ed@DAS.LLNL.GOV (Edward J. Suranyi) (04/17/91)
I just received my first issue of _Little Light_, the new American
fanzine put out by The American Association of Them Heavy People. It's
their third issue: Spring 1991. And boy, was I shocked!
Do you remember Chris's joke posting about the PMRC's list of Kate's
songs and how filled they were with obscene imagery? It was posted
here around a year and a half ago. _Homeground_ thought it was a good
laugh, so they reprinted it. Then Peter Fitzgerald-Morris (henceforth
PDFM) told Vickie that a previously unknown American fanzine took it
seriously, so they wrote to the PMRC. Well, _Little Light_ is that
fanzine. In the new issue, they are really angry about having not
gotten the joke!
In fact, out of the 20 page fanzine, six-and-a-half pages deal with
this issue! The very first letter is from a person named David Bricker,
Attorney-At-Law, who says:
1) That _Homeground_ libeled the PMRC by attributing statements to them
that they never made, so they
"should be grateful the PMRC isn't suing them right out of business;
this would be very easy for the PMRC to do."
2) That they are "in violation of the legal principle of reply or
self-defense" because they failed to print the PMRC's reply in full.
3) That they libeled the PMRC *again* by saying "Many of its (PMRC's)
supporters are whole hog censors." Mr. Bricker says that "this would be
easily defended (the first count is airtight)."
4) That they also defamed Kate by publishing "wholly untrue evaluations
of Kate's music," while knowing they were untrue.
He concludes, "I used to think the Homegrounders were interesting,
humorous people. Now I think they are pathetic."
The editors of the fanzine publish PDFM's letter to the PMRC in full,
as well as his reply article in _Homeground_ #40. However, in the
latter, they put several (sic)s in for no reason that I can gather.
They make fun of his British spelling "Centre" in the PMRC's name.
After that, they have an article called "Cen-sor-ship Defined",
in which they describe the history of the PMRC and the stickering
campaign. Some of it isn't too bad, but there are several stupidities
in this article.
I was boiling mad by this time, so I sat down and wrote a letter,
which I'll reprint below in full:
------------------------------------------------------------
3550 Pacific Ave. #312
Livermore, CA 94550
(415) 447-3405
April 15, 1991
Dear Sir,
As a Kate fan of almost ten years standing I was very happy to
hear about another Kate fanzine. But the discussion of the
PMRC/Homeground "controversy" made me so angry I had to respond.
First of all, I'd like to explain the true history of this matter.
You quote Peter Fitzgerald-Morris's reply article in Homeground #40.
After making a slur about their British spelling (how on Earth can they
help but spell words the way they were taught in school?), you quote
him: "The document actually originated in the US computer network
"Love-Hounds" (sic) . . ." What's wrong with this, for heaven's sake?
This is in fact what the computer mailing list is called.
A person who shall remain nameless here posted the original message
to love-hounds about a year and a half ago. It was quite clearly meant
to be taken as a joke -- hundreds of people saw it on the computer net
and nobody complained. The Homeground people saw it there, thought it
was pretty funny, so they put it in one of their issues. Unfortunately,
they left off the signature which subtly hinted that the message was
a joke. Even so, it's hard to believe anyone would take it seriously.
(By the way, if anybody has computer access to internet, you can
subscribe to the love-hounds digest be sending electronic mail to
love-hounds-request@eddie.mit.edu. Also, the USENET newsgroup
rec.music.gaffa is equivalent to the love-hounds mailing list. We practice
no censorship at all. All views are welcome; the only thing we have in
common is that we like Kate Bush. There are about fifty regular, and
several hundred occasional members. A few of us have met Kate in person.
In Jeff and Bill's [they are the editors -- Ed] welcome letter, they say
that Little Light was the "first [newsletter] (anywhere) to report the
news of Kate's long-awaited second tour." Well, love-hounds reported
this two days after she made the announcement at the convention.)
To go on, in "Cen-sor-ship Defined" you say that the fact that "Army
Dreamers" has been removed from BBC playlists during the war shows-up
"Homeground's essential hypocrisy of going after Americans while ignoring
their own, government sponsored 'censorship'." For heaven's sake, the
last issue of Homeground came out in December, and the war started in
January. In other words, there hasn't been an issue of Homeground
published since that action of the BBC! How could there possibly be
a comment about it?
In the same article, you say "Homeground is spreading the persistent
rumor that MTV wouldn't play "Running Up That Hill" in its original form,"
and you contradict them. Well, I'd sure be happy if you were right, but
you're the first person I've ever heard say this. I know they showed
short clips of the real video as parts of interviews, but I've just
read over the love-hounds archives from the fall of 1985 and nobody
there said they saw the whole thing on MTV. Several saw it on other
(mostly local) music video channels. I find it hard to believe that
they played it "about one-fourth the time," because somebody would
have said something! Are you sure it's MTV you're talking about?
Look, I agree that PDFM's comments about the PMRC do not reflect
complete understanding of the situation. In fact, I wrote to him about
the similar comments he made about the k. d. lang controversy.
But come on, people! How can you get yourselves so worked up over
an obvious joke?
Sincerly,
Ed Suranyi
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Any comments?
Ed
ed@das.llnl.goved@das.llnl.GOV (Edward J. Suranyi) (04/17/91)
Upon further study of the love-hounds archives I discovered that
I made an error in my letter to the _Little Light_ people. So
I just sent them the following letter:
-------------------------------------------------------
3550 Pacific Ave. #312
Livermore, CA 94550
(415) 447-3405
April 16, 1991
Dear Sir,
In my previous letter, which you probably got yesterday, I said
the following:
"In the same article, you say "Homeground is spreading the persistent
rumor that MTV wouldn't play "Running Up That Hill" in its original form,"
and you contradict them. Well, I'd sure be happy if you were right, but
you're the first person I've ever heard say this. I know they showed
short clips of the real video as parts of interviews, but I've just
read over the love-hounds archives from the fall of 1985 and nobody
there said they saw the whole thing on MTV. Several saw it on other
(mostly local) music video channels. I find it hard to believe that
they played it "about one-fourth the time," because somebody would
have said something! Are you sure it's MTV you're talking about?"
Well, I have a correction to make. All my sources tell me that
the real video *was* played on MTV -- exactly once, on August 20, 1986.
This was because the video had been nominated for an MTV award, as you
correctly stated, so they had to show it once. This showing was
advertised in Billboard in a full-page ad as a "special screening".
Now, the real video *was* shown often on such shows as Night
Flight and Heart Light City.
Sincerly,
Ed Suranyi
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ed
ed@das.llnl.govnrc@cbema.att.COM (Neal R Caldwell, Ii) (04/19/91)
> From: ed@DAS.LLNL.GOV (Edward J. Suranyi) > > I just received my first issue of _Little Light_, the new American > fanzine put out by The American Association of Them Heavy People. It's > their third issue: Spring 1991. And boy, was I shocked! > > Do you remember Chris's joke posting about the PMRC's list of Kate's > songs and how filled they were with obscene imagery? I'm sure you know this but just to keep things clear for those just arriving I'll point out that there was never any "PMRC list of Kate's songs" beyond the one Chris posted as a joke. I'm not even sure that Chris originally associated it with the PMRC. Unfortunately I can't seem to locate it in the archives so I'm not sure. (Pointers to the appropriate file would be appreciated.) > PDFM) told Vickie that a previously unknown American fanzine took it > seriously, so they wrote to the PMRC. Well, _Little Light_ is that > fanzine. In the new issue, they are really angry about having not > gotten the joke! Actually the thing they're unhappy about this issue is Homeground's backhanded dismissal of the whole issue in HG #40. A simple correction without a repetition of the same sort of accusations that people took exception to in the first place could have laid the whole thing to rest. > In fact, out of the 20 page fanzine, six-and-a-half pages deal with > this issue! The very first letter is from a person named David Bricker, > Attorney-At-Law, who says: [details of PMRC's potential legal recourse] But note that this was a letter and not an editorial. I'm sure many folks can tell you the lawyers are apt to write such letters without much provocation. > The editors of the fanzine publish PDFM's letter to the PMRC in full, > as well as his reply article in _Homeground_ #40. However, in the > latter, they put several (sic)s in for no reason that I can gather. If HG had extended the same courtesy to the PMRC the whole issue could have been dropped. The 'sics' in the article were for the most part associated with errors that appear in Homeground #40 (I checked HG #40 and I can list them if you like, they're pretty trivial but they're clearly errors). Unfortunately an over-zealous editor evidently corrected these errors in the text of "Little Light" article, rendering the meaning of the 'sic' unclear. > They make fun of his British spelling "Centre" in the PMRC's name. No they didn't. They did place a 'sic' after the "Centre" but the "(sic: We're British and we spell it the British way!)" remark was _exactly_ as it appeared in HG #40. Should we consider this to have been HG making fun of the American spelling? > After that, they have an article called "Cen-sor-ship Defined", > in which they describe the history of the PMRC and the stickering > campaign. Some of it isn't too bad, but there are several stupidities > in this article. I'd be interested to hear what you think are the stupidities in the article. I thought it did very good job of laying out the censorship fights that have occurred over the last five years and how more than anything they show that the system works. It seems well researched so I'd be interested to hear about any errors you think it may contain. I think you'll have to admit that this sort of in depth treatment is far better than the repeated yammering about the imminent collapse of American freedom that HG has been engaging in. > I was boiling mad by this time, so I sat down and wrote a letter, [ the following are excerpts from the letter...] > First of all, I'd like to explain the true history of this matter. > You quote Peter Fitzgerald-Morris's reply article in Homeground #40. > After making a slur about their British spelling (how on Earth can they > help but spell words the way they were taught in school?), you quote > him: "The document actually originated in the US computer network > "Love-Hounds" (sic) . . ." What's wrong with this, for heaven's sake? > This is in fact what the computer mailing list is called. In HG #40 it's 'Love-Hounds", with mismatched quotations. It is, of course, LL's fault that the typo was corrected as well as a 'sic' added but it wasn't their intention to be snide. As I pointed out before, the editors of LL said nothing about the British spelling, that was in HG. > A person who shall remain nameless here posted the original message > to love-hounds about a year and a half ago. It was quite clearly meant > to be taken as a joke -- hundreds of people saw it on the computer net > and nobody complained. I don't think this is correct. I seem to recall one or more persons on the net flaming this post. Again, I can't find any of this in the archives but I'd be interested in checking. > Unfortunately, > they left off the signature which subtly hinted that the message was > a joke. Even so, it's hard to believe anyone would take it seriously. As LL pointed out, they weren't the only ones. The fanzine "Still Breathing" evidently misunderstood it as well. > In Jeff and Bill's [they are the editors -- Ed] welcome letter, they say > that Little Light was the "first [newsletter] (anywhere) to report the > news of Kate's long-awaited second tour." Well, love-hounds reported > this two days after she made the announcement at the convention.) Are you saying that their claim is incorrect? I hardly think Love-Hounds can be considered a 'newsletter' for this purpose. If you want to include electronic communications media we lost out to the phone by just under two days. > To go on, in "Cen-sor-ship Defined" you say that the fact that "Army > Dreamers" has been removed from BBC playlists during the war shows-up > "Homeground's essential hypocrisy of going after Americans while ignoring > their own, government sponsored 'censorship'." For heaven's sake, the > last issue of Homeground came out in December, and the war started in > January. In other words, there hasn't been an issue of Homeground > published since that action of the BBC! How could there possibly be > a comment about it? Here I agree with you, the BBC playlist question isn't really pertinent until after HG have had a chance to comment on it. It will be interesting to see what HG has to say about it. I'd also be interested to know if there are any real examples of British censorship fights that have been ignored by HG while they continue to harp on American issues. > In the same article, you say "Homeground is spreading the persistent > rumor that MTV wouldn't play "Running Up That Hill" in its original form," > and you contradict them. Well, I'd sure be happy if you were right, but > you're the first person I've ever heard say this. I know they showed Later you add... | Well, I have a correction to make. All my sources tell me that | the real video *was* played on MTV -- exactly once, on August 20, 1986. | This was because the video had been nominated for an MTV award, as you | correctly stated, so they had to show it once. This showing was | advertised in Billboard in a full-page ad as a "special screening". In HG #40 in the "Five Years Ago" section PDFM says... "...the video was soon a hit of its own in all the territories where the single was gaining airplay. Except one. In the US the cable channel MTV refused to use Kate and Michael. You can pick the reason from the following list of possibilities: (1) it was too erotic (2) Kate doesn't lip-sync. It was of course merely a coincidence that the campaign against the sexually explicit nature of (some) rock music led by the PMRC was first having it's impact on timid programmers at this time." HG has been repeating this same story for five years when it's easily shown as false. Whether it was played one time or every fourth play as LL claims, MTV did show the video. This continued implication that MTV's "timid programmers" didn't show the original version of the video because of pressure from the PMRC is pretty silly when you consider that not only did MTV show the video, they actually showcased it and nominated it for an award. It's about time that HG either showed some proof of this allegation (beyond rumors spawned by their own innuendo) or dropped it for the baseless speculation that it is. > Look, I agree that PDFM's comments about the PMRC do not reflect > complete understanding of the situation. In fact, I wrote to him about > the similar comments he made about the k. d. lang controversy. I'm not particularly worked up about this and when I talked to Jeff about it it was clear that he's not pulling his hair out over it, either. However, the fact is that HG was patently unfair to the PMRC by placing their name on this joke document. As a "parody of attitudes displayed in the current rock music censorship battle" it was just fine. Unfortunately, the parody falls flat when you attribute it to a specific organization that makes it a policy not to engage in the sort of judgements that were being made light of. Again, a simple retraction or even an honest airing of the PMRC's position could have laid the whole thing to rest and would have left HG readers better informed, as well. Instead HG chose to question the sincerity of the PMRC's response, saying in effect that it was for only for public consumption and implied that the PMRC was somehow responsible for the state stickering laws that they were actually lobbying against. It is telling to note that throughout this LL has given a full airing of the views and issues on both sides while HG has failed to even reveal the name of the newsletter in question (LL). All that said, I hope that LL will not dwell further on the issue (except perhaps for printing letters and making any necessary corrections). "Don't drive too slowly." Richard Caldwell AT&T Network Systems att!cbema!nrc nrc@cbema.att.com
jburka@silver.ucs.indiana.EDU (Jeff Burka) (04/19/91)
Richard writes: >I'm not even sure that >Chris originally associated it with the PMRC. Unfortunately I can't >seem to locate it in the archives so I'm not sure. (Pointers to the >appropriate file would be appreciated.) Well, I dunno where it is in the L-H Archives, but I certainly knew where it was in my personal archives of cool and/or funny stuff that's come over the net. Here's the posting *exactly* as it was received at silver.ucs.indiana.edu. I considered editing it a bit so the line lengths would be <80, and that sort of thing, but have decided to post it as I received it. As you can *clearly* see, it was very blatantly attributed to the PMRC (as stated in the opening sentence). On the other hand, anyone who didn't catch the pun in the address "tipper@pmrc.ica.fib" really needs to start reading for content. It was printed plainly at the bottom of the message--perhaps I'd be a little more understanding if it didn't appear there. 'nuff said. Jeff |Jeffrey C. Burka |"I've lost my way through this world of | |jburka@silver.ucs.indiana.edu | profanities/I thrive on the wind and | |jburka@amber.ucs.indiana.edu | the rain and the cold." --Happy Rhodes| ---------cut here----------cut here---------cut here------------- From iuvax!cica!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!snorkelwacker!mit-eddie!world.std.COM!mwcbm@world.std.COM Mon Mar 19 11:14:10 EST 1990 We of the Parents Music Resource Center have recently had the music of one, "Kate Bush", brought to our attention. Previously we have looked at the "music" of such groups as "Ratt", "Twisted Sister" and "Mr. Frank Zappa". This latest menace to the youth of America from a foreign land is more pernicious than all the rest. The following is a list of Miss Bush's song lyrics that we believe need warning labels: All We Ever Look For: Explicit references to breasts, wombs, tombs and drugs. All the Love: Death. And Dream of Sheep: Drugs, specifically poppies - the source of opium. Army Dreamers: Death. Babooshka: Infidelity. The Big Sky: Sacrilege. Blow Away: Death and sacrilege; the very _thought_ that Keith Moon and Sid Vicious could be let into Heaven! Breathing: Anti-Nuclear propaganda. Burning Bridge: Arson. Cloudbusting: Quackery. Coffee Homeground: Poisoning. December Will Be Magic Again: Glorifying a known homosexual (Oscar Wilde). Don't Push Your Foot On The Heartbrake: Suicide. The Dreaming: Alcoholism. Egypt: References to demons and possible references to the female sexual organs. The Empty Bullring: Death and mutilation. Sacrilege. Experiment IV: A sound that can kill; the avowed goal of every Heavy Metal band. Feel It: A dirty, dirty song. Get Out Of My House: "Devil Dreams", Human transmogrification into animals. Hammer Horror: Occultism. Heads We're Dancing: "They say the Devil is a charming man.." It isn't even _backwards_! Appalling! Houdini: Occultism, French Kissing, Sacrilege. Hounds Of Love: Bestiality? The Infant Kiss: Definite Pedophilia. This song is beyond redemption. In The Warm Room: Another dirty song, this one about prostitution. James And The Cold Gun: Gunplay. Alcohol. Gambling. Sex. Kashka From Baghdad: Homosexuality and voyeurism. The Kick Inside: Incest, suicide and Godless mythology. Kite: Demonic entities; vis. "Beelzebub". L'amour Looks Something Like You: Sex, sex and more sex. "...that feeling of sticky love inside". Leave It Open: Burglary, Satanic backwards messages. The Man With the Child in His Eyes: Possible pedophilia. Mother Stands For Comfort: Murderers. Night Of The Swallow: Criminal activities. Ne T'en Fui Pas: We don't know French, but it _sounds_ dirty. Not This Time: Profanity (we think...) Oh England My Lionheart: Death, Kidnapping, Sacrilege. Pull Out The Pin: Violence and drugs (Hashish). Ran-Tan Waltz: Alcohol, infidelity and a slang reference to the male organ. Rocket's Tail (For Rocket): We couldn't figure this one out, but we don't think we'd like it if we could. Running Up That Hill (A Deal With God): Sacrilege, plain and simple. God does not make _deals_! Sat In Your Lap: "Some say that Heaven is hell..." Hum-m-pfh! Saxophone Song: Reference to bowels. The Sensual World: This song is beyond redemption. Based on a pornographic novel by James Joyce. Strange henomena: Menstruatioen, occultism. Symphony In Blue: Death and sex; need we say more. Them Heavy People: Yet more sacrilege. There Goes A Tenner: Criminal activity. Violin: Yet more satanic references. Waking The Witch: Where to begin? Warm And Soothing: Alcohol. Watching You Without Me: Occultism. The Wedding List: Murder and revenge. Wow: Homosexuality. Wuthering Heights: Occultism. Please help us protect the morals of the youth of this God-fearing country. Almost as shocking are the covers of her records. We would say more about them but we are having trouble getting them back from our examiner. Tipper Gore tipper@pmrc.ica.fib
wisner@ims.alaska.EDU (Bill Wisner) (04/19/91)
>Are you saying that their claim is incorrect? I hardly think Love-Hounds >can be considered a 'newsletter' for this purpose. Think of Love-Hounds as an electronic newsletter that publishes daily and has very lenient editorial standards. Bill Wisner <wisner@ims.alaska.edu> Gryphon Gang Fairbanks AK 99775 getting into making poison.
hargieka@clutx.clarkson.EDU ("K. Alexandra Hargie") (04/19/91)
> Blow Away: Death and sacrilege; the very _thought_ that Keith Moon and Sid > Vicious could be let into Heaven! > Breathing: Anti-Nuclear propaganda. > Egypt: References to demons and possible references to the female sexual > organs. > The Empty Bullring: Death and mutilation. Sacrilege. > Experiment IV: A sound that can kill; the avowed goal of every Heavy Metal band. > Feel It: A dirty, dirty song. > Ne T'en Fui Pas: We don't know French, but it _sounds_ dirty. > Please help us protect the morals of the youth of this God-fearing country. > Almost as shocking are the covers of her records. We would say more about > them but we are having trouble getting them back from our examiner. > > ETC> ETc. ETC. HEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Thank you for reposting this classic piece of silliness!!!! Harg on the floor laughing hysterically!!
ed@das.llnl.GOV (Edward J. Suranyi) (04/20/91)
[Richard Caldwell makes some pretty good points I'd like to respond to. There are certain things I'd like to apologize for. Can you get in touch with the _Little Light_ people and apologize for me for those things I admit I was in error about, Richard? Thanks.] >Actually the thing they're unhappy about this issue is Homeground's >backhanded dismissal of the whole issue in HG #40. A simple correction >without a repetition of the same sort of accusations that people >took exception to in the first place could have laid the whole thing >to rest. I guess so. Actually, what I remember most about that was Chris complaining to me that they didn't credit him! >But note that this was a letter and not an editorial. I'm sure many >folks can tell you the lawyers are apt to write such letters without >much provocation. So true. But that letter, which is just about the first thing in the fanzine, gave me an unpleasant taste right from the start. I hope I didn't imply that the views expressed in this letter were those of the editors. I never even mentioned this letter in my letter to _Little Light_. >> The editors of the fanzine publish PDFM's letter to the PMRC in full, >> as well as his reply article in _Homeground_ #40. However, in the >> latter, they put several (sic)s in for no reason that I can gather. > >If HG had extended the same courtesy to the PMRC the whole issue could >have been dropped. The 'sics' in the article were for the most part >associated with errors that appear in Homeground #40 (I checked >HG #40 and I can list them if you like, they're pretty trivial but >they're clearly errors). Unfortunately an over-zealous editor evidently >corrected these errors in the text of "Little Light" article, >rendering the meaning of the 'sic' unclear. Oh, I see. I didn't realize they had CORRECTED the errors. That's why I couldn't understand all the (sic)s. So I apologize for my misunderstanding here -- although I think it's usual correct to either correct errors, or use sic, but not both. >No they didn't. They did place a 'sic' after the "Centre" but the >"(sic: We're British and we spell it the British way!)" remark was >_exactly_ as it appeared in HG #40. Should we consider this to have >been HG making fun of the American spelling? You are absolutely right, and I humbly apologize. >> After that, they have an article called "Cen-sor-ship Defined", >> in which they describe the history of the PMRC and the stickering >> campaign. Some of it isn't too bad, but there are several stupidities >> in this article. > >I'd be interested to hear what you think are the stupidities in the >article. I thought it did very good job of laying out the censorship >fights that have occurred over the last five years and how more than >anything they show that the system works. It seems well researched so >I'd be interested to hear about any errors you think it may contain. >I think you'll have to admit that this sort of in depth treatment is >far better than the repeated yammering about the imminent collapse of >American freedom that HG has been engaging in. Here, I actually agree with you. By stupities I meant the two things I specifically mentioned that try to shed a bad light on Homeground >> A person who shall remain nameless here posted the original message >> to love-hounds about a year and a half ago. It was quite clearly meant >> to be taken as a joke -- hundreds of people saw it on the computer net >> and nobody complained. > >I don't think this is correct. I seem to recall one or more persons >on the net flaming this post. Again, I can't find any of this in the >archives but I'd be interested in checking. Really? I don't remember this. But I can't be sure until the archives are checked. >> In Jeff and Bill's [they are the editors -- Ed] welcome letter, they say >> that Little Light was the "first [newsletter] (anywhere) to report the >> news of Kate's long-awaited second tour." Well, love-hounds reported >> this two days after she made the announcement at the convention.) > >Are you saying that their claim is incorrect? I hardly think Love-Hounds >can be considered a 'newsletter' for this purpose. If you want to include >electronic communications media we lost out to the phone by just under two >days. First of all, I'm not really saying that their claim is incorrect. But someone else has posted that love-hounds could be considered a newsletter, in which case we certainly beat them. In this paragraph I was only trying to indicate why a subscription to love-hounds would be worthwhile for those who have access -- we get the news faster than any other medium. And, actually, two days is longer than it really took. I'm sure that some British posters posted the news immediately. But I didn't get back to check for two days. I said that because that's the longest it could possibly have taken. >> To go on, in "Cen-sor-ship Defined" you say that the fact that "Army >> Dreamers" has been removed from BBC playlists during the war shows-up >> "Homeground's essential hypocrisy of going after Americans while ignoring >> their own, government sponsored 'censorship'." For heaven's sake, the >> last issue of Homeground came out in December, and the war started in >> January. In other words, there hasn't been an issue of Homeground >> published since that action of the BBC! How could there possibly be >> a comment about it? > >Here I agree with you, the BBC playlist question isn't really >pertinent until after HG have had a chance to comment on it. It will >be interesting to see what HG has to say about it. I'd also be >interested to know if there are any real examples of British censorship >fights that have been ignored by HG while they continue to harp on >American issues. Ah, we agree 100% on this. >> In the same article, you say "Homeground is spreading the persistent >> rumor that MTV wouldn't play "Running Up That Hill" in its original form," >> and you contradict them. Well, I'd sure be happy if you were right, but >> you're the first person I've ever heard say this. I know they showed > >Later you add... > >| Well, I have a correction to make. All my sources tell me that >| the real video *was* played on MTV -- exactly once, on August 20, 1986. >| This was because the video had been nominated for an MTV award, as you >| correctly stated, so they had to show it once. This showing was >| advertised in Billboard in a full-page ad as a "special screening". > >In HG #40 in the "Five Years Ago" section PDFM says... > > "...the video was soon a hit of its own in all the territories where > the single was gaining airplay. Except one. In the US the cable > channel MTV refused to use Kate and Michael. You can pick the reason > from the following list of possibilities: (1) it was too erotic (2) > Kate doesn't lip-sync. It was of course merely a coincidence that the > campaign against the sexually explicit nature of (some) rock music led > by the PMRC was first having it's impact on timid programmers at this > time." > >HG has been repeating this same story for five years when it's >easily shown as false. Whether it was played one time or every >fourth play as LL claims, MTV did show the video. This continued >implication that MTV's "timid programmers" didn't show the original >version of the video because of pressure from the PMRC is pretty silly >when you consider that not only did MTV show the video, they actually >showcased it and nominated it for an award. I stand by my statement in this case. First of all, I would not call playing the video ONCE, almost a year after the single came out, a real contradiction of the basic fact that MTV ignored it totally when it counted. I do not know how it was nominated for an award, but they only played it that one time AFTER it had been nominated. Second, it was most certainly NOT Homeground who started this "rumor". It was the American fans who were puzzled by MTV's refusal to play the real video. I agree that it most certainly was not the PMRC (which didn't even exist back then, I think) that pressured MTV not to show that video. IT WAS MTV AND EMI-AMERICA THEMSELVES WHO DECICDED THIS! I agree that it was wrong for Homeground to mention the PMRC, which clearly had nothing to do with it. So the basic facts are correct as Homeground stated them, it's their speculation as to the cause that's wrong. But this wasn't in the _Little Light_ article, so I wasn't responding to this speculation of Homeground's. I personally do not believe that the reason they decided not to show it was because it was "too erotic", although from what I understand this is the reason EMI-America gave themselves. (I may be wrong here.) I think it's the second reason: EMI-America thought they would not be able to break a new artist (which Kate was in America, for all intents and purposes) without a lip-sycning video, and MTV agreed. A year later, Kate HAD broken at least in certain circles, so they probably felt it was all right to show the real video. >It's about time that HG either showed some proof of this allegation >(beyond rumors spawned by their own innuendo) or dropped it for the >baseless speculation that it is. Exactly which allegation do you need proof of? That the choice of video was inspired by PMRC-related concerns? This, I agree is wrong. That MTV ignored the real video for all practical purposes? The proof is right here in the love-hounds archives, among other places, where NOBODY saw it. If you want to be technical, yes, we were all wrong because MTV did show it once. But there must still be a reason WHY they didn't show it at all when the single was out. I mean, from most people's point of view, the difference between showing a video once and never is insignificant. >However, the fact is that HG was patently unfair to the PMRC by placing >their name on this joke document. As a "parody of attitudes displayed >in the current rock music censorship battle" it was just fine. >Unfortunately, the parody falls flat when you attribute it to a specific >organization that makes it a policy not to engage in the sort of >judgements that were being made light of. As you may now be aware, since a couple of people have posted the original article, the PMRC reference was in Chris's original article. >"Don't drive too slowly." Richard Caldwell Ed ed@das.llnl.gov
rjc@cstr.ed.ac.UK (Richard Caley) (04/20/91)
`Inanity' is right. Is KT news really so thin on the ground that all
these people have nothing better to do than get worked up over the
fact that some people can't detect humour when it slaps them in the
face?
This is a long standing problem on the net. The accepted solution is
to laugh at them and possible post a satire of people who can't detect
satire.
--
rjc@cstr.ed.ac.uk _O_
|<nrc@cbema.att.COM (Neal R Caldwell, Ii) (04/24/91)
From article <9104192050.AA19655@das.llnl.gov>, by ed@das.llnl.GOV (Edward J. Suranyi): > [Richard Caldwell makes some pretty good points I'd like to respond > to. There are certain things I'd like to apologize for. Can you > get in touch with the _Little Light_ people and apologize for me > for those things I admit I was in error about, Richard? Thanks.] I wouldn't mind doing so Ed, but I don't really talk to the folks at _Little Light_ all that often. They will probably see your message here since they get to see most LH posts as provided by an AAHP member who has BITNET access but there's no guarantee. My suggestion would be to write still another letter to let them know that some of the misunderstandings in your previous letter have been cleared up and offer them a dissenting viewpoint for their letters column in an upcoming issue. You may have to be quick about it since they seemed to be moving along toward the next issue last time I talked to them. >>I don't think this is correct. I seem to recall one or more persons >>on the net flaming this post. Again, I can't find any of this in the >>archives but I'd be interested in checking. > > Really? I don't remember this. But I can't be sure until the archives > are checked. I checked (now that I have the exact date) and no, nobody flamed. A couple of folks seemed to take it about half seriously and only Chris knows what showed up in his mail box. The point is, however, that the people who complained are not isolated -- as some would have us believe -- to a few "humor impaired" people near Cleveland, nor did they all fall for the joke. Yes, some _Homeground_, _Still Breathing_ and _Little Light_ readers from all over the country and perhaps that world took it seriously but others counted it as just one more instance of HG's "American censorship" squawking than they were willing to sit and listen to quietly. You may count me among the latter. [Convention news] > And, actually, two days is longer than it really took. I'm sure that > some British posters posted the news immediately. But I didn't get > back to check for two days. I said that because that's the longest > it could possibly have taken. Actually it took roughly forever but that's probably just how it seemed to someone who was checking news every five minutes! :-) >>HG has been repeating this same story for five years when it's >>easily shown as false. Whether it was played one time or every >>fourth play as LL claims, MTV did show the video. This continued >>implication that MTV's "timid programmers" didn't show the original >>version of the video because of pressure from the PMRC is pretty silly >>when you consider that not only did MTV show the video, they actually >>showcased it and nominated it for an award. > > I stand by my statement in this case. First of all, I would not > call playing the video ONCE, almost a year after the single came > out, a real contradiction of the basic fact that MTV ignored it > totally when it counted. I do not know how it was nominated for > an award, but they only played it that one time AFTER it had been > nominated. Sorry but this is wrong. You will find in the archives (I believe it's file 0010) that Doug reported that MTV was showing the promo video in early January 1986. There's no telling how long they had been showing it prior to that. Remember also that MTV had a 30 day exclusive on the Wogan version (according to Doug) so it would make perfect sense for them to play it instead of the promo for that reason alone. Not long after that thirty days was up the video for Cloudbusting was released and that was played for a while. When they returned to playing RUTH late in the year it seems likely that they were mixing the two versions (as LL says) and that Doug finally sighted the promo video in early January. _Not_ a almost a year later. There is no evidence that MTV "refused" to show anything. It is apparent from the archives that EMI-America decided that the promotional version of _Running Up That Hill_ was "unsuitable" for American audiences. (Later they would change their mind and decide to provide both videos. Very clever, since they'd already given MTV an exclusive on the Wogan version). Before Doug even saw the video and based on a English friend's report that it was "like _Hammer Horror_" Doug assumed that "unsuitable" meant "too erotic." As soon as Doug saw the actual video he changed his mind immediately. It was obviously not too erotic so he speculated that EMI found it too "artsy fartsy." Unfortunately the "too erotic" idea seems to have taken on a life of it's own. I would be interested to hear from Doug whether my interpretation from the archives is consistent with what he recalls. > Second, it was most certainly NOT Homeground who started this "rumor". > It was the American fans who were puzzled by MTV's refusal to play > the real video. It was not my intention to say that they did, only that they had been repeating this unsubstantiated rumor for five years. Even going so far as printing in a book as fact. > I agree that it most certainly was not the PMRC > (which didn't even exist back then, I think) that pressured MTV not to > show that video. The PMRC came into existence during roughly that same time frame. They had little political clout until the commerce committee hearings and showed no real interest in videos in any case. It was Rep. Paula Hawkins who raised that issue during the hearings. >>It's about time that HG either showed some proof of this allegation >>(beyond rumors spawned by their own innuendo) or dropped it for the >>baseless speculation that it is. > > Exactly which allegation do you need proof of? That MTV refused to play the promotional video for RUTH because they considered it to be too erotic. All the evidence indicates that EMI selected the Wogan video (I even have an interview with Kate where she seems to confirm this) because they felt that the promo video was unsuitable for the U.S. market. There is nothing to suggest that "unsuitable" meant "too erotic". It makes perfect sense that MTV would play the Wogan version for no other reason than that they had an exclusive on it right up until just before the release of _Cloudbusting_. "Don't drive too slowly." Richard Caldwell AT&T Network Systems att!cbnews!nrc nrc@cbnews.att.com
ed@das.llnl.GOV (Edward J. Suranyi) (04/25/91)
>Sorry but this is wrong. You will find in the archives (I believe >it's file 0010) that Doug reported that MTV was showing the promo >video in early January 1986. Holy cow, you're right! How on earth did I miss this? And why didn't anyone who had access to MTV back then speak up? Here's the relevant quote from Doug: -------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 8 Jan 86 23:58:03 est From: nessus (Doug Alan) [...] Empty-V is also now showing the real video for RUTH (at least the last time I saw it, it was the real video), but they've taken it out of their rotation, so it's probably not being seen very much anymore. -------------------------------------- Ed ed@das.llnl.gov