Hammersmith

["Andy Gough, x4-2906, pager 420-2284, CH2-59" <@hermes.intel.com:AGOUGH@AZ.intel.com>]

>Date:	Wed, 18 Mar 1992 05:30:29 -0800
>From:	wiltel!dlocke@uunet.UU.NET
>Illegal-Object: Syntax error in Message-Id: value found on wiretap.Spies.COM:
>	Message-Id:	<9203181330.AA24285@wtg58>
>						  ^-missing newline (LF)
>To:	uunet!eddie.mit.edu!love-hounds@uunet.UU.NET
>Subject: more on Hammersmith Show
>
>
>
>I watched most of my videotape of Kate's Hammersmith show last night to
>try to pay attention to whether Kate was singing or synching.  (Indeed,
>I watched it with my 2 year old daughter who may be the world's youngest
>KaTe fan at this time.  She dutifully clapped when the songs were done,
>sat transfixed during them, and says "Kate Bush" quite clearly.  You
>may need to have a child of your own to appreciate how cool that is!)  To
>be perfectly clear, I'm watching a tape of a USA network "Night Flight"
>program from the mid 80's that featured the Hammersmith show.
>
>I noticed that on a number of songs there are clearly backing vocals
>that are not being sung live.  These could have been added in the studio
>after the fact, or they could have been played from a tape at the show.
>I think the latter is more likely.  Some of the backing vocals are
>quite definitely Kate's, too.
>
>Kate uses two different kind of microphones, the fixed-to-her-head
>kind and the big yellow hand-held kind.  There are times when she's
>jumping around that the fixed mic is bouncing wildly while she's
>singing.  I would expect some sort of Doppler effect to be audible
>here, and there isn't.  Of course, this could have been cleaned up
>in the studio.  [You must keep in mind that unless you're listening
>to an audience tape of the show you don't know what it really sounded
>like live.]
>
>So, I really don't know what to think.  My current theory is that
>the fixed-to-the-head stuff is probably taped (it could be taped
>vocals that are different than what's on the albums), while the
>hand-held stuff is probably live.  It is extremely difficult to
>judge anything since the recording was almost certainly messed-with
>significantly in the studio, and also since I'm listening to a
>mono videotape recorded from the tube -- not exactly hi-fi.
>
>I need to watch the SNL appearance again before I comment further
>on it.
>
>Oh, and one more thing that strikes me as odd:  I don't recall Kate
>every saying anything to the audience, which would be clear evidence
>that her mic was on!
>
>-Dick

My impression from watching the Hammersmith tape was that the only thing that
was taped was "Hammer Horror"--which was done because of the demanding dance
routine (she didn't even lip synch to it).  "James and the Cold Gun" and all of
the stuff she sings seated at the piano looks and sounds live.

Also, if the actual concert wasn't live, or if the tape isn't a recording of a
live performance, it's fraudulant.  I wouldn't expect KaTe to pull off a fraud,
so I think we should have the expectation that it's a recording of a live
performance.  I'm of course excluded recorded backing vocals and sound effects,
which I think is ok--how else is one going to play the sounds of humpback whales
at a concert?

Not that certain other rock groups haven't pulled off lip-synched concerts
(which they inevitably get sued for).  But KaTe?  Perish the thought!  Finally,
if it was a fraudulant performance, IED would have told us years ago!!! :-)

Regards,
Andy