Love-Hounds-request@GAFFA.MIT.EDU (08/26/89)
Really-From: "Andy Gough, x4-2906, pager 513, CH2-59" <AGOUGH%FAB6@sc.intel.com> > IED admits that distribution of the music would be "wrong". When he >considered the possibility of distributing the music anyway, it was >because there were other factors--not just moral factors, either--which >had to be acknowledged, as well. First, he recognized the fact that >a fan is a fan, and as such, a true fan--i.e., one who is, first and >foremost, hopelessly in love with the _music_--is going to do anything >he or she can to hear the demos. This isn't a moral statement, it's >just a fact of life. Second, he recognized that a corollary of the >first fact is that _if_ these fans are unable to get the demos >cheaply, they will pay more money for them--thus further fattening the >wallets of the bootleggers who are responsible for the original >leak of the demos. How, then, could these two factors be reconciled? You could do nothing. This is, in fact, what you did. Good choice. > And an explanation occurred to him. Tim and Lazlo seem to find >it quite easy to reject all of the mitigating circumstances and >arguments which IED considered, and to place all their confidence in >the simple assumption that Kate's moral right over her tapes precedes, >overrules and condemns all other aspects of this particular case. The "'simple' assumption"? I assume when you use "simple" you actually mean "foolish" or "stupid." I do not believe it can be called an "assumption" at all. It is more a belief in the basic rules of civilization--in this case, "It is wrong to steal." You (IED) pose a more difficult question, though. You do not ask if it is right or wrong, for you already know it to be wrong. Instead, you ask if it is a sin. Your question is of the type, "Is it a sin to steal bread when you're hungry?", or "Is it a sin to steal medicine to save your dying wife's life?" More directly, the question you ask is, "Is it a sin to pirate Kate's demos if you really really really really really really really really want to hear them?" Tim, Lazlo, and myself reply, "Yes! It is a sin!" Why do we believe it a sin? Two factors, I think, are dominant: your life doesn't depend on you hearing them, and one doesn't always get what he wants in life even if he really wants it (so denying you the demos is no different than other aspects of your life). > And why is this? Their simple-minded concern with only >one piece in a complex, many-sided puzzle does not indicate that >Tim and Lazlo are better able to judge the problem than the rest >of us. On the contrary. So what other distinctions between them >and us can be seen? In IED's opinion, there can be only one explanation: >Lazlo and Tim Maroney are not, according to IED's definition of the >term above, "true" Kate Bush fans. That is to say, they are _not_ >driven by an amoral, unreasoning and uncontrollable need to hear >any and all Kate Bush music which it may come within their power to >hear. In IED's opinion, their remarkable sacrifice of the chance to >hear the demos is not to be admired at all, for IED knows that his >own sense of morality is as strong--and clearly is more refined-- >than theirs. Rather, their sacrifice is to be pitied, for the only >thing that it indicates to IED is that they do not truly live in the >world of Kate's art. This is a fact. A heroine addict is still commiting a crime when he purchases and shoots up heroine--even though he has a real, physical, need for the drug. And, if you confront the junkie with the moral, legal, and health issues associated with heroine abuse just as he's craving more heroine, the junkie won't listen to a word you say--for he only wants his fix. You are a self-proclaimed Kate-junkie. And we're supposed to believe that your morality is as strong, but more refined, than Tim or Lazlo's? You need to detox first. Perhaps Tim and Lazlo can better _balance_ listening to Kate with other aspects of their lives--such as being ethical human beings. > Their willing, even proud, >sacrifice of access to the demos on what they claim are purely moral >grounds is really nothing more than an unwitting admission that their >appreciation of Kate's art is insufficient to override their rather >ordinary and facile sense of right and wrong. And for this, IED >pities them both. Or perhaps they have more respect for the _artist_ rather than just her _art_. ________________________________________________________________________________ >I walk away and curse myself for again maiking myself a fool in front >of Kate. But I spot John Carder Bush and am able to talk to him somewhat >intelligently about *Brazil* and about how Kate does her two way >messages (which Kate herself would say nothing about). > >"You're all alone on the stage tonight..." > >|>oug Hey Doug, just what is Kate's connection with "Brazil"? I've seen it briefly mentioned on Love-Hounds several times, but not in-depth explanation of her involvement. I'm more interested in this than usual since "Brazil" is a film that I very much admire. In fact, I think Harry Tuttle should become a new Superhero and join the ranks of Superman, Flash, Batman, Spiderman, and (another favorite) Plasticman. I often wish that Tuttle would zoom in when I'm argueing with an unthinking bureacrat. It's been a few years since I've seen the film, but I assume that Kate sang the theme song. Is there anything more to it than that? Anything special about the song? -andy "We gotta fight back, Sam. We're all in it together, kid." -- Harry Tuttle "Brazil"
Love-Hounds-request@GAFFA.MIT.EDU (08/26/89)
Really-From: Lazlo Nibble <csbrkaac@ariel.unm.edu> IED writes (pulled from Andy Gough's reply -- I missed IED's original): > Lazlo and Tim Maroney are not, according to IED's definition of the > term above, "true" Kate Bush fans. That is to say, they are _not_ > driven by an amoral, unreasoning and uncontrollable need to hear > any and all Kate Bush music which it may come within their power to > hear. In IED's opinion, their remarkable sacrifice of the chance to > hear the demos is not to be admired at all, for IED knows that his > own sense of morality is as strong--and clearly is more refined-- > than theirs. Rather, their sacrifice is to be pitied, for the only > thing that it indicates to IED is that they do not truly live in the > world of Kate's art. This is a fact. I'll concede that IED is much better at being a Kate fanatic than I am. I've got all her albums on disc, some singles, a fair amount of paraphenalia, and have turned several other people on to her music, but somehow I just haven't managed to get amoral, unreasoning, or uncontrollable about her. That's just *me*; it's not some sort of attempt to get "admired" or prove the refined nature of my morality. I readily admit that I *don't* live in the world of Kate's art . . . I live in the real world, where Kate may be one of the most incredibly talented and amazing performers extant, but where she's not important enough to twist the way I live my life around for. I'm just one of Kate's many fans -- not a fanatic. > Their willing, even proud, > sacrifice of access to the demos on what they claim are purely moral > grounds is really nothing more than an unwitting admission that their > appreciation of Kate's art is insufficient to override their rather > ordinary and facile sense of right and wrong. And for this, IED > pities them both. I don't recall being particularly prideful at having missed the demos, or even having claimed that I missed them on moral grounds. All I'm saying is that, in my opinion, you did the wrong thing when you pirated Kate's stuff against her specific wishes. I have yet to see any defense of your actions that's made the slightest bit of sense from outside the fanatic's perspective, which is a perspective that I really don't have much practice in or any desire to adopt. I simply believe that there are some things that are just plain out-and-out *wrong*, and what you did is one of them. Facile and ordinary? Maybe. But, I think, hardly an inappropriate feeling under the circumstances. Please . . . save your pity. Others need it more than I do. Lazlo (csbrkaac@ariel.unm.edu) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ "No! Dan! Turn the music back UP! Oh, son of a BIIIITCH!!!"
Love-Hounds-request@GAFFA.MIT.EDU (08/29/89)
Really-From: stevev@chemstor.uoregon.edu (Steve VanDevender) In article <8908260008.AA24580@EDDIE.MIT.EDU>, "Andy Gough, x4-2906, pager 513, CH2-59" <AGOUGH%FAB6@sc.intel.com> makes the most wonderful and seemingly unintentional misspelling: >A heroine addict is still commiting a crime when he purchases and shoots >up heroine--even though he has a real, physical, need for the drug. And, >if you confront the junkie with the moral, legal, and health issues >associated with heroine abuse just as he's craving more heroine, the junkie >won't listen to a word you say--for he only wants his fix. You are a >self-proclaimed Kate-junkie. And we're supposed to believe that your >morality is as strong, but more refined, than Tim or Lazlo's? You need to >detox first. All I can really say to that is that yes, many Love-Hounds are most definitely "heroine addicts"--IED certainly admitted to craving more of his heroine, although not in those words. In this context, the concept of "heroine abuse" is amusing to think about. I certainly hope this isn't taken as a sarcastic spelling flame--under these circumstances saying "heroine" instead of "heroin" is hilariously appropriate, and even funnier considering that the misspelling appears to be unintentional, or at least unconscious. It gave me a good laugh as well as suggesting an interesting perspective on the ongoing argument. This joins neatly with the argument about whether intended or perceived meaning is more important--the above is a nearly ideal example of how both intended and perceived meanings are valuable. If I had stuck with the intended meaning of the quoted paragraph, I wouldn't have gotten a good chuckle from humorously perverse thoughts about Kate Bush fans as heroine addicts craving more heroine, or all the possibilities for heroine abuse by Kate fans. But the perceived meaning suggested by the consistent misspelling isn't all there is to that paragraph, either--it's very important to know that the intended meaning of the paragraph is to make an analogy with drug addiction. As another example, it was through reading this newsgroup that I first learned of the intended theme of _The Ninth Wave_. Until then, I had gotten vague notions from parts of the sequence that it was about someone nearly drowning, but thinking about the sequence being about a woman lost out in the ocean for a night and struggling to survive greatly increased my appreciation of the work, since I had a more coherent framework to think about it in. Without that framework I had enjoyed the sequence, but with it I could appreciate the sequence in an entirely new way. Occasionally I listen to a song and discover later that my idea of what a particular word in the lyrics was is not the same as what the artist intended. Depending on my mood, I may even prefer the lyrics as I originally heard them--sometimes it makes more sense that way, even though I know what the intended lyrics really are. I find that I like ambiguous music more than unambiguous music--vague meanings and multiple interpretations are ultimately more interesting than what the artist may have originally intended, or what I thought when I first heard the song. The intended meaning of a work is interesting to me, but often not satisfying; if I prefer a perceived meaning, I still want to know what the intended meaning was to satisfy my curiosity about the artistic process. -- 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."