[HN Gopher] A lost X-Files song
___________________________________________________________________
A lost X-Files song
Author : tptacek
Score : 191 points
Date : 2023-12-07 16:36 UTC (6 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (twitter.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (twitter.com)
| AnotherGoodName wrote:
| This link doesn't really work for anyone without a twitter
| account fwiw. We just see a single message. I think the preferred
| way to share twitter content these days is to screenshot the full
| thread. Or just accept that it's not really shareable and move
| on.
| madars wrote:
| Nitter instances work:
| https://nitter.net/laurenancona/status/1731900441800155459
| Nthringas wrote:
| the public (open?) internet is dying
|
| i wonder if there are any nuances between public and open
| bongodongobob wrote:
| I've never used Twitter in my life. Twitter is not "the
| internet" nor is it essential in any way. Get a hold of
| yourself.
| anonymouskimmer wrote:
| Commercial internet content providers have become more
| closed to those not logged in over the years. Twitter is
| just the latest instance.
| black_puppydog wrote:
| It used to be _part_ of the internet. As in, people
| publishing stuff there weren 't isolated, I could send you
| a link and you'd "just read it" as it were. This is
| increasingly untrue. Just like with facebook and the
| others, I might add.
|
| In the end, I think Jake Applebaum was right: the
| established social media are the real darknet. Stuff that's
| posted there eventually gets cut off for fun^Wprofit and
| dies a silent death...
| jra_samba wrote:
| This is very true. As an exmaple, Ian Hickson's blog post
| explaining the real reason behind DRM was posted on
| Google+ and is now completely unavailable (at least I
| can't find the original text anywhere).
|
| Here is an open web page describing what he wrote (with
| some quotes), but the original text ? Gone along with G+.
|
| https://www.techdirt.com/2013/03/26/true-purpose-drm-to-
| let-...
| anonymouskimmer wrote:
| > and is now completely unavailable (at least I can't
| find the original text anywhere).
|
| https://web.archive.org/web/20131108215400/https://plus.g
| oog...
|
| I can get the internet archive to display the original
| text when I view source. The reply to this comment of
| mine appears to be the original text (minus some of the
| formatting and bolding), and doesn't include the
| comments. I think it's complete, but only grabbed and
| reformatted a chunk of the view source.
| anonymouskimmer wrote:
| https://web.archive.org/web/20131108215400/https://plus.g
| oog...
|
| Discussions about DRM often land on the fundamental
| problem with DRM: that it doesn't work, or worse, that it
| is in fact mathematically impossible to make it work. The
| argument goes as follows:
|
| 1. The purpose of DRM is to prevent people from copying
| content while allowing people to view that content,
|
| 2. You can't hide something from someone while showing it
| to them,
|
| 3. And in any case widespread copyright violations (e.g.
| movies on file sharing sites) often come from sources
| that aren't encrypted in the first place, e.g. leaks from
| studios.
|
| It turns out that this argument is fundamentally flawed.
| Usually the arguments from pro-DRM people are that #2 and
| #3 are false. But no, those are true. The problem is #1
| is false.
|
| The purpose of DRM is not to prevent copyright
| violations.
|
| The purpose of DRM is to give content providers leverage
| against creators of playback devices.
|
| Content providers have leverage against content
| distributors, because distributors can't legally
| distribute copyrighted content without the permission of
| the content's creators. But if that was the only leverage
| content producers had, what would happen is that users
| would obtain their content from those content
| distributors, and then use third-party content playback
| systems to read it, letting them do so in whatever manner
| they wanted.
|
| Here are some examples:
|
| A. Paramount make a movie. A DVD store buys the rights to
| distribute this movie from Paramount, and sells DVDs. You
| buy the DVD, and want to play it. Paramount want you to
| sit through some ads, so they tell the DVD store to put
| some ads on the DVD labeled as "unskippable".
|
| Without DRM, you take the DVD and stick it into a DVD
| player that ignores "unskippable" labels, and jump
| straight to the movie.
|
| With DRM, there is no licensed player that can do this,
| because to create the player you need to get permission
| from Paramount -- or rather, a licensing agent created
| and supported by content companies, DVD-CCA -- otherwise,
| you are violating some set of patents, anti-circumvention
| laws, or both.
|
| B. Columbia make a movie. Netflix buys the rights to
| distribute this movie from Columbia, and sells access to
| the bits of the movie to users online. You get a Netflix
| subscription. Columbia want you to pay more if you want
| to watch it simultaneously on your TV and your phone, so
| they require that Netflix prevent you from doing this.
|
| Now. You are watching the movie upstairs with your
| family, and you hear your cat meowing at the door
| downstairs.
|
| Without DRM, you don't have to use Netflix's software, so
| maybe just pass the feed to some multiplexing software,
| which means that you can just pick up your phone, tell it
| to stream the same movie, continue watching it while you
| walk downstairs to open the door for the cat, come back
| upstairs, and turn your phone off, and nobody else has
| been inconvenienced and you haven't missed anything.
|
| With DRM, you have to use Netflix's software, so you have
| to play by their rules. There is no licensed software
| that will let you multiplex the stream. You could watch
| it on your phone, but then your family misses out. They
| could keep watching, but then you miss out. Nobody is
| allowed to write software that does anything Columbia
| don't want you to do. Columbia want the _option_ to
| charge you more when you go to let your cat in, even if
| they don 't actually make it possible yet.
|
| C. Fox make a movie. Apple buys the rights to sell it on
| iTunes. You buy it from iTunes. You want to watch it on
| your phone. Fox want you to buy the movie again if you
| use anything not made by Apple.
|
| Without DRM, you just transfer it to your phone and watch
| it, since the player on any phone, whether made by Apple
| or anyone else, can read the video file.
|
| With DRM, only Apple can provide a licensed player for
| the file. If you're using any phone other than an iPhone,
| you cannot watch it, because nobody else has been allowed
| to write software that decrypts the media files sold by
| Apple.
|
| In all three cases, nobody has been stopped from
| violating a copyright. All three movies are probably
| available on file sharing sites. The only people who are
| stopped from doing anything are the _player_ providers --
| they are forced to provide a user experience that, rather
| than being optimised for the users, puts potential future
| revenues first (forcing people to play ads, keeping the
| door open to charging more for more features later,
| building artificial obsolescence into content so that if
| you change ecosystem, you have to purchase the content
| again).
|
| Arguing that DRM doesn't work is, it turns out, missing
| the point. DRM is working _really well_ in the video and
| book space. Sure, the DRM systems have all been broken,
| but that doesn 't matter to the DRM proponents. Licensed
| DVD players still enforce the restrictions. Mass market
| providers can't create unlicensed DVD players, so they
| remain a black or gray market curiosity. DRM failed in
| the music space not because DRM is doomed, but because
| the content providers sold their digital content without
| DRM, and thus enabled all kinds of players they didn't
| expect (such as "MP3" players). Had CDs been encrypted,
| iPods would not have been able to read their content,
| because the content providers would have been able to use
| their DRM contracts as leverage to prevent it.
|
| DRM's purpose is to give content providers control over
| software and hardware providers, and it is satisfying
| that purpose well.
|
| As a corollary to this, look at the companies who are
| pushing for DRM. Of the ones who would have to implement
| the DRM, they are all companies over which the content
| providers _already_ , without DRM, have leverage: the
| companies that both license content from the content
| providers and create software or hardware players.
| Because they license content, the content providers
| already have leverage against them: they can essentially
| require them to be pro-DRM if they want the content. The
| people against the DRM are the users, and the player
| creators who don't license content. In other words, the
| people over whom the content producers have no leverage.
| jhbadger wrote:
| In the same way that sugared cereals used to be
| advertised as "part of this complete breakfast!" showing
| it next to fruit, eggs, toast, etc. that made a perfectly
| good breakfast without the cereal.
| MisterTea wrote:
| No the public internet is doing just fine. I can still send
| packets to where ever. However, the machines connected to it
| aren't playing nice with each other anymore.
| anonymouskimmer wrote:
| You're purposefully misinterpreting the contextual meaning
| of "internet" as used by GP.
| wharvle wrote:
| It's frustrating because some of Musk's first moves were to
| make logged-out Twitter a _ton_ better, but then a while ago he
| reversed course hard and made it entirely unusable. It's the
| worst it's ever been, I'm not employing "unusable" flippantly,
| it's in fact almost pointless to follow a Twitter link while
| logged out now.
|
| Yeah, in my circle if people want to share Twitter stuff,
| they've taken to using screenshots.
| partiallypro wrote:
| I've stopped sharing Twitter links at this point and just
| send screenshots to people. I can never know if they have a
| Twitter account. He supposedly did this to stop "bots."
| zerocrates wrote:
| My suspicion has been that the well-publicized removal of
| many servers that used to be part of Twitter's infra had a
| negative performance impact, and the series of changes to
| how anonymous users and/or tweet embeds worked are a band-
| aid on that.
|
| For an anonymous viewer, they still don't show you the rest
| of a thread a tweet is in, or even any indication of the
| fact that there is a thread that you're not seeing. This
| doesn't even make sense as a nudge to join Twitter, so load
| reduction feels like the most likely reason to me.
| butlike wrote:
| If you want to watch the presidential debate, you'll need to
| log in to Twxtter, is the gut check I'm getting with the push
| to streaming, but not adding clips.
|
| You can go from there depending on how optimistic/pessimistic
| you want to be, but ultimately I do feel like I can see that
| being the path forward foe Twxtter.
| Teever wrote:
| What if we talked about the X-files in a post about the
| X-files, and talked about Elon Musk... Anywhere else?
| wharvle wrote:
| When sufficiently broken links hit the main page, the
| brokenness is gonna be part of the discussion. Whatever the
| intentions of HN, it's always the case, even for ones that
| are broken for boring and predictable paywall reasons
| rather than slightly-more-interesting walling-off-the-"town
| square" reasons.
|
| Besides... "The Twitter Files"... Twitter renamed X... yep,
| that checks out, still on topic.
| readams wrote:
| The worst part is that it's not apparent _why_ the link
| sucks. If they would at least have a message "Log in to view
| the rest of the thread" it would be much better. But I have
| clicked around in futility several times before to try to
| find where the rest of it is.
| xupybd wrote:
| I think it is a move to try and force people to sign up.
| retox wrote:
| And then when you do your account gets locked immediately
| for 'suspicious activity' and they ask for phone details
| and/or photo ID. X is going to be WeChat with payments etc,
| they need real people's details.
| naremu wrote:
| The "town square" in action.
| drcongo wrote:
| It's free speech.
| gorbachev wrote:
| Can we just automatically replace twitter links with nitter
| links here? Please.
| block_dagger wrote:
| Lyrics: "have waited for a light-year." What a long time! Wait.
| anonymouskimmer wrote:
| An eternity. https://phys.org/news/2014-05-does-light-
| experience-time.htm...
|
| : photons don't experience any time at all.
|
| Edit: I think it's appropriate as the lyrics start "in my
| memory you are moonlight, starlight". Postulating that the
| subject of the song is light makes the "waited for a light
| year" more of an "I would walk 500 miles" type of song lyric.
| sixothree wrote:
| It's just a few parsecs.
| iambateman wrote:
| This makes me miss the ReplyAll podcast. They were the best at
| tracking down obscurities like this and telling a fun story about
| them.
| ParacelsusOfEgg wrote:
| PJ Vogt has a new podcast called Search Engine that is worth a
| try.
| stickfigure wrote:
| Sounds like you would enjoy this podcast, if you haven't
| listened already:
|
| https://crooked.com/podcast-series/wind-of-change/
|
| A whole 8-part podcast series about the origin of the Scorpions
| song "Wind of Change". But really a vehicle for lots of
| interesting cold war history.
| cmdlineluser wrote:
| There seem to be a few articles about it now:
| https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2023/12/06/x-files-son...
|
| An update from one of the songwriters:
| https://www.joneshouseband.com/about-2
| JamieDawsonCode wrote:
| Apparently Dan and Glenn had 4 hours to write and submit the
| song! Imagine throwing together a song in 4 hours and then
| finding out that people loved the song so much that they
| tracked you online 25 year later.
| xattt wrote:
| It's survivor bias at play. There would be a million other
| tracks written and released with the same time constraints
| that no one heard off.
| magicalist wrote:
| > _It's survivor bias at play_
|
| What is the "it" in this sentence referring to? No one made
| any claims to refute.
|
| The GP just asked you to imagine the feeling of being in
| that situation.
| pavel_lishin wrote:
| Imagine being so skilled that you can whip up a whole amazing
| song in four hours! I'm not sure if I could create _anything_
| beautiful in four hours.
| stavros wrote:
| This is the most beautiful comment I've ever read. Well
| done, Pavel!
| whstl wrote:
| True. I know a couple people who work with soundtracks
| professionally for TV, and the crazy thing is that "writing
| songs fast" is a totally different skill in itself, so it's
| not enough to be an amazing player with decades of
| experience, or even an amazing songwriter, it's a different
| superpower that impresses other musicians too.
|
| Those super-fast soundtrack/jingle composers, session
| musicians and professional songwriters have this "little
| bag of tricks" in their heads that they use to move fast
| and iterate. They know intricacies of the styles they work
| with, like chord progressions, rhythms, song structures,
| arrangement conventions and cliche lines. Then, the chord
| progression often "suggests" a melody (meaning: some notes
| sound more natural over different chords), and melodies
| often also "suggests" some lyrics. And they also know the
| rules well enough to be able to break them.
|
| Naturally, to make something "beautiful" takes more than
| "speed" and "familiarity with the genre". But it is really
| cool to see people able to do things fast. I wonder if we
| could apply this to coding... I guess it's not too
| different from people able to do game jams, or hackatons.
| jimmydddd wrote:
| I recall reading that Bernie Taupin and Elton John first
| met when they separately answered an ad for a company
| that wrote jingles and music for commercials. Apparently
| the two were partnered together at the company and would
| crank out a high volume of content every day. If true,
| this gives insight into their prolific output during the
| late sixties and early seventies.
| seanhunter wrote:
| Charles Mingus was onstage with his band when he was told
| that Lester Young had died. He called a short minute break
| and while his band went and got themselves a drink, wrote
| and arranged (for an 8-piece band) "Goodbye Pork Pie
| Hat"[1] in tribute. They came back on stage and played it
| immediately.
|
| Keith Jarrett wrote all the music for a tour of Japan on
| the plane there. That became the album "Personal
| Mountains"[2]. Apparently he literally had all the meal
| trays around him open with scores on them and was
| scribbling away the whole way.
|
| [1] One of the all-time classic jazz ballads.
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CWWO_VcdnHY
|
| [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L8rokRx3lnY
| jjeaff wrote:
| Well, as the saying goes, it took 4 hours, plus a lifetime
| of study and practice.
| QuercusMax wrote:
| They're planning to release it as a single!
| ChrisArchitect wrote:
| Noticed this one a few days ago randomly as it was developing and
| as an old X-Phile it intrigued a bit ... particularly because it
| actually was going somewhere very fast after years of people
| pondering about it. (even had me searching some old usenet
| archives for clues)
|
| TL;DR:
|
| A song that appeared in a country bar scene in an X-Files episode
| (the 25th anniversary of the first airing of said episode in
| 1998!) has been a mystery for years. Allured by its on-topic
| country lyrics etc, many have wondered for years. After this
| thread, the music production guy and some others have come out of
| the woodwork and are working on finding the lost song which was
| produced/played custom for the show. A cue file has been found
| and the music guy thinks he might have a cd backup of it
| somewhere (which requires more help because he doesn't have a cd
| player to play it apparently!). They are going to work on a
| public release of the song if it comes together.
| danirod wrote:
| I find stories about lost media intriguing and I am happy that
| this one got resolved.
|
| There is an online subcommunity both on YouTube and Reddit trying
| to discover a lost song based on a 17 second audio clip found
| online a couple of years ago. So far, no luck.
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everyone_Knows_That_(Ulterior_...
|
| Honorable mention to The Most Mysterious Song on the Internet as
| well:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Most_Mysterious_Song_on_th...
| the-rc wrote:
| If anyone is into musical mysteries, there's a bunch of Zappa
| fragments that might be quotes from his or others' works,
| something that he did all the time:
|
| https://www.zappateers.com/fzshows/mystery.html
|
| Every time I hear #4, I think a bit of La donna e mobile, ...
| tomcam wrote:
| Definitely not. I've sung La donna e mobile a zillion times.
| Also, damn, was his guitar going out of tune or what? Maybe
| he's playing one of those 1970s Stratocasters that just
| wouldn't behave.
| TillE wrote:
| That does sound _a lot_ like Darren Hayes, as Wikipedia
| suggests. Specifically the lower-pitched singing of "you've
| got"; it sounds exactly like a signature Savage Garden thing.
|
| Every artist has demo tapes with songs they've written but
| never published, and a lot of obscure stuff got leaked in the
| heyday of filesharing.
| 1970-01-01 wrote:
| For the next exercise, please find the original moon landing
| tapes.
| HumblyTossed wrote:
| The ones where we actually _did_ land on the moon?
| ethbr1 wrote:
| The ones that tried to convince you we didn't land on the
| moon and faked the tapes, despite people in the know being
| well aware that the "fake tapes" were actually produced on
| the moon as part of Operation Nonstop Night.
|
| Lone Gunmen forever.
| adastra22 wrote:
| Yes, the original video recording of the moon landing has
| been lost. It was broadcast live, but all we have is the
| grainy, shitty, washed out recording of the national news you
| see shown everywhere. The actual signal from the moon, which
| people at Mission Control would have seen, had a FAR better
| resolution and contrast.
|
| It was recorded with basically the best camera they could
| send, and digitized and returned to earth with a proprietary
| signal format invented just for this purpose, to ensure the
| highest possible resolution and accuracy as 1969 tech could
| provide. But because it was proprietary, for the media event
| they piped the high resolution imagery into a crummy TV
| somewhere in Houston, and pointed a run of the mill TV
| production camera at this little TV screen, as a low tech
| conversion just for that night. Like a bootleg movie video.
|
| Unfortunately the primary recording was accidentally
| destroyed, and the backups are missing. All we have now is
| that shitty TV camera recording of a TV screen with terrible
| contrast where you can barely see anything.
|
| It is accurate in that for the billion people watching live,
| this grainy low contrast video is what they correctly
| remember seeing. That was the moon landing experience for
| nearly everyone on earth. But those in Mission Control DID
| have a nice crisp view, and the rest of us may never get to
| experience that :(
| hnthrowaway0328 wrote:
| How did they lose that? Sigh...
| MostlyStable wrote:
| While obviously the true original would be better, I wonder
| how closely modern upscaling/de-noising/etc (possibly with
| AI assistance?) would approximate the lost footage.
| mikub wrote:
| This reminds me of how much I miss watching X-Files back in the
| days. Such a good show.
| sgt wrote:
| The Lone Gunmen!
| hnthrowaway0328 wrote:
| Still a good one. I watched it once few years. I'll probably
| watch it again this year during Christmas. When my son grows up
| I'll introduce it to him too. I'm not sure what is the
| appropriate age but I guess 12 is OK? Some of the scenes are
| definitely 18+ though, I think.
| mikub wrote:
| Just don't let him watch the episode called "Home", some
| other episodes could also be to early at 12, but most should
| be ok.
| hnthrowaway0328 wrote:
| Oh yeah, now that you reminded me, there are a few episodes
| that has sort of viewer discretion warning at the
| beginning.
|
| I'll tell $wifie that I'll have to re-watch the whole
| X-Files this month to figure out which episodes my son
| should avoid when he is 12 (that is around 9 years from
| now). This definitely counts as parenting work.
| AntoniusBlock wrote:
| If you're in the UK, all X-File episodes are available to
| stream for free on 4OD. I'm re-watching it too, but I'm so busy
| I can only do 1 episode every few days.
| mikub wrote:
| That's almost how it was back then, one episode per week. ;)
| I haven't done a complete rewatch but from time to time I
| just watch some of my favorite episodes like, "How the Ghosts
| Stole Christmas", "Field Trip", "Quagmire" to just name a few
| of them.
| circularfoyers wrote:
| The same on SBS OnDemand, for anyone in Australia.
| c23gooey wrote:
| Thank you for this.
| mindslight wrote:
| If you've got an Internet connection, all the X-files
| episodes are available for download through torrents.
| codexb wrote:
| I fondly remember getting Little Caesars pizza every Friday
| after soccer practice and coming home to stay up late with my
| dad and watch the new X-Files. The 90's truly were the best
| decade.
| tomcam wrote:
| That's a lovely reminiscence. It's a beautiful memory to
| have.
| cm2187 wrote:
| I loved as a teenager but its looks silly now, like a lot of
| teenager movies. With the exception of the "X-cops" episode
| which is a little gem.
| RajT88 wrote:
| It has aged better than most other shows from the era. IMO of
| course.
|
| "Harsh Realm" (another Chris Carter show) may yet become
| relevant again though.
|
| "The Lone Gunmen" as the sillier cousin of X-Files is as
| charming as ever.
| dmux wrote:
| Coincidentally there's another song in an x-files episode that
| has been sought out over the years. In that case though, it's a
| rendition by the original performers that seems to have never
| been made public:
| https://www.reddit.com/r/XFiles/comments/1zthzq/can_we_pleas...
| cies wrote:
| Makes me think of once I was in bed listening to a house mix and
| suddenly I heard a remix of a track I've been wanting to re-
| listen since my child hood. No text, just melody. I jumped out,
| got on the piano and rev-engineered the melody.
|
| Now there are search engines for melodies, I think I used this
| one:
|
| https://www.musipedia.org/js_piano.html
|
| First 5 hits were not the track (knowing how to read score helps
| here), but the sixth: bleam!
|
| The track was "Ryuichi Sakamoto - Merry Christmas Mr. Lawrence"
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jElCDsfptVU
| toasterlovin wrote:
| Huh, I also recognize that tune from a dj set. Going out on a
| limb here, but is the one you have in mind The Outrunners at
| Razzmatazz? It would have been on the VALERIE blog in 2009ish.
| Here's a link:
|
| https://www.mixcloud.com/pierre-de-la-touche/the-outrunners-...
| 38 wrote:
| I checked the whole thread but don't see a link to the actual
| song. did it actually get posted yet? and I don't mean a cam of
| someones TV or something. as others said, logged out Twitter is
| garbage.
| ksherlock wrote:
| Dan Marfisi/Glenn Jordan found the song on a CD but it has not
| yet been made available anywhere.
| upon_drumhead wrote:
| Not yet.
|
| > Due to popular demand, writers Dan Marfisi & Glenn Jordan are
| working to release the song as a single.
|
| https://www.joneshouseband.com/about-2
| DashAnimal wrote:
| That was a really enjoyable thread, and what a great resolution.
| Not really my type of music but I'll ha e to give the song a
| listen in a couple of days when it becomes available.
| asadalt wrote:
| I once was listening to a song in a cafe in Pakistan and couldn't
| find it. Me and friends did:
|
| - Shazam a few times
|
| - Ask the restaurant folks if they can look at some screen to get
| us the name, apparently it was on a screenless mp3 player
|
| - I recorded a sample of it
|
| - I tried all fingerprinting services apart from Shazam
|
| - Posted on a few subreddits, found the base song, a daft punk
| song but not exact one
|
| - I looked up all remixes all over internet, no luck
|
| - Finally someone found the exact soundcloud link, apparently it
| was a remix with no mention of daft punk anywhere
| leblancfg wrote:
| Well do share! lol
| poglet wrote:
| Many songs that I liked on Soundcloud go missing so consider
| saving it.
| HumblyTossed wrote:
| So... if they forgot about it, are they not making anything at
| all off of it from the X-Files? That seems so wrong.
| encoderer wrote:
| Works for hire.
| zzzbra wrote:
| best of the internet
| bmacho wrote:
| > The full song will drop Friday, Dec., 7. Check back for it!
|
| https://www.joneshouseband.com/
| stavros wrote:
| "Friday"?
| quickthrower2 wrote:
| https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1731900441800155459.html
| drexlspivey wrote:
| I've been on a similar rabbit hole looking for a proper release
| of this song https://youtu.be/Oom_s1mu-Ks from the movie The
| Funeral
|
| I found out that it was written by Abel Ferrara (the director of
| the movie) but no proper recording that I could find
| cm2187 wrote:
| Talking about music Shazam fails to identify, I have a bee in my
| bonnet about a piece of violin that I found in several trailers
| [1] [2]. Sounds like Ray Davies but can't find the tune anywhere.
|
| [1] https://youtu.be/md9M1KPP9no?t=82
|
| [2] https://youtu.be/R4OIZJljMWA?t=3
| JDW1023 wrote:
| The song appears to be Soiree by Helen Jane Long.The song is
| recognized by youtube on the second youtube video in the
| description.
|
| https://us.audionetwork.com/browse/m/track/soiree_5303
| mwcremer wrote:
| Somewhere I saw a clip of David Duchovny revealing the never-
| before-heard lyrics of the X-Files theme song:
| The X-Files is a show With music by Mark Snow The
| X-Files is a show With music by Mark Snow ...
| netsharc wrote:
| Somewhat related, in that involves the X-Files and hidden songs,
| the CD of X-Files related music had a "Track 0" that can be
| accessed by rewinding beyond 0:00 of track 1:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Songs_in_the_Key_of_X:_Music_f...
|
| > Producers used the Compact Disc's pregap, so a listener would
| have to actually manually rewind the first track a full nine
| minutes to hear two additional hidden tracks, "Time Jesum
| Transeuntum Et Non Riverentum" and a cover of The X-Files theme
| song, both performed by Nick Cave and Dirty Three.[20] This is
| hinted at in the album's liner booklet, which notes "Nick Cave
| and the Dirty Three would like you to know that "0" is also a
| number".[21] The use of these hidden tracks has been described as
| "just the sort of surprise one might have suspected from a show
| that deals in unexplainable mysteries".[22] Not all CD or DVD
| players will allow the album to be "rewound" back to these tracks
| as this violates Red Book standards.[23]
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-12-07 23:00 UTC)