The short, short version!

[K Bacon <s340090@student.uq.edu.au>]

Wow!  What a load of postings :)  
I just wanted to say to some of the emailers:
1. I agree that Kate's Bush often transcends gender, sexuality etc.
2. I also believe people will naturally have an original interpretation to
music they listen to.  These beliefs are not a 'correct' view, but merely a
'personal' view.  (I also believe this applies to Kate).  
3. Most importantly!!  For those of you who are sick of the 'gay
Cloudbusting' thing, I have just one comment...don't direct them towards
those of us who believe in free interpretation!  Initially there was just
one or two of us asking emailers if they had also considered Cloudbusting in
a gay context. That's all.  The following arguments that have followed are
by the "Strict Interpretation" people and/or the homophobic people who were
determined to stamp out the possibility of Cloudbusting having a gay
context.  If they had been content to 'live and let live' - ie. just let us
experience Kate how we want - then this debate wouldn't have started.
Rather, it would have been a handful of emails from people who simply
acknowledged the possibility of Cloubusting having a gay context.  *I don't
mind debating* - I believe it is healthy - however I also believe that the
harshness, volume of material, and sheer determination to drive any gay
theory into the ground is an indication of homophobia.  NO-ONE ELSE has had
this much scrutiny - that's why I feel homophobia is involved.  How simply
do I have to state that in order for people to understand!!  
If you want this debate to end, target those who started up the debate in
the first - the people who decided to attack the 4-5 light-hearted, and
non-confrontational emails which happened to mention homosexuality.  

For the people who want to rubbish me, and others, and our opinions... 
You claim Kate's interpretation is correct, but I want you to explain: how
would a person who has not heard Kate's interpretation, guess that it is the
about the Book of Dreams?  It's all very well quoting this and that, but how
can individuals know that without being told??  Regardless of what some of
you might think, it is much more logical for a person in today's society to
guess "'coming out' refers to a gay issue", than "I know!  It's about Peter
Reich's 'Book of Dreams', which Kate read as a child!  I'm so good at
guessing!".  
The basic line is that the strict approach cannot apply constantly - it can
only ever apply to people who know the "real meaning" (read: "the artist's
meaning").  Perhaps some of you think that a person should have *no*
interpretation if they don't know the artist's intention!!  ie. Cloudbusting
should actually mean nothing to a person who hasn't heard about the Book of
Dreams!!  Hmmm, now *that's* an idea!  
Bottom line is, despite the claim of the song writer's interpretation
overiding everthing else, I (and most people I think) will always experience
a song in their own unique way.  Strict interpretation is a good theoretical
issue (I do think it's a fascinating topic), but it really has little
practical input.  

For the person who said "Get a life"...I would respond by saying that I've
already indicated some of my own experiences - otherwise this debate would
never have been started!  It really shows a lack of imagination when
listeners are only obsessed (and I mean this literally) with what *Kate*
meant with virtually every word.  It is incredibly boring - and totally
unimaginative - to only search for a "correct" and "sole" meaning for music.
Music is always diverse - as are it's interpretations!  Like I said, it's a
good academic goal, but otherwise I feel it shows a lack of imagination and
creativity to deny any alternative views of music.  

Kim