Rocket Man, Fairlights, plastic forks ...

[viewpnt!echelon!henrik@uunet.UU.NET (Larry DeLuca)]

Well, needless to say, I was obsessed so I went out and got _Two Rooms_
last night.  I'm just starting my third listen now.

I still don't approve of the reggae beat (though if it wasn't "Rocket Man",
I would like the textures she's created better).

Those backing vocals, though - pure, unadulterated "Bush-ness".  (Stale.)

It's really got the sound more than anything else of her B-sides - done
in a day, more of a sketch than a finished product.

It is catchy, though.

I went back to the Elton John version last night (on 45rpm record, no less)
to see what it was amidst the crack and pop that kept me coming back for
more.  It's so stark.  You feel so alone when you listen to it.  Heroism
and hermitism blend and become one.  

There were just so many missed vocal opportunities - god, I wanted to hear
her *soar* on the choruses, but instead we got retreads from "Not This Time"
and "Burning Bridge" (neither of which is my favourite of her work, either).

Kate Bush has a serious problem in that she works *sooooo* hard on her albums
to make sure there is not a hair out of place that she almost unilaterally
produces comparatively shoddy-sounding B-sides and side projects (not that
all of them *are* shoddy, just that she has such high standards for albums,
which she tosses when it comes to doing a B-side).

Now, for DrukFace and Lazlo:

	* The vocals are compressed into the stratosphere.  Who does
	  she think she is, Phil Collins?

	* If there were any more reverb, the final dying throes of the 
	  Quantec would raise the perceived noise floor above 0db.

	* If her vocals were any further out front in the mix, she would
	  fall off the end of the soundstage (a la Ann-Margaret).

	* Isn't it amazing that the loudest instrument in the world is
	  an acoustic guitar?

She should have gotten drunk again (it worked wonders for "The Big Sky").

Now, also for Jon:

You talk about sucking in a sound and doing an FFT on it and then storing
it and playing it back.  Yes, it's a common technique to get more mileage
out of very few bits (or lots of mileage out of tons of bits), but you 
know what?  It's not *true* sampling.  *True* sampling is taking exactly
that - a sample 'x' times a second, and storing it in memory.  *Any* 
processing of that sample (including but not limited to anti-Aliasing
(Fairlight's original claim to fame), FFT's for other reasons, etc.)
and the original sample is no longer coming out of the instrument.

You spent a lot of time saying no but shaking your head yes - while you
were busy impugning (and I did check the spelling again ;-) ) Chris you
didn't notice that you were saying that he was in fact 100% correct in his
assertion.

Actually, neither you nor Chris realized it but his statement is true
of almost *ALL* samples on *ALL* hardware - most samples go in ANALOG,
and come out DIGITAL (and yes, it does change the sound - listen to
cymbals in early digital recordings - YUK!).

					larry...