Well ... gone, but apparently not (completely) forgotten -- it's nice to be an object of interest; or is that an interesting object?!
I really appreciate the words of praise for my past efforts and, despite being quite self-critical, I am proud of my best playing with the band (though other performances I delivered over the course of five Enchant albums make me wince; oh well ...).
As to the questions ....
1. Current Activities
I am currently collaborating with Mrs. Craddick on a long-germinating -- musical -- project, the material from which is sounding quite promising (to our ears). It is really nothing like Enchant --- completely different sound, approach, influences, ethos, etc. We're doing it solely for our own edification, though if it eventually sees the light of day in a publicly available album, so much the better. There's an effective division of labor between us, with her handling all of the lyrics, vocals, and co-songwriting, with me given pretty much free rein to play whatever instruments I can get my greedy hands on and kick out some kind of credible performance. It feels to me as if there's definite complementarity and synergy in our collaboration, and I think the material is pretty darn good.
Other current activities of note include intense reading of Nietzche's "Beyond Good and Evil," a brilliant, beautiful, dangerous book. It's quite daunting to know that Nietzsche, advocate of "risk," looked into the abyss and was ... sucked in!
2. Why the exit from Fortress Enchantica?
It all began with Ted demanding that I stop playing so many ratamacues and ruffs, and then covertly de-tuning my tum-tums ... No seriously -- I'm afraid it's the 'ol, banal "musical differences."
To my mind, there's an interesting, rough-and-ready division in the world of "progressive" music (a category-name I don't like, in any event) between the more avante-garde/experimental or "free-spirited" wing, and, say, the more -- how to describe it? -- "working-in-a-kind-of-tradition" approach, which could be described in terms of certain dominant characteristics that *almost* sum to a kind of "formula": long songs, working in odd times (and working in them in a definite way), conveying an "epic" feel, addressing "deep" topics lyrically, employing certain sounds, timbres, and textures, and so on. Though I'm certainly guilty of having worked in terms of the latter approach, my heart is definitely with the former -- to me that's where the real "action" is.
A simple way to illustrate the difference is to name a few bands that might plausibly fall under each category. In the latter, I'll put bands like Spock's Beard, Dream Theater, IQ, Kansas, Gentle Giant, post-Gabriel-pre-Abacab Genesis, post-Close-to-the-Edge Yes, etc. In the former, I'd put King Crimson (espec. from "Red" onwards), Gabriel solo, much of Rush, Radiohead, latter Porcupine Tree, and other more unlikely borderline cases -- like The Police, U2, Our Lady Peace, and other bands which don't so much exemplify a genre or sound as go to define one of their own (Primus or Rage Against the Machine even). As an aside, I think it's an interesting exercise to ponder where Marillion might go (or perhaps at different points they belong in different places?!).
Now, lest there is any misunderstanding, I don't mean to suggest that the bands in the more "traditional" category aren't original, nor that they're not good. It's just that the riskiness and "about-face-ness" which can characterize the work of bands in the more free-wheeling category -- the sometimes stark and refreshing originality and electic blending of disparate genres -- really galvanize me. Plus, such bands might even evince a trace of humor every now and again and, God forbid, a bit of s-s-s-sexiness too.
Although it might be a bit unseemly to compare (mere) pop music to great visual art, think of, say, Picasso's evolution: how he would change styles radically at certain points, and shift to conquer an entirely different manner of expression. Now *that* is what I'm talkin' about!
An index of where to put Enchant in my little schema might be illustrated by typical fan feedback. Personally I must say -- though certainly not wanting to disparage anyone's taste -- that it has always bummed me out to have enthusiasts for the band say something like, "I really like Enchant, along with Cairo,Shadow Gallery, Tiles, etc." To me, whatever virtues those bands have, they're not the kind of musical company I want to keep, by any stretch. Enchant at its best deserves different company, in my view.
Another illustration of my "disconnect" would be some of my recent Enchant favorites. I think, for example, that "Break" and "Defenseless" are amongst the best songs ever recorded by the band, and I certainly think that "My Gavel Hand," "Traces," and "The Lizard" are amongst the most *interesting*. Yet, those tunes are almost always passed over by fans for quite different favorites -- or greeted with a kind of detached, almost indulgent tolerance, allowing them to be the few larks in an otherwise more true-to-form package. (I think "Despicable" is one of the best on the new album; I haven't heard too many votes of confidence for that one, either
).
In short, I wished that Enchant would've gone more into the "uncharted" territory. Over time as my insistence on that grew, I became, I fear, more annoying and a negative presence; someone not too fun to work with. It's not that the guys didn't want to experiment and change -- but what they accepted as a reasonable quota and pace of change were less than what I wanted. So -- it just made sense for us to agree for me to move on. I think they're much more cohesive now, for my absence -- it feels to me as if there is more focus and unity of purpose. The proof is in the pudding, as they say; "Blink" is a strong album, no question.
So -- whether I succeed is another matter -- in the future I'll endeavor to be as original as possible, taking risks and, hopefully, pushing the envelope a bit. Speaking of which, the guys and I often speak about further, extra-Enchant collaborations (possibly more Xen, etc.), so I'm sure you haven't heard the last of us playing together.
3. Setup
Nothing new recently. I'm the proud owner of two kits, both maple -- a lovely emerald Green Tama StarClassic kit (very thin, extra-resonant shells [like old, "jazzy" Gretsch drums]), and a light-blue-sparkle, "cocktail-lounge" DW kit. The Tama has a 20" bass drum, the DW 22", measurments which seem to sum up the strengths of the kits; the DW feels more "Rock," whereas the Tama is a bit lighter, more suited to a tighter tuning, etc. By the way, I used the Tama on "Break" and the Xen album, and the DW on Juggling. Out of a small family of snare drums, a little 12" Yamaha "Peter Erskine" model is my favorite (in good form on "Rough Draft"); funnily enough, I use the Vic Firth "Peter Erskine" stick, too (very small, beaded tip to it), and I'm not even particularly knowledgeable about Erskine's playing! Cymbals are a cornucopia of different Zildjians, Paistes, and Sabians (espec. a prized "Dave Garibaldi" model Sabian ride).
--------------
If you made it this far, thanks for suffering through the mini-essay, as well as your interest.
And, remember -- "the perineal is perennial."
i admit it's part of the reason i can't listen to that song as much anymore as i used to. Needless to say we didn't get it along with the same intensity..hehe..(btw, the drummer of that band still swears there's a 1/16th stuffed in after the break leading back to the intro-theme (can't remember anymore if it was post or pre guitar solo..i think past..) ). The Lizard was the first song i got really into from 'Break' and i still like it (if i can forget the crap we did to it 
