Kate Bush / Wildman: Art of Peace / Songs For Tibet update


As some of you may have read on last week’s Saturday Deluxe post Kate Bush has offered the track Wildman from her album 50 Words For Snow for the Art of Peace Foundation’s Songs For Tibet II compilation, which is being marketed via PledgeMusic.

Kate had “really wanted to come up with something unique” for the project but ended up submitting just a new remastering of the album version of Wildman (by Stephen Taylor) that, according to coordinator Rupert Hine “relies more on psychoacoustics and sonic-processing releasing fresh harmonic information in an ear-tingly and subtle way”.

I thought this was a bit unexciting and confusing, so about a month ago submitted some questions to Hine:

1. When was Kate approached first approached about this project?
2. What was the original plan… the ‘unique’ contribution? Was Kate going to contribute a live track from “Before The Dawn” for example, or something completely new?
3. Has Stephen Tayler remixed “Wild Man”? i.e. gone back to the original multi-tracks?
4. If not, then has he remastered it – changing EQ and/or similar?
4. If neither 3 or 4 then what exactly *has* he done? Could you explain in layman’s terms what you mean by “relies on psycho-acoustics”, “sonic-processing” etc. What is actually different to this version when compared to the standard album version
5. Will the average person be able to hear a difference?
6. The 4.16 radio edit of “Widman” has never been commercially released on CD – was any consideration given to including that version?

He didn’t address the questions directly, but last night I did finally get a response from Rupert Hine:

“As you probably know, Kate will not be drawn into any comment or ‘explanations’ of her musical output. It must speak for itself. She has described this as ‘re-mastering’ and I believe we are safe in the assumption that the original multi-tracks have not been disturbed.

The sophistication of today’s audio processors is such that a piece of stereo recording can be taken to distinctly different places without re-adjusting the original sealed-in mix balances. The ‘apparent’ balances can shift by virtue of a number of multi-faceted tools that enable changes in both focus and blur – making sounds more independent of each other or indeed more homogenous. Therefore different treatments can be aimed squarely and accurately at different levels (both in pitch and dynamics) that are isolated for such colour-changes then returned to the overall picture seamlessly.

The subtleties of mastering (and consequently re-mastering) has become an art-form in and of itself and the clue for me is in Kate’s use of the word ‘ shimmering’. This suggestion of frequency range re-enforces the idea that we might be thinking more in terms of psycho-acoustical qualities and the realm of cognitive musicology.

At the end of the day, for me I believe that any differences are as much a question of perception as in the ear of the beholder.”

If you’d like to order the Art of Peace Foundation’s new Songs For Tibet II compilation, head over to PledgeMusic.

107 responses to Kate Bush / Wildman: Art of Peace / Songs For Tibet update

  1. Paul Sinclair says:

    Thanks for the chat on this subject. I respect everyone’s opinions and it has been interesting, but we’re reached the end of the road on this. So I’m closing this post to new comments. Cheers, Paul.

  2. Darren says:

    I think Alan is one of these types that just likes to get under people’s skin for his own entertainment. I believe they are called trolls on the internet, but I call them assh***s.

  3. bob says:

    Of course it isn’t a new recording.

  4. Alan says:

    Well, a remastered Wild Man is indeed an “unreleased version of a previously released song” so the statement is correct! It didn’t promise a new recording at all.

    • Paul Sinclair says:

      No it isn’t and if you’re are going to start arguing that black is white I might have to close this discussion because it will just go round in circles.

  5. Alan says:

    Paul Kent wrote: “Well, the act didn’t do what THEY said they were going to do. Before then we weren’t expecting anything. Therefore, their problem, not ours.”
    When and where did Kate say this? Find me the evidence and I’ll believe it. It was speculated it might be a new track, but only because others were contributing something new.

  6. RJS says:

    Paul Sinclair wrote: “The fact she doesn’t have to do that is down to the fact that we bought her records – so she *should* be extra nice to her fans”

    Nonsense. You’ve had hours and hours of enjoyment listening to the records you chose to buy. She owes you NOTHING.

  7. Paul Kent says:

    “If the act doesn’t do what you want, expect or would like them to do, that is your problem not theirs”
    – Well, the act didn’t do what THEY said they were going to do. Before then we weren’t expecting anything. Therefore, their problem, not ours.

    “Who is more selfish, the artist for not giving it, or the consumer for thinking they deserve it?”
    – Neither. The artist is merely foolish for offering something then withdrawing that offer. We, the collective consumer, don’t actually believe we deserve anything. We’re simply voicing disappointment at not getting what was originally offered.

    Right, that’s that all sorted – has Peter Gabriel bollocksed anything else up lately that we can all rally against…?

  8. Darren says:

    Bottom line. This is a site about deluxe editions and Kate Bush hasn’t done any.

    A new track was promised on Pledge Music and wasn’t delivered as promised.

    That’s the only points that matter.

  9. Alan says:

    Darren, I get what this website is about completely. It celebrates re-re-re-releases of any act you can think of. It’s great that it exists, and that people seem to be willing to buy and buy again albums that they already own.

    However, I’d also like to see a bit more respect given to acts that choose not to go down this route. Kate’s work is widely available to anyone that wants it.

    I think eventually there will be some reissues with bonus tracks etc, but Kate would not be one to hand this over to anyone else. She’d want involvement in it, and this would push a new album project back (as Before The Dawn has done).

    We’ll just have to agree to disagree. I’m not on any of the forums that Chris has apparently been on, but I did subscribe to the Homeground fanzine for 25 years, and he’s right when he says that the general consensus is that Kate owes us absolutely nothing. I don’t expect anything and I choose to buy or not buy what is made available.

    If the act doesn’t do what you want, expect or would like them to do, that is your problem not theirs. Who is more selfish, the artist for not giving it, or the consumer for thinking they deserve it?

  10. Alan says:

    Chris and I definitely seem to be on the same wavelength on this. A bit disappointing that more on here aren’t.

    A point someone made earlier is that the two exclusive discs in the 1990 boxed set are not (and never were) available separately. This is true, but the tracks are very easy to find on YouTube. I just did a search on The Empty Bullring and Ran Tan Waltz (rights owned by Parlophone) and Under The Ivy (rights owned by Kate) and all three are there so I can only assume that all of her other b-sides, alternative versions and live tracks are there too.

    Far from being “selfish”, Kate and Parlophone are allowing her work to be heard for free – they could very easily have them removed. All her videos are on her own YouTube channel (again for free). Yes, she could issue boxed sets and deluxe issues with DVDs but these wouldn’t be free! It’s a strange world where an artist is labelled as selfish or self-absorbed for simply not making anyone buy her work more than once and allowing it to be seen and heard for free!

    • Darren says:

      Yes Alan, you and Chris are on the same wavelength. It’s the one that misses the point completely. This website is “the box set and reissue music blog for collectors and fans who love holding the music in their hands”, not “the site for people who don’t really care that much about the product because they’re happy to listen to music on YouTube”. We are passionate about out music collections. We want to own the music on a physical product. We want to obtain the artists entire back catalogue, not just bits and pieces that the artist or record company see fit to tinker with. I am a CD collector and I want to obtain all of the 7″ mixes, 12″ mixes, remixes, album version etc. I’m not happy to just accept whatever comes and in whatever format and neither are the other people with a backbone who will voice their opinions. Our opinions are what have made the record companies listen and quite often they have revised tracklists based on our suggestions. We are the people who live and breathe music. We are the ones who buy music regularly, spending a large proportion of our disposable income on physical products. I buy music virtually every day, not just now and again or listen to music for free on YouTube. So my opinions and the opinions of people like me are often what shapes the end products. We wouldn’t have the deluxe editions that contain every possible track from the period without the input of the true music fans on websites like this.

  11. Chris Squires says:

    Darren, having spent a decade on various Kate Bush forums with other like minded souls I can assure you that the general consensus is pretty much as described. Very few artists command such loyalty and acceptance. But Kate does. The negativity around what one might feel one is “owed” is very much the minority view. Yes you will get the “I bought your music now you owe me more” mentality from a few but they are vastly outnumbered by those who will freely say that “Kate owes me nothing”. Of course there are those who have a few albums and have listened to them decades ago who say they are fans, and they might be, but I don’t apologize for being one of those people who can see beyond the demand for more from musicians because I own them. Somebody above called me a cry baby, well that is fine, but it’s no worse to be someone who just loves what Kate does at whatever speed it comes, than some of the bitter souls who whinge and moan when someone doesn’t give them exactly what they think they deserve. You can read it on just about every thread here and you don’t have to even leave this thread. The musicians are “selfish” and “self centred” and those that just love them and accept them for what they are “stupid” or “clueless”. “Why aren’t they doing this”, “Why aren’t they doing exactly what I say or what I find an acceptable input”.
    On a final note:
    As my dear wife says “If you are grateful, you can’t be unhappy”. It’s fine to say “Why should I be grateful?” It just means I will be happy with whatever I get and the others who feel ungrateful or that they are owed something will be unhappy. Or you can just keep on sneering at people who have “Psychiatric issues” because they enjoy something more than you do. You are welcome to that constant chippy misery, I will take the joy that Kate has given me over the last 37 years instead.

    • Darren says:

      Chris, if you can’t see that the “psychiatric issues” comment was a joke then that really says it all. Your problem is that you take things waaaay too seriously. The fact that you’ve spent a decade on Kate Bush forums thinking you have an accurate gauge on what “Kate fans” think is hilarious. All you have is your personal bias of what you have read by reading posts from the type of people who hang around internet forums, but that’s about it. What people thought yesterday may not be what they think today. So what have you really got? Outdated ideas from other people.

      The “I’m happy with whatever I get” mentality makes you sound like a doormat without opinion, which is obviously why you care so much about what “Kate fans” and your wife have to say.

      You think I have “chippy misery”, well that’s about as accurate as your take on what “Kate fans” want. You think you know it all, but you’re so stuck in your own beliefs that you can’t see the wood for the trees.

  12. bob says:

    Brilliance that we get. What, Directors Cut and 50 Words For Snow? Oh please. Ariel was brilliant but then so it should have been given we waited 12 years for it. The other two are just self indulgent twaddle from someone with to much time on their hands and enough money in the bank not to care if anybody else likes it or not.

  13. Alan says:

    Well said, Chris.

  14. Alan says:

    Seriously, Jon?? Isn’t it moreher work we care about? And we get that by paying money in exchange for plastic containing her music. End of transaction. We don’t own the artist, and we aren’t investing in them, therefore they owe us nothing and likewise, we don’t owe them. Kate’s music has given me far more than I’ve ever given her, but I paid my money for it.

    • Paul Sinclair says:

      Kate could quite easily have produced the same body of work but by a different quirk of fate not enjoyed the same commercial success. That would put her in the position today where she would have to do what most artists/songwriters do – play live regularly and spend lots of time doing press/pr to promote new albums, in order to maintain a lifestyle and make a living. I’m sure any perceived ‘aloofness’ would quickly disappear if Kate was in that position! The fact she doesn’t have to do that is down to the fact that we bought her records – so she *should* be extra nice to her fans.

      It’s ironic that people admire Kate for striving to have a ‘normal’ existence, and raise a family etc. There is nothing normal about not having to work and taking the best part of a decade off to enjoy family life and bringing up your child. Most people can’t do that so it’s not very ‘normal’ at all when you think about it.

      • Chris Squires says:

        I disagree entirely Paul. It is normal for any Parent to want to take as much time as they can off to look after their children. I resigned from my job and took as year off (1996) when my first was born. Because I knew I had enough money put by to see out the year. Also Danny is a guitarist so he probably did some session work that year.
        A lot of people would do the same, what is different is the scale of money that ANY successful 1970s / 1980s artist would have behind them. Kate invested wisely, didn’t blow a lot of it on drugs and fast cars like many young male artists might have done. What is beautifully missing from Kate is that need to be noticed. So she didn’t announce that she was taking any time off, she didn’t go to “Hello” to announce she was pregnant and then “OK” magazine for the birth. I don’t think any artist does that kind of thing “For the fans” they do it for themselves as they are scared that they will be forgotten. Many happy Kate fans accept what they get might be sporadic but brilliant rather than a pile of dross every year in a desperate attempt to not be forgotten. It doesn’t fit with the modern internet and magazine world so people think it is self indulgent or as you said earlier “Selfish”. It isn’t Kate who is being selfish. It is the punters who shake their internet fists at artists who aren’t playing the artificial game who are being selfish. “Why isn’t she doing what I want, after all I have a keyboard and am powerful”.
        There was a lovely post by someone on the ABBA gold re-issue thread about having all 9 versions of the Abba Gold reissue. No moaning about no new music, no moaning about repetition. Just joy at having something to celebrate. That is how Kate fans are, in general, just glad for the brilliance that we get and the realization that she owes us nothing.

        • Paul Sinclair says:

          Let’s just agree to disagree then, since I don’t see the ‘joy’ in having 9 versions of ABBA Gold and I do think it’s a bit of a one way street with Kate Bush.

        • Darren says:

          Chris, I love the way you think you speak for “Kate fans”. That’s just pure imagination. You have absolutely no idea what other people are thinking.

      • RJS says:

        “The fact she doesn’t have to do that is down to the fact that we bought her records – so she *should* be extra nice to her fans”

        Nonsense. You’ve had hours and hours of enjoyment listening to the records you chose to buy. She owes you NOTHING.

  15. Jon says:

    I want to thank Paul not only for his work on this highly useful and enjoyable site, but for writing about the relationship between artists and fans. In some ways, Kate has been involved in an abusive relationship with her fans for decades – withholding not her love, per se, but the emotional support provided by her music. Suppose it is natural, when something affects one as deeply as Kate’s music, to hope that the artist will care about the fans as much as the fans care about the artist. But clearly unrealistic. However, as with any dysfunctional relationship, one can simply walk away.

  16. Alan says:

    Did you miss King of the Mountain then, Paul? That’s the sixth one. There’s Heights, Child, live EP, Babooshka and RUTH that make up the others.

  17. Alan says:

    And I completely agree with Chris Squires too.

  18. Alan says:

    But Running Up That Hill was a classic, and already a top ten hit. It was a hit again on the back of its airing at the Olympics closing ceremony. Maybe she saw no need in acknowledging it.
    (By the way, there had been six previous top ten hits – excluding Don’t Give Up – not five).

    • Paul Sinclair says:

      I wasn’t counting Don’t Give Up – not a Kate single, just a Peter Gabriel single that she features on.

  19. RJS says:

    “When fans sent “Running Up That Hill” back into the top ten in 2012 she didn’t even acknowledge it! No ‘thank you’ on her website.”

    Come on dude, she’s not One Direction but you do sound like one of their fans if nonsense like that upsets you.

    • Paul Sinclair says:

      I didn’t say it upset me, just that it’s really weird to have a top ten single and not even think it’s worth mentioning. It had only happened five times before in her entire career and her previous two singles had reached 87 and 73 respectively, so a number 6 hit should be something to celebrate. Lack of engagement was my main point. Look at her website, she’s had three ‘news’ updates in the last year! Would it kill her to say ‘work is progressing with the Before The Dawn’ blu-ray and we’re hoping to release it before the end of the year (or not)” – what exactly is the negative in keeping people, who have bought your records for the last 30 odd years up-to-date with what is going on in your professional life?

    • Darren says:

      Really RJS, do you even understand what emotions are?

  20. bob says:

    Paul, I would like to add my voice to others, any chance of adding an edit button on here mate?
    Great work with the site, it is getting better and better.

    • Paul Sinclair says:

      Will try to sort. Not quite as simply as you’d think. I’d tried a few plug-ins which just slow the site down, so abandoned. I know it’s something people want. Bear with me. Thanks re SDE. Glad you continue to enjoy and thanks for continuing to read and contribute :)

    • Foxee says:

      I would second those sentiments – this is a fantastic site!!

      Perhaps, given the mini-debate we have been having over la Bush and her self-absorption (or not) this week, it would be an idea to have debate threads?

      For example, there could be a thread around wishlists for deluxe editions, one around an key artist or group, etc. I think the product based articles are producing these debates within them and there could be casual visitors who miss these but who would be quite keen to add their thoughts to a debate thread?

      Just an idea.

      • Foxee says:

        …and perhaps some of the threads could be time-driven with a cut off point, and perhaps some could be based around ‘exam questions’, like “What’s the least appreciated Kate Bush b-side?” or “What’s the best Siouxsie lyric?”, etc?

        • DaveM says:

          Agree Foxee, that would be great. I mean garax mentions Mark Hollis above, lets face it we are not going to see SDEs of Talk Talks classics (I wish!) but would be great to debate the band etc and maybe, just maybe someone in the business might pick up on what some of us actually want…..

  21. DaveM says:

    Chris, I completely agree with you.

  22. Chris Squires says:

    Sadly this just highlights the difference between someone who is a genuine, long haul Kate Bush fan and someone who “quite likes her music”. Many KTB followers will forgive her almost anything, myself included, she owes me nothing. I have had many years of beautiful music to live my life too and I owe her far too much. To someone who “quite likes the music” it might all seem a bit weird or it might seem that she doesn’t care and we should all demand more from her. Reading these 60 odd posts there seems a few who can see beyond the demands of a few thoughtless moaners, a few who seem genuinely bemused by the comments made about the “Shimmer” and a few who just like to slag people off to make themselves feel better and haven’t really got a clue about Kate but just pull in things they have heard, misconceptions or bitchiness. Someone above said that Kate had “made her millions” from Before The Dawn as if to try and give the impression that she doesn’t give a toss about the fans. Wrong. It has been worked out quite carefully and at best she just about broke even, she put all of her own money into it (millions) and paid top dollar to get the best people from all walks of life involved from set design, writing, filming and puppetry etc. If it was about Making Millions and sod the punter then she would have sold out the O2 for a month and made a billion, rather like Abba could do. But she has genuine integrity. Also Garax – “it was one of the most self indulgent things I have ever witnessed” – It is a shame you feel like that but many, many, many thousands of people will disagree with you and lots of well respected and highly thought of artists / writers / actors to boot. So it might be an opinion shared by a few who just fancy gathering round a negative posting to stick the knife into Kate but you are by far the minority. It would be rather like me saying – “The Beatles were Crap”.

    And if all that matters is platinum albums then that is a sorry state of affairs, even if you did get your facts wrong. Kate did more before she was 22 than most artists could achieve in several lifetimes. And she did it all herself, no writers or Svengalis. Just talent.

    Apologies if this seems like a love-in but some of the posts above have been wildly factually incorrect and some just plain ignorantly nasty.

    • Darren says:

      Really Chris, you sound like a cry baby. People have opinions and sometimes they may be “factually incorrect”, but we’re just human beings and guess what? We’re allowed to make a mistake. We’re also entitled to say that Kate Bush is completely self-absorbed these days and that the sheer hype of her not giving a concert since 1979 is what saw all the sheep running to book tickets. The very fact that she hadn’t given a concert in over *35 years really shows that she isn’t in the business of pleasing fans.

      (*I think this is factually correct, but I’m sure you’ll let me know if it isn’t)

    • bob says:

      A billion pounds for a months work, are you absolutely sure about that? Paul McCartney has been in the business for over 50 years and is one of the most successful artists on the planet and even he is not a billionaire and he is still touring the world today.
      I love Kate, but to compare her level of success and audience pulling power to that of Abba (when they were offered that money) is just plain daft.
      Fair play to you though for apologising because your post does indeed come across as a big love-in. Nobody likes to see their favourite artist spoken of in less than unfavourable terms, but really…..

    • Paul Sinclair says:

      I can assure you that I am a genuine ‘long haul’ Kate fan. I was lucky enough to go to Before The Dawn three times, if that means anything. I think Aerial is amazing and do think it’s up there with some of her very best work, especially the second side to that record. So I don’t think she’s ‘lost it’ – although Deeper Understanding from Director’s Cut was a bit of a mess – but the points I made all still stand whether she’s still producing great music or not. I am capable of loving an artists’ music and being able to recognise that they are rather disconnected from their fanbase. Kate is one of the few artists who truly does exactly what she wants. In some ways very admirable, but there is another word for people who only do what they want, isn’t there. Selfish.

  23. DLG says:

    I like KB well enough, but I’m not really a fan. Still, I empathize with the bewildered and P.O’ed on this – as (apparently) her camp made multiple commitments that are now being backed away from.

    But y’know, for a lot of artists, plans change and audience communication isn’t – and sometimes never was – a priority. Example: My wife loves Sade. Sade disappears for a decade and shows up with a new CD. My wife resents the lackadaisical aspect to this, saying Sade shouldn’t expect people to care after 10 years of silence – multiple times. Which is true. On the other hand, it’s obvious maintaining a dedicated fanbase isn’t a priority for Sade. Same thing with Kate Bush, perhaps.

    It’s up to us to decide to pay attention or not. Most likely, they don’t care either way. It’s just a shame how obvious that is, in cases like this where a commitment was made, and then backpedalling ensued.

  24. Dean says:

    There’s not whole lot I can say that’s new here. I’ve stated before that I was a big Kate fan from day one, but she’s long passed her sell-by-date. I continue to believe that Aerial was such a big seller only because it was a surprise that Kate had suddenly reemerged. It had little to do with the music, which was crngeworthy at times. In fact, it’s somewhat baffling to read Hines accused of psychobabble when Aerial is awash with it. And talk about pretentious – 50 Words for Snow anyone?

    The very idea that Kate is hard at work on releasing the live shows is also ridiculous. Just what is it she’s supposed to be doing? Honestly, it’s laughable.

    I prefer not to think that there are fans out there who would put only of her works post-Red Shoes before Kick Inside, The Dreaming, Sensual World etc. No doubt they are out there though. For me it’s all one big smokescreen covering up the simple fact that Kate is a spent force.

    Having said all that – that she is notoriously slow and unwilling to revisit the old albums isn’t something new, she’s always been this way. If you’re a Kate fan then it simple goes with the territory.

    As for Hines – he’s a music professional, and we’re not. When professionals come up against those who can’t tell the difference between an iPod and an audiophile setup, there’s bound to be conflict.

  25. garax says:

    And re Before The Dawn – as someone who witnessed it – I’ve never seen an audience so hysterically unable to apply critical judgement – it was one of the most self indulgent things I have ever witnessed – perhaps in the cold light of the edit suite she has clocked that.

  26. garax says:

    To be fair she is in complete control – which is how she always wanted it seemingly – and she is talented enough to still have people hanging on her every utterance – nice work if you can get it I guess. It can be frustrating – but I’ll take that over retirement – like Mark Hollis for example.

  27. Foxee says:

    Let’s face it – and I speak as a massive fan – Kate Bush has seemingly become so self-indulgent that any notion of delivering something that is not purely for her own purposes has become total anathema to her.

    I remember a Radio 2 interview with her at the time of ‘Director’s Cut’ release when she was asked if a collection of her videos would be made available on DVD as this is something the fans really want – to which she replied that that would certainly be something she could do. But has she done it? No.

    When she had the opportunity to revisit some of her own albums after acquiring the rights, did she think about adding in new material to make it worthwhile for her fans to purchase a remaster? No.

    Having placed cameras in the audience during some of the ‘Before the Dawn’ shows, which did impact the audience experience, has she, nearly a year later, given any indication that there was any purpose to that, in terms of actually releasing the material? No. (Let’s face it – some of teh greatest cinema epics in history (e.g. Lawrence of Arabia) have been edited in a quarter of the time).

    So, does Kate Bush actually give a stuff about her fans?

    • Paul Sinclair says:

      This is the frustration with Kate. She doesn’t seem to put herself in the position of the fans. What would they want? Okay, she doesn’t ‘owe’ us anything but whether she likes it or not she is a ‘pop star’ in the broad term and her ‘job’ is to release music. If she doesn’t want to release music, or wants to take 12 years to make an album, the obvious thing to do is spend some time on her back catalogue.

      She definitely lacks some goodwill towards her fans, I think. When she was churning out great albums and great singles every 2/3 years there was so much enjoyable activity that this aspect wasn’t really obvious, but the longer she takes over her records the more annoying it is when she doesn’t engage. She didn’t do any TV for Aerial, and only one radio interview I seem to remember – this was after a 12-year absence!! When fans sent “Running Up That Hill” back into the top ten in 2012 she didn’t even acknowledge it! No ‘thank you’ on her website. No sense from her that she was really excited to have a hit record etc.

      Yes, in some ways it’s refreshing that she’s not tweeting about what she had for breakfast, BUT she apparently wants no relationship with her fans at all. She doesn’t feel she has to talk to them via the media, she doesn’t feel she has to explain anything she does (e.g. why she chose to replace The Big Sky with the single mix on Hounds of Love, why she didn’t play live at London 2012, why she couldn’t find anything new to contribute to the Songs For Tibet album). It almost comes across as passive aggressive – like being in a relationship with someone who won’t talk to you. And it IS a relationship, after all, isn’t it? Fan and artist.


      • Dean says:

        Paul, I think our expectations are conditioned by mainstream artists who clamor for acceptance at every opportunity. Kate just isn’t that person, and really never was – hence only two tours her entire career. If people can’t accept that she’s aloof, then what do you think has been happening for over a decade? It’s a fools errand to be expecting Kate to suddenly burst into action and do promotional junkets. It’s not going happen. Ever.

        I remember a quote I read from her around the time of Aerial that was along the lines of “I was surprised people remembered me”, or something along those lines. That shows how disconnected she was, and is. And I hate to bring it up, but its pertinent – her whole “look” these days certainly doesn’t suggest she’s had media commitments at the top of her priority list. The lady let herself go, and doesn’t seem at all bothered by it (which I think is admirable, by the way, I’m just making a point).

        I’m actually convinced that the likes of Kick Inside, Hounds of Love, and The Dreaming are so good, that they will never be bettered or matched. They’re true jewels of English popular music, and we’re lucky to have them. But the muse has gone, and now she’s a middle-aged mu tinkering on the edges.

        • Foxee says:

          Dean – you make some good salient points here, but to be fair no one is suggesting that she suddenly ‘does’ the media and promotion. She has many other ways to connect with her fanbase that would maintain her physical distance from public exposure. Plus, she doesn’t seem to mind turning up for weddings and posing on the red carpet, and she has just done a series of live shows. Whether she has let herself go or not, she certainly doesn’t seem to mind embracing attention when it suits her.

          I actually think her comment at the time of Aerial’s release was ironically disingenuous – why launch a huge double album with all that time and money behind it if you think no one is going to buy it? I actually think her comment had more to do with sales of her back catalogue slipping…!

          Paul is absolutely right to point out that there is a complete lack of respect or gratitude coming from Bush headquarters when the fanbase expresses its support in sales or response to her work (the RUTH remix was hardly a fantastic ‘new’ version of that song). At the end of the day, releasing products for sale in response to demand (e.g. a DVD of the videos, old albums reisuued with bonus tracks/ demos) is only asking Kate to make more money at the end of the day without compromising any of her ‘artistic integrity’ – let’s be honest here.

          As PAul rightly pointed out

          • bob says:

            Kate has made about 6 public appearances in the past 20 years, including attending Elton John’s wedding as a guest. Last year she performed a series of shows for the first time in 35 years. Kate never gave one interview to promote the shows and there was no advertising at all anywhere, only a short message on her website. Her name didn’t appear anywhere at the Apllo on any billboards or even on the banner above the door.
            I would hardly call that embracing attention would you?

      • Darren says:

        Kate Bush comes across as ungrateful and aloof. When Lionel Richie’s album went to No. 1 recently he made a short video on YouTube to thank the fans.

        I think Kate Bush’s early music was awesome, but for me the flame went out in the mid-80s. I find her really boring now.

  28. dave says:

    bottom line . kate just made millions ok and if she proposed another 300 dates at the albert hall you would all subscribe !

  29. Darren says:

    Kate had “really wanted to come up with something unique”.

    Well, offering an exclusive that isn’t an exclusive could be unique. I can’t remember that happening before. So, well done to Kate Bush. Such an innovator!

  30. Tom M says:

    “The sophistication of today’s audio processors is such that a piece of stereo recording can be taken to distinctly different places without re-adjusting the original sealed-in mix balances. The ‘apparent’ balances can shift by virtue of a number of multi-faceted tools that enable changes in both focus and blur – making sounds more independent of each other or indeed more homogenous. Therefore different treatments can be aimed squarely and accurately at different levels (both in pitch and dynamics) that are isolated for such colour-changes then returned to the overall picture seamlessly.”


    We ran the song through Auto-Tune, screwed around with the EQ and added some reverb so that those whose ears aren’t clogged with shit can hear a miniscule difference.

  31. adam shaw says:

    Is it April the 1st ?

  32. RJS says:

    The funniest thing about the article and the others relating to it on this site is the fuss that Paul Sinclair is making about it and the fact that he bothered to ask the questions in the first place.

  33. Gordon says:

    One of the ‘ears’ of my headphones doesn’t work anymore – I suppose that will make it sound ‘new’ and ‘different’ and ‘shimmering’…..

    Never heard of the ‘green-marker-pen-on-a-cd’ before – I’ll have to Google it. I think the black marker pen was to do with ‘cracking’ the copy-protection-thingy…..

  34. Chris Squires says:

    I agree with Julian H. Perhaps the emailed questions could have been answered in a dumbed down way, so that the people whose staple answer to everything they don’t understand is “Bull”. Audio, like video, like live performance, is a narrow world and if you inhabit that narrow world for a long time a simple conversation can go over people’s heads.. Apologies if people think I am being rude, but this is no ruder than many posts above. I am sure Kate is very busy at the moment with the (hopeful) BD / DVD release of Before The Dawn. ALSO the main reason that Kate isn’t always as interested in her back catalogue as others think she should be or as forthcoming as other artists are with historical stuff is that she still has a future. She isn’t interested in the Greatest Hits packages like some other artists because she is too busy looking forward and actually having a life with her family. If your career ended in 1984 of course you will spend ages eeking out that last unheard remix. Kate could have released quite a few cash-cow “SDE Packages” in the last decade but I would rather have Aerial and 50 Words for Snow.

    HEY NiCa.

  35. Paul Kent says:

    Like it’s not unnecessarily rude to side-step 6 very straightforward questions and, instead, spaff off about what may as well be an essay on rainbows and unicorns for all the sense it made. Rude to fleece Kate fans for so-called exclusive product when it’s clearly not.

  36. bob says:

    I think that Paul should send him an email with a link to this post.

    • Julian H says:

      I think that some people on this site are unnecessarily rude. You wouldn’t say these things to his face. When you work in the audio business, you start talking like that after a while.

      • Darren says:

        “Unnecessarily rude” is your judgement, it doesn’t mean that is what is actually happening. I’m not seeing that. I’m seeing people react and respond to something that was bulls*** to start with and yes, I would say that to his face.

  37. Stuart S says:

    What if Paul hadn’t asked for a reply in layman’s terms?

    Perish the thought!

  38. Stan Butler says:

    I just like a good tune.

  39. Fat Old Bloke says:

    Hilarious reading

  40. bob says:

    This is the kind of pseudo rubbish that Paul Morley used to write for ZZT back in the day.

    • Adam says:

      Nonsense. Paul Morley’s rubbish was the pseudo-intellectualization of the so-called “importance” of pop music and pop culture, nothing to do with the mundanity of audio reproduction. Please get your filigreed prose sorted.


  41. Edu says:

    How frustrating.

  42. James Pigg says:

    Is this a leaked script for a new series of Brass Eye?

  43. Darren says:

    Well, this is the guy from Quantum Jump who had a hit with “The Lone Ranger”. The opening lyrics of which were:


    Which makes just as much sense as what he says about this Kate Bush recording.

    • Simon F says:

      Actually “Taumata….” makes a lot of sense. Translated from the original Maori it means “”The summit where Tamatea, the man with the big knees, the slider, climber of mountains, the land-swallower who travelled about, played his nose flute to his loved one”, and is the name of a hill in New Zealand.
      Incidentally Quantum Jump’s keyboard player was Rupert Hine!!
      It’s a small world!!!

  44. Marcel Rijs says:

    Now now, don’t be so rude people. Rupert Hine is a very good producer, he knows what he’s talking about, generally, but I think Kate has been less than communicative, which leaves him to fill in the blanks. I think he just means to say “you’ll hear whatever you want to hear in it”, possibly even quoting Kate herself – but we don’t know that. All we know is that he was handed a track that might have been remastered. And I think that’s all there is to it.

  45. Tim says:

    He should have said Kate put green marker around the master disc’s edge.

    • Alan A. says:

      ^Tim: Ha! I remember that trick. I tried it on two CD’s, then stopped b/c I figured I was diminishing their aesthetic value. Bought a used SACD once that had a black marker ink around the edge. Not sure what that was about, but it still played.

  46. Alan says:

    Has anyone above actually heard the new version? Everyone seems to be judging it based on the waffle that Rupert Hine has spouted. The preview on the Pledge Music website was the original version. The preview on iTunes sounds a bit different.

    Not worth bothering with though. As I said before, it can’t be downloaded separately and there is no physical release of this album.

  47. Brian says:

    It sounds just a tad pseudo intellectual.

  48. bob says:

    If Kate Bush didn’t want to donate a new piece of music for this project then she should just say so. But please all involved, spare us the psycho babble, it’s only an album track for gods sake.
    That statement is the kind of pretentious crap that deserves to go viral. Absolutely unbelievable.

  49. Carlton Fisher says:

    Future liner notes to accompany all albums:

    “For a new and different listening experience, you can ‘remaster’ this album at home! Take it into the basement and listen to the way the cement deadens the acoustics! Take it to the bathroom, and hear how the additional echo makes for a more encompassing experience! Take it to your backyard, and listen to how the open outdoors helps to expand those notes that were once confined by the walls of your traditional living space! Tie a large blanket around your head, nail boards over your ears, and experience the virtual mastering that creates a “listening to it like the neighbors are playing it in their space with the volume far too loud” aura! This new technology in versatile-home-remastering explains the slight, forty-dollar, increase in pricing for this album.”

  50. Ralph says:

    i want the same stuff Rupert Hine did smoke before he wrote his “answer”

  51. Joey says:

    This reminds me of Woody Allen in Sleeper when he is impersonating a doctor and trying to clone the lost leader from a severed nose. A convoluted answer which could have gone along the lines, “We took the song off her album, yes it is the album version, but the album here was mastered, so indeed it was re- mastered, it might sound different… Aww, come on it’s for bloody charity, you heartless imps!” But who knows perhaps it is just a ruse and the song sounds markedly different, and Miss Bush now sounds like a ground squirrel backed by a symphony of frogs.

  52. Bill says:

    I’m wondering if she hung him out to dry, so to speak, and he’s left to make excuses. This reads like a coy, passive-aggressive response.

  53. Simon Long says:

    Rough translation – “we’ve done absolutely nothing to it, but in much the same way as people can be persuaded to hear a difference with ridiculously expensive hifi cables, if we say there is a difference, some people will think they hear one”. What utter claptrap.

  54. Darren says:

    We are not mushrooms, so please don’t feed us **** and keep us in the dark. It is quite apparent that some minor tinkering was performed in a “that’ll do” fashion.

  55. dave says:

    so i take it never going to get kick inside among others remastered ! sucks for sure !

    • Lazlo Nibble says:

      There are already at least fuve different CD masterings of THE KICK INSIDE floating around out there.

  56. Led Wars says:

    Pseud’s corner.

  57. Kevin says:

    “Shut the f*** up” would have been a more honest response than what he provided…

  58. Straker says:

    What a load of pretentious horseshit. Sounds like something Brian Pern would trot out.

  59. sam says:

    If he believes that rubbish then he should be in a nuthouse. What an utter idiot and he should not be involved in anything music related because he is clearly a fraudulent bullshi**er.

  60. Danny says:

    The same kind of nonsense that deluded audiophiles constantly dribble.