No Subject

[Gordon Locke <glocke@morgan.ucs.mun.ca>]

Newsgroups: rec.music.gaffa
Path: glocke
From: glocke@morgan.ucs.mun.ca (Gordon Locke  )
Subject: Re: RUTH Flamers
Message-ID: <1992Oct12.205733.13804@morgan.ucs.mun.ca>
Organization: Memorial University of Newfoundland
References: <1992Oct12.165916.3243@galileo.cc.rochester.edu>
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 20:57:33 GMT

In article <1992Oct12.165916.3243@galileo.cc.rochester.edu> as010b@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (andrew david simchik) writes:
>in fact, I do believe most of the imagery ("running up that hill," even)
>implies a sexual or at least sensual interpretation.  There are many ways of
>approaching the lyrics, some platonic, some romantic...the point is, you and
>I may have totally different views about the song and I hope you didn't
>totally underestimate my cognizance of that fact.
>	My idea of the song is not an esoteric view.  And, I might add that
>I ordinarily detest sexual/Freudian interpretation, but in this case I feel
>it's quite justified.

	Before I hheard in an interview Kate's interpretation of the
lyrics (you know what I mean), I thought the song to be quite
sex/sens-ual in its implications, some of its lyrics ("Let's exchange
the experience"), and even the driving beat and weird Fairlight effects.
I thought the "official" meaning to be cool because I've often thought
that it would be a very educational and mind-expanding thing for a
couple to switch bodies.  Part of that "thing" might be sexual, as that
might be part of the couples' relationship.  I agree that a sexual
interpretation is legitimate in this case -- at least partially
legitimate, and I think Kate Herself would even agree.  (Ha!  Can't
argue against _that_, can you? =^])
	(Aw heck, maybe it's just  because I was still getting over
Puberty when RUTH came out.  Or  maybe it was my toilet training ...) 

	- Gord (a.k.a glocke@morgan.ucs.mun.ca)