Talk:Computer World
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Speak and Spell
The main Kraftwerk page indicates that a speak and spell was NOT used for the electronic vocals on this CD. If no citation can be provided, this will be changed to the Language Translator as indicated on the main page. Bcirker 14:12, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
- Samples of the Speak & Spell's "on" and "off" jingles were used in combination at the beginning of Heimcomputer/Home Computer. I've no way of recording an example so I've put a link to an online version. Ricadus 15:14, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
- I also made reference to it on the Kraftwerk page, though it may be going into too much detail there and slightly off topic – if so, remove it from there but keep the amendments to the Computer World page.Ricadus 15:30, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
"If the author of the above spiel had actually heard Von Himmel Hock then they'd know that there is absolutely nothing remotely 'funky' about this track (the sound of falling bombs). They've also apparently never heard The Man machine."
Remarks like this would maybe better be made on the discussionpage instead of integrating it into the article? Strange pissed-off fan-boy behaviour maybe? --stasis101 15:22, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
-
- "Von Himmel Hoch" features a lengthy lollopping bluesy jam section, with Hütter & Schneider getting 'dahn' with da bass on Tubon and Pitch-to-voltage-synthflute. In Pascal Busy's biography, Bartos relates that, when he was initally recruited, R&F did not like him playing rhythms with accented off-beats, they were "rather disturbed by it". Computerwelt is the first instance of them returning.--feline1 16:29, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
The beats and rhythms of songs like Autobahn, Trans-Europe Express, The Man-Machine were crucial for the development of electro-funk. Of course the Kraftwerk beats were always different from the standard funk-blueprint - that is what made them interesting, special and krafty ( and those rhythms became mainstream later ). So the "Vom Himmel hoch / Numbers" remark should really be corrected - but we certainly don’t need a discussion about it within the article itself ;) --Sushi Leone 18:19, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

