MisK., MisK., and more MisK. (very longwinded screed re ethics, etc.)

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

 To: Love-Hounds
 From: IED
 Subject: MisK., MisK., and more MisK. (very longwinded screed re ethics, etc.)

     Jeez. What a mess. There certainly seems to be a variety of
opinions in this group.

 >>     In any event, IED sent a letter to Kate ten days ago confessing
 >>his crimes, and explaining in detail every facet of the whole sordid
 >>story. The matter of IED's exoneration, pardon or condemnation,
 >>therefore, is in Kate's hands. Please let it remain there, and IED
 >>will not complain.

 >Did you include information that would enable the authorities to track
 >you down, in the event that she (or whoever may screen her mail) thought
 >to do legal nastiness to you?
 >
 >-- Steve

     The answer is yes--of course. IED made no secret of his ID or
the copying issue. The specific text of the letter is personal,
and IED won't reproduce it in Love-Hounds. He considers it Bush-family
private property now as much as IED's, so if they want to post it
in Love-Hounds, IED won't object! (A peculiar parallel to the tape project...)

 >I'm glad that Tim brought this up, just as I was about to send in my
 >request. I had assumed that these were simply songs that no distributor
 >wanted to touch, NOT that Kate was opposed to their distribution.
 >What *is* the truth here?  I'd love to have a copy if it's legit, but
 >not by "nyah nyah, I got it in spite of you and you can't catch me."
 >
 >-- Mark E. Mallett

     The truth is not really known here, Mark. IED was assured
by a friend who spoke with John Carder Bush on the phone that they
had heard about the release of the first _Cathy_Demos_ (Volume One)
EP, and that Kate was "very upset" about it. That's the source of
IED's information, and the extent of it. It's fourth-hand, but IED
has no reason for doubting its accuracy.
     Since that time (here are some particulars re IED's letter) IED has
written to Kate (through her brother) in two separate letters, letting
them know about the 22-song tape, the plans to make copies for zero
profit for those readers of Love-Hounds who expressed interest, and
as much hard information as IED has been able to dig up about the
_real_ bootleggers behind the tape. In the case of the EP IED's info
is unfortunately still very vague, but in the case of the cassette
IED was able to be of considerable help with specific names and
addresses.
     So you see, it's not quite as simple as one might suppose. IED's
project was described, and they can probably  see that this is a limited
project without any profit involved--essentially the distribution of
a "few" copies for "friends", not a business venture. In addition, IED
has given them what leads he could about the identity of the _real_
bootleggers. The upshot of all this is that there is no predicting what
the Bush family's reaction will be. Tim Maroney's dire predictions
may prove accurate, but there is by no means any guarantee of that.

     IED also confessed some of his sins regarding the _Cathy_Demos_
EP in a letter to the Welsh fanzine _Cariad_Kate_, which they have now
published in its entirety in their latest issue. So not only does
Kate know from me, she and the world can read about it in print, too.
(The tape project is not mentioned in that article, however.)
     He should point out, too, that IED is rather a latecomer when it
comes to advertising these demos. Besides Bart Firsden's ad
in _Goldmine_ (still there in the latest issue), from which one can
get a list of items including the 22-demo tape (at a disgusting mark-up),
there have been a long song-by-song listing and description in the Dutch
fanzine _Kate_, and another notice in _Cariad_Kate_ (both unrelated to
IED's) which also lists all the titles. Besides which the _Cathy_Demos_
EP series is definitely continuing, according to one source. There are
four more seven-inch EPs scheduled, each with four tracks from the
22-song collection. All of these sources of bootleg commerce are
known to Kate and her family (a friend of IED's bought at considerable
expense and sent to Kate a copy of _The_Cathy_Demos_Volume_One_ EP
about a month ago, so she has definitely seen it by now). So if legal
action is to be taken, there are certainly other targets out there.
     Yet this is not at all to say that Kate hasn't every right to
prosecute IED for copying the recordings, should he ever decide to do so,
even though no profit were sought. The only question that seems to remain
a legitimate source for debate concerns the ethical/moral ramifications.
And those are plenty serious enough on their own without introducing
the legal issues.

 >In fact, IED, the friend in Northern CA who found/copied the tape for me
 >has also already mailed you a copy of his tape for your comparision.
 >He sent it obligation-free, of course, but he mentioned to me that he
 >hoped you might send him one of your dups when they're made.

     IED will put him on the list. But for the record both his and IED's
copies are virtually identical, sonically speaking. The difference is
not worth trying to describe (perhaps a slightly different quality to the
tape hiss, probably to do with some Dolby B somewhere along the line).
     Very fine hearing you have, Steve, to have caught the birdsong at the
end of the _Hammer_Horror_ demos. IED will have to check it out.
     Dogs are _not_ carnivorous, they are omnivorous. They can consume
huge amounts of cereal foods, unlike cats. There is no comparison.
     Justin: Your mention of a new European edition of the _Hounds_
of_Love_ CD with the 12" re-mix of _RUTH_ is news to IED, too. PLEASE
give some more particulars regarding this CD! Do you know which country
markets that edition?

 > I will have to think things like "Am I violating Copyright Laws?",
 > "Did the original of this tape have a copyright notice on it?",
 > "Am I doing something unjust to Her?". Please don't do that. Please.
 >
 >-- Michel Waucomont,
 >   a true disciple of the one and only.

     IED can share your dismay at having to consider this unpleasant
issue, but as a fellow true disciple he can see no alternative. We all
_must_ think about Kate's feelings in this matter, and they are weighing
very heavily upon IED these days. And well they should. _She_ made this
music. It's _hers_. Just because we find it incredibly beautiful and
moving music doesn't make it OK that we've all heard it. In an ideal
world Kate should have total control over which bits of her limitless
fund of sublime imagination should be doled out to us. That power
shouldn't be transferred to her fans. IED can see that fact; there is
no sound moral argument to make against it. (Jon Drukman's "Anarchy
now!" opinions IED finds totally unacceptable.) IED can only point out
again that 1.) he is an addiKT, powerless to resist the magnet of
Kate's demo material when it is placed within his grasp; 2.) he would
feel equally rotten if he had to refuse the requests of other fans
who only want the chance to hear what IED has heard; and 3.) he would
feel rottener still if, by refusing to share his copy with other fans,
he forced them to seek copies through sleaze-ball bootleggers. Those
three motivations for IED's actions are not held up as a _defense_ of
his proposed project, only as an explanation, and possible mitigating
factors. All this has served to freeze the project in its tracks
for the time being. Once again: no action has been taken yet.
     Andy Gough had some interesting points to make, and IED will not
take offense from Andy's more hostile remarks because of a private note
A. sent along to IED simultaneously. But IED would nevertheless like to
respond to one or two of Andy's statements.

 >I disagree. If an artist (be it a writer, a painter, or a singer) wants to
 >keep secrets, why doesn't he just not produce any _art_?  No.  They want
 >to put some message across.  There is no value in concealing and
 >disguising that message.  Instead, it must be communicated in the clearest
 >way the artist can.

     This is simply an aesthetic judgement on your part, Andy. There is
no "must" in artistic expression. One kind of art is straightforward,
another is indirect and oblique. There is even some art that has no
"message" at all. And that's merely another aspect to consider, not in
itself a weakness in the art's _quality_. It's very close-minded to say
that there should be no concealment or disguise in art. Aesthetic value
is extremely hard, if not impossible, to gauge.

 >That's not to say that the message should be _easy_ to understand--it means
 >that all of the information should be there (in some way) so that it can
 >be understood.  For example, the messages' in James Joyce's works or
 >T.S. Eliot's works aren't particularly easy to find and understand.  But it
 >can be done.  If, however, one can't even make out a line in a song because
 >the word is slurred and covered by music, how can the message ever get
 >across?  What value is that?

     You're setting standards for art that many artists simply wouldn't
accept. IED is reminded of the Symbolist movement, particularly in
France, during the latter half of the 19th century. One of its only
commonly held principles was that the imagery used by the Symbolist
artist could best evoke the desired emotional response in the spectator
by _not_ stating its "message". The principle might be summarized thus:
"The image should seem to symbolize a significant idea or emotion, but
without ever making explicit what that idea or emotion is."
     Remember that the purpose of all art--at least in IED's opinion,
and certainly in Kate's--is to evoke _emotional_ responses in the
appreciator. So long as it does this, who is to say _how_ it must be
done?
     As for T.S. Eliot, it would be very hard to argue that all his
"messages" can be "found and understood". Much of his work is designed to
be ambiguous; it is through its very ambiguity that it communicates
much of its _emotional_ "message".

 >So how does Kate fare in the secrecy department?  Pretty good.  It is often
 >hard to tell what words she is singing, but the lyrics are printed with
 >the album (or CD).  So one can find out.  The messages aren't particularly
 >easy to find or understand, but it can be done.  And for the inside jokes
 >and obscure references--it really doesn't get in the way of the message.

     You've made two errors here, in IED's opinion, Andy. First, it is
precisely _not_ the case that Kate's lyrics are all printed in the
album notes. That's why people in this group are repeatedly asking for
Love-Hounds' edition: because they contain a good deal more of the
"lyrics" in Kate's work than the official lyric sheets, which are
terribly incomplete--_deliberately_ incomplete! Your other mistake is in
stating that Kate's "message" always comes through. Certainly some
basic, easy-to-summarize theme or subject always comes through in Kate's
work--but are those easy, snappy little thematic kernels the _real_
"message" of Kate's art? IED doesn't believe so, not at all. Kate is
trying, always, to describe _very_specific_ emotions in her work. To
say that Kate's message in _Running_Up_That_Hill_ is straightforward
simply because one can summarize its thematic content as being "about
the different perspectives of male and female" is to miss the
larger, more important and more mysterious meaning of the song--which
is only to be found in the _recording_itself_: its sound, its
atmosphere, its unique musical and lyrical qualities. How _can_ an
artist make _that_ kind of message "clear"? It is by nature ephemeral,
just as emotions themselves are ephemeral. So it's no wonder that,
in seeking to express something as ungraspable and impalpable as a
human emotion, Kate relies heavily on allusion, metaphor, double-
entendres and secret messages. These are all tools which she uses--
very deliberately, even systematically--to communicate that _real_,
final message of each recording--what Kate calls its "feel", or its
"energy".

 >So should IED keep his interpretations secret so that others have to
 >work to find the messages?  No.  I, for one, would have never figured
 >out some of the things in various Kate songs without IED....Here's what
 >it comes down to:  I'm lazy and so are many others, and keeping Kate
 >interpretations secret wouldn't stimulate us to search for the answers
 >ourselves.  Instead, we'd just never know the answers.
 >
 >-- Andy Gough

     But perhaps that's what Kate _intends_. Perhaps part of her is
acknowledging, by the very fact that she makes so much of her art
a secret, that only _some_ people are going to be able to respond
to those secrets, to be intrigued enough by their tiny signals to
discover the hidden meanings for themselves. You see, _that's_
_all_part_of_the_art_--part of the _game_ of Kate Bush. Some--if not
most--of the true allure of Kate's work, as in most things, is _in_the_
_searching_, not in the finding.
     IED is lazy too, when it comes to most things in his life. But
Kate's work gives him the energy to pursue those nooks and crannies
of hidden hints and secret symbols. If her work doesn't give you
that energy, then _telling_you_ the answers won't help you to
appreciate that aspect of Kate's art, because that aspect is only
to be experienced through the personal search itself. And _that's_
why IED is having doubts about the efficacy of Love-Hounds.

 >Also, artists don't always like their groupies (fans, or whatever).  Bob
 >Dylan, for one, has total contempt for his.  I'd think it be more likely
 >that an artist would be hostile to fans (i.e., fanatics)--after all, it's
 >they who prevent the artist from going to the supermarket to buy a loaf of
 >bread.

     Kate has made it very clear that she thinks extremely well of most
of her fans--even some of the really fanatical ones. Bob Dylan has
never endorsed a Dylan Fan Club, to IED's knowledge, but Kate has, and
continues to do so. In fact, she encourages the "cult" of Kate
Bushology through her deliberately teasing and clue-laden contributions
to the Newsletters. There is no similarity between Dylan's and Kate's
attitudes toward fans. (And _Hounds_of_Love_ has _nothing_ to do with
Kate's fans, :>oug!)

 >an individual that happened to blunder upon the pirated works and keep
 >them for yourself.  No, you decided to go into the pirating business and
 >distribute them to anyone who asked.  That is, not only did you profit from
 >someone else's crime (the initial pirating), but you decided to join in and
 >become a criminal yourself.  How will those vistas look through bars?

     It must be nice to see the world in such simple tones of black
and white, Andy. IED doesn't have that gift. To him there are grave
ethical problems attached to either course in this demos issue, and
he has _not_ made up his mind which one to take. In the meantime,
though, he denies having "profited" from anything at all regarding
this demos business, except insofar as the experience of learning
these unfamiliar songs can be rather tackily called "profiting".
(In fact, he has so far lost quite a tidy sum over this demos business.)
Frankly, the question of becoming a "criminal" is the least of IED's
worries in this issue. Foremost in his mind is the issue of what Kate
would feel about this unusual dilemma.

 >>I am sure you consider it admirable that you have done this, but
 >>even minimal respect for KT's interests would have demanded that
 >>you do it *before* engaging in your criminal conspiracy.

 >    Here, here!

     For petesake! IED _did_ inform Kate before engaging in this
project! He hasn't heard back from the Bush camp yet, _nor_ has he
made any copies yet. Get your facts straight before judging from on high.

 >   When are we starting the "help defray IED's legal expense" fund?  We
 >could probably start with what's left of the "fly IED to the East Coast
 >for Katemas" fund from two years ago.  (What was it, Joe?  $.37, a coat
 >button, and some lint?)

     Is that all that's left of it? One of you has been siphoning
off the interest on that account! Ah, well. IED will just have to
dip into the Wickham Street Irregulars' annual dues fund, then.
There are at least two coat buttons there.
     Pete Hartman asks again about the source of Kate Bush sheet-music.
IED has already posted all those addresses several times in Love-Hounds
before, but he will dig them up again this week and post them once
again. If he forgets to do so, remind him.

 > I hate threats, implied or not.  I also do not like self-righteous
 >assholes. Smileys or no smileys.
 > IED continues to say that the moral issues are not simple, but when
 >someone jumps on the self-righteous moral bandwagon, and proceeds to
 >beat someone over the head with their own moral decisions, something
 >is not right.
 >     Welcome to the New Conservatism.
 >
 >-- John

     IED appreciates John's sympathy for IED's position, but he
wants it clearly understood here and now that he does _not_ share
John's unreasoning hatred of big business. Business is business. If
Kate is satisfied with her business arrangements with EMI, then IED
thinks EMI is just fine. Also, all of this talk about what's _legal_ and
what's not seems totally _irrelevant_ to IED. What bothers IED is the
question of what's _right_, not what's _legal_. See the difference?
     It's pretty damn obvious that these songs are Kate's songs, and
that she doesn't want them to be heard by the public yet, for whatever
reason. That cannot be denied. It's a fact.
     On the other hand, it's equally obvious that at least three
different groups of bootlegging scumsh*ts are intent on selling these
same songs to the public, for a _very_ large profit. That also cannot
be denied. It's a fact.
     It's also a fact that the market for these songs is relatively
limited, and that probably a not insignificant percentage of the
bootleggers' customers for these songs would eventually get a copy of
the songs through IED's proposed plan of non-profit distribution _rather_
than through the bootleggers. If not from this round, then through
the next generation of copies, which the Love-Hounds might be asked
to make by other friends of theirs, etc.
     Therefore, the question arises: Is it _right_ that IED should
make this tape available this way, knowing on the one hand that
Kate would prefer that no-one hear the tape at all (which is no longer
possible anyway), and on the other hand that bootleggers stand to
make _more_ money _because_of_us_ if we _don't_ implement the project?
     That's all there is to this issue. Don't assume that Kate has no
legal right to prosecute or threaten or whatever--she almost certainly
has. (Whether she will actually do so is very questionable. There
have been a _very_ large number of other copyright infringements of
Kate's work through bootlegs over the past decade, and the Bush group
know quite a bit more about who's responsible than one would think.
They haven't taken any action on more than one or two of those cases
because a.) it draws a lot of unwanted attention to the product, and
b.) it's often far more trouble and expense than it's worth. Yes, there
is a real possibility that IED will receive a cease-and-desist letter--
and he would honour it, of course. But there is an equally real
possibility that he will _not_ receive such a letter--in which case he
may _still_ decide _not_ to go through with the project.)
     IED agrees with Don Beyer that Tim Maroney is probably imagining
a much greater legal to-do about this business than is likely. A project
like this is ridiculously penny-ante, and the fuss which Tim ominously
predicts will ensue from the Bush legal corners is rather unlikely.
But again, this has little to do with the question of whether it's
a fair thing to do to Kate or not.
     Neil's and Scott's points about the method of distribution being
an inhibiting factor are well taken. (IED also apologizes for his
use of a vulgar neoligism in his last posting, Neil. He's flattered
that his words are the subject of such careful scrutiny, however.)
     Michael Scott asks about _The_Single_File_ video. That video
collection has never been released domestically. It came out in
England and Europe, and in Japan. The Japanese edition is in NTSC
format, and presumably it is still available through Japanese
video importers. It's probably a bit easier to find (though not
much) in its laser-disk form, as a Japanese import. Remember that
all but a few of the videos on _The_Single_File_ were included
in _The_Whole_Story_ collection, so if you order the Japanese
video-cassette or laser-disk, you're talking about upwards of
$100 for four brief videos (_Hammer_Horror_, the original _Wow_,
_There_Goes_a_Tenner_ and _Suspended_in_Gaffa_).

 >Lastly, is there any difference between the Abbey Road interview CD and the
 >Kate Bush III CD? I have been debating which to buy (again via mail order),
 >but want to know if they are the same beforehand.

     _What_is_ the "_Kate_Bush_III_CD_", Michael?  IED has
never heard of any CD called "Kate Bush III". If you mean the
CD that has the same interview that was on the third UK 12" picture-
disk, then no, the so-called "Abbey Road" CD is quite different. The
"Abbey Road" CD is the Tony Myatt interview for Capital Radio, and
it _is_ the same as a _fourth_ UK 12" picture-disk, which also bears
the title "Abbey Road Interview". Can you clarify?

 >Why us (the zillions of Kate Bush fans)?  'Cause if she don't make no
 >money, she don't make no music.
 >
 >-- larry

     Yes, but she scarcely makes any music anyway, Larry!

-- IED
   Pending the final decision, those who still wish to send in their
orders should send an empty, self-addressed, stamped envelope (with ample
postage to cover the cost of posting the finished audio-cassette)
to Andrew Marvick, 10499 Wilkins Avenue, Los Angeles, CA 90024. And do
it soon, because no order received after July 2 will be honored by IED.
It will simply be returned to sender. There have been more than enough
such warnings to justify such an apparently heartless policy.