Re: from Little Light

[larry@csccat.cs.com (Larry Spence)]

In article <9108261646.AA25240@eddie> R3JMT%AKRONVM@vm1.cc.UAKRON.EDU (Jeff Tucker) writes:
>
>  The following appears in Little Light, Summer 1991,
>published by The American Association of Them Heavy
>People, PO Box 221, Cuyahoga Falls OH 44222-0221.
>  Replies are welcome, as are letters to the editor
>or other discussion.
>
>ARTS VS CHARTS
>....
>     It's time that everybody realize that the key to success in the U. S.
>is visibility. 

It is widely rumored that promoting releases to radio stations, which can
be _expensive_ and perhaps not entirely legal, plays a big part, too.  The 
costs for this come directly out of the artist's pocket (or advance).  Kate 
may see this situation as unethical (purely speculation on my part).

>A good case in point is Madonna. Madonna missing from the
>headlines for one week would be a coup in itself! Madonna's latest video
>shows nudity... Madonna's going out with Michael Jackson... Madonna's new
>movie is rated NC-17 and so on. Just by discussing her as an example of
>good promotion, she's being promoted. I am not suggesting that Kate pose
>for nude photos or get married a couple of times to further her career. She
>could follow the example of Phil Collins, who is untouched by scandal and
>is known as Mr. Nice Guy. Recording with Genesis, recording his solo work,
>producing for Eric Clapton, Philip Bailey, and Adam Ant, starring in a
>film, touring almost constantly, and never passing up an opportunity for an
>interview made Collins a household name. Kate's name would sound a little
>more familiar if she was just half as prolific and visible as Phil Collins.

As long as Kate's financially successful enough to record albums and do what-
ever else she wishes, why is "success in the US" important?  Especially if it
would likely require a lot of commercial entanglement that she might not be
too thrilled about?  I'd prefer that she not make any deliberate moves to 
create a "public persona," i.e., 70-date tours, Letterman, etc.

>    If Kate wants success here, then she has to become more visible. A
>tour is the perfect way to do so. A good example of making touring a
>career can be found in Rush.

Oh, noooo... what makes you think that Kate spends much time thinking about
"success in the US?"  She probably realizes what it would take to get more
exposure (don't you think all these suggestions have been brought up by her
record company, Columbia if not EMI?), and doesn't want to bother.  I can't
say that I blame her.  She has a private life, and values it.  Touring is
grueling work, and she doesn't want to burn herself out.  Fair enough, I say.

>     She need not even tour- all she has to do is make herself known to
>America. Letterman, Costas, Rockline, 120 Minutes; these are all forums
>that Kate can use while putting forth no more energy than it takes to say a
>few words.

What about the energy required to fly from city to city making all these
appearances?  Plus the level of questions that she's going to get on shows like
Letterman or Rockline; the mind reels...

>     The bottom line is that to be successful, Kate needn't stoop to
>forsaking her art and making commercial music. All she really needs to do
>is to pop over and say "hi". Maybe she could knock on a few doors and shake
>a few hands. It certainly couldn't hurt.

IMHO, the bottom line is that Kate is already successful artistically, and
financially successful enough to be independent.  Sure, she's a bigger hit
in the UK -- it's a smaller market, and it's her home territory.  I've never 
read Little Light, but I find this emphasis on commercial success and reknown 
a bit puzzling.  It's not like her recordings are unavailable in the US...

-- 
Larry Spence
larry@csccat.cs.com
..{uunet,texsun,cs.utexas.edu,decwrl}!csccat!larry