Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!mips!pacbell.com!att!ucbvax!bloom-beacon!dont-send-mail-to-path-lines
From: ed@das.llnl.GOV (Edward J. Suranyi)
Newsgroups: rec.music.gaffa
Subject: Re: PMRC/Little Light/Homeground inanity (LONG)
Message-ID: <9104192050.AA19655@das.llnl.gov>
Date: 19 Apr 91 20:50:25 GMT
References: <9104182242.AA12674@EDDIE.MIT.EDU>
Sender: Love-Hounds-request@EDDIE.MIT.EDU
Organization: Dept. of Applied Science, UC Davis at LLNL
Lines: 209
Approved: love-hounds@eddie.mit.edu

[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.]

>Actually the thing they're unhappy about this issue is Homeground's
>backhanded dismissal of the whole issue in HG #40.  A simple correction
>without a repetition of the same sort of accusations that people
>took exception to in the first place could have laid the whole thing 
>to rest.

I guess so.  Actually, what I remember most about that was Chris
complaining to me that they didn't credit him!

>But note that this was a letter and not an editorial.  I'm sure many
>folks can tell you the lawyers are apt to write such letters without 
>much provocation.

So true.  But that letter, which is just about the first thing in
the fanzine, gave me an unpleasant taste right from the start.
I hope I didn't imply that the views expressed in this letter were
those of the editors.  I never even mentioned this letter in my
letter to _Little Light_.

>> The editors of the fanzine publish PDFM's letter to the PMRC in full,
>> as well as his reply article in _Homeground_ #40.  However, in the
>> latter, they put several (sic)s in for no reason that I can gather.
>
>If HG had extended the same courtesy to the PMRC the whole issue could
>have been dropped.  The 'sics' in the article were for the most part 
>associated with errors that appear in Homeground #40 (I checked
>HG #40 and I can list them if you like, they're pretty trivial but 
>they're clearly errors).  Unfortunately an over-zealous editor evidently 
>corrected these errors in the text of "Little Light" article,
>rendering the meaning of the 'sic' unclear.

Oh, I see.  I didn't realize they had CORRECTED the errors.  That's
why I couldn't understand all the (sic)s.  So I apologize for my
misunderstanding here -- although I think it's usual correct
to either correct errors, or use sic, but not both.

>No they didn't.  They did place a 'sic' after the "Centre" but the
>"(sic: We're British and we spell it the British way!)" remark was 
>_exactly_ as it appeared in HG #40.  Should we consider this to have 
>been HG making fun of the American spelling? 

You are absolutely right, and I humbly apologize.

>> After that, they have an article called "Cen-sor-ship Defined",
>> in which they describe the history of the PMRC and the stickering
>> campaign.  Some of it isn't too bad, but there are several stupidities
>> in this article.
>
>I'd be interested to hear what you think are the stupidities in the 
>article.  I thought it did very good job of laying out the censorship 
>fights that have occurred over the last five years and how more than 
>anything they show that the system works.  It seems well researched so
>I'd be interested to hear about any errors you think it may contain.
>I think you'll have to admit that this sort of in depth treatment is 
>far better than the repeated yammering about the imminent collapse of 
>American freedom that HG has been engaging in.

Here, I actually agree with you.  By stupities I meant the two things
I specifically mentioned that try to shed a bad light on Homeground

>>      A person who shall remain nameless here posted the original message
>> to love-hounds about a year and a half ago.  It was quite clearly meant
>> to be taken as a joke -- hundreds of people saw it on the computer net
>> and nobody complained.  
>
>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.

>> In Jeff and Bill's [they are the editors -- Ed] welcome letter, they say
>> that Little Light was the "first [newsletter] (anywhere) to report the
>> news of Kate's long-awaited second tour."   Well, love-hounds reported
>> this two days after she made the announcement at the convention.)
>
>Are you saying that their claim is incorrect?  I hardly think Love-Hounds
>can be considered a 'newsletter' for this purpose.  If you want to include 
>electronic communications media we lost out to the phone by just under two 
>days.

First of all, I'm not really saying that their claim is incorrect.
But someone else has posted that love-hounds could be considered
a newsletter, in which case we certainly beat them.  In this paragraph
I was only trying to indicate why a subscription to love-hounds would
be worthwhile for those who have access -- we get the news faster than
any other medium.

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.

>>      To go on, in "Cen-sor-ship Defined" you say that the fact that "Army
>> Dreamers" has been removed from BBC playlists during the war shows-up
>> "Homeground's essential hypocrisy of going after Americans while ignoring
>> their own, government sponsored 'censorship'."  For heaven's sake, the
>> last issue of Homeground came out in December, and the war started in
>> January.  In other words, there hasn't been an issue of Homeground
>> published since that action of the BBC!  How could there possibly be
>> a comment about it?
>
>Here I agree with you, the BBC playlist question isn't really
>pertinent until after HG have had a chance to comment on it.  It will
>be interesting to see what HG has to say about it.   I'd also be 
>interested to know if there are any real examples of British censorship 
>fights that have been ignored by HG while they continue to harp on 
>American issues.

Ah, we agree 100% on this.

>>      In the same article, you say "Homeground is spreading the persistent
>> rumor that MTV wouldn't play "Running Up That Hill" in its original form,"
>> and you contradict them.  Well, I'd sure be happy if you were right, but
>> you're the first person I've ever heard say this.  I know they showed 
>
>Later you add...
>
>|      Well, I have a correction to make.  All my sources tell me that
>| the real video *was* played on MTV -- exactly once, on August 20, 1986.
>| This was because the video had been nominated for an MTV award, as you
>| correctly stated, so they had to show it once.  This showing was
>| advertised in Billboard in a full-page ad as a "special screening".
>
>In HG #40 in the "Five Years Ago" section PDFM says...
>
> "...the video was soon a hit of its own in all the territories where
> the single was gaining airplay.  Except one.  In the US the cable
> channel MTV refused to use Kate and Michael.  You can pick the reason
> from the following list of possibilities: (1) it was too erotic (2)
> Kate doesn't lip-sync.  It was of course merely a coincidence that the
> campaign against the sexually explicit nature of (some) rock music led
> by the PMRC was first having it's impact on timid programmers at this
> time."
>
>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.

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.  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.  IT WAS MTV AND EMI-AMERICA THEMSELVES WHO DECICDED
THIS!  I agree that it was wrong for Homeground to mention the PMRC,
which clearly had nothing to do with it.  So the basic facts are
correct as Homeground stated them, it's their speculation as to the
cause that's wrong.

But this wasn't in the _Little Light_ article, so I wasn't responding
to this speculation of Homeground's.

I personally do not believe that the reason they decided not to show
it was because it was "too erotic", although from what I
understand this is the reason EMI-America gave themselves.  (I
may be wrong here.)  I think it's the second reason:  EMI-America
thought they would not be able to break a new artist (which Kate
was in America, for all intents and purposes) without a lip-sycning
video, and MTV agreed.  A year later, Kate HAD broken at least
in certain circles, so they probably felt it was all right to show
the real video.

>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 the choice
of video was inspired by PMRC-related concerns?  This, I agree is
wrong.  That MTV ignored the real video for all practical purposes?
The proof is right here in the love-hounds archives, among other places,
where NOBODY saw it.

If you want to be technical, yes, we were all wrong because MTV did
show it once.  But there must still be a reason WHY they didn't
show it at all when the single was out.  I mean, from most people's point
of view, the difference between showing a video once and never is
insignificant.

>However, the fact is that HG was patently unfair to the PMRC by placing
>their name on this joke document.  As a "parody of attitudes displayed
>in the current rock music censorship battle" it was just fine.  
>Unfortunately, the parody falls flat when you attribute it to a specific 
>organization that makes it a policy not to engage in the sort of 
>judgements that were being made light of.

As you may now be aware, since a couple of people have posted the
original article, the PMRC reference was in Chris's original article.

>"Don't drive too slowly."                 Richard Caldwell

Ed
ed@das.llnl.gov