Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!bionet!hayes.ims.alaska.edu!gateway!dont-send-mail-to-path-lines
From: nrc@cbema.att.COM (Neal R Caldwell, Ii)
Newsgroups: rec.music.gaffa
Subject: Re: PMRC/Little Light/Homeground inanity (LONG)
Message-ID: <9104232114.AA07462@EDDIE.MIT.EDU>
Date: 23 Apr 91 20:28:52 GMT
Sender: Love-Hounds-request@EDDIE.MIT.EDU
Organization: The Internet
Lines: 123
Approved: Love-Hounds@hayes.ims.alaska.edu

From article <9104192050.AA19655@das.llnl.gov>, by ed@das.llnl.GOV (Edward J. Suranyi):
> [Richard Caldwell makes some pretty good points I'd like to respond
> to.  There are certain things I'd like to apologize for.  Can you
> get in touch with the _Little Light_ people and apologize for me
> for those things I admit I was in error about, Richard?  Thanks.]

I wouldn't mind doing so Ed, but I don't really talk to the folks at
_Little Light_ all that often.  They will probably see your message
here since they get to see most LH posts as provided by an AAHP member
who has BITNET access but there's no guarantee.  My suggestion would
be to write still another letter to let them know that some of the
misunderstandings in your previous letter have been cleared up and
offer them a dissenting viewpoint for their letters column in an
upcoming issue.  You may have to be quick about it since they seemed
to be moving along toward the next issue last time I talked to them.

>>I don't think this is correct.  I seem to recall one or more persons
>>on the net flaming this post.  Again, I can't find any of this in the
>>archives but I'd be interested in checking.  
> 
> Really?  I don't remember this.  But I can't be sure until the archives
> are checked.

I checked (now that I have the exact date) and no, nobody flamed.  A 
couple of folks seemed to take it about half seriously and only Chris 
knows what showed up in his mail box.  The point is, however, that 
the people who complained are not isolated -- as some would have us 
believe -- to a few "humor impaired" people near Cleveland, nor did 
they all fall for the joke.  Yes, some _Homeground_, _Still Breathing_ 
and _Little Light_ readers from all over the country and perhaps that 
world took it seriously but others counted it as just one more instance 
of HG's "American censorship" squawking than they were willing to sit 
and listen to quietly.  You may count me among the latter.

[Convention news]
> And, actually, two days is longer than it really took. I'm sure that
> some British posters posted the news immediately.  But I didn't get
> back to check for two days.  I said that because that's the longest
> it could possibly have taken.

Actually it took roughly forever but that's probably just how it
seemed to someone who was checking news every five minutes! :-)

>>HG has been repeating this same story for five years when it's
>>easily shown as false.  Whether it was played one time or every
>>fourth play as LL claims, MTV did show the video.  This continued
>>implication that MTV's "timid programmers" didn't show the original
>>version of the video because of pressure from the PMRC is pretty silly
>>when you consider that not only did MTV show the video, they actually 
>>showcased it and nominated it for an award.
> 
> I stand by my statement in this case.  First of all, I would not 
> call playing the video ONCE, almost a year after the single came
> out, a real contradiction of the basic fact that MTV ignored it
> totally when it counted.  I do not know how it was nominated for
> an award, but they only played it that one time AFTER it had been
> nominated.

Sorry but this is wrong.  You will find in the archives (I believe
it's file 0010) that Doug reported that MTV was showing the promo
video in early January 1986.  There's no telling how long they had
been showing it prior to that.  Remember also that MTV had a 30 day
exclusive on the Wogan version (according to Doug) so it would make
perfect sense for them to play it instead of the promo for that reason
alone.   Not long after that thirty days was up the video for 
Cloudbusting was released and that was played for a while.  When they 
returned to playing RUTH late in the year it seems likely that they 
were mixing the two versions (as LL says) and that Doug finally sighted 
the promo video in early January.  _Not_ a almost a year later.  

There is no evidence that MTV "refused" to show anything.  It is
apparent from the archives that EMI-America decided that the
promotional version of _Running Up That Hill_ was "unsuitable" for
American audiences.  (Later they would change their mind and decide to
provide both videos.  Very clever, since they'd already given MTV an
exclusive on the Wogan version).  Before Doug even saw the video and 
based on a English friend's report that it was "like _Hammer Horror_" 
Doug assumed that "unsuitable" meant "too erotic."  As soon as Doug saw 
the actual video he changed his mind immediately.  It was obviously
not too erotic so he speculated that EMI found it too "artsy fartsy."
Unfortunately the "too erotic" idea seems to have taken on a life of
it's own.

I would be interested to hear from Doug whether my interpretation from
the archives is consistent with what he recalls.

> Second, it was most certainly NOT Homeground who started this "rumor".
> It was the American fans who were puzzled by MTV's refusal to play
> the real video.  

It was not my intention to say that they did, only that they had been
repeating this unsubstantiated rumor for five years.  Even going so 
far as printing in a book as fact.

> I agree that it most certainly was not the PMRC
> (which didn't even exist back then, I think) that pressured MTV not to
> show that video.  

The PMRC came into existence during roughly that same time frame.
They had little political clout until the commerce committee hearings 
and showed no real interest in videos in any case.  It was
Rep. Paula Hawkins who raised that issue during the hearings.

>>It's about time that HG either showed some proof of this allegation 
>>(beyond rumors spawned by their own innuendo) or dropped it for the 
>>baseless speculation that it is.
> 
> Exactly which allegation do you need proof of?  

That MTV refused to play the promotional video for RUTH because they
considered it to be too erotic.   All the evidence indicates that EMI 
selected the Wogan video (I even have an interview with Kate where 
she seems to confirm this) because they felt that the promo video was 
unsuitable for the U.S. market.  There is nothing to suggest that 
"unsuitable" meant "too erotic".  It makes perfect sense that MTV would 
play the Wogan version for no other reason than that they had an exclusive 
on it right up until just before the release of _Cloudbusting_.    


"Don't drive too slowly."                 Richard Caldwell
                                          AT&T Network Systems
                                          att!cbnews!nrc
                                          nrc@cbnews.att.com