misKellaneous Topics

[Doug Alan <nessus@athena.mit.edu>]

> From: dnelson@ibiza.cs.miami.edu (Dru Nelson)

> 	I hope you don't mind but I was passing by this news group and
> 	I was wondering what it is about?

> 	Kate Bush?  What is she like? (i.e. she is like Bonnie Rait)

> 	Just curious,

Yes, Kate Bush is exactly like Bonnie Rait!  If you like Bonnie Rait,
immediately go out and by all of Kate's albums.  In fact, Kate
encompases everything Bonnie Rait does and then surpasses it, so all
of your Bonnie Rait albums will become immediately superfluous and you
can throw them all out.  No need for unneeded redundancy.  Actually
Kate Bush is nothing at all like Bonnie Rait, which is even more
reason why you should buy all of Kate's albums and throw out all your
Bonnie Rait albums.

> [IED:] Twice in the past the question of Kate's diet-policies in
> relation to her cats has been raised (by our Pseudo-Moderator
> |>oug). It was contended that Kate's willingness to feed fish to her
> cats might constitute a hypocritical act, since it apparently flew
> in the face of her avowed vegetarian convictions.

No, no.  It's not Kate's feeding her cats fishy wishy that's
hypocrititical (unless she feeds them tuna, which, no doubt, she does
-- tuna fishermen kill dolphins).  It's her wearing leather goods that
is!  But then again, I can't claim to free of hypocrisy, either.

> From: Matthew Tobias Diamond <md26+@andrew.cmu.edu>

> Now, a question on behalf of an acquaintance of mine.  This person
> stood in line in England some years ago to get the latest album
> (Dreaming) signed by KB.  Tears in eyes, this person has decided to
> consider selling, but doesn't know what to expect in the way of
> value.  Would this be a hot collectors item (like some U2 autographs
> which sell for $300 or more), or not?  It's a British pressing, if
> that makes a difference.

A few years ago, I was told by a Kate Bush rareties dealer that Kate
Bush's autograph is worth about $50.  Her autograph isn't very rare,
so it's not worth a fortune.

> [Depeche Modem:] They piked my interest because of the photography
> on the record covers (one of them was a NUDE portfolio of Kate
> Bush!!! Of the quality of spreads in Playboy! seriously!!).  I had
> no idea they were bootlegs but everything fits now... I would have
> been very surprised if it was actually the case that KT willingly
> put 10 pictures of herself nude on the record jacket of one of HER
> releases.....

No, those aren't pictures of Kate Bush -- they are pictures of Kate
Simmons, a woman who doesn't really look much like Kate Bush at all,
but some people think does.  And they are not of Playboy quality, but
rather of Penthouse quality.  In fact, they are from Penthouse.
Summer of '79.

IED said a while back that Kate Simmons appeared in Penthouse only in
England.  This is not true.  She definitely was in the U.S. Penthouse.
Back when I was a hormone filled teenager, I owned the very issue of
Penthouse with Kate Simmons in it, and I remember the issue well since
I thought she was very striking.  This was long before I ever heard
of Kate Bush.  (I wonder if Kate Simmons has anything to  do with why
I like Kate Bush so much..... NAH!)

> And now, another editorial comment: The SENSUAL world??? Gag, Barf,
> Ack!!!  (this is in aggreement)..............

Well, you're both hoseheads.  I think the title is wonderful!  I can
just see the cover of the album now!  It will be just like the cover of the
"Sat in Your Lap" single.  Kate will be holding a globe in her hands
-- only this time the globe will be mutated into the shape of a giant
dildo.  It'll be great!  A Sensual World!

Regarding The Island Ear interview that was posted a while back, I
remember it very well.  The interviewer for The Island Ear was a very
pretty lass that interviewed Kate immediately before I did.  We both
waited in fear and trepedation together (well, maybe only I was in
fear and trepedation) for our turns to come up.

And now to move on to a little something from IED that has been
festering in my mailbox for some time now, like a moldy avacado
attracting fruit flies and altering the taste of the butter:

> [IED:] Maybe so, but not because you managed to find a bunch of L-Hs
> to agree with you. "Consent by group discussion" has no value when
> it is reached without a rational study of the facts, and in the face
> of direct denials of their validity by Kate Bush herself.

For about the 10,000th time you have made this same lame argument,
Andy.  The theories I and some others had about mules in "Get Out of
My House" were not ever (after Kate told us about her intentions) said
by anyone to be what Kate intended.  The only claim was that our
interpretation "makes sense".  Whether or not an interpretation makes
sense, has absolutely nothing to do with what the artist intended.
They are seperate an distinct issues.  What an artist intends in a
work, might very well make sense.  On the other hand, what the artist
intends might not make any sense to any one (except to the artist,
perhaps).  Also, in the case in which the artist's intentions make
sense, other interpretations might also make sense.

If I were to write a one line poem "My mother eats cars for
breakfast", and you were to say that an interpretation that makes
sense is "Doug's female parent consumes small passenger vehicles for
nutrition shortly after she wakes up," then you would be right.  That
would be an interpretation of my poem that makes sense.  However, it
might not be at all what I intended.  What I intended might have been
that my mother is a LISP fanatic and she's so hot a programmer that
she can dissect linked lists in her sleep.  Whose interpretation is
"right"?  My intended interpretation, or your infered interpretation.
Well this question makes no sense.  Neither interpretation is any more
"right" than the other.  As long as an interpretation makes sense,
then it is a good interpretation.  Some interpretations might make
deeper and more profound sense than others, and in this sense we might
say that some interpretions are better than others.  But this doesn't
make the less profound interpretation wrong.  It also means that an
interpretation by a viewer or listener, on occasion, might actually be
a better interpretation than that intended by the artist.

Time to goo to slope,

|>oug