Errors-To: owner-chalkhills@els.sgi.com
Reply-To: chalkhills@els.sgi.com
Sender: owner-chalkhills@els.sgi.com
Precedence: bulk
From: owner-chalkhills@els.sgi.com
To: chalkhills@els.sgi.com
Subject: Chalkhills Digest #8-21


          Chalkhills Digest, Volume 8, Number 21

                  Sunday, 31 March 2002

Topics:

                    Chomsky Admits It!
                    re: Remaster This.
   Masters and Remasters that a minute would reverse...
                 Re: Remaster & Servants
                 Wheres Rufus T. Firefly?
                   Easter in Her Bonnet
                Why, Mrs. Claypool! Hello!
                     American Psycho
              It's a girl! And another girl!
                   Stewart Lee on COAT
                        bummer...
                 Cupboards In The Closet
                         Andyish
                     I Finally Got It
                 XTC live (well, sort of)
           A Brief Discourse On Lexical Matters
                    Re: Remaster THIS!
                      Box-Set blues
                    XTC on Minidisc???
            Burning with anticipation's flames

Administrivia:

    To UNSUBSCRIBE from the Chalkhills mailing list, send a message to
    <chalkhills-request@chalkhills.org> with the following command:

        unsubscribe

    For all other administrative issues, send a message to:

        <chalkhills-request@chalkhills.org>

    Please remember to send your Chalkhills postings to:

        <chalkhills@chalkhills.org>

    World Wide Web: <http://chalkhills.org/>

    The views expressed herein are those of the individual authors.

    Chalkhills is compiled with Digest 3.7d (John Relph <relph@tmbg.org>).

Will you take young Master Charge ...

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 14:43:45 -0500
From: Gary Glauber <gary@freelanceadvancers.com>
Subject: Chomsky Admits It!
Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20020322143724.02972df0@pop.bizmailsrvcs.net>

Hello Sir Relph and dear Chalkhillian friends:

It has been far too long since posting and at some point in the near future
I promise to let you know about all sorts of wonderful new music
(especially since Wes was dissing the year of 2001 musically) that you
might enjoy.  I recently reviewed a tasty CD from a Dallas-based group
named Chomsky who have a very pronounced XTC (circa Drums & Wires) feel to
much of their music.  I cited this in my review and received an email
confession from the songwriter band member that I nailed the reference
dead-on.  For those interested, my review's direct link is
here:  http://www.fufkin.com/glauber_rev_03_02.htm  and if you want to
forego my folderol, their direct site is www.chomsky.com.  Definitely a
great guitar as percussion sound...which isn't really done too much these
days.  Be well all.

Till next posting,

Gary G.

------------------------------

Date: 22 Mar 2002 12:14:59 -0800
From: Brent Dougans <oreo.rasta@canada.com>
Subject: re: Remaster This.
Message-ID: <20020322201459.8142.cpmta@c009.snv.cp.net>

Hi.

Wes brings up an extremely valid point. Where does the 'remaster' end
and the 'remix' begin. Personally, the concepts of 'headroom of
sound', 'signal to noise ratio' and 'compression' are sadly
overlooked. The new 'wall of sound' recordings that record companies
tend to put out sound un-natural. Play "Livin' La Vida Loca" through
WINAMP and all the EQ light bars are constantly maxed out right across
the board throught the entire song. Play any older recording and the
EQ light bars actually move up and down in a more natural manner.

My concern with 're-mastering' is how are they bringing all these 'new
sounds' up into the mix. Are they just re-mixing the original masters
to bring the more subtle sounds more to the forefront or are they just
getting better, cleaner sound transfer off the original tapes through
new technologies. Compression is also used to bring more 'sound' into
the same listening field. I have found some modern recordings with
that heavy synthetic bass are nearly impossible to record to cassette
because the bottom end distorts out when using normal recording
levels.

Listening is a learned process. Younger folks cannot appreciate the
'warmer' sound of vinyl because it is foreign to their ears - being
accustomed to the new digital music medium that started in the early
80's.
Natural sound is 'digital' sound for young folks.
No "what is better, vinyl or CD" debate please. It's a matter of what
you are accustomed to and what recording is being compared and what
you are using to play the said recordings.

The law of diminishing returns kicks in pretty quick here too. The XTC
re-masters (?) may be worth the price if you are listening to them on
a high-end rack stereo system or with some pricey headphones and a
good CD player. If you think they are a great buy for your car stereo
or discman, fine. Personally, I have them all on original vinyl and
original CDs and that's good enough for me. If you are buying the
re-masters to replace your original CDs just to play them on a $50
discman or boombox, I hope it's for the artwork as you will hardly
appreciate the sonic superiority (if there is any).

I'm the wrong guy to talk. I can't throw money around like I did in my
youth. I can't justify the margin of sonic gain for the cost out of my
pocket and I have a $600+ Denon CD player and matching stereo at home
(bought before I was married).

Go buy the re-masters (re-mixes?). Andy & Colin need the cash. Boost
their economy.

As for MP3's and sound quality, they do have a good use. Some artists
I enjoy have not been put onto CD.
It's nice to hear an old scratchy track off a 45 that I would never
hear otherwise. Some people put these old rare tracks as 128 kb MP3's
on the NET to download.
After all, beggars can't be choosers.... unless they have deep pockets.

Bye For Now.

Brent

now playing: Lou Monte - Cheech The Cat

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 13:16:16 -0700
From: Kirk.Gill@equifax.com
Subject: Masters and Remasters that a minute would reverse...
Message-ID: <OFB28D51B4.848E4B1A-ON87256B84.006B6023@fin.equifax.com>

Here's my take on the whole remastering business. I'm relatively boring, so
I'll try to keep this short.

In the olden days of yore, recorded music was made available to the public
on vinyl records, even though it had originally been recorded on tape. For
the vinyl records to be manufactured, the taped music was first transferred
to a metal "master" record, from which the subsequent vinyl records would
be pressed. The stylus that was used to physically carve the grooves into
the metal master disc was a VERY expensive item, and very sensitive. If the
music had a wide dynamic range (the range between the quietest moments and
the loudest moments), or if it had a lot of "transients" (very quick
changes in volume, like the sharp crack of a snare drum, for instance), the
act of carving out that groove in the metal could ruin the stylus. Thus was
born the "mastering engineer," whose job it was to make a good-sounding
master disc without ruining any expensive equipment. These brilliant folks
came up with a lot of devices to aid their cause, and no ones more
important than the "compressor" and the "limiter." The compressor would
basically squeeze the dynamic range of the recording, making the quiet
parts louder and the loud parts quieter, relatively speaking. This made
life easier on the stylus, and also had the effect of making the overall
recording sound louder. The limiter would set an absolute ceiling on the
volume of a recording, making it impossible for very loud transients to get
through and ruin a stylus. While originally invented for a purely
utilitarian purpose, musicians and producers rapidly realized that there
were qualities to compressed and limited signals that they liked, and so
both became "effects" as well as continuing to serve their specific
purpose.

So anyway, "mastering" became, over time, a looser term meaning taking a
recording from one medium to another (tape/vinyl, tape/cd, etc.), a process
that came to include not only compression and limiting but a whole host of
other effects, especially equalization (like a hyped-out version of the
"graphic eq" on many stereos).

Now, when it comes to mastering a cd, there's obviously no expensive stylus
to protect. Instead, when working with the digital format, your enemy is
distortion. On analog tape, if the signal being recorded is too "hot," it
distorts a bit, but there is a quality to this analog distortion that our
ears tend to perceive as pleasant-sounding. Digital distortion is, on the
other hand, a harsh and thoroughly unpleasant sound that is musically
usable only in harsher-sounding music. The easiest way for a person
"mastering" a cd to prevent digital distortion is to find the loudest spot
of music on the recording, and adjust volume levels to ensure that the loud
spot stops just short of a level high enough to distort. I think that is
what was done with the early XTC cd's. What's been done with these latest
remasters is all the tricks, compression, limiting, eq, etc, have been
employed to make them sound as loud and clear as possible. I love the way
the remasters sound. But if Andy wasn't involved in the process, I can see
how he might not like them. He might have requested different eq settings,
etc. I recorded a friend's band in his bass-player's living room with a
minimal setup, and he still bitched and moaned all through the mastering
process, desiring all kinds of minute tweaks, so.........to answer Wes'
question, you're not hearing anything that wasn't there, but the balance of
each thing, the equalization of each thing, has been altered. Most of the
time, I think, for the better. But anyone who has a personal, intimate
connection with the older version might have trouble listening to these
new, brassier, brigher versions. For Andy it's hard to say, just because
the whole business relationship with Virgin must make it hard for him to
see them in anything like a positive light. Ever.

You know, I though I was gonna keep this short. Oh well.

k?

"I'm Bugged."

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2002 19:57:41 -0500
From: Gary McBride <garym@usa.com>
Subject: Re: Remaster & Servants
Message-ID: <a0510140ab8c17b4ff548@[66.162.66.77]>

In #8-20 Wes Long asked:

>Anyone here familiar with the process known as remastering?

This is a process long known and revered in the music industry as a
method for extracting ongoing income from Pink Floyd, Byrds, and
Elvis Costello fanatics. (I'm on my 4th set of Costello CDs, not even
counting two or three vinyl versions of the Columbia stuff...)

>What worries me is the fact that the band had no say
>in these remastered recordings.  The question that
>begs to be answered - just how much has the engineer
>altered the recording.

The differences can be dramatic, but can also be contrary to
decisions made by the artist. My pedestrian understanding of
remastering is that it's largely a matter of using current
technology/methods to "improve" the sonic fidelity of the finished
product, which begs the question, why didn't they just get it bloody
right the first time? I'm told that we see a lot of it now because
the new digital tools make it easier to "clean up" superfluous noise
and sweeten mixes to suit someone's quality standards. Ideally, that
someone is the artist, who may not have had the privilege of
supervising the mastering the first time around, or was unhappy with
the results for some reason. Otherwise it's usually a trusted guru,
and they make a big deal about it so they can sell the "remastered"
version as sonically superior with bonus tracks and liner notes by
Todd Skreed.

Now, this becomes more necessary when you're talking about Muddy
Waters tracks recorded in a phone booth in 1955, and it can make a
huge difference on those kinds of releases, even restoring damaged or
"missing" parts of songs.

Another case peculiar to CDs is that the sonic qualities, frequency
responses, etc. are somewhat different than they were with analog
(vinyl/cassette) so some tweaking does need to occur. A LOT of record
companies just "shoveled" their catalog titles onto CD when the
format caught on, and didn't really make any effort to take these
differences into consideration. You KNOW that's what happened with
Virgin and XTC... a lot of nuances and colorings didn't make it to
the CDs. Purists have long claimed that CDs sound bad compared to
vinyl, but to the unwashed masses, it didn't make much difference.

That said, I think I read somewhere that they remastered the first
Natalie Imbruglia CD to re-release along with her new one. The leaps
and bounds made since 1998 are staggering... (cough.)

Same applies to DVD... did you see the mess they released as the
Kubrick Collection right after he died? They had to remaster it less
than a year later.

</misinformed tirade>

<XTC content>
How do Andy and Colin manage to sign all those damn CDs?  Weezer is
selling signed discs on their site, but charging like $25 for them...
</XTC content>

By the way, whoever mentioned Ed Harcourt "Here Be Monsters" on this
list is a friend of mine. Phenomenal CD...out in the US this week for
cheap.

Cheers,
Gary

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2002 09:56:11 EST
From: OMBEAN1@aol.com
Subject: Wheres Rufus T. Firefly?
Message-ID: <13e.b6e5152.29cdf18b@aol.com>

yo,yo,yo,wussup?
 I havent posted in a while, but it took something like this to make me write:

i'm glad we're hearing from molly again. i've always thought of her as
somewhat the margaret dumont of the group. i mean that in the best
sense.
  Damn, thats funny.
 XTC content-- I dont know what Im more excited about, Coat of Many Cupboards
or the Instrumental CDs.  I'm like a spinning top.
 Thats my intelligent post for now.   Roger
  p.s. If you dont watch "Everybody Loves Raymond"., do it now.

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2002 08:20:42 -0800
From: Kyla <kyla17@earthlink.net>
Subject: Easter in Her Bonnet
Message-ID: <3C9CAB5B.794D20C@earthlink.net>

Greetings Chalkhillians -
Woke this morn to a roll of rain on the roof - spring has sprung,
Easter is yawning and stretching, doves are nesting in the tree
outside my balcony and I'm going to play catsup on a few Digests.

Nice to learn from Dunks the name of Stanley Unwin, who I certainly
remember from Ogden's Nut Gone Flake.  I suspect he might well have
also influenced the writing of John Lennon, as well as all those
goons, eh?

Not to be contrary, but I like Gilmore Girls - the lead can really
snap out the free-associative witty retorts, as can the character's
'daughter', as can most of the people in that imaginary town, which is
nothing like reality, but then, wot is, on tv or off?

Very Happy also to learn from James Michael the etymology of 'jumped
the shark', which is a hew-uuuge expression here in L.A., and now that
I'm no longer mystified, I can chime right in and pretend to be ten
years younger (like I don't already...)

This observation from John Holden-Dye: "I guess it's all down to the
circumstances, when you first digest these inexplicably cherished
albums - you know - the ones you play to your best friends, and within
47 secs. of the opening masterpiece (you're mouthing the words/playing
air guitar), they're *already* bloody talking. Why ? Can't they HEAR?
Jeez, are they losing their critical faculties ? Should you still
count them amongst your buddies ?" - It's good to know this is a
feeling not uncommon - It certainly is one of life's little sour
moments that I know all too well.

I've tried this before, now, after much too much thought - My fave
song on Wasp Star would be We're All Light.

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2002 13:39:17 -0600
From: Brown <i.sundog@verizon.net>
Subject: Why, Mrs. Claypool! Hello!
Message-ID: <20020323193917.IJBV27046.out006.verizon.net@darkstar>

In Chalkhills Digest #8-20 the device known as don referred to Margaret
Dumont, of all people.  What a wonderfully comic actress Ms. Dumont was,
bless her heart.

OK, here is where it gets a little *hinky*.  At the very same moment that my
LEFT eye was reading about don's comparing our Molly to Margaret Dumont, my
RIGHT eye was perusing a website that mentions a band that did a song
entitled 'Margaret Dumont'!
Don't believe me?  All right, wise arses, here's the page:
http://www.actionbox.com/dumont.html

And no I am not affiliated in any way, shape, or form with actionbox
records, etc.

XTC related:
Some of you lucky buggers who already have your sweaty paws on a copy of
Coats, I just want you to know that I appreciate the fact that you haven't
spilled too many specifics about the booklet, and especially about the essay
authored by that hapless goober fellow who shambles about these hills of
chalk.. you guyz know who I mean.  I think I speak for no one in particular
when I say that the rest of us folk who are patiently waiting their turn to
obsess over their very own copies of the boxed set don't want that special
moment of discovery to be ruined by too many spoilers, so thank you all very
kindly! :)

All tingly with anticipation,

Debora Brown

--Groucho: "Do you rhumba?"
Lady: "Why, yes - of course I do!"
Groucho: "Well take a rhumba from 1 to 10."--

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2002 00:57:13 +0000
From: "Duncan Kimball" <dunks58@hotmail.com>
Subject: American Psycho
Message-ID: <F231dnGiAw8HQEUEiff0001025d@hotmail.com>

Currently on the turntable: (remove it at your peril) - Gomez - "In Our
Gun". Will these fellas EVER disappoint? I hope not, and they haven't yet.
Their music pushes so many buttons for me, I'm about to short out! I place
them (sort of) in the same box as Yes i.e. I have NO idea what they're on
about but goddamn they make a groovy sound. (The free T-shirt was a nice
touch too - are they doing that that elsewhere?).

re: XTC covers, Testicular Dingoes, and all that jazz ... I'm surprised
no-one has mentioned the stonking version of "Complicate Game" by Aussie
band Icehouse (which is mainly writer/singer/guitarist Iva Davies). I
believe it comes from their album "The Berlin Tapes". Complete with
delectable Aladdin-Sane-esque piano flourishes by Max from Playschool --
yes, really (Aussies will know who I mean), this is superb bit of work, and
I have been told (correct me if I'm wrong) that Andy considers it one of the
best cover versions of his songs. If they're doing a new Testicular, this
CANNOT be left out.

Thoughtcrime update: anyone else across the Ted Rall controversy? I have
avidly followed Ted's work (www.tedrall.com) since 9-11, and admire his work
hugely. Granted, he *can* sail pretty close to the wind ... but isn't that
the whole idea of satire?  I was genuinely to read this week the vicious,
virulent, violent attack on him by former Reagan lackey Alan Keyes,
published on the "right wing" "news" outlet WorldNetDaily (and I'm being
VERY generous there -- Himmler would be proud of this site). In this truly
scary slice of war-mongering propagandism, Keyes stops only micrometres
short of openly advocating that Ted Rall be taken out and shot for treason.

If you're interested, I collected the four relevant pieces on a web page at

http://www.geocities.com/dunks58/keyes.htm.

It comprises Ted's now-notorious "Terror Widows" cartoon, the one that
started the whole stink, Ted's subsequent article on the questions being
asked about 9-11 victim compensation, Alan Keyes' fascistic "kill Ted" rant,
and Ted's cartoon in reply to Keyes' attack, which is IMO a masterpiece of
modern politcal cartooning.

FINALLY, we're getting "Later...with Jules Holland" (on cable) here in Oz.
Better late than never eh? Blow me down, what a good show.

Finally saw "American Psycho" the other night. Funniest film of the 90s, no
contest.

It's a beautiful day outside -- why am I sitting in here?

Cheers to all

Dunks

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2002 08:06:36 -0500
From: "Christopher R. Coolidge" <cauldron@together.net>
Subject: It's a girl! And another girl!
Message-ID: <B8C3398C.2FB8%cauldron@together.net>

March 21, 2002:
Emily Mae Coolidge born(2 lb 2 oz)
Margaret Anne Coolidge born(2 lb 6 oz)

The babies are a couple of months premature but doing very well. Emily got
stressed and wanted out, so the gynecologist arranged a quickie c-section.
Margaret was very unhappy, she was in no hurry to leave that nice warm place
she was in only to be hooked up to tubes and ventilators. Margaret's already
breathing on her own, and Emily's only getting a little extra oxygen.
They're both very active for preemies, they'll keep us on our toes when we
get home for sure.

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2002 13:24:42 -0800 (PST)
From: Sweet Golden Patootski <sgpatootski@yahoo.com>
Subject: Stewart Lee on COAT
Message-ID: <20020324212442.4275.qmail@web21408.mail.yahoo.com>

http://www.sunday-times.co.uk/article/0,,187-241892,00.html
Requires sign-up to download.

HEADLINE: Many Cupboards
BYLINE: Stewart Lee
PERIODICAL: The Times of London
DATE: 24 March 2002

STEWART LEE SAID: 'A well-researched box set decodes
its subject, illuminating trends and signature sounds,
deepening our affection for music that perhaps seemed
all too familiar. But COAT OF MANY CUPBOARDS makes XTC
appear even more confusing than they are. What has
been going on in their Swindon fastness these past 25
years? How can four CDs full of outtakes, demos and
live tracks explain a career that stretches from the
agitated, scratchy angst of SCIENCE FRICTION, via the
sublime hit singles MAKING PLANS FOR NIGEL and SENSES
WORKING OVERTIME, to the Carnaby Street acid-pop of
BRAINIAC'S DAUGHTER? XTC are unboxable. Who are they,
and what do they want from us? Though COAT OF MANY
CUPBOARDS prompts a fond nostalgia, the albums XTC
have made since escaping Virgin Records suggest that
their best work may still be ahead of them. Three
stars.'

http://members.ozemail.com.au/~idak/lis/s2e15.jpg
I've got a sweet golden patootski.
And I dig it.

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2002 14:04:36 -0800 (PST)
From: Nicole Ross <drmomross@yahoo.com>
Subject: bummer...
Message-ID: <20020324220436.8656.qmail@web14904.mail.yahoo.com>

In response to:

>>From: Wes Long <optimismsflames@yahoo.com>
>>Subject: Remaster THIS!

>>What worries me is the fact that the band had no say
>>in these remastered recordings.  The question that
>>begs to be answered - just how much has the engineer
>>altered the recording.  Was I meant to hear the
>>things that I'm now hearing? Was I meant to hear
>>them this clearly? Has the sound stage been
>>enhanced, or reinvented?

Hey! Good question... Hadn't even considered that.
I'll be interested in the answer, too...

>>I've spoken with Andy briefly about these remastered
>>discs - and he's, for whatever reason, not been to
>>keen to speak of the subject.

Maybe he's not too keen on the repackaging of old
material??? I haven't bought the remastered CD's b/c I
don't think I'd really appreciate the differences so
much so that'd be worth the expense. If I already have
the music, why would I want another copy? I'd rather
buy something new...

Actually, its been rather a bummer for me, because I
can't get excited over the remastereds or Coat. It
seems all a large drain of money and I really just
want to buy something I don't already have (although,
I will probably buy some remastereds of albums I don't
already have... and I may bow my head and buy an
autographed copy of Coat... I'm a sucker for it).

Oh well... my opinion anyways.
-Nicole

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2002 19:43:57 -0500 (EST)
From: "" <radiosinmotion@iwon.com>
Subject: Cupboards In The Closet
Message-ID: <20020325004357.B33E327C7E@email.iwon.com>

I have been in the closet for quite some time... I dropped off about a
year ago after someone said I was someone else, and so on... Who cares
anyway... 

I was happy to see the new box set is coming out. I ordered it, but
was sad to see it was from Virgin. Oh, I made a CD compilation the
other day which was supposed to be my favorite XTC songs. The "CD"
ended up being 4 CD's and that was cutting it short! :)  

I made each CD by period and I noticed that I used quite a few songs
from Nonsuch. I never realized this until now but that was one of my
favorite albums... 

On a side note, I recorded my first remake version of "Radios In
Motion." That is going to be my band's title song... The only other
XTC song I think I will cover is either Language in our lungs or
Respectable street.

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2002 20:23:34 -0600
From: "Richard" <rjpa1@attbi.com>
Subject: Andyish
Message-ID: <00ed01c1d46d$3bd19800$03081fac@verisity.com>

XTC content?  ...close but not touching.

Check out Dane Peterson's "Surfacing" at
http://artists.mp3s.com/artists/287/dane_petersen.html

He has learned his Partridge well.  He also makes no apologies stating,
"This is what I get from listening to 'Nonsuch' for an entire summer."  The
Wizard of Osmosis.

Not to peg him as a human fake book but listen to the rest of the available
tracks.  The Jellyfishish "I Fall Down" and "Time When You're Sleeping" for
which he wears his art on his sleeve by likening it to "Books Are Burning"
and "Free As A Bird" (how's that for a spectrum of mid-tempo songs, eh? - In
my opinion, from sparkle to stench.)

Cheers,
Richard

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 30 Mar 2002 01:31:59 -0500
From: "Molly, the New Wave Queen" <mollyfa0000@worldnet.att.net>
Subject: I Finally Got It
Message-ID: <003601c1d7b4$9afc5dc0$1d04590c@vogmudet>
Organization: AT&T Worldnet

I just wanted to let you all know that I just got my copy of, "The Coat of
Many Colours" and I LOVE it.  It's so interesting to hear the different
versions of the songs we all like.  My favorite song in this collection so
far is on Dixc Three: Dear God.  Andy Partridge should have sang the part
that was sung by the kid.  If you haven't bought it, I highly recommend it.
:)

Molly
AIM: SPIRITTALKTALK
E-Mail: mollyfa0000@worldnet.att.net
Webpage: http://mollyfanton.topcities.com
Retro Song of the Moment: "Making Plans for Nigel" - XTC

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 31 Mar 2002 23:49:57 -0800
From: "Mick Casey" <junglefish@ntlworld.com>
Subject: XTC live (well, sort of)
Message-ID: <002601c1d951$d3581cb0$107d0150@PDU>

Dear Chalkers

In the last few weeks there have a couple of posts, primarily aimed at UK
Hillers, the first to do with the 2nd Annual Gathering Of The Faithful at
Oxford, the second regarding the formation and impending unleashment on the
public of the tribute-to XTC-band X-sTatiC.

Firstly, I'd like to mention that I was one of the lucky few who attended
the 1st Annual gathering in Oxford last year. A bloody good time was had by
all (how could it not have been bearing in mind the kind of folk on the
Hill?), friendships were forged, beer was consumed and chalkhorses were
almost viewed (Foot & Mouth restrictions were rife at the time). Any of you
out there in two minds about coming down this year, please dispense with all
doubts and contact spagyric_2002@yahoo.co.uk now. Satisfaction guaranteed!

Secondly, being also somewhat involved with the embryonic X-sTatiC (good
name, don't you think?) I have a further proposition. What could be better
that kicking off our UK & Worldwide Tour (huh?) with a debut gig to a bunch
of Chalkhillites? Well, we're game if you are!

As soon as the Oxford organisers get enough takers to make worthwhile the
organising of a venue, PA, etc. arrangements will be made and instruments
will be tuned. Want to hear how they might have sounded post-1982? Now's
your chance.
--
Mick Casey             mick@beatown.net

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 13:25:31 EST
From: Hbsherwood@aol.com
Subject: A Brief Discourse On Lexical Matters
Message-ID: <177.5cd7e79.29d3689b@aol.com>

>From: art et affiche <art.affiche@wanadoo.fr>
>Subject: Cupboards and peaches

>Peacham...
>Peachamaroot???
>For Zeus's sake, Mr Harrison, what is a pitch a ma route?

Why, Mlle Marie, a peachamaroot is the direct equivalent of a pipterino --
or, in your lovely language, "une pipe de Rinauld."

Hope this clears things up.

Harrison "Doubt it" Sherwood

PS: In my extensive travels, I have frequently been reminded of the essential
truth of the proposition that what's good for the Zeus is good for the gander.

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 20:13:21
From: "Bradley Wood" <brad372@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Remaster THIS!
Message-ID: <F54nHCRXmnqwjlrFpBF000083cb@hotmail.com>

Generally (and simply stated) most music is recorded on multitrack tape,
these are mixed down to a stereo version which is handed to the record
company.  (If a CD is "remixed" than the original multitracked tapes are
given a different mix in which voices or instruments are turned up or down
in the mix).  The stereo tape is then made into a master by the record
company for distribution to pressing palnts around the world.  Generally the
music is not changed, but it may be equalized or compressed for "optimum"
sound.  The difference between the sound of a remastered CD and the original
depends upon a number of factors that took place during the original
mastering process, so the difference could range from slight (little or no
changes) to dramatic.

When the initial wave of CDs were mastered, many record companies were
notoriously sloppy in preparing the masters.  Often the same equalization
and compression used for an LP was transferred to the CD.  (LPs and CDs
offen require fairly substantially different equalization and compression
settings).  In some cases, multiple generations of the original master were
used for CDs and in a few cases the CDs were remastered directly from the
LP.  Often the CDs of the less than huge selling records were pretty much
slapped onto CDs with very little care or cost to improve the sound.

In this case the sources for the XTC tracks were probably remastered from
the original stereo mix, equalized for CDs and possibly cleaned to remove
tape hiss.  Hence a more dynamic sound.  Often when there are passages you
didn't notice in the original CD it is because the original mastering
process tended to cover them.  (e.g., Dazed and Confused by Led Zeppelin
where in the remastered version you can hear the snare drum buzz from the
bass notes being played).

Bradley

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 11:57:56 -0000
From: "Paul Sandford" <mail@samnjake.fsnet.co.uk>
Subject: Box-Set blues
Message-ID: <001101c1d586$be772da0$4b61883e@samuel>

Got my big beautiful signed box-set through the post. Ripped the packaging
off, and marvelled at the delights inside...hold on...where are the bonus
tracks?? Am I the only one to receive this edition of the box-set?? Amazon
and MVC both have editions with the bonus tracks starting discs 2 & 3. Have
been in touch with Idea Records (awaiting a response), but the occasion has
been slightly spoiled. I believe that the bonus tracks are less than
essential listening, but that is hardly the point.........
                Fed-up
                    P.

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 16:32:24 -0800
From: "Thomas Vest" <tvtwo@hotmail.com>
Subject: XTC on Minidisc???
Message-ID: <F59DlB0yrjuiIeMOn4K00010736@hotmail.com>

Hello everyone!

Just curious to know if anyone has ever seen any of the Swindon boy's
material on the minidisc format?  I can certainly record it to minidisc
myself and have in fact-- but I just wanted a polling from the rest of
Chalkhilldom about it.  I have looked on various XTC related sites, used and
new portals like GEMM.com-- even amazon.uk but have not found any reference
to this.   It looks like this is a big goosechase, but stranger things have
happened.

I am patiently waiting for the box set.  Has anyone gotten theirs yet?

Also, got very lucky recently and found a good copy of the GO+ EP... now, if
I can just scrounge up a record player...

Happy Easter to all!

Thom

"... I don't know karate, but I know crazy..."   The Payback-- James Brown

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 09:46:20 -0600
From: SOlsen@lexecon.com
Subject: Burning with anticipation's flames
Message-ID: <OFBF259E69.84222FE6-ON86256B8B.00563345@lexecon.com>

I'm going crazy, where is the box set?!?  I want it!  I need it!  It's now
4 days since supposed release date, but nothing.  No word from Idea,
nothing on the website.  Has anyone received their copy yet, any word from
the record company?

-Sharon

------------------------------

End of Chalkhills Digest #8-21
******************************

Go back to the previous page.