Digital Dreams and Analog Aprils

[Doug Alan <nessus@athena.mit.edu>]

> [IED:] For the record: Kate said once, after finishing
> _The_Dreaming_, that she had decided that the character of digital
> sound was less satisfactory to her than that of analog sound. She
> said something to the effect that she _liked_ the slight tape-hiss
> one got with analog tape. So the fact that _The_Sensual_World_ is an
> AAD CD could have been predicted.

I think that if your recollection is correct that Kate has been at
least somewhat inconsistent on this issue.  I have somewhere an
interview with Kate done after *The Dreaming* where she said that she
would never mix another album digitally again.  The reason she gave
for this, however, is that mixing digitally was too much of a hassle.
Of course, this was back in 1982, when the technology was in its
infancy and I'm sure the user-interface has improved greatly by now.

For the record, *The Dreaming* was mixed both digitally and analogly.
Kate said that there really wasn't much of a difference in the end
result between the two, but picked the digital mix because of a slight
"crystaline" distortion that that the digital mix added that Kate felt
was appropriate for the feel of the album.

> Despite the fact that |>oug's only reason for raising the subject
> was (apparently) to try to make another low swipe at IED, IED agrees
> with |>oug that Kate does seem to have been quite deceitful in her
> recent interviews.

Stop being paranoid Andy.  The purpose for raising the topic was to
point out an interesting phenomenon I noticed, that also happened to
be relevent to the topic of discussion we had had recently on whether
Kate's words were the end-all and be-all of Katology.  The intent was
not that of a "low swipe".

>      No, no, no. No-one ever said that at all, least of all IED!!
> What you are (mis-)remembering is a joke report that appeared in
> the April 1st, 1988 (i.e. April Fool's Day) edition of _The_Guardian_,
> in which it was said that Kate had accepted a role for the next
> season of _Dr._Who_. This was _obviously_ false, as IED and at least
> one other Love-Hound hastened to point out.

Was this really printed in *The Guardian*, or was it the creation of
whoever posted the article to Love-Hounds?  Whoever wrote it
definitely new something about Kate and wasn't a mere hack cranking
out a funny.  It also seems unlikely to me that *The Guardian* would
go to all that trouble over an artist who at that point was quite out
of the limelight.  But I suppose anything is possible.

|>oug

"Love is a grave mental disease." -- Plato