HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Organization: NetRunner's Paradise BBS, San Diego CA
Newsgroups: rec.music.gaffa


        I wrote to the Elton John mailing list and asked if anyone 
could provide any quotes from Elton/Bernie about Rocket Man and Candle 
in the Wind.  A nice fellow named Ron McBay sent me these.


RE: CANDLE IN THE WIND 
 
(From the TWO ROOMS book) - BERNIE: I never get tired of hearing 
"Candle In 
The Wind."  There are some of our songs that are the perfect mesh of 
lyric and 
melody and I think "Candle In The Wind" is one of them.  The only thing 
that 
bothers me about the song is that as a result people tend to think that 
I have 
a raging obsession with Marilyn Monroe which was not the point of the 
song. 
The point of the song was how the media distorts people's lives.  It's 
a bit 
like "Daniel," people are not left alone, and that's really what 
"Candle In 
The Wind" was about.  It's a song about media abuse.  How we abuse the 
living, 
how we abuse the dead.  I'm not saying she wasn't talented, but 
sometimes it 
pays to die -- that's what that song's about. 
 
(From THE MANY LIVES OF ELTON JOHN book) - ELTON: It was so hard to 
record. 
The only way I recorded that in the end is that we put the piano on 
afterward. 
It was the first vocal I'd ever recorded standing up, and after that 
the piano, 
guitar, drums were put on.  It was such a hard song to do because it's 
not a 
typical piano number and I actually sang the number leaping around the 
microphone and going crazy. 
 
(From the ELTON JOHN biography) - BERNIE: I wanted to say that it 
wasn't just 
a sex thing.  That she was someone everybody could fall in love with, 
without 
her being out of reach. 
 
(From same) - ELTON: When I think of Marilyn, I just think of pain.  I 
can't 
ever imagine her being that happy. 
 
RE: ROCKET MAN 
 
(From the ELTON JOHN biography) - BERNIE: The words just came into my 
head: 
"She packed my bags last night, pre-flight.  Zero-hour is nine am."  I 
remember 
jumping out of the car and running into my parents' house, shouting, 
"Please 
don't anyone talk to me until I've written this down." 
 
(From same) - When asked whether they stole "Rocket Man" from David 
Bowie's 
"Space Oddity," BERNIE: Oh no.  We didn't steal that one from Bowie.  
We stole 
it from another bloke, called Tom Rapp [leader of the American cult 
band, 
Pearls Before Swine, who had released an earlier song also called 
"Rocket 
Man."] 
 


---
rhill@netrun.cts.com (ronald hill)
NetRunner's Paradise BBS, San Diego CA
x-gateway: rodan.UU.NET from love-hounds to rec.music.gaffa; Fri, 11 Sep 1992 04:43:09 EDT
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 04:42:22 -0400
Subject: utah saints
From: mailrus!gatech!netlink.cts.COM!lionhart@uunet.uu.net (Jackie Zucconi)
Errors-To: Love-Hounds-request@uunet.uu.net
Message-ID: <cyeXqB4w165w@netlink.cts.com>
Organization: NetLink Online Communications, San Diego CA
Newsgroups: rec.music.gaffa

mailrus!gatech!tlon.mit.edu!rob@uunet.uu.net (Rob Sanner) writes:

> 
> their song, which is getting a distressing amount of airplay up here
> is called, i think, "something good", and is built almost entirely
> around a sample from cloudbusting.
> 
> while catchy, it really burns me that something like this can qualify
> as somehow a "new" composition.  actually, what is the copyright law on
> this; does KaTe have to give permission for the sample?? if not, the piece
> becomes even more execrable IMHO.
> 
> --rob

As far as I've been able to find out Kate did indeed give permission to 
the Utah Saints to use a sample from Cloudbusting; permission was also 
dependent upon paying a fee (Kate's no fool). What I'm curious to find 
out is whether or not this was a flat fee or is she getting royalties. I 
hope she made it a royalty deal because (as far as the CMJ report goes) 
it's an extremely hot seller in the UK and gain ground here in the 
techno-rave scene. This could make her a tidy little sum to put-off an 
album release for another year don't you think?!
                     Kateness,
                           Lionheart

--                    
INTERNET:  lionhart@netlink.cts.com (Jackie Zucconi)
UUCP:   ...!ryptyde!netlink!lionhart
NetLink Online Communications * Public Access in San Diego, CA (619) 453-1115
x-gateway: rodan.UU.NET from love-hounds to rec.music.gaffa; Tue, 15 Sep 1992 12:04:54 EDT
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 12:00:06 -0400
From: uli@intellektik.informatik.th-darmstadt.de (Ulrich Grepel)
Errors-To: Love-Hounds-request@uunet.uu.net
Message-ID: <9209151559.AA00815@kino.intellektik.informatik.th-darmstadt.de>
Subject: Kate on Super Channel
Newsgroups: rec.music.gaffa

Hi all,

I always knew that SuperChannel is better than MTV, at least in their
musical taste. After the only Tori Amos and Sarah McLachlan videos besides 
Tori Amos' 'SATY' I have seen at least partially were on SuperChannel, this
Saturday I flipped through the channels and saw Kates 'Rocket Man'. If
it weren't the case that I already have 'RM' from MTV (and as such in stereo),
I would be a little bit angry because my VCR wasn't ready... but, after
the 'Rocket Man' video there was an interview with one guy of the Utah Saints.
They talked about sampling in general and especially from Kate and Annie Lennox,
two people who never before sanctioned using samples from them. Utah Saints
always work like they have worked with Kate: they do their song and then 
approach the artist. The guy said that it would technically easier to take
another Kate song to get a sample, e.g. 'Wuthering Heights', but the line
'Something Good...' would fit best into their song. The guy also said that
Utah Saints were performing about 50 gigs in the past year or so. I don't
think that I really have to tell you what video was played next: 'Something
Good'. That's one-and-a-half Kate Bush videos in a row, like half a 3 from 1...

Uli

P.S. One of the Editors of 'All Mixed Up', the programme on which the above
appeared, is called 'Dave Bush', might this be the reason for the 
Kateacceptance you can see on that programme?
x-gateway: rodan.UU.NET from love-hounds to rec.music.gaffa; Fri, 11 Sep 1992 03:47:38 EDT
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 03:47:01 -0400
Subject: Copyright stuff
From: rhill@netrun.cts.com (ronald hill)
Errors-To: Love-Hounds-request@uunet.uu.net
Comments: Cloudbuster
Message-ID: <4VeXqB2w165w@netrun.cts.com>
Organization: NetRunner's Paradise BBS, San Diego CA
Newsgroups: rec.music.gaffa

        Bob Sanner asks a bunch of questions about whether or not 
Kate's contribution to stuff like the Utah Saints thing is covered by 
copyright.  I don't know much about the specifics of _sampling_ 
copyright, but I believe these are covered by the idea of "derivative" 
works, where only the parts that are original to the artist are 
copyrightable.  They could presumably do _anything_ they want with 
these parts, but if they want to do something with the _whole_ work, 
including Kate's contribution they have to get Kate's permission.  
Presumably the agreement with Kate covers how much she gets paid, what 
can be done with the new work, etc.  A good book on this stuff is THE 
COPYRIGHT BOOK by William S. Strong, the only book I know of which 
explains these things in easy to understand language and praticle 
terms. 

        Martin Schluetz breaks the news that Kate played in Germany!   
Wow and we missed it.  NOT!  Does anyone want to start a pool as to 
whom it was he actually did record?? :-) 

        Wow, IED's back, temporarily.  Say something _wise_ IED, so 
that we truely know you're back!  :-) 

---
rhill@netrun.cts.com (ronald hill)
NetRunner's Paradise BBS, San Diego CA
x-gateway: rodan.UU.NET from love-hounds to rec.music.gaffa; Tue, 8 Sep 1992 12:38:09 EDT
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 12:34:02 -0400
From: brownfld@rcnext.cso.uiuc.edu (Kenneth R Brownfield)
Errors-To: Love-Hounds-request@uunet.uu.net
Message-ID: <9209081628.AA01237@rcnext.cso.uiuc.edu>
Subject: The Moon Seven Times concert
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11]
Newsgroups: rec.music.gaffa

     For anyone who's interested (and doesn't mind the short notice) the
Moon Seven Times is playing the China Club in Chicago at 11:15pm tomorrow
night.  They play a good show, so if you can make it, it may well be worth
the effort.
-- 
                                                        Ken.
[Mail and Info:      brownfld@uiuc.edu]          brownfld@uiuc.edu
[finger brownfld\ return\ all@uiuc.edu]
x-gateway: rodan.UU.NET from love-hounds to rec.music.gaffa; Wed, 9 Sep 1992 21:58:36 EDT
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 21:58:00 -0400
From: mailrus!gatech!cunixa.cc.columbia.EDU!abm4@uunet.uu.net (Andrew B Marvick)
Errors-To: Love-Hounds-request@uunet.uu.net
Subject: Hello into the ether
Message-ID: <CMM.0.90.0.716055896.abm4@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu>
Newsgroups: rec.music.gaffa


Just a tiny little note to all true Kate Bush fans who may read
this--IED has not vanished from the Earth, only from the phosphor.
He misses you all, and will count on seeing you all when that
wonderful, indefinite Tour commences...

For one week only, anyone who wants to can contact IED at this address.
If you have any KTnews to share with him, please, please do so! He
will count you a friend for life. Meanwhile, he remains,


Your faithful but computer-incompetent 


Andrew Marvick (IED)













				   



x-gateway: rodan.UU.NET from love-hounds to rec.music.gaffa; Tue, 8 Sep 1992 10:22:51 EDT
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 10:20:39 -0400
From: asr@castle.ed.ac.uk (Angus Fluffy Rae)
Errors-To: Love-Hounds-request@uunet.uu.net
Subject: Re: Answer to Intergalactic Garage
Message-ID: <25631@castle.ed.ac.uk>
Organization: CATHY_VoiceMail_Project
Source-Info: From (or Sender) name not authenticated.
Newsgroups: rec.music.gaffa


katefans@chinet.chinet.chi.il (Chris n Vickie) writes:
>Vickie and Chris here. This is *long*.

And I've deleted much of it....

>> From: allan@bsbbs.columbus.oh.us (Allan Balliett)
>> As far as I know, we are the last
>> place in the US where you can buy a Tori Crucify ltd box for $14.99 or
>> Silent All These Years ltd digi w/ 2 non-lp + 1 live for $12.00. Take
>> Care friends!

>   Well, Chris bought a Tori Crucify ldt box for $11.99 from a record store
>in Boulder, Co. last week, so that's not much in IG's defense.

Ohboy, finally I feel _good_ about being stuck on this side of the Big
Pond. I got my copies (and certainly the SATY limited edition is still
readily available) for the grand price of (I think) 2.99 pounds each. Or
was it 3.99? I think one was 2.99 and one was 3.99. Anyway, at current
exchange rates I think that works out at $6 or $8 dollars respectively.
Mind you that was just after release. What were the original prices of
the limited editions?

As to the argument that this was tacked onto the end of - well, I can't
comment. I find it pays to shop around as much as possible, unless it's
something that is spellblindingly rare which you know will vanish the
moment you leave the shop.
-- 
Angus G Rae, the Cuddly Vampire Teddy Bear [asr@castle.edinburgh.ac.uk]
"Let me explain about Genetic Engineering. That's where you take a cell
from a human being and put it into a sheep, in the hope that one day it
will go out and buy something."           Neil Innes, More Jam Tomorrow
x-gateway: rodan.UU.NET from love-hounds to rec.music.gaffa; Fri, 11 Sep 1992 14:58:38 EDT
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 14:57:02 -0400
From: jan_b@lysator.liu.se (Jan Besehanic)
Errors-To: Love-Hounds-request@uunet.uu.net
Subject: Re: Tanks, Kangaroos, Beer, Koalas and Kate...
Message-ID: <1619@lysator.liu.se>
Subject: Re: 'Hello, Earth' lyrics
Newsgroups: rec.music.gaffa

Phil Plait asks:

>German, "Tiefel, Tiefel..." I know Tiefel is 'devil', but I cannot quite
>catch the rest of what she is saying. Anyone know?


This seems to come up every so often, maybe it should be put into the FAQ.  
The line is 'Tiefer, tiefer, irgendwo in der Tiefe gibt es ein Licht.'

Auf Englisch: 'Deeper, deeper, somewhere in the depths there is a light.'

The German word for devil is 'Teufel'.


_____________________________________________________________
John Zimmer                                    john@tessi.com

        "The happy phantom has no right to bitch."
_____________________________________________________________
x-gateway: rodan.UU.NET from love-hounds to rec.music.gaffa; Wed, 9 Sep 1992 21:40:36 EDT
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 21:39:44 -0400
From: mcelwee@cc.uow.edu.au (Bennett)
Errors-To: Love-Hounds-request@uunet.uu.net
Subject: Re: utah saints
Message-ID: <1992Sep10.013715.2247@cc.uow.edu.au>
Organization: Disorganization
Apparently-To: rec-music-gaffa@munnari.oz.au
Newsgroups: rec.music.gaffa

mailrus!gatech!tlon.mit.edu!rob@uunet.uu.net (Rob Sanner) writes:

>their song, which is getting a distressing amount of airplay up here
>is called, i think, "something good", and is built almost entirely
>around a sample from cloudbusting.

>while catchy, it really burns me that something like this can qualify
>as somehow a "new" composition.  actually, what is the copyright law on
>this; does KaTe have to give permission for the sample?? if not, the piece
>becomes even more execrable IMHO.

She did give permission.
This sort of sample-based track isn't _so_ bad.  It's obvious that most of
the song's appeal lies in the Kate sample, and nobody pretends otherwise.
The Utah Saints are happy (they make money), Kate is happy (she could have
said no), and the rest of us are free to like or dislike the track.  Let's
face it, "Something Good" is a pop-techno track for the rave kids to jump
to for five minutes, nothing more.  Yes, it's unoriginal.  So what?

-- 
== Bennett ================================== mcelwee@wampyr.cc.uow.edu.au ==
|             I could never sleep my way to the top,                        |
|             Cause my alarm clock always wakes me right up.                |
=============================================================================
x-gateway: rodan.UU.NET from love-hounds to rec.music.gaffa; Fri, 11 Sep 1992 15:57:42 EDT
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 15:56:26 -0400
From: fiona_mcquarrie@mts.ucs.ualberta.ca
Errors-To: Love-Hounds-request@uunet.uu.net
Message-ID: <3223494@mts.ucs.ualberta.ca>
Newsgroups: rec.music.gaffa
Subject: (no subject given!)

I picked up the new issue of Q magazine (has Morrissey on the front
ZZZZZ) and in the "items" sections there is a note saying that
EMI in England has informally noted that there might be reason to
expect new Kate Bush product before the end of the year (I'm para-
phrasing).
x-gateway: rodan.UU.NET from love-hounds to rec.music.gaffa; Wed, 9 Sep 1992 01:40:25 EDT
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 01:38:44 -0400
Subject: A Brief History of Chris 'n' Vickie (DEEPER UNDERSTANDING)
From: rhill@netrun.cts.com (ronald hill)
Errors-To: Love-Hounds-request@uunet.uu.net
Comments: Cloudbuster
Message-ID: <4aHTqB1w165w@netrun.cts.com>
Organization: The Big Sky BBS (+1 614 864 1198)
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: rec.music.gaffa

Soaf1!wb3ffv!aplcen!jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu!pablo@uunet.uu.net (Pablo A Iglesi in
  <92Sep5.111548edt.71870@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu> writes:
> [Nice comments about C-side records deleted]
> >
> >Just to add another incentive for people chosing C-Side. Tom is fair and 
> >prompt, it's just plain good service all around.
> >                     Kateness,
> >                           Lionheart
> >
> 
> So, ... what's his address????
> (the original question which, to my knowledge, still hasn't been
> answered!) :-)

C-Side can be reached at 813/461-4327.  The address is:

C-Side Records
P.O. Box 8456
Clearwater, Fl. 34618

Intergalactic Garage can be reached at 304/876-6818.  The address
is:

Intergalacitc Garage
P.O. Box 3047
Sheperdstown, WV 25443

I've had good, bad and indifferent service from both.  C-Side
usually has better prices, sometimes by quite a bit.  IGG takes
plastic, C-Side doesn't.  Neither of them has everything.

If you don't mind waiting for your check to go through or paying
COD, I'd recommend calling C-Side first.  But if Tom doesn't have
what you want or you can't live with the terms, you can call IGG in 
good conscience.  In my experience, IGG is not the Evil Incarnate
that they have been reported to be here.  Allan Balliet (of IGG)
runs a business and happens to be a Kate fan, Tom Richards is a
Kate fan who happens to run a business.

(Note that both of these places are a good source for Tori
goodies, which they both seem to be scarfing up as quickly as 
possible)


"Don't drive too slowly."         Richard Caldwell
                                  The Big Sky BBS (+1 614 864 1198)
                                  {n8emr|nstar}!bluemoon!bsbbs!nrc
                                  nrc@bsbbs.Columbus.OH.US
x-gateway: rodan.UU.NET from love-hounds to rec.music.gaffa; Wed, 9 Sep 1992 22:05:04 EDT
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 22:04:15 -0400
From: mailrus!gatech!tlon.mit.edu!rob@uunet.uu.net (Rob Sanner)
Errors-To: Love-Hounds-request@uunet.uu.net
Subject: utah saints revisited...
Message-ID: <1992Sep10.012711.25457@athena.mit.edu>
Organization: Massachvsetts Institvte of Technology
Apparently-To: rec-music-gaffa@bloom-beacon.mit.edu
Newsgroups: rec.music.gaffa


let me clarify my previous message; i really am interested in legal/aesthetic
opinions on this.
(btw--i think this sampling issue is a general area 
of copyright law which has been much in contention lately, but since
this IS gaffa, i'll use kate as an example).

suppose an engineer decides to make an extended dance remix of 
cloudbusting.  s/he extends the sproingy parts, maybe adding filler
material from the original sessions which didn't make the album track,
but otherwise leaves the piece intact.  let's call this mix #1.  whose
"creation" is this, kate's or the engineer's?

now the engineer makes another mix, #2, this time actually cutting out the
slower parts, and looping the extended sproingy parts.  whose is it now, 
kate's or the engineer's?

finally, the engineer decides that to really work as a dance mix, 
the loops need to be spiced up with some digital effects, and more
filler material and a heavier beat are needed.  s/he pulls out a synthesizer 
(or hires someone to do it), adding the filler and laying down a nice 
throbbing electronic beat. who can rightly claim to be the author of this 
last mix?

even if we acknowledege a substantial contribution of the engineer's talents
in mix #3, much of the raw material, both the performance and the composition,
are still kate's. surely she is still entitled to remuneration for any sales of 
this piece, and, i would argue, should still retain the artistic right to 
forbid its release if for any reason she dislikes it.

i do not find so great a distinction between the utah saints song 
"something good" and what i have described as cloudbusting dance mix #3.  
this was what i meant by failing to see how this could qualify as a 
"new" work under copyright law.

soo...am i out in left field here, or is this a valid issue??

rob
x-gateway: rodan.UU.NET from love-hounds to rec.music.gaffa; Fri, 11 Sep 1992 14:00:50 EDT
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 13:59:27 -0400
From: news@sco.COM (Account for Usenet System)
Errors-To: Love-Hounds-request@uunet.uu.net
X-Mailer: SCO System V Mail (version 3.2)
Message-ID: <9209111029.aa04309@scolex.sco.COM>
From: jondr@sco.COM (Karen Silkwood's car)
Subject: Re: utah saints revisited...
Organization: The Santa Cruz Operation, Inc.
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 17:28:53 GMT


mailrus!gatech!tlon.mit.edu!rob@uunet.uu.net (Rob Sanner) writes:
>let me clarify my previous message; i really am interested in legal/aesthetic
>opinions on this.
>suppose an engineer decides to make an extended dance remix of 
>cloudbusting.  s/he extends the sproingy parts, maybe adding filler
>material from the original sessions which didn't make the album track,
>but otherwise leaves the piece intact.  let's call this mix #1.  whose
>"creation" is this, kate's or the engineer's?
[etc deleted]

i think i have a pretty good perspective on this issue as i am now a
published remix artiste (on a major label no less.  i've sold out.)

when we did our production, we started with a completely blank slate.  we
programmed everything from the ground up, and then slapped the original
vocal track over the bits we had created.  however, we did not write the
song.  so, the record still says written by the original band and all that.
we have a nice little credit in the liner notes - it reads, "remixed by blah
for twitch."  i wanted "remix and additional production" but i never
mentioned it to anyone so it didn't get in there.  surprise.

on the other hand, our original composition record, which depends heavily on
samples from other groups (although not as easily recognizable as kate's
contribution to the utah saints), is credited entirely to us.  i feel that
anything is up for grabs, sampling-wise.  if your song is so obviously
dependant on another's (eg. utah saints or mc hammer), you should credit the
original artist.  just to be nice, anyway.  paying money is a different
question entirely.

-- 
Jon Drukman (God's personal DJ)                 uunet!sco!jondr   jondr@sco.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Always note the sequencer - this will never let us down.

x-gateway: rodan.UU.NET from love-hounds to rec.music.gaffa; Sat, 12 Sep 1992 04:43:24 EDT
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 04:42:30 -0400
Subject: utah saints revisited...
From: mailrus!gatech!netlink.cts.COM!lionhart@uunet.uu.net (Jackie Zucconi)
Errors-To: Love-Hounds-request@uunet.uu.net
Message-ID: <4qaZqB2w165w@netlink.cts.com>
Organization: NetLink Online Communications, San Diego CA
Newsgroups: rec.music.gaffa

I'm not sure if this message will make the air waves but here it goes...
  How far an engineer can go in "reworking" a previously existing piece 
of music and be lawfully able to call it his/her own is a point of legal 
contention to be sure. The crux of the problem seems to lie with the 
realm of "recognizability." This ambiguous quality seems to be left up to 
the opinions of those presiding over the court case, no hard and fast law 
exists (yet) outlining when a song is still recognizable as the original 
work and when it has given up that "essence" and becomes something new 
and unique in its own right. This is why "samplign cases" are long drawn 
out processes usually resulting in out of court settlements. What makes 
the matter even more confusing is the difference in copyright laws from 
country to country. Kate and Utah Saints both work under UK law but what 
if Nirvana tried to sample Kate? Now there are problems because of 
incompatibilities with US and UK copyright laws. Hope this helps...
                     Kateness,
                            Lionheart

--                    
INTERNET:  lionhart@netlink.cts.com (Jackie Zucconi)
UUCP:   ...!ryptyde!netlink!lionhart
NetLink Online Communications * Public Access in San Diego, CA (619) 453-1115
x-gateway: rodan.UU.NET from love-hounds to rec.music.gaffa; Sat, 12 Sep 1992 05:13:57 EDT
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 05:13:13 -0400
Subject: Re: utah saints revisited...
From: mailrus!gatech!netlink.cts.COM!lionhart@uunet.uu.net (Jackie Zucconi)
Errors-To: Love-Hounds-request@uunet.uu.net
Message-ID: <uaBZqB3w165w@netlink.cts.com>