Back to LH History main page
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 85 13:38:12 est
From: nessus (Doug Alan)
Subject: Holly shit!
I've been scheduled an interview with Kate Bush for next week! If anyone has any questions they want asked, better recommend them now.
Someone please catch me before I fain
Date: Thu, 14 Nov 85 14:05:54 EST
From: hsut@purdue-ecn.ARPA (Tsun-Yuk Hsu)
Subject: Questions for Kate
How about asking Kate about the verse we couldn't trace at the end of Jig of Life? If John Carter Bush wrote it, where can I get a copy of his poetry?
Bill Hsu
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 85 18:26:55 est
From: nessus (Doug Alan)
Subject: Re: KB interview
> Ask her to marry you, Doug!
Not until she gives up smoking.
"Breathing, breathing her nicotine, breathing"
"Nicotine attack! Nicotine, nicotine!"
Doug
Date: Sat, 16 Nov 85 17:11:28 est
From: nessus (Doug Alan)
Subject: Love-Hounds will be on auto-pilot
In a couple of days, I'm going to New York for about a week. Then I'm coming back for a couple of days, and then I'm going to England for a couple of weeks. So for most of this time, I won't be here to deal with any requests or problems. Hopefully, nothing will go wrong. If some serious problem occurs, like a horrible mail loop, someone please send mail to bcn@mit-eddie, and tell him to turn of the list.
Your semi-existant mailing list maintainer,
Doug
Date: Sun, 17 Nov 85 19:59:41 est
From: harvard!topaz!jerpc.PE.UUCP
Subject: Re: Holly shit!
> I've been scheduled an interview with Kate Bush for next week! If anyone has any questions they want asked, better recommend them now.
To-ledo, Doug, this is amazing! Gee, whiz! Is this a live, on-the-air interview, or a magazine-type interview? I mean, can you ask her *real* questions, like, "Doesn't this song really mean this?" or can you only ask safe questions like, "how do you feel to be finally accepted in America?"
My, goodness, now, if I were going to talk to Kate Bush, and if I were not put off by some guarded persona she assumed, I would ask some questions like this... not that they are the sort of questions you could ask in interviews, but just as an exercise of fantasy...
1) In "All the Love," you expressed a feeling of fear and vulnerability at the reaction of critics to songs you had written that made them "think you're up to something wierd," and said that the next time, you'd give them what they want to hear. Was this behind your change of style in Hounds of Love ? Do you have any regrets at doing this?
2) Despite what some shallow types say, I am convinced that "Running up the Hill" really is about the objectification of women: men treating women like objects, rather than as equals, and a desire to switch places so they could understand how unjust this is. Is this interpretation totally wrong?
3) In "The Ninth Wave," in the first song ("And Dream of Sheep"), the woman in the water experiences hypothermia, and with it, a desire to go to sleep. Yet, if she went to sleep, she would surely die. How does this relate, then, to the astronaut saying "Go to sleep, little Earth?" at the end of "Hello Earth"?
4) Does the "old lady" in "Jig of Life" represent the folding-of-time perceived by a woman who looks in the mirror and suddenly sees a face reminiscent of her mother's when she was born?
5) Is this folding-of-time represented again by the "you asleep on the seat" in "Hello, Earth"? Or who is this "you"?
6) In the phrase "Help this blackbird," there seems to be this parallel sound-meaning: "Help this black bard." Yes?
7) What does the reference to Ireland in "The Big Sky" mean?
8) In "Suspended in Gaffa," you seem to suggest the idea that by choosing the path of an entertainer, you have bound yourself against progress to a higher level of enlightenment; that your spiritual progress is "suspended in Gaffa." Yet the conclusion of "The Ninth Wave" is quite opposite this idea. Does this reflect a change in your ideologies in the past few years?
9) Don't give up! "The Dreaming" was great, and you shouldn't let the critics mislead you. You can have your immortality now or later.
Well, that's about it... as I said, I doubt you could really ask those things, unless you felt a real rapport with the interviewee... and then she might get mad and go away.
PS - What is "Holly shit"?
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 85 13:02:59 est
From: nessus (Doug Alan)
Subject: My chat with Kate Bush
As you probably now realize, I survived my chat with Kate Bush. I got to talk with her for about half an hour, and have much of it on tape. She's just about the nicest person you could imagine meeting and was very friendly. She seemed a little weary, though, because they were definitely running her ragged. I was one of many people to interview her that day, and I'd never have thought it possible to cram so many events into one week. For example, she was signing records at Tower Records from 3 to 5 on Thursday (the line went three quarters of the way around a New York City block! they had to turn away the vast majority of the people) and then they rushed her off to be on "Live At Five", which ends at six.
To answer the question that has been foremost on all of your minds, "What does Kate Bush feed her cats?" No, she doesn't feed them spinach lazania -- she feeds them "fishy wishy" from a tin.
And John Carder Bush wrote the narration in "Jig Of Life" and "Breathing" and the lyrics to "My Lagan Love".
I don't have time to say much more right now because I'm leaving for England in a few hours. When I get back, I'll type in a transcription of the interview and you'll get to see me explain the sex life of mules to Kate. And see Kate tell me how making love was much easier back in childhood. (Precocious kid! How's that for a tantalizing trailer?)
"Before you know I'll be over the water like a swallow"
"To be in England In the wintertime
With my love Close to the edge"
Doug
Date: Tue, 3 Dec 85 13:16:51 EST
From: Jim Hofmann <hofmann@AMSAA.ARPA>
Subject: When Doug is away, the The will play ...
In case anyone didn't catch it, Doug is in England for awhile so we ought to talk about other music until he floods our senses with his Bush interview ... can't wait, Doug! ... he told me he got the interview mostly because he made the acquaintance of an EMI rep at a Roger Miller show ... I think he lied about the size of love-hounds but praise duh Lawd that the guy fell for it.
Date: Thu, 19 Dec 85 00:03:54 est
From: nessus (Doug Alan)
Subject: Orgo/anon
P.S. I asked Kate why she misspelled "Orgonon" and "Organon", and she said it wasn't intentional. "Organon" is a real word and Wilhelm Reich used "Orgonon" as a pun....
Date: Thu, 9 Jan 86 05:20:30 est
From: nessus (Doug Alan)
Subject: My tete-a-tete with Kate
Half An Hour With Kate Bush
An interview by Doug Alan
(C) Copyright 1985 by Doug Alan. All rights reserved.
"I was going to ask you for a fag, but this man might kill me" are the first words I hear from Kate Bush as I am shown into her small but comfortable hotel room in Manhattan by an EMI-America representative. I guess Kate noticed my T-Shirt with an international No Smoking symbol proudly emblazoned on its front.
I want to reply "No, Kate, I don't have to -- you're killing yourself by smoking!". But I can't manage to get out these words to an idol, especially when my heart feels like it's going to pound my brain permanently into mush.
Maybe it's all for the best, anyway. Maybe it's all that tar coating her vocal chords that has allowed her to sing lower and with more rawness and power ever since "Breathing" ("...Breathing her nicotine..."), the last song on her third album Never for Ever, without damaging her ability to also sing unbelievably beautifully when desired.
I want to reply "No, Kate...", but instead, I just manage to mumble something incoherent. The EMI representative leaves and Kate opens the window, letting in an atmospheric Manhattan sound. She is here in the States for the first time since '78. She has come to promote her new album, Hounds of Love, for one week, and I have half an hour of that week.
Hounds of Love is Kate's fifth album, and though she has been very popular in Europe and especially in England since '78, this is the first album of hers to make it into the U.S. Top-100. It has even made it up to number one on some college album charts. This album and especially her previous album, The Dreaming, are complete masterpieces and are proof that she is a very important artist, and perhaps the most significant musical artist to have emerged in the 80's. Unfortunately, her previous album, The Dreaming, initially was not well-received in her homeland, England. It was an artistic break-through, but at the time was not recognized as such by most of the narrow-minded British music press or by much of the record-buying public. Ironically, in the U.S., where Kate Bush had been previously pretty much ignored, The Dreaming received nearly unanimous critical adulation, though perhaps not inciting amazing record sales.
Fortunately, her new album, Hounds of Love, has been received unbelievably well by the both the British and American press. Out of dozens of reviews, I have only seen one negative review, and most of the reviews are 5 star raves. It is also selling incredibly well throughout the world, and including, amazingly enough, the U.S.
These facts, and that she has one of the strongest and perhaps the most dedicated cult following of any musical artist, mean that in the near future she will probably become more widely recognized as one of the most important forces in contemporary music.
Why does she have such a dedicated cult following? What is it about her music that stirs such passion in many listeners that her fans have spawned more fanzines and fan clubs than I can even count? Well, being one of her biggest fans, I'm probably somewhat qualified to comment.
I guess that to those whom she reaches, she touches deeply. To those whom she reaches, her music takes them to another world -- this world. This world viewed through Kate-colored glasses. An escape from reality into reality. Where one is shown the beauty of ugliness and the ugliness of beauty. A world where estranged lovers settle their differences by transforming into mules. Where electronic swallows and blackbirds swoop and dive through the recesses of the inner mind. Where hounds attack to tear you apart with love and witches try themselves. Where Irish jigs and Greek fire dance rhythms, and digital sonic landscapes, and Aborigine and African drums, and flanged voices, and Tennyson poems and movies about vampires are coherently aspects of One. A world where always We Let The Weirdness In. A world where frustration and pain are fundamental and essential, but where there is always hope and love and joy. A world of infinite pain and infinite pleasure. A mirror for all that is important in life. Life itself!
Uh, hmmmm.... I'm sorry.... Perhaps I should just move on to the interview. I interviewed Kate on the evening of November 20th. It is a summer day in the middle of November. 75 degrees warm. A warm and unusual day to interview a warm and unusual person. Kate has opened the window letting in the atmospheric honks and roars of Manhattan traffic to add flavor to our conversation.
I mumble something to Kate about Dali and her being my favorite artists, and I give her a present of a record album: Birdsongs of the Mesozoic's Magnetic Flip. She thanks me sincerely. She is incredibly nice. Soon I remember that I have only half an hour, and I manage to pile out my tape equipment, connect up the microphones, and start the tape rolling.....
KATE: One, one, one, one, one, two, two, testing. Am I loud and clear?
DOUG: That sounds pretty good.
KATE: Good!
[My microphone doesn't appear to be working, however....]
DOUG: I don't sound so good, though.... I don't matter -- I can dub my voice in later.
KATE: [Laughs] Ask me completely different questions, eh? [Laughs again.]
[I try to think of a witty reply, but my has brain has long since ceased functioning, and instead I just mumble something incoherent again. Kate makes an obscene throat-clearing noise -- a noise probably only possible for a smoker.
I flounder around for a few moments, but soon figure out that my microphone isn't turned on....]
DOUG: Now I'm coming in!
KATE: Great!
DOUG: Okay... I guess I'm ready to start.
A song of yours for which the symbolism in the lyrics really fascinates me is "There Goes A Tenner" [from The Dreaming]. You've said that it is just a simple song about bank robbery, but the more I look at it, the more it seems that nearly every line is really sort of an allusion to your recording career at the the time you were recording The Dreaming. You wouldn't deny that this was intended, would you?
KATE: Yes, I would deny it.
DOUG: You would?
KATE: Yes, it's very much a song about bank robbery. I wouldn't say it was a simple song about bank robbery, but it's about the fear that people feel rather than the glorification of bank robbers.
DOUG: I dunno. It seems like... well, to me it seems every line sort of could parallel your recording career. I won't go and explain it, but like one example is "There Goes A Tenner". "Tenner" could be a ten dollar bill -- it could also be a level of singing: you know, like soprano, alto, tenor. And sort of every line is like that. But you don't agree?
KATE: Well, no I don't because that's not... that was... nothing that was in my head when I was writing it. But then I think the interpretations that people have of your songs afterwards are nothing to do with me anyway. I think it's up to them to get what they can out of the song.
DOUG: Okay. That seems reasonable. Maybe it was all subconscious. It seems so perfect to me. I dunno.
I read an interview where the interviewer asked you if "Running Up That Hill" is about the contemplation of suicide. And I thought that was pretty amusing, because it seemed to me clearly not to about any such thing at all. On the other hand, strangely enough, that's just what "Under The Ivy" [the B-side to Kate's "Running Up That Hill" single] seems to be about to me. The tone of the song is very, very sad. And it seems to be about longing for the lost innocence of youth -- perhaps a follow-up to "In Search Of Peter Pan" [from Kate's second album "Lionheart"]. A white rose is a strong image in the song. And it could be a symbol for friendship or innocence, but it could also be a symbol for death. You sing "Away from the party", and it seems like you might almost mean "away from the problems and triviality of modern day life". You sing "It wouldn't take me long to tell you how to find it", and it seems like you might almost be addressing Death itself. You mention a secret, but never mention what it is. Could it be the taboo subject of suicide?
What are your feelings about this interpretation, and what were you intentions with the song?
KATE: Well, I think...uh, it... perhaps you are reading much more into it than was originally intended when I wrote it. It's very much a song about someone who is sneaking away from a party to meet someone elusively, secretly, and to possibly make love with them, or just to communicate, but it's secret, and it's something they used to do and that they won't be able to do again. It's about a nostalgic, revisited moment.
DOUG: Is there any reason why it's so sad?
KATE: I think it's sad because it's about someone who is recalling a moment when perhaps they used to do it when they were innocent and when they were children, and it's something that they're having to sneak away to do privately now as adults.
DOUG: "My Lagan Love" [the bonus track on Kate's "Cloudbusting" 12-inch single] is another song of yours that seems very sad. I looked up the word "lagan" in the dictionary, and it means "cargo thrown into the sea attached to a buoy so that it can be recovered later". But you use the word "Lagan" as a name of someone, perhaps a deity. In any case, the dictionary meaning seems to go well with the song, because it seems in the song that your Lagan love has died. You sing "Where Lagan's light fell on the hour/ I saw him far below me/ Just as the morning calmed the storm/ With no one there to hold him". This seems to conjure up the image of looking down into a grave at your Lagan love. But perhaps he will return again "when the sun and the moon meet on yon hill," [Kate smiles] or whatever. Could you say more about this song?
KATE: Yes, "My Lagan Love" is a traditional song that is one of the most beautiful tunes I think exists in traditional music. And throughout the years, people have used the song and their own versions of the lyrics to it. The most famous version of the song, I think, uses lyrics from a Keats poem.
I wanted to do a track that wouldn't be on the album, that would go on the twelve inch, so that people that were buying the album and the single had something extra that didn't come off the album. And it seemed like a quick, easy track to do, that would be unaccompanied -- a traditional song.
DOUG: Did you agree with that meaning of the song, or what was your intentions with the meaning of the lyrics?
KATE: I think the lyrics are really just a vehicle for the song. I wanted to do the song and it had no traditional lyrics. We had to find some to go with it, so we pulled together some lyrics with my brothers and just put them to the music. It wasn't something that I put a great deal of thought into at all. [Tiny laugh.]
DOUG: Okay.
[It turns out that John Carder Bush, Kate's oldest brother, wrote the lyrics Kate sings to "My Lagan Love". When I talked to him about it, he said that the song is indeed about a woman's lover who has died, and the lines quoted above do describe her looking down into his grave. It is based on a story by James Joyce called "The Dubliners". Lagan, it turns out, is a place in Ireland, and John was not aware of the dictionary meaning of the word "lagan" before I mentioned it to him, but he said that the dictionary meaning really is very appropriate for the song, and was amused by this coincidence.]
DOUG: "Burning Bridge", the other song on your [Kate makes another obscene throat clearing noise] "Cloudbusting" single, seems to be a more desperate retelling to me of a much earlier song of yours, "Passing Through Air". Could you say something about "Burning Bridge"?
KATE: Umm, again it was a song that was totally created for a B-side, and I knew that it was going on the other side of "Cloudbusting". "Cloudbusting" is not necessarily an up-tempo song and I feel that flips of records should be something that counterbalances the energy of the other side. So, I wanted something that was relatively up-tempo, and just a fun song. I don't think the lyrics are by any means profound, but it was something that I felt was fun to do and was a very different energy from the A-side of the record.
DOUG: It's sort of... I don't know if it's incredibly... I mean it's up-tempo, but it still has a sort of desperate sadness to it, don't you think?
KATE: Actually, I think it's incredibly positive and quite trivial.
DOUG: Okay. [Tiny laugh.]
KATE: [Tiny laugh.]
DOUG: On the song "Jig Of Life", you seem to hint that you are planning on maybe having children. In an interview 6 or 7 years ago, I believe you said that you weren't planning on having children, but that if you did it would mean the end of your recording career. Have you changed your mind about having children? And if so, would you really give up your recording career?
KATE: I haven't changed my mind about having children, no. But it's not necessarily something that I wouldn't change my mind about at some point. "The Jig Of Life" is very much about the visitation of the future. Your future self coming to visit you to stop you dying -- to make sure you stay alive. And the use of the mention of children is really to use the image. In the future, apart from getting old, what happens to people? They get married; they have kids. So that's why it's being used -- purely as a poetical vehicle of explaining the situation that time has passed between the present and the future.
DOUG: But you don't necessarily see that happening to you, in specific?
KATE: No I don't, no.
DOUG: I have a problem with big record companies, in that I don't like to view Art as Big Business. Most large record companies seem much more concerned with making money than with encouraging art. But in order for many artists to make enough money to record albums the way they want to, it's a necessary thing to record for large record companies. And in fact, many of my favorite artists do. What is your opinion on the commercialization of art?
KATE: I think the purpose of a record company is to sell as many records as they can, and that is their total main concern. If something is successful, they are happy. If something is artistically good, but is not successful, then they can't really be prepared to follow that through. Their business is not art -- it's money and selling records to make money.
I think that's part of the reason why the business is so hard, because you're talking about two completely different forces having to be integrated. Artistic people, a lot of the time, don't have a good business sense, and a lot of the time it's totally against everything they feel -- it's about money, commercialization, exploitation. It's not anything to do with a creative spirit, which deals in sensitivity and observation of people, emotions. They're two completely different forces. And I think to survive in this business, you have to be realistic, and if music is what matters to you, there's a certain amount of business that you have to be involved in in order to be able to keep making music.
So, I think for me, the way I cope with it, is to try and keep a realistic balance between the things I like and don't like doing. I have to do things I don't like in order to make sure my work will survive.
DOUG: Sounds like a good answer to me....
I think the The Dreaming is just about as good an album as any ever recorded, but unfortunately, it wasn't much of a commercial success compared to your other albums. Was The Dreaming financially successful enough so that if all your records were only that successful, you'd still be able to continue making records the way you want to?
KATE: That's a very difficult question. I don't know. I think as long as an album is relatively successful, then you can afford to make another one. I think also, the thing about records is that they don't necessarily stop selling after a year of being released. I think it's possible that The Dreaming could continue to sell more than the others in the future...
DOUG: Sure hope so! [Wait.... I didn't mean to say that that way....]
KATE: ...and that that might be the one that keeps me in my old age. [Small laugh.] It's very difficult to say, and I think all I do really is put out the best I can, and hope people like it. And if I've done the best I can, then there's nothing more I can do.
DOUG: One can't help but notice that the first three songs on your new album, though quite excellent indeed, have a distinctly more "commercial pop" sound to them than anything on The Dreaming. Was this to help make the album sell better than The Dreaming, or did you feel it artistically important to make some music that might be more accessible to more people, or did it just come sort of come out that way?
KATE: I don't feel that it is that much more obviously commercial. I mean, I think from what people say, they feel that it is, but for me they are very similar energies. They are just trying to create as interesting a song as possible with the best production to accompany it. And to make it different. And I think what makes it more accessible for people is the consistency of rhythm. I can't really see that much difference... apart from how different songs are anyway from each other.
DOUG: Well, did you think to yourself "Well, if I use a consistency of rhythm that it will be more accessible to more people" when you went about writing the song, or did you...
KATE: No...
DOUG: ...just want to do that?
KATE: Well, I write a song because it's what I like at the time. On the last album [The Dreaming] I was beginning to get very intrigued with the use of rhythm. I really like using rhythm, and I think this album is a progression of how I've learned to work with it.
DOUG: Your song "Breathing" seems to be written from the point of view of a fetus about to be born into a post-holocaust world. One might think from this and from your being a vegetarian, that you would be opposed to abortion. What are you feelings on the morality and legality of abortion?
KATE: I think that is a very difficult subject and something that's far too easy to generalize about. But I think that life is something that should be respected and honored even in a few hours of its conception.
DOUG: Do you think that abortion should be illegal?
KATE: I don't feel that I want to comment on that.
DOUG: Okay....
When I first heard the title of your new album Hounds of Love, a long time before the album was actually released, it seemed to me like a reference to fans. It sort of conjured up the image of The Beatles constantly being hounded by their adoring fans, who would attack them, because each fan wanted a little piece of their idols. So the title "Hounds of Love" seems to hint at a love/hate relationship with fans. The Love/Hate relationship also seems to be symbolized on the picture sleeve to "Running Up That Hill", where you are aiming a bow that could be Cupid's bow, but is also a deadly weapon. Did you have these things in mind?
KATE: No, I'd like to say straight away it's absolutely nothing to do with a love/hate relationship with fans and, in fact, that, as far as I am concerned, is something that doesn't exist. I have no resentment or dislike for any of the people that like my music, at all. If anything, it's a great honor for me that such nice people are attracted by the music. And that song has nothing to do with fans -- it's about love -- it's about someone who's afraid of being captured by love, and it's seeing love as a pack of hounds that's coming to get them. [Doesn't remind me of fans, at all....] As something that they're frightened of -- not willing to accept.
DOUG: Well, I would sort of maintain that any love relationship is a love/hate relationship, in that...
KATE: Yes...
DOUG: ... there are always problems that come along with...
KATE: I would totally agree, but it's got nothing to do with my fans.
DOUG: Okay....
In the song "Hounds of Love", what do you mean by the line "I'll be two steps on the water", other than a way of throwing off the scent of hounds, or whatever, by running through water... but why "two steps"?
KATE: Because two steps is a progression. One step could possibly mean you go forward and then you come back again. I think "two steps" suggests that you intend to go forward.
DOUG: But why not "three steps"? [Giggle.]
KATE: It could have been three steps -- it could have been ten, but "two steps" sounds better, I thought, when I wrote the song.
DOUG: Okay. [Grin.]
You've said elsewhere that "Jig of Life" was inspired by a Greek ceremony. Could you describe this ceremony and say how it appears in the song?
KATE: My brother [Paddy Bush] discovered a piece of music that was used in a Greek religious ceremony, where people worked themselves into a trance state through the hypnotic quality of the music and then begin to walk on fire. The piece of music is incredible and has a very hypnotic rhythm. And it was the piece of music that I then used to base the song upon. The inspiration was totally a musical one and a rhythmic one.
DOUG: Did you write the poem that is narrated at the end of "Jig Of Life"?
KATE: No, I didn't. My brother [John Carder Bush] wrote that.
DOUG: That's what some of us thought. It seemed like a slightly different style. It seemed more like his style -- from what people have been able to infer of his style without seeing much of his poetry.
It's a really wonderful poem.
KATE: It is.
DOUG: So, tell him I like it. [Small laugh.]
I find the use of strong symbolism and metaphor and allusions in your lyrics to be extremely interesting. For example, in "Get Out Of My House", the woman who is singing the song has been left by her lover and feels hurt, and identifies herself with a house. This is a biblical allusion. When she says "I wash the panes", it is a triple entendre, because she's saying she's washing the windows of her body, which are the eyes. This means she's crying, and by doing so, she's washing the hurt and pain away. Then she says "No stranger's feet will enter me" saying that she won't let anyone into her house, which is saying she won't let anyone into her body, which is also reinforced by the biblical use of "feet" as a euphemism for "private parts". The layers of meaning here, are pretty incredible.
Then a man tries to enter her life again, but she's too scared, and she tries to escape by flying away, but he turns into the wind. She then turns into a mule, perhaps for its stubborn ability to withstand the wind. And then he also turns into a mule. Now it seems that they have a ground for communication. Because mules are neuter, and they can communicate on a platonic level rather than a sexual level.
Now a friend of mine believes that this last part is a flaw in the song, because mules are not really neuter after all. They are only sterile. Personally, I think it isn't a flaw because the idea comes across loud and clear to me, and somehow it seems that "I change into the amoeba. Ooze. Ooze." just wouldn't work so well. So the question is, what do you think of this interpretation? And could you respond to my friend's slight criticism?
KATE: And what was your friend's criticism?
["You want my reply? What was the question?" Oh dear, I've bored Kate to death....]
DOUG: He said that the ending is a flaw because mules are not really neuter, they are only sterile.
KATE: What does he mean?
DOUG: Well, it seems to me -- and to him -- that the end of the song is sort of a positive note because they've found a grounds for communication. And sort of on a platonic level, because mules might be seen as being platonic, because....
KATE: Why? [In an intrigued tone of voice.]
DOUG: Oh... well... [Doug turns eight shades of red...] mules are sterile... uh... a donkey and a horse... you know... have a sexual relationship, and then they have mules, and mules don't have children, but they really can have sex. They just can't have children, but a lot of people actually think that they just don't have sex. Which isn't really true.
KATE: Right! [Little laugh.] Well, uh, [in an amused and puzzled tone of voice] I think you... it's kind of weird the level of interpretation that you are reading into things, because... I mean, a mule -- in our country -- all it represents is a stupid animal. They are considered stupid. And that's the allusion that was being used in that case. And it's very much a play on a traditional song called "The Two Magicians" about someone who's trying to escape someone, and they keep changing their form in order to escape them. But the other thing keeps changing its form. And that's actually what the whole song is about -- someone who is running away from something they don't want to face, but wherever they go, the thing will follow them. Basically, you can't run away from things -- you've got to confront things. And it's using the person as the imagery of a house, where they won't let anyone in, they lock all the doors and windows, and put a guard on the front door. But I think the essence of the song is about someone trying to run away from things they don't like and not being able to escape -- because you can't.
DOUG: But if the symbol of mules is just stupidity, at the end, then it would seem like it would be a negative ending, and it just sort of seems to me, most of your songs... a lot of them... end on up notes. And it sort of seemed like it was a positive note at the end.
KATE: Yes, I think the mule is that kind of... the stupid confrontation... I mean, there's not really that much to read into it. It was the idea of playing around with changing shape, and the mule imagery was something I liked ordurely. The whole thing of this wild, stupid, mad creature just turning around and going, you know, eeyore, eeyore [Kate makes convincing eeyore sounds].
I don't know if you saw Pinoccio, but there's an incredibly heavy scene in there, where one of the little boys turns into a donkey -- a mule. And it's very heavy stuff.
DOUG: I haven't seen that since about six [which is at least a year or two ago...], but I think I remember that... it's a strong image.
KATE: Well, maybe you should see it again. It's a good film.
DOUG: In a recent interview you said "I don't really know why people think my songs are strange." I'm not sure that this was said by the same person who sings "We let the weirdness in" at the end of the song "Leave It Open". In any case, what is really strange about the singing at the end of "Leave It Open", is that if you play it backwards, it also sounds like intelligible singing. In fact, it sounds to me like "And they said they wouldn't let me in", which is wonderful because then it has the opposite meaning backwards as it does forwards.
There is also something like this on Hounds of Love in the song "Watching You Without Me". There is one part where you sing what to me sounds like "Really see" repeated several times. And if you play this backwards, it sounds exactly the same. Still like "Really see", though I'm not sure it's "Really see" -- it just sounds like that to me. But whatever it sounds like, it sounds exactly the same backwards. Well, the question is, I'd be really interested in knowing how you did this sort of manipulation.
KATE: Well, that's something I've been experimenting with for a while, and would like to continue experimenting. It's just a way of using backwards ideas, but actually saying something cohesively.
DOUG: But how do you actually get a message or singing which sounds like something both forwards and backwards. And what are the technical issues involved. I mean, it seems like it would be really hard to do.
KATE: It is. It's very difficult -- it takes a lot of time and an awful lot of patience.
[Kate is saved by the bell, as her brother is at the door, and my half hour is up. I talked to both of Kate's brothers sometime later, however, and neither had any qualms about giving away the secret of the two-way messages. It involves listening to singing played backwards on a tape deck, learning to sing the backwards sounds, and then recording that strange singing backwards.
In any case, Kate agrees to answer a couple more questions....]
DOUG: Of your albums, which one is your favorite?
KATE: Ummm... I think the last album you do is always the one that's closest to you because you've just spent the nearest part of your life to it, but I think for artistic fulfillment, I think The Dreaming was certainly quite rewarding to have actually achieved some of the things that we set out to do. [Doug can't agree more.] But you have very much a strange relationship -- I don't know if you really like anything you do.
DOUG: Well... I like it a lot, so...
KATE: Good! [Laughs.]
DOUG: Before we end the interview, one more quick question -- what do you feed your cats?
KATE: Ummm... food, normally.
DOUG: What kind of food?
KATE: Tinned food... and fish. Fiiiishy wiiiishy!
[Very! But I won't say anything.
("Watching the storm start to form over America".) Several hours later, at home, I turn on the TV news and hear that hurricane Kate has just hit Florida. But I was blown away years ago by a more Gael-ic Kate.]
Date: Thu, 9 Jan 86 23:54:10 est
From: nessus (Doug Alan)
Subject: KB interview
> From jer:
> It's hard to believe that poetry that is consistent, and
basically good poetry, should also be accidental. I can believe that of
Jon Anderson, who writes meaningless phrases that you find meaning in,
like patterns on a randomly-patterned wall, but not with coherent poetry.
I've written a little bit of (bad) poetry. What's really strange is that often I just write what I think is nonsense. A bunch of phrases that pop into my mind, with images and vague symbols -- but nothing coherent. Then I might find the poem in a pile of junk a while later, and when I read it, I know exactly what it means. So, did I put that meaning there unconsciously when I wrote the poem? Or did I just read that meaning into the poem later?
> Maybe there's more to it than that... I wonder if John Carder Bush reads her lyrics and says, "why don't you change this to say ..." ?
I dunno. Maybe, but I kind of doubt it. What's interesting is that Kate said that the "tenner" / "tenor" double entendre was not intended. On the other hand, I asked John Carder Bush if the "morning" / "mourning" double entendre in "My Lagan Love" was intentional and he said that it was. Now I really want to ask Kate if the triple entendre with "I wash the panes" (" I wash the windows" / "I cry" / "I wash the hurt and pain") in "Get Out Of My House" was intentional. It seems *so* perfect that it must have been! But if she thinks about this enough to have come up with such a perfect triple entendre here, then how could she have missed the "tenner" / "tenor" pun? Maybe it is all intentional, but only subconsciously....
There was a very interesting interview with Kate in a recent issue of Hot Press. She says some things that seem to hint that she does operate on a subconcious level for many things. For example, the interviewer asked her about the covers to "Lionheart" and "Hounds of Love" and said they might be seen as being somewhat kinky. Kate said that she hadn't thought about them that way before, but now that he mentioned it, maybe she did see that they could be seen that way.
Knowing no feeling
My mind wanders through your world
Only words live now
Doug
P.S. John Bush said that he'd be willing to send me some of his poetry. But I haven't gotten off my butt yet and written a letter to him. Anyone else interested?
Date: Fri, 10 Jan 86 17:10:17 EST
From: hsut@purdue-ecn.ARPA (Tsun-Yuk Hsu)
Subject: Did Kate put it there?
Doug brought up some interesting points in his interview with Kate: if there's a fairly transparent allusion or pun in some poem or lyrics, is it REALLY there if the writer denies he put it there intentionally? Harlan Ellison, for example, likes to claim that his stories are very simple and straightforward, and complains that people read too much into them.
It's interesting that John Bush claims that the wordplay in his lyrics is intentional, while Kate denies many of the puns Doug and other lovehounders found in her lyrics. Maybe John Bush, being a poet in the more traditional sense, is aware of wordplay and punning on a more conscious level, while Kate does things more on a subconscious level.
Another theory (close to what Structuralist critics think) which sidesteps the problem of the author "subconsciously" putting things into the text is that which sees texts as constructs, analogous to mathematical constructs. You can build a mathematical object (such as some weird graph) and not realise all its properties at the moment you created the construct. Same thing with poems and other text. Maybe Kate's lyrics has all these puns which she was not aware of.
Of course there are problems with this view being applied to foggy, non-mathematical things like poetry. Using this approach, a critic can almost say anything he wants about a text. If the author of the text denies having put something in the text, the critic can always say: "It is an inherent property of your text, you just didn't see it."
Bill Hsu
Date: Fri, 10 Jan 86 18:43:32 est
From: nessus (Doug Alan)
Subject: Today's dose of Katrivia
As related to me by Del Palmer: Kate did indeed do the voice of the priest/judge in "Waking The Witch". Del didn't seem 100% sure what they used in the final mix, but thinks it is Kate through a harmonizer set two octaves down. They also tried using slowed down tape, but that didn't come out as well. Originally they wanted a man to do the part, but they couldn't find anyone who could do it right.
I think it's good that Kate sang the part of the judge, because it makes it seem as if she's putting herself on trial in her mind -- which is a really powerful image.
From the mouth of Jay Bush:
Originally his poem in "Jig Of Life" was supposed to be read by some famous Irish person, but then they decided to have him read it with a put-on Irish accent, and speed up his voice to sound like an Irish woman (ed note: or maybe like Irish chipmunks...). In the end, they decided to leave it at normal speed.
From the mouth of Paddy Bush:
They will definitely do another concert
tour -- if not this year, then next. And it will make the last concert pale in comparison. And they will bring it to the U.S.
From the mouth of Kate:
They probably won't be doing another concert tour in the near future. She feels she can reach a lot more people with less effort through film or TV, but she hopes to do another concert tour before she's old and grey.
I think that Paddy's going to put on a wig and leotard and leg warmers and do it himself if Kate doesn't change her mind....
-Doug
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 86 08:34:45 est
From: nessus (Doug Alan)
Subject: Interview comments, poetry, etc.
Well, fortunately I had all my questions written out on 42 neat little index cards (of which I made it through 13 or so). Otherwise, I would have just sat there with a glazed look on my face, or something. I wasted five or ten minutes before I remembered that I was supposed to be doing an interview and started to record, being nervous and acting neurotic... (And wondering why her make-up looked so strange... But then when I went to England, many of the women were wearing the same strange style of make-up... And I went into a store, yesterday, and the cashier was wearing that same unusual style of make-up -- and guess what? She had a British accent.)
> Speaking of which, is the Kate Interview non-distributable or distributeable if your name is on it or what? It is, after all, your property.
Yeah, sure. Just don't sell it for profit, or anything.
"Oh England my lionheart
I don't want to go"
Doug
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 86 02:43:15 EST
From: nessus (Doug Alan)
Subject: Re: Kate Bushopathy
Mr. Alfke, I wouldn't expect someone who thinks that Madonna has merit to agree with the statement that pop music can be *real* literature. But I see no reason for you to spoil the fun of those who were forced to write lots of unenjoyable papers in high school on symbolism in *Hamlet* and *The Great Gatsby* and the collected works of Keats, and who have finally found something that they can apply all of this previously wasted education on and *enjoy*.
You might also speculate on the the fact that Kate refuses to talk about how she does her two-way messages or the contents of them, even though she *does* admit reluctantly that they are there, and how this strange attitude of hers might bear on her unwillingness to talk about symbolism in her words.
You might also speculate on the fact that when I asked John Carder Bush similar questions about his lyrics to those I asked Kate, he said that I was right. Consider that Kate has said on several occasions that John is one of her biggest influences.
Your parody of my interview is I feel not very appropriate. This would be much more accurate:
DOUG: In the song "The Dreaming" you sing "The Pull of the Bush" to mention the attraction of the Aborigine in Australia to the unspoiled land. But you are also making a pun on your own name. Did you have any special intention in doing this, other than in being a bit humorous?
KATE: Pun on my name? I'm not sure what you mean.
DOUG: "Bush" occurs in "Pull of the Bush".
KATE: So?
DOUG: That's your name.
KATE: I had nothing of the sort in mind when I wrote the song.
DOUG: But why is "Bush" capitalized on the lyric sheet?
KATE: It wasn't intentional.
DOUG: And in the video, the two male dancers pull on you from either side when you sing that line.
KATE: How people interpret your art really has nothing to do with you anyway. But it's great if people get as much out of it as they can.
DOUG: But surely...
KATE: Excuse me for a moment -- I have to use the bathroom.
In any case, I just got a letter from John Carder Bush (and a pile of his poetry) that some might find somewhat interesting:
Dear Doug,
Thanks for your interesting letter; it's nice to meet someone these days who gets excited about words.
[Two pages of stuff...]
Entendres are, indeed, interesting things. Over the years I have evolved a sort of personal understanding of this planet / God / life in terms of rhyme. If you can see the Supreme Being as merely a harmonizing force, then coincidence, synchronicity are easily explained; as the poet makes his rhymes, the pattern of life makes its rhymes. And in double, tripple, or whatever, entendres, the poet exercises a god-like technique.
Keeping this in mind, I feel that for someone working in an artistic medium, and thence becoming "godlike", by imitation, there must come a series of levels of progress, each level preceded by intense periods of obsession and worry with the creation -- late nights, wrong food, ill health, etc. -- and at each level something crystallises, and an energy vortex with a consciousness of its own starts going.
Once it is able to generate its own creative direction, it needs to be fed and looked after like any machine, but it can be relied on to offer up an image, a line, in which the levels are all there, up and down, and can be understood depending on the level of the receiver. Sufi stories, Zen stories, Greek myths all have this spiralling mult-interpretation power, as do all the great written works of religion. You can keep coming back to them and finding the next level confirmed as you grow.
So I am sure you are right when you find these meanings in Kate's music, but whether it was conscious or unconscious is not important if you accept that she is a vehicle for the Great Rhymer. Kate's subject matter for her lyrics has always been extraordinary, which I think comes from an ability to empathise with life forms that is unusually sensitive.
So, I hope you enjoy these poems and watch out for Big Sky, soon to be released over here and the video is the best so far.
All that's good,
John
-Doug
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 88 15:12 PDT
From: IED0DXM%UCLAMVS.BITNET@MITVMA.MIT.EDU
Subject: MisK. (Mailbag)
As for your ridicule of poor |>oug's question to Kate re catfood, IED has said before and will say again that in his opinion that was --seriously -- the most interesting and daring question (among many such) that |>oug put to Kate during his interview -- and if nothing else, |>oug's questions were certainly the most "challenging" ones anyone has posed to Kate so far, so this is saying alot. It wasn't a "silly" question at all, nor was Kate's answer without serious meaning. Whatever its faults (a matter of opinion, perhaps), |>oug's interview is worth careful re-reading by all Kate fans.
-- Andrew Marvick
Date: Mon, 12 Sep 88 15:01 PDT
From: IED0DXM%OAC.UCLA.EDU@MITVMA.MIT.EDU
Subject: IED gets his comeuppance, again; and misK. mailbag items
> I have never met anyone so pompous as to suggest to an artist TO HER FACE that he knows more about her songs than she does.
That's a really tough way to look at |>oug's interview. When IED looks back on his own encounter with Kate (not more than ten days later than |>oug's, though a continent away), he is much less inclined to trash |>oug for what were undeniably some poor word-choices on his part. What |>oug says is true: IED would (and did) make just as big a fool of himself in Kate's presence as |>oug did -- his foolishness just didn't happen to manifest itself in quite the same way, that's all. All Kate Bush fans beware before casting the first stone: considering God in the abstract is relatively easy, but actually carrying on a conversation with Her in the flesh is not.
And whether |>oug's attitude was "conceited" or not, he definitely got an interesting and revealing response from Kate, and that in itself is a kind of vindication of the argument (which IED espouses) that journalists who interview Kate, for all their dispassionate savoir-faire in the crunch, would be better replaced by jumpy, scared-as-hell Kate fans; in the long run, we'd all learn a lot more about her and her art. |>oug's tactics may have been miscalculated, but his intentions were right on the money.
> Do you think <Kate>'d really be flattered by all this adolescent fantasising? (I don't know, perhaps you ARE adolescents, in which case congratulations on discovering Kate Bush at such tender years :-)
IED is no adolescent...alas. He's approximately Kate's age. Kate might follow the tongue-in-cheek tone of many of Love-Hounds's postings (even a few of IED's) a bit better than you seem to, good Plumsteader. And |>oug, she does too follow Love-Hounds. You have no faith! She's got a secret spy network carefully monitoring Love-Hounds discussions and giving her weekly minutes of the latest hot issues. In fact, you wait and see if there isn't a posting from her this week, ridiculing IED's idea of "Gaffa" being a place-name.
From: Doug Alan <nessus@athena.mit.edu>
Date: Fri, 21 Apr 89 20:56:38 EST
Subject: Mules
I recently was looking through some comments IED made on my interview with Kate Bush and I have decided to take a few moments to counter. (|>oug is also wondering how his interview got so thoroughly reformated by IED. Did IED go through the effort of retyping |>oug's entire interview? This would hardly have been necessary considering that |>oug can most certainly guarantee that he still has it online.)
> KATE: Right! Well, um...I think you...It's kind of weird the level of interpretation that you are reading into things, because...I mean, a mule--in our country--all it represents is a stupid animal. They are considered stupid.
> <This, of course, is the dominant significance of the mule as a > symbol in the United States, as well. The expression "stubborn as a > mule" is considerably better known in both countries than the > sterile condition of the animal--as the interviewer ought to know.>
Of course, "stupid" and "stuborn" are two completely different words with completely different meanings. Yes, in the U.S. mules are used very often to symbolize stubborness. They are not however often used to symbolize stupidity. In fact, mules are often very stubborn animals. They are also, in fact, very intelligent animals. The distinction bewteen stupidity and stuborness is something that Mr. Marvick ought very well to know.
The reason that the use of the mule to represent stuborness did not occur to me is that the song "Get Out Of My House" seemed to have a happy ending. (And of course, the mule could never symbolize stupidity to me because mules just don't symbolize stupity --jackasses do, but a mule is not a jackass). The man and woman seemed to have found something in common in their muleness and sang to each other.
I'm not the only one who had this interpretation. I spoke to many people about the song over the years, and most of them seemed to feel also that the song had a happy ending, and that the man and woman were happy to be mules together. The challenge then in interpreting the song was to figure out why it was a happy thing for the man and woman to become mules. The sexual neutrality of mules then seemed like a likely explanation. Other people I talked with before approaching Kate with the issue seemed to think it a reasonable theory.
Kate, on the other hand, says that she intended the song to have a unhappy ending. The song is in my opinion one of the very best songs ever written, however, her unhappy intention with the ending certainly wasn't communicated to me. Quite to the contary.
> DOUG: (Kate is saved by the bell, as her brother is at the door, and my half hour is up. I talked to both of Kate's brothers some time later, however, and neither had any qualms about giving away the secret of the two-way messages. It involves listening to singing played backwards on a tape deck, learning to sing the backwards sounds, and then recording that strange singing backwards....)
> <This is apparently a reference to the explanation given by Paddy and John to the entire audience of the 1985 Kate Bush Convention in Romford, England. In fact, however, their description of the process does nothing to explain the apparent presence of two simultaneous messages, only the basic method of creating the first, "backwards" message.>
Do you have to assume me a liar, IED? This is not a reference to the explanation given by Paddy and John at the KBC Convention -- rather it is a reference primarily to an explanation given to me by John Carder Bush at Tower Records in Greenwich Villiage. He told me that Kate got the idea from this guy who used to appear on talk shows in England. He was sort of a human tape recorder. You could give him any sentence and he could speak it backwards. On the talk shows, they would have him speak into a tape recorder, then they would play the tape backwards, and out would come the sentence that he had been asked to speak.
I assume that the process of achieving a two-way message is much like the process of coming up with a palindrome. It takes a good feel for doing this sort of stuff, and lots of fiddling until you get something that works out. Because of Kate's auditory two-way message, and some unusual artwork I had seen once, a few years back I was inspired to devise a visual two-way message. If you read it right-side up, is says "We let the weirdness in". If you read the very same script upside down, it says "They would not let me in". Now, it's not particularly legible in either direction, but I'm no great artist, so I'm sure someone else could do a better job. If I can do a rudimentary visual two-way message, I'm sure Kate can with a bit of effort do a two-way aditory message.
|>oug
Date: Tue, 25 Apr 89 13:44 PDT
From: IED0DXM%OAC.UCLA.EDU@mitvma.mit.edu
Subject: Ooch! Ouch! Jeez, that smarts!--MUST BE DOUG ALAN'S BACK...
> Of course, "stupid" and "stuborn" are two completely different words with completely different meanings. Yes, in the U.S. mules are used very often to symbolize stubborness. They are not however often used to symbolize stupidity. In fact, mules are often very stubborn animals. They are also, in fact, very intelligent animals. The distinction bewteen stupidity and stuborness is something that Mr. Marvick ought very well to know.
IED must conclude that Doug doesn't remember that this fuss over the "mules" and "jackasses" was already the subject of a dull argument in Love-Hounds a long time ago. Why Doug suddenly wants to resuscitate it now IED has no idea; but he is happy to oblige.
Let it be understood from the beginning by anyone masochistic enough to be reading the following, however, that this time DOUG STARTED IT!
Doug simply hasn't got the point. (Admittedly, IED didn't make that point very clear in his too-brief annotation which is re-printed above, so perhaps he shares the blame with Doug.) If Doug looks at what Kate said (above), he will see that her understanding is that the mule has a simple and one-dimensional symbolic meaning. Whether that is Doug's understanding or not is quite irrelevant. This is the basic fact to which IED addressed himself.
IED's reasoning was this: Kate sees the mule as "stupid". Well, actually the mule is not associated--literally--with "stupidity" either in England or the U.S. What, then, could Kate have in mind? Well, obviously, she is thinking either of the term "stubborn as a mule" or "dumb/stupid as a jackass". The point being that, although there are differences between the precise definitions of the words "stubborn" and "stupid", just as there are differences between the precise definitions of the words "mule", "donkey" and "jackass", those differences are much smaller (especially to one who, like Kate, has just said that she thinks of the term "mule" as having only a simple and casual symbolic significance) than the basic similarities between the words. Thus "stubborn as a mule"--which does indeed conjure up associations with "stupdity", whether Doug likes it or not, and whether their precise meanings are identical or not--and "dumb as a jackass", seem to be essentially interchangeable in Kate's view-- as they are in most people's common, casual understanding of these expressions. In short: identical? No. Very similar and interchangeable in such casual contexts? Certainly!
All this has nothing to do with Doug's even more irrelevant and inapplicable drivel about the sexual condition of these various animals. Kate has already said that the association for her was a very simple one, having only one basic symbolic meaning, nothing more. She couldn't have been more explicit on this point than she was in her statement above. So what could possibly be the point of Doug's insisting on the actual distinctions which may exist between mules and jackasses? Kate doesn't recognize these distinctions (or wouldn't recog-nize them unless some fussbudget insisted pedantically on pointing them out to her), so what relevance do they have to Kate's song? The answer is none.
>The reason that the use of the mule to represent stuborness did not occur to me is that the song "Get Out Of My House" seemed to have a happy ending. (And of course, the mule could never symbolize stupidity to me because mules just don't symbolize stupity --jackasses do, but a mule is not a jackass). The man and woman seemed to have found something in common in their muleness and sang to each other.
This is quite incredible. How could Doug have thought that the ending of GOoMH was "happy"? It's true that there are many subtle changes in Kate's vocal inflection toward the end of that song. One could say that in the line "I change into the Mule" she seems to be emoting differently than in the earlier lines. But considering the "mad", frantic confrontation of "hee-haw" sounds between male and female characters in the final section of the song, it's patently ridiculous to call the ending "happy"! Certainly the lyrics don't help such a reading.
On the other hand, the ending does indeed contain the "some sort of hope in there" that Kate said (of The Ninth Wave ) she feels should be part of all works of art. If Doug re-reads the passage in question from his own interview (IED reproduces it below), he'll see that Kate was saying that the theme of the song was the error people can make of running away from their problems, and that the only way to solve problems is to confront them. She also explains that when the female character in Get Out of My House changes into a mule (whether a stubborn one or a stupid one), she does finally turn and confront the male character (who has changed into a mule as well).
This is the quintessential Kate Bush "ending"--sad but hopeful, very much like the ending of The Ninth Wave. In both, the protagonist has come to a new realization of the "right way" to proceed/feel/think, and is therefore able better to resign herself to whatever fate might befall her, whether that fate be "happy" or not. And this, of course, is an essential element of Kate's own avowed philosophy, described by her in numerous interviews.
So we do not learn what actually happens when the two mules confront each other in GOoMH ; nor is it important. What is important is that the protagonist has finally been able to confront the force which threatens her--she is no longer running from it. In a similar way the heroine of The Ninth Wave, in the final bars of The Morning Fog, has found reasons for living: whether she will actually survive the physical ordeal or not, she has at least gained a new appreciation of the important aspects of her life (love of family; and faith in the human spirit, so to speak, as represented by her "future self" in Jig of Life ). It's therefore extremely important, IED believes, that both The Dreaming and Hounds of Love, as albums, conclude with the same basic situation. In both, the ultimate "fate" of the protagonist is not resolved, because that is not the artist's concern. Rather, it is the insight that those protagonists gain along the way that matters.
This is why Kate may have made the choice of the mule, also. It is now known that, to Kate, the mule is a "stupid" animal. Its actions, in other words, are "thought-less": prompted by the crudest form of emotional stimuli or instincts. Kate has more than once insisted that music (art) is "pure emotion"--especially in the Russell Harty interview. When Harty patronizingly says "We've been to Bronte-land...Where will the arrow of your powerful intellect fall next?" Kate's immediate and strong reply is: "Well, I think the answer to that is that art is emotion. Art is pure emotion..." Her reply has always seemed to IED to represent an implied preference for the value of emotion over the intellect. If so, the choice of the "stupid" mule as the guise in which the heroine of GOoMH finally faces her "problem" makes excellent sense.
>I'm not the only one who had this interpretation. I spoke to many people about the song over the years, and most of them seemed to feel also that the song had a happy ending, and that the man and woman were happy to be mules together...The sexual neutrality of mules then seemed a likely explanation...
Again, IED doesn't see any signs of "happy endings" in GOoMH, at least not in the banal sense that Doug and his friends apparently mean. The fact that Doug was joined in this interpretation by "many people" adds no evidence of any sort that the mules enjoy a "happy" reconciliation! Doug will have to learn that he can't strengthen an inherently weak intellectual position merely by claiming that advocates as undiscriminating as himself have joined him in embracing it. "Cloudbusting" doesn't become "Cloudbursting" simply because a lot of careless listeners continue to misspell it.
> Kate, on the other hand, says that she intended the song to have a unhappy ending.
Kate does not say that she "intended the song to have a <sic> unhappy ending." If Doug reads his own interview very carefully at that point (IED reproduces the passage unedited below), he will see that Kate is basically agreeing that the choice of the "stupid" mule madly turning and confronting the other character is a more or less hopeful ending, in that it represents the resolution of Kate's theme (which is that it's important to confront one's problems, and not to run from them). There is no contradiction between the song and her comments in Doug's interview.
>> <Except that it does not sound like "And they said they wouldn't let me in" when played backwards.>
> Says you!
Well, actually, says the Kate Bush Club, too. When the solution of "We let the weirdness in" was finally submitted, it was explained in the Newsletter that such was "the" answer to the puzzle. There was no mention of any palindromic backwards message at all. On the contrary, Lisa printed several mistaken answers produced by people who had been "on the wrong track"; and all of those were attempts to interpret the message as words when played backwards. So although there has never been any explicit denial of the possibility that Doug's theory has any basis in fact, there is certainly enough against it to make it seem doubtful at the very least.
IED is grateful that Doug finally mentioned where he had heard about this subject from John (at Tower), and he apologizes for seeming to doubt Doug's honesty. That was uncalled for.
But John's explanation to Doug (at least as he just described it yesterday), does not in any way add support to Doug's own theory that Kate intended the message to say something specific when heard backwards. All John seems to have been describing was an instance of a man who could rattle off words and phrases backwards when he heard them. Obviously those words and phrases sounded like backwards nonsense when he uttered them, not new palindromic words and phrases! How, then, Doug came to think that this source inspired Kate to create a palindromic phrase, rather than merely a re-recorded backwards phrase, is inexplicable. There is simply no evidence for it, whereas there is strong evidence (in the Newsletter ) against it.
This whole issue is especially frustrating because of the lost opportunities which Doug's interview is filled with. Unfortunately, because of Doug's mysterious insistence on having Kate sit and listen to him rather than encouraging responses from Kate, he allowed many chances to slip through his fingers. IED reproduces three excerpts from Doug's interview, without cuts, but with (merciless) annotations.
In the first excerpt Doug raises the issue of the mules. In the second, he brings up the "backwards" messages. And in the third he trots out still another of his wild theories, this one about There Goes a Tenner. Yet in each of these three cases, rather than asking Kate to answer any of his many premises, Doug just runs on and on with his ideas (presenting some--admittedly not all, but a surprisingly large number nonetheless--as though they were already proven facts); and then he asks absurdly at the end, "How did you do that?" or "Comment?"--presumptious questions that are guaranteed to elicit minimal replies. The impression one gets is of a Doug Alan lecture, which Doug has generously allowed Kate Bush to attend--providing she accepts the role of an appreciative and reasonably quiet audience--on the subject of bizarre hidden meanings in the work of Kate Bush!
How this interview could ever have taken place in the manner it did is a mystery. What did Doug think was the point of having an interview with Kate Bush, anyway? Evidently it wasn't to learn something new. (Even so, Kate provided the key to a correct under-standing of the mule symbolism in her answer--which IED pointed out above--but Doug, apparently still misunderstanding her words even now, claimed wrongly yesterday that Kate's song was inconsistent with her stated objectives. For when Kate answers "Yes, I think the mule is that kind of...the stupid confrontation..." she is agreeing with Doug that there is a hopeful element to the ending of the song.) It reads more as though our "humble" pseudo-moderator has no real intention except to "present" Kate with his explanations of her own work, hoping (with truly baffling naivete) that she will actually agree with them!
When instead she actually decides she has to reject them out of hand, and in very decisive language--particularly for Kate, whose exceptional courtesy usually leads her to avoid saying "No, that's wrong" whenever possible--Doug betrays a great deal more than surprise. So unprepared is he, apparently, to accept the possibility that his ideas are ludicrously off base, that he actually doubts whether Kate is in control of her own conscious thoughts --and he voices those doubts to her face !
IED will close now, though he could pick similar holes in almost any other excerpt from "humble" Doug's "interview". The problem is, all this takes a lot of time. Doug knows how to get IED's attention, and he's done it. But he must finish this up. Anyway, what would be the point of continuing? Doug is clearly a man enmeshed in a whole skein of strange, delusory theories surrounding Kate's work. If Kate herself could not free him from his prison of egocentric fantasy, it is certain that IED will not succeed in doing so.
-- Andrew Marvick
From: Doug Alan <nessus@athena.mit.edu>
Date: Fri, 28 Apr 89 20:13:09 EST
Subject: interview
Now, regarding IED's detailed critique of my interview with Kate... I'd like to thank IED for his constructive criticism, but I assure him it is entirely unnecessary. Why bother, when I will be the first to admit it was a highly botched affair? I had never interviewed someone before -- much less an idol. I had all these questions written down on little index cards, and it was all I could do to read the cards and try to avoid wetting my pants or fainting. All higher level brain function was inoperative during the interview. All I can say is that it was me that got to make myself a fool in front of Kate Bush for half an hour and not you... NYAH, NYAH!
I also find it amusing and ironic that IED continually lambasts my bizarre theories as the product of a derranged mind, while presenting his own ridiculous theories as objective fact. Many of my derranged theories were not, in fact, developed by me alone. Some of them (particularly the theories about "Get Out of my House") came about by consent through group discussion in this very mailing list by me and several other big KB fans that were around at the time this mailing list was formed. (I think I will provide some more early Love-Hounds history sometime soon.) I guess we are all bozos on this bus.
|>oug
Date: Mon, 01 May 89 12:18 PDT
From: IED0DXM%OAC.UCLA.EDU@mitvma.mit.edu
Subject: re Dougs KT Interview
OK. But IED did get to make a fool of himself in front of Kate for about three minutes once. And he really made a fool of himself in Kate's own house once, for more than half an hour. So :>oug has no great cachet in that regard.
-- Andrew Marvick
From: Doug Alan <nessus@athena.mit.edu>
Date: Sat, 05 Aug 89 00:17:31 EDT
Subject: misKellaneous Topics
Regarding The Island Ear interview that was posted a while back, I remember it very well. The interviewer for The Island Ear was a very pretty lass that interviewed Kate immediately before I did. We both waited in fear and trepedation together (well, maybe only I was in fear and trepedation) for our turns to come up.
Time to goo to slope,
|>oug
Date: Sat, 05 Aug 89 14:12 PDT
From: IED0DXM%OAC.UCLA.EDU@mitvma.mit.edu
Subject: re interview
> Regarding The Island Ear interview that was posted a while back, I remember it very well. The interviewer for The Island Ear was a very pretty lass that interviewed Kate immediately before I did. We both waited in fear and trepedation together (well, maybe only I was in fear and trepedation) for our turns to come up.
IED believes this is the same Long Island female-journalist Kate-fan who was introduced to IED in NYC by Vickie Mapes early in '85. She was nice enough, but unfortunately she liked Kate Bush slightly less than she liked...(gulp)..."Stevie Nicks".
-- Andrew Marvick
From: Doug Alan <nessus@athena.mit.edu>
Date: Wed, 09 Aug 89 22:42:55 EDT
Subject: Stupid answers to dumb questions
[re Interpretation:]
If Joe Dumbbrain thinks that God speaks to him through "Into the Groove" and this has a profound effect on his life, then to him this interpretation is incredibly relevant, even if it is completely braindead. Even if my interpretation of "Get Out of My House" made no sense at all, if it had an effect on me, then to me it would be relevant. And who would you be to tell me that it isn't!
It's as if you've never even heard of more modern art criticism (actually, Postmodern Deconstructualism) which says that what's really irrelevant is what the artist intended. The artists intentions don't matter at all, they say. All that matters is what you get out of it. That the real artist is not the creator of the work of art, but the viewer of the art who finds something of value in it -- he creates the art inside of himself. Personally, I think that this theory was invented by a bunch of failed artists turned critics who want something to feel proud about, but it shows that there is wide spectrum of beliefs on the matter. You stand on one side of the spectrum IED, and the Deconstructionalists stand on the other. Personally, I stand somewhere in the middle. The artists intentions are relevant and so are the viewers interpretations, whether they were intended by the artist or not. Your refusal to even recognize that there are other reasonable positions on the matter, other than your own very narrow one, is exceedingly myopic.
Furthermore, you contradict Kate's very own opinions on the matter, which she has said many times. One such time was to me:
"I think the interpretations that people have of your songs afterwards are nothing to do with me anyway. I think it's up to them to get what they can out of the song."
> Then why did you ask her? And why have you mentioned this issue more than once since then with clear indications that you thought it was significant? Just curious.
Well, for one, I wanted to hear Kate say "Fiiiiishy wiiiiishy". Also, I was curious. Also I have met people who claim to feed their cats a vegetarian diet. They claimed to feed their cats spinach lasagna. Now, one thing you might immediately notice from this is that it contains dairy products (mainly cheese). Many people who call themselves "vegetarians" have no qualms about eating dairy products. I am no expert on feline biology, and I have no idea whether or not the cats tended by the people I met, went blind and died, but you will have to do a bit more work than anyone has done so far to convince me that the necessary amino acids a cat needs that are lacking in a strict vegetarian diet, are not found in dairy products.
Honky With an Attitude,
|>oug
Date: Sat, 30 Sep 89 20:30 PDT
From: IED0DXM%OAC.UCLA.EDU@mitvma.mit.edu
Subject: In thE nAme of liTeracy and WORthy kate bushological
stuDieS...
This next bit is really hard to believe, but it's true. Until recently none of us Love-Hounds was in a position to question this nonsense about Kate having said "ordurely" to |>ouglas during his interview with her, because none of us had anything to go by except what |>ouglas himself chose to give us.
About two weeks ago, however, IED finally got the chance to hear a faithful audio copy of |>oug's mindboggling, tour-de-force interview. At last IED has been able to hear for himself what this interview sounded like, and what was actually said between Kate Bush and |>oug Alan, instead of having to continue to rely on |>oug's own necessarily suspect transcription.
And what did IED discover, upon listening to this tape? Why, only that the word Kate used during the exchange in question--and it is quite clear, folks, there is no doubt about it--is "AUDIALLY". Not, of course, "ordurely", but "AUDIALLY". (Before Julian or another of our more literate Love-Hounds questions the legitimacy of this word, IED hastens to agree that its linguistic status is questionable, but it is nevertheless a word which Kate has used on at least two other occasions--among them an interview she gave for Canadian television only a few days after enduring her thirty minutes with |>oug. Though not found in Webster, it can be a pretty sensible adverb, as when used, for example, in a context like "visually and audially". Whether one likes the word or not, however, one thing is certain, and that is that Kate says "AUDIALLY" in |>oug's interview, not "ordurely".)
As usual, |>oug has simply been blathering--with completely unmerited self-confidence--on a subject which lies entirely outside his area of expertise. (In this case, that subject is the English language.)
-- Andrew Marvick, who looks happily up at the big sky, never down at the ground, missing
[This is Doug's prepared list of questions. Not all have been actually asked, due to time limitations. --WIE]
"My Kate Bush Interview" (Questions only)
Questions from Doug Alan, prepared for the interview 1985 (see Garden).
I read an interview where the interviewer asked you if "Running Up That Hill" is about the contemplation of suicide. And I thought that was pretty amusing, because it seemed to me clearly not to about any such thing at all. On the other hand, strangely enough, that's just what "Under The Ivy" seems to be about to me. The tone of the song is very, very sad. And it seems to be about longing for the lost innocence of youth. Perhaps a follow-up to "In Search Of Peter Pan". A white rose is a strong image in the song. And it could be a symbol for friendship or innocence, but it could also be a symbol for death. You sing "Away from the party", and it seems like it could mean "away from the problems and triviality of modern day life". You sing "It wouldn't take me long to tell you how to find it", and it seems like you might almost be addressing Death. You mention a secret, but never mention what it is. Could it be the taboo subject of suicide?
What are your feelings about this interpretation, and what were you intentions with the song?
"My Lagan Love" is another song of yours that seems very sad. I looked up the word "lagan" in the dictionary, and it means "cargo thrown into the sea attached to a buoy so that it can be recovered later". But you seem to use the word "Lagan" as a name of someone, perhaps a deity. In any case, the dictionary meaning seems to go well with the song, because it seems in the song that your Lagan love has died. You sing "Where Lagan's light fell on the hour/ I saw him far below me/ Just as the morning calmed the storm/ With no one there to hold him". This seems to conjure up the image of looking down into a grave at your Lagan love. But perhaps he will return again when the sun and the moon meet on yon hill. Could you say more about this song?
"Burning Bridge", the other song on your "Cloudbusting" single, seems to me to be a more desperate retelling of a much ealier song of yours, "Passing Through Air". Could you say something about "Burning Bridge"?
In the song "Jig Of Life", you seem to hint that you are planning on having children. In an interview 6 or 7 years ago, I believe you said that you weren't planning on having children, but that if you did it would mean the end of your recording career. Have you changed your mind about having children? And if so, would you really give up your recording career?
Your song "Breathing" seems to be written from the point of view of a fetus about to be born into a post-holocaust world. One might think from this and from your being a vegetarian, that you would be opposed to abortion. What are you feelings on the morality and legality of abortion?
(Legality?)
(Would it ever be a viable option for you if such a need arose?)
Does a feeling of self-imposed responsibility to your fans ever feel oppressive? I mean are there things you really want to do, but you don't because you feel that it is important to your fans that you be working on your music? And do you ever find this pressure unpleasant?
When I first heard the title of your new album "Hounds of Love", a long time before the album was actually released, it seemed to me like a reference to fans. It conjured up the image of The Beatles constantly being hounded by their adoring fans, who would attack them, because each fan wanted a little piece of their idols. So the title "Hounds of Love" seems to hint at a love/hate relationship with fans. The Love/Hate relationship is also symbolized on the picture sleeve to "Running Up The Hill", where you are aiming a bow that could be Cupid's bow, but is also a deadly weapon. Did you have these things in mind?
I have problems with big record companies, in that I don't like to view Art as Big Business. Most large record companies seem much more concerned with making money than with encouraging art. But in order for many artists to make enough money to record albums the way they want to, it's a necessary thing to record for a large record company. And in fact, many of my favorite artists do. What is your opinion on the commercialization of art?
I think that the "The Dreaming" is as good as any album ever recorded, but unfortunately, it wasn't much of a commercial success compared to your other albums. Was "The Dreaming" financially successful enough so that if all your records were only that successful, you'd still be able to continue making records the way you want to?
One can't help but notice that the first three songs on your new album, though quite excellent indeed, have a distinctly more "commercial pop" sound to them than anything on "The Dreaming". Was this to help make the album sell better than "The Dreaming", or did you feel it artistically important to make some music that might be more accessible to more people, or did it just come sort of come out that way?
In "Hello Earth" you sing "Over America can't do anything", and in the past it sure seemed that for the most part North America was ignoring you. Ironically, the album on which you sing these very words has finally proved you wrong. Your album and single are doing quite well here. Did you make any conscious attempt to perhaps aim your music more towards North American culture?
"Running Up That Hill" is sort of the "hit single" from "Hounds of Love", while "Babooshka" was the "hit single" from "Never For Ever". Now, it's fairly strange that as far as I know, these two songs both use a balalaika, and none of your other songs do? Is this just coincidence, or is there something more to it?
Another strange coincidence is that Peter Gabriel is also coming out his new album this year. Both of you have five albums, and for both, your albums always come out in the same years. Do you confer with one another to synchronize your albums?
Something I've been wondering about is why you spelled "for ever" as two words in "Never For Ever" rather than the way it is usually spelled as one word. What was intended by this?
You've said elsewhere that "Gaffa" in your song "Suspended In Gaffa" is gaffer's tape. But I've wondered for a long time, why you have "Gaffa" capitialized. Is it a brand-name of gaffer's tape, or is there some other reason?
Another spelling odity is that in the written lyrics for "Cloudbusting" you spelled "Orgonon" differently than Wilhelm Reich did. Was this just a typo, or is it an allusion to something else. A friend tells me that he believes that there is a book by one of the big ancient Greek philosophers that is entitled "Organon", the way you have spelled it.
Do you believe in the theories of Wilhelm Reich?
I find your use of strong symbolism and metaphor and allusions in your lyrics to be extremely interesting. For example, in "Get Out Of My House", the woman who is singing the song has been left by her lover and feels hurt, and identifies herself with a house. This is a biblical allusion. When she says "I wash the panes", it is a tripple entendre, because she's saying she's washing the windows of her body, which are the eyes in the Bible. This means she's crying, and by doing so, she's washing the hurt and pain away. Then she says "No stranger's feet will enter me" saying that she won't let anyone into her house, which is saying she won't let anyone into her body, which is also reinforced by the biblical use of "feet" as a euphamism for "private parts". The layers of meaning here, are incredible.
Then a man tries to enter her life again, but she's too scared, and she tries to escape by flying away, but he turns into the wind. She then turns into a mule, perhaps for its stubborn ability to withstand the wind. And then he also turns into a mule. Now it seems that they have a ground for communication. Because mules are neuter, and they can communicate on a platonic level rather than a sexual level.
Now a friend of mine believes that this last part is a flaw in the song, because mules are not really neuter after all. They are only sterile. Personally, I think it isn't a flaw because the idea comes across loud and clear, and somehow it seems that "I change into the ameoba. Oooze. Ooze." just wouldn't work so well. So the question is, what do you think of this interpretation? And could you respond to my friend's slight criticism?
Another song for which the symbolism in the lyrics really fascinates me is "There Goes A Tenner". You've said that it is just a simple song about bank robbery, but the more I look at it, the more it seems that nearly every line is really an allusion to your recording career at the the time you were recording "The Dreaming". You wouldn't deny that this was intended, would you?
In a recent interview you said "I don't really know why people think my songs are strange." I'm not sure that this was said by the same person who sings "We let the weirdness in" at the end of the song "Leave It Open". In any case, what is really strange about the singing at the end of "Leave It Open", is that if you play it backwards, it also sounds like intelligible singing. In fact, it sounds to me like "And they said they wouldn't let me in", which is wonderful because then it has the opposite meaning backwards as it does forwards.
There is also something like this on "Hounds of Love" in the song "Watching You Without Me". There is one part where you sing what sounds to me like "Really see" repeated several times. And if you play this backwards, it sounds exactly the same.
I'd be very interested to know how you did these things?
I think there are lots of backwards vocals on your new album. There are backwards vocals in "Waking The Witch" and in "Watching You Without Me". I can't make out nearly any of it though, except in "Watching You Wihout Me". I think I can pick out "He was long, he was long, he was longing", though I'm not absolutely sure. Would you be willing to tell us what some of the backwards vocals say?
In "Waking The Witch", is it you singing the part of the judge using a pitch changer or vocoder?
You credited the helicopter in "Waking The Witch" to Pink Floyd's "The Wall". Did you get the helicopter off of the master tapes for "The Wall" or were you just thanking them for the good idea?
It's really amazing to me how when I listen to your music, it always seems to transform itself incredibly over time. For example, for a long time when I listened to "The Big Sky", it seemed like a really joyous happy song. But now, when I hear it, it seems more like a jab at some of the British music press people, who can often be really vicious and cruel. You sing "They look down at the ground, missing" as if saying that their concerns are really petty and unimportant. You sing "You never understood me, you never really tried". "Waking The Witch" also seems to be partly about the British music press. Do you agree with this interpretation? Has the music press been getting to you? What are your opinions on them?
Did Youth, who's from the groups Killing Joke and Brilliant and who played bass on "The Big Sky", really say the very obnoxious things that the press have attributed to him, or did the press just make up these things to cause a scandal?
In England, many people would probably recognise you if just went walking around on the street. But here you are not incredibly well known. Have you been recognized much while here?
(Does it feel better not to have everyone know who you are? Or does it feel strange because you're so used that by now?)
You've said elsewhere that "Jig of Life" was inspired by a Greek ceremony. Could you describe this ceremony and say how it appears in the song?
(Did you write the poem that is narrated at the end of "Jig Of Life"?)
The poem which you quote on the sleeve for "Hounds Of Love", "The Coming of Arthur" by Tennyson, describes the magical birth of King Arthur. While at the end of "The Ninth Wave" you are spiritually reborn. By this connection, are you trying to relate yourself to Arthur in some way?
To move a little farther backwards in time to one of your early albums: A lot of people I know think that Kashka in your song "Kashka From Bahgdad" is male, and thus the song is about homosexuality. I always thought that the sex of Kashka was irrelevent, and that it is about some people being more concerned with what's going on in others' houses than in trying to make the most of their own lives. And that homosexuality in specific doesn't really play an important role. How did you intend it?
A friend of mine while in Germany heard a version of "Running Up That Hill" with you singing in German. But, I'm told this isn't something you can buy. Did you just send a tape of this to some radio stations?
There are also some German lyrics on your new album in the song "Hello Earth". Have you become interested in German recently?
I've seen on video tape TV shows where you performed your wonderful dance for the song "The Dreaming". Once for a German TV show it was in front of a large projection of giant iguanas, and that was really great. Another time, for an Italian TV show, you performed it on a show with this incredibly tacky disco stage with rotating and flashing lights. Your dancing was just amazing, but the contrast between your art and the tackiness of the setting was really amusing. Does it bother you to peform under a situation like this?
How'd you go about getting Donald Sutherland to be in your video for "Cloudbusting"? And how was it working with him?
You've said that you plan to make a film of the "Ninth Wave". Would this be a full length feature film, or would it be for a half-hour TV slot?
Rumor says that you want Terry Gilliam (who directed "Time Bandits") to direct your film. Is there any truth to this?
Speaking of rumors, rumor says that the original name for "Running Up That Hill" was "A Deal With God", but the record company pressured you to change the original name. Is this true, and if so how did you feel about this?
Do you ever plan on finishing your autobiography "Leaving My Tracks"?
Of your albums, which one is your favorite?
You said elsewhere that on "The Dreaming" one of your favorite songs is "Night of the Swallow". What are your favorite songs on "Hounds of Love"?
What's your favorite song of all the songs you've recorded?
Paul Kerton in his biography of you, published some of your lovely early poetry that you wrote while in school. Were you happy to have this poetry published, or would rather have had it left undisturbed?
Fred Vermorel wrote a couple of very questionable biographies on you. The first one was sort of a parody on scandal sheets done at your and your family's expense. In his second biography, while it is also of a very questionable nature, it seems that "The Dreaming" changed his mind about you, and he has many good things to say about you and "The Dreaming". What did you think of this whole incident?
You've said elsewhere that the songs on "The Dreaming" aren't part of a theme. But it seems to me that every song on "The Dreaming" is part of a collage on the never-ending struggle of man to find the key to the chains that spiritually imprison him. And every song uses locks or prisons or keys as a strong image. This is even depicted on the cover of the album, where a lock, a key, and chains are very prominent images? Did you conciously plan this as a unifying theme?
While in New York, have you had the wonderful experience of riding around in the New York subways?
Have you done or seen anything else particulalry interesting?
Before we end the interview, I'd like to ask you two more quick questions.
First, what do you feed your cats?
Finally, could you do a radio spot for me. Like saying something like "Hi, I'm Kate Bush and you are listening to WMBR, Cambridge, a community service of M.I.T."
written by Love-Hounds
compiled and edited
by
Wieland Willker
Sept 1995 June 1996