MisK.--Mailbag

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

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

   In a recent article, Julian.West@mac.dartmouth.edu, says/asks:
 >   Listening to _Heads_We're_Dancing_ several times a day does funny
 >  things to my minds, so maybe I just imagined this, but didn't someone
 >  yesterday link the words "Suspended in Gaffa" to the writings of
 >  Gurdjieff in an offhand and somewhat suspicious manner?
 >  Still, I'd appreciate a clarification from whomever dropped that
 >  particular name.

     Someone definitely did say this, Julian, and IED was very
interested in clarification, too. Would whoever made this cryptic
and tantalizing remark please amplify?

 >On the other hand, I can't imagine that anybody in Germany in
 >1939 could possibly fail to recognize Adolf Hitler!

     IED read with interest and care your reasons for feeling this way,
Ed, including your information about your family in Hungary, etc.
     Nevertheless, he does not find it the least bit unbelievable that
a sheltered young woman, perhaps from an isolated village in England
in 1939, could be perfectly intelligent and yet have only a vague image
of what Hitler looked like--at any rate, vague enough to dance with him
without making the connection, especially since all she would have had
to go on would have been an occasional old 1939 newspaper snapshot.
(Incidentally there have been "what if" stories about the possibility
that Hitler visited England about that time, as well as during the
war. Who knows? It's a fascinating idea. So Kate's song need not have
been set outside of England.)
     Also, it's not true that Hitler had an especially distinctive
appearance, not for 1939. His features were rather pasty and blurred,
and the moustache which seems so recognizable to us now was actually
the most common style of facial hair in Germany at that time, and had
been since long before Hitler became a popular figure even in Germany.
It's very common still in Bavaria and some other parts of Germany
and Austria.

 >So how about one of you lucky ones posting the article/interview?
 >You'll earn whole bunches of Brownie Points, and the love, respect,
 >and admiration of Kate fans less fortunate than yourselves.
 >
 >-- Douglas MacGowan
 >   MACGOWAN@NIC.DDN.MIL

     Done, Douglas. Are Brownie points truly forthcoming?

 >My real name is Patrik Ylen, and I'm 18 years old. I live in a suburb of
 >Stockholm called Huddinge, with approx. 75 000 inhabitants.

     Welcome to Love-Hounds, Patrik! It is always a pleasure to
meet new European Kate fans in this group. IED hopes you will take
the time once in a while--when there is a reason--to fill in the
Love-Hounds on Kate's future appearances in Stockholm (or on
European television). OK? Thanks very much!

 >>    Conclusion:  in focussing on these three easily overlooked words
 >>    "Yes" "mn" and "he", Kate betrays considerable sophistication
 >>   in her handling of the literary source material.  Any surprises?

 >Give me a fucking break.  You can't be serious.  This is nonsense, no
 >matter what the "relative freqency" of "mn" is in _Ulysses_.  Please
 >go look up "Occam's Razor" in a philosophy book before you go spouting
 >this bull again.
 >
 >-- Brian  ...buita!lti!berns

     Since Brian's foolish, anti-intellectual complaint appeared
he (and Julian) will have had a chance to read the _NME_ interview
which IED posted the other day. In it Kate confirms several of Julian's
suppositions about her approach to the Joyce text: that her
source was indeed the text itself (not, as IED had suggested might
be possible, the film _James_Joyce's_Women_); that her study
of the passage had obviously been _quite_ extensive (as well as
rooted to an initial experience years in her past (what better way
to be introduced to the Molly Bloom passage than through a live
reading by Siobhan McKenna, a firstrate Shakespearean actress?);
and, most importantly, that she had _indeed_ taken very careful
notice of the use of "Yes" in the original passage. In fact, her
decision to use the Joyce text as the subject of her song stemmed from
her immediate recollection that this word had been a crucial motif of
the Molly Bloom passage. She also observed both the distinction and the
similarity between her "Mmh, yes" and the "Yes" in that soliloquy.
     IED, for one, never had the slightest doubt but that Julian
was correct about this. And if he was correct in this respect, why
not in all his other, related suggestions regarding the text and Kate's
adaptation of it?
     And lest some of you should still doubt that Kate would take
that kind of trouble with her literary material, remember that she
shares her work with her family, including her brother John Carder
Bush, long before it is released. And JCB does most definitely heed
the significance of the written word in this way. He is also very
familiar with Joyce's work.

 >     Has Kate ever mentioned doing or being approached for an
 >entire movie soundtrack?  Not just one or two songs.
 >     (I think Peter Gabriels soundtrack work is superb (Birdie,
 >Passion).

     No. Not that IED is aware. Any such invitations which filmmakers
might have made to Kate would probably have been withdrawn once the
filmmakers had had a chance to see Kate's work pace. Compared to
Kate, Peter Gabriel is a real hack, in this respect.

 > Yes, ambiguity can be a truly wonderful artistic tool.  It allows one
 >work to mean many things.  This is one of the reasons why I think that
 >it is often worthwhile to discuss interpretations of art even if the
 >artist says they intended something else.  The artist may very well
 >have had one specific interpretation in mind when they created the
 >work, but they may have also made it somewhat ambiguous so that the
 >emotion in the work can stretch onto the framework in other people's
 >minds.
 >
 >-- |>oug

     This is illogical. Naturally, much art is ambiguous. Ambiguity can
also be a good thing. (It can also be a bad thing.) But your first 3 sen-
tences imply that because it's a good thing, our assumption about its
presence and significance can be "worthwhile" (whatever that may mean)
even if the artist has expressly denied the validity of that assumption.
     Then you go on to imply that such interpretations are great because
the artists _deliberately_ (if IED can interpret your ambiguous
language) make their work ambiguous precisely so as to _encourage_
multiple interpretations. This is a separate, unrelated point, which
is certainly true--of some artists, and some works, some of the time.
     IED simply wishes to caution the appreciators and interpreters of
art that finding multiple meanings may be fun and edifying,
but it's not always constructive--especially if such meanings are pressed
upon others _despite_ the artist's own express rejection of their
validity.

     Welcome (back) to the Ice Princess. It's been a long time!
IED would be very interested to learn how many similarly taciturn,
longtime Love-Hounds are still out there in the ether, reading the
postings in inscrutable silence year after year.

 > 1. PREDICTION: The video for _TSW_ will be a moderate hit on VH-1,
 >   but won't get much airplay on MTV (except a few plays on Mr.
 >   Curry's respectable "Post-Modern MTV" show.)

     The video for _TSW_ will probably not be shown on VH-1 at all,
since the first U.S. single (and the video for it, which a CBS rep
said was "now in development") is _Love_and_Anger_, not _The_Sensual_
World_.

     Incidentally, IED has been told that a dealer on the East Coast
has been getting upwards of $70.00 for mint (still shrink-wrapped) copies
of the U.S. pre-release edition of the new album. Pretty amazing.

 >>    remember when ied said we could expect a period of silence
 >>from him upon release of tsw (to give him a time of quiet
 >>reflection and contemplation)?  is this still true, andy?
 >>you want to miss out on the most excited, insane, wonderful
 >time of all on love-hounds?
 >>
 >>-- tracy

 >  Evidently, andy is as good as his word.  I would again bemoan the dearth of
 >cogent insight emanating from that corner, but I understand that this is
 >simply Andy's style.  I need to bounce my ideas off other people as they
 >develop.  Andy prefers to percolate for a while before allowing his theses
 >into the light of day.  Rest assured, that light will be forthcoming later.
 >
 >-- Julian

     Many thanks to both of you for your kind words of concern! IED
has been trying not to comment for a while yet on the album, at least not
in much detail. He thinks it's a little unfair to those many Love-Hounds
who haven't had a chance to hear it themselves. Speaking for
himself, anyway, IED has always found it very hard to shrug off
other people's judgements about the nature and quality of new
music when he gets the judgements before he has heard the music.
     He will say this, however: _The_Sensual_World_ is a great work of
art. He doesn't see why so many people come to a new Kate Bush album
with a measuring-stick, comparing it to see how much like _The_Dreaming_
or _Hounds_of_Love_ it is. It's different! What would have
been the point of making an album like _The_Dreaming_ again? She
already _made_ _The_Dreaming_!
     IED has been a Kate Bush aKolyTe long enough to know
that it is _absurd_ to criticize her new music--let
alone to try "ranking" it in relation to her earlier albums--before
having really lived with it for a while--or even then. Also, IED's
copy of the album is of amazingly poor audio quality. (The normal
cassette version of the album which IED obtained the other day--from
which he copied the liner notes for Love-Hounds recently--is loaded
with tiny but very noticeable dropouts, excessive tape hiss, a slightly
faster than 33 1/3 running speed and a terribly sharp drop-off of the
higher frequencies. IED strongly advises Love-Hounds to hold out for
the UK vinyl or the CD.) He therefore hasn't been listening to it
much yet.
     Hell, IED's been listening to the 1976 demos practically every
day for three months or more now, and he still doesn't really
have anything concrete to say about them--only that they are an
unassailable, incontrovertible proof that God is living among us.

 > Lay off on the British music press.  It's the way they are
 >and I love it.  Peace and love -- hippy shit indeed!
 >
 >-- Jon Drukman

     You and the British music press deserve each other, Drukman.

 >My conclusion:  It's *starting* and it's going to be big.
 >
 >-- Brian  ...buita!lti!berns

     IED hopes you're right, Brian, but so far the signs are not
there in the English charts. More information on this to follow soon.

     Thanks to Mark K. for his information about _The_Ninth_Wave_.
IED would have to think that it is a coincidence, though, Mark.
Kate has explained that she found the title after finishing the
recording completely, and then only by searching among various
writers' works for an appropriate title. She insists that the
connection was largely fortuitous (although her choice of Tennyson
is a telling one, consistent with other clues we have about Kate's
aesthetic perspective).

 > I too would like a definitive explanation of "Wow".
 >
 >-- Ed (Edward Suranyi)

     IED agrees with |>oug's interpretation in every particular. Bet
nobody expected that, huh?

     Thanks to Ant in Chicago for the information about the midwest
party. Also, Ant, IED sends a belated but sincere apology to you for
not being in town when you called and left a message on his machine.
It was just terrible timing. If you're ever back out here again, please
try IED again.

 >>Really-From: tracyr@uunet.uu.net (jane smallberries)
 >>i guess i'm a wimp, cuz i'm waiting for the tsw lyrics sheet
 >>before jumping into analysis discussions with jon d. and julian!
 >
 >   damn straight!  don't you know the whole spirit of love-hounds?
 >plunge headfirst into farcical explanations of things that you
 >haven't got the slightest idea about what they really mean!

     It may be your "spirit", Drukman, but it's not what IED thinks
of as the spirit of Love-Hounds. There are some here who actually
think a little and try to learn something before they go spouting
off vulgar imbecilities right and left--especially when their
subject is sacred.

 > i _knew_ those bird cries were largely irrelevant to _walk_straight_
 >down_the_middle_...
 >
 >-- Jon Drukman

     Kate didn't characterize these sounds as bird cries. She only
said her mother thought they sounded like a peacock's call. Also,
Kate _did_ explain their narrative relevance--they are cries for
help. Also, IED suspects that there is more to this song than Kate
let on to that "Len Brown" character in the _NME_ interview. Let's
just wait a bit and get a few more interviews.

 >I picked up an imported UK 5" CD single of The Sensual World.
 >It has the right liner picture and the black label on
 >one side of the disc, but the music on the disc in
 >definitely NOT Kate (some male vocalist dance band).
 >Is this disc worth anything?  Should I just return it
 >and get a properly labelled disc, etc?  Please comment.
 >
 >-- Paul

     Sounds like you have a rarity on your hands, Paul. IED
would hang on to it for a while, or try selling it to a collector.

 >In IED's "official liner notes" he spells "Heads We're Dancing" _with_
 >and apostrophe.  Is there one or not?
 >
 >-- Julian

     The apostrophe is printed in the lyrics, Julian. That doesn't
mean, however (as you would agree, no?), that she couldn't have
intended such a double-entendre.

     Best of luck to John Precedo in finding some UK-based Kate fans
to celebrate the album with. IED seconds |>oug's suggestion to you
that you try to contact Peter FitzGerald-Morris at Homeground Towers
(in Orpington, IED believes). Peter will probably have knowledge of
plans for celebrations in your area. IED has no phone number for Peter
any longer, but is there no telephone information service in England?
Good luck. You could also reach Peter through Krystyna FitzGerald,
or through Dave Cross, or through Sharon May. Perhaps one of them
is listed.

     Larry Hernandez (WELCOME AT LAST, LARRY!) writes:
 >     K A T E  B U S H  I S  G O D.  Period.

     She really is. She really is.
     SO EVERYONE LET'S MEET TO CELEBRATE HER RETURN AT LARRY'S ON
THE 22ND! Thanks, Larry.

 > Oh!  I'm not sure if someone is bringing a laserdisk player so that we
 >further analyze Kate's videos and films.  As far as I can tell right now,
 >that's all we need as far as hardware.  I Kan'T wait!!

     IED will definitely bring his laser-disk player, as well as
all four KT laser-disks, and his entire Kate Bush video collection.

     Finally, thanks to Neil for posting the info about the interviews
(which IED unintentionally duplicated the same day). But if you
don't know what "_R.A.W._" is, Neil, who on Earth would? This is
pretty bizarre, no?

-- Andrew Marvick