All about the crown jewels

[Doug Alan <nessus@athena.mit.edu>]

> [Chris'n'Vickie on the "Love and Anger" video:]
> She is handed the:
> CROWN JEWELS
>     {Not all the crown jewels, just the Orb and Septre, but definitely the
> British Crown Jewels, symbolic of her Britishness.} 

No, no, no.  The Orb is a vaginal symbol and the Sceptre is a phallic
symbol.  Notice that when she is relieved of these symbols of "male"
and "female", she is suddenly freed in the video to act more openly.
This is obviously an allusion to how we are all tragically trapped
within the stereotypes of what men and women are supoposed to be.

> [IED:] Finally, IED has only to thank Ed for transcribing the _RAW_
> review, which IED liked as much as Ed did. And in the most unlikely
> source imaginable!

It's not that unlikely -- at least to me.  *Kerrang!*, another British
heavy metal magazine, for example, has always given Kate incredibly
rave reviews.  In fact, *Kerrang!* a few years ago probably gave Kate
the raviest review I've ever seen.

> [Larry DeLuca on "Not This Time":] (It should also be noted that I
> think all the people who insist the line "It keeps me going and it
> keeps the ship away" is really "...it keeps the shit away" are silly
> - if that's what she'd said, really, she would have published it.

Kate didn't prepare the book, so your argument is pretty tenuous.  The
lyric is obviously "shit" -- not "ship".  First of all, it sounds like
"shit" -- not "ship".  Secondly, what the hell would "to keep the ship
away" mean?

> [Kelly Kornder:] Okay, so I heard a rumor that sometimes, if you're
> lucky, and you happen to be in London, you might be able to catch
> Kate live!!!!!

Dream on!  Kate hasn't performed live (except to show up for a song or
two at a charity gig) in ten years and she will never do a concert
tour ever again.  (That's my claim, by the way -- not Kate's.)

> From: hui@joplin.mpr.ca (Michael Hu)

> But: [a close relative of Michael's] certainly can use a score
> editor to maximum effect, can control a whole array of synthesizers
> quite well with a computer, and, of course, composes music a lot
> more substantial than anything KT has done; but music of a different
> genre, hence perhaps "more substantial" is not a fair comparison
> here, objectively speaking. But music has always been subjective;
> those who love the work most usually end up writing a less
> accessible piece than those less devoted to it.

What's the point of this little flame?  I have certainly missed it.
First of all, *no one* has ever written music "more substatial" than
Kate's best work.  Secondly, what does "substantiality" have to do
with accessibility?  *Most* very accessible music is not very
substantial, but that does mean that there is not a great deal of very
substantial and accessible music.  And there are certainly plenty of
musicians who completely *love* writing fluffy pop ditties, and there
are musicians who write very substantial music as a part-time hobby,
so this comment about devotion is pretty bankrupt.  Thirdly, *no one*
is more devoted to his or her music than Kate is (or perhaps rather
*was* on her pre-*Sensual World* albums).  Fourthly, most people don't
seem to find much of Kate's work very accessible at all.  In fact,
that is one of the most common criticisms you hear about her music --
that you have to listen to the album ten times (take *The Dreaming*
for example) before it makes any sense.  So, all in all, I'd say your
message really pretty poorly constructed as an argument for whatever
it's supposed to be an argument for.

|>oug

"V is for VICTOR squashed under a train"