keving@GAFFA.WPD.SGI.COM (Kevin Gurney) (07/16/89)
WARNING: This is rather long (180 lines) and talks about whether or not the woman is dead by the end of The Ninth Wave, and some more general thoughts on artistic interpretation. Those not interested in the least should push "n" now.... Andrew writes: > Kate has several times explained that _Watching_You_Without_Me_ is based > on the idea of sensory deprivation, and the experience of leaving one's > body (while alive). You'll find no argument from me on this point, but you may from others. > --of all the silly stereotypical ways of describing the rich and complex > mood of that music ["The Morning Fog"], "happy" has got to be one the > silliest. Silliest? Okay, what words would you use to characterize it? Given that it's of a spirited tempo, it's in a major key, it begins 'subito forte', the acoustic guitar is clear and in the foreground of the recording, and that it follows a piece which is in a minor key and fades out, I'd say 'happy' isn't too far from the mark. But since you've obviously given careful and studied thought to the word that best describes the musical nature of The Morning Fog, by all means do share your thoughts with the rest of us. I'm also curious to see what you find so "rich and complex" about the mood of this piece. Again, please share your thoughts with the rest of us. > Kevin makes the mistake of assuming that anyone > here has been arguing that an actual "rescue" takes place > in _The_Ninth_Wave_. IED sees no evidence that a rescue has already > been effected before the piece ends. I guess I stand guilty as charged. I assumed that those who see a survival also saw a rescue. Apparently, Andrew doesn't. But without evidence of a rescue how can you claim that she survives? Yes, she may have survived the night, and she's put her life in perspective, but you can't really say she survives the water and goes back to her family and all the other elements that are necessary for a truly happy ending. (Oh there's that word again. So sorry Andrew.) Maybe, just maybe, the "hopeful, upbeat" (Kate's words) ending of this suite is that if the heroine _should_ die after the record ends, then she is able to accept her death. Maybe not. (I think we already know what Andrew thinks.) > Why does the obviously poetic, metaphorical "stone" image not "fit" with the > rest of the song, or with the idea that she is coming to a new > understanding of the value of life? I can see your point and must admit that it does make sense. Touche'. > If you're going to make a fuss about the use of the conditional mode in > this spot, and claim it as "proof" that the character is dead, then how are > you going to explain the very next lines, all of which are in the simple > future tense? They read: [ lines deleted ] > There's just no way of interpreting these lines as anything > but a clear and unequivocal statement of the heroine's intention > to do just those very things when she gets out of the water. Or she, being dead, will 'tell' her loved ones how much she loves them in other ways. The more mystical among us can hope/believe that contact with the dead is possible (No, I'm not claiming that Kate believes this, so put the gun down), and those of us raised in a Catholic tradition (as I believe Kate was, having atteded St. Joseph's Convent Grammar School), can remember being told that the dead in heaven pray for us on earth just as we here on earth pray for their souls. > Also, if you have a CD of _Hounds_of_Love_, you will be able to hear > a sound effect in the very last half-second of _The_Ninth_Wave_: the > momentary sound of a clock ticking. This nearly buried but very real > sound (it is not equipment noise, and has even cryptically been affirmed by > John Carder Bush) is another clear sign that the girl's life is continuing > at the end of the piece. I haven't heard this, but I shall don headphones tonight and hunt for it. How in the world does a clicking clock, assuming that's what it is, mean "the girl's life is continuing"? Please elaborate on this idea. >>3. The couplet "Being born again/Into the sweet morning fog" just sounds >>too much like she's passed on to the next world. I can't think of any other >>_plausible_ interpretation. Oh she could be saying, "Now that I'm out of >>e water, I feel so young again. My, look how foggy it is this morning. What's >>that smell? Does someone have candy?", but that's just way to clumsy for me >>to believe. > ...the heroine's feeling that she's "being born again into the sweet morning > fog" is a completely consistent, natural way of describing her > catharsis--the epiphanous experience she has undergone through her traumatic > night in the water. As with the point above about the stone, I can see your point and must admit that is makes sense to me. > IED started off this posting by saying that Kate has > herself said that the heroine does not die. He posted relevant > quotations in Love-Hounds only a few short months ago. I've been reading this newsgroup for two years now and saved every article that was interesting to me (I think I probably have most everything you've ever posted Andrew!), but I can't seem to find these quotes in my cache. As others have complained, I can't even get to the archives, so I'm sorry I can't find the article in which this whole explanation appeared. If some kind Love-Hound out there could e-mail me the article I would be most appreciative (try "keving@gaffa.wpd.sgi.com"). > Here are Kate's own words: "Well, > as part of the concept of the second side, _The_Ninth_Wave_, the > last song had to be very positive, very much the idea of everything > bursting into light so it's all suddenly reborn, rather than that every- > thing dies." And, again, Kate's own words (and this ought to put an end > once and for all to the ridiculous notion of dying): "A lot of people > have said that _The_Ninth_Wave_ is about the girl dying, but it's > much more about the girl _not_ dying." (Kate's own italics.) Fine. Could I please have a reference on these quotes? I trust your ability to quote, but I'm curious as to the context surrounding this point in the interview. Again, I can't get to the archives and don't have your original posting in my cache. Perhaps there were network mail delivery problems on our end? And now for the summing up.... Many times throughout Andrew's response he used phrases like: > It's just not a matter of debate, folks. Well it's not about debate, Andrew. It's about interpretation! As I see it, there are few Absolutes Rights and Wrongs when it comes to artistic intrepretation. An artist may certainly say, "Well, that's not what I was aiming for", but that doesn't mean others can't explore other interpretations of the art. In fact sometimes artists themselves don't even know the intrepretation of the art they create. (This is general comment about art, and is not meant to suggest that I think Kate doesn't know what she's doing). If you have some personal problem with intrepretations of Kate's songs that in any fashion contradict what Kate herself has said they might mean, that's fine. But it's a far leap from "This is what Kate says" to "This is what is must mean for all people, for all time!" I would think Kate must see the oppurtunity that re-intrepretation and re-examination provide to keep great works of art alive and breathing. I think you really must examine whether you're doing Kate's music a service by insisting on rigid, dogmatic dedication to the (mostly ambiguous) remarks Kate has made about the deeper meaning of her songs. If some of us find solace in the believe that the heroine faces death at the end of the suite (or even after the record ends) with a clear mind and a fuller understanding of her love for her family and friends, rather than in a paniced flailing of self-doubt and fear, then who are you to say we are Wrong? Likewise, I now realize that some of my own comments about the above theory, while meaning only to point out what _I_ see as obvious, may have been interpreted as saying "this is the way it must be". This was never my intent; if Andrew or anyone else think (and I do believe the majority holds this view) that the heroine not only survives the night, but is (or has already been) rescued by the end of the record, then that's fine with me and I won't say (and never had said!): "It's not a matter of debate, folks." As you've often said, Andrew, you have a particular way of writing about Kate and her KrafT for which you feel no need to apologize. I certainly won't ask for an apology, but I would ask that you examine your thoughts on the subject of artistic criticism and interpretation more closly, away from the flamage and blither of the net. If you really, truly, all-hyperbolic- netwriting-aside, believe that this sort of discussion is "not a matter for debate", then I think you should come out and say so. So now what do _I_ think happens at the of TNW? Well, now I'm more likely to subscribe to the point of view that; she doesn't die at the end of Hello Earth; the Morning Fog is a celebration not just of life, but of her survival; whether she is rescued or not, the heroine has had a truly glorious and soul-enriching experience for which she can be nothing but the better; and that she herself, while unsure of her immediate future with regards to being rescued, isn't fearful of dying. Your intrepretations may vary. :) -- Pres. Bush's biggest fear about a burning flag is that he won't be able to unwrap himself from it in time. keving@gaffa.wpd.sgi.com
dbk@mimsy.UUCP (Dan Kozak) (07/17/89)
> Many times throughout Andrew's response he used phrases like: >> It's just not a matter of debate, folks. > Well it's not about debate, Andrew. It's about interpretation! As I see it, > there are few Absolutes Rights and Wrongs when it comes to artistic > intrepretation. An artist may certainly say, "Well, that's not what I was > aiming for", but that doesn't mean others can't explore other interpretations > of the art. In fact sometimes artists themselves don't even know the > intrepretation of the art they create. (This is general comment about art, > and is not meant to suggest that I think Kate doesn't know what she's doing). > If you have some personal problem with intrepretations of Kate's songs that > in any fashion contradict what Kate herself has said they might mean, that's > fine. But it's a far leap from "This is what Kate says" to "This is what is > must mean for all people, for all time!" > I would think Kate must see the oppurtunity that re-intrepretation and > re-examination provide to keep great works of art alive and breathing. I > think you really must examine whether you're doing Kate's music a service > by insisting on rigid, dogmatic dedication to the (mostly ambiguous) remarks > Kate has made about the deeper meaning of her songs. Thank you, Kevin, for putting this in the proper framework. For as long as I can remember, I have been incensed by anyone who said of a work of art, "this is what the artist intended." I don't think anyone would be . . . . uh, stupid . . . enough to say that the creation of music (or any other art form, for that matter) was entirely a concious intellecutual process. Why is it then, that people interpret it that way? I have listened to the Ninth Wave many times and, thought I did have a general sense of the "plot" from reading interviews with Kate, I have never worried about the fate of heroine. To me, the experience of listening to the music (as a whole, not just the lyrics), is a reward in itself. While I certainly don't mean to criticize anyone for spending some time analyzing music, I think that people need to take William Hurt's advice (from "The Big Chill") and just "let art flow over you." There is a reason that Kate Bush's chosen form is music not the printed word. Kevin also brought up the issue of whether the artist actually has an "intention" (as opposed to the listener/viewer attaching one to them). I think many artists are afraid of appearing to not know what they are doing and so later (in interviews for example) come up with reasons for why something is a certain way, even though that was not the focus of the work at the time of its creation. I've always admired David Byrne in particular because he's quite willing to say "Oh, I don't know why that word is there, or rather, I do know intuitively why it's there, but I couldn't explain it." While I wouldn't presume to know what's going thru KaTe's mind when she's writing a song, I wouldn't be surprised at all to discover that it is NOT the linear, "not a matter of debate" stuff that we hear in interviews. In fact, I've noticed that many of her videos (done, quite often, many months after the original inspiration) seem to be, to me, overly literal - a graphic depiction of the "story" - and lose much of the ambiguous, evocative nature of her musical work. Perhaps I'm too much the gestaltist, but that is what drew me to her work in the first place, how it spoke to ME. I guess I find that too much analysis spoils this for me. -- #dan Clever: dbk@mimsy.umd.edu | "For I was rolled in water, Not-so-clever: uunet!mimsy!dbk | I was rolled out past the pier" - MoB
tim@toad.COM (Tim Maroney) (07/19/89)
All right, already! All this great mess has convinced me of is that there are some good points on either side of the question, and a great number of specious rationales and over-interpreted ambiguous quotes as well. The question is not decidable and we long ago passed the point of contributing intelligently to examinations of the question. Let's move on to something more concrete. Like, for instance, at the end of THE WALL, does Pink die? -- Tim Maroney, Mac Software Consultant, sun!hoptoad!tim, tim@toad.com "Gorbachev is returning to the heritage of the great Lenin" - Ronald Reagan
tlh@PacBell.COM (Lee Hounshell) (07/19/89)
In article <8907182150.AA04903@hop.toad.com> tim@toad.COM (Tim Maroney) writes: >Let's move on to something more concrete. Like, for instance, at the >end of THE WALL, does Pink die? Actually, at the end of THE WALL, everything starts over again. If you listen very carfully to the last two seconds of the end of the second disk, you will hear "Isn't this where.." and then the first two seconds of the first disk has "I came in?" So looking at the loop objectively, I'd have to say "No, Pink doesn't die. He just gets caught in a time warp. :-)" Lee Hounshell
tim@toad.COM (Tim Maroney) (07/20/89)
In article <8907182150.AA04903@hop.toad.com> tim@toad.COM (Tim Maroney) writes: >Let's move on to something more concrete. Like, for instance, at the >end of THE WALL, does Pink die? Quoted-From: tlh@PacBell.COM (Lee Hounshell) >Actually, at the end of THE WALL, everything starts over again. If you >listen very carfully to the last two seconds of the end of the second disk, >you will hear "Isn't this where.." and then the first two seconds of the >first disk has "I came in?" Yeah, everybody knows that. That's why I asked if he dies. The first side begins with him getting born, so there would seem to be some sort of cyclic view of rebirth expressed here. This seems a bit mystical for Waters, but then, the old wheel of life is traditionally supposed to be a sort of spiritual trap from which one ought to escape, and that fits in with the fatalistic theme of the album. >So looking at the loop objectively, I'd have >to say "No, Pink doesn't die. He just gets caught in a time warp. :-)" Yeah, that's it, there's this spinning black hole outside the wall, see, and he gets sucked in, (falling, like a stone) and emerges back at the start of the album. he's thrown out of the delivery room and turned over to the police, who put him behind a new wall. On release, he becomes a schoolteacher, and.... Have you met my wife, Morgan Fairchild? -- Tim Maroney, Mac Software Consultant, sun!hoptoad!tim, tim@toad.com "I was brought up in the other service; but I knew from the first that the Devil was my natural master and captain and friend. I saw that he was in the right, and that the world cringed to his conqueror only from fear." - Shaw, "The Devil's Disciple"