The Lynch Mob + Chris Twits Me!

[rlm@ms_aspen.hac.com (Robert L. McMillin)]

Jeffrey A. Lester writes concerning the Twin Peaks film:

> Last I heard the movie wasn't happening because Kyle McLachlan didn't want
> to do it.

Didn't know it.  Lynch is pretty good at producing very hip melodramas,
but it seems his star is fading.

Anthony Hobbs (no relation to Watterson's tiger?) writes about how he
"learned to stop worrying and love The Sensual World":

> Summary: a reply to Jorn's TREACHERY! : -)

Down.

> Organization: First Church of KaTe Bush

You must be kidding.

> In article <9108201713.AA11645@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu>, Jorn Barger wrote a
> nice little article containing his analysis of KaTe's changes in musical style
> over the years, which the conclusion that "she is undergoing another 
> metamorphosis, into a _grown-up woman_, whom we might rename Catherine Bush."
> This, of course, implies that the Goddess - sorry, woman who wrote _The_
> Dreaming_, _Hounds_of_Love_ and _The_Ninth_Wave is soon to be no more -
> swallowed up by her older, "wiser" self. Does this remind you of anything,
> Love-Hounds? I refer, of course, to "Jig of Life", where the protagonist's
> future self demands that she stay alive that she, the future self, might be
> born. Is it, then, Jorn's feeling that KaTe is no more - that she is about
> to be this "Catherine"?

God, I hope so!

> 	This may or may not be the case. Even Jorn has the perspecacity to note
> that KaTe is not yet dead, giving the example of "Rocket's Tail". But I think
> he may be missing the point. For me, and maybe for thousands of Kate-fans
> everywhere, "Rocket's Tail" was the high point of _The_Sensual_World_. A real
> work of genius, worthy of the author of _The_Ninth_Wave_. But under Jorn's
> theorem, the woman who wrote this is soon to be no more, swallowed up by the
> woman who wrote "Walk Straight Down The Middle"
> 	I know full well I will be flamed to hell and back for this, but in
> my opinion fully half of the songs on TSW are BORING, middle-of-the-road
> technopop. This is more than made up for by the other half, of course - but if
> "maturity" means "Catherine" will be writing songs like "Reaching Out" for the
> rest of her life, I'm not sure I want to know about it.

I won't flame you for it -- it's your opinion.  Mine happens to be different.

> What is my point, you ask? Hooray if KaTe is becoming a mature woman, I
> say. But if maturity means she loses that which elevated her to
> Goddess-status in so many eyes, then I fear I will have to say a fond
> farewell to this new "Catherine", quietly withdraw from the First
> Church of Love-Hounds and silently slip away, like Puff the Magic
> Dragon, and cherish my memories of KaTe. "Love- Hounds live for ever,
> but not so their Goddess" - is this the shape of things?  Do not get me
> wrong. Catherine is a great songwriter. But what makes her different
> from the hordes of other Mature Female Artists? Maybe, just maybe, it
> would have been better if Catherine had not been born.

This returns the very essence of the twit I handed Jorn, which fueled Chris'
response (see below for more gory details).  Kate Bush is a human being,
one of whom damn few people really know.  The adulation, the assumption
of a personal relationship where none exists -- hooey!  Goddess my two
front teeth.  The fruit of Kate's entrails smells the same as yours
or mine, folks.  She has a gift for making wonderful music, but, IMHO,
that in no way allows ANY OF US to imagine we actually KNOW her, as
much as certain people might like to believe that particular fantasy.

> Jorn Barger analyzes Kate's "The Sensual World" album:
> 
> >> Now I've had serious problems with The Sensual World right from the first
> >> day, worried that it sounded uncertain, that Kate might be losing her
> >> inspiration.  But reading through Cloudbusting I see that she's been
> >> dancing on that razor's edge all along, wanting to keep growing, never
> >> knowing where the next song is going to come from.
> 
>  and Robert L. McMillin replied:
> 
> > Aside from being a little trite, this sounds too much like you're implying
> > a personal relationship with Kate that isn't there, unless you've a
> > secret...
> 
>    Trite?? Personal relationship? Jorn's comments are perfectly reasonable
> critical comments based on having read nearly every single word Kate has
> had to say about her music in print and magazine interviews. 1.3 megabytes
> of it. Even if Jorn hadn't read Ron and IEDs "Cloudbusting" cover to cover
> his comments are an interesting perspective on Kate's music. "Interesting
> Perspectives on the Music of Kate Bush" could be considered Love-Hounds
> charter. All Love-Hounds can be said to have a personal relationship
> with Kate at least as valid as those who claim to have a "personal
> relationship" with the Lord. I've met Kate in person, shaken her hand
> and have been close enough to smell her perfume (nice) which is a _little_
> more than most Christians claim. ;-)

Oh, for God's sake!  (And I don't mean Kate, either!)  Kate Bush is an
excellent musician, and she's no slacker as a lyricist -- in fact, I rather 
prefer her literary talents.  But a "personal relationship"?  Nonsense.
So you've met her once.  I extend my congratulations to you.  In my book,
meeting someone once makes them an acquaintance, not a friend.  Adulation
of this order is just another strain of that old virus, infatuation.

> I would like to hear some other theories about Kate's musical development,
> not just the "automatic gainsaying of any statement the other person makes."
> (MP).

If you're referring to my earlier post, perhaps I didn't make myself clear.
I am not commenting on Jorn's analysis; that mostly makes sense.  What
I object to is the silly, hero-worshipful tone of the piece.