Re: Chris' stuff

[point!akcs.katefans@ddsw1.mcs.com (Christopher DeVoe Williams)]

Chris here,

Neal R Caldwell replied to my post:

> Chris of Chris'n'Vickie of Chicago writes:
>>   Those who are concerned can rest easy that someone close to Kate
>> is aware that not everyone is happy with the Box Set, though I'm
>> afraid I may have made a bit of an ass of myself in the process.

> And I hope that if this news is passed along, it's passed along with a
> word of advice that trying to please everyone will lead to nothing but
> grey hair.

   This advice would make sense if we were talking about an artistic 
decision. The Box Set is a commercial product, a different packaging
of previously released work, and almost no creative energy was expended
on it.

>> [Discussion of why Kate wouldn't want her performance bootlegged]
>>   Lisa replied that "Well, it's a violation of trust, isn't it?" I
>> believe I looked very skeptical as she changed her tack and said,
>> "Well it's really the loss of control."

> Bingo.  How anyone could think that Kate could approve of people
> making money by selling recordings of her that do not meet her 
> standards is beyond me.

  Bootlegging is a reasonable outlet for precisely such material.
Contrary
to record company propaganda, bootlegs have no effect on legitimate
sales.
Reaction to bootlegging varies from artist to artist, some fight against
it by trying to suppress it, some release the material and kill the boot
market (the bottom fell out of the Springsteen boot market following the
release of the 3-record live collection), some co-operate with tapers and
eliminate the market by allowing anyone to record them (The Grateful Dead
has a special section just for taping the show). The "control" argument
can keep an artist from ever performing.....which may be precisely what
happened. If we believe the example of the new version of WH on "The
Whole
Story" Kate's early albums no longer "meet her standards". Should we send
all of our copies of TKI back to EMI? An artist is often not the best
judge
of her own work.

>>   This brought about the question of who controlled the box set,
>> Kate or EMI. She said EMI, and I pointed out that EMI said the final
>> decision had been Kate's. She didn't reply to that and I said that
>> Andy and Derek had put together a very good set that had been
rejected.

> It's doubtful that EMI ever saw Andy and Derek's list before the
Anthology
> was carved in stone.  Their list also contained many items that would
> have been difficult to secure rights to and others that obviously
> would not have met Kate's standards without a great deal of work if at
> all.

  Hogwash. Novercia Ltd. owns all rights to the recorded works of Kate
Bush.
EMI has these recordings in their vaults. The proof of this is the fact
that the "bongo version" of "December Will Be Magic Again" was _accident-
illy_ released on the "It's Christmas" record because the person sent
down
to the vaults to get it picked up the wrong one of two. The fact that EMI
had a re-recorded version from a BBC-TV program and could release it with
no problems, points out the silliness of this argument.
  Securing the rights to a publicly broadcast performance of an artist is
not difficult to do, just time consuming at worst. Major record labels
have
people on staff who do this on a daily basis. Rights situations only get
difficult when a number of artists on a project are on different labels
with
major differences in the performance rights sections of their contracts.
   
  Kate takes a far more casual approach to her work than most of us do.
"Passing Through Air", while a very nice little song, pales by comparison
to much of the earlier work. This was demonstrated at the convention by
Kate's forgetting what single PTA was the B-side of. To her, all that
stuff
was produced by someone else, someone that she no longer is.

>>   I believe I may have gotten a little frantic in telling her that the
>> Box Set was a "God-Damn rip-off". Well, it was a very emotional day.

> Ahem.  I've spoken about this before so I'll try not to belabor the 
> point.  The Anthology may not have been the collection of unavailable
> recordings that some would have liked to have seen but that does not
> make it a rip-off.  There is some question of highly variable pricing
> but I doubt that Kate had any input on that.

  While in England we made a point of shopping around and comparing the
box set with other artist's box set. My opinion was confirmed. A box
set of Queen's entire output (at least 9 records, from looking through
the bins) was less than _half_ the same store's price of Kate's set.
  The David Bowie "Sound and Vision" set is an example of a well put
together set. Kate's fans deserved better.

>>   I'm in the process of writing a nice little note of apology, as was
>> suggested by David Cross. Our feelings are not stopping us from buying
>> _two_ box sets, though. 

> <sigh> Why do I have trouble mustering sympathy when you buy two of
> something and then complain that it's a rip-off?

  I wasn't complaining that _I_ was ripped off. Only that the box set was
a rip-off. We bought it, eyes open, at the best price we could get, from
someone we liked. I didn't have to relate this incident..it was between
Lisa and myself, but I felt obligated to post it, because, although I
didn't claim that my remarks were on behalf of the Love-Hounds, they did
reflect the feelings of many.
  Like it or not, Kate's insistence on control of every aspect of her
career burdens her with the co-commitment responsibility for it.
  Kate (or her family) are the sole agency of control. EMI, for example
never heard a note of "The Sensual World" until _after_ the final 2-track
mix-down. According to the record industry mag. "HITS"'s annual "Artists
Managers Agents" listing, Kate no longer even has an agent, Hillairy
Walker
is listed only as a "contact". 
  Total control means total responsibility.
The box set was intended for the fans, and their input was sought (from
Peter and Krys and David) and was, for the most part, dis-regarded. 

>> The Club newsletter was an enormous rip-off for
>> American fans for a number of years (one year passed without a single
>> newsletter). 

> Now this I can agree with.  A product was being sold that simply did
> not exist for at least a year.  Where fans expected to renew their
> memberships after this year of silence?

  The period of the Club's existence that I am referring to was one that
Kate had the most apparent control over. The club newsletter did not come
out because, simply, Kate was to busy to be bothered. She was working on
the album at the time and couldn't find the time to be interviewed,
answer
questions, or be photographed. In further defence of my actions, it is 
obvious to me that someone must have written to the club complaining
about
the situation. If no one had done so, it is possible that the situation
could have remained as it was. If this seems unlikely consider that the
club seems to have only one officer, Lisa, who puts the newsletter out
and
answers mail. The other activities associated with "clubs" are handled by
the people from "Homeground". The convention was put on by "the Club" but
all the labor and arrangements were handled by "Homeground". The needs of
the fans could be far better served by combining the resources of the
"Club"
(pictures, access to Kate, high production quality) with those of HG
(dedication, better relations with fans) to produce one very good
magazine.
   The fact that this has not been done seems to indicate that either
Kate does not want to give up control or the HG folks are too shy to ask.
   My gut feeling is that it is mostly the former.

                                    Chris Williams
                                        of Chris'n'Vickie
                                            katefans@world.std.com

P.S. I've mailed this from a different site, but the above is still our
address for receiving mail.