you are profoundly
 > mistaken if you are working on the assumption that somehow your
 > dislike of some material makes you in any way more "objective" than
 > anyone else.

 > -- |>oug

     |>oug's basic conclusion is certainly true enough; but IED
prefers to object to the _premise_ which Larry bases his wrong
conclusions on, and which |>oug makes no effort to refute: namely, the
idea that in order to be "objective" one must of necessity "dislike"
at least some of Kate Bush's music. On the contrary, the definition of
an "objective" judge is one who is _not_ prone to "like" _or_
"dislike" the work he/she is judging: the _objective_ judge is the
_disinterested_ judge.
     Obviously, IED is not a disinterested judge of Kate's music, nor
is he very often objective about it. By the same token, neither Larry
nor |>oug strikes IED as being any more obviously "objective", since
they have both avowed (and with evident and misguided pride) their
"dislike" for a portion of Kate's work.
     Now, if they could somehow _prove_ that the songs which they
disliked were inferior to the songs which they liked, that would be
another matter. IED does not believe either of them is capable of
doing that. |>oug, for example, cannot really hope to prove that "Wow"
is somehow _inferior_ to "GOoMH", since one is quite different from
the other, and has different virtues.  The fact that he _dislikes_
"Wow", therefore, demonstrates only that Doug has personal preferences
based on quite _subjective_ aesthetic standards. (Naturally the same
is doubly true of Larry's opinions.)

 >     Regarding those who criticize without creating -- it seems to
 > me that an artist is automatically biased.  Not that a non-artist
 > critic is necessarily unbiased, but I think you are going to have
 > to do a lot of work to convince anyone that an artist, who has
 > probably a very vested interest in a certain artistic viewpoint, is
 > going to be more unbiased than someone who may have no vested
 > interest.

     This is a mass of ill-considered silliness. How can anyone see
value in ascribing any common qualities to "artists" in general?
"Artists" number human personalities of unlimited range and diversity.
There is no "artistic type" of person.
     Furthermore and more importantly, there is no value in the notion
that "artists" are any more or less pre-disposed to judge "art" in a
certain way than any other group of people. Just exactly what _kind_
of "vested interest" does an "artist" have in "art"?  And how is that
vested interest _more_ likely to disqualify the artist's judgement of
art than the vested interest of the art _patron_? or the art _critic_?
or the art _historian_? or the average working-man looking for a
"sofa-size" oil for his den? or _any_other_human_being_? The answer is
that all human beings are bound and affected by their own
predispositions, their own subjective view of art (and of everything
else).
     There is really only one person, in IED's opinion, whose
_opinion_ about a given work of art must carry more weight than anyone
else's, and that is the artist of the work in question. Naturally this
is not because he/she has less of a "vested interest" in the work --
he/she may have more _or_ less, depending on the art and the artist
involved. The reason he/she has a more valid opinion about his/her own
work is because he/she has more _information_ about the work than
anyone else.
     And in the case of Kate's songs, Kate possesses _so_ much more
information about the works than anyone else, and shares with her
critics so little of that information, that most judgements by
outsiders fall short of providing either an explanation of the works
or a fair and complete judgement of their quality.

  >> 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...

  >> ...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 De Luca

   > Further, I never meant this to turn into a discussion of the
   > choreography...

   > -- Larry De Luca

     Brilliant, Larry. You some relation of Dan Quayle or something?

 > I gave specific examples of things I didn't like.  I pointed out
 > clear reasons why I didn't like them, and further, I gave
 > references.  |>oug sputtered and sparked but didn't come up with
 > anything to do except sling more mud and spin the discussion off
 > sideways, talking about "`Kate's' limited training" etc., etc.,
 > etc.

     This is just too much. Exactly the _opposite_ of what Larry
writes above is true. Larry threw out a load of bollocky nonsense
about how "symmetry" is directly related to "quality" in choreography,
almost certainly misattributing such asinine remarks to a reputable
authority (conveniently omitting the exact source).
     Then, when both |>oug and IED responded with a degree of care
which Larry's silly postings scarcely deserved, Larry tried (with
resounding ineffectuality) to deny that he had said what he said --
clearly forgetting that Love-Hounds postings are retrievable, as the
above citations culled by |>oug show.

 > Most artists I've listened to (including Kate) say just about the
 > most philosophically inane things imaginable.

 > -- |>oug

     Now, |>oug, you wanna start another fight?? What you say here is
mean and unfair. IED has a great deal of respect for Kate's
"philosophy", insofar as she has ever explained it. True, she
sometimes used to come across as a bit naive in the first two or three
years of her career, but given the nature of her philosophy, her
"naivete" is best understood to be a deliberate attitude adopted for
quite sophisticated philosophical reasons, and worthy of our
admiration and emulation.

 >     With your style of argument I could prove that Kate's music is
 > also worthless.  Stravinsky once said "Consonace has no place in
 > music".  Sure thing, dear Igor!  Stravinsky may have been a great
 > artist, but this statement by him is nothing but utter rubbish.

 > -- |>oug

     This sounds like one of those famous apocryphal attributions.
IED would appreciate it if you could cite your source. Whether
Stravinsky was a "great artist" is a matter of opinion, but IED finds
it hard to believe that he was not extremely intelligent and careful
with his epigrams.

 >     The same thing is true for her now directing her own videos.
 > None of the videos that Kate has directed herself have been quite
 > as good as the video for "Running Up That Hill", which was directed
 > by someone else.  Why doesn't she hire that director, then, for all
 > her videos?  Why do them herself?  She's directing her videos now
 > because film directing is something she wants to get better at.

     With all respect, |>oug, this is a load. To say flatly as though
it were a fact that "RUTH"'s video was "better" than Kate's own later
self-directed videos is _A_B_S_U_R_D_, and you know it. There are many
fine qualities to "RUTH", and IED is happy to give some of the credit
for those qualities to the director.
     "Experiment IV" is a very different kind of video, however, and
it is ridiculous to say that it is "inferior" to "RUTH".  To state as
_fact_ the groundless opinion that "RUTH" is "better" than "X4" is
dopey. And if you'd like to start another months-long argument about
these two videos' relative merit, IED will oblige you.

 >     Some professors and students here are trying to overturn the
 > policy that perfect spelling is required for a degree.  They say
 > that spelling is pretty trivial in the grand scheme of things and
 > that it descriminates against those who are dyslectic.  Now, I'm
 > somewhat dyslectic, but I will have nothing of this.  Both you and
 > I know that it worth spending every waking moment to prefect one's
 > spelling.  The effort does not result in wasted brain cells --
 > rather it results in a better understanding of the universe, man,
 > and his place in it!

     Your irony is not a success with IED, |>oug. Much as it irks him,
IED agrees with Brian on this subject. It depends on the degree of
respect the individual has for language. If spelling is not important
to you, fine; but don't act as though it's petty for others to avail
themselves of their superior knowledge of and sensitivity to language.
     IED no longer comments on the little mistakes he encounters in
L-Hs postings on an almost daily basis -- not since he was stepped on
for having the audacity to ascribe some value, however small, to the
tradition of the English language.
     Just this once, however, he can't resist: it's "discriminate",
|>oug, not "descriminate". (The "prefect" and the "it worth" can
charitibly be accepted as honest typos.) Please forgive IED this once
for his lapse in taste; and please believe that he is aware of his own
shortcomings with the language, and does not mean to imply otherwise.

 > This has got to be the silliest idea I have seen in quite awhile.
 > Do either of you honestly think even Kate would agree with this?
 > Am I to believe that anything besides blind devotion to every note
 > is going to be denigrated by the Twin Twits of this group?

     You do |>oug an injustice, Mr. Berns. IED may be a blindly
devoted twit, but |>oug cannot fairly be so described. Rather, |>oug
is a SHAMELESS, SELF-SATISFIED HERETIC!!

 >> When I did the same to "So ni kloi, so ni kloi-ii", I became
 >> convinced there was no backward message at all.

 >   I heard "We see you here" in that section.

     Are you sure you heard that in _exactly_ that section?  The words
"We see you here" do crop up in the track when it's played backwards,
but not as far as IED is aware in the famous "mystery" section (So
nik-loh...). Besides, we know those are not the words that Kate says
are there. Once again: the words are twelve in number, they form a
sentence, and they start with the word "Don't".

 > Your assignment tonight; listen to The Dreaming (esp. All The Love,
 > Night of the Swallow & Houdini (sp?)) and The Ninth Wave.  If you
 > get really ambitious, listen to Delius, All We Ever Look For &
 > Violin (&/or all of Never For Ever).  Then we'll all meet back here
 > and argue (I mean debate) about what she means :-)

 > -- Ken

 >    I never seen Jig of Life brought up before.  I'd be interested
 > in hearing what all the Kate-junkies have to say about the
 > interpretation of this song.  I have my thughts, but seeing that I
 > don't have the lyrics in front of me, I'd rather hear from someone
 > who at the moment might.

 > -- Sarah

     With the exception of parts of "TNW", Ken and Sarah, IED believes
there isn't much controversy over the meaning of the lyrics of
the songs you mention above. Anyway, IED and |>oug are still
busy arguing about "There Goes a Tenner"...aren't we, |>oug?

  >>   I thank |>oug for the words to "The Handsome Sailor Boy".  I
  >> too, like marK, was a little confused as to what Kate was saying
  >> in the last line.  Where did this song come from, and where did
  >> Kate come upon it anyways?

  >> -- Sarah

  >      Where did "The Handsome Cabin Boy" come from?  It's a
  > traditional sea chantey.  I don't know where Kate first came upon
  > it, but a long time ago (way before *Hounds of Love*), I heard a
  > radio show where Kate was the guest DJ, sort of.  On it she played
  > "The Handsome Cabin Boy" as performed, I think, by Euin McCall
  > (spelling?) and someone else whose name I can't remember at the
  > moment.
  >
  > -- |>oug

     Kate has probably heard this old traditional song in many
versions over the years, and it may be one of the earliest songs she
ever heard.  The version that she seems to prefer, however, is an old
recorded performance by A. L. "Burt" Lloyd (with Ewan McColl) which
she played once as a guest d.j. on Paul Gambaccini's BBC1 radio
programme, Dec. 30, 1980.

 >    Kate once said "to hit that note and let it float" to
 >    describe "that string driven thing" played by Paddy Bush.
 >    Kate was probably quoting Boheme.

 >    -- |>oug

 > * re IED's ridiculous quiz: He "hit that note and let it float" quotes
 >    someone else's (Doug's?) description of Mimi in Act I of Boheme.
 >    But Mimi is a "she". What are you playing at?

     What's so ridiculous about it? The fact that you don't seem to be
able to answer its questions?
     The connection with La Boheme was quite incidental, and was
raised by IED in relation to the separate discussion of Kate's vocal
range. There is only one correct answer to this quiz question, and it
was once posted in Love-Hounds. Neither Julian nor |>oug has come
close to the correct response yet.
     Furthermore, there is no such thing as "ridiculous" in the WSI.

 >   I hope this has cleared some things up.  Next time: the use of
 > the word 'of' in "In Search of Peter Pan".

 > -- Pickle.

     Yes, but Kate has sometimes spelled it "Of", not "of"...

 >    Anybody else heard anything about this?  And what was the final
 > deal with Kate's North American contract?  Is she still on EMI, or
 > CBS as somebody mentioned way back when?  (I wonder if that was
 > another April 1st thing).

 > -- dave

     No joke, Dave. Kate switched to CBS in the U.S. She's still with
EMI elsewhere. EMI in the U.S. (then EMI-America, subsequently
EMI-Manhattan, now just EMI again) admitted that they simply didn't
notice that they'd let the deadline on her option pass by without
taking it up, and Kate availed herself of the opportunity to sign a
new contract with CBS, saying it was "time for a change", and
insisting that she had not been "dissatisfied" with EMI in the U.S.
EMI-America executives expressed chagrin at discovering their blunder
too late to keep Kate.

      Finally, regarding the "pockets in the breeze" issue, Auntie
Lizoo, IED has to agree with |>oug that "pockets" in this case seems
to refer to the money itself, rather than to pockets on coats.  IED is
not, however, really sure about this. |>oug's and IED's respective
interpretations of this section of the song leads us to quite
different conclusions about the time and setting of the scene. Another
advantage of IED's reading is that it can accomodate both
interpretations of the word "pockets". As for |>oug's argument that
"flapping" would have been used if "pockets" were meant to be taken
literally in the song, IED doesn't accept this. "Floating" would do
perfectly well in such a case, too.

-- Andrew Marvick