Re-posting of private e-mail exchange between Steve and Andy

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

 To: Love-Hounds
 From: Andrew Marvick (IED)
 Subject: Re-posting of private e-mail exchange between Steve and Andy

     At the risk of adding yet another 130 lines of stuff not directly
about Kate to this collection of postings, IED has decided to re-post
the following correspondence for the interest of Love-Hounds.

 Date: Thu, 7 Dec 89 00:00:08 PST
 From: stevev@CHEMSTOR.UOREGON.EDU
 Subject: by way of eKsplanaTion, if not actual apology: will it suffice?
 To: IED0DXM

     You write:
 >     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.

     I'm not asking you to change your style, I just found Love-Hounds
more enjoyable in the days when you spent most of your time
praising Kate instead of slamming Drukman.  As far as I'm
concerned, spending your time attacking him personally makes you
more bothersome than he is.  I am not so well-versed in Bush lore
that I can point out his errors, but I can certainly tell when
you make the arrogant claim that anyone who considers the music
of Kate Bush to be less than perfect is ignorant and stupid.
     I certainly have no intention of stifling your postings, and if
you want to continue to impugn individual Love-Hounds, I can't
stop you.  But I would request that you return to the more
positive postings of the past.  Just look at what has happened in
the past few days--there is much less discussion of Kate and more
discussion of things that are not strictly Kate-related.  To me
this is a bad thing that must be fixed.  Correcting the errors of
others, distributing new information, and expressing your own
opinions of Kate's music is helpful to those of us who want a
better understanding of her music.  Reading diatribes against
other Love-Hounds does nothing to advance our understanding.
     The rest of your posting is actually rather interesting and
worthwhile as an analysis of the technical aspects of "Reaching
Out".  But if I were to say that despite whatever technical
merits it may have, I don't find "Reaching Out" to be
particularly emotionally affecting or enjoyable, I would consider
it ridiculous of you to to criticize me for _that_.  (Note that
this is not an accurate statement of my views on the song.)
     I have replied by mail simply because I don't want to clutter
rec.music.gaffa/Love-Hounds with yet another reply that doesn't
contain any information or direct discussion of Kate Bush.  You
do have my permission to quote from this letter in a Mailbag if
you might find it worthwhile to do so.

-- Steve VanDevender      stevev@chemstor.uoregon.edu

 To: stevev@CHEMSTOR.UOREGON.EDU
 From: Andy Marvick (IED)
 Subject: Your e-mail note to me

 Hi, Steve.
     I appreciate the note you wrote to me, and I will consider your
request for less negative rebuttals in Love-Hounds. I do think you
should know, however, that the present "flame-war" (for want of a
better term) that you have found so hard to take is actually rather
mild in comparison to many others that we've had in Love-Hounds over
the last four years. I'm pretty sure Jon Drukman (who's been with us
since the beginning, too) would tell you the same thing. It really
depends on one's perspective: to you (and no doubt to many of the
relative newcomers to the group) the current controversy must seem
a bit shocking; but to me and to Drukman, Doug Alan and Joe Turner
(to name some of the rare Love-Hounds readers who have survived
since the early days), it is the last year or so in Love-Hounds that
seems bizarre--for its atmosphere of good will and bonhomie--not
vice versa. In fact, I suspect that one prime motivation
of Jon's for posting the things he's been saying recently has
been deliberately to start a fight with IED (he knows exactly
how to get my goat)--perhaps just for old time's sake.
     Beyond that, you write:

 >     The rest of your posting is actually rather interesting and
 >worthwhile as an analysis of the technical aspects of "Reaching
 >Out".  But if I were to say that despite whatever technical
 >merits it may have, I don't find "Reaching Out" to be
 >particularly emotionally affecting or enjoyable, I would consider
 >it ridiculous of you to to criticize me for _that_.  (Note that
 >this is not an accurate statement of my views on the song.)

     So noted. But I _too_ would consider it ridiculous to criticize
someone for stating so straightforward and _self-aware_ an expression
of personal taste. I have never had any beef with people who make
statements like that. The problem is that almost _no-one_ in Love-Hounds
ever says something that honest. Virtually everyone who dislikes
something Kate does fails to realize that their dislike is just
that--an expression of their personal taste which reflects very
little about Kate's work itself, but more about the listener.
     Jon, for example, has made any number of statements in
recent weeks which impugn (to use your excellent word!) Kate
both as an artist and as a person; whereas in fact it is
quite plain that the only real basis he has for his dislike of
the new work is his own (rather limited) personal taste. Even worse,
he thinks that his judgement is based on profound musical knowledge--
and worse, on authoritative knowledge of Kate's work and career--whereas
the truth, as I have repeatedly shown, is that Jon knows very little
not only about Kate's music and career, but about music in general!
     Now I'll make this promise: the _minute_ Jon admits
that his judgement of Kate's work is solely a result of his own
taste, and that he doesn't really have any concrete support for that
judgement, IED will make a pledge not to bother Love-Hounds again
about Jon's infantile musical bug-a-boos (not in so many words!);
and I'll also admit that I can be a bit hasty to flame when I see
criticism of Kate's work.
     I've taken you at your word and posted both your note to me
and my reply here to Love-Hounds, because I think everyone who is
p.o.'ed with IED (or with Drukman--I know there are several readers
who share IED's view, rather than Drukman's) have a right to know
what's being said on the subject. After all, this concerns the
possible future atmosphere of discussion in Love-Hounds, so people
should know.
     Thanks for your interest, Steve.

-- Andy Marvick