Love-Hounds-request@GAFFA.MIT.EDU (10/01/90)
Really-From: Jorn Barger <barger@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu> I don't think I'm really as ticked off as I'm gonna try to sound in this, but in <9009290549.AA12384@EDDIE.MIT.EDU>, nrc@cbema.att.com (Neal R Caldwell, Ii) writes: >It is possible for someone to have harebrained ideas and still be a >nice person and create good music - unlikely, but possible. This opens quite a can o' worms but if you look at the history of any art, I'd venture to say _most_ great artists have been prone to harebrained ideas. Why this is so might be an interesting thread, if only marginally gaffa-worthy. >> 2-- Kate definitely was into Gurdjieff, and there's no onus there-- G. was >> an original, advanced, insightful thinker about the human condition. > >Definately? I guess that depends on just what you mean by "into". In >a KBC newsletter from ages ago they asked Kate about Gurdjieff. > >| In _Them_Heavy_People_ you mention Gurdjieff. Do you follow his >| teachings? >| >| "I've read some of his work, and recently saw the film _Meetings_ >| With_Remarkable_Men_, and had tea with Peter Brook, the director, >| afterwards. Pa and my brother John are into him seriously, and >| I'm hoping to persuade John to write an article about him for a >| future _Newsletter_." > >So if you consider having read some of his work, seeing a film about >him and retaining a few of his ideas as being "into" Gurdjieff I'd >agree. She doesn't say, and there's no real evidence to suggest that >she's "into him seriously". The point here is that it's disrespectful to KT to make claims one way or the other without having evidence to back them up. I wouldn't try to claim she's "into him seriously", but I think it's insupportable to claim: > > KATE IS NOT INTO GURDJIEFF !!!!!!!!!! >> Aside from the reference in Them Heavy People, there are subtler >> references in Full House ("Remember yourself" was G's central teaching), >> in Breathing ("All and everywhere" must reflect G's "All and Everything" >> series), and I think in Strange Phenomena ("G. arrives, funny had a >> feeling he was on his way" is too similar to the style of Ouspenski's "In >> Search of the Miraculous" to be coincidental, to my ear...) >So what? Even if these are references to some of Gurdjieff's ideas it >doesn't mean much. These are the sort of ideas that can be picked up >in casual reading or everyday conversation with her father and >brother. There's a big difference between following the teachings of >a philosophy and picking up a few of it's more light weight ideas. ^^^^^^^^^^^ @$%$%#^%$!!!!! This really stinks of condescension, to G and to KT. Why do you feel driven to minimize the connection? Why??? And when did "following the teachings" come into it? First you jump from "into" to "heavily into", and now to "following the teachings"? I just want to be clear, respectful of Kate, respectful of the truth!!! >> Homeopathy and Gudjieff belong elsewhere, but if you have quotes to back >> up your claims, they belong here, along with counterevidence about KT's >> beliefs. >Before anyone worries about any sort of counterevidence you need to >make your statement a bit less nebulous and provide some evidence >yourself. The fact that Kate mentions something in a song doesn't >particularly have any bearing on her personally. Vickie says "Kate is not into Gurdjieff" without any citations and you make warm fuzzy jokes; I say she obviously is and cite several song-quotes, and you back them up yourself with a newsletter quote, and then you accuse _me_ of making nebulous claims? Gimme a break!!! And if you're suggesting that her references to G. are a way of evoking a fictional character who's into G, I think that's insupportable. Would you really try to claim that "Strange Phenomena" is not a reflection of KT's personal fascination with the 'occult'? >We Kate fans want so desperately to have some feeling of synergy with >Kate that we tend to grasp at even the slightest evidence that she might >be 'into' some of the same things as we are. That "we" is pretty patronizing, I feel, considering you haven't the least notion of what I'm into. Just because I speak respectfully of his insights doesn't mean that he's particularly high up on my list. (If you have to tar me with that brush, you'd do better with her references to Joyce and A.I.) >In the New Musical Express interview Kate says: >| "A lot of people will think these songs are about me. >| I've always had that. And like, with _Deeper_Understanding_, >| people react immediately, saying, "Is this autobiographical? >| So you're into computers now? So you spend all night on >| computers?' People immediately switch on to the mechanicalness: >| It's a song about computers, so she must be into computers!" >Come on folks, switch off the mechanicalness! Curiously, this is another Gurdjieff reference on KT's part: G's teachings were full of descriptions of human behavior as mechanical-- that was the reason you have to "Remember yourself"!!!
Love-Hounds-request@GAFFA.MIT.EDU (10/01/90)
Really-From: Jon Drukman <jsd@gaffa.MIT.EDU> >Really-From: Jorn Barger <barger@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu> > >I don't think I'm really as ticked off as I'm gonna try to sound in this, Good, then you won't mind when I launch into another patented gaffan tirade... >but in <9009290549.AA12384@EDDIE.MIT.EDU>, nrc@cbema.att.com (Neal R >Caldwell, Ii) writes: > >>It is possible for someone to have harebrained ideas and still be a >>nice person and create good music - unlikely, but possible. > >This opens quite a can o' worms but if you look at the history of any art, >I'd venture to say _most_ great artists have been prone to harebrained >ideas. Why this is so might be an interesting thread, if only marginally >gaffa-worthy. Actually, I think it's very gaffa-worthy - think about Reich (who has beaten to death here, I know, so no need to go over that ground again) - definitely a bit on the looney-toon side. >>| In _Them_Heavy_People_ you mention Gurdjieff. Do you follow his >>| teachings? >>| >>| "I've read some of his work, and recently saw the film _Meetings_ >>| With_Remarkable_Men_, and had tea with Peter Brook, the director, >>| afterwards. Pa and my brother John are into him seriously, and >>| I'm hoping to persuade John to write an article about him for a >>| future _Newsletter_." >> >>So if you consider having read some of his work, seeing a film about >>him and retaining a few of his ideas as being "into" Gurdjieff I'd >>agree. She doesn't say, and there's no real evidence to suggest that >>she's "into him seriously". > >The point here is that it's disrespectful to KT to make claims one way or >the other without having evidence to back them up. I wouldn't try to claim >she's "into him seriously", but I think it's insupportable to claim: gee, I think the quote that Richard provided was pretty close to "evidence." She says that her brothers are "into him seriously." This seems to exclude herself from serious being into-ness. I do agree with you that the following: >> > KATE IS NOT INTO GURDJIEFF !!!!!!!!!! is a bit harshly stated. >>So what? Even if these are references to some of Gurdjieff's ideas it >>doesn't mean much. These are the sort of ideas that can be picked up >>in casual reading or everyday conversation with her father and >>brother. There's a big difference between following the teachings of >>a philosophy and picking up a few of it's more light weight ideas. > ^^^^^^^^^^^ >@$%$%#^%$!!!!! This really stinks of condescension, to G and to KT. Why do >you feel driven to minimize the connection? Why??? >And when did "following the teachings" come into it? First you jump from >"into" to "heavily into", and now to "following the teachings"? I just >want to be clear, respectful of Kate, respectful of the truth!!! The truth is a fiction! Wake up and stop being conned. I know a little bit about scientology, having had a rather desparate personal need to find out about some of their more insidious brainwashing techniques. But I certainly don't "follow the teachings" and I am not "into" it (heavily or otherwise). Richard's comments are eminently defensible given Kate's published remarks. >Vickie says "Kate is not into Gurdjieff" without any citations and you make >warm fuzzy jokes; I say she obviously is and cite several song-quotes, and >you back them up yourself with a newsletter quote, and then you accuse _me_ >of making nebulous claims? Gimme a break!!! How can a newsletter quote be nebulous? I would say that at least in the newsletter you have KATE speaking, whereas in her songs you have an undefined narrator speaking. I mean, I wrote a song where I talk about murdering a baby and using its bloodied remains to train an attack dog, but you'd have to go pretty far out on a limb to say that I am "into" baby-murdering. I _may_ be, but you don't know that, and if I were to say in a published interview... Q: So, Jon, like to kill babies much and train dogs with their mashed-up bloodied carcasses? A: Nah. I just like to set fire to homeless people. I'd think you'd be pretty far off the mark in ascribing baby-murdering as one of my "pet philosophies." >And if you're suggesting that her references to G. are a way of evoking a >fictional character who's into G, I think that's insupportable. Would you >really try to claim that "Strange Phenomena" is not a reflection of KT's >personal fascination with the 'occult'? Yeah, I would in fact try to claim that. Maybe her personal fascination with the occult (what a horribly loaded word) brought her to write that song but there's no reason to expect that everything in it happened to her. You have to separate the author from the text - unless Kate specifically says somewhere that "this song is totally autobiographical" then you just have NO idea how much (or how little) of the song actually has a bearing on Kate personally. |>oug committed this particular sin with his rather fanciful reading of Suspended In Gaffa - and there is not ONE SHRED of evidence to back him up. >>We Kate fans want so desperately to have some feeling of synergy with >>Kate that we tend to grasp at even the slightest evidence that she might >>be 'into' some of the same things as we are. You tell 'em, Richard! >That "we" is pretty patronizing, I feel, considering you haven't the least >notion of what I'm into. Just because I speak respectfully of his insights >doesn't mean that he's particularly high up on my list. (If you have to >tar me with that brush, you'd do better with her references to Joyce and >A.I.) Oh, stop playing the injured party! You know darn well that was a vague, editorial "we." Kate again: >>| "A lot of people will think these songs are about me. >>| I've always had that. >>Come on folks, switch off the mechanicalness! > >Curiously, this is another Gurdjieff reference on KT's part: G's teachings >were full of descriptions of human behavior as mechanical-- that was the >reason you have to "Remember yourself"!!! Except that Richard wrote the line about mechanicalness, not KT. So maybe we should attempt to prove that Mr. Caldwell is actually into Gurdjieff? -- +---------------------- Is there any ESCAPE from NOISE? ---------------------+ | | |\ | jsd@gaffa.mit.edu | ZIK ZAK - We make everything you need, | | \|on |/rukman | -Fight The Power- | and you need everything we make. | +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Love-Hounds-request@GAFFA.MIT.EDU (10/01/90)
Really-From: Jorn Barger <barger@aristotle.ils.nwu.edu> In article <9010011450.AA02710@gaffa.MIT.EDU> Jon Drukman <jsd@gaffa.MIT.EDU> writes: > [Barger writes:] > >The point here is that it's disrespectful to KT to make claims one way or > >the other without having evidence to back them up. I wouldn't try to claim > >she's "into him seriously" [...] > > gee, I think the quote that Richard provided was pretty close to > "evidence." She says that her brothers are "into him seriously." > This seems to exclude herself from serious being into-ness. Get it straight! Vickie offered no evidence for "not into". NRC offered strong evidence for "somewhat into". I said: "I wouldn't claim she's "into him seriously." RTFP!!! > ... Richard's comments are eminently > defensible given Kate's published remarks. How do you get this? The evidence for "somewhat into" is all over the place. The evidence for "not into" is purely conjectural!!! The digs about superficial familiarity are insulting to Kate! > >Vickie says "Kate is not into Gurdjieff" without any citations and you make > >warm fuzzy jokes; I say she obviously is and cite several song-quotes, and > >you back them up yourself with a newsletter quote, and then you accuse _me_ > >of making nebulous claims? Gimme a break!!! > > How can a newsletter quote be nebulous? I would say that at least in > the newsletter you have KATE speaking, whereas in her songs you have > an undefined narrator speaking. The emphasis on "me" is not in contrast to NRC's article, which is not nebulous, but to Vickie's claim, which is _vaporous_. > >... Would you > >really try to claim that "Strange Phenomena" is not a reflection of KT's > >personal fascination with the 'occult'? > > Yeah, I would in fact try to claim that. Maybe her personal > fascination with the occult (what a horribly loaded word) brought her > to write that song but there's no reason to expect that everything in > it happened to her. I feel like I'm arguing with a poorly programmed automaton. I never said that. RTFP. > >>We Kate fans want so desperately to have some feeling of synergy with > >>Kate that we tend to grasp at even the slightest evidence that she might > >>be 'into' some of the same things as we are. > > >That "we" is pretty patronizing, I feel, considering you haven't the least > >notion of what I'm into. > > Oh, stop playing the injured party! You know darn well that was a > vague, editorial "we." The editorial we it's not. ("We [here at the Times] throw our full support behind Ken Livingstone...") It's the moralizing hypocritical we, if you ask me. ("Are we feeling better today, Mr Van Gogh?") > Kate again: > >>| "A lot of people will think these songs are about me. > >>| I've always had that. > > >>Come on folks, switch off the mechanicalness! > > > >Curiously, this is another Gurdjieff reference on KT's part: G's teachings > >were full of descriptions of human behavior as mechanical-- that was the > >reason you have to "Remember yourself"!!! > > Except that Richard wrote the line about mechanicalness, not KT. So > maybe we should attempt to prove that Mr. Caldwell is actually into > Gurdjieff? Cute! You deleted the line where she used the word!!! Experiments show that reading comprehension is greater working from paper than from the screen. Maybe you should insert a paper-phase into your read/flame cycle, so as to avoid these embarrassing slip-ups.