Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84 exptools; site ihlpg.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!ihlpg!jeand
From: jeand@ihlpg.UUCP (AMBAR)
Newsgroups: net.music
Subject: Re: KB-high voice/low voice
Message-ID: <1014@ihlpg.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 2-Aug-85 12:04:20 EDT
Article-I.D.: ihlpg.1014
Posted: Fri Aug  2 12:04:20 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 3-Aug-85 06:16:06 EDT
References: <1365@peora.UUCP> <4781@mit-eddie.UUCP> <1412@peora.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories
Lines: 57

> Well, I was referring in particular to two things.  The first is the obvious
> one of the word "house" in referring to the body.
 
Obvious, if you've ever READ it, but if not....
[a couple quotes]

"Your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit..." {II Corinthians ?}

"Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.....but he was
speaking of the temple of his body."  {John ?--I'm lousy at references}

{also understanding that the word translated 'temple' means 'house of --'}

> The second is the use of the word "feet".  In the Bible, "feet" is often a
> euphemism for "private parts".  Thus, for example, some angelic beings are
> described as having wings with which they "covered their feet".  There is
> also a story in the book of Ruth, in which Ruth is being instructed on how
> to go about finding a husband, that is much more understandable if you
> realize this fact.
 
Wow.  I missed this one entirely.

> Tell me this... in the opening lines,
> 
> 	The first time I died,
> 	It was in the arms of good friends of mine.
> 		* * *
> 	Say, why do it now, when I won't be around?
> 	I'm going out.
> 
> What does "it" refer to?  This is something that puzzles me, in either
> interpretation.
 
I just thought the word 'it' was a redundancy referring to her death (maybe
for the demands of the music.)  Am I being too simplistic, or are you perhaps
being too demanding in wanting every little work to carry some vast signifi-
cance?

/*finally, what I intended to comment on in the first place! ;-)*/

> > But actually it is Kate Bush's high voice (not her low voice) that is her
> > natural voice.
> 
> Well, it's hard to know this, but I suspect her natural voice is her low
> voice, and that she just cultivated the "high" one because it was better
> suited for a female lead vocalist.

Like you say, it's hard to know, but I somehow doubt that anyone could
manufacture something as striking as her high voice.  Think about "Violin"
(NEVER FOR EVER) for a while.  I'm a mezzo-soprano, and sometimes if I'm in
one of my weirder moods, I'll go ahead and (attempt to) sing along with that
particular song.  (Ah, the things my roommate puts up with....)

You don't develop that range; either you have it or you don't.

					AMBAR
"But there's no room on my desk for ME!"