by way of eKsplanaTion, if not actual apology: will it suffice?

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

 To: Love-Hounds
 From: Andrew Marvick (IED)
 Subject: by way of eKsplanaTion, if not actual apology: will it suffice?

    First, IED sends his very sincere thanks to Sakari for the
excellent description of and timely report on the new video on
MTV. It sounds extremely interesting.
     Pete Berger feels that IED's prose style is heavy-handed and
pompous. That, Pete, is precisely what it is intended to be. IED
cannot find his way to apologize for his style, because he considers
its very pomposity and weightiness a virtue in the present circumstances.
In IED's opinion it provides a stimulating contrast, and even a pleasant
relief, from the variety of other styles to be found in this group; and
he extends to you the hope that you will be able to read it in the
light-hearted spirit in which it is usually written.
     Steve VanDevender writes:
 >IED, It seems that you have been having a bad month, and if it's
 >true that something in your life is influencing you to write
 >horrid, arrogant, demeaning replies to people who are merely
 >expressing their _opinions_, then I hope it gets better soon.
 >Very soon.

     Alas, if you are hoping that IED's style and attitude toward
the subject of Kate Bush will change suddenly (or at all), you are
destined to be disappointed, Steve. IED admits that he became a
bit personal in his recent replies to Jon, but not unduly so, in
consideration of the astoundingly offensive remarks which Jon has
been making in this group lately. It seems to this writer that you
have your priorities mixed up. You seem to want to stifle IED's
freedom of expression in this group because you find his language
and opinions displeasing. Yet Jon's recent postings, which IED
considers to have been uniformly smug, inept, poorly considered
and filthily worded, are apparently worthy of praise because they
demonstrate "free thinking" about the subject of Kate Bush's art.
     IED is genuinely sorry to disappoint you, but he will--he feels
that he must--defend Kate's honor, by replying to whatever ignoble
sentiments he reads from other contributors to this group. His
methods will always differ from those of his fellow Love-Hounds,
and at this point it would seem to IED dishonest of him to change
his style to suit present philocanine tastes. But please don't
misunderstand him: IED writes with the sole motivation of encouraging
what he considers to be a higher state of being for all men and
women--namely, the understanding and appreciation of the world
of Kate Bush. He always tries to be polite, even friendly, to
those contributors to this group who seem genuinely interested in
and appreciative of Kate's work. But by the same token he will
probably always get angry when he reads postings here which--in
his judgement--show a disrespect for, or less than fully serious
interest in, that work. And when he gets angry, he can be pretty
mean. He will take this opportunity for whatever offense he may
have caused those newcomers to the group who, for no doubt legitimate
reasons, failed to take note of various facts previously
reported by IED, and made the harmless mistake in strategy of
asking the question twice, thus incurring IED's irrational wrath.
For those breaches IED is truly sorry (though he does urge all
new Love-Hounds to save any posting which contains information they
might be likely to consult again in future). So, yes, IED can be
pretty mean--but he does not believe that he has _ever_ been meaner
than those whose criticism of Kate spurs him to reply.
     Right now, as an example, IED is angered by the following
extract from Drukman's latest posting:

 >>Oops, one more thing. Does anyone know anything about the bassist on
 >>"the Big Sky" named Youth. I think I've heard of him, but can't place
 >>the name...
 >
 >Well, he's on "Mother Stands For Comfort" actually, and he was in
 >Killing Joke and another band called Brilliant which I don't think
 >went anywhere, at least stateside.
 >
 >-- Jon Drukman

     IED is angered by these words not simply because they are
_wrong_ (Youth indeed plays bass on _The_Big_Sky_, not on _Mother_
_Stands_For_Comfort_), but because it shows well how hastily Drukman
will scramble to assert some sort of authority on the subject of Kate's
work, when by so doing he only exposes the fact that his claims to a
status of eligibility to pass judgement on the quality of Kate Bush's
work are resoundingly sham!
       It is IED's view that Drukman's sort of bogus windbaggery must be
countered--harshly! And he will not change his mind about this issue.
It is his opinion that Drukman has no business criticizing, in his usual
careless and complacent fashion, the work of Kate Bush, until he has
_actually_ taken the time to study and understand it! Anyone who posts
posts words like Drukman's above--thus simultaneously revealing both a
shocking incompetence in the subject and a revolting degree of self-love
--should and will come under attack, if not from others in this group,
then at least from IED.
     Which brings us to Larry Spence's marginally more reasonable
objections:

 >A  little defensive, aren't we, Mr. Marvick?  Does ANY criticism equal
 >"insults?" Why are you so opposed to any open criticism of TSW?  Why??
 >If you are a "true scholar" of Kate Bush, don't you realize that such
 >scholarship entails COMPARISON of her various works?  I feel that I have
 >learned a lot of interesting Kate info from this newsgroup in the last
 >year or so.

     This is just something you'll just have to decide about in your own
mind, Larry. Consider where a lot of that information you've enjoyed comes
from. There have, thankfully, been a great many very worthy contributors
and correspondents to this group during the past year or two, but IED
does not think it unduly vain of him to point out that one of the
most assiduous and prompt reporters of interesting Love-Hounds news
and information has been himself. And this is a function which IED
has served loyally and virtually without interruption since spring '86.
     On the other hand, those who have benefited from IED's information
in Love-Hounds over that period have had to adjust, through means of
their own, to the style in which that information is transmitted.
You will have to adjust, as well. Whether that means you will stay
among us and enjoy Love-Hounds, or leave us and go on to some other
casual interest of yours, is something which only you can decide.
IED will very likely not change, however, so you'd better reconcile
yourself to that fact now.

 >However, I have been denied the opportunity to read much in
 >the way of serious critiquing of Kate, because YOU FLAME EVERYONE WHO
 >DISAGREES WITH YOU!!  Isn't a "moderator" supposed to balance opposing
 >views and opinions?  You most certainly do not.  I support your right to
 >think that everything Kate does is "perfect."  I'm not telling you to
 >please go away, etc., etc.  But get the f***ing chip off your shoulder,
 >pleeeeeease!

     Look, Larry, no-one is omnipotent in Love-Hounds. What is your
problem? IED is not breaking any laws here. IED is just going
about his usual business of defending Kate in whatever way he
thinks fit. You can do the same! No one is stopping you! There is
no secret power that IED can employ to prevent you--or anyone else in
the world--from uttering whatever inane "critiques" of Kate Bush's
work you or they wish! You have _not_ been "denied" any opportunities
whatsoever through IED's postings! That's utterly ridiculous.
If you disagree with IED, go right ahead and say so--but don't
expect IED to tread lightly just because you may be "intimidated"
by his reaction!
     Now, as for the complaint that IED is not being a "true Kate
scholar" because he does not accept the possibility of "error" in
Kate's mature work--you raise two very interesting questions, namely:
what exactly constitutes "true" Kate Bushological scholarship?
and what, exactly, is the definition of the phrase "error in
Kate Bush's work"?
     In IED's opinion, Kate Bush's art--or, to be more accurate,
all of the art which Kate has made _herself_, entirely under
her own control (this qualification would exempt, for example,
the first three official albums in some respects from IED's standard,
but would not, by the same definition, exempt the 22 early demos, the
last three studio albums or most of the recent videos)--is what _he_
considers "perfect". That is IED's _thesis_, and has been the foundation
of all his Kate Bushological arguments since December of 1977. By that
IED means that all aspects of Kate's own artistic expression contain
seeds of what IED considers supernatural perfection.
     Now, some people have been complaining that Kate Bush's
new album is "a disappointment" to them--that it doesn't compare
favorably to her previous albums, in particular _The_Dreaming_
and _Hounds_of_Love_--that it is "flawed". IED is not one of those people.
     To him, _The_Sensual_World_ is without "flaws". It is, like
_The_Dreaming_ and like _Hounds_of_Love_, what he considers to be a
"perfect" work of art. Let him qualify that statement immediately:
by "perfect", he does not mean that it is impossible to point to a
sign of technical liability, or of unexpected style, or of "inelegant"
melodic or harmonic lyricism, or of self-conscious expression, or of
lyrical awkwardness. On the contrary, it is rather easy to do this--and
the alacrity with which some listeners point to one or another such
apparent blemish does not surprise IED. It is the Mysterious nature of
Kate Bush's art to provoke strong reactions in listeners, and
as a result there are bound to be a great many people whose
reactions will be hostile. These people are often moved to criticize
the work which has so provoked them, and their cynicism leads them
to view many of the problematic aspects of Kate's work as "faults".
     It is IED's view that Kate's art succeeds most resoundingly when it is
at "fault". For it is at its moments of "weakness" that its critics'
_emotions_ are reached. And there is nothing that upsets and confuses
Kate's critics more than the consciousness--however dim--that her art
has bypassed their intellects and penetrated their emotions. In other
words, Kate's work is never more "perfect" in its power to evoke an
emotional response than in its moments of most dramatic imperfection.
In this respect more than in any other, _The_Sensual_World_ is gloriously
"imperfect".
     Let's take _Reaching_Out_ as an example. Some of Kate's most
cynical and "knowledgeable" critics have singled this recording out
as one of Kate's weakest, as one of her most fundamentally "flawed".
It is easy for anyone familiar with popular music to understand why
these people criticize _Reaching_Out_ in this way: the song follows,
with what is, for a mature Kate Bush song, unusual directness, a
melodic pattern which the critics' "trained" minds associate with
a large, vaguely recognized and stylistically suspect genre of popular
song. Epithets like "Barbra Streisand" and "MOR" are bandied about
by these high-minded judges, who search through the recording
in vain for the "stylistically correct" (to coin a phrase) trademarks
that will qualify it for inclusion among the earlier recordings
already generally accepted as suitably antithetical to the genre
associated with "Barbra Streisand" and "MOR".
     What these critics fail to realize is that their search itself is
a crucial error. They will probably never understand this simple fact,
and fortunately, it is of no importance whether they do or not. But
let there be no doubt that they are in error. For _Reaching_Out_
is typical of Kate Bush's work in that it shows her connection with
the timeless Mystery of Art and Nature.
     Now, IED could argue--and very effectively, too, in his opinion--
for days on end with people in this group over the intrinsic but
_tangible_ strengths of _Reaching_Out_ which demonstrate it to be
a great work of art. For example, he could point out that, in this
song, Kate, as she very nearly always does, borrows from and synthesizes
several disparate classical and traditional genres to create something
entirely new and at the same time peculiarly "familiar" (because
already mastered to a technical degree normally attained--emptily--only
by derivative imitators of others' innovative new styles).
     IED would stress the term "classical", above all, in the
case of _Reaching_Out_ (were he disposed to argue with these critics)
because the chord progression and the ascending choral refrain--which
the song's gainsayers, limited by their myopic tastes and standards,
and crippled by what is apparently a sore paucity of knowledge
of the history of western music out of which our popular genres have
evolved, pigeonhole as "MOR"--are in fact far more closely linked
with nineteenth-century European art song (especially that subgenre
represented by Brahms's settings of German folksongs and Wolf's
Italian Songbook) which re-set the national styles of the itinerant
musical tradition in the language of late Romantic classical form and
melodic, thematic and lyrical patterns. IED would also point to _Reaching_
_Out's_ systematic redefinition of those forms and patterns in the terms
of Kate's own deeply personal sonic vocabulary.
     IED could also (if he wanted to argue on this mundane, sub-Mystery
level) point out to the song's critics how, in _Reaching_Out_,
Kate takes two virtually unrelated but equally familiar forms
of song--the ballad and the anthem (the former represented
by the verses in bars 9-16 and 41-48, the latter by the choruses
in bars 25-40 and 57-72)--and _merges_ them; and how, furthermore, she
does so in a successful, seemingly natural way _despite_ the breadth
of the expressive chasm which normally separates these two forms--a gap
which is broadened still further by Kate's highly personal exploitation
of the balladlike verses. He could point out that Kate achieves this by
inserting between these sections a brand of transitional passage or
"bridge" which is, as Del Palmer puts it with justified pride and directness,
a Bush "invention" which he and she call the "PCR", or "pre-choral
refrain" (in _Reaching_Out_ this section, very subtly altered in its
second appearance, can be heard in bars 17-24 and 49-56). This
eight-bar section is deceptively simple, for it must--and does--
accomplish multiple tasks. The popular-song genre's "bridge", which
in recent years has degenerated into little more than a purposeless
formal dinosaur, serves, when professionally contrived, to relieve the
ear and to regulate the song's harmonic passage from verse to chorus
and/or from chorus back to verse. Kate's "PCR" does these two things,
of course, and also determines the "pace" of the song's musical and harmonic
progress. But--quite unlike the common popular song's "bridge", Kate's
PCR, never more economically presented than in _Reaching_Out_,
determines not only the _technical_ transition from verse to chorus--
not only the "shift of gears", so to speak, from the _descending_
melodic phrases which characterize the verse to the huge _ascending_
phrases which are the stamp of the choruses. In a song which so
uncompromisingly seeks to link passages as disparate as the verses'
introvert, balladlike confidences with the choruses' desperate but
celebratory and abandoned declarations, _Reaching_Out_'s PCR _also_ acts
as a kind of _expressive_ switching-station. Kate's masterful handling of
this delicate compositional job works so well that her critics fail to
recognize its significance entirely, and they, in their unthinking
quest for _overt_deviation_ from either the ballad or the anthem,
completely ignore one truly important achievement which _Reaching_
Out_--like _all_ of Kate's work--embodies: namely, a profound, but
by its very nature _covert_, _integration_ of formerly disparate genres.
     IED could, therefore, argue quite well (if he wished to, or felt
the need) that the critics of Kate's "commercial" or "conventional"
works, have overlooked a basic quality of all her art: its
_constructive_ rather than iconoclastic originality. This form of
original, unexpected _amalgamation_, realized by Kate with such
supreme mastery and variety, is unfortunately just the kind of
innovation which Kate's inevitably self-absorbed, style-conscious
critics are incapable of perceiving or appreciating.
     But, for all the incidental pleasure or intellectual stimulation
this sort of earthbound argument about Kate's _tangible_ superiority
may give IED, he cannot help but feel that it is essentially a waste
of time. And have no doubt: IED does not delude himself into
thinking that the rest of you (with one or two exceptions, perhaps)
share his larger and (to him) infinitely more rewarding and enlightening
convictions about Kate's art. Nevertheless, it is his conviction that
Kate's muse is a Vessel of the Mystery. And such being the case, IED
has no choice but to behave in accordance with the implications which
that conviction carries.
     Now, _within_ the limits set by IED's thesis, he gets much pleasure
from argument and discussion. He welcomes any idea about Kate's work which
might increase his understanding of the Mystery. For example, IED
began this posting by thanking Sakari with complete sincerity for the
description of the new _TWW_ video, because in that posting IED found
something which he considers to be a quite important new
insight into the Mystery: namely, the fact that, for the third video
in a row, Kate has inserted the symbolic image of _the_shower_of_gold_.
     This is a clue which, in IED's opinion, should--if the world
were a perfect place--have convinced everyone who reads Love-Hounds
that IED's thesis is _correct_: that, indeed, Kate Bush's work contains
a thread of the eternal, of the supernatural perfection which, for
want of a better word in this benighted age, people generally call God.
     Another clarification: IED doesn't mean to say that we should
all "idolize" Kate Bush _herself_ because of this Godly quality in her
work. Not at all. IED confesses that it is sometimes difficult for
him to distinguish between the Vessel and the Wine, between the
Instrument and the Voice. But in most circumstances he--like most
of you--sees with relative clarity that Kate Bush is just a very
talented, even brilliant, but essentially earthbound human being.
     This does not in any way diminish IED's conviction--nay, his
Knowledge--that Kate Bush's work--_all_ of her work--is infused
with the Thread of the Mystery.
     So, accuse IED of being less than a "true scholar" of Kate's
work if you will, Larry; in more than one sense of the phrase you are no
doubt correct. But in the one sense which really matters, IED takes
comfort in the knowledge that _he_, at least, is on the right TracK.

-- Andrew Marvick