Kate Bush - Running up that Hill - main synth sound

[nathanscribe]

There's a new blog post on the sounds of Running Up That Hill, which seems to come to the same conclusions as we came to in this thread:

https://reverbmachine.com/blog/kate-bush-synth-sounds

Brilliant info, especially about the drum pattern.

It's good but his drums are way off. The original uses the low tom, with an occasional hit to the left only, and the kick/snare are on 1+3 and 2+4 respectively. The tom does all the filling in.

[Tomás Mulcahy]

I was trying to be nice . He's done it all on the kick, but has the right idea about the "aheadness"IMO. Reminds me that I must see if I can nail the portamtento with the CMIV. Kontakt did not.

[DunningUpThatHill]

The blog post is mostly drivel, the part about the drum timing is certainly no exception. The drums aren't "off-grid" at all. My guess is that the blogger has been analyzing the first 2 bars (as those are the closest you can get to a clean drum loop, disregarding the ever present drone of course) in isolation, not realizing they're wildly non-representative.

See, if you add a steady drum pattern that runs in perfect sync with the original, they line up all the way except for the first two bars. When the LinnDrum on the original kicks in, it's very late (approx. 1/48), skids in like a drunk on rollerskates, and over the first bar and a half it speeds up then slows down before settling into the grid. The first bar is all out of whack, on the 2nd bar it's a matter of milliseconds off. To complicate things, Stuart E is trying to play acoustic snare over the Linn, so his first hit is about as off as the sync, but much like the Linn he course-corrects quickly.

So what's going on here? Well, tape sync was no exact science in the early 80's, and most devices needed a lead-in of one or two silent bars. But Del hadn't composed a full song here, there was just a single pattern that probably started playing immediately, so what you hear on the first two bars is the LinnDrum struggling to home in on the correct tempo. Ergo, if you isolate that first bar and trim it so that the first bass drum hit aligns with the downbeat, and then look at this bar thinking it's representative of the entire song, everything will be off-grid and the snare will be miles ahead.

[DunningUpThatHill]

Also, about the CELLO2 sample: Close but no cigar, and here’s why.

There once was a Fairlight sample called TRAMCHLO. It co-existed with another sample named CELLO2 that has nothing to do with this song. TRAMCHLO is present on the earliest original disks available online, dated December 29, 1979. And it was still present in a version of the factory library from February 22, 1984. This may or may not have been Revision 1.2. At some point between that date and the end of 1985 (can't find an exact date), the factory library underwent an extensive overhaul and many samples were renamed and/or tweaked. TRAMCHLO is one of those samples. The second half of the sample was muted, likely to suppress the heavy aliasing noise. The attack may possibly have been tweaked too. It was then renamed CELLO2, and appears under that name in subsequent versions of the library, such as the widely available Revision 1.3 from 1985 (the one that ships with Arturia CMI V).

Now, it's documented that the RUTH recording was finalized on December 6 of 1983 and then sat in the vault for 20 months while she completed the rest of Hounds. So unless Kate owned a flying DeLorean, she can't have been using the 1985 Rev. 1.3 CELLO2 version of the sample. It must therefore have been the original undiluted TRAMCHLO from 1979. And that’s the key to finding the other important RUTH sample (The cello is only half the story), because that sample was ditched in future revisions, thus doesn’t exist on any disk sets where TRAMCHLO is named CELLO2. More on that sample later, but to summarize: Like I said, Cello2/Tramchlo is only half the story. Think of it as the sampled PCM attack of a D-50 sound. On its own, it's way, way too short to do all the jobs that it needs to do on RUTH, and looping it won't get you there. You need the other sample (that does a job similar to that of the subtractive synthesis half of a D-50 sound).

[Tomás Mulcahy]

By gum you're right. Cello2 is Tramchlo with clipping distortion and an earlier fade out. It sounds duller too. However, both are in the Arturia CMI V library.

They'll obviously both sound the same with frozen reverb though. Plus like I said earlier, the IIx is so lo-fi that after a while things start to sound the same.

I think when the library was re-jigged (by Peter Weilk I believe) he recorded all the sounds back to tape so they could be tuned to concert pitch.

[DunningUpThatHill]

They'll obviously both sound the same with frozen reverb though. Plus like I said earlier, the IIx is so lo-fi that after a while things start to sound the same.

By ”frozen reverb” you could mean two things.

1) The drone sound present throughout the song. Yes, that will obviously sound the same whether CELLO2 or TRAMCHLO is part of the signal fed into the reverb. The thread has it mostly right, except there’s more than just the two Tramchlo notes, and also that the drone with its infinite reverb tail is played back at half its recording speed. Play the notes one octave higher, feed that into the reverb and then play that at half speed — not only does it add the required dreamy, otherworldly lustre but it also gives the reverb algorithm a more chunky quality - the grains go from sand to about kitty litter sized, and that brings it closer to the original.

2) The theory put forth by blogger ”Reverb Machine” that the main synth sound on RUTH is CELLO2 plus its own reverb tail. No, that’s just patently and laughably wrong, just like the drum analysis. In the same blog post, this self-appointed expert on Kate Bush sounds bumbles ”Hounds of Love (…) shows the analog CS-80 side to Kate Bush”, referring to the main string sound on that song. Um… okay, except Del Palmer is on record in a BBC documentary talking about that very sound (which he refers to as ”the wash”) and how it was made with a Fairlight factory sample.

Like I said, the missing part is another sample from the same 1979 disks.
I tracked it down back in 2019 and was going to write a crazy ambitious exposé on the RUTH samples, but then this thing called a full time job got in the way… I’m gonna try to find time to dust off the project in the coming weeks.

[Arpangel]

Why?

[muzines]

Hey DunningUpThatHill - thanks for contributing to the thread with some excellent additional info!

The blog post is mostly drivel,

Yep I agree, and all the similar things this guy has done have been similarly, er, well not exactly close to the originals....

Also, about the CELLO2 sample: Close but no cigar, and here’s why.

This is great, and makes sense. So CELLO2 is a later slightly edited version of TRAMCHLO? But it's the same original sample recording? I'll have to have a play with this when I get some time (currently I'm in the middle of a deep dive into another very classic record, and revealing some unknown secrets about that... I love this stuff!)

Cello2/Tramchlo is only half the story. Think of it as the sampled PCM attack of a D-50 sound. On its own, it's way, way too short to do all the jobs that it needs to do on RUTH, and looping it won't get you there. You need the other sample (that does a job similar to that of the subtractive synthesis half of a D-50 sound).

Presumably you mean the main lower chordal part playing the regular chords is layered with something else? Very possibly, I wasn't really looking too closely at that at the time - I was really trying to answer my own long-standing questions about the source sounds, rather than explicitly trying to perfectly nail/identify everything (which I mention during the earlier posts) - but all the additional info is great - thanks!

1) The drone sound present throughout the song. Yes, that will obviously sound the same whether CELLO2 or TRAMCHLO is part of the signal fed into the reverb. The thread has it mostly right, except there’s more than just the two Tramchlo notes, and also that the drone with its infinite reverb tail is played back at half its recording speed. Play the notes one octave higher, feed that into the reverb and then play that at half speed — not only does it add the required dreamy, otherworldly lustre but it also gives the reverb algorithm a more chunky quality - the grains go from sand to about kitty litter sized, and that brings it closer to the original.

Yes, I love the character of the wash, and in my earlier demos once I found out what was doing it (which was the revelation), I did mention that the record is grainer and chunkier than my examples, and that I wasn't trying to *exactly* get the sound, but just reveal more or less what was going on to my satisfaction. I put that down to the inherent character of the Quantec's tail, but not having one I could try, it was obviously not possible to check (come on Relab, get your Quantec plugin finished!).

That it was half speed makes total sense to make it grungier. How did you come to this realisation out of interest - did you try it yourself, or find that info out elsewhere?

except Del Palmer is on record in a BBC documentary talking about that very sound (which he refers to as ”the wash”) and how it was made with a Fairlight factory sample.

Oh really - do you have any info/detail on this? I'd love to see it...

Like I said, the missing part is another sample from the same 1979 disks.

In the wash part, you mean? Presumably, if the TRAMCHLO part doing the main chords was layered with another sample as you suggest above, that's the same layer that was used to produce the frozen wash?

I tracked it down back in 2019 and was going to write a crazy ambitious exposé on the RUTH samples, but then this thing called a full time job got in the way… I’m gonna try to find time to dust off the project in the coming weeks.

Great! I was going to write what I'd discovered during this thread way back in 2010 up in my upcoming blog series where I'm uncovering the sounds I loved in my formative records, but if you're planning something similar, it probably doesn't make sense to duplicate the effort - and I have a few other record secrets up my sleeve too..!

[Drew Stephenson]

Welcome back Desmond.

[Kwackman]

Welcome back Desmond.

Indeed.
Great to see.
You've been missed!

[Dan LB]

Welcome back Desmond.

Indeed.
Great to see.
You've been missed!

I’d like to echo the above sentiments! Welcome back!

[DunningUpThatHill]

Hey DunningUpThatHill - thanks for contributing to the thread with some excellent additional info!

Thanks Desmond! I really appreciate you starting all of this and cracking key questions by tracking down CELLO2 and figuring out how the drone sound was achieved.

This is great, and makes sense. So CELLO2 is a later slightly edited version of TRAMCHLO? But it's the same original sample recording? I'll have to have a play with this when I get some time (currently I'm in the middle of a deep dive into another very classic record, and revealing some unknown secrets about that... I love this stuff!)

Same sample, no doubt - but TRAMCHLO is a bit more rough and unkempt, especially in the aliasing noise department. And boy is there audible noise in that lead sound. Once you hear it, you can't unhear it - it's most noticeable on the 7"/album version which is swimming in reverb and flanged slapback delays (much unlike the 12" version which is almost as dry as Prince's Kiss).

Presumably you mean the main lower chordal part playing the regular chords is layered with something else? Very possibly, I wasn't really looking too closely at that at the time - I was really trying to answer my own long-standing questions about the source sounds, rather than explicitly trying to perfectly nail/identify everything (which I mention during the earlier posts) - but all the additional info is great - thanks!

Something like that, except it's hard to draw a line between "the lower chordal part" and everything else, because I've found all sorts of crazy overlapping. We're wired to think of layered sounds as stacked on a multitimbral instrument and played in one go, but the situation here was that Kate had an instrument with pretty brutal limitations by today's standards, so I think she exercised her freedom by going nuts with multichannel recordings in her brand new 48-track playhouse that was still smelling of fresh paint when RUTH was recorded. The more I've tried to break down what came from where with regards to chords, melody and everything inbetween, the more I've realized that what's going on with RUTH is that there's dozens of individual tracks (and consequently, separate performances) that make up the lead and chords. There are parts that sound like slapback delay that are actually played live... there are tracks that drift in and out of unison... there are parts of the lead melody where single notes use a different sound and are differently panned than the rest... it's all a big wonderful mess.

Anyway: I sort of worked out backwards what sounds she used. She evidently wanted a sound (or soundS) that were able to play the melody legato, but the Cello sample on its own gets rather staccato because it's so short and gets shorter with higher notes. I also felt there was an analog brassy, Moog-ish quality to the sound (I know you dismissed this a few times in the thread, but I'm afraid I'm gonna prove you wrong ) that TRAMCHLO couldn't bring. So I looked in the synth section of the 1979 disks. I found a bunch with names that all began with M (presumably M for Moog). I had a bit of a Eureka moment with one called MDEEYAW2 because it was almost exactly what TRAMCHLO was missing, but it was way too short, and unloopable on a Fairlight. In the same bunch was an ugly duckling named MSAWTOOF, an ear-piercing horror that couldn't possibly be it. It was particularly harsh because it was sampled an octave above the others. But of course, that was the answer... since when you pitch it down an octave, it becomes twice as long as TRAMCHLO. There's the sustain that was MIA. I had to do one major edit which was to simply fade it out. A simple linear fadeout over the duration of the sample. Then I added some heavy LP filtering. And of course the mandatory scooping pitch bend at the start.

The result: MSAWTOOF, once tamed with decay and filter, IS the "dark chord" sample used throughout RUTH, it's undeniable because I can actually hear the phase/flange effect when I play it over the original. I would go as far as saying this is the main sample, while TRAMCHLO is the icing on the cake. In fact, on the 2014 live version of RUTH, the MSAWTOOF part of the lead is all they bothered to use.

So here's the rough breakdown: The intro melody is TRAMCHLO + MSAWTOOF scattered across multiple tracks. They mostly play in unison, but on some notes, either one is silent. On the last 4 notes of the melody (G>F>Eb>C), there's octaves on one of the MSAWTOOF tracks. And every time there's a high Bb in the melody, there's a slapback delay response, but actually played live on the keyboard - you can tell since the timing drifts between 1/16 and 1/8T. It's as if that high Bb was the one note where she STILL couldn't play legato because the sample didn't quite bridge the gap, so she somehow used the 'mock delay' to extend those notes.

There are other "melody" parts where TRAMCHLO is absent, for example the 'yelpy' sounding synth that 'answers' on the bridge where Kate sings "It's you... it's you and me... it's you and me, won't be unhappy" is just MSAWTOOF with the filter fairly open.

The chord parts on the verses: Principally MSAWTOOF but it's accompanied by both TRAMCHLO and - you're not gonna like this one either - ye olde ARR1. It's very blink and you'll miss it, most easily heard on the 12" remix since it's cleaner. It's on the bridge part again. 3 chords repeated twice (thrice on 2nd bridge), G#/D# > D# > Fm, on the last 4th note before the chords are repeated there's a G played in octaves (low) and that one is accentuated by TRAMCHLO and *gasp* ARR1. They accentuate the first chord that comes after as well, by going from the G to that D# bass note. MSAWTOOF does the 3 chords, TRAMCHLO+ARR1 go Dum-dummm... with the G>D# bass. I hope that made sense even remotely.

That it was half speed makes total sense to make it grungier. How did you come to this realisation out of interest - did you try it yourself, or find that info out elsewhere?

When I was analyzing the drone sound I extracted snippets from the intros on the 7" version, the 12" remix and the 2012 re-recording for the Olympics. The drone goes on for longer in the latter two versions, particularly the 2012 version. And this longer snippet revealed some weird, deep, thudding background sounds. When I cranked up the speed quite a bit I found them to be LinnDrum toms. They could be part of what went into the Quantec (the Drone has a deep, rumbling part like heavily filtered white noise, that isn't coming from the Tramchlo notes) or they could be remnants of some experiment they taped over with the drone. Either way, they're what gave me the idea that maybe we're not hearing the drone at 1:1 speed. It didn't occur to me before since it's such an abstract sound that we couldn't possibly know that we're hearing it in slow motion...!

Oh really - do you have any info/detail on this? I'd love to see it...

Sure, so it's called The Kate Bush Story and widely available in places like YouTube. 40 minutes in, Del Palmer talks about how the song Hounds of Love was written using a Fairlight sound he labels "The wash" (this is Hounds the song, not Hounds the album or RUTH in case that wasn't clear). He says it was done in the Page R sequencer (meaning arranged as 8 monophonic voices on separate tracks) and uses the "Orchestra 5" sound - so he got his samples mixed up, because Orchestra 5 isn't a string pad, it's that legendary orchestra hit sound that got used to bits by the likes of Trevor Horn. Palmer presumably meant Strings 5 or something to that effect - one of the stock string sounds on Fairlight, anyway.

Great! I was going to write what I'd discovered during this thread way back in 2010 up in my upcoming blog series where I'm uncovering the sounds I loved in my formative records, but if you're planning something similar, it probably doesn't make sense to duplicate the effort - and I have a few other record secrets up my sleeve too..!

Heh, well I don't have a blog and I don't plan to start one but I can give you more about what I found so far...

[DunningUpThatHill]

And finally here's a quick guide to the RUTH drums:

Get hold of good LinnDrum samples (not EQ'd, re-pitched or otherwise tweaked, and steer equally clear of other Linn samples like LM-1 or 9000)

You will only need bassdrum, sidestick, snare and tom, the rest you can toss as there's no hihat or cymbal action. Not sure if Kate hates hi-hats but I think there was only a single song on Hounds of Love with hi-hat on it...

Now place the tom sample on 3 separate drum machine channels (or key zones, however you're doing this) and pan them full left, middle and full right. The tuning should be equal across all three, they were all turned waaay down to a cross between floor tom and timpani. Hard to describe them in tonal terms, but if I must, the tom hit starts on C and ends on the A below it, approximately.

Mucho importante: You must program the patch so that the toms share a single voice, because that's how the LinnDrum worked. Any tom hit would cut off the one before it, and each time there would be a nasty click because there was no filter bringing the voice to zero crossing before the next note started. These clicks are actually present all over RUTH if you listen hard.

Here's the 1-bar pattern, the numbers are the 16th note steps

Bassdrum: 1, 9
Sidestick: 1, 9 (yes, kick and stick actually go together on the original)
Snare: 5, 13
Tom L: 10, 13
Tom M: 3, 4, 7, 8, 11, 12, 15, 16
Tom R: 1, 9

That's it. No, really. It's easier to make out if you listen to the 12" remix, available on Spotify/Apple Music. It's from a time when remix actually meant remixing the original recording, not slapping the vocals on an entirely new arrangement. The drum pattern on the 12" is identical to the 7" version we all know and love, but very in your face punchy with almost no FX.

On top of the LinnDrum, they added an acoustic snare that doubled the Linn snare through the whole song. It's got plenty of reverb and sounds quite fat, almost like a Jeff Lynne snare.

On the "C'mon baby... c'mon darling..." part, the Linn toms are doubled with acoustic ones. Well, the middle tom is. Tom M is what's driving the whole rhythm together with the barely discernible pick bass. That bass plus the acoustic snare is why people are convinced they're hearing all this supposed human timing. A LinnDrum didn't exactly have a 'humanize' knob, it was stiff as a (circuit) board.

Speaking of the middle tom - if you attempt to program this pattern, the one I called "Tom M" will probably sound wimpy and you'll think something's missing. You're not wrong. It has a heavy punch to it that the L and R toms do not. After experimenting a bit, I'm pretty sure this was achived by cranking up the gain on the analog mixer to create an overdrive effect. Common trick back in the day. I was able to approximate it with a guitar FX emulator. Have fun...!

[muzines]

Amazing detail - you've clearly spent some love on this - you're my kind of person!

I'm looking forward to get stuck into this a bit more, and listening to and trying out the things you've found so far (probably next week, as my first episode of my blog on mu:zines will be going up mid-week - it's not the episode I'd planned and I still have a bit of work to do nailing some sounds).

The way I've styled my "audio archeology" series is that it's not just about the discoveries, important as they are, but it's about the *path* to finding those discoveries, the journey from the drive to investigate a particular classic recording through to the breakthroughs which unlocked further pieces of the puzzle and so on, and ultimately laying out as much factual info as I can about things that were really influential to me in my formative years. Particularly when there is so much misinformation about this stuff online.

If you'd like, we can work together to co-author a full, definitive, write up of this (with audio examples etc)..?

[BillB]

Hey, Desmond, welcome back. Been worried about you.

This place isn’t the same without you. Even though it was used on ‘Running up that hill’, how will I ever make a fortune on my 1201 without your help?

[DunningUpThatHill]

Amazing detail - you've clearly spent some love on this - you're my kind of person!

I'm looking forward to get stuck into this a bit more, and listening to and trying out the things you've found so far (probably next week, as my first episode of my blog on mu:zines will be going up mid-week - it's not the episode I'd planned and I still have a bit of work to do nailing some sounds).

The way I've styled my "audio archeology" series is that it's not just about the discoveries, important as they are, but it's about the *path* to finding those discoveries, the journey from the drive to investigate a particular classic recording through to the breakthroughs which unlocked further pieces of the puzzle and so on, and ultimately laying out as much factual info as I can about things that were really influential to me in my formative years. Particularly when there is so much misinformation about this stuff online.

If you'd like, we can work together to co-author a full, definitive, write up of this (with audio examples etc)..?

Yeah, we could certainly look into that. I’d love for there to be some semblance of a definitive guide to recreating the Fairlight and Linn parts of RUTH (with a big disclaimer that says this is how we think she did it, we’ll never know), given the misinformation that’s out there as you say.

There’s absolutely nothing wrong with guys like that blog owner taking a stab at it – the problem occurs when it’s 90% wrong but presented as cold, hard and indisputable facts to a bunch of beginners in the comment section going ’Thank you great sensei for sharing your expert knowledge about Kate’s work, we are not worthy!’ Half of them are probably out there right now looking for the correct bass drum sample to recreate what was actually toms.

[Tomás Mulcahy]

Kudos Dunning! And Desmond

[Arpangel]

g ’Thank you great sensei for sharing your expert knowledge about Kate’s work, we are not worthy!’ Half of them are probably out there right now looking for the correct bass drum sample to recreate what was actually toms.

[muzines]

Yeah, we could certainly look into that. I’d love for there to be some semblance of a definitive guide to recreating the Fairlight and Linn parts of RUTH (with a big disclaimer that says this is how we think she did it, we’ll never know), given the misinformation that’s out there as you say.

Great! I think you need a few more posts before you can use the PMs but we'll liaise and have a look at seeing if we can get something together (no particular timescale or anything).

At the risk of sounding a bit self-serving, but as an idea of the kinds of things I have in mind for this, I've just published the first of my "Sound Diving" blog series today if you want to get a feel for the kind of angle I'm doing on these classic record things:-

"Ever wondered what *is* that girl singing in the intro to West End Girls? Me too. Since 1986 in fact. Let's find out..."
http://www.muzines.co.uk/blog/sound-div ... d-girls/43

.

[DunningUpThatHill]

Why?

Why what? Dig deep into Running Up That Hill?

Because it’s one of the best singles of the 80’s. Ahead of its time in spite of being released over 20 months after it was recorded.

Because it featured sound design by a woman at a time when extremely few women went anywhere near hi-tech music gear or production in general.

Because she used sampling for sculpting interesting new sounds instead of having it stutter ”N-n-n-n-nineteen” like some of her contemporaries.

Because some of those sounds were so good that we’re still talking about them nearly 40 years later. Most notably the haunting intro melody sound that inspired this thread.

And last but not least, because the only guide claiming to break down how it was produced is ludicrously wrong on everything except the few parts it borrowed from here.

[Arpangel]

Why?

Why what? Dig deep into Running Up That Hill?

Because it’s one of the best singles of the 80’s. Ahead of its time in spite of being released over 20 months after it was recorded.

Because it featured sound design by a woman at a time when extremely few women went anywhere near hi-tech music gear or production in general.

Because she used sampling for sculpting interesting new sounds instead of having it stutter ”N-n-n-n-nineteen” like some of her contemporaries.

Because some of those sounds were so good that we’re still talking about them nearly 40 years later. Most notably the haunting intro melody sound that inspired this thread.

And last but not least, because the only guide claiming to break down how it was produced is ludicrously wrong on everything except the few parts it borrowed from here.

I find Kate Bush to be one of those people who is just so incredible, that it’s impossible to pick out just one track, she was one of the musicians I featured in my thesis at uni, I chose the album Sensual World.
Another woman who I would mention regarding women and technology is Bjork, who was, and still is, a pioneering force in that respect.
But as always, it’s impossible to pin certain things on just one person, it was a lot of successful people doing similar things at the same time, who lets face it, we’re the only ones who could afford to buy this stuff.

[Albatross]

Yes, you can throw a dart at a list of her tunes and you're pretty much guaranteed to hit a good one.

That Hounds of Love record will still be being played in hundreds of years, its a masterpiece ... takes me back to very happy days living in the countryside on a farm on Oz ... wonderful!

Trouble is every time I listen to her it makes me cry. Met her briefly once back in the day, she has a wonderful light that lady.

Is someone on this thread part of the Kate Bush Experience with Maria Ahern?

If they are playing defo try and catch them ... fantastic.

[Arpangel]

This Woman’s Work, I can’t listen to that lightly, I have to be in the right mood, preferably alone.
Also The Red Shoes, what an album "Teddy, spinning in the chair at Abbey Road"
There are very few people like her, a witch, weaving powerful magic/music, two words, two different letters, they mean the same thing.

[John Stafford]

Kate Bush is one of the few artists for whom my admiration verges on veneration. I should really have a shrine dedicated to The Dreaming.

I was fortunate enough to see her live in 2014, and she still had that strange magic about her.

[S.Crow]

This Woman’s Work, I can’t listen to that lightly, I have to be in the right mood, preferably alone.

I know what you mean as that song cuts me very deeply.
Although I know it via the Maxwell live version and after that I discovered her original which doesn't do it for me.
I know, sacrilege!
Here's the video of his live performance and his voice is amazing:
https://youtu.be/-JYxc5ftEzg