Re: Kate's bush...

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

In article <2E77CE81@msmail.trl.oz.au> you write:
>
>Date: Tuesday, 13 September 1994 4:43AM
>Chris Williams wrote:
>
>[...]
>] the sort of places that stock back issues of Penthouse tend
>]to "frown" upon aimless browsing.
>
> As opposed to some of us who frown on puerile crap like that for
> other reasons.

    Penthouse has become fairly useless of recent, but the late
seventies were a prime era for "Men's magazines." Not that only
men read them. I haven't bought a Penthouse in years, but I purchase
Playboy on a fairly regular basis depending on the front cover.

    To bring this back to Kate content, I'm quite annoyed at Playboy
for (to my knowledge) never reviewing any Kate records. They have a
pretty decent set of reviewers, several of whom have given Kate
thoughtful, positive reviews in other publications. I can't imagine
why they would ignore her. Even if they were so dense as to ignore
her musical gifts, the fact that she *is* an attractive woman (an
important consideration from Playboy's point of view, not necessarily
mine) who hides secret symbols on the covers of her releases should
make them notice her. They *have* mentioned Kate in the context of
discussing *other* artists. Maybe they asked her to pose, and she
refused. NOTE: The last was ENTIRELY spectulation, with NO basis
in fact. 

    The lower-grade men's magazine Genesis had a nice feature on
the "Women Of Rock" many years ago. They had a nice (fully clothed)
picture of Kate and a well-written synopsis of her career. 


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