Re: an observation

[larry@csccat.cs.com (Larry Spence)]

In article <1991Sep21.225408.25016@leland.Stanford.EDU> drk@leland.stanford.EDU (David Koehler) writes:
>
>Some facts:
>
>KaTe is moderately well known, wealthy, and has a recording contract.
>
>Happy Rhodes is not well known, not wealthy, and has no recording
>contract.
>
>Happy's _Warpaint_ CD is superbly recorded, engineered, and mixed.
>
>Kate's TSW CD displays recording, engineering and mixing that are,
>to be kind, *below par*!
>
>What is wrong here?

For starters, stating premises as "facts." %)

Second, are you implying that anyone with a well-recorded master tape
should get a contract?  I didn't see any smileys, so I assume you're serious...

Anyway, although I'm not much of an HR fan, I would certainly agree that she 
deserves a recording contract.  She's better than tons of dreck that's out
there (although about an order of magnitude below most Kate, IMHO).  However, 
lots of that dreck is 48-track DDD, and better production-wise than _Warpaint_.
And from what I've read, Happy's earlier releases aren't as slickly recorded 
as _Warpaint_ -- does that mean that she didn't deserve a contract before 
_Warpaint_?

I think you need to go look at some of the discs that CD Review gives a "10"
for sound quality.  A lot of them suck, unless you mainly use CDs as tools
for showing off your B&W 801s.

-- 
Larry Spence
larry@csccat.cs.com
..{uunet,texsun,cs.utexas.edu,decwrl}!csccat!larry