Mailbag

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

 To: Love-Hounds
 From: Andrew Marvick (IED)
 Subject: Mailbag

     Deb Wentorf writes:
 > IED, if you want further donations to the cause, I do have your home
 > address, and I would be more than happy to send you a check for $6.50,
 > if that's what most people are donating.

     NO! IED thanks you very sincerely, Deb, for your very generous
impulse, but _no_, please do _not_ send any more money to IED! The
tape project is now officially closed, and that includes the flowers
project, too. But don't worry, there is more than enough money
for a dozen white roses amid ivy plus a list of all 140-odd gift-givers.
This is because most of the people who sent extra money in their orders
have now notified IED that they will be happy to allow the excess to go
toward the flowers purchase. So thanks, thanks, thanks everyone.
     Incidentally, if there _is_ a Love-Hound in the UK who would be
willing to get an estimate from a florist for the _domestic_ cost of such
a gift--preferably someone quite close to the Orpington/Lewisham/
Welling area (i.e. just south of London, in Kent)--IED would greatly
appreciate such information. He isn't entirely sure that doing the
bouquet from inside England would really save all that much money, since
IED (who has the money) would have to pre-imburse the English L-H via
international money order or something, and there's a hefty sur-charge
for that service, as well. But IED has a total of about $80.00 to work
with, so however many extra white roses (above and beyond one dozen)
with ivy intertwined can be obtained with, say, 40 Pounds Sterling from
inside England would be worth it. Remember to figure in the cost of
delivery to East Wickham Farm on Katemas morning (a Sunday, which may
necessitate higher delivery rates), and also the cost (either in money
or in personal labor) of creating a list of all 140 or so signators to
the card. And thanks again in advance, should anyone be willing and able
to help out with this info-gathering process.
     Also incidentally, at least one newish Love-Hound has asked, "Why
_white_ roses, and why the ivy?" or words to that effect. The answer is
to be found in a relatively obscure Kate Bush song, the b-side of the
_Running_Up_That_Hill_ single. The song is called _Under_the_Ivy_, and
is (debatably, of course) one of the greatest pieces of recorded sound
in the history of mankind. In it Kate sings: "Go into the garden,/Under
the ivy,/Under the leaves./Go right to the rose./Go right to the white
rose/For me." (Of course this could alternatively read "White Rose", but
that's another story...) Hence the idea to send Kate white roses and
ivy for Katemas. We may be relatively certain that Love-Hounds is neither
the first nor the last entity to send such a token of love and affection
to Kate, but it's still a thoroughly appropriate and sincere way to
show our feelings for her on Katemas, so why not?

 > I only have one request, though....somehow, I would like to see just
 >what our purchase looks like before it gets sent off to Kate, so if you
 >manage to get a picture, I'll give you my address so you can send me a
 >copy??

     Sorry, Deb, but IED doesn't see exactly how he will be able to
produce a photo of the actual bouquet, since it will be made up in the
UK with UK flowers by a UK florist. This will be true whether the order
is placed in the UK or here in the US. However, if a UK Love-Hound should
volunteer to do the job from England--and should it prove economically
worth our while to have it done from England--then perhaps a photo might
also be possible. It sounds like a longshot to IED, though.

 > I cannot think of any of Kate's songs where the perspective is that of
 >a person who is not acting on some kind of interior or exterior source
 >that leads them into action...

     IED must applaud you, Doug, for introducing a really intriguing new
way of considering Kate's work. You have provided a large number of
examples to support your thesis, too, and IED agrees that there are many
songs which seem to stem from, if not "hopelessness", than at least a
kind of _fatalism_, or a sense of _resignation_ about the inevitability
of fate. One could, however, argue that _every_ action is merely a
_re_-action to another, previous action; so we should be careful not
to lump all of Kate's songs of action into this "reactive", or "power-
less" category, if only because it becomes too general a criterion.
     IED can think of several songs, off hand, which seem to celebrate
a kind of power_ful_, _affirmative_ action and attitude on the part
of the narrator. What about _Pull_Out_the_Pin_? There we see a Viet
Cong guerilla soldier taking drastic (and highly efficient!) action
in what he sees as a perfectly justified act (even though his attitude
is not entirely unmixed). And in _There_Goes_a_Tenner_ the group of
protagonists, although perhaps (only perhaps, :>oug!) not ultimately
successful, nevertheless have taken upon themselves an extraordinary
new step in their "careers", so to speak. These are not exactly heroes,
but they are also not powerless victims of fate. They have taken a
position and they will stick to it till the end.
     _Moving_, about Lindsay Kemp (or about a young girl in the audience
at one of Kemp's shows, perhaps), is another highly affirmative song,
one which seems to defy the fatalism of many of Kate's other early
texts. And the words of _Them_Heavy_People_ very clearly advocate that we
can change our situation in life and the universe through the acquisition
of knowledge. _Room_For_the_Life_ is another call (this time directed at
the passive, fatalistic woman whom the narrator addresses) to take
a positive direction, to survive difficulties and overcome them, to
embrace life rather than shy away from it. _James_and_the_Cold_Gun_ does
much the same thing, only this time in reference to a man. In both these
songs the _subject_ is being urged by the _speaker_ to change course
toward a more life-affirming philosophy. Both songs seem (to IED,
anyway) to be arguing _against_ a negative or fatalistic attitude.
    There are several other songs with similarly optimistic, determinist
messages: _L'Amour_Looks_Something_Like_You_; _Leave_It_Open_ (perhaps);
the man's position (told through the choruses and bridge) in _Night_of_
the_Swallow_; _The_Big_Sky_; _Jig_of_Life_ (a song which fairly reeks
life-affirmative, determinist philosophy!); and _The_Morning_Fog_. All
of these songs, in IED's view, seem in one way or another to carry
strong anti-fatalist, anti-powerlessness messages.
     This is not to deny your own point, which is amply documented.
IED is even ready to concede that the songs which convey a
feeling of pessimism or powerlessness exceed in number those which
suggest a more determinist attitude. But this all really goes to the
more central characteristic of Kate's work: its _empathic_, rather
than _autobiographical_, nature.
     IED doesn't want to try to argue that _none_ of Kate's songs
bears _any_ relation to her personal life. That would be ridiculous.
Clearly many of her songs, particularly in the early work, bear
the mark of the confessional songwriter. And some songs are so vague--
or at least their specific narrative referents are so obscure to the
public so far--that, in the absence of more concrete information,
they _appear_ to us to be self-referential (_Under_the_Ivy_, for
example, or _Burning_Bridge_, perhaps). But _in_general_, Kate's
source of inspiration for her songwriting seems to come from _outside_
herself. She is captivated by _other_ people's situations, ideas,
feelings and predicaments. She seems perpetually to be delighting in,
even revelling in, her own capacity to _empathize_ with the mind and
soul of another human being. She gets inside her subject, and assumes
his/her world and viewpoint long enough to write and record a song.
For the most part this vast, almost limitless capacity to _empathize_
with the experience of people other than herself is absent in other
contemporary songwriters. And it's this capacity which is at the core
of Kate's ability to crystalize human emotions that are at once
universal and _complex_--something which virtually no-one else working
today can do, certainly not to the degree that Kate can.

 >    I'm going to have to ask you to expound on this one.  Maybe I am
 >misunderstanding what you're saying, but I would maintain that she
 >identifies in some way with most, if not all, of the attitudes and
 >opinions of her characters.

     Well, this is just the point IED is wrestling with. There is a
world of difference between _empathy_ and _sympathy_. When you say
that Kate "identifies" with the attitudes and opinions of her songs'
characters, IED must agree, with some hesitation. But he would argue
that Kate "identifies" with those attitudes only long enough to
communicate the power of the characters' feelings. There is no
reason for us to assume that Kate shares those characters' attitudes
_herself_, when she is _not_ performing those songs. On the contrary,
she herself has explained many times that she becomes the character
only when she is performing (or, of course composing) that character's
song; she does _not_ "carry it home" with her at night. And she often
uses language very carefully so as to avoid sounding as though she
has taken a definite moral or intellectual position in regard to an
issue raised in a song. Her remarks about _Cloudbusting_, _Mother_Stands
_For_Comfort_ and _Experiment_IV_, for example, are amazingly
neutral and detached. She is always very careful never to say, for
instance, that she "believes" in the theories of Wilhelm Reich, or
even in the cloudbuster itself. Nor will she ever say that she
feels the mother in _Mother_Stands_for_Comfort_ is "justified" in
protecting her murderous son from harm. And she is even careful to
describe the policy of the government types in _Experiment_IV_ as
"interesting" and "fascinating", rather than "horrid" or "rotten"
or something like that. This is what IED means by "empathy": Kate
"puts on the skin" of her subjects. But this means that the song
represents the thoughts and feelings _of_her_subjects_, and _not_
necessarily of herself.
     Now naturally there are some exceptions, and they are very
obvious ones to spot: the plight of the Aborigines in _The_Dreaming_,
of the fetus in _Breathing_, etc. We all know that Kate has definite
views about these songs' themes. But these are exceptional songs for
that reason; they are not typical of her work.

 >can imagine if-that-were-me-I'd-feel-like-this, and write songs like
 >Get Out Of My House and Breathing, putting herself into those
 >imaginary situations...

     IED agrees with you completely here. It seems we have simply had
a confusion of terminology. Kate _does_ "put herself into those
imaginary situations," exactly. This is what IED means by "empathy".
But that's quite different from saying that, just because she can imagine
what her characters are feeling and thinking, she herself--even when
_not_ performing those songs--feels and thinks the same way that her
characters do. It's precisely because she does _not_ (necessarily)
share her characters' views that she can write songs which present
such a wide variety and range of attitudes--including ones which seem
to be in direct contradiction with one another, as in the case of the
group of songs which explore themes of "powerlessness" and those which
seem to present "determinist" attitudes.
     Larry suggests driving down from the Bay area with other L-Hs
for a Katemas get-together chez Andrew Marvick, and IED is agreeable,
but he must warn everyone that he cannot offer to provide overnight
shelter for any of you. As much as he would enjoy housing Kate-fans
for two nights, he simply will not be able to oblige--he is himself a
guest of the owners of the house in which his Bush Bash will take place,
and anyway, the bedrooms are full up. So be alerted that visitors to
L.A. for Katemas weekend will have to find a spot of their own to bed
down in. Food of sorts (probably all vegetarian, for Kate's sake) will
be provided on July 30, beginning in the early evening. Details
will be announced soon.
     Paul asks for the latest word on the next Kate Bush album and
the possibility of a tour. The answers are disappointing: nobody really
knows. The latest and best guestimates (is Neil cringing at that bit
of jargon?) are: KBVI due in September (so perhaps the first single
will appear in mid-August or so), and a tour _might_ actually follow,
though Marillion's reference to Autumn is probably unrealistic.

 >    I have never heard of "Ran Tan Waltz" or "Ne t'en fuis pas".
 > Where do they appear ?

      _Ran_Tan_Waltz_ was the b-side of the _Babooshka_ single. _Ne_T'en_
fuis_pas_ was the b-side of the _There_Goes_a_Tenner_ single, and later
the a-side of Canadian- and French-market singles.

 >Why is it KT all the time, and not KB?)...

     The monogram "KT" should really look more like this:

                      ---------------------------
                               !            /
                               !          /
                               !        /
                               !      /
                               !    /  
                               !  /      
                               !/          
                               !             
                               !               

     It's a kind of nickname for Kate (an anagram that simply says
"Katey"), but the monogram has a very long history. (It was a symbol
for the Knights Templar in Arthurian times.) Kate called her first
band The KT Bush Band. Also, and most importantly, it is the "secret"
symbol of Kate Bush, and as such can be found "hidden" somewhere on
each of her albums. Seek and ye shall find.

 > Is there a place where people can go to share
 > collective knowledge/information without pretension? (I know, I'm
 > asking for it...)

     No, IED is. Pretension is sort of unavoidable with IED in the pic-
ture, he's afraid. There are other "places" where inquiring KT minds
can go, and they are, for the most part, completely unpretentious. There
are over a dozen different active Kate Bush fanzines. But they are all
much slower, and arguably less fun, than Love-Hounds.

 >    Don't be put off by the insider aspects.  Put _HoL_ on the turntable for
 >the thousandth time, turn the volume up until you can hear KaTe _Breathing_,
 >then join right in.  If you feel like KapiTalizing every other letter of the
 >alphabet, please do so.  Just join in.  Ask questions, offer indefensible
 >opinions, make flagrantly offensive statements of fact.  As long as you
 >listen to Kate, it's all acceptable, all welcome.
 >
 >-- Steve Williams               ...!cs.utexas.edu!halley!steve

     IED agrees completely with every word of Steve's above. By no means should
anyone's exasperation with IED's mannerisms or tone inhibit the free flow of
Kate-ian ideas. If you have anything to say about Kate Bush or related matters,
_say_it_here_! (wiTh or wiThouT the KusTomary KapiTals.)
     Tim Maroney will be distressed to learn that his CD of the live
Hammersmith tracks, etc. is, as David Datta proved beyond any shadow
of a doubt, a bootleg. IED can't help noticing the poetic justice in
hearing that our most Upright and High-Principled member has been trying
to convince himself that the bootleg (a pretty obvious bootleg, for
that matter) which he couldn't resist buying is somehow a "legitimate"
release. Give it up, Tim! For one thing, that Rue de Rennes address
is the address of FNAC, the largest (until Tower's recent opening,
anyway) record store in Paris--a joke, see? David D. and Lazlo Nibble
have already listed the many other clear signs of the CD's shady and
immoral origins.

-- Andrew Marvick