Hounds Of Love vinyl

["Thilo Meiswinkel" <meiswinkel@classic.msn.com>]

Hi everybody,

today I received my copy of the re-released "Hounds Of Love" vinyl album.
It is a really beautiful piece - and it looks so brandnew, it's a bit like 
back in 1985! There's a grey sticker in the above left corner saying "EMI 100 
- The vinyl collection" - classic LPs - Original Packaging - Virgin Vinyl 
(180gm) pressing - heavy quality sleeves - analogue cutting from analogue 
tapes".
A very nice piece for collectors! Where to get it? A good record shop should 
be able to order it for you (of course I can only speak for Germany). EMI's 
ordering number is: 724382140610. Of course it's a UK-release... Hope this 
info is helpful.
Love
Beate

----------
Von: 	love-hounds-digest-request@gryphon.com
Gesendet: 	Montag, 10. November 1997 10:14
An: 	love-hounds-digest@gryphon.com
Betreff: 	love-hounds-digest Digest V13 #281

------------------------------

Content-Type: text/plain

love-hounds-digest Digest				Volume 13 : Issue 281

Today's Topics:
  Re: Kate's use of female names        [ ANGLTRED@aol.com ]
  Re: Interpretation                    [ ANGLTRED@aol.com ]
  symbol on TSW                         [ GAFFA86@aol.com ]
  Re: Interpretation                    [ "squidly" <squidly@clara.net> ]
  Re: Interpretation                    [ heisjohn@juno.com ]
  Re: symbol on TSW                     [ Mike Holmes <mike@mc-h.demon.co.uk> 
]
  Re: symbol on TSW                     [ Mike Holmes <mike@mc-h.demon.co.uk> 
]
  Kate items for trade                  [ Rolf.Peukert@theoinf.tu-ilmenau.de  
]

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 8 Nov 1997 22:50:36 -0500 (EST)
From: ANGLTRED@aol.com
To: love-hounds@gryphon.com
Subject: Re: Kate's use of female names
Message-ID: <971108225035_797851795@mrin83.mail.aol.com>

<< At the beginning of "Wow" Kate says "Emily".  Does anyone know why?  Who
is
 Emily? >>

I don't know the answer....but I do have another related question!

About a year ago, for the first time I noticed in "All the Love" during the
"phone call" part, that a man seemed to say something along the lines of
"Hello, Samantha".  Now, I'm just curious if this is what he's saying and if
so, why, and who is Samantha?  

Since that's my name and there don't seem to be too many of us Samantha's in
the world, it made me particularly curious....also partly due to the fact
that I'd been listening to this album for years and years, as it's among my
favorites, and I never noticed it until last fall.  

Anyone have an answer?

~~~Sam

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 8 Nov 1997 23:14:21 -0500 (EST)
From: ANGLTRED@aol.com
To: love-hounds@gryphon.com
Subject: Re: Interpretation
Message-ID: <971108231421_-1073090496@mrin54.mail.aol.com>

<< > But considering that most people today wouldn't be sitting
 >at home quitely poring over A Book of Dreams, reading the lyric sheet
 >and attempting Biblical-style exegesis of the song, I don't think you
 >can insist that Kate's "intended meaning" should be seen as the starting
 >point for interpretation and/or application.  >>

If people don't know what A Book of Dreams is about, then they shouldn't try
to "interpret the meaning" of Kate's lyrics.  My point is that we *must* put
Kate's words into their intended context.  Kate was obviously alluding to
this particular book, and it's mandatory that her words be considered within
the context of the book and exactly what she was stating regarding this
particular piece of literature.  People, like me, who have not read A Book of
Dreams, should never even enter the discussion of what "Cloudbusting" really
*means* because we don't know what the heck we're talking about!  (and you'll
see, that I have never attempted to give an opinion as to the phrase "son's
coming out" because I have *no* knowledge of A Book of Dreams whatsoever).
 Now, we can say, "Here is how this song affects me..." or "This is what this
song reminds me of...." or "I like the way this song makes me feel...." etc.,
but we cannot begin to claim to have insight into the meaning.  

It's like when I say the word "can".  Now....what does this mean to you?  Out
of the proper context, it may well refer to any number of things:  a "can" of
tuna, a "can" opener, someone dancing the "can-can" or perhaps it's someone
assenting to the fact that they are able ("can") do a particular task.  This
word has a broad range of meaning, but depending upon the context, it has a
specific meaning which the user of the word intends to convey.  It's the same
with music lyrics--they are meant to convey a particular message, and whether
it's one word or a string of words, they can only *mean* one thing within
their proper context, and that meaning is the meaning which the author
intended.

>When the medium of
>transmission is radio or TV, meaning is determined as much by the other
>images and sounds juxtaposed with the text as by the text itself. 

It is my firm belief that these images and sounds are used as stylistic aids
which help the writer convey his/her meaning.  Again, they can provoke a
certain thought pattern or emotional experience, but we cannot determine
their meaning outside of the broader context of the song and author's
intended purpose for writing those words and using those sounds and images.

>To say that a
>fleeting interpretation of a snatch of a song is invalid is to ignore
>the fact that people can and will derive meaning from such fragmentary
>texts, 

They will NOT derive "meaning".  They *will* interpret what they hear, but
this does not mean the interpretation of the meaning is accurate.  This is
not to say that even invalid interpretations are not helpful and useful to an
individual, but this does not change the fact that the interpretation of the
meaning is still inaccurate.  Perhaps what we're discussing here is merely a
matter of semantics, but I hold firm that without background and context, one
absolutely cannot derive the true "meaning" of a collection of words.

> The only realm where interpretation has ever been controllable
>is in the academy, where rigorous intellectual methods are applied to
>"high art" texts and a critical concensus is achieved _because the
>players have to stick to the rules._ 

I know like I sound like a hard-liner on this one, but I believe the rules
are there for a reason and that they apply to *all* written material.  If
not, then interpretation is a free-for-all.  Once you begin to condone a
reader-response interpretational style, then all attempts to define "meaning"
are irrelevant.  In my college literature courses, I was taught the
"reader-response" method of interpretation and it just never "clicked" with
me.  How could someone in the very same classroom come up with an entirely
different meaning than my own, or which even opposed my own interpretation of
the meaning, yet we could still both be right?  It's simply not logical.  

And Brian, perhaps my current vocation, which does involve extensive exegesis
of Biblical texts and other ancient literature, as you seemed to pick up on,
does impact my views on the interpretation of *all* literature, but it makes
sense to me that meaning would lie with the author and it's not the readers
job to say what it "means" to them, but what the meaning was for the author
and to move on from there to a discussion of application.  As I said before,
without the rules, it's a free-for-all and any meaning would be considered
 valid.  I could listen to "the Dreaming" and announce, "Well, what this
*means* to me is that the political atmosphere of Australia renders the
consumption of hamburgers a trivial and senseless pasttime."  

Okay, perhaps that example's a bit extreme and silly, but my point is that
any person, regardless of knowledge on the subject, can come up with any
piece of drivel and by your method of finding the meaning, it would be deemed
a legitimate interpretation.  *That* is what I cannot find room for within my
framework of understanding the interpretational process.

Just because people think they can develop meaning from thin air, does not
mean that they have done so.  It means they have erred in their
interpretational method.  This is one of the many reasons why people in the
world today are so wishy-washy regarding the meanings of just about anything.
 "You stay over there and do your thing and I'll stay over here and do my
thing and let's not discuss it again" is the attitude among 20th century
Americans....and may well be the attitude of others throughout the world,
although I don't know enough to say.  This "I'll do it my way and you do it
your way" is a nice, friendly, and peaceful way of tolerating others, but
while we're all doing things our own way, there is no longer a sense of
responsibility toward the truth.  And that, is where your interpretational
method falls short and that is a shame.

But in the end, the MOST IMPORTANT part of this discussion is that we're all
enjoying Kate's music and *that's* what makes us a happy community of
Love-Hounds, despite our differing beliefs on certain matters!   :-)

~~~Sam

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 9 Nov 1997 05:01:59 -0500 (EST)
From: GAFFA86@aol.com
To: love-hounds@gryphon.com
Subject: symbol on TSW
Message-ID: <971109050159_-895558650@mrin54.mail.aol.com>

I am not a member of the KBC--(but I am a big fan I swear!!)---but
anyway--for 8 years this has plagued me----where is the TK club symbol on The
Sensual World??? The few people I have talked to have told me it is on the
far right but I am still insistent that it is on the right side of Kate's
upper forehead---what is the truth???
Thanks,
Sheila.

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 9 Nov 1997 10:42:10 -0000
From: "squidly" <squidly@clara.net>
To: <love-hounds@gryphon.com>
Subject: Re: Interpretation
Message-Id: <199711091051.KAA02373@hermes.clara.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

> It's like when I say the word "can".  Now....what does this mean to you? 
Out
> of the proper context, it may well refer to any number of things:  a
"can" of
> tuna, a "can" opener, someone dancing the "can-can" or perhaps it's
someone
> assenting to the fact that they are able ("can") do a particular task. 
This
> word has a broad range of meaning, but depending upon the context, it has
a
> specific meaning which the user of the word intends to convey.  It's the
same
> with music lyrics--they are meant to convey a particular message, and
whether
> it's one word or a string of words, they can only *mean* one thing within
> their proper context, and that meaning is the meaning which the author
> intended. 

The whole point of literature/art has really passed you by, hasn't it ?

Will.

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 9 Nov 1997 10:23:00 -0500
From: heisjohn@juno.com
To: love-hounds@gryphon.com
Subject: Re: Interpretation
Message-ID: <19971109.102331.15734.0.heisjohn@juno.com>

~~~Sam wrote:
>If people don't know what A Book of Dreams is about, then they 
>shouldn't try
>to "interpret the meaning" of Kate's lyrics.  My point is that we 
>*must* put
>Kate's words into their intended context.  Kate was obviously alluding 
>to
>this particular book, and it's mandatory that her words be considered 
>within
>the context of the book and exactly what she was stating regarding 
>this
>particular piece of literature.<major snippage>

Your treatise on the "rules of interpretation" makes some valid points,
but overall, it's wound a bit tight for the worlds of art, music and
literature.

My seven year old son's favorite video happens to be Cloudbusting.  He
has obviously derived some "meaning", but he's never heard of Peter Reich
or A Book Of Dreams.  It's music; he enjoys it; that's all that matters. 
For you, me or anyone else to tell him his interpretation, whatever it
may be, is incorrect or invalid -- would pretty much redefine pedantry.

>I know like I sound like a hard-liner on this one, but I believe the 
>rules
>are there for a reason and that they apply to *all* written material.  

Again, you make a number of valid points, but the term *all* makes your
entire post a bit extremist.  At work, I spend a great deal of my day
doing objective analysis of some form or another.  At night, music helps
me unwind, and my interpretation and "analysis" becomes entirely
subjective.

Here's my extremist view, which is just about the antithesis of yours: 
Kate's music exists only for *MY* personal enjoyment.  I don't (usually)
care what she means in any of her songs; and frankly, it just doesn't
matter.  Many of her songs have very specific meanings to me (a few of
which I'm fairly certain have never even occurred to her!), but that
doesn't make them wrong or invalid.  We're talking about music here --
not designing nuclear reactors.

>How could someone in the very same classroom come up with an 
>entirely
>different meaning than my own, or which even opposed my own 
>interpretation of
>the meaning, yet we could still both be right?  It's simply not 
>logical. 

No, on the contrary, this phenomenon is purely logical!  The opposite:
everyone independently developing and arriving at the same
interpretation, would be statistically impossible (and therefore
illogical), not to mention really scary...
 
> This "I'll do it my way and you 
>do it
>your way" is a nice, friendly, and peaceful way of tolerating others, 
>but
>while we're all doing things our own way, there is no longer a sense 
>of
>responsibility toward the truth.  And that, is where your 
>interpretational
>method falls short and that is a shame.

But yours falls short for not recognizing that the interpretation of art,
music and lit are so subjective that "responsibility toward the truth"
doesn't even enter into the equation.

John

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 9 Nov 1997 17:32:33 +0000
From: Mike Holmes <mike@mc-h.demon.co.uk>
To: Gaffa-Web <love-hounds@gryphon.com>
Subject: Re: symbol on TSW
Message-ID: <wky9lAAxOfZ0EwVJ@mc-h.demon.co.uk>

In article <971109050159_-895558650@mrin54.mail.aol.com>,
GAFFA86@aol.com writes
>I am not a member of the KBC--(but I am a big fan I swear!!)---but
>anyway--for 8 years this has plagued me----where is the TK club symbol on The
>Sensual World??? The few people I have talked to have told me it is on the
>far right but I am still insistent that it is on the right side of Kate's
>upper forehead---what is the truth???
>Thanks,
>Sheila.
>
Pardon my naivety, are we discussing the single or the album? I've just
(this very minute) been all over my vinyl UK album copy (circa soon-as-
it-came-out) & can't see it. Or is it really that obscure? Or are there
variations?
(Perhaps it's a popular myth!)

-- 
Mike H
"She [was] like the Spice Girls all rolled in one with a flake on top."_O_
       (Re WH, on the pop-quiz 'Never Mind The Buzzcocks', BBC2 Sep 97) |<
A genuinely affectionate quip, nevertheless she's MUCH better than that

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 9 Nov 1997 19:55:56 +0000
From: Mike Holmes <mike@mc-h.demon.co.uk>
To: Gaffa-Web <love-hounds@gryphon.com>
Subject: Re: symbol on TSW
Message-ID: <pKtbeLAMVhZ0EwUC@mc-h.demon.co.uk>

In message <01bced46$ae3788e0$987de3c7@gate.net.gate.net>, He Is John
<heisjohn@gate.net> writes
>>(Perhaps it's a popular myth!)
>
>
>Nope, it's not a myth.  The symbol appears on the front cover at
>approximately 2 O'clock; about a half inch from the right edge; roughly an
>inch below the "H" in "Kate Bush".
>
>John
Good God, so it is. I should also add it's slewed about 30 degrees anti-
clockwise. Can you see it now, Sheila? It's camouflaged to look like a
bit of the background pattern (grey on black).

-- 
Mike H
"She [was] like the Spice Girls all rolled in one with a flake on top."_O_
       (Re WH, on the pop-quiz 'Never Mind The Buzzcocks', BBC2 Sep 97) |<
A genuinely affectionate quip, nevertheless she's MUCH better than that

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 10 Nov 97 09:36:04 +0100
From: Rolf.Peukert@theoinf.tu-ilmenau.de (Rolf Peukert)
To: love-hounds@gryphon.com
Subject: Kate items for trade
Message-Id: <9711100836.AA00334@maui.theoinf.tu-ilmenau.de>

Hi,

due to a not very wise decision of mine, I now have a duplicate
"This Woman's Work" CD box set. It's a UK version in excellent
condition, the six regular albums come with liner notes including
lyrics, the two compilation CDs only with short info leaflets
(as usual), of course there's also the extra photo booklet (no
stckers though). I would like to trade it for a Canadian or a
Japanese CD box set.

other items to trade (for almost anything I don't have yet):

Breathing 7" single, UK, EMI 5058
Sat In Your Lap 7" single, UK, EMI 5201
Wuthering Heights 7" single, Germany, EMI 1C006-06596 
  (writing on cover and label)

Kate Bush (5-track Mini-LP), USA, EMI/Capitol MLP-19004
Kate Bush (6-track Mini-LP), Canada, Capitol/EMI MLP-19004
The Kick Inside, USA, SW-17003

This Woman's Work CD5 single, UK, EMI CDEM 119
Moments Of Pleasure 1-track promo CD, UK, CDEMDJ 297

Midge Ure - Answers To Nothing LP, Germany, Chrysalis 209303
  (features the Kate duet "Sister and Brother")
  
email me for details.

ciao,
Rolf

--------------------------------
End of love-hounds-digest Digest V13 Issue #281
***********************************************