Fairlight-CMI

It's not a stupid question at all. First, the Series II and IIx had three sequencers, Page 9, MCL, and Page R. There was no way to "sync" any of the sequencers together (apart from multi-tracking one to tape, then loading and syncing the other). If you think about it, it wouldn't make much sense anyway, as the Fairlight could only play 8 voices altogether. Having those voices shared between two sequencers at once would be of limited value. 

Page R, as has been said, is a rhythmic composition page. You have 8 monophonic lines that you can repeat, transpose, and so forth. You use patterns to represent, say, parts of a song, and then you can arrange them in different orders to make up that song. Really, just think glorified drum machine and you've basically got it.

Page 9 (or Keyboard Sequencer) is altogether different. It is a straight record and overdub page. It's basically useful as a scratchpad for recording a performance but there are no editing features of any kind. No quantize either(!). You can overdub lines with another sound in the Fairlight's memory and change the tempo and such but that's about it. You play it in, it plays it back. That's it. It does have a facilty for importing MCL sequences, for easy playback.

MCL (or Music Composition Language) is also quite different. It doesn't using the music keyboard at all. Commands and note events are step-entered from the QWERTY keyboard using codes for pitch, length, velocity, controllers and so on. Unless you are experienced, composing a song in this way takes a pretty long time. However, you can achieve results that are not possible with the other sequencers. I think many power users in the early 80s must've used this quite a bit on records. Incidently, this is the only one of the sequencers in which you can record and play back controller data that has not been assigned to one of the Fairlight's physical controls, if that makes any sense. :-)

By the way, the Series III is totally different in many, many ways. Not only do you have 16 voices, but you have another sequencer, CAPS, that is a bit more modern and supports polyphonic recording and such. I would imagine that many people used that.

Hope that helps.

Laurence

----- Original Message ----
From: Andrew <taoist.hermit1@virgin.net>
To: Fairlight-CMI@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, October 4, 2006 5:46:47 AM
Subject: Re: [Fairlight-CMI]Re: Page R — What Made It So Unique and How Can I Emulate It?


I hope this isn't a stupid question.  I don't have a Fairlight so I'm just 
on this list for gathering information.

As I recall (from many years ago :D), the Series II had Page R as a rhythm 
programmer, but also Page 9 as a sequencer.  I would have expected if that 
was the case that Page R would usually be used for rhythm events - 
percussive stuff - and Page 9 for note sequences.

But that doesn't seem to be what's being said here, which refers to Page R 
being used for rhythmic note sequences.  Is this because - as many people 
complained at the time - there wasn't a way to link Page R and Page 9?  I 
always assumed (dangerous, I know) that Fairlight would fix that with a 
software update, or sort it with the Series III, but it doesn't sound that 
way from what's being said.  So I'm curious about Page 9 and why people 
didn't use it for sequencing.



 
Yahoo! Groups Links

Laurence, thank you — that was helpful to hear.  I've actually tried
some of the things you suggest with...mixed success.  I would def.
agree that the monophonic and velocity things are big — it adds to the
robotic feel of the thing.  

I don't know if you're familiar with the program, but Reason—with its
pattern-based Redrum drum machine emulator and Matrix
Modulator—strikes me as being a system that SHOULD do a fairly decent
job of reproducing the Fairlight composition process.  But still I
don't get it exactly — things I do seem to plod repeatedly where most
Fairlight sequences seem to be in a constant state of change.  

Lastly, I'm replying to this response of yours, as part of me wonders
how much of the artiest IIx stuff I've been hearing—JJ Jezcalik's work
with Trevor Horn comes to mind—was done on MCL as opposed to Page R. 
There's just this hyperattentive level of detail on some of those records.

Any further thoughts?  Part of me thinks that hearing a multitrack of
some of this stuff (a la Gabriel's "Shock the Monkey" but with all
Fairlight) would really help.  As would seeing this thing for myself,
though where that would happen is anybody's guess...

--- In Fairlight-CMI@yahoogroups.com, Laurence Shields <mercybox@...>
wrote:
>
> It's not a stupid question at all. First, the Series II and IIx had
three sequencers, Page 9, MCL, and Page R. There was no way to "sync"
any of the sequencers together (apart from multi-tracking one to tape,
then loading and syncing the other). If you think about it, it
wouldn't make much sense anyway, as the Fairlight could only play 8
voices altogether. Having those voices shared between two sequencers
at once would be of limited value. 
> 
> Page R, as has been said, is a rhythmic composition page. You have 8
monophonic lines that you can repeat, transpose, and so forth. You use
patterns to represent, say, parts of a song, and then you can arrange
them in different orders to make up that song. Really, just think
glorified drum machine and you've basically got it.
> 
> Page 9 (or Keyboard Sequencer) is altogether different. It is a
straight record and overdub page. It's basically useful as a
scratchpad for recording a performance but there are no editing
features of any kind. No quantize either(!). You can overdub lines
with another sound in the Fairlight's memory and change the tempo and
such but that's about it. You play it in, it plays it back. That's it.
It does have a facilty for importing MCL sequences, for easy playback.
> 
> MCL (or Music Composition Language) is also quite different. It
doesn't using the music keyboard at all. Commands and note events are
step-entered from the QWERTY keyboard using codes for pitch, length,
velocity, controllers and so on. Unless you are experienced, composing
a song in this way takes a pretty long time. However, you can achieve
results that are not possible with the other sequencers. I think many
power users in the early 80s must've used this quite a bit on records.
Incidently, this is the only one of the sequencers in which you can
record and play back controller data that has not been assigned to one
of the Fairlight's physical controls, if that makes any sense. :-)
> 
> By the way, the Series III is totally different in many, many ways.
Not only do you have 16 voices, but you have another sequencer, CAPS,
that is a bit more modern and supports polyphonic recording and such.
I would imagine that many people used that.
> 
> Hope that helps.
> 
> Laurence
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Andrew <taoist.hermit1@...>
> To: Fairlight-CMI@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Wednesday, October 4, 2006 5:46:47 AM
> Subject: Re: [Fairlight-CMI]Re: Page R — What Made It So Unique and
How Can I Emulate It?
> 
> 
> I hope this isn't a stupid question.  I don't have a Fairlight so
I'm just 
> on this list for gathering information.
> 
> As I recall (from many years ago :D), the Series II had Page R as a
rhythm 
> programmer, but also Page 9 as a sequencer.  I would have expected
if that 
> was the case that Page R would usually be used for rhythm events - 
> percussive stuff - and Page 9 for note sequences.
> 
> But that doesn't seem to be what's being said here, which refers to
Page R 
> being used for rhythmic note sequences.  Is this because - as many
people 
> complained at the time - there wasn't a way to link Page R and Page
9?  I 
> always assumed (dangerous, I know) that Fairlight would fix that with a 
> software update, or sort it with the Series III, but it doesn't
sound that 

> way from what's being said.  So I'm curious about Page 9 and why people 
> didn't use it for sequencing.
> 
> 
> 
>  
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>

Hi Laurence,

Here's a nice clip where you can see Page R in action:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=afkAcPirz9U

Best,
David
http://dvdborn.blogspot.com


--- In Fairlight-CMI@yahoogroups.com, "matthew_weiner_2000" <matthew.weiner@...> 
wrote:

>
> Laurence, thank you — that was helpful to hear.  I've actually tried
> some of the things you suggest with...mixed success.  I would def.
> agree that the monophonic and velocity things are big — it adds to the
> robotic feel of the thing.  
> 
> I don't know if you're familiar with the program, but Reason—with its
> pattern-based Redrum drum machine emulator and Matrix
> Modulator—strikes me as being a system that SHOULD do a fairly decent
> job of reproducing the Fairlight composition process.  But still I
> don't get it exactly — things I do seem to plod repeatedly where most
> Fairlight sequences seem to be in a constant state of change.  
> 
> Lastly, I'm replying to this response of yours, as part of me wonders
> how much of the artiest IIx stuff I've been hearing—JJ Jezcalik's work
> with Trevor Horn comes to mind—was done on MCL as opposed to Page R. 
> There's just this hyperattentive level of detail on some of those records.
> 
> Any further thoughts?  Part of me thinks that hearing a multitrack of
> some of this stuff (a la Gabriel's "Shock the Monkey" but with all
> Fairlight) would really help.  As would seeing this thing for myself,
> though where that would happen is anybody's guess...
> 
> --- In Fairlight-CMI@yahoogroups.com, Laurence Shields <mercybox@>
> wrote:
> >
> > It's not a stupid question at all. First, the Series II and IIx had
> three sequencers, Page 9, MCL, and Page R. There was no way to "sync"
> any of the sequencers together (apart from multi-tracking one to tape,
> then loading and syncing the other). If you think about it, it
> wouldn't make much sense anyway, as the Fairlight could only play 8
> voices altogether. Having those voices shared between two sequencers
> at once would be of limited value. 
> > 
> > Page R, as has been said, is a rhythmic composition page. You have 8
> monophonic lines that you can repeat, transpose, and so forth. You use
> patterns to represent, say, parts of a song, and then you can arrange
> them in different orders to make up that song. Really, just think
> glorified drum machine and you've basically got it.
> > 
> > Page 9 (or Keyboard Sequencer) is altogether different. It is a
> straight record and overdub page. It's basically useful as a
> scratchpad for recording a performance but there are no editing
> features of any kind. No quantize either(!). You can overdub lines
> with another sound in the Fairlight's memory and change the tempo and
> such but that's about it. You play it in, it plays it back. That's it.
> It does have a facilty for importing MCL sequences, for easy playback.
> > 
> > MCL (or Music Composition Language) is also quite different. It
> doesn't using the music keyboard at all. Commands and note events are
> step-entered from the QWERTY keyboard using codes for pitch, length,
> velocity, controllers and so on. Unless you are experienced, composing
> a song in this way takes a pretty long time. However, you can achieve
> results that are not possible with the other sequencers. I think many
> power users in the early 80s must've used this quite a bit on records.
> Incidently, this is the only one of the sequencers in which you can
> record and play back controller data that has not been assigned to one
> of the Fairlight's physical controls, if that makes any sense. :-)
> > 
> > By the way, the Series III is totally different in many, many ways.
> Not only do you have 16 voices, but you have another sequencer, CAPS,
> that is a bit more modern and supports polyphonic recording and such.
> I would imagine that many people used that.
> > 
> > Hope that helps.
> > 
> > Laurence
> > 
> > 
> > ----- Original Message ----
> > From: Andrew <taoist.hermit1@>
> > To: Fairlight-CMI@yahoogroups.com
> > Sent: Wednesday, October 4, 2006 5:46:47 AM
> > Subject: Re: [Fairlight-CMI]Re: Page R — What Made It So Unique and
> How Can I Emulate It?
> > 
> > 
> > I hope this isn't a stupid question.  I don't have a Fairlight so
> I'm just 
> > on this list for gathering information.
> > 
> > As I recall (from many years ago :D), the Series II had Page R as a
> rhythm 
> > programmer, but also Page 9 as a sequencer.  I would have expected
> if that 
> > was the case that Page R would usually be used for rhythm events - 
> > percussive stuff - and Page 9 for note sequences.
> > 
> > But that doesn't seem to be what's being said here, which refers to
> Page R 
> > being used for rhythmic note sequences.  Is this because - as many
> people 
> > complained at the time - there wasn't a way to link Page R and Page
> 9?  I 
> > always assumed (dangerous, I know) that Fairlight would fix that with a 
> > software update, or sort it with the Series III, but it doesn't
> sound that 
> > way from what's being said.  So I'm curious about Page 9 and why people 
> > didn't use it for sequencing.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >  
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
>

Oops, meant to address this to Matthew Weiner.
Sorry about that.

David


--- In Fairlight-CMI@yahoogroups.com, "dvdborn" <dvdborn@...> wrote:

>
> Hi Laurence,
> 
> Here's a nice clip where you can see Page R in action:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=afkAcPirz9U
> 
> Best,
> David
> http://dvdborn.blogspot.com
> 
> 
> --- In Fairlight-CMI@yahoogroups.com, "matthew_weiner_2000" <matthew.weiner@> 
> wrote:
> >
> > Laurence, thank you — that was helpful to hear.  I've actually tried
> > some of the things you suggest with...mixed success.  I would def.
> > agree that the monophonic and velocity things are big — it adds to the
> > robotic feel of the thing.  
> > 
> > I don't know if you're familiar with the program, but Reason—with its
> > pattern-based Redrum drum machine emulator and Matrix
> > Modulator—strikes me as being a system that SHOULD do a fairly decent
> > job of reproducing the Fairlight composition process.  But still I
> > don't get it exactly — things I do seem to plod repeatedly where most
> > Fairlight sequences seem to be in a constant state of change.  
> > 
> > Lastly, I'm replying to this response of yours, as part of me wonders
> > how much of the artiest IIx stuff I've been hearing—JJ Jezcalik's work
> > with Trevor Horn comes to mind—was done on MCL as opposed to Page R. 
> > There's just this hyperattentive level of detail on some of those records.
> > 
> > Any further thoughts?  Part of me thinks that hearing a multitrack of
> > some of this stuff (a la Gabriel's "Shock the Monkey" but with all
> > Fairlight) would really help.  As would seeing this thing for myself,
> > though where that would happen is anybody's guess...
> > 
> > --- In Fairlight-CMI@yahoogroups.com, Laurence Shields <mercybox@>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > It's not a stupid question at all. First, the Series II and IIx had
> > three sequencers, Page 9, MCL, and Page R. There was no way to "sync"
> > any of the sequencers together (apart from multi-tracking one to tape,
> > then loading and syncing the other). If you think about it, it
> > wouldn't make much sense anyway, as the Fairlight could only play 8
> > voices altogether. Having those voices shared between two sequencers
> > at once would be of limited value. 
> > > 
> > > Page R, as has been said, is a rhythmic composition page. You have 8
> > monophonic lines that you can repeat, transpose, and so forth. You use
> > patterns to represent, say, parts of a song, and then you can arrange
> > them in different orders to make up that song. Really, just think
> > glorified drum machine and you've basically got it.
> > > 
> > > Page 9 (or Keyboard Sequencer) is altogether different. It is a
> > straight record and overdub page. It's basically useful as a
> > scratchpad for recording a performance but there are no editing
> > features of any kind. No quantize either(!). You can overdub lines
> > with another sound in the Fairlight's memory and change the tempo and
> > such but that's about it. You play it in, it plays it back. That's it.
> > It does have a facilty for importing MCL sequences, for easy playback.
> > > 
> > > MCL (or Music Composition Language) is also quite different. It
> > doesn't using the music keyboard at all. Commands and note events are
> > step-entered from the QWERTY keyboard using codes for pitch, length,
> > velocity, controllers and so on. Unless you are experienced, composing
> > a song in this way takes a pretty long time. However, you can achieve
> > results that are not possible with the other sequencers. I think many
> > power users in the early 80s must've used this quite a bit on records.
> > Incidently, this is the only one of the sequencers in which you can
> > record and play back controller data that has not been assigned to one
> > of the Fairlight's physical controls, if that makes any sense. :-)
> > > 
> > > By the way, the Series III is totally different in many, many ways.
> > Not only do you have 16 voices, but you have another sequencer, CAPS,
> > that is a bit more modern and supports polyphonic recording and such.
> > I would imagine that many people used that.
> > > 
> > > Hope that helps.
> > > 
> > > Laurence
> > > 
> > > 
> > > ----- Original Message ----
> > > From: Andrew <taoist.hermit1@>
> > > To: Fairlight-CMI@yahoogroups.com
> > > Sent: Wednesday, October 4, 2006 5:46:47 AM
> > > Subject: Re: [Fairlight-CMI]Re: Page R — What Made It So Unique and
> > How Can I Emulate It?
> > > 
> > > 
> > > I hope this isn't a stupid question.  I don't have a Fairlight so
> > I'm just 
> > > on this list for gathering information.
> > > 
> > > As I recall (from many years ago :D), the Series II had Page R as a
> > rhythm 
> > > programmer, but also Page 9 as a sequencer.  I would have expected
> > if that 
> > > was the case that Page R would usually be used for rhythm events - 
> > > percussive stuff - and Page 9 for note sequences.
> > > 
> > > But that doesn't seem to be what's being said here, which refers to
> > Page R 
> > > being used for rhythmic note sequences.  Is this because - as many
> > people 
> > > complained at the time - there wasn't a way to link Page R and Page
> > 9?  I 
> > > always assumed (dangerous, I know) that Fairlight would fix that with a 
> > > software update, or sort it with the Series III, but it doesn't
> > sound that 
> > > way from what's being said.  So I'm curious about Page 9 and why people 
> > > didn't use it for sequencing.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > >  
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> >
>

No problem — s'a great clip for sure.  Thanks!

--- In Fairlight-CMI@yahoogroups.com, "dvdborn" <dvdborn@...> wrote:
>
> Oops, meant to address this to Matthew Weiner.
> Sorry about that.
> 
> David
> 
> 
> --- In Fairlight-CMI@yahoogroups.com, "dvdborn" <dvdborn@> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Laurence,
> > 
> > Here's a nice clip where you can see Page R in action:
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=afkAcPirz9U
> > 
> > Best,
> > David
> > http://dvdborn.blogspot.com
> > 
> > 
> > --- In Fairlight-CMI@yahoogroups.com, "matthew_weiner_2000"
<matthew.weiner@> 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Laurence, thank you — that was helpful to hear.  I've actually tried
> > > some of the things you suggest with...mixed success.  I would def.
> > > agree that the monophonic and velocity things are big — it adds
to the
> > > robotic feel of the thing.  
> > > 
> > > I don't know if you're familiar with the program, but
Reason—with its
> > > pattern-based Redrum drum machine emulator and Matrix
> > > Modulator—strikes me as being a system that SHOULD do a fairly
decent
> > > job of reproducing the Fairlight composition process.  But still I
> > > don't get it exactly — things I do seem to plod repeatedly where
most
> > > Fairlight sequences seem to be in a constant state of change.  
> > > 
> > > Lastly, I'm replying to this response of yours, as part of me
wonders
> > > how much of the artiest IIx stuff I've been hearing—JJ
Jezcalik's work
> > > with Trevor Horn comes to mind—was done on MCL as opposed to
Page R. 
> > > There's just this hyperattentive level of detail on some of
those records.
> > > 
> > > Any further thoughts?  Part of me thinks that hearing a
multitrack of
> > > some of this stuff (a la Gabriel's "Shock the Monkey" but with all
> > > Fairlight) would really help.  As would seeing this thing for
myself,
> > > though where that would happen is anybody's guess...
> > > 
> > > --- In Fairlight-CMI@yahoogroups.com, Laurence Shields <mercybox@>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > It's not a stupid question at all. First, the Series II and
IIx had
> > > three sequencers, Page 9, MCL, and Page R. There was no way to
"sync"
> > > any of the sequencers together (apart from multi-tracking one to
tape,
> > > then loading and syncing the other). If you think about it, it
> > > wouldn't make much sense anyway, as the Fairlight could only play 8
> > > voices altogether. Having those voices shared between two sequencers
> > > at once would be of limited value. 
> > > > 
> > > > Page R, as has been said, is a rhythmic composition page. You
have 8
> > > monophonic lines that you can repeat, transpose, and so forth.
You use
> > > patterns to represent, say, parts of a song, and then you can
arrange
> > > them in different orders to make up that song. Really, just think
> > > glorified drum machine and you've basically got it.
> > > > 
> > > > Page 9 (or Keyboard Sequencer) is altogether different. It is a
> > > straight record and overdub page. It's basically useful as a
> > > scratchpad for recording a performance but there are no editing
> > > features of any kind. No quantize either(!). You can overdub lines
> > > with another sound in the Fairlight's memory and change the
tempo and
> > > such but that's about it. You play it in, it plays it back.
That's it.
> > > It does have a facilty for importing MCL sequences, for easy
playback.
> > > > 
> > > > MCL (or Music Composition Language) is also quite different. It
> > > doesn't using the music keyboard at all. Commands and note
events are
> > > step-entered from the QWERTY keyboard using codes for pitch, length,
> > > velocity, controllers and so on. Unless you are experienced,
composing
> > > a song in this way takes a pretty long time. However, you can
achieve
> > > results that are not possible with the other sequencers. I think
many
> > > power users in the early 80s must've used this quite a bit on
records.
> > > Incidently, this is the only one of the sequencers in which you can
> > > record and play back controller data that has not been assigned
to one
> > > of the Fairlight's physical controls, if that makes any sense. :-)
> > > > 
> > > > By the way, the Series III is totally different in many, many
ways.
> > > Not only do you have 16 voices, but you have another sequencer,
CAPS,
> > > that is a bit more modern and supports polyphonic recording and
such.
> > > I would imagine that many people used that.
> > > > 
> > > > Hope that helps.
> > > > 
> > > > Laurence
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > ----- Original Message ----
> > > > From: Andrew <taoist.hermit1@>
> > > > To: Fairlight-CMI@yahoogroups.com
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, October 4, 2006 5:46:47 AM
> > > > Subject: Re: [Fairlight-CMI]Re: Page R — What Made It So
Unique and
> > > How Can I Emulate It?
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > I hope this isn't a stupid question.  I don't have a Fairlight so
> > > I'm just 
> > > > on this list for gathering information.
> > > > 
> > > > As I recall (from many years ago :D), the Series II had Page R
as a
> > > rhythm 
> > > > programmer, but also Page 9 as a sequencer.  I would have expected
> > > if that 
> > > > was the case that Page R would usually be used for rhythm
events - 
> > > > percussive stuff - and Page 9 for note sequences.
> > > > 
> > > > But that doesn't seem to be what's being said here, which
refers to
> > > Page R 
> > > > being used for rhythmic note sequences.  Is this because - as many
> > > people 
> > > > complained at the time - there wasn't a way to link Page R and
Page
> > > 9?  I 
> > > > always assumed (dangerous, I know) that Fairlight would fix
that with a 
> > > > software update, or sort it with the Series III, but it doesn't
> > > sound that 
> > > > way from what's being said.  So I'm curious about Page 9 and
why people 

> > > > didn't use it for sequencing.
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > >  
> > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Laurence, many thanks for that.  That helps a lot and fills in a number of 
gaps in my knowledge.

I think that's an excellent point, Scott — there probably used to be a
LOT more pre-production work done on records in general, but esp. for
people like Horn, who raised it (literally) to an art form.  

But in a way, I wonder if what you're saying actually reinforces the
point I was making.  Jeczalik seems like he would be what Laurence
referred to as one of the Fairlight "power users."  And it would seem
to make sense that he would be the type to use MCL.  

For instance, in a Sound On Sound feature on Horn
(http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/mar05/articles/trevorhorn.htm ), I
found this:

"When the Fairlight arrived there was no real way of locking it to my
little rig. It was very primitive. I realised almost straight away
that it was a full-time occupation for somebody, but luckily there was
a guy called JJ Jeczalik [co-founder of Art Of Noise, now occasionally
recording as Art Of Silence] who worked with Geoff Downes. He was
bored and looking for work, so I did a deal with him and I gave him
the Fairlight and he worked on it night and day.

"One of the first really interesting things we did that blew me away,
was we sampled Thereza Bazar going 'aahhhh' and 'la! la!' And we used
that on Dollar's 'Give Me Back My Heart' and it worked perfectly. What
was clever about what we did, though, was that Thereza Bazar didn't
just sing into the machine, we made up the samples. We 16-tracked her
for every note. This was still in the days of analogue tape, and we
bounced it down so we had a beautiful bed that was 16 tracks of her,
across the range of an octave or whatever. And JJ disappeared into the
back room and he spent weeks with her voice — f#*$&#* weeks! — and
finally he wheeled it out and we played her onto the track. It was one
of those fantastic evenings where I had to phone Thereza up and say
'Thereza, you won't believe it but we've put your backing vocals in
from the Fairlight.' She didn't really know what we were doing, but
when she heard it she loved it. How could you not love it? It was so
good!"

He's just talking about the sounds here, but you get the impression
that there was some hard-core programming going on.

--- In Fairlight-CMI@yahoogroups.com, Scott Kozicki <flynn23@...> wrote:

>
> 
> On Oct 4, 2006, at 9:11 AM, matthew_weiner_2000 wrote:
> 
> > Lastly, I'm replying to this response of yours, as part of me wonders
> > how much of the artiest IIx stuff I've been hearing—JJ Jezcalik's work
> > with Trevor Horn comes to mind—was done on MCL as opposed to Page R.
> > There's just this hyperattentive level of detail on some of those  
> > records.
> 
> That's probably more to do with Trevor Horn being the producer than  
> the Fairlight. You are talking about a world renowned perfectionist.  
> Someone who would routinely re-record enter finished productions  
> because he didn't like something about one track in the completed  
> work. There are several books available which talk about the  
> production techniques and stories behind a lot of pop records, and  
> Horn's never cease to entertain. Compare Horn with someone like say  
> Tony Mansfield, and you'll see what I mean.
> 
> Oddly enough, this was back in the days where spending 9 months in a  
> high end studio to craft an album was common. The production costs  
> were enormous. If you were meticulous, it actually TOOK 9 MONTHS to  
> record and mix stuff back then because the tools were so primitive.  
> Ironically, with all of the power and sophistication of today's  
> tools, it's much more common to bang something out in your basement  
> these days and call it a tune.
> 
> Cheers,
> Scott
>