AATHP/Little Light brew-ha-ha (was RE:Misc.)

[gatech!chinet.chi.il.us!katefans@EDDIE.MIT.EDU (Chris Williams)]

Chris here,

Oh dear, another flap....

   IED wanted to know if I had received an answer to the question of
whether or not AATHP "borrowed" Kate's message to Dale Sommerville's
_Bush-Con_ '84.
  I replied that I had not, in a manner best described as careful and
diplomatic.

  And, for the life of me I can't figure out why, Richard Caldwell replied:

> Believe me, Chris,  I did reply to your posting.  I had it all ready
> to go.  But when that final "do you still want to post this?" came up I
> hit 'n'.
> 
> No,  I didn't want to post it.  Sure it was hot enough to set the
> sprinklers off at sites all around the world but that's not why.  You
> had that coming.

  What did I "have coming"? What did I do wrong? Remark that an endorsement
obtained under duress bore a similarity to a previous endorsement? I've
looked over past posts and all I've found is a mention relayed through
a third party and our transcription of the Winnipeg message with minimal
comments. Does this constitute a "vendetta"? You should have hit "r", as
I would have liked some sort of answer.

 I posted the _Bush-Con_ transcription because the parts quoted
from this convention's message seemed to have a similarity. In fact, the 
one phrase quoted appeared _verbatim_ in the _Bush-Con_ message.

On Wed, 10 Apr 91 Neal R Caldwell, Ii posted:
:> This is strictly from memory but most of it was the usual "thank you
:> for your support" type thing.  The part that I found interesting was
:> that she said that the album was coming along well but that she really
:> couldn't say much about it until it had been "recorded properly".
                                 
Here is a part of Kate's message to Bush-Con '84:

  I am talking to you from my studio and we've just started recording the
next album. It's due to be released in the autumn and I'll be working 
throughout the summer to get it finished. It's almost impossible to talk
about music before it's been recorded properly.    

:> In the mean time, if anyone would care to post a copy of the Winnipeg
:> message I can tell you whether it sounds at all similar to what 
:> I remember from the Cleveland show.

  I did. You asked me to. Richard, the reason IED asked, and the reason
that I responded is that you never responded to my posting of the
transcription of Kate's message to the Winnipeg Bush-Con. If you had,
IED would never have had to ask.

 As you quoted it from memory, the Bush-Con message may have infiltrated
(if you have read back issues of Breakthrough) your memory of this
convention's message so these similarities may not, in fact, exist.
If so, as I said, I apologize.

> First of all I decided not to post because I'm not a spokesman for
> Little Light or AATHP and if they have anything to say about the
> matter they'll say it themselves. Second,  I felt the issue
> was closed and that dredging it up was pointless since in spite
> of your pretenses you would clearly rather not believe the people
> at Little Light and AATHP.

  The issue will be closed when the entire document is produced. If
you can remember any more of the message it will help, but nowhere
in your post do you offer.

>  Finally, I recalled something that someone told me not long after
> your initial accusation.
>
> They don't need your stamp of approval.

   Of course not. And I haven't offered. But in the interest of fairness
it should be pointed out that these people seem to want to set themselves
up as a unified voice of "American Kate Bush Fandom". Why? I think it
is only reasonable to wonder if they have any ulterior motive. Also,
I think it is reasonable to ask why we have never heard of most of the
fans involved in this project. We talked to hundreds of fans during the
Breakthrough era, and (other than Scott Shepard) these names are not
familiar. Peter had not heard of this fanzine before the PMRC incident
and was unfamiliar with the people involved. I've looked through back
issues of Breakthrough and Homeground looking for these names with no luck.
Love-Hounds is unique. Other than the Pseudo-Moderator, no one is in charge,
creating a cross between anarchy and a meritocracy - anyone can say what
they want, but to avoid being flamed it had better be worth saying. The
only important criteria is the validity of the poster's idea. LL/AATHP
haven't yet produced anything up to the usual Love-Hounds standards,
writing analysis of Kate's work, finding out interesting info, etc. I'd
have no problem if someone who I respect were trying to organize this sort
of movement, but the actions of LL/AATHP have not done anything to gain
_my_ respect. I have never heard anyone quote from Little Light any positive,
new information. (And there is much still to be discovered in _The Sensual
World_. More later.) These people have yet to offer anything worthwhile
that I see. They haven't earned the defense you are offering them. If
a freshman who had just discovered rec.music.gaffa announced his intention
to organize the entire Kate-speaking world under his banner, Richard, you
would be the first to reach for your flamethrower They only seem to have a
desire to be in charge and make some money. To my way of thinking, the person
who _wants_ to be in charge is the _last_ person who _should_ be in charge.

  The Sony/CBS connection is of no importance at all. None.
  See other post.

> Please spare us your laments about how it pains you to make your petty
> and vindictive accusations.  Instead how about providing a few details
> yourself?  You have yet to provide any real reason for harboring these
> suspicions beyond your initial remarks that it sounded like the
> Winnipeg message.  You've yet to show that this initial accusation
> was based upon anything more than my extremely brief description and two
> word quote ("recorded properly"). 

   My spine still hurts from bending over backwards to avoid offending
these people. For you to read pettiness and vindictiveness into my simple
response to a question makes you seem fairly paranoid. You seem to have
mastered Jon Drukman's hostility, without the saving grace of his wit
and sarcastic humor. Again, it's not my fault that the quote was so brief.
If you can please remember some more it will help.

> When you're done perhaps you would like to explain to us why you would
> expect two messages delivered under such similar circumstances _not_
> to be similar.  In the absence of any clear justification for your
> accusations I can only conclude that they are the product of pure spite.

  The circumstances _were not_ similar. There are a number of important
distinctions between Bush-Con '84 and AATHP's con. Dale wasn't running
Bush-Con to make a profit. AATHP was. Dale lost his shirt. The attendees
took up a collection to help with the losses. Dale spent _huge_ amounts
of money promoting Kate, and had been sending the magazine to Dr. and Mrs.
Bush. When Dale went to England before the convention he visited Kate's
parent's house. Kate was there but when he asked to interview her she
said no, as was her right. Given Kate's reluctance to talk to a man
who had paid for full page ads in national Canadian publications, I don't
see any reason to think that she would send a message to people that she
hardly knew unless she were harassed into doing so. Kate only sent the
message to Dale _after_ it was obvious that it was a labor of love, and
not an attempt to make, and I quote AATHP "...a small profit". All of the
events that Vickie and I have put on have raised money for charity, the
expenses were less than $40. EMI (and, by her writing to us based on
hearing about our video shows, Kate) approved our events because they
were "not for profit".

> I'm not sure if your problem with the folks from LL and AATHP is
> based solely on the fact that the people at Little Light had the nerve
> to question Homeground on an issue (albeit with perhaps only a bit <-----
> more tact than you're showing now)  or is there is some sort of bad      |
> blood here that I'm not aware of.  Whatever it it sure has you           |
> bugged.                                                                  |
                         (You are running the risk of looking ridiculous!)-
                     
    I can see how folks may think that there is some bad blood here because
of the Tipper Gore "incident". Nonsense. I don't get angry simply because
somebody either doesn't get one of my jokes or doesn't think it's funny.
I _do_ think that they set themselves up as objects of ridicule by
responding to a fairly obvious piece of parody/satire by _writing_ to
the organization being parodied complaining _before_ writing to the place
where the parody appeared! Do these folks write to the White House about
the things Dana Carvey says as George Bush on S.N.L.? And to react to the
gentle reproof given in _HomeGround_ in the manner that could best be
described as childish(sic) is, in a word, stupid. They should have sheepishly
admitted their error and re-read the piece. Come on, would anyone but a 
rabid Kate Fan have made all of those in-jokes? These folks must be _loads_
of fun around the first of April!

    I am still unclear if the message was transcribed from a phone
conversation or if a letter appeared from Kate herself.

    Kate has written people long letters in response to letters she had
received, but to avoid writing a "How To" guide for getting a response
from Kate, suffice to say that, to my knowledge, she responds to what moves
her emotionally (in one case) or to creative efforts (in our case). Not
to paint her as a saint, but the responses she has given have been to folks
with (for lack of a better word) "pure" motives.

  Little Light/AATHPs method of getting Kate's attention reminds me of
at bit from one of the best (and funniest) Katezines ever, _For The Love
Of Kate_:

    If you see Kate walking down the street, what's the best way to get her
    attention?

    1: Run up and rip her blouse open?
    2: Hit her in the head with a brick?
    3: Give her a rare Beatles album?
    4: Offer to buy her a month's supply of cat litter?

   Come on, they sent her international Registered Letters! We owe the
telephone company a lot of money, and _they_ haven't sent us any of those
yet.

                                Chris Williams of
                                    Chris'n'Vickie of Chicago
                                        katefans@chinet.chi.il.us


                      %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
                      % Kate: You're all mad!!%
                      %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%