IED0DXM@OAC.UCLA.EDU (12/05/89)
To: Love-Hounds From: Andrew Marvick (IED) Subject: a philocanine prayer > So, I'm sitting here, with my CD player cranking away and the new >single in it. "This Woman's Work (Single Mix)" has just finished, and >I'm damned if I can tell the difference between it and the album >version, making the "hey, let's sell more records" type inscription on >the inside card particularly odious: "Original version of of 'This >Woman's Work' available on the album 'The Sensual World.'" I'm sure >IED will jump all over me and call me a crass slob for not realizing >the brilliance of this ploy, but it smacks of a rotten marketing ploy >and it's pretty dishonest too. Actually, IED will say that Kate had >nothing to do with it an it's all EMI's fault, blah blah blah, but >thank you very much Mr. D, I am quite capable of realizing that. Actually, Drukman, you have as usual failed utterly to realize anything at all! IED is not surprised, but the fact is quite plain (as Ed Suranyi has already noted eloquently) that the single mix of _This_Woman's_Work_ is _very_audibly_ different from the album version! The strings are much more prominent. Furthermore, the lead vocal has been given a slightly more "matte" sound than on the LP. These are not illusions, they are perfectly apparent to anyone who has any ear for musical nuance at all--or to anyone who actually takes the trouble to _listen_ to music before passing judgement on it. Said differences to the recording having been made for the single release, it would have been "dishonest" of Kate _not_ to have made the plain and factual comment that the single mix differs from that on the album. The idea that Kate is attempting thereby to increase sales is patently absurd. She has several times made it clear that she is extremely sensitive to the changes in audio that radio broadcast of her records can produce in them. As a result, she has made similarly subtle but nonetheless very real changes to several of her earlier recordings prior to their release as singles, and as in all those prior instances, the changes were the product of _aesthetic_ decisions. It becomes clear that we cannot realistically expect Drukman to cease his postings on the subject of the new album, for he has--despite himself--been undeniably affected by its greatness. What saddens IED more, however, is that hope must be abandoned, as well, that Drukman will make even the feeblest sort of effort to listen and to think _before_ he posts. Drukman's recent screeds on the subject of _TSW_ have been even more heavily laden with factual errors than their predecessors, despite IED's and others' repeated demonstrations of Drukman's apalling propensity for intellectual and musicological carelessness. At this point, we have no choice but to leave Drukman in the dark, grim morass of slovenly thinking and tawdry subconnoisseurship to which he stubbornly insists on consigning himself. Therefore let us pray to Kate for the departed, once tolerable (if never actually respected) Soul of Drukman, and let us all take heart in the knowledge that he will surely remain ignorant of the tragedy of his own fall from grace. May the scales never fall from Drukman's eyes, lest he recognize his ilk for the poor, benighted, fickle, cynical, Philistine, fad-conscious wretches they are. -- Andrew Marvick, an unsympathetic, sometimes even unsavory, but always _true_ Kate Bush fan
stevev@CHEMSTOR.UOREGON.EDU (Steve VanDevender) (12/05/89)
>-- Andrew Marvick, an unsympathetic, sometimes even unsavory, but > always _true_ Kate Bush fan I really wanted to resist the urge to get involved in this, but I am only human. IED, It seems that you have been having a bad month, and if it's true that something in your life is influencing you to write horrid, arrogant, demeaning replies to people who are merely expressing their _opinions_, then I hope it gets better soon. Very soon. What I enjoy about love-hounds/rec.music.gaffa is the huge quantity of Kate-related information. I was a low-grade Kate fan before discovering rec.music.gaffa by accident ("rec.music.gaffa?" I thought to myself, "what's gaffa? Sounds like a reggae term or something."). All the things I have learned through this group have given me much more appreciation for the music of Kate Bush. I thought "The Ninth Wave" was fascinating but never got a handle on it until I read discussions about it here, for example. We're talking about music here, not astrophysics. When it comes to emotional impact and song preferences, there is more than one right answer. If someone is making factual errors on fairly objective matters, then it's possible to point out the errors without resorting to calling the authors of the offending articles "poor, benighted, fickle, cynical, Philistine, fad-conscious wretches." Although the authors may be, such accusations tend to move followups off the subject of Kate's music and onto the subject of who is more of a brain-dead sot. So please let's talk about Kate Bush instead of how idiotic each other's opinions are. It is the diversity of opinion that makes the musical discussions so interesting. You like "Reaching Out", Jon Drukman hates it, and I think it's sort of mediocre but not unlistenable. Steve VanDevender, a Kate Bush fan who cannot claim that he thinks she is god (she smokes?! Eyeugh.) but who does consider her music to be some of the best available. -- Steve VanDevender stevev@chemstor.uoregon.edu "Bipedalism--an unrecognized disease affecting over 99% of the population. Symptoms include lack of traffic sense, slow rate of travel, and the classic, easily recognized behavior known as walking."
jsd@GAFFA.MIT.EDU (Jon Drukman) (12/05/89)
Having been subjected yet again to another ridiculous blast from the IED gun, it becomes increasingly clear that he has no respect for the opinions of any Kate fan that do not fall into the "total mental case frothing at the mouth drooling uncontrollably and blindly worshipping everything Kate does" category. OK, I admit that the "Single mix" *is* different from the album mix, but the changes are so minor that it makes me REALLY ANGRY at the thought that some poor slob would be suckered by this ploy. Of course, it doesn't really matter since I would've bought the single regardless of how different the mix was, but I can't help feeling irate. It's cheap, that's all. As for my lack of listening ability, mental stability, what have you, I leave this issue up to the capable brains of the Love Hounds to decide. Given my informed, well reasoned, intelligently argued (and wittily phrased) postings, and IED's bloated, pompous, specious ones, it becomes obvious whose feet are more firmly planted in reality. Maybe someday IED will wake up out of this offensive, inquistion-like trance state he's in and start realizing that there is no room for dogma in art, and that by stomping on the seeds of free thought, he's only going to perpetuate a horrible KKK-type mentality, where the only "correct" thoughts are ones that haven't been censured by the IED THOUGHT POLICE. I would further offer to the Philo-Canine community the rather daring suggestion that it is *IED* who isn't listening properly to Kate's art. In the meantime, all of us who still have minds under our own control will pray for IED's salvation, and hopeful emergence into "normal" behaviour patterns. Amen. "Sticking a spoke in the ear of the unguarded..." +---------------------- Is there any ESCAPE from NOISE? ----------------------+ | | |\ | jsd@gaffa.mit.edu | "Suck on this, | | \|on |/rukman | jsd@umass.bitnet | planet of noise bimbo!" | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
pb1p+@ANDREW.CMU.EDU (Peter Glen Berger) (12/06/89)
A paraphrase of IED's pedantic writing: > ...failed utterly...blah, blah, blah, IED is not surprised, blah.... > quite plain...Furthermore, blah blah blah...perfectly apparent... > nuance...blah blah...patently absurd...blah blah...subtle but > nonetheless very blah changes....undeniably...saddens...feeblest > ...Drukman's recent screeds [what the f**k's a screed?]...heavily > laden...appaling propensity for blah blah blah...grim morass... > tawdry subconnoiseurship blah...let us pray...grace...fickle... > >-- Andrew Marvick, an unsympathetic, sometimes even unsavory, but > always _true_ Kate Bush fan You mean an always _true_ pretentious, laughable writer. That posting was one of the most revolting pieces of religious fanatacism it has ever been my misfortune to read. Perhaps the difference in the new mix is only "quite plain" and "perfectly apparent" to those who have been indulging too deeply in hallucinogenic drugs coupled with a healthy dose of mental masturbation. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Pete Berger || ARPA: Pete.Berger@andrew.cmu.edu Professional Student || BITNET: R746PB1P@CMCCVB Carnegie-Mellon University || NEXUS@DRYCAS Do not attend this college. || UUCP: ...!harvard!andrew.cmu.edu!pb1p ------------------------------------------------------------------------ "If only I could/make a deal with god/and get him to swap our places..." ------------------------------------------------------------------------
wombat@claris.UUCP (Scott Lindsey) (12/06/89)
In article <AZSzdk200W0JE0tb4s@andrew.cmu.edu> pb1p+@ANDREW.CMU.EDU (Peter Glen Berger) writes: > > ...Drukman's recent screeds [what the f**k's a screed?]...heavily A screed is a leveling device drawn over freshly poured concrete... um... right. OK, next definition... a lengthy discourse or an informal piece of writing. See, only *sounds* insulting :-) Scott Lindsey |"Cold and misty morning. I heard a warning borne in the air Claris Corp. | About an age of power when no one had an hour to spare" ames!claris!wombat| DISCLAIMER: These are not the opinions of Claris, Apple, wombat@claris.com | StyleWare, the author, or anyone else living or Dead.