More of the same

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

 To: Love-Hounds
 From: Andrew Marvick (IED)
 Subject: More of the same

     Unfortunately IED failed to receive yesterday's Love-Hounds Digest.
He therefore feels at a bit of a disadvantage when it comes to the
ongoing flame war between himself and :>oug. He also regrets not having
been able to read Tracy's posting (which asked about _RUTH_, and perhaps
other things). Sorry, Tracy, that IED cannot comment.

 >     Your claim about "reasonable systems of ethics" is pretty lame.  I
 >guess you've never heard of Utilitarianism.  John Stuart Mills may not

     That's Mill, :>oug, not Mills. If you're going to use Mill as an
ally (and it's a pretty presumptuous stretch, in IED's opinion), at
least learn how to spell his name.
     IED begins with this point by way of distancing himself from :>oug's
recent argument over the ethics of copying (or considering the
possibility of copying) some of Kate's early unreleased music. In the
course of this argument (carried on between Lazlo and Tim Maroney on the
one hand and :>oug on the other) IED has apparently become inadvertantly
allied with :>oug. Lazlo, for instance, used the terms "you people" and
"you folks", even though his only opponent in the argument, to IED's
knowledge, was :>oug.
     IED would therefore like to remind everyone that he does _not_
share :>oug's opinion on these issues. First, IED believes--and has
said so in Love-Hounds _several_ times before--that the demos are
Kate's property. Whether she intended music-industry types to hear them
when she was sixteen or seventeen years old, or not, is of no relevance
to her indisputable right over their fate now. No-one really knows what
Kate thinks of the original leak, although it is reasonable to assume
that she isn't pleased by it. Since it's her music, and she probably
doesn't want people hearing it, IED agrees with Lazlo that it would
be morally wrong to distribute it. So please stop with the "you people"
and "you folks" stuff, OK?
     IED admits that distribution of the music would be "wrong". When he
considered the possibility of distributing the music anyway, it was
because there were other factors--not just moral factors, either--which
had to be acknowledged, as well. First, he recognized the fact that
a fan is a fan, and as such, a true fan--i.e., one who is, first and
foremost, hopelessly in love with the _music_--is going to do anything
he or she can to hear the demos. This isn't a moral statement, it's
just a fact of life. Second, he recognized that a corollary of the
first fact is that _if_ these fans are unable to get the demos
cheaply, they will pay more money for them--thus further fattening the
wallets of the bootleggers who are responsible for the original
leak of the demos. How, then, could these two factors be reconciled?
     IED considered the possibility of accepting the fans' need to
hear the music (despite its immorality, granted) while simultaneusly
striking a blow to the profit margin of the bootlegger by eliminating
a substantial chunk of his potential market through a _non_-profit
distribution scheme. This seemed to him a compromise worth considering.
Legally, of course, such an enterprise would be in hot water. Morally,
it seemed a far more complex problem: yes, the distribution would be
morally wrong. On the other hand the thwarting of bootleggers'
profit motive would seem to be morally admirable.
     Finally IED considered the magnitude of the plan he was
considering. Yes, it would be wrong to distribute the demos. What,
though, would be the extent of damage from such a scheme, and how
might that be offset by the _benefits_--both to the fans and to
the larger aim of inhibiting the profit-motivated bootleggers--of
distributing the tapes? In IED's opinion, this was an insoluble
dilemma, one which he is not even now at peace with.
     IED wondered for a time at the ease with which people like Tim
Maroney and Lazlo could resolve these undeniably complex issues, and
make their violent, righteous attacks against others with such blithe
equanimity. They may be able to claim a moral superiority over :>oug's
position, which IED also finds untenable. But even there--and
certainly in any comparison of their moral deliberations with IED's--
they seem excessively smug and self-confident. IED asked himself why?
     And an explanation occurred to him. Tim and Lazlo seem to find
it quite easy to reject all of the mitigating circumstances and
arguments which IED considered, and to place all their confidence in
the simple assumption that Kate's moral right over her tapes precedes,
overrules and condemns all other aspects of this particular case.
     And why is this? Their simple-minded concern with only
one piece in a complex, many-sided puzzle does not indicate that
Tim and Lazlo are better able to judge the problem than the rest
of us. On the contrary. So what other distinctions between them
and us can be seen? In IED's opinion, there can be only one explanation:
Lazlo and Tim Maroney are not, according to IED's definition of the
term above, "true" Kate Bush fans. That is to say, they are _not_
driven by an amoral, unreasoning and uncontrollable need to hear
any and all Kate Bush music which it may come within their power to
hear. In IED's opinion, their remarkable sacrifice of the chance to
hear the demos is not to be admired at all, for IED knows that his
own sense of morality is as strong--and clearly is more refined--
than theirs. Rather, their sacrifice is to be pitied, for the only
thing that it indicates to IED is that they do not truly live in the
world of Kate's art. This is a fact. Their willing, even proud,
sacrifice of access to the demos on what they claim are purely moral
grounds is really nothing more than an unwitting admission that their
appreciation of Kate's art is insufficient to override their rather
ordinary and facile sense of right and wrong. And for this, IED
pities them both.
     Now, on to the interpretation argument. :>oug and IED have a
fundamental disagreement on this question. :>oug takes the "modern"
view that the "received" meaning has equal or--at least in :>oug's
view as he expressed it to Kate herself in 1985--greater credibility than
the "intended" one. IED stands as firmly by the once-old, now happily
revivified position that the artist's intended meaning must and should
take precedence over the meaning which is received from the art by the
spectator. There's no need for us to hack over this turf any longer,
don't you agree, :>oug? We simply disagree, and IED will gladly drop
it (for the time being).
     Your lengthy quote from John Carder Bush's letter (already
well remembered by IED) is a very interesting explanation--of John
Carder Bush's opinions. They quite obviously stand in conflict with
the statements Kate herself made to your face, :>oug. And since IED
supports _Kate's_ understanding of her work and not yours _or_ John's,
he sees little relevance in John's opinion insofar as it might pertain
to the interpretation of his sister's work. Especially since John's
statement is a demonstrable reflection of his own highly personal
spiritual--even explicitly religious--convictions, and is thus almost
certain to be different from Kate's own.
     You then attempted to malign IED's citations from your own
interview as somehow sneakily edited and incomplete, whereas in
fact IED posted them precisely because it was _you_ who had taken
such pains to excise the contextual referents of your _own_ citation
in the previous day's posting! As it was, IED added some 100 or so
lines to his own posting by including the excerpts which he did. If IED
were you, he would be grateful that at least _some_ of that embarrassing
record was spared Love-Hounds' readers! However, if you want to re-post
the whole thing, by all means go ahead and do so, :>oug.

 > So the short of it is, Andy, you may not want to talk about meanings
 >of art not intended by the author, but who the f*** are you to tell me
 >that I and others shouldn't--especially when I explicitly say that the
 >interpretation I am discussing was not intended by the author?

     First, it should be remembered that it took considerable tooth-pull-
ing by IED, many months back, to get you, :>oug, to concede that these
ridiculous views of yours were _not_ intended by Kate! To her face you
openly doubted that she hadn't _actually_ intended ("I dunno...maybe
subconsciously") the meanings which you "received" from her songs. So
all this humility comes a bit late, in IED's view.
     Second, IED didn't tell you you _can't_ raise all the silly notions
that occur to you about Kate's music that you wish. At the same time,
IED expects the same opportunity to indicate that God herself has said
in no uncertain terms that you're _totally_wrong_! And he expects that
he'll be allowed to share _his_ conclusions therefrom about the relative
value of Kate's "intended" meaning and your "received one"!
     You ask IED "who the f***" he is to say you shouldn't have the
presumption that you do have. IED is a fan. That's all. A fan just
like you. IED didn't say you _can't_ say the ridiculous things you
tend to say, :>oug. He just expressed the opinion--and an extremely
well supported one, at that--that you _shouldn't_, because it was
a.) wrong, and b.) presumptuous. So what's the problem? Are you
advocating that IED's opinions be censored? That doesn't sound like
you, :>oug.
     Finally, regarding this "Nice to Swallow" business. IED expressed
skepticism about the accuracy of your attribution of these words to
Kate, and he asked you to substantiate it. IED didn't expect that his
request for substantiation was not to be had unless he _put_up_
_collateral_! The statement which you ascribe to Kate is so unlike her,
is so extraordinarily uncharacteristic, that IED doesn't feel it to be
unreasonable of him to ask you to support or withdraw the citation.
He doesn't see why he should have to make a bet out of it. When IED
quotes Kate he nearly always offers the source voluntarily, and when
he doesn't, he is always ready to search for the source on request.
And when he can't, he admits that it is only a vague memory which he
cannot place. He thinks you ought to be willing to make the same
commitment to your quotations of Kate that IED makes.
     However, if you can come up with the actual quotation, and
it sticks to Kate unequivocally and to IED's satisfaction, IED _will_
publicly state that ":>oug Alan knows more about Kate than IED does
or ever will, so help IED God." How's that? You'd have to admit that
would be quite a coup to score over IED. But airline tickets? Come
on, be reasonable.
     IED would just like to add that he doesn't think it unreasonable
of him to doubt your attribution of this phrase to Kate in light of
the fact that your idea of a proper source for substantiation of
Russian-language idioms is a Certs commercial.

 >Well, I asked Kate, *HERSELF*, and she said that the misspelling was
 >NOT intentional.  By your very own reasoning, Mr. Marvick, the
 >discussion is over. QED, IED.

     IED stands in awe of your ability to remember previously unmentioned
statements Kate made to you which just happen to contradict the current
position IED has taken against you, :>oug. However, he will accept your
word that Kate actually said "No, I just made a mistake and spelled
it wrong."  Of course, she was saying "No" to just about every suggestion
you made that day...

-- Andrew Marvick