Page 2 of 3

PostPosted: Thu Apr 24, 2008 2:40 am
by unibasser
Technology is growing fast and we need to use it to our advantage. needless to say i dont think any of us like mechanical or un-natural sounding music. Explore and experiment with all available technology... if your heart is in the music you will know what works and what dosent.Dose anybody remember we used to live on a flat planet for thousands of years???

PostPosted: Thu Apr 24, 2008 4:20 am
by gtZip
mistermikev wrote:you bring up a good point... the thing that makes that heartbreaker solo so difficult is the sloppy-ness... but I can't imagine hearing that song any other way.


The first time I heard that Heartbreaker solo, I recoiled in disgust. A total "what the hell??" moment. "Is he trying to acheive something with some kind of effects?" nope...
I still don't dig it. I imagine it a different way every time that I happen to hear it.

PostPosted: Thu Apr 24, 2008 6:06 pm
by mistermikev
I'm betting you are a younger chap... LZ was a few years b4 my time too.

I respect your right to think it's crap...
I feel the same way about anything Clapton has ever done... just doesn't do it for me... yet many think the guy was better than hendrix...

none the less I think Page's work on so many other songs was awesome...
who can forget that classic stairway solo...
the ocean...
the rain song...

PostPosted: Fri Apr 25, 2008 12:01 am
by fisherman bob
Imperfect solos are harmony to my ears. If something is perfect it sounds antiseptic. The imperfections and nuances and the struggling sounds some soloists make define their uniqueness. Just ask any trumpet player who has tried to cover Louis Armstrong. It can't be done. You might be able to get every note and even the tone near exact, but there's always something missing. Try playing guitar like Willie Nelson. Sounds simple but you won't get the same feeling. Try playing piano with the same tone and feel as Tom Barabas. Taint happening no matter how hard you try. You can NEVER replace a human with something perfect and get the same feeling or emotion. Music to me is about emotion and feel. Pure technicality to me HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH MUSIC. Later...

PostPosted: Fri Apr 25, 2008 12:52 am
by sanshouheil
OMG Bob, you should love mine :lol:

PostPosted: Fri Apr 25, 2008 12:57 am
by gtZip
mistermikev wrote:I'm betting you are a younger chap... LZ was a few years b4 my time too.

I respect your right to think it's crap...
I feel the same way about anything Clapton has ever done... just doesn't do it for me... yet many think the guy was better than hendrix...

none the less I think Page's work on so many other songs was awesome...
who can forget that classic stairway solo...
the ocean...
the rain song...


Actually, Im about the same age as you :D
I like lots of stuff that Page has done, and was already familiar with stairway, black dog, dazed and confused.. and a few others before I heard Heartbreaker. That heartbreaker solo-break was kind of shocking to me, and I just havent warmed to it. Me no likey.

I try not to judge things because of sour grapes or envy. I just try to be honest with what my brain and ears are trying to tell me.
So you know, it's just my tastes and my opinion.
(And I respect your stance on Clapton. If he doesn't do it for ya, he doesn't do it for ya.)

I will say that I don't think an artist should automatically get a pass, just because they are on a label or are a legend though.

fisherman bob:
I like imperfections and nuances. (usually)
Plenty of imperfections to go around with this boy. :)
I'm not really for this ultra-precise digital frontier. Sure it has many advantages, but I see lots of potential negatives too.
For the longest time I was against digital recording because I thought it might be stripping the natural mojo out of the music. Had this strange idea that analog preserved the soul, because the universe used waveforms and not Ones and Zeros.
Yep, I'm weird.

PostPosted: Fri Apr 25, 2008 5:37 am
by Irminsul
Don't go for perfection. Go for beauty.

PostPosted: Sat Apr 26, 2008 12:21 am
by fisherman bob
Imperfection is beautiful.

PostPosted: Tue Apr 29, 2008 9:57 pm
by mistermikev
gtZip... then we think a lot alike. I don't "hate" heartbreaker... but it's obvious technical sloppiness never really sat well with me either. Glad I'm not the only one.

afa mistakes... there's mistakes and then there's mistakes. some mistakes end up being inventions. other mistakes are just mistakes.

again... most music today has some doctoring to it... in terms of tape splicing (assuming anyone uses tape anymore)... punch-in/out, layering tracks, envelope-out, etc.

if it's the perfect take for the most part... and someone was a hair off pitch on the last three notes of a 2 minute take... what is the harm with fixing it?

If you wanna see a band live... go see em. You can see all the real mistakes you want. The recording is your only opportunity to try to get it down exactly the way it should be (unless it's a live recording) - and as close to perfect as possible.

If you really want to be a purist then why not stop overdubs/ stop layering/ stop punch-ins/ using a good mic instead of an sm57/ record in mono/ don't put the singer in a seperate room/ don't surround the drumset with plexi glass... etc.
at which point you have a live album.

Digital recording

PostPosted: Sat May 03, 2008 4:41 pm
by BudmanRocks
When I record and when I make a mistake, I do the whole track over. I DO NOT splice it in. The more I play it the better I get at it. Enough sed.

PostPosted: Sat May 03, 2008 5:24 pm
by philbymon
If ya screw up once, it's a screwup...do it twice & it's jazz!

PostPosted: Sun May 04, 2008 3:27 pm
by fisherman bob
The first band I was ever in was a note-for-note band. We tried to play everything note-for-note. One of the songs we played was Juke by Little Walter, one of the most famous harmonica instrumentals ever recorded. If you listen to it carefully there's a lot of timing mistakes on it. We didn't correct those mistakes but played them exactly like the record. I got sick of copying everything note-for-note. My thinking on covering a song is get the main feel of it but PLAY IT YOUR WAY. Playing something note-for-note is a good learning process I guess, but when you get fluent enough you should put your own feel on it, even change some parts to fit your own taste. There's a very popular Beatles tribute band in town that plays everything EXACTLY like the Beatles. They're unbelievably exact in their copying the Beatles. Isn't that what jukeboxes, DJ's, and karaoke is for? I guess it's impressive to copy something complicated exactly, but I'd rather hear what YOU sound like. If I'm listening to you play something exactly like the original, am I really listening to YOU? Later...

PostPosted: Sat Mar 07, 2009 3:15 am
by ck77
"All this machinery making modern music can still be open-hearted
Not so coldly charted, it's really just a question of your honesty"
-Rush (1979)

"It's not that such technology is inherently evil, it's just that it will most
likely be used to create something that can only technically be defined
as music."
-ck77(2009)

PostPosted: Sat Mar 07, 2009 4:54 am
by repressthecadence
Melodyne's another Autotune. While this is probably going to helpful used sporadically, it may launch more robot-voiced pop stars. Yet still, when you get right down to it, actually playing things correctly is very much important if you want to emulate live what you do in the studio.

Otherwise, you'll end up becoming a band like Dragonfarce. :roll:

PostPosted: Sat Mar 07, 2009 4:07 pm
by Andragon
DragonFARTS, please.