Re: The Death of Emotion

[katefans@chinet.chi.il.us (Chris n Vickie)]

Subject: Re: The Death of Emotion

Chris here,

   Hopefully, this is the last of it. I wouldn't post, except that Mr.
Caldwell _likes_ an audience, and becomes quite sullen when forced to
use e-mail...

Richard posted:
>>> I don't always disagree everyone, just you.  Ok, so sometimes I
>>> do agree with you but I do my best not to let on.

and I responded:
>>    Lord, how dull. What a sorry excuse for entertainment. I try to
>> mention the worthwhile points you make, no matter how stated.

and Richard responded in turn:
> Uh oh, now who's being humorless?  >sigh< What's gaffa coming to
> when our last great bastion of good humor falls by the wayside.

    Richard, in addition to the many worthwhile things you have to say,
you routinely defend so many _inane_ (IMO) points-of-view (i.e. "The PMRC
doesn't want to censor") that it is difficult to tell what is intended
as humor and what isn't. 

   By the way, thanks, although I don't truly feel I really deserve
the honor. And, if I seem to be losing my sense of humor, chalk it up
to an atmosphere that you have had no small part in creating.

> Are you saying that Dave Cross suggested that you write a letter
> of apology for a reasonable statement delivered in a rational manner?
> By your own description it sounds like a tantrum to me.

   No, it's just that it wasn't a reasonable time or a rational place.

>>   The contents of the Box Set were entirely Kate's choice. The guy from
>> EMI lost Andy's list of suggestions and Dave Cross had to make up a list
>> overnight. Kate blithely crossed out any number of rarities that fans
>> would consider killing for (well, wounding at least) like "Maybe", the

> Sorry, next contestant please.   All you're saying here is that
> Kate had an essentially different idea of what her set was to be
> than what _you_ think it should have been.

   No, what I am saying is that Kate really had no idea of what she wanted
her set to be. What I posted was a description of what really happened
as related by someone who was there. It was _not_ conjecture.

   The set is an embarrassment when compared to box sets created for
artists of similar stature (David Bowie, etc.). One factor distinguishing
great box sets (Sound and Vision) from mediocre ones (This Woman's Work)
is the amount of input by a fan or fans.

   Kate Bush, bizarre as the assertion may sound, is not a Kate Bush
_fan_ in the sense that most people on Love-Hounds are (at least a dozen
of us have bigger collections of Kate video than Kate herself has.)
 
   Even a majority of us who like _The Sensual World_ would not claim
that it is her greatest album, but have you ever read an interview where
the artist _didn't_ mention his or her latest release when asked "What is
your best album?"
 
   Most artists lack the distance from their own work to have any idea
what their _fans_ want. On the whole, this is a good thing; pandering
to fans is not the way to achieve artistic growth (it killed Elvis).

  But the Box Set was, ideally, a product intended for fans; people
ready and willing (though often grudgingly) to plunk down ~$200. It
_was not_ (as I have said before), nor should it be considered (capital
letters) A Kate Bush Creative Project. It was a bungled business decision.

  The opportunity to produce the definitive overview of the the work of
Kate Bush, was ruined _by_ Kate Bush. 

>> P.S. On the subject of absurd overzealousness, I have not yet received
>> _any_ correspondence from anyone at AATHP/Little Light, let alone the
>> promised "proof". In fact, they have been entirely absent from the net
>> since I posted the comparison between their "statement from Kate" and
>> Kate's "message to Bush-Con." Am I to take their silence as an admission
>> of guilt and/or complacency that no amount of fudging can cover up?

> Since when have you needed any sort of evidence, let alone
> admission of anything? 

   Jeff Tucker _promised_ that Jeff Medkaff was "preparing a letter"
to me explaining the whole situation. I haven't personally received
_anything_ from _anyone_ in their organization other than a copy of
"Little Light". I would accept a message relayed through you, but none
has been offered. 

> Your tact from the very start has been to accuse first and ask
> questions later.  

  In a word, bullshit. My posts about it have all been questions;
"Who are these people", "If they claim Kate contacted them, shouldn't
they be prepared to prove it?" and "Doesn't their 'message' sound
quite a bit like the Bush-Con message?" I am not responsible for
the way you, and only you, interpret my posts.

> First of all, you are incorrect.  They did post one or more articles
> from Little Light after your comparison, just as they had before.

  Maybe, but I don't believe so. I don't recall anything from them in
the digest after my post. Please prove me wrong.

> Second, it is ridiculous to suggest that "guilt" would be the only
> reason that a person or group would stop participating here.  ^^^^

   No, simply one of several. It may be too much to expect any organization
to "feel guilt". "Embarrassment" is probably much closer to the mark.

>  In fact their absence is apparently a matter of Jeff Tucker, their
> sole source of net access, becoming disillusioned with the Kate fan
> community due to the conflicts here and within AATHP.

  The general attitude that they seemed to have, both in their original
posts, and in their newsletter seem to indicate the sort of organization
doomed to self-destruct.

> According to Bill Barwick, Jeff Medkeff has been ousted from both
> organizations for his handling of this affair and his botching of the
> video party arrangements and communications in general. 

   The naming of a scape-goat would seem to support my position.

   Love-Hounds, for better or worse, lacks any mechanism to "oust"
those who make fools of themselves, other than flameage.

> Bill Barwick says that Jeff Medkeff is "the sole possessor of the
> original message from Kate" so it appears that in spite of Jeff's
> ouster AATHP is maintaining the position that "the message" is
> legitimate. 

   How very convenient for them.

> Suspicion seems reasonable in the wake of these events and the
> way they handled -- or rather failed to handle -- the message in
> their last issue of Little Light. 

   Nice to hear you admit it, even if it is in a very back-handed way.

> That does not mean that outright public accusations of fraud are
> justified at this point and it certainly doesn't mean that they were
> any less reproachable at the time that you made them. 

   My "accusations" as you term them, were in fact questions about
their claims, perhaps colored by the tone of their previous posts.
Jeff Tucker didn't seem to have any problem with the my posts, and
your attitude begins to seem like little more than belligerence.

   But...now that you mention it...I do think that the word "fraud" may
now be justified. Posting incorrect information is forgivable. Posting
a rumor is forgivable. Claiming that you have something that you don't
have, and presenting something sent to someone else as having been 
sent to you, is not. At least Robyn didn't claim to have a message from
Kate, in her own hand, saying "Dear Robyn, I'm just too tired and
shagged out to do any prolonged squawking..."

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


P.S. Has anyone else noticed, that in order to avoid upsetting the
    easily upsettable (dare I say "thin-skinned") folks like Richard,
    posts tend to become so packed with qualifiers that they start
    sounding like Congressional speeches? "Perhaps," "seems," "maybe"
    oh, jesus....