Re: (no subject given!)

[as010b@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (andrew david simchik)]

In <9212020113.aa22701@hobbes.sco.com> news@sco.COM (News admin) writes:


>as010b@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (andrew david simchik) writes:
>>Well, I think the answer comes from your own posting.  You speak of the
>>inability of the engineer to improve music by "gold plating" it.  And
>>plating is all it is; "turdy" music is still "turdy" no matter how it's
>>plated, and good music is still good no matter how *it's* plated.

>chill out, man!  i wasn't saying the music was turdy.  i was saying the
>recorded sound quality of the raw tracks was turdy and it isn't kevin
>killen's fault for not making a crystal clear album.  you need good raw
>tracks to work with - the best mixologist in the world can't turn hissy
>distorted tracks into a crystal clear finished mix.

Ah, I see, sorry.

>so, having skillfully defused that bomb, i guess we can safely toss most of
>your article, as it builds upon that faulty assumption to an equally
>fault-ridden conclusion.

Well, now, I think that's more of an opinion.


>anyway, i agree that having a tin ear is a good thing.  for years now i have
>been able to discern incredibly small differences in pitch and it drives me
>absolutely spare because it seems that no two tape decks run at exactly the
>same speed.  i make a tape at home, and when i listen to it in my car it is
>noticeably (to me) fast.  i hate it.  to add insult to injury, i don't even
>have perfect pitch, just some weird holographic-like memory for sound.
>guess i should just get a CD player for the car...

Yeah, I know what you mean.  But my original point was that, as a singer, I
listen more for the quality of Kate's voice than her technical sound
quality.  The engineering doesn't bother me; the tobacco-marred voice does
a bit.


>well, as i said about eight gazillion times when TSW first came out - i
>wouldn't harp on the sound quality so much if the songs were better.  i can
>overlook a certain amount of audio detritus if the songs are worth the
>effort.  but they aren't up to kate's usual high standards and thus the
>faults in the recording are rendered all the more obvious.

Ooooh, no no no.  Kate has some of her best songs on this album.  They're
different, I grant you, but absolutely brilliant.  I think you're missing
the shift in style--see my post aboutthis album.

If need be I can take it song by song and tell you why they're just as good
or better than anything she's done.

>>P.S. I don't mean this to sound rude, but does your above post really mean
>>to say that you are a "certified...beautiful person?"  If so, where does one
>>acquire a certificate?

>i got it at the school of hard knocks, baby.  i also have a PhD in being
>incredibly charismatic, as well.

Ah, I see.  Does that mean you actually had to *study* for this?  :)

>-- 
>Jon Drukman (God's personal DJ)                 uunet!sco!jondr   jondr@sco.com
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>I was an infinitely hot and dense dot.

Drewcifer
-- 
***************************************************************************
* Andrew David Simchik, a.k.a. Drewcifer ***************  SCHNOPIA! *******
***************************************************************************