Mailbag

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

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

 >TWW(This Woman's Work) is now at number 24 in the British charts, after enteri
ng at
 >number 30 last week.  We were treated to a whole ten seconds of the video on
 >Top of the Pops.
 >
 >-- Steve Wallis
 >   stevew@uk.ac.man.cs.r5

     Thanks very much for this information, Steve, but _please_,
can you describe those ten seconds for us? We still don't know
whether the "video" for this song is new, or whether it is just
the original clip from the film, _She's_Having_a_Baby_. Did Kate
herself appear in those ten seconds? Thanks in advance for any
information you can provide.

 >I don't think IED knew who the bass player was; he hypothesized that it might
 >be a clean-shaven Del. John Giblin is credited on the song.
 >
 >-- keving@gaffa.wpd.sgi.com

     Yes, and thanks for the ID of the keyboardist, Kevin. IED
has more or less decided that the bass player cannot be Del with
a shaven face. He just looks too different. It must be John Giblin,
about whom Kate has had special words of praise recently. Giblin,
incidentally, used to be the bass player in the now-long-defunct
British group Metro; and he played the beautiful bass part on Kate's
_Breathing_.
     Woj's "analysis" of the new record is too inept to merit
reply. IED used to argue tirelessly with people foolish enough to
embarrass themselves by criticizing Kate's work. Alas, he has not
the stamina to do so any longer. He just wishes (naturally, without
any real expectations) that Woj and Drukman and the other supercilious
nay-sayers who plague this group would go do it someplace else. There
are other music discussion groups where people as encloaked in ignorance
as yourselves dither happily without cease. Can you find it in your
heart to let go of your feelings _there_, rather than here?

 >Someone off-line suggested I get the Whole Story video to see the
 >Babooshka video.  Well, I have been looking for Kate videos for
 >some time now, with little success.  If anyone knows how to get
 >either this one or Kate Live at the Hammersmith Odeon, mailorder,
 >I would be grateful.
 >
 >-- Eric France                      (franceee@clutx.clarkson.edu)

     IED no longer knows whether these videos are still in release in
the U.S. They were, however, available in Tower Video stores, and
any domestic retail video outlet could once have ordered them for you
even if they didn't normally stock them.
     The three videos shown in the liner-notes of _TWS_ (even the U.S.
editions) ) refer to UK releases only. _Hair_of_the_Hound_ was never released
in the U.S. Only _Hammersmith-Odeon_ and _The_Whole_Story_ were ever
released here. _The_Single_File_ was also never released in the U.S.
However, all four of the KT video collections are available still
(IED believes) in Japan, and a good video retailer--especially
a laser-disk retailer--in your area might be able to order them
for you through a Japanese distributor. Count on paying $100 or more
per Japanese video, however.
     Thanks to Edward Lee Whiteside for his information about
the VH-1 airtimes.

 >I don't think so.  Or, if they are, I can't hear it, and I have (if
 >I say so myself) a pretty good ear for these sorts of things.  Maybe
 >they're pushed just the tiniest amount up, but it certainly doesn't
 >qualify for the "single mix" appellation that the EMI cretins have
 >given it.

     This is astoundingly stupid. IED just made a comparison of
all three mixes of _TWW_ on CD last night, and sure enough the
distinctions were just as Ed and IED described them to you, Drukman,
and they weren't even subtle differences. Listen to the passages
around the line "just can't let it show" and if you have _any_vestige_
of musicality, even you will be able to detect the differences in
the mix. The differences between the original soundtrack mix and
the _TSW_ LP mix are already pretty clear. The difference between the
bass line of the _TSW_ LP mix and the new single mix are equally
audible.
     This being the case, IED points out once more that it would have
been dishonest of Kate had she _not_ made the note that this mix is
not the same as the LP mix. IED frankly can't understand why this
simple bit of factual information should irritate Drukman, unless
its true cause is Drukman's pathetic frustration at his own lamentable
inability to detect the obvious differences between these mixes.
     Incidentally, if you listen closely, you will all be able to
detect where the bit of spoken dialogue, heard in the soundtrack
mix of the song near the beginning, has been excised. There
is an odd kind of noise in exactly that spot on the _TSW_ LP
and single mixes.

 >I noticed that they also trimmed the INTRO as well as the fade and
 >the bridge of "Be Kind To My Mistakes."  The song runs under three
 >minutes after this apppalling surgery!  I am well furious now; I
 >suppose you can call me a "bitter, bad-humoured Kate Bush fan" as
 >well as IED...
 >
 >-- Jon Drukman

     Once again Drukman is late and wrong. IED pointed out these differences
over a week ago. To be specific, there are three abridgements of
the recording (in addition to the changes to the mix itself). The
first is in the introduction: the _Castaway_ soundtrack-album version
(as opposed to the version heard in the film itself--that version
was also radically abridged) begins with eight bars of instrumental
introduction, which precede the point where the new mix begins. Then,
after the first verse, and the return of the choral backing phrase
"It is this...", another eight bars have been removed. Finally, after
the central refrain the original version contains a full sixteen measures
of instrumental interlude, and all of these have been removed in the new
mix. In total, slightly over a minute of music has been deleted. These
changes, however, you will all see, do not remove any of the song
itself; rather, they have the effect of streamlining the recording
and increasing the forward momentum of the narrative. Kate probably
did this edit after she shortened the original mix for the opening-credits
sequence of the film itself, deciding that the song actually benefited
from the cuts. There are virtues to both versions, and the cuts are no
reason for the kind of knee-jerk complaining we have seen from Drukman.
     Contrary to Drukman's claim, the fadeout of the new version is
actually _longer_ than that one hears on the _Castaway_ LP. The
discrepancy in the coda of the song which Drukman (again) so carelessly
listened to consists of changes to the final "lum-lum-lum" (or whatever)
notes which Kate sings at that point. In the original mix (in addition
to the other changes in the balance and timbre of the various
instrumental and backup vocal tracks) this lead-vocal motif receives
an interesting echo treatment that floats above the instrumental
fadeout. In the new version, Kate's vocal is left nearly untreated,
and both the timbre of the vocal and the rhythmic/harmonic line of the
fadeout are changed thereby. On the other hand, in the new version
one can hear a new intricacy in the rhythm tracks toward the end, which
were rendered virtually inaudible in both the film mix and the soundtrack
album mix.

 >Well, when the video world-premiered on MTV's "Now Hear This" there was no
 >laugh and I think we can safely assume that at least this one time the
 >entire video would have been shown.

     This is false. As a matter of fact, the first showing of _Now_Hear_
_This_ that night _did_ cut off even the "Yeah!" part of the video. Not
until a re-edited version of the same program was aired later in the
night was the "Yeah!" restored. What this proves is that MTV cannot
_possibly_ be counted on to respect Kate's work by playing it as it
is given to them by her. On the contrary, MTV's (non-)policy has always
been to cut off Kate's videos at any of a number of different points
before their actual endings, and the butchering they did to _LaA_ on
_Now_Hear_This_ is just the latest case in point.

 >As far as I can tell, IED, this belief of yours -- that the British CD
 >is more correct than the US version, or corresponding single -- is based
 >on the assumption that it was supervised by Kate.  I, for one, find it
 >extremely far-fetched that an artist, even one as concerned with detail
 >as Kate, actually oversees such a mundane part of the mastering process
 >as the location of index points.  Unless you have definitive inside
 >information that she did supervise the indexing, I think we have to say
 >that any supposition, one way or the other, is made without tangible
 >evidence.

     Once again you have failed to read IED's words with any care.
He did not say that the fact that the laugh is connected to _LaA_
on the UK edition of the CD _proved_ that the laugh belonged with
this track. In fact, he went out of his way to say that it might
even turn out that the laugh does _not_ belong with _LaA_. What IED
_did_ argue--with perfect reason--was that the UK CD is _far_more_likely_
to have been supervised, or at least listened to and commented upon,
by Kate herself than the U.S. CD. We know from past interviews with
Kate that she takes extraordinarily great care with and personal interest
in the vinyl pressings of her records; and that she is _extremely_
sensitive to the differences in sound between vinyl and CD versions
of her releases. It would be foolish, therefore, to discount the very
real possibility that Kate checked the UK CD before it went into
full-scale production. The chance that she checked the U.S. edition
is far, far smaller--especially since we know for a fact that she did
not even have control over the choice for the U.S. single release.

 >  This is quite a textbook example of argumentem ad hominem, IED.

     IED did not present, nor did he claim to present, any argument
at all in rebuttal to Drukman's ridiculous, ill-considered claims.
IED does not feel any need to do so, nor has he the stamina for
such a task. Furthermore, Drukman's (as, we now see, your own) ability
to receive crucial and precisely worded information from IED is
so limited as to make any attempt by IED to communicate with him
futile. IED will therefore simply content himself with the Knowledge
that Drukman and you are in error.

 >Such thinking is for the truly insecure, for whom having opinions
 >of their own is just too intimidating.
 >
 >-- Stewart

     IED does not, he assures you, feel intimidated. He is tired.
Just tired. And it is--to this anyone here can attest--most definitely
IED's opinion that Kate's mature work is "perfect". He is not the
least reluctant to admit to holding this opinion. Further, he not
only holds such an opinion, he Knows it to be a faKT.

 >To declare that anything Kate does is
 >perfect by definition is the true foolishness.

     It's true: IED does declare such a thing. He does not
expect you or your peers to agree with him. IED Knows. You
do not. It's as simple as that. As for this Knowledge being
proof of "foolishness"--that depends on who Knows, what he Knows,
how he Knows it and who is determining what is "foolishness". In
this case, IED can rest easy.

 >I do not listen to
 >Kate's music searching for flaws, but if there are things I do not
 >like, I don't assume that it is my own ignorance or lack of taste.

     And there is where you make your one fundamental, crucial and
tragic error. For of course it _is_ your "own ignorance and lack
of taste," as you put it, which leads you into such hopeless
self-deception.

-- Andrew Marvick