retraKTion; and admoniKTion

[IED0DXM%OAC.UCLA.EDU@mitvma.mit.edu]

 To: Love-Hounds
 From: IED
 Subject: retraKTion; and admoniKTion

     Seems IED was wrong both about the speech in _Breathing_ (Doug
has better info than IED) and (perhaps) about the copyright status
of _Night_of_the_Demon_ (made in '57, released in the U.S. in '58).
Aren't Hammer movies of thirty years' vintage public domain? IED is
told not. So maybe the elaborate re-make of those lines was done for
copyright reasons, after all.

ANNOUNCEMENT OF POLICY CHANGE:
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
     IED is going to have to set a new policy, and not only because it's
too much work to go on the way he has been. From now on, when some
new (or inattentive) Love-Hound asks a question that IED (along with
perhaps many others) has answered in L-Hs before, IED will probably
not be forthcoming with an answer. It's just getting to be ridiculous.
This month alone there were renewed questions about whether there were
computer images (and if so how to access them), whether someone had
the address of the sheet-music company, whether there was an address
for Intergalactic Garage, whether there was an address for _Homeground_,
whether the lyrics were on file, whether there were lyrics on the U.S.
re-issue CD of _TD_, whether that was Donald Sutherland in _Cloudbusting_
or not, whether there were bootleg records of Kate live, whether those
records had good sound, whether there had been a first obsKuriTies tape,
whether it was still available, why not, whether postage was required
for the new tape project, etc., etc., etc. All of those questions have
been answered at least twice, and in some cases _many_ more times, in
Love-Hounds before. There's supposed to be a Love-Hounds Archives for
just this sort of thing. IED has become very frustrated at the almost
incredible lack of retention on the part of many Love-Hounds. If you've
got such curiosity about Kate, you should access the archives and
_read_ about her. And in cases where the answer has actually been
asked and answered already within a matter of a few weeks, you should
be able to access your own Love-Hounds files. Some of you people would
seem to be dumping each L-Hs transmission right after reading it, and
then a week later you figure you want to know something so you ask all
over again. Nuts. It's all in Archives. So it takes a while to weed
out stuff you don't need. If you're really a seriously interested
fan of Kate's work that shouldn't deter you. If you're only casually
curious, then IED is going to let someone else worry about filling
you in from now on. There's just no satisfaction anymore in telling
Love-Hounds the basic facts over and over, only to have someone else
(sometimes the _same_ people) ask the questions again a week later.
     Anyway, IED has begun to question the very premise of Love-Hounds.
Just exactly why is it such a great idea to make information about Kate
Bush's work so easy to obtain? A very large part of Kate's own aesthetic
has to do with aspects of _secrecy_, and the _concealment_ of the
message. That being so, shouldn't IED be encouraging these newer Love-
Hounds to _dig_up_the_information_ on their own? Isn't it fundamentally
contrary to Kate's own designs and plans for IED to be exposing all
the hidden information all the time? Yes, it really is. It's about time
IED re-considered his role in this group, and whether his long-held
policy of unlimited free access to pre-digested information about KT
is a wise one.
     And _no_, IED will _not_ be making the first _obsKuriTies_ tape
available again! There are 130+ people who have copies out there. Find
one and get a copy that way. And _don't_ ask IED to post the list of
the other recipients again for your convenience. Dig it up for
yourselves!

-- Andrew Marvick, who is obviously (but not apologetically) in a
   foul mood