Outdated Techniques

[OM15.2]

remember kids guns don't kill other guns, people do.
(poor guns)

[s00p3rm4n]

I'm breaking my policy of not replying to people with silly puns from wonderful films as their screenname. Just for you.

And I'm neither of those guys. What you're doing is called the Straw Man arguement- assuming I'm something I'm not and then demolishing your image of what you think I am. Sooperman did the same thing but I don't reply to people who lace their comment with insults and use zeros and threes in their screenname instead of vowels.

You seem to have skipped over the LOGIC and OVERALL AWESOMENESS I laced my post with. Re-read my post - much like an old minefield, sometimes you have to trip over the truth a couple times for it to finally blow up in your face. Engineering, producing, and recording music is in and of itself a left-brained, mathematical operation. In this fast-paced "modern" world, producers are faced with the challenge of making music commercial - "art" is no longer the primary drive for most people. Resulting in the cookie-cutteresque (mmm cookies) production that leaves so much to be desired and so little to be respected. If the impetus were to produce music in order to emphasize the art of it, then I think much of the garbage music that populates the Billboard top 100 would have its days numbered. Until 50 Cent gets caught eating puppies, though, it's not likely. And since you didn't respond the last time, clearly I've won this round of the Recording Special Olympics by omission.

It's bad enough to accuse me of insulting you. I only said your argument read like an advertisement for yoga, which it did and still does. Had I really wanted to insult you, I'd have called you a "very, very silly man" and been done with it.

And actually I wasn't setting up a straw man at all - I went head-on against your argument that music should only be a right-brain, stream-of-consciousness activity done in secret underground caves by Nazis. It's fine and dandy that you want Nazis to produce music. That's FINE. I don't have a problem with that. I mean, they did kill 12 million people, but if "Knights Who Say Neve" wants those human demons recording his music, far be it from me to throw the first stone.

... Now see, THAT was a straw man. In khakis, no less.

And even if you don't appreciate my foul intellectual humor, or the assorted numerals that populate my screenname, I suggested some delightful bands that have excellent production that not only emphasizes the sellable aspects of said groups, but also their uniqueness as artists. And I think if we had our collective thinking caps on, we'd discover that the most exciting artistic aspects of the sounds we record are also the most likely aspects to draw in new listeners. Hence the popularity (or at least notoriety) of sonic whiz-kids like Outkast, Timbaland, Brian Eno, etc.

In fact, I think if you'd read my post thoroughly, you'd have agreed with much of my line of rhetoric. I too share in your lament that many production choices are made with profit in mind rather than art. But again, you blame the tools. I blame the people who don't know how or are too lazy to use the tools in the service of good product. Neither of us can defend for bad product, so that's a wash on either side. I'm not going to ask you to defend an awful song that's produced well. But it's not as though any of the bands I mentioned have an oeuvre full of wonderful songs produced awfully.

All that said, I think of auto-tune in the way I think of guns: it's a tool made exclusively to murder, and therefore should be regulated heavily.

[drumsound]

--snip--


All that said, I think of auto-tune in the way I think of guns: it's a tool made exclusively to murder, and therefore should be regulated heavily.

HAHAHAHA that's funny stuff!

[Knights Who Say Neve]

I'm breaking my policy of not replying to people with silly puns from wonderful films as their screenname. Just for you.

And I'm neither of those guys. What you're doing is called the Straw Man arguement- assuming I'm something I'm not and then demolishing your image of what you think I am. Sooperman did the same thing but I don't reply to people who lace their comment with insults and use zeros and threes in their screenname instead of vowels.

You seem to have skipped over the LOGIC and OVERALL AWESOMENESS I laced my post with. Re-read my post - much like an old minefield, sometimes you have to trip over the truth a couple times for it to finally blow up in your face. Engineering, producing, and recording music is in and of itself a left-brained, mathematical operation. In this fast-paced "modern" world, producers are faced with the challenge of making music commercial - "art" is no longer the primary drive for most people. Resulting in the cookie-cutteresque (mmm cookies) production that leaves so much to be desired and so little to be respected. If the impetus were to produce music in order to emphasize the art of it, then I think much of the garbage music that populates the Billboard top 100 would have its days numbered. Until 50 Cent gets caught eating puppies, though, it's not likely. And since you didn't respond the last time, clearly I've won this round of the Recording Special Olympics by omission.

It's bad enough to accuse me of insulting you. I only said your argument read like an advertisement for yoga, which it did and still does. Had I really wanted to insult you, I'd have called you a "very, very silly man" and been done with it.

And actually I wasn't setting up a straw man at all - I went head-on against your argument that music should only be a right-brain, stream-of-consciousness activity done in secret underground caves by Nazis. It's fine and dandy that you want Nazis to produce music. That's FINE. I don't have a problem with that. I mean, they did kill 12 million people, but if "Knights Who Say Neve" wants those human demons recording his music, far be it from me to throw the first stone.

... Now see, THAT was a straw man. In khakis, no less.

And even if you don't appreciate my foul intellectual humor, or the assorted numerals that populate my screenname, I suggested some delightful bands that have excellent production that not only emphasizes the sellable aspects of said groups, but also their uniqueness as artists. And I think if we had our collective thinking caps on, we'd discover that the most exciting artistic aspects of the sounds we record are also the most likely aspects to draw in new listeners. Hence the popularity (or at least notoriety) of sonic whiz-kids like Outkast, Timbaland, Brian Eno, etc.

In fact, I think if you'd read my post thoroughly, you'd have agreed with much of my line of rhetoric. I too share in your lament that many production choices are made with profit in mind rather than art. But again, you blame the tools. I blame the people who don't know how or are too lazy to use the tools in the service of good product. Neither of us can defend for bad product, so that's a wash on either side. I'm not going to ask you to defend an awful song that's produced well. But it's not as though any of the bands I mentioned have an oeuvre full of wonderful songs produced awfully.

All that said, I think of auto-tune in the way I think of guns: it's a tool made exclusively to murder, and therefore should be regulated heavily.

OK, you've got a sense of humor, I'll give you that.

Allow me to clarify my arguement, since you're not QUITE getting it.


Here's the situation- the songwriter is sitting in front of his computer. He starts up his drum machine, and records a 16-bar sample of his guitar. He cuts and pastes it out, records an 4 bar turnaround, repeats. Then he pulls up sampletank and overdubs a bass line, cuts-and-pastes that. And so on.

So far, so good. But then what happens? He starts drawing in volume envelopes, adding fx, and soon he has a "recording". What he made in his computer has become the composition, the "song". The rhythmic feel, the structure all reflect the technology used. It is not the same music it would have been, had the songs been worked up by a group of people playing in a room. The performance is a bunch of loops and overdubs instead of an organic whole (oh wait, I'm using a "yoga" word- guess you can ignore me now and go back to your Hungy Man dinner and glass of bourbon). And even if the band comes in later, the computer version is still the reference, the blueprint.

Now of course the loop-and-overdub approach is valid. But it's being applied to music that it doesn't really fit with. It's like hearing small-combo jazz and the keyboard player is playing a Triton- yuck. Perhaps people should do what's best for the music, rather than just taking the easy way out?
(And done right, loop-and overdub music often takes lots of work. It's really a different aesthetic from most of 20th century music).

To sum up- It's not the tools, it's the choices. But some tools make bad choices easy.

[s00p3rm4n]

I'm breaking my policy of not replying to people with silly puns from wonderful films as their screenname. Just for you.

And I'm neither of those guys. What you're doing is called the Straw Man arguement- assuming I'm something I'm not and then demolishing your image of what you think I am. Sooperman did the same thing but I don't reply to people who lace their comment with insults and use zeros and threes in their screenname instead of vowels.

You seem to have skipped over the LOGIC and OVERALL AWESOMENESS I laced my post with. Re-read my post - much like an old minefield, sometimes you have to trip over the truth a couple times for it to finally blow up in your face. Engineering, producing, and recording music is in and of itself a left-brained, mathematical operation. In this fast-paced "modern" world, producers are faced with the challenge of making music commercial - "art" is no longer the primary drive for most people. Resulting in the cookie-cutteresque (mmm cookies) production that leaves so much to be desired and so little to be respected. If the impetus were to produce music in order to emphasize the art of it, then I think much of the garbage music that populates the Billboard top 100 would have its days numbered. Until 50 Cent gets caught eating puppies, though, it's not likely. And since you didn't respond the last time, clearly I've won this round of the Recording Special Olympics by omission.

It's bad enough to accuse me of insulting you. I only said your argument read like an advertisement for yoga, which it did and still does. Had I really wanted to insult you, I'd have called you a "very, very silly man" and been done with it.

And actually I wasn't setting up a straw man at all - I went head-on against your argument that music should only be a right-brain, stream-of-consciousness activity done in secret underground caves by Nazis. It's fine and dandy that you want Nazis to produce music. That's FINE. I don't have a problem with that. I mean, they did kill 12 million people, but if "Knights Who Say Neve" wants those human demons recording his music, far be it from me to throw the first stone.

... Now see, THAT was a straw man. In khakis, no less.

And even if you don't appreciate my foul intellectual humor, or the assorted numerals that populate my screenname, I suggested some delightful bands that have excellent production that not only emphasizes the sellable aspects of said groups, but also their uniqueness as artists. And I think if we had our collective thinking caps on, we'd discover that the most exciting artistic aspects of the sounds we record are also the most likely aspects to draw in new listeners. Hence the popularity (or at least notoriety) of sonic whiz-kids like Outkast, Timbaland, Brian Eno, etc.

In fact, I think if you'd read my post thoroughly, you'd have agreed with much of my line of rhetoric. I too share in your lament that many production choices are made with profit in mind rather than art. But again, you blame the tools. I blame the people who don't know how or are too lazy to use the tools in the service of good product. Neither of us can defend for bad product, so that's a wash on either side. I'm not going to ask you to defend an awful song that's produced well. But it's not as though any of the bands I mentioned have an oeuvre full of wonderful songs produced awfully.

All that said, I think of auto-tune in the way I think of guns: it's a tool made exclusively to murder, and therefore should be regulated heavily.

OK, you've got a sense of humor, I'll give you that.

Allow me to clarify my arguement, since you're not QUITE getting it.


Here's the situation- the songwriter is sitting in front of his computer. He starts up his drum machine, and records a 16-bar sample of his guitar. He cuts and pastes it out, records an 4 bar turnaround, repeats. Then he pulls up sampletank and overdubs a bass line, cuts-and-pastes that. And so on.

So far, so good. But then what happens? He starts drawing in volume envelopes, adding fx, and soon he has a "recording". What he made in his computer has become the composition, the "song". The rhythmic feel, the structure all reflect the technology used. It is not the same music it would have been, had the songs been worked up by a group of people playing in a room. The performance is a bunch of loops and overdubs instead of an organic whole (oh wait, I'm using a "yoga" word- guess you can ignore me now and go back to your Hungy Man dinner and glass of bourbon). And even if the band comes in later, the computer version is still the reference, the blueprint.

Now of course the loop-and-overdub approach is valid. But it's being applied to music that it doesn't really fit with. It's like hearing small-combo jazz and the keyboard player is playing a Triton- yuck. Perhaps people should do what's best for the music, rather than just taking the easy way out?
(And done right, loop-and overdub music often takes lots of work. It's really a different aesthetic from most of 20th century music).

To sum up- It's not the tools, it's the choices. But some tools make bad choices easy.

My drunken conclusion is that we're arguing mostly the same thing. I don't eat Hungy Man dinners or drink bourbon, though. Only Stouffer's and Jameson's for me.

Also, have you heard the New Pornographers? A few songs on their most recent album were written entirely by looping. I think you have a point in that looped performances can sometimes lack spontaneity, but I think the only real point of contention I have with that is that it doesn't make the tool useless and wrong. It just requires that much more thought to pull it off well.

Then again, your argument applies just as much to people who write songs alone as to people who record songs based on loops - that there's something lacking unless you're surrounded by other musicians contributing their own ideas when you record. I don't have a problem with it as long as the end result's something creative and listenable, whatever listenable means. And while there certainly is a dynamic in a full band playing live that's different than the colliding internal decisionmaking process of one lone fool at a tape machine, that doesn't mean that either is by nature prevented from being just as creative and innovative as the other.

I didn't put any funny in this. Tryptophan told me not to.

[dwelle]

not to derail the discussion, but which songs are you referring to? i've been listening to the new pornographers a bunch of late, and i hadn't picked up on the looping.

very curious, indulge me, please....

[Brett Siler]

Joel I am jealous of you for getting to work with so many fucking cool artists.

I feel silly feeling this way but..... Carla Kihlstedt is fucking hot..... her playing and her voice is so sexy in a very non-traditional way...

Anyway, back to you guys complaining about bullshit.

[Knights Who Say Neve]

My drunken conclusion is that we're arguing mostly the same thing. I don't eat Hungy Man dinners or drink bourbon, though. Only Stouffer's and Jameson's for me.

Also, have you heard the New Pornographers? A few songs on their most recent album were written entirely by looping. I think you have a point in that looped performances can sometimes lack spontaneity, but I think the only real point of contention I have with that is that it doesn't make the tool useless and wrong. It just requires that much more thought to pull it off well.

Then again, your argument applies just as much to people who write songs alone as to people who record songs based on loops - that there's something lacking unless you're surrounded by other musicians contributing their own ideas when you record. I don't have a problem with it as long as the end result's something creative and listenable, whatever listenable means. And while there certainly is a dynamic in a full band playing live that's different than the colliding internal decisionmaking process of one lone fool at a tape machine, that doesn't mean that either is by nature prevented from being just as creative and innovative as the other.

I didn't put any funny in this. Tryptophan told me not to.

I agree with most of this. And argueing with you about it has helped me clarify my thoughts on the subject. Which, after all, is the right reason to argue about something.

A great record can come from a band in a room straight to tape, a guy with a computer, a month at a pro studio, whatever. I can even think of great albums that were done with session musicians who barely knew the material, the artist, or each other. But I think the most rockin' records (as opposed to the most cerebral or poppy records) tend to be made in short periods of time by musicians who play together. And though digital can be used that way (like a tape machine), generally it isn't.

What I'm saying is, perhaps certain kinds of music, Rock/Jazz/Blues in particular- are not well served by the "digital aesthetic". Rock itself is mutating under the pressure of digitalness (as is the culture in general). A bad thing? No. But something is being lost. Digital just doesn't rock. It grooves. Not the same thing.[/i]

[s00p3rm4n]

A few counter-examples to the "digital kills creativity" argument:

1) The song "jessica numbers" from the new pornographers' newest record. The main songwriter in the band, Carl Newman, wrote the song by looping a bit of melody... then adding other parts. The band got together, jammed around the loop, and voila, there the song was. It's a very rockin' number, and fits well with the NP's circular, structured, yet always nearly-careening-away feel. Another song written this way - "these are the fables" (sung by Neko Case on the album). I think it's really interesting how a song started as a loop becomes something that grows, shifts, mutates into this big rocking monster when other people play it live.

2) If you're ever in L.A., do yourself a favor and see Jon Brion play on a Friday at the Largo. I go pretty much every Friday, and it's probably the most incredible live music you will ever see in your life. Using 4 synchronized Gibson Digital Echoplexes, Jon builds up an entire looped band with drums, piano, synth, modulated bass, and guitar. And yet, all this looped performance sounds just as organic and natural as if an entire band were in the room concocting it. When the musician, the engineer, the producer, or whomever approaches the technology as an instrument and not a crutch, that's when the avenues for creativity really open. Like we've both said, it depends on the person using it.

Whether the tool is a canoe or a cruise liner, it's the quality of the captain at the helm that determines how far the ship goes. Or whether it sinks. Or whether everyone on board gets dysentery.

[r0ck1r0ck2]

Using 4 synchronized Gibson Digital Echoplexes, Jon builds up an entire looped band with drums, piano, synth, modulated bass, and guitar. And yet, all this looped performance sounds just as organic and natural as if an entire band were in the room concocting it. When the musician, the engineer, the producer, or whomever approaches the technology as an instrument and not a crutch, that's when the avenues for creativity really open. Like we've both said, it depends on the person using it.

this REALLY reminds me of St. Les Paul
no Really

[junkyardtodd]

Okay, okay, but really what is wrong with multi-platinum pop? I am certainly not going to listen to Britney, or Ashlee, or any of them. But if a song creates an emotional response in 4 million teenagers, it must be, in some way, musically, or artistically valid. And if it takes Auto-tune, and a $3000 compressor, and 40 takes all comped together to achieve the final result which creates this massive fan response, so what? It's still a genuine response, no matter how the track was created.

Btw:How many of you have kids? I allow my girls to listen to a good amount of junk music, but I make sure they get a steady diet of Beatles, and underground pop too. Now my 8 year's favorite band is The Decemberists. That is now my personal benchmark for being cool and useful.

[s00p3rm4n]

Using 4 synchronized Gibson Digital Echoplexes, Jon builds up an entire looped band with drums, piano, synth, modulated bass, and guitar. And yet, all this looped performance sounds just as organic and natural as if an entire band were in the room concocting it. When the musician, the engineer, the producer, or whomever approaches the technology as an instrument and not a crutch, that's when the avenues for creativity really open. Like we've both said, it depends on the person using it.

this REALLY reminds me of St. Les Paul
no Really

. Glad you noticed. Jon does a Les Paul tribute most Fridays in which he takes a request and does it in the style of Les - tons of crazy looping fun. It takes him a few seconds to think of the arrangement, then he just launches right into it, whether it's "someone to watch over me" or "hungry like the wolf" (my request of course).

He played at Les Paul's birthday(?) tribute in New York City recently. Jon's a huge follower of that man. Hell, his main guitar is an absolutely ANCIENT Les Paul - maybe '56? I can't remember. The headstock's broken off the neck 6 times! It was broken for the "last time" (will supposedly "never come apart again") in NYC during a show he was playing months ago, and Jon looped the sound of the broken-necked guitar and its strings... then played "When Doves Cry" over it. Now THAT is rock.

[s00p3rm4n]

Okay, okay, but really what is wrong with multi-platinum pop? I am certainly not going to listen to Britney, or Ashlee, or any of them. But if a song creates an emotional response in 4 million teenagers, it must be, in some way, musically, or artistically valid. And if it takes Auto-tune, and a $3000 compressor, and 40 takes all comped together to achieve the final result which creates this massive fan response, so what? It's still a genuine response, no matter how the track was created.

Btw:How many of you have kids? I allow my girls to listen to a good amount of junk music, but I make sure they get a steady diet of Beatles, and underground pop too. Now my 8 year's favorite band is The Decemberists. That is now my personal benchmark for being cool and useful.

Um, first of all, your 8 year old is a badass. And feel free to quote me on that... when she's old enough, of course. But half of Colin Meloy's songs are about pirate whores, so when little Jenny asks what the line "remember what she does when you're asleep" means, be sure to choose your words carefully.

To address your other point, I don't think something's success is necessarily indicative of its value, artistically, musically, or otherwise. Look to the $100 million piece-of-crap films, completely lacking in any quality screenwriting, filmmaking, acting, or anything. Look at those movies making $240 million in the international box office. The inevitable sequels. Britney Spears' new album. Madonna's new album. Neither of them are new... and even my gay friends are starting to notice.

It may be well-crafted - and I readily admit some of the production on the emptiest, most vapid pop is absolutely brilliant and fits the music perfectly (Neptunes anyone?), but that doesn't make it any more than well-recorded mindless crap. Everything creates an emotional response in teenagers, especially in music. Taking a dump creates an emotional response in hormone-addled teenagers, which goes far in explaining the music many of them eat up like so much poop.

Here's a question I've posed myself and friends: in 30 years, what will be the iconic music of these years? Franz Ferdinand, whose songs are mildly catchy but entirely vacuous? Arcade Fire, who are respected but not widely known? Britney? Madonna? I think many people look back with fondness on the music of their teenage years not because the music was good, but because of the things happening in their lives that corresponded with that music being played. Getting teenagers and kids to have an emotional response is like shooting retarded fish in a barrel.

It's the same reason people now realize how much Cameron Crowe can suck - because he just throws music on-screen, expecting us as an audience to emote because hey, there's a song! And again, if you sing the words "girl," "love," and "baby" in a song, you're guaranteed platinum - unless the line is "I love to poop on my baby girl." In which case you're probably R. Kelly and have twenty-one other identical songs lined up.

So yeah. Teens are an easily reached and super-easily manipulated audience, and there are a million more easy outlets to reach them - Radio Disney, etc. etc. etc. than to reach adults. If only smart rock/pop/whatever musicians had the kind of access to fresh blood that these mega-corporate labels do! (Actually, the one thing I'd say that's kinda bridging that access gap is the shows like The O.C. that use outside music for soundtracks. These shows are mostly, again, syrupy manipulative pap, but they still give bands and songwriters an avenue of access to have their music played to a wide, young, mainstream audience.)

[r0ck1r0ck2]

Jon looped the sound of the broken-necked guitar and its strings... then played "When Doves Cry" over it. Now THAT is rock. :twisted:

word....

[junkyardtodd]

To address your other point, I don't think something's success is necessarily indicative of its value, artistically, musically, or otherwise. Look to the $100 million piece-of-crap films, completely lacking in any quality screenwriting, filmmaking, acting, or anything. Look at those movies making $240 million in the international box office. The inevitable sequels. Britney Spears' new album. Madonna's new album. Neither of them are new... and even my gay friends are starting to notice.

It may be well-crafted - and I readily admit some of the production on the emptiest, most vapid pop is absolutely brilliant and fits the music perfectly (Neptunes anyone?), but that doesn't make it any more than well-recorded mindless crap. Everything creates an emotional response in teenagers, especially in music. Taking a dump creates an emotional response in hormone-addled teenagers, which goes far in explaining the music many of them eat up like so much poop.

Here's a question I've posed myself and friends: in 30 years, what will be the iconic music of these years? Franz Ferdinand, whose songs are mildly catchy but entirely vacuous? Arcade Fire, who are respected but not widely known? Britney? Madonna? I think many people look back with fondness on the music of their teenage years not because the music was good, but because of the things happening in their lives that corresponded with that music being played. Getting teenagers and kids to have an emotional response is like shooting retarded fish in a barrel.

It's the same reason people now realize how much Cameron Crowe can suck - because he just throws music on-screen, expecting us as an audience to emote because hey, there's a song! And again, if you sing the words "girl," "love," and "baby" in a song, you're guaranteed platinum - unless the line is "I love to poop on my baby girl." In which case you're probably R. Kelly and have twenty-one other identical songs lined up.

So yeah. Teens are an easily reached and super-easily manipulated audience, and there are a million more easy outlets to reach them - Radio Disney, etc. etc. etc. than to reach adults. If only smart rock/pop/whatever musicians had the kind of access to fresh blood that these mega-corporate labels do! (Actually, the one thing I'd say that's kinda bridging that access gap is the shows like The O.C. that use outside music for soundtracks. These shows are mostly, again, syrupy manipulative pap, but they still give bands and songwriters an avenue of access to have their music played to a wide, young, mainstream audience.)

Okay, you say anyone can write a hit, teens are easily reached, etc....

My wife used to be a semi big exec at one of the major retailers. Every month, she would bring home a big box with literally hundreds of CD's. She only got stuff from majors, and a few indie's with major distribution deals. Out of those hundreds of discs, maybe one a month would become a hit, even a small hit.

I am not saying that the stuff that does become a hit is "good" or "artistically interesting", but really, I think it does mean something when 4 million people buy a song. I know about payola, I know how crooked and unfair the whole music business is. But I really don't think Elliot Smith, or Colin Meloy, or any of the people who we here at Tape Op recognize as being truly great, could be made into a mega-star if only the record company would get behind them.

I think that we who are so passionate and obsessed with music have an entirely differant perception of the nature and meaning of music.

OH yeah, I remember my point now...

If someone like Britney, has the personality (or the cute butt, or whatever) that will sell 4 million records, nobody would criticize here for going to a great songwriter. (even though she COULD write her own songs) Nobody would criticize her for going to a great producer. (even though she could buy an MBox and record herself). So, just because she can't sing in tune, why should she not use Antares to help her deliver a good performance?

It seems like that's crossing a line. Intuitively it seems differant, but I am not sure that I can logically say why it's wrong.

Next????


(and hell yeah, my kid is the coolest ever. if she ever makes records, I guarantee they will be GREAT records!)