nbc@INF.RL.AC.UK (12/05/89)
>From: IED0DXM%OAC.UCLA.EDU@mitvma.mit.edu >Subject: KT NEWS > Kate Bush will appear on UK's _The_Wogan_Show_ _this_week_, >probably to perform _This_Woman's_Work_. All UK Love-Hounds are >_commanded_ to watch and (if possible) record! You betcha! This is extremely valuable info. Many thanks to IED as I would not normally bother to watch Wogan and the Radio Times and newspapers rarely tell you who will be on the show. All I know is that Nancy Raygun is on tonight's show. Guess I will have to watch in case Kate is on as well - how one suffers for art :-) >From: jsd@GAFFA.MIT.EDU (Jon Drukman) >Subject: Re: The Laugh >>In fact, it's obvious to anyone who isn't Dan Quayle that it belongs at the >>end of "Love and Anger". >I am not Dan Quayle (at least I wasn't last time I checked - let me >have a quick peek... nope, definitely do not have tapioca between my >ears so I can't be him...) and I don't agree with you. The laugh is >the perfect introduction to "The Fog." A giggle at a half-remembered >childhood foible, like being scared of the water. A piquant chuckle >of bemusement over the naivete of youth. Of course, we're not like >that anymore, but cast your mind back... (cue Fairlight whistles). >See what I mean? Perfection. No. I would not classify the laugh as either a giggle or a chuckle by a child/adolescent but rather an extremely vibrant and confident (in fact almost over-confident and verging into hysterical) full-blown laugh of an adult. >Besides, if you're so clever, how come the laugh ain't in the video or >on the CD or cassette single? Because they were made for the US market and who knows who got their grubby little hands on them somewhere in the production. >From: Woj <woiccare@clutx.clarkson.edu> >Subject: Re: The Laugh >The connection I see is due to the nervous feel of the laugh. (yes I >know that is very subjective and you might not think it such). You are certainly correct - it is *very* subjective and as you can see from above I take the opposite view. Guess this is what helps to make Kate's work so interesting: even the smallest details are cause for debate. Well, off to see what old Tel comes up with. Neil
lazlo@ARIEL.UNM.EDU (Lazlo Nibble) (12/07/89)
nbc@INF.RL.AC.UK writes: > You are certainly correct - it is *very* subjective and as you can see > from above I take the opposite view. Guess this is what helps to make > Kate's work so interesting: even the smallest details are cause for > debate. Well, it's part of what maKes subscribing To Love-Hounds so interesting anyway; I thinK debaTes liKe This are more a result of the intense fanaticism and anal-retentiveness of certain KaTe followers than any inherent aspects of her worK iTself. Granted, her music is very beautiful, intriguing, and complex, but once discussion of it gets down to the "Laugh Debate" level, that's when it's time to start wondering about certain people's grip on reality. Lazlo (lazlo@ariel.unm.edu) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ If you build it, he will come.