Love-Hounds-request@GAFFA.MIT.EDU (09/29/89)
Really-From: IED0DXM%OAC.UCLA.EDU@mitvma.mit.edu
To: Love-Hounds
From: Andrew Marvick
Subject: Kate-echisminimism; and Phone message news
Jon Drukman, you don't know what the f*ck you're talking about.
Doug _did_ indeed state--as a fact--that Kate had made that statement
about _Nice_to_Swallow_ herself, in jest. When he said that, IED
denied that she had said that. It was _then_ that Doug qualified his
statement with the equivocating remark he re-posted as "proof" of
his intellectual caution yesterday. IED, unfortunately, does not
keep records going that far back, so no doubt Doug will choose to
disbelieve me (since IED has disbelieved Doug many times in the past,
this may well be poetic justice), but there is no doubt in IED's
mind that Doug's original reference to the "Nice to Swallow" nonsense
was that "Kate once said" this.
It is true that Doug deserves some credit for finding the "quote".
However, IED has now followed suit and checked the same source himself.
What did he discover? Well, mainly that, contrary to Doug's say-so,
the magazine in question is typically _loaded_ with errors of English!
(This should not come as a surprise to readers of Doug's own postings.)
It is therefore not the _least_bit_ improbable that a similar error was
made by the editors of the magazine in this case. More likely still is
that the interviewer simply misheard Kate saying "_Night_of_the_Swallow_"
and wrote it out as "_Nice_to_Swallow_". Since the editing on that
rag was not very good, and the chances in any event of anyone on the
editorial staff noticing that a Bush title had been misrepresented were
slim, it is _extremely_ likely on the face of it that the words were
simply one of many errors that slipped through.
But we have far more than that to support that hypothesis! IED is
_sick_and_tired_ of idiotic claims to the effect that such a "joke"
is "in character" with other remarks Kate Bush has made. IT IS NOT!
No one has ever implied, Doug and Jon, that Kate is a prude. Obviously,
she is not! The point is not whether she is afraid of using so-called
"censorable language" or sexual imagery. The point is whether she would
make a crude, vulgar, _self_-denigrating_ joke of her _own_serious_
work! And the answer is, so far as we can tell from the millions of
words on file from her to date, _NO_SHE_WOULDN'T_. She _never_has_!
Douglas and Jon, however, have already long since shown to this
group that their own crude and vulgar sense of humour renders them
utterly incapable of distinguishing a straightforward, descriptive use
of language (as in "Because you can see my tits") from a powerfully
poetic, imagistic use of language (as in "The sheets are soaked by
your tiny fish") from a crude, gratuitous and utterly uncharacteristic
bathroom joke like "Nice to Swallow". Thankfully, most of the rest
of Love-Hounds _can_ see the differences, so with luck we can go
on to another subject now.
Vickie of K.C., MO wanted IED to forward her thanks to all
the Love-Hounds (more than 35 of you at last count) who called her
Kate Bush telephone-message number over the last couple of days.
She wants IED to re-iterate, however--even stress--that all callers
are urged to leave a comment or two after the message ends (after
the beep), and even if they don't want to leave their names, could
they say where they are calling from? Thanks. The telephone number,
again, is (816) 561-0846. It contains a special experience for all
those who are still waiting for Kate's new album. Enjoy!
-- Andrew MarvickLove-Hounds-request@GAFFA.MIT.EDU (09/29/89)
Really-From: Jon Drukman <jsd@GAFFA.MIT.EDU> >Really-From: IED0DXM%OAC.UCLA.EDU@mitvma.mit.edu > > Jon Drukman, you don't know what the f*ck you're talking about. OOOOh Boyeee! It's been ages since I've been on the receiving end of an IED flame. Can you stand it, kids? New Kate music _and_ an IED attack all within the space of two days! I may die, right now... >IED, unfortunately, does not >keep records going that far back, so no doubt Doug will choose to >disbelieve me (since IED has disbelieved Doug many times in the past, >this may well be poetic justice), but there is no doubt in IED's >mind that Doug's original reference to the "Nice to Swallow" nonsense >was that "Kate once said" this. Well, we here _do_ keep records going "that far back," and my research has pinpointed this message as the start of the whole deal: [Background info: |>oug was being chastised for interpreting the world "sensual" as meaning "sexual" and the original writer (strangely named "user@apple" (A Modem User)) told |>oug to get his mind out of the gutter. This is what |>oug said: ] :I wish you'd get your mind IN the gutter! Kate has all sorts of :SEXUAL -- not just "sensory" allusions in her music -- some subtle and :some not subtle at all. I think the fact that Kate has refered to :"Night of the Swallow" as "Nice to Swallow" should speak for :where Kate thinks your mind should be! So what does this seem to say? Well, pity |>oug for taking Kate at her printed word! Maybe all this time |>oug has made a few tiny "transcription errors" with his interview and Kate was really saying things like "Oh yeah |>oug, I really agree. There Goes A Tenner is all about the quest to find life on Mars. Spot on! Good of you to notice it." and "Y'know, it's really refreshing to meet someone who spends hours formulating abstruse and clearly insane theories about my songs, when they're really simple." Honestly, I think you people just _hate_ to admit that you could possibly be wrong! > It is true that Doug deserves some credit for finding the "quote". Good. > Douglas and Jon, however, have already long since shown to this >group that their own crude and vulgar sense of humour renders them >utterly incapable of distinguishing a straightforward, descriptive use >of language (as in "Because you can see my tits") from a powerfully >poetic, imagistic use of language (as in "The sheets are soaked by >your tiny fish") from a crude, gratuitous and utterly uncharacteristic >bathroom joke like "Nice to Swallow". Not quite as good. After spending all this time trying to "get in touch with my female side" it's made me realize that being a sensitive, caring, intelligent guy all day gives you nothing but headaches. I worship Kate as a Goddess, but even our idols need poking fun at. In fact, they need it more than most. So lighten up. I believe she could have said it. Most people don't agree, but that's what makes horse-racing, isn't it? Now, in this season of festive Kateness, perhaps we can put aside our differences and get on with come constructive work on the new album. For instance, why is the guy's picture in the paper during "Heads We're Dancing" ?? -- +---------------------- Is there any ESCAPE from NOISE? --------------------+ | | |\ | jsd@gaffa.mit.edu | "Please, Al, the fat and unattractive| | \|on |/rukman | jsd@umass.bitnet | have rights too!" -- Steve Rhodes | +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Love-Hounds-request@GAFFA.MIT.EDU (10/03/89)
Really-From: hplabs!grega@hp-ptp.hp.com (Number 6) Why does anyone assume the phrase "Nice To Swallow" refers to oral sex? Would you have made the same assumption if the speaker had been a man? "How did you enjoy the Dom Perignon, Ms. Bush?" "It's Nice to swallow." Also, on the same stoopid subject: Are there no musicians on this thread? Come on people, *all* musicians have pet-names for their music, and they are often comic and sometimes genuinely crude. But it beats calling everything by it's *formal* name all the time. Is Kate different? Can't *she* have silly names for her "serious work"? An example: Jazz composer Hank Levi refers to his composition "Time For A Change" as "Change for a dime." Cute, eh? ============================================================================== | Greg Anderson | hpdsla!grega | grega@hpdsla.HP.COM | ============================================================================== | "Time is a child playing draughts: the kingship is in the hands of the | | child" -- Heraclitus | ==============================================================================