IED0DXM@OAC.UCLA.EDU (12/03/89)
To: Love-Hounds From: Andrew Marvick (IED) Subject: Kate-echism XXIX.12.ii > I haven't seen this mentioned yet. Just who is everybody in the > band in the "Love and Anger" video. I should think this is a chance > for us to associate a face with those names we've known for a while. > Except for Gilmour, obviously. > > -- Michael Sullivan uunet!jarthur.uucp!aqdata!sullivan IED has identified them already in Love-Hounds, but for the sake of latecomers and slackers he will repeat the information. Aside from Gilmour on electric guitar, the men in the _Love_and_Anger_ video are: John Giblin on bass, Stuart Elliott on drums, Paddy Bush on valiha (the odd rectangular instrument, which originates from Madagascar), an unidentified (by IED) keyboardist (all keyboards on the track were originally played by Kate, and this man is not Kevin McAlea, Kate's usual keyboard stand-in), and Stewart Avon-Arnold and Gary Hurst as Kate-carriers (they spend the rest of the video crouching on the ground on either side of Kate). Stewart and Gary, incidentally, were Kate's dance partners until 1983. They did not participate in any of her _Hounds_of_Love_ TV or film performances, so their reappearance, along with Gilmour's and the Dervishes', makes for a kind of oldtimers' reunion. Drukman responds to Neil Calton's posting thus: > I am not Dan Quayle (at least I wasn't last time I checked... > Besides, if you're so clever, how come the laugh ain't in the video or > on the CD or cassette single? > > -- Jon Drukman The accuracy of Neil's Quayle remark is pretty well borne out by your posting, Drukman. Like Quayle in his ex tempore speeches, you repeatedly betray an arrogant conviction that you possess some sort of superior authority (a conviction entirely belied by the facts); and like Quayle, you tend to spout rash conclusions without any substantive support. For the second time, Drukman, IED makes the following two points: first, you _don't_know_ that the laugh isn't part of Kate's video--you only know that U.S. TV-shows haven't let the video continue through the three seconds of dead air that would be necessary in order for us to _hear_ the laugh. Second, the fact that the U.S. label, CBS, chose not to include the laugh on their promo-CD and "cassingle" means _absolutely_nothing_. We already know that the very choice of _Love_and_Anger_ as the U.S. single was made by a bunch of CBS suits who did _not_ consult Kate about it beforehand--IED reported as much based on information he received from Alison Shapiro (via Vickie) more than a month ago. The _only_ positive data we have about the placement of the laugh is to be found in the _British_ edition of the CD. It constitutes the sole legitimate source of information any of us has to go on. And _it_ connects the laugh with _Love_and_Anger_. Any other supposition at this stage--whether it should turn out to be correct or not--is made without any tangible evidence at all. >think its important to be critical when listening to Kate. I listen to her >music because of it's high quality - not because of ther hair style, or >whethera particular radio station plays it... If the quality isn't there (and >I agree that TSW is substandard (I'll ditto most of the points made in this >article), we should feel free to talk about it and not be afraid to be burned >to the crisp in a flame war. > >-- Steve Tynor IED doesn't have any great desire to get involved in more personal confrontations here, but he must protest about this kind of venemous tripe. There is no-one in this group who likes Kate's music _because_ it is played on a certain radio station. That is totally untrue and unfair. IED doesn't listen to the radio at all; and the fact that our extremely valuable Livermore correspondent does, and that he takes the trouble to share with us the data which he gleans from that activity, in no way indicates that radio has _shaped_ his musical preference for Kate! It's completely gratuitous and spiteful to suggest that it has. (In fact, the opposite is true: because of Ed's belief in Kate's music and his extraordinary efforts on the music's behalf, he seems to have had some success in shaping the attitude of the _radio_ station.) As for the hairstyle accusation: you, Steve, are the only person to have connected the quality of Kate's work with her hair. No one else had even thought of that idea until now. Your invective is unjust, inaccurate, foolish and nasty. In regard to this idiotic trend among you and your ilk to criticize a work of art like _The_Sensual_World_ via factually vapid, musically ignorant and fundamentally boorish insults of both the music and those who are capable of appreciating it: go right ahead. You convince no one but yourselves. IED for one sees no hope of elucidating you and your fellow fickle cynics about the myriad facets of _TSW_'s perfection. If your ears can't perceive them, IED's words will go unheard, as well. So go right ahead--continue to embarrass yourselves with your absurd checklists of alleged "flaws" in _TSW_: you're just whistling away in the dark void of your own ignorance. -- Andrew Marvick
ed@das.llnl.gov (Edward Suranyi) (12/04/89)
> To: Love-Hounds > From: Andrew Marvick (IED) > Subject: Kate-echism XXIX.12.ii > >IED doesn't listen to the radio at all; and the fact that our >extremely valuable Livermore correspondent does, and that he takes the >trouble to share with us the data which he gleans from that activity, >in no way indicates that radio has _shaped_ his musical preference for >Kate! It's completely gratuitous and spiteful to suggest that it has. >(In fact, the opposite is true: because of Ed's belief in Kate's >music and his extraordinary efforts on the music's behalf, he seems to >have had some success in shaping the attitude of the _radio_ station.) Thanks for supporting me, IED. I just want to make it clear to everyone that I did *not* discover Kate on the radio. It was in fact two friends of mine in college who introduced me to her music. It was five years after I first became a fan that I first heard Kate on the radio. It was quite exciting for me; up till that point I had kind of assumed that Kate *was never* and *could never be* played on the radio. This also gives me an opportunity to explain why I try to make stations play her. (Yes, IED is right. I think that KITS, at least, plays Kate much more than they used to, perhaps due to my efforts.) You see, I figure I can always listen to Kate as much as I want, since I have all the albums, B-sides, and other obscure things -- and I do listen, a lot! When she's played on the radio (or MTV, for that matter) I imagine that there are perhaps thousands of people listening to the same incredible song I am, simultaneously. I don't know why, but that always gives me a big thrill. Part of it, I suppose, is that I think there might be someone who likes it enough to want to buy the album. Perhaps my enthusiasm for Kate is catching. Somebody in San Francisco requested "Wuthering Heights" on last night's all-request show on KITS. Ed (Edward Suranyi) | Caption: "Kate Bush goes from cult fave to Dept. of Applied Science | chart rave." -- _Billboard_ UC Davis/Livermore | (In "Was It A Hit Or A Miss" in the 1985 ed@das.llnl.gov | year-end special issue.)
sullivan@aqdata.UUCP ("Michael T. Sullivan") (12/05/89)
From article <8912030003.AA17789@EDDIE.MIT.EDU>, by IED0DXM@OAC.UCLA.EDU: > > IED has identified them already in Love-Hounds, but for the > sake of latecomers and slackers he will repeat the information. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Thanks for the back-handed favor. gaffa was down for a while, eh? > For the second time, Drukman, IED makes the following two points: first, > you _don't_know_ that the laugh isn't part of Kate's video--you only know > that U.S. TV-shows haven't let the video continue through the three seconds > of dead air that would be necessary in order for us to _hear_ the > laugh. Well, when the video world-premiered on MTV's "Now Hear This" there was no laugh and I think we can safely assume that at least this one time the entire video would have been shown. > In regard to this idiotic trend among you and your ilk to criticize > a work of art like _The_Sensual_World_ via factually vapid, musically > ignorant and fundamentally boorish insults of both the music and those > who are capable of appreciating it: go right ahead. You convince no one > but yourselves. IED for one sees no hope of elucidating you and your > fellow fickle cynics about the myriad facets of _TSW_'s perfection. ^^^^^^^^^^ Oh puh-leeez! _The Sensual World_ is a great album but it is not perfection. BLASPHEMY ALERT! BLASPHEMY ALERT! I don't think Kate has made a perfect album, yet. Has anyone? END OF ALERT Aren't opinions wonderful! The amount of worshipping in this group does get to be a bit much. -- Michael Sullivan uunet!jarthur.uucp!aqdata!sullivan aQdata, Inc. San Dimas, CA
n8344141@UNICORN.WWU.EDU (paul carpentier) (12/05/89)
In article <8912030003.AA17789@EDDIE.MIT.EDU> IED0DXM@OAC.UCLA.EDU writes: > Drukman responds to Neil Calton's posting thus: > > I am not Dan Quayle (at least I wasn't last time I checked... > > Besides, if you're so clever, how come the laugh ain't in the video or > > on the CD or cassette single? > >The _only_ >positive data we have about the placement of the laugh is to >be found in the _British_ edition of the CD. It constitutes the sole >legitimate source of information any of us has to go on. And _it_ >connects the laugh with _Love_and_Anger_. We already know what :>oug thinks, so to avoid any controversial discussion that may otherwise follow, why not do Love-Hounds one and all a favor and believe the following: When I interviewed Kate, she said that JC had this novel idea about using a laugh track as the beginning and end of two different songs. The laugh appears as the end of "Love and Anger" and the beginning of "The Fog". It was recorded backwards and inserted into the tape machine sideways, using a mike in an arcane string-wood instrument from the Middle East made popular in Werner Herzog/Hammer ventures. If CBS wasn't run by brain-dead idiots, it would have been released properly, as in the UK, where the laugh alternates with each play as to which track it belongs. Fighting Truth, Justice, and the American Way, Paul M Carpentier
stewarte@UCSCC.UCSC.EDU (The Man Who Invented Himself) (12/05/89)
For unknown reasons, Andrew (IED) Marvick felt compelled to pointificate as follows: >The _only_ >positive data we have about the placement of the laugh is to >be found in the _British_ edition of the CD. It constitutes the sole >legitimate source of information any of us has to go on. And _it_ >connects the laugh with _Love_and_Anger_. Any other supposition at >this stage--whether it should turn out to be correct or not--is made >without any tangible evidence at all. As far as I can tell, IED, this belief of yours -- that the British CD is more correct than the US version, or corresponding single -- is based on the assumption that it was supervised by Kate. I, for one, find it extremely far-fetched that an artist, even one as concerned with detail as Kate, actually oversees such a mundane part of the mastering process as the location of index points. Unless you have definitive inside information that she did supervise the indexing, I think we have to say that any supposition, one way or the other, is made without tangible evidence. IED also responds to Steve Tynor's quite rational comments thusly: > In regard to this idiotic trend among you and your ilk to criticize >a work of art like _The_Sensual_World_ via factually vapid, musically >ignorant and fundamentally boorish insults of both the music and those >who are capable of appreciating it: go right ahead. You convince no one >but yourselves. IED for one sees no hope of elucidating you and your >fellow fickle cynics about the myriad facets of _TSW_'s perfection. >If your ears can't perceive them, IED's words will go unheard, as well. >So go right ahead--continue to embarrass yourselves with your absurd >checklists of alleged "flaws" in _TSW_: you're just whistling away >in the dark void of your own ignorance. This is quite a textbook example of argumentem ad hominem, IED. You might has well have added a "your momma" to it. Factually vapid? Such as "I don't like it"? To declare that anything Kate does is perfect by definition is the true foolishness. I do not listen to Kate's music searching for flaws, but if there are things I do not like, I don't assume that it is my own ignorance or lack of taste. Such thinking is for the truly insecure, for whom having opinions of their own is just too intimidating. -- Stewart -- "Playing the banjo may make you stupid, but it's worth it." -- Matt Brocchini /* uunet!sco!stewarte -or- stewarte@sco.COM -or- Stewart Evans */
ed@DAS.LLNL.GOV (Edward Suranyi) (12/05/89)
In article <1989Dec4.173150.19936@aqdata.uucp> sullivan@aqdata.UUCP ("Michael T. Sullivan") writes: > Well, when the video world-premiered on MTV's "Now Hear This" there was no > laugh and I think we can safely assume that at least this one time the > entire video would have been shown. Wrong. For the first showing of "Now Hear This", they cut off the "Yeah!" at the end. I think they recognized their error, because they didn't repeat it for the second showing of that show. But my point is that MTV is far from infallible. Ed (Edward Suranyi) | Caption: "Kate Bush goes from cult fave to Dept. of Applied Science | chart rave." -- _Billboard_ UC Davis/Livermore | (In "Was It A Hit Or A Miss" in the 1985 ed@das.llnl.gov | year-end special issue.)
robinson@wtvc15.enet.DEC.COM (12/08/89)
In article <8912030003.AA17789@EDDIE.MIT.EDU>, IED > In regard to this idiotic trend among you and your ilk to criticize > a work of art like _The_Sensual_World_ via factually vapid, musically > ignorant and fundamentally boorish insults of both the music and those > who are capable of appreciating it: go right ahead. You convince no one > but yourselves. IED for one sees no hope of elucidating you and your > fellow fickle cynics about the myriad facets of _TSW_'s perfection. > If your ears can't perceive them, IED's words will go unheard, as well. > So go right ahead--continue to embarrass yourselves with your absurd > checklists of alleged "flaws" in _TSW_: you're just whistling away > in the dark void of your own ignorance. > > -- Andrew Marvick IED it is _painfully_ obvious that you are incapable of any objective criticism of Kate's work. Sure I'm a fanatic too - but I make sure that I don't have blinders on - I know bad when I see it (and I am not saying that the latest album is bad - but I think one would be hard pressed to justify its place anywhere near HoL or TD). And the video for Love and Anger - flaws/weaknesses (IMHO) 1) Poor direction - who said that kate looks good at all when all I see it the underside of her jaw. 2) Too derivitive of Sat in Your Lap. 3) Dave looks like an _old_ Jabba the Hut here (once again poor camera work/direction) and finally - the biggie 4) That inane 'chicken' imitation Kate does while singing - Kate the disco-duck thing is _out_ even a hormonally-imbalanced-over-made-up-pre-teen-club-MTV-slut wouldn't dance like that. will decwrl!islnds.dec.com!robinson 'I was trying so hard to be myself - I was turning into someone else'