O.C. LETTERS : Quote Gave Wrong Impression, Lindley Says

I was very pleased with the recent interview I did with Jim Washburn for your paper (“Playing by His Own Rules Now,” Nov. 20). However, a quote was taken from that interview and used in the “Highlights” section titled “On the Record.” As it reads (out of context), at least to me, it appears as if Elektra/Asylum Records is guilty of some sort of financial sleight of hand.

They are not. I simply owe them money for recording costs.

The recording cost for the five albums I made for Elektra/Asylum amounted to more than $700,000--quite a tidy sum. My contract with them stipulated that I would repay these costs out of my royalties--which I agreed to do. Although I will probably never see recording royalties for these albums, I have received royalties for original songs on these albums. I had a good relationship with Elektra/Asylum. Unfortunately, most of the people I really liked there have either been fired or have quit.

It is because of the five albums I made, the money spent promoting them, as well as my other work with various artists that have made my audience as large as it is. Elektra/Asylum is responsible for a large part of my success.

P.S. Thanks for the great review of the Coach House show (“Lindley’s Jabs at Middle Class Are Gentle but Telling,” Nov. 22).

DAVID LINDLEY

Claremont

‘Lulu’ Review Criticized

I saw the Hollywood Moguls Theatre production of “Lulu,” and I think reviewer Jan Breslauer is wrong on several points (“This Adaptation of ‘Lulu’ Sometimes Misses the Point,” Nov. 25):

* She says there’s “a crucial lack of sexual chemistry,” but my friends and I found the play and performers very sensual (we went as a group of seven).

* She talks about Kirsten Benton’s Lulu being “bland and unexceptional.” We thought that Benton was very attractive and that the brilliance of her performance was that she really grew on you. By the time she sang her final song, I was nearly in tears for her dilemma, even knowing that she had brought it on herself.

* The review gives short shrift to the musicality of this play: There are lots of group songs, very few solos--the chorus is very textured and enjoyable to listen to.

* The review throws around such words as Brechtian, reductive, Aaron Spelling and anti-naturalist in a hodgepodge of descriptions that describe nothing at all. Tell us what the performance is about, please.

I saw “a play with music” that follows a woman’s journey from the heights of exploited, black-comedy success down a frightening spiral to final tragedy. There is nothing in the review about the story, only about the play’s history. The review is confusing; “Lulu” is not: It is an erotic morality play that is actually a lot of fun to watch, then to think about.

JOANNA KLASS

Corona del Mar