Re: Kate's bush...

[chrisw@fciad2.bsd.uchicago.edu (chris williams)]

In article <34vr54$1trf@rs6a.wln.com> you write:
>chris williams (chrisw@fciad2.bsd.uchicago.edu) wrote:
>:    BTW, before the advent of Princess Diana, Kate was apparently "the
>: most photgraphed woman in Great Britian." It's kind of amazing that
>: more paparatzi photos of her do not exist. Apparently, she does not
>: go to beaches and (after the "light stand bondage" photos) choses
>: who she lets photograph her carefully. She has become far more
>: protective of her "private self" in recent years. But Kate Bush
>: the artist will consider things that Kate Bush the person never
>: would. Whatever it's other flaws, that part of Fred Vermoral's
>: book "Princess Of Suburbia" is right on the mark.
>
>"light stand bondage"? What are you talking about here? I'm lost.

    *Very* early in her career, while in Holland, Kate posed for a
photo session. In the course of trying different poses, she was
"tricked" into a series of poses in front of plastic backgrounds
with electric cables wrapped around her. This session also produced
one of the only photos of Kate smoking. Kate and her management
offered _Record Mirror_ 2000 British Pounds not to print one of
the photos. It very tame, but they didn't want anyone getting the
wrong idea about Kate. In most of the photos, she looks a bit 
bewildered. 

    One of the photos is on page 24 of Fred Vermoral's _Kate Bush
Princess Of Suburbia_.

    One note: I made a dumb mistake. Of *course* Kate goes to the
beach. _Moments of Pleasure_. Sheesh. But I cannot image Kate with
a tan. She's probably the one wearing a one piece and a big floppy
hat.

                          Chris Williams of
                             Chris'n'Vickie of Chicago
                               chrisw@fciad2.bsd.uchicago.edu (his)
                                 vickie@njin.rutgers.edu      (hers)