Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!bloom-beacon!dont-send-mail-to-path-lines From: rhill@pnet01.cts.COM (Ronald Hill) Newsgroups: rec.music.gaffa Subject: (none) Message-ID: Date: 26 Apr 91 06:30:40 GMT Sender: Love-Hounds-request@EDDIE.MIT.EDU Organization: The Internet Lines: 110 Approved: love-hounds@eddie.mit.edu Having just received my first issue of Little Light and then a few days later received the current Homeground I feel that I really must comment on the current controversy. I should point out my prejudices in the matter. I have a subscription to Little Light in exchange for the future Cloudbusting and a "Greatest Hits" set of photos. On the other hand, I have been a reader of Homeground for several years, and went to the convention and was able to meet both Peter and Krys at their home (see the current issue). A few small points, first on the subject of the reactions to the "PMRC" article. Little Light's editor's (and some readers) were willing to believe that the PMRC would list, for example, Saxophone Song, as having a "reference to bowels". They then went and reacted in very strongly ways, as in writing a letter to the PMRC. I won't debate the reasonableness of this, as that has already been debated. But I find it strange that after believing the PMRC capable of these incredible statements these same people went on to defend much of the PMRC's actions with such passion. On the other hand, if the reaction to the article was shared by as many people as LL says, then perhaps a statement of regret over this from Homeground may be appropriate. It seems to me that, however, HOMEGROUND may not be fully aware of the size of re-action, as most of us also were not until the latest issue. It also seems to me that the editors of LL probably have a larger sense of the re-action as they probably got mostly letters from people who agreed with them. More disturbing, to me, then is the somewhat anti-British parts of the magazine. In the line "...tell us that Army Dreamers had been removed from BBC playlists during the way, and they show-up Homeground's essential hypocrisy of going after Americans while ignoring their own, government sponsored 'censorship.'" what bother's me is that they didn't say "their own government's" (as in: What are these BRITISH people doing commenting on American affairs). Combined with the fact that they chose out of all the letters they say they got to print they printed (out of two on the matter) a letter that made fun of British spelling and that they also made fun of the British spelling in saying that the Homeground people had a "great sense of Humour [sic]" - seemingly a double insult to their sense of humor and spelling. It should be pointed out that Kate is indeed British and that she has, in fact, commented somewhat on American actions (I.E. Pulling Out The Pin and in several interviews). It should also be pointed out that their comments ("errors" and all) are shared, and probably gleaned from, many Americans including most of the rock press. Also these comments are no doubt reflective of many people outside the U.S. In any case these comments, especially, are in no way deserving of the kind of spiteful remarks that were given in the Little Light magazine, the kind of response given in the "Going Deep South" article in the current Homeground. Which brings me to my main, and only really important point. What bothers me is not the opinion's stated in the magazine- after all everybody is entitled to their opinions and to their mistakes (before being corrected)- but the tone of the whole thing. At worst Homeground is guilty of printing something without realizing the controversy it would cause, and then not fully apologizing. They did call the people who mis-read the article "humourless" but even this seems lessened by their closing remarks "Calm down chaps and give us a grin." Does these "sins" really make them worthy of such comments as: HOMEGROUND - The international journal of poetry and bleeding hearts with an excellent page of Kate news and outstanding artwork, as well as a great sense of humour (sic). ...it would be a mistake to argue with people whose opinions we have no respect; the surest sign that you haven't any sense is to argue with another who hasn't. [BUT BY THE CONTENT AND EDITING OF THE MAGAZINE AREN'T THEY???"] We have friends, but they have not been made by silence of pussyfooting (if we have enemies, we will not placate them). We may not be a loved newsletter ... but we are a respected one. And much of the rest of the issue consist of not-so-subtle attacks on Homeground. I enjoy Kate and the discussion of Kate because it seems to very much avoid (and indeed be "against") this type of spitefulness and pettiness. After the 60s "rock" music, to me, went in two directions - the serious and spiteful (either as a reaction to or a twisting of the 60s itself) and the happy and shallow. Kate's music is among the few to really "rebel" against this attitude by being "serious" and yet still being basically "happy" and positive. Kate and her fans have proven that you can discuss very charged issues without resorting to pettiness and spitefulness. This to me, is truly reflective of what was best about the 60's. The other side is a reflection of why, in, some ways, the 60's ultimately failed, as young people then had the good reaction towards each other, and the negative towards those older. It is also a reflection of to much of life today. I don't wince at it, and am not immune to it, but I don't want it in the discussion of Kate, which should be, and always have been, done in a tone that is reflective of Kate. I have never minded the heated discussions of Kate's work on Love-Hounds and other places, but they have never reached this level. And they are not done in such a well-thought-out, spiteful way. Putting in down like this reminds me of what Kate has said about her music "It's going to be like that, you know, forever". The Homeground people have given all of us so much, and the news section of LL is full of stuff that came straight from the convention. Could they, for this ONE thing, really be deserving of this type of treatment. As I touched on earlier, I wonder if they considered what Kate's view on this might be. Leave aside the fact that Kate knows, has worked with, and presumably likes, the Homeground editors. Leave aside Kate's possible reaction to the "British" comments. Does anyone really think Kate would agree with the TONE of a newsletter like this? I suspect her reaction would be the same as most people who read it (including also, I suspect, many of the people who were "fooled" by the article to begin with, yet maybe recognized the fact that they shared at least part of the blame.). I think that reaction might be one of simple disappointment and sadness that this appeared in a Kate Bush fan magazine. This reaction is the reaction of myself and the one fan that I showed this to. I will continue my subscription until it runs out, hopefully it will take on a more positive note. Ronald Hill UUCP: {hplabs!hp-sdd ucsd nosc}!crash!pnet01!rhill ARPA: crash!pnet01!rhill@nosc.mil INET: rhill@pnet01.cts.com