Gaffaweb >
Love & Anger >
1989-32 >
[ Date Index |
Thread Index ]
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
From: nbc%INF.RL.AC.UK@mitvma.mit.edu
Date: Mon, 4 Dec 89 18:18:24 GMT
Subject: Laugh etc.
>From: IED0DXM%OAC.UCLA.EDU@mitvma.mit.edu >Subject: KT NEWS > Kate Bush will appear on UK's _The_Wogan_Show_ _this_week_, >probably to perform _This_Woman's_Work_. All UK Love-Hounds are >_commanded_ to watch and (if possible) record! You betcha! This is extremely valuable info. Many thanks to IED as I would not normally bother to watch Wogan and the Radio Times and newspapers rarely tell you who will be on the show. All I know is that Nancy Raygun is on tonight's show. Guess I will have to watch in case Kate is on as well - how one suffers for art :-) >From: jsd@GAFFA.MIT.EDU (Jon Drukman) >Subject: Re: The Laugh >>In fact, it's obvious to anyone who isn't Dan Quayle that it belongs at the >>end of "Love and Anger". >I am not Dan Quayle (at least I wasn't last time I checked - let me >have a quick peek... nope, definitely do not have tapioca between my >ears so I can't be him...) and I don't agree with you. The laugh is >the perfect introduction to "The Fog." A giggle at a half-remembered >childhood foible, like being scared of the water. A piquant chuckle >of bemusement over the naivete of youth. Of course, we're not like >that anymore, but cast your mind back... (cue Fairlight whistles). >See what I mean? Perfection. No. I would not classify the laugh as either a giggle or a chuckle by a child/adolescent but rather an extremely vibrant and confident (in fact almost over-confident and verging into hysterical) full-blown laugh of an adult. >Besides, if you're so clever, how come the laugh ain't in the video or >on the CD or cassette single? Because they were made for the US market and who knows who got their grubby little hands on them somewhere in the production. >From: Woj <woiccare@clutx.clarkson.edu> >Subject: Re: The Laugh >The connection I see is due to the nervous feel of the laugh. (yes I >know that is very subjective and you might not think it such). You are certainly correct - it is *very* subjective and as you can see from above I take the opposite view. Guess this is what helps to make Kate's work so interesting: even the smallest details are cause for debate. Well, off to see what old Tel comes up with. Neil