MisK.

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

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

     IED answers Brian's questions because others may be interested,
but not to help out Brian, whose ramblings about "faults" in Kate's
new album annoyed IED as much as they were intended to.

 >1. What is the phrase Kate repeats at the end of "Watching You Without Me",
 >  after the goofy secret message (which I liked much more *before* I knew what
 >  she was singing)?  It sounds like "release me" to me sometimes, but I'm not
 >  sure.

     It's a backwards message, and it says "We see you here."

 >2.Is the 12" version of Cloudbusting the same as the album version?  I didn't
 >  think Kate would do this, but when I saw the 12" in a store, it didn't seem
 >  to indicate that it was any different, and in fact, said "Taken from the LP
 >  The Whole Story".  What's the deal?  Did they release this in conjunction
 >  whith TWS, or am I just hallucinating again?

     You're looking at the back of the U.S. edition of the 12" ("Orgonon
Mix") of _Cloudbusting_. It was released to support _TWS_, although
the twelve-inch Orgonon Mix is completely different from the LP mix
heard on _TWS_ and on _HoL_. The Orgonon Mix was originally released
as the second single from _Hounds_of_Love_, but by the time EMI-America
released it, it seemed better to connect it with _The_Whole_Story_,
because it was so late. A third mix--the video's soundtrack--also exists of
the song.

 >3. IED (if you're still reading this), could you describe again the backing
 >  vocals of the last part of "Breathing"?  Your original description of what i
s
 >  being said and how it meshes with Kate's lead seemed intruiging, but when I
 >  went back to listen to the song, I could not pick up what you were pointing
 >  out.

     There are some really neat things about the end section of
_Breathing_. First, the way the chorus asks questions and the lead
vocalist makes statements recalls the interaction of chorus and
actors in Greek theatre.
     Of more direct relevance to the song itself, though, is the
double-entendre of the word "without". Right up until the last
line, the chorus seems to be asking the simple question, "What
are we going to do without?" In this case, the word "without"
would seem to be meant as a synonym for "outside"--as the opposite
of "within". The meaning of the question seems to be, therefore,
"What are we going to do when we are born? When we leave the
womb and must face the outside world?"
     Only in the crashing, climactic last line of the song
does it become clear that this question is really incomplete--
that the entire question is: "What are we going to do without
_breathing_?" And you could also say that _both_ of these questions
by the chorus are answered by the chorus's final words: "We are all
going to die without breathing." (Try reading it this way, as an
answer to the _first_ question, "What are we going to do without?":
"We are all going to die without, _breathing_.")
     The really wonderful thing about this play on words is
the way it dovetails with what the foetus itself (Kate's lead
vocal) is saying: "Please let me breathe! Life _is_ breathing."
Only with that last note and that last word do the
chorus and the foetus-heroine conjoin. Both the statement
"We are all going to _die_ without breathing" and the statement
"_Life_ is breathing" finish up with the common word, yet they
are saying the same thing from _opposite_ perspectives. Almost
in reflection of that dichotomy, the last word, "breathing", is
heard _backwards_ (as though the breath is finally sucked in--
or out?--for the last time), to give the listener a very direct
sonic impression of "life/without/breathing".
     Now IED doesn't argue that all of these things were planned
in a completely cool-headed, calculating way by Kate when she
wrote the song. But I do think that they are real, and that a lot
of this kind of complex double-meaning comes about more or less
through artistic instinct. Whatever the degree of premeditation,
IED thinks it's an absolutely brilliant artistic concept, and
one which Kate has realized with typical perfection:

      "What are we going to do without?"
 Ooh please!
      "What are we going to do without?"
 Let me breathe!
      "What are we going to do without?"
 Ooh, Quick!
      "We are all going to die without!"
 Breathe in deep!
      "What are we going to die without?"
 Leave me something to breathe!
      "We are all going to die without!"
 Oh, leave me something to breathe!
      "What are we going to do without?"
 Oh, God, please leave us something to breathe!"
      "We are all going to die without
 Oh, life is--Breathing.

 >4.Has anyone seen any version of the "This Woman's Work" single in Boston?  Do
 >  we think it's worth picking up just for the B-sides, kids?  I never even saw
 >  a "Love and Anger" single, was there one?  What was its B-side?

     Yes, there is a U.S. cassette-single. The b-side is _Walk_Straight_
_Down_the_Middle_.
     Jorn Barger asks whether he goes too far in giving Kate credit
for hitting on an idea before its time, so to speak. IED thinks not.
You are right, Kate did indeed mean just what you say, and IED thanks
you for pointing it out.

 >Grow up Andrew,
 >and face the faKT that you are embarassing yourself and Kate in the process.

     IED, like Peter Pan, refuses to grow up. And though he may
often embarrass himself, he will never be able to embarrass Kate Bush.
Fortunately she remains completely untouched by anything IED (or anyone
else in this group) has to say about her and her art.

 > Sure, it's fun to see Jon Druckman provoke you to near hysterics, but your
 > lack of objectivity only proves "your own ignorance and lack of taste".

     This is a completely illogical claim. A lack of objectivity is something
quite different from a lack of knowledge, or a lack of discernment. Certainly
you are right to say that IED is not objective. He says as much himself
regularly in this group. But IED is not ignorant of the subject about which
he holds such strong opinions, and he does not show a lack of discernment
in his expression of those opinions. But there is clearly no hope that
IED will be able to affect the discernment of anyone who, like you, David
Smith, proudly describe a work like _Reaching_Out_ as "just bombastic
caca". Fortunately, IED has faith that most Love-Hounds can see for
themselves just who is demonstrating ignorance and tastelessness here.

 >Did anyone see the post I sent a while back comparing the times shown on
 >the actual tape that Kate delivered to EMI?  (Picture in the last KBC issue)
 >The times shown there would indicate that "the laugh" did indeed belong to
 >"Love and Anger".

     IED did, and thanks you very sincerely for drawing all Love-Hounds'
attention to this substantial piece of evidence.
     Andrew M. Jones writes:

 >One that immediately comes to mind is the |>oug KaTe interview, in which
 >|>oug allegedly mistranscribed a word.  Shock! Horror! Castrate him!!
 >As a result, IED launched a tyrade against him.  The phrase "Now listen to
 >this, love hounds. This is really rich!" sticks in my mind.  To add insult
 >to injury, IED admitted |>oug's version of the transcribed word was a
 >real word (something about Donkeys), whereas IED's was a made up one, which
 >knowing KaTe the way he does, must definitely be the truth.  Hail Caeser!

     Look, go back and read the exchange before dredging up old
arguments like this. You've got the _entire_ thing terribly mixed
up. The donkey stuff was completely separate from the stuff about
the word |>oug misheard, and it regarded a completely different song.
If you really want to go to the trouble of bringing up those two
separate issues again, IED will oblige you. But get your facts
straight first.

 >Another two events were |>oug's "repuation on the line challenges" to IED
 >about digging up quotes.  Two occasions in which |>oug did exactly as he
 >said he would, and IED eventually responded by insulting |>oug.

     That's not true. IED responded by admitting he was wrong, and
stating publicly that "|>oug knows more about Kate Bush than IED
knows or will ever know." Why are you misrepresenting the facts as
they occurred before every Love-Hound's eyes?

 >IED continually insulted Tim Maroney, so that he's no longer seen in this
 >newsgroup any more. This is a shame.

     That's a disgusting, irresponsible accusation! IED had nothing
whatever to do with Tim Maroney "leaving" Love-Hounds! As a matter
of fact, Tim was criticized more often by _other_ Love-Hounds than by
IED, who soon discovered the pointlessness of discussion with Maroney,
and let him be. But more importantly, no one in this group can be made
_responsible_ for Maroney's or anyone else's personal decision to
take part in Love-Hounds discussions. You are one of several Love-Hounds
who have recently made statements to the effect that the harshness
of IED's words somehow "intimidated" other people out of the group.
That's absurd, and probably Tim Maroney would be insulted that you
could think him so soft-skinned as that. Anyway, this is a forum
for free expression. If someone doesn't enjoy what IED has to say,
he/she has the same opportunities that IED has to respond, the same
freedom that IED has to stay or to leave.

 >It surprises this humble recently-resubscribed reader that IED considers
 >any one of Kate's works to be perfect. If this were indeed the case,
 >and some work *were* perfect, then Kate would simply stop putting out
 >albums.  This doesn't seem, however, to be the case.
 >
 >--woodstock

     This doesn't seem logical to IED. The idea seems to be that achievement
of perfection in one work of art renders the aspiration to perfection
in another obsolete, as though perfection can by definition take only
one form. In actuality, isn't "perfection" a general property which appears
differently in each of Kate's works, just as those works themselves
sound different from each other? Why must their variety affect their
perfection?

 >Obviously, Kate thinks at least one of her songs is imperfect:  which
 >version of "Wuthering Heights" is perfect?
 >
 >-- Michael Sullivan          uunet!jarthur.uucp!aqdata!sullivan

     Well, each is perfect in a different way. (Insofar as any of
the recordings from _TKI_, _LH_ or _NFE_ can be called Kate's own
work. In addition to the vocal, you'll notice that Kate made considerable
changes to the sound of the instruments on that track when she re-mixed
it.) Anyway, IED doubts--along with you--that Kate would consider
any of her own works to be truly "perfect". She has, however, said
often that there comes a point in the recording process when nothing
can be added or taken away from the track which would improve it, and
that that is the point when the recording is "finished". And that is
exactly what Julian West recently posited as a definition of
"perfection".

 >      This would lead me to believe, that there are
 >      other relatively good arrangement/transcriptions
 >      of Kate's music.
 >      Does anyone know of any other collections?  I would suspect
 >      they are from the U.K.
 >                                              Steve

     Well, Steve, there are other editions of Kate's music in bookform,
but none is any more detailed than _The_Best_of_Kate_Bush_. If you
want _more_ of the same quality, however, seek out another Cecil Bolton
edition of Kate's music, called _Kate_Bush_Complete_, which contains
similar sheet-music records of sixty-six of Kate's songs, and also
has an excellent chronology of Kate's career by Peter FitzGerald-Morris.

-- Andrew Marvick