KT miskellany

[IED0DXM%UCLAMVS.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu]

Thanks to Joe and Jon for their fascinating ideas re interpreting
backwards tracks/lyrics to KT. This is what the essence of L-Hs is
all about!

>Subject:  Backwards Messages
>Bravo, IED, for your summation of the backwards Kate-Stuff.
>As a corollary, could you summarize any other "hidden" messages?
>The secret line from "Experiment IV" is an example.  Does it sound
>to you as if she's switching channels every fraction of a second
>on that one?  It does to me, and in fact, the message can be heard
>much clearer if one switches one's audio equipment into "mono".
>
>-- Jon Drukman

Well, first of all, the "X4" message is apparently only forwards (not
that you said otherwise). Kate seems to have treated the spoken section
in just about the same way she treated the "scatter-voice"
(IED's term, for want of a better one) from "Waking the Witch":
i.e., she shifted it very rapidly from left to right channels.
However, it doesn't sound as though that's all that she did with it.
First, there's a lot of echo on the voice in both sections; second, the
voice doesn't really "travel" from left to right and back, but
"jumps" there, using a cut-out of some kind. And third, there seem to
be other noises, especially in the "X4" passage: IED suggested
that they sounded like 's' sounds, but that doesn't make sense.
Nevertheless, even when listened to in mono, there is still
some noise to be heard in addition to the spoken line and the
instrumental music. As for the slight difference you noticed
in the twelve-inch's mix of the message, IED noticed exactly
the same distortion of the last word, and assumed it had to
do with the mix only, or the way it was taken out of one mix
and spliced, so to speak, into the other; but since he really
isn't certain that the message is what he said it was anyway,
he remains open to suggestions. The whole tone of the twelve-inch
mix of the message seems different, doesn't it?
>IED, I had occasion to pick up my handy-dandy four-track and try out the
>"We let the weirdness in" bit.. I tried it by saying "We let the weirdness
>in" on one track, and "And they said they wouldn't let me in" on another
>track (backwards).  It sounded correct.  Sickeningly easy to do, too.
>Kate had a great idea, but let's not go overboard on congratulating her
>on it!
>
>Off to play "Watching You Without Me" backwards...
>
>-- joe

This introduces a highly controversial new variable into what
had formerly been considered a settled issue. The Kate Bush Club
long ago dropped the "Leave It Open" message competition, after
a fan figured out that it was simply "We let the weirdness in",
sung forwards, but with a weird cadence and pronunciation that
made it SEEM as though it might be a backwards message. Since
then (at least two years now) nobody has done much to explain
how it is that the message also seems to say something when it
actually IS played backwards.
Joe has said that it must be a palindrome, but of course not in
the usual sense of the word (i.e. where the letters spell out the
same word whether read from left to right or from right to left).
Instead, this would have to be a phrase which actually makes
phonetic, grammatical AND thematic sense, whether heard backwards OR
forwards. Since the chances of one coming up with such a phrase
intentionally or even unintentionally must be astronomical, IED
has always assumed that the similarity of the message (in its backwards
form) to phrases like "They said they were buried here" (or, as
Joe has it, "And they said they wouldn't let me in") was only
approximate, and was entirely fortuitous.
But, since Joe is pretty certain that his interpretation is correct,
what we need here are some third opinions. |>oug, you must
have an idea about whether there's a true backwards message or
not in "Leave it Open", especially since it is God and the Universe
and everything to you. Can you help? Anyone else out there care
to give it a try?

>I agree with IED on his comments on dance music though I fear the time
>for innovation in this field is long gone (I do object to his labeling
>dance music as "black" music as this is not strictly the case but that's
>another argument, another time and I may have misinterpreted his phrasing

No problem. But IED wasn't labeling dance music AS "black" music, he was
referring only to that dance music produced by black musicians: he
said just what he intended to say, namely, that it seemed to him that
there was still some creative work being done in "black dance music",
by which he meant to exclude "non-black" dance music from his list
of areas in which there was still some creativity. Billboard has three
"black music" charts; there are many many radio stations in the country
which play 95% music by black musicians only, and it is that area
of current popular music to which IED was deliberately referring.
Frankly, American whites' current mainstream dance music is bloodless
and plodding, generally speaking, whereas the black stations play
a slightly larger number of interesting, innovative records. Needless
to say, the non-instrumental elements of both are abominable. IED
disagrees with you, however, that the chance for creativity within
the field of dance music is long gone. It's never the medium that's
to blame, only the people working in it. Dance music is uninteresting
nowadays mainly because the majority of people making it are still
copying -- sometimes without any changes other than differences in
the mix -- rhythmic patterns and specific synthetic and percussive
sounds that were introduced and explored as far back as 1979. Listen
to a record like Japan's "Quiet Life" -- even in its original mix --
or even the Moroder/Blondie track "Call Me"; and
a couple of ca. 1980-81 black dance tracks from, say, Lakeside or
the Gap Band. Between them you'll be able to identify virtually
every idea currently to be found in at least 50% of the present
crop of dance hits. And among white dance records, the ratio must
be something closer to 70%. (Perfect but typical example: the current
hit by "Dead or Alive", whose imagination is definitely the former.)
In other words, the field of dance music
has stagnated for the past six to eight years, except insofar as
production techniques are concerned.

>I...get really tired of having to skip over IED's long postings (as
>I'm sure he does over mine) and occasionally get annoyed at his verbosity.  I

IED sometimes scrolls past your postings (which are admirably terse and
to the point, by the way!), but then only if they are about music that
completely unrelated to Kate Bush. He always looks forward to
forward to your comments about matters of Katian moment.


>propose we change the name of this group to mod.music.alternative or something
>to show that this is not all Kate Bush drivel (whoops, get out the asbestos
>suit, Martha).
>
>--- James

Better ask |>oug. Majority rules. If you do change the name, that would
probably solve all your problems, because IED would very likely
resign from the list. So if you are all hankering to get rid of
him, it is suggested that you start lobbying for a more generic
name for Love-Hounds, especially since as long as it IS called
Love-Hounds, IED will continue to barrage its readers with frequent
-- and verbose -- Kate-related postings.

Thanks to Mark for alerting us of the MTV "Don't Give Up" premiere.

>Pulled out the CD of HOL yesterday (after returning from jury duty), set
>the player to loop starting at 2:19 in "Watching you...", recorded the secret
>message a few times on cassette, and transferred the cassette to my 4-track
>cassette machine.  After trying both directions at a variety of speeds with
>various equalizations, I'm clueless.

Isn't this frustrating? But if it truly makes no more sense backwards
than forwards, then how did some European fan already decipher the
first six words of it?

>I did, however, discover why Kate has never
>achieved the enormous popularity in the US she so obviously deserves.
>
>Let me explain.  At one point I tried an EQ setting drastically peaked in
>the midrange to try and enhance the vocals,  with the track switched to
>mono.  Sounded a lot like a cheap AM radio with a 3" speaker.  Sounded
>absolutely awful, too.  At which point, it struck:  Kate isn't popular in
>the US because she doesn't mix for cheap AM radios.  Any sensible "artist"
>KNOWS that a mix which sounds good on cheap AM radios is an absolute necessity
>for commercial success in the US (I'm told, in fact, that Peter Gabriel
>recorded most of Security through a cheap radio shack amplifier with a 5"
>speaker just to get that sound).  Maybe somebody should tell Kate.  But
>be sure to break it to her gently...
>
>-Dan Riley (dsr@crnlns.bitnet)

All true. Although Kate did re-mix a few of her tracks specially
for single release ("Army Dreamers", "Sat In Your Lap", "The Big Sky"),
the changes she made (except maybe for "SIYL") don't seem to have
been aimed at adjusting to AM low-fi audio standards.

>I think it would help to define what you mean by "underground," and then
>we can find out if IED is using the (roughly) same definition.

IED understands that most L-Hs have a pretty specific class of
music in mind when they use the term. He, for one, has decided,
like the President, to adopt a "broader interpretation".

>must be good enough to not lose the race.  This comment would lead
>me to believe IED doesn't care for the early work of Bob Dylan; is
>that true?  (No big deal, but I would conclude IED has more limited
>taste than other people posting on Love-Hounds.  Is this conclusion
>correct?)
>
>-- Rich

No. Actually IED used to listen to early Dylan a lot. How does
this relate to his earlier comments? Dylan can be hypnotic, but
from a dispassionate position, years later, IED would argue that
there isn't really much actual music in it.

>"If you look at her rate of production ... she isn't really that
>slow.  Bruckner didn't write his first symphony till he was more than forty;
>ditto Brahms -- and he only finished four in his lifetime."
>
>Pelt me with rocks and garbage if I'm wrong, but is IED alluding
>that our beloved Kate (yes I *am* a huge KT fan) produces music which is
>comparable to Bruckner and Brahms?  I really hate to open a can of worms,
>but I really can't see the comparison.  I won't bore you with an analysis
>of complexity and it's applications to a symphony as opposed to one of KT's
>albums.  "God!  Please don't start the quality/complexity debate again!"
>
>IED:  You can't expect anyone to believe KT's music is as complex
>as one of Brahms' symphonies, can you?
>
>-- Paul

They are alike in that they are all slow workers and that they
are all "composers". Beyond that, it is true, there is not much
that the two former share with Kate. But whether Kate's work is
actually more or less "complex" is not at all clear, since they
express their musical ideas in such different languages, and since
Kate, after all, has only been working for a fraction of the time
B. and B. had. But The Ninth Wave is certainly as complex, in its
own way, as any of the early sonatas of Brahms, for example; so if
you want to be fair, and compare them at comparable ages, then Kate
can hold her own, without any question.

-- Andrew Marvick