The Go-Go's claim Kathy Valentine has a bee in her Bluebonnet
Have gotten a number of e-mails asking if I had seen the Go-Go's response to former bassist Kathy Valentine's lawsuit, which I wrote about HERE.
I guess they just don't get along
The Go-Go's want Kathy Valentine to take a permanent vacation
Reading the band's rebuttal from a non-legal point of view, I would say the defendants were obviously unable to get over Kathy's Twitter memoir "betrayal." Although they thought they could move on (the Hollywood Walk of Fame celebration was post-memoir), I believe that as new issues cropped up -- the kinds of issues that they have had with every member at one time or another, as detailed in Kathy's lawsuit -- they were suddenly unforgivable offenses when Kathy did them in this new post-memoir atmosphere. If this is true, I cannot fault the band for wanting to part ways. But they must part ways in an equitable manner. Not knowing much about the law -- and because of the confusing way the band set up another legal entity (GoGoCo Corp.) without Kathy to license the band's name (from Ladyhead LLC, of which Kathy is a member) and go on without her -- it's hard for me to know which side is right regarding touring revenue. But ultimately, the touring revenue is the heart of the matter here.
Mercenaries? Strange that three band members would opt to work on outside projects with someone who is so "egotistical" and "persisently intimidating"
One thing is very clear, however, no matter the outcome. The band has spent the past few months mounting a smear campaign against their former comrade, insisting that once fans knew "the truth," they would understand why they had no choice but to fire Kathy. This is not only unfortunate, it's patently false. How the Go-Go's could keep a straight face claiming they were "already internationally known" before Kathy joined the group is anyone's guess. (One single for Stiff Records does not "internationally known" make. And FYI: We were all listening when you admitted to bombing on the U.K. tour but then lying to everyone when you got home and saying how great you were!) Any notion that the infamous "roadie video" damaged the band's reputation is laughable seeing as the Go-Go's have played up the "everyone thought we were the girls-next-door, but we were far from it" lore for decades, not to mention it was a stoned-out-of-her-mind Belinda making an ass of herself asking "why can't girls jack off?" that everyone remembers And this crap about Kathy's inability to play the bass! Again, this is absurd. Belinda even says in her own memoir that Kathy was the only real musician in the band. (And since when is ONLY playing like on the record considered "punk"?!)
As the band's full rebuttal reads, the "bombshell" smoking gun against Kathy is that she has an "insatiable need to be right" (emphasis theirs), a charge that if a terminable offense would have prevented me from ever holding down a job! Guess it will come down to the judge's interpretation of the contract. I hope an amicable settlement is reached before this ever reaches trial. It's sad to realize that the way those horrible "Real Housewives" treat each other on fake reality television actually happens in real life, especially when it involves women you idolized growing up.
.PDF of the band's rebuttal HERE.(See if you can spot the typos.)
I dream of Kathy
ANOTHER FAN WEIGHS IN:
Although this online commenter is a bit Star Jones-ish for my taste (he, too, is "an attorney"), I thought he basically got it right, although I do strongly disagree that "Vacation" was drastically changed from Kathy's Textones original:
Well - here I go so hang on...Mind you, if you've noticed (which you probably haven't -- since I often get ignored, attacked and/or blocked because my opinions rarely support the liberal, pro-gay, sexually promiscuous, pro-Obama dynamic that is often present on this board) I haven't made a comment pertaining to the lawsuit dramatics. I will assert that there are some frequent posters on this board who are very pro-KV, and who are very full of themselves, and who, I suspect, fancy themselves to be crafty and creative wordsmiths. And indeed, they are somewhat creative - I will give them that. But, at the risk of sounding like a douche (I may be too late I fear), I am an attorney, and my area of expertise is tort law.
My quick assessment? KV's lawsuit was VERY well-worded and structured, and all in all, my sense is that it bears merit. The response from the defendants, however, pales in comparison in terms of professionalism and content. First off, there are more than a few typographical errors (reference section number 12, for example), and secondly, it is obvious the response by the other gals is "digging" the bottom of the barrel in order to grasp anything, anything, even the slightest morsel, that could possibly provide a defense for them. That ancient video with the roadie - - PLEASE!!! The comment wishing Charlotte would die of an overdose --- PLEASE!!! This was obviously stated in the heat of the "break-up" meeting. Note that no date is given, other than to reference that it occurred in 1985 -- ancient news. Kathy's "bluesy" playing? PLEASE!!! It was only after KV became extremely proficient on guitar in the early to mid 90's that she reconnected with her blues roots. It is obvious they are attempting to neutralize and discredit KV (note how they phrase that she "could not, or would not" play her bass parts). C'mon, it is obvious that KV is the most proficient guitarist in the group. Playing bass solos over Charlotte's guitar solos? PLEASE!!! Charlotte is a minimalist on the guitar. Her talent is off the charts as a songwriter, but my 14 year old nephew who just started out playing guitar 2 years ago is more proficient. This is not a callous criticism -- let's all just admit that Charlotte is no Eddie Van Halen - and she never claims to be.
HOWEVER...I do accept what is stated about "Vacation"-- the original is almost unrecognizable when compared to the recorded version. I also accept the assertion that the GO-GO's were on fire and gaining significant momentum prior to the addition of KV.
Simply: the goal of the rebuttal was to neutralize and discredit KV -- because the defendants know, as KV knows, that this will NOT go to trial. It all is simply a matter of how much neutralizing can effectively take place in order to pay out the least amount of a financial settlement. If I could put a $$ value on this -- the defendants will agree to pay KV's legal costs and less than $100,000. Just my humble, compact, legal opinion on the matter. Carry on....