IED0DXM@OAC.UCLA.EDU (12/08/89)
To: Love-Hounds
From: Andrew Marvick (IED)
Subject: Re-posting of private e-mail exchange between Steve and Andy
At the risk of adding yet another 130 lines of stuff not directly
about Kate to this collection of postings, IED has decided to re-post
the following correspondence for the interest of Love-Hounds.
Date: Thu, 7 Dec 89 00:00:08 PST
From: stevev@CHEMSTOR.UOREGON.EDU
Subject: by way of eKsplanaTion, if not actual apology: will it suffice?
To: IED0DXM
You write:
> Alas, if you are hoping that IED's style and attitude toward
>the subject of Kate Bush will change suddenly (or at all), you are
>destined to be disappointed, Steve. IED admits that he became a
>bit personal in his recent replies to Jon, but not unduly so, in
>consideration of the astoundingly offensive remarks which Jon has
>been making in this group lately. It seems to this writer that you
>have your priorities mixed up. You seem to want to stifle IED's
>freedom of expression in this group because you find his language
>and opinions displeasing. Yet Jon's recent postings, which IED
>considers to have been uniformly smug, inept, poorly considered
>and filthily worded, are apparently worthy of praise because they
>demonstrate "free thinking" about the subject of Kate Bush's art.
I'm not asking you to change your style, I just found Love-Hounds
more enjoyable in the days when you spent most of your time
praising Kate instead of slamming Drukman. As far as I'm
concerned, spending your time attacking him personally makes you
more bothersome than he is. I am not so well-versed in Bush lore
that I can point out his errors, but I can certainly tell when
you make the arrogant claim that anyone who considers the music
of Kate Bush to be less than perfect is ignorant and stupid.
I certainly have no intention of stifling your postings, and if
you want to continue to impugn individual Love-Hounds, I can't
stop you. But I would request that you return to the more
positive postings of the past. Just look at what has happened in
the past few days--there is much less discussion of Kate and more
discussion of things that are not strictly Kate-related. To me
this is a bad thing that must be fixed. Correcting the errors of
others, distributing new information, and expressing your own
opinions of Kate's music is helpful to those of us who want a
better understanding of her music. Reading diatribes against
other Love-Hounds does nothing to advance our understanding.
The rest of your posting is actually rather interesting and
worthwhile as an analysis of the technical aspects of "Reaching
Out". But if I were to say that despite whatever technical
merits it may have, I don't find "Reaching Out" to be
particularly emotionally affecting or enjoyable, I would consider
it ridiculous of you to to criticize me for _that_. (Note that
this is not an accurate statement of my views on the song.)
I have replied by mail simply because I don't want to clutter
rec.music.gaffa/Love-Hounds with yet another reply that doesn't
contain any information or direct discussion of Kate Bush. You
do have my permission to quote from this letter in a Mailbag if
you might find it worthwhile to do so.
-- Steve VanDevender stevev@chemstor.uoregon.edu
To: stevev@CHEMSTOR.UOREGON.EDU
From: Andy Marvick (IED)
Subject: Your e-mail note to me
Hi, Steve.
I appreciate the note you wrote to me, and I will consider your
request for less negative rebuttals in Love-Hounds. I do think you
should know, however, that the present "flame-war" (for want of a
better term) that you have found so hard to take is actually rather
mild in comparison to many others that we've had in Love-Hounds over
the last four years. I'm pretty sure Jon Drukman (who's been with us
since the beginning, too) would tell you the same thing. It really
depends on one's perspective: to you (and no doubt to many of the
relative newcomers to the group) the current controversy must seem
a bit shocking; but to me and to Drukman, Doug Alan and Joe Turner
(to name some of the rare Love-Hounds readers who have survived
since the early days), it is the last year or so in Love-Hounds that
seems bizarre--for its atmosphere of good will and bonhomie--not
vice versa. In fact, I suspect that one prime motivation
of Jon's for posting the things he's been saying recently has
been deliberately to start a fight with IED (he knows exactly
how to get my goat)--perhaps just for old time's sake.
Beyond that, you write:
> The rest of your posting is actually rather interesting and
>worthwhile as an analysis of the technical aspects of "Reaching
>Out". But if I were to say that despite whatever technical
>merits it may have, I don't find "Reaching Out" to be
>particularly emotionally affecting or enjoyable, I would consider
>it ridiculous of you to to criticize me for _that_. (Note that
>this is not an accurate statement of my views on the song.)
So noted. But I _too_ would consider it ridiculous to criticize
someone for stating so straightforward and _self-aware_ an expression
of personal taste. I have never had any beef with people who make
statements like that. The problem is that almost _no-one_ in Love-Hounds
ever says something that honest. Virtually everyone who dislikes
something Kate does fails to realize that their dislike is just
that--an expression of their personal taste which reflects very
little about Kate's work itself, but more about the listener.
Jon, for example, has made any number of statements in
recent weeks which impugn (to use your excellent word!) Kate
both as an artist and as a person; whereas in fact it is
quite plain that the only real basis he has for his dislike of
the new work is his own (rather limited) personal taste. Even worse,
he thinks that his judgement is based on profound musical knowledge--
and worse, on authoritative knowledge of Kate's work and career--whereas
the truth, as I have repeatedly shown, is that Jon knows very little
not only about Kate's music and career, but about music in general!
Now I'll make this promise: the _minute_ Jon admits
that his judgement of Kate's work is solely a result of his own
taste, and that he doesn't really have any concrete support for that
judgement, IED will make a pledge not to bother Love-Hounds again
about Jon's infantile musical bug-a-boos (not in so many words!);
and I'll also admit that I can be a bit hasty to flame when I see
criticism of Kate's work.
I've taken you at your word and posted both your note to me
and my reply here to Love-Hounds, because I think everyone who is
p.o.'ed with IED (or with Drukman--I know there are several readers
who share IED's view, rather than Drukman's) have a right to know
what's being said on the subject. After all, this concerns the
possible future atmosphere of discussion in Love-Hounds, so people
should know.
Thanks for your interest, Steve.
-- Andy Marvickjsd@GAFFA.MIT.EDU (Jon Drukman) (12/08/89)
I know I promised that I wouldn't continue this any further, but I'm breaking the promise because a) there are points here that warrant rebuttal and b) at the end of this posting, I will accede to most of the demands of the readership and call a truce to this ridiculous fighting. Maybe. In article <8912071947.AA18338@EDDIE.MIT.EDU> IED0DXM@OAC.UCLA.EDU writes: >I do think you >should know, however, that the present "flame-war" (for want of a >better term) that you have found so hard to take is actually rather >mild in comparison to many others that we've had in Love-Hounds over >the last four years. I'm pretty sure Jon Drukman (who's been with us >since the beginning, too) would tell you the same thing. I haven't actually been here since the beginning, but I've been here for a long time now (three years and three months). Indeed, this "war" is incredibly civilized in comparison to the Ancient Days Of Yore. Fortunately, most of the truly reprehensible members of the lovehound community have moved to pastures greener. Thank god. >It really >depends on one's perspective: to you (and no doubt to many of the >relative newcomers to the group) the current controversy must seem >a bit shocking; but to me and to Drukman, Doug Alan and Joe Turner >(to name some of the rare Love-Hounds readers who have survived >since the early days), it is the last year or so in Love-Hounds that >seems bizarre--for its atmosphere of good will and bonhomie--not >vice versa. In fact, I suspect that one prime motivation >of Jon's for posting the things he's been saying recently has >been deliberately to start a fight with IED (he knows exactly >how to get my goat)--perhaps just for old time's sake. Conflict is part of any good society. Things would be rather static and uninteresting without it. If there were no debate in this group, you'd get a letter once a week from someone saying something like "Kate was played on the radio 47 times today." or "I have a new interview to submit, here it is." or "My dog exploded while I was listening to The Dreaming." In other words, it would be purely an informational service. Maybe some people want this. Perhaps we could adopt a convention like on funky-list where stuff that isn't relevant to music is labeled UF (unfunky) in the subject line. We could put "KTD" for "KaTe Discussion" or "KTI" for "KaTe Information." As for my motives in my recent postings, I must admit that I have a certain amount of interest in seeing how strong reactions can run through the LH community, but this is not my prime motivation. I honestly believe that Kate's output of late has not been up to the rigorous standard we've come to expect of her. If we are simply to be spoon-fed this second-rate material and just sit still and not complain about it, then we deserve all the less-than-sterling stuff that we are getting. Of course, this argument has one major flaw in it, and I'll save IED the trouble of pointing it out: we have no control whatsoever over what Kate does. We can buy it or not buy it, and frankly, I'm so in love with Kate's art that I'll buy it no matter what it is. But I refuse to rationalize (for example) the removal of approximately 43 seconds of material (not the one minute that IED erroneously provides, and yes I've double checked this fact, thank you very much) from "Be Kind To My Mistakes" as an improvement. Of course, as has already been pointed out copious times, I PERSONALLY DO NOT CONSIDER IT, IN MY OPINION, to be an improvement. The very fact that I have to take such pains to point the subjective nature of these views out angers me greatly. It should be understood implicitly. I have said a million times in the past, and will continue to say it, that EVERYTHING is subjective concerning art. The point is, it shouldn't have to be explicitly pointed out in every posting. It just wastes time. > So noted. But I _too_ would consider it ridiculous to criticize >someone for stating so straightforward and _self-aware_ an expression >of personal taste. I have never had any beef with people who make >statements like that. The problem is that almost _no-one_ in Love-Hounds >ever says something that honest. [...] > Jon, for example, has made any number of statements in >recent weeks which impugn (to use your excellent word!) Kate >both as an artist and as a person; whereas in fact it is >quite plain that the only real basis he has for his dislike of >the new work is his own (rather limited) personal taste. Blah blah blah. Show me one concrete textual example of me asserting my opinions as objective truth. Occasionally, I may qualify my opinions as the word of God, but I think any intelligent reader could tell that my tongue was planted firmly in my cheek. >Even worse, >he thinks that his judgement is based on profound musical knowledge-- >and worse, on authoritative knowledge of Kate's work and career--whereas >the truth, as I have repeatedly shown, is that Jon knows very little >not only about Kate's music and career, but about music in general! I really wish you would demonstrate this to me. I will be the first to admit that six years of formal piano training and three years dabbling in modern musical production is not a "profound musical knowledge." Maybe I don't know much about music in general. Your discussion of the classical roots of "Reaching Out" left me in the dark. It still has no bearing on my opinions. Never once have I claimed that there was an intrinsic quality that makes "Reaching Out" bad. I don't like the way it sounds. The style in which it is performed may be traceable back to Gregorian chanting for all I care. It still annoys me. > Now I'll make this promise: the _minute_ Jon admits >that his judgement of Kate's work is solely a result of his own >taste, and that he doesn't really have any concrete support for that >judgement, IED will make a pledge not to bother Love-Hounds again >about Jon's infantile musical bug-a-boos (not in so many words!); >and I'll also admit that I can be a bit hasty to flame when I see >criticism of Kate's work. Look, I never claimed otherwise, and I'm really quite offended that you have superimposed your own nasty assumptions on my innocuous prose, but if it will stop this stupid back and forth pointlessness, then I admit flat out, unreservedly, and without qualifications, that my judgement of Kate's work is solely a result of my own taste. I only hope that you have enough self-esteem to do the same. "It is this that brings us together." +---------------------- Is there any ESCAPE from NOISE? ----------------------+ | | |\ | jsd@gaffa.mit.edu | "Suck on this, | | \|on |/rukman | jsd@umass.bitnet | planet of noise bimbo!" | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
steve@halley.UUCP (Steve Williams) (12/09/89)
In a well-tempered recent article replying to one of IED's rough'n'tumble but always endearing personal attacks, Jon Drukman writes: >"It is this that brings us together." No, no, Jon! It's: "I-it i-i-is thi-is tha-at bri-ings us together." ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Steve Williams ...!cs.utexas.edu!halley!steve Tandem Computers (512)-244-8252 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------