Originally posted by Steve Roby:
I remember being absolutely horrified when I finally heard "Brother and Sister" by Midge Ure and Kate Bush. I thought Midge was just fine as a singer, and I've loved Kate Bush for thirty years or so now, but I'll be damned if that isn't utterly unlistenable.
I wouldn’t say that I’m horrified when I hear Eddi on Enter the Angel, but after several play’s I do get a bit bored hearing her at the end and find it just a tad unlistenable
and I really want her to finish a bit sooner, so please John, if you’ve considered it at all, no future encore’s with this song, particularly if you are going to make poor Louis approximate Eddi’s part, no man should suffer that indignity
Originally posted by maryann:
I guess one can consider me a purist in the sense that I do not believe any John Foxx (or Gary Numan for that matter) cd should have any female backing vocals at all.
I’m very firmly in that camp, as I feel it goes against the grain of the landscape they’ve mapped out on so much of their work. If the female voice is there as a texture that’s one thing, but if any other voice is there just as a backing singer then I start to question what I’m hearing as that voice sometimes starts to feel out of place running alongside the real voice of the artist, and all respect to Louis, but I’ve often felt the same with his vocal presence if it starts to register too much with me.
When you compare the earlier version of Angel on CD2 to the released version on CD1 then I can completely accept that the song really needed something to lift it up ‘into the heavens’, but why did John not attempt to expand his Human Host choral effects with his own voice or her's rather than just get Sadenia to belt out those vocals. I don’t think there’s anything esoteric about her voice at all on the song, she’s strong and enthusiastic but it’s all too ordinary for me within the context of a Foxx work, I guess maybe Liz Fraser didn’t answer John ‘s phone call at the time, too busy working on Treasure I suppose!
Edit: Originally posted by Birdsong:
[b]To be With YouThis song (which I perhaps dubbed an 'early' version in the IMW re-master thread. I stand by that.
) is a revelation. Who dared to suggest it 'plods'? I found it uplifting, emotional, challenging, refreshing, awakening, different - all kinds of things[/b]
I think I said that
Originally posted by core memory:
‘To be with you’ is a bit plodding, there’s a sweet organ and drumming on it, reminiscent of ‘Star’s’ or ‘What kind of girl’ just a shame its wasted here
It’s head over heel’s better that the Metamatic Remaster version, no argument there. I still stand by what I feel about it, and those adjectives don’t spring to mind for me at all
It’s interesting enougth and listenable, just feels stretched out a bit thinly for my ears.
Love the organ and the drumming, okay lyrics too, and it’s one of the track’s I like to hear on CD2.
It would have been a plus point for me if it had been on the original album release instead of Stepping Softly, which I still wish had jumped on it’s pony and ridden out of town…