Gaffaweb > Love & Anger > 1988-09 > [ Date Index | Thread Index ]
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]


mailbag

From: jsd%UMASS.BITNET@MITVMA.MIT.EDU (Jonathan S. Drukman)
Date: Wed, 12 Oct 88 15:39:19 EDT
Subject: mailbag
Posted-Date: Wed, 12 Oct 88 15:39:19 EDT

> From: mouse!res@GAFFA.MIT.EDU (Robert E. Seastrom)

> Moreover, are there *ANY* new releases since Rendezvous?

Um, sort of.  There is another live LP called "Live Houston/Lyon" or
something weird like that.  I have not purchased it because the track
listing shows it to comprised of old stuff only (unlike Les Concerts
en Chine which had 40 mins of new stuff).

> From: chmilar@.ucalgary.ca (Michael Chmilar)

> I can't recommend this for even die-hard Sparks fans.  For new
> people, I would recommend going to a second-hand record store and
> picking up a copy of _Kimono_My_House_, _Propaganda_,
> _Angst_In_My_Pants_, or _Whomp_That_ Sucker_.

Add "Sparks In Outer Space" to that list.  Personally, it was one of
my favorite LPs from the early 1980s synth-pop explosion.  It featured
the duet with Jane Wiedlin (of the Go-Go's) on two tracks, including
"Cool Places" which was a minor hit.  Other good songs: "All You Ever
Think About Is Sex" and "I Wish I Looked A Little Better".

Our humble pseudo-moderator bitches:

>      [ That's ":>oug" -- not ":>oug"!  Get it right!  Kate's stuff that
>        has already been released is on EMI/Manhattan (in the US --
>        it used to be EMI-America, but EMI-America merged with
>        Manhattan).  Her new stuff will be on CBS (in the US).  --
>        :>oug ]

Hey, spell your name with a standard character, and THEN I'll get it
right, bozo!  How about "!>oug" or something like that?  Anyway, I
stand corrected on the record label biz.

      [	Get real.  "|" is a standard character!  It is Ascii code 174
	(Octal).  -- |>oug ]

From: Gary Dare <dare@EEVLSI.EE.COLUMBIA.EDU>

> This might be a dumb question, but do you folks notice that the EMI
> America version of HoL says AAD on the booklet/cover *but* ADD on the
> disc itself?  Usually CD SPARS code screw-ups are the other way, from
> my experience.  Anyone know which one is telling the truth?

I would guess that if there was digital mixing then it would come from
digital processing added before making the digital master tape.  But
you are right - my disc lists AAD on the book and ADD on the disc.
Another disc which is confusing is "Kiss Me Kiss Me Kiss Me" by the Cure
which lists AAD on the packing, but ADD on the disc.

>[ I don't know about the US pressing, but the British pressing I have
>   says it's ADD on both the packaging and the CD.  *The Dreaming*
>   was also mixed digitally, but to add to the confusion, after *The
>   Dreaming* Kate said she'd never mix digitally again.  -- :>oug ]

An album doesn't actually have to be digitally mixed to get an ADD
designation.  I'm almost positive that "Black Sea" by XTC was NOT
digitally mixed, yet it says ADD on the disc.  Ditto for my Frank
Zappa "Peache en Regalia" mini-CD.  I have a feeling that any sound
cleanup they do before going onto the digital tape may count as
"digital mixing" - for these particular discs have absolutely great
sound quality.

-----------
Jon Drukman                      University of Massachusetts
BITNET: jsd@umass                ARPANET: jsd%umass.bitnet@mitvma.mit.edu
"Don't tell me the moon is blue, cos tonight it's over." -- Colourbox