Re: Nice To Swallow

[James Smith <munnari!cc.nu.oz.au!CCJS@uunet.UU.NET>]

Path: cc!ccjs
From: CCJS@cc.nu.oz (James Smith)
Newsgroups: rec.music.gaffa
Subject: Re: Nice To Swallow
Date: 5 Oct 89 09:50:54 EST
References: <8910010333.AA15672@GAFFA.MIT.EDU> <8910030221.AA06269@ucscc.UCSC.EDU>
Organization: University of Newcastle
Lines: 81

Stewart Evans writes:

> It should be noted, in IED's attack on |>oug's competence, that the word
> that he claims |>oug misheard was considerably less obvious from context
> than "Night of the Swallow" would be to someone who knew Kate's work.

What makes you think the writer was familiar with Kate's work?

The dreaded interview:

> Again I'm very fond of this because it's my latest and because
> it represents *total* control, owing to the fact that I
> produced it by myself.  It's the hardest thing I've ever done
> -- it was even harder than touring!  The whole experience was
> very worrying, very frightening but at the same time very
> rewarding.
>
> It took a long time to do but I think there are some very
> intense songs and the ones I like best of all are 'Nice To
> Swallow', 'Houdini', and 'Get Out'.  All in all, I was very
> proud of this record.

Note that not one but two song titles are misquoted, and there is
no reason for misquoting the second one.  Perhaps one could argue
laziness on the part of the writer, or a typographical error, or
even a desire for brevity on Kate's part, though I find that
suprising.

My opinion is that someone interviewed Kate, and someone else 'Ghost
wrote' the interview from a bad tape recording.  And that a third
person prepared the discography.  That's my opinion, though.

Stewart continues:

> However, it does bring yet another (admittedly far-fetched) possibility
> to mind:  that the interviewer mis-heard Kate, but assumed she was 
> making a pun or inside joke.  However, given !>oug's citation of the
> interviewer's comments about "The Dreaming", I'm willing to believe
> that the quote was taken down correctly -- it now seems to me the
> simplest explanation.  

To my mind the above does not show any great knowledge of _The Dreaming_
or indeed of Kate's work.  And Doug says that this is the entire extent
of the interview's comments on _The Dreaming_.

> However, the fact that
> the interviewer claimed to be familiar with Kate's work, and specifically
> to have listened to The Dreaming many times, makes this possibility seem
> less likely.

Where does he say that he has listened to _The Dreaming_ many times?  Or
that he is familiar with Kate's work?

> I think that
> the only plausible source of error here is transcription error -- the two
> phrases _sound_ much more alike than they _look_.

> the simplest explanation 
> seems to be that Kate really said "Nice to Swallow", for whatever reason.

The simplest explanation seems to be that Kate has been mistranscribed.
Perhaps the volume was set too low, or someone coughed.  I have yet
to see any reference to Kate using this particular expression on any
other occasion, or indeed of her connecting "Night of the Swallow"
with fellatio in any manner whatsoever.  Can anyone supply one?

> both IED and |>oug are so stubborn
> that there can be no hope of resolving this dispute short of placing them
> in a locked room together and declare the survivor to be factually correct
> in all things.  

The discussion does seem to be descending to the level of name calling.
I don't mind long, witty diatribes, but a high anger level does take
the enjoyment out of it for third parties.

Jim

-- 
James Smith, Computing Centre, University of Newcastle, ccjs@cc.nu.oz.au
"Who's for dinner?  Shall we draw lots, boys?"
                                        -- _Asterix at the Olympic Games_