Joined: July 28 2010
Location: Funky Town
Status: Offline
Points: 12794
Posted: October 02 2013 at 16:34
Guldbamsen wrote:
I've seen this mentioned a couple of times now: bands that use these mending tools to rise above their own talent, yet there's been no mentioning of who in fact does this - no example. My interest is piqued now. Who are these critters? Instead of beating around the bush with all these accusations (may sound like a harsh word here, but I gather the bands out there will feel exactly like that), then let's name a few, or maybe just one. I'm curious
People who doubt the current usage of electronics/computers and how they're incorporated into the mix, should definitely check out this concert with Cabezas de Cera. On here there's not a 'mending tool' in sight, but countless of modern erm...instruments(?) that I don't understand. The "reed" player has this electronic pseudo sax that spurts out incredible sounds. Then there's the drummer/percussionists who plays around with all kinds of different pads and electronic trickery that I, again, don't have the slightest clue what are.
This performance should preferably also put to shame the folks who are claiming the modern scene to be bereft of musical enlightenment and skills:
And in keeping with the op - this just might turn out to be pretty inaccessible to some Still mindblowingly brilliant imo.
“The Guide says there is an art to flying or rather a knack. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss.”
Joined: March 25 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Points: 460
Posted: October 02 2013 at 15:39
Guldbamsen wrote:
^I don't know, and I'm not sure many of us do, which is why I think it's preposterous to make such claims, if one hasn't got any proof to back them up with. All this amounts to are unfounded generalisations based on what some people think they hear or know, which is far from being fair imho. If people know of certain instances where these electronic tools stand in for lack of talent, then name em or simply abstain from making empty accusations that are downright disrespectful to the current scene.
I think a group that needs to use studio computer trickery will be found out quite quickly as soon as they step on a stage.
Now, I'm somewhat of the mind that in music the end sometimes justifies the means. For example, Imogen Heap (she's not prog but is still a very, very good talent imho). She has a great voice, writes great tunes, but takes the stage with just herself and her computer. At least, she did for her early tours a few years ago.
The second Steve Winwood album "Arc of a Diver" was 100% Winwood on everthing. As was his next album....whose name escapes me at the moment.......
The first McCartney solo album was all him except for his wife's harmony vocals.
So, sure. Technology can be great when used wisely. If it isn't then nobody would buy it anyway.
^I don't know, and I'm not sure many of us do, which is why I think it's preposterous to make such claims, if one hasn't got any proof to back them up with. All this amounts to are unfounded generalisations based on what some people think they hear or know, which is far from being fair imho. If people know of certain instances where these electronic tools stand in for lack of talent, then name em or simply abstain from making empty accusations that are downright disrespectful to the current scene.
“The Guide says there is an art to flying or rather a knack. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss.”
Joined: March 25 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Points: 460
Posted: October 02 2013 at 14:59
Guldbamsen wrote:
schizoidman wrote:
Guldbamsen wrote:
I've seen this mentioned a couple of times now: bands that use these mending tools to rise above their own talent, yet there's been no mentioning of who in fact does this - no example. My interest is piqued now. Who are these critters? Instead of beating around the bush with all these accusations (may sound like a harsh word here, but I gather the bands out there will feel exactly like that), then let's name a few, or maybe just one. I'm curious
I would think that information would be something that the artist would very much want to keep in the studio as in "What happens in the studio stays in the studio."
I've done a lot of reading on the Beatles recording sessions and techniques. Really can't think of a worse example than them as there aren't many other groups with the wealth of singing and writing talent that they had. That being said....
Early Beatles songs were pretty much what you here is what was really played live and recorded and released.
Later songs were completed by whichever way John, Paul or George, along with George Martin, thought was best, be it splicing two or more different takes to create one master recording ("Strawberry Fields Forever"), dropping a taped guitar part into a song instead of having to replay the part again (the guitar riff in "Taxman"), speeding up the vocal (certain early versions of "Across the Universe"), backwards guitar ("I'm Only Sleeping"), cut up tape respliced together (the organ outro for "Being for the Benefit of Mr. Kite") and, of course, Revolution #9 which is a collage of various recordings edited to form the one singular piece.
Personally I think The Beatles reference is a poor example of this tbh. Sorry, but the examples you mention are by many considered as some of the earliest attempts at mixing things up in the studio to create something new and unorthodox. If anything it shows The Beatles at their most "progressive". I don't think it was done due to the lack of talent, but more because it could be done and moreover to see what came out at the other end. This was all about achieving something unique that hadn't been done before. The accusations flung in this thread (among many threads actually) are that pro tools and other such electronic gimmicks make up for lack of chops - not because these devices are put to use in order to attain something stylistically fresh and original.
Oh, I agree with you. The Beatles are the worst example. They were a fantastic group with a wealth of talent and ideas, but how many other groups have come clean, like the Beatles, on exactly what went on in their studio sessions?
I've seen this mentioned a couple of times now: bands that use these mending tools to rise above their own talent, yet there's been no mentioning of who in fact does this - no example. My interest is piqued now. Who are these critters? Instead of beating around the bush with all these accusations (may sound like a harsh word here, but I gather the bands out there will feel exactly like that), then let's name a few, or maybe just one. I'm curious
I would think that information would be something that the artist would very much want to keep in the studio as in "What happens in the studio stays in the studio."
I've done a lot of reading on the Beatles recording sessions and techniques. Really can't think of a worse example than them as there aren't many other groups with the wealth of singing and writing talent that they had. That being said....
Early Beatles songs were pretty much what you here is what was really played live and recorded and released.
Later songs were completed by whichever way John, Paul or George, along with George Martin, thought was best, be it splicing two or more different takes to create one master recording ("Strawberry Fields Forever"), dropping a taped guitar part into a song instead of having to replay the part again (the guitar riff in "Taxman"), speeding up the vocal (certain early versions of "Across the Universe"), backwards guitar ("I'm Only Sleeping"), cut up tape respliced together (the organ outro for "Being for the Benefit of Mr. Kite") and, of course, Revolution #9 which is a collage of various recordings edited to form the one singular piece.
Personally I think The Beatles reference is a poor example of this tbh. Sorry, but the examples you mention are by many considered as some of the earliest attempts at mixing things up in the studio to create something new and unorthodox. If anything it shows The Beatles at their most "progressive". I don't think it was done due to the lack of talent, but more because it could be done and moreover to see what came out at the other end. This was all about achieving something unique that hadn't been done before. The accusations flung in this thread (among many threads actually) are that pro tools and other such electronic gimmicks make up for lack of chops - not because these devices are put to use in order to attain something stylistically fresh and original.
“The Guide says there is an art to flying or rather a knack. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss.”
Joined: February 14 2006
Location: Finland
Status: Offline
Points: 436
Posted: October 02 2013 at 12:34
Once computers entered the picture for editing and recording.. the game was over. The new prog is the copy and paste generation.There are kids making prog albums on Garage Band that have never picked up an instrument. Put your computers away when it's time to record music. Pick up your instrument and try to make Close to the Edge, Tarkus, Foxtrot or The Power and the Glory without the crutch of a computer. Then you'll quickly get a real wake up call and an appreciate for the great bands that came before all this digital silliness.
I don't care how fake it is, I love the new stuff if it rocks my brain cells. Who would give a flying f**k if it is made with Cakewalk or a twelwe string guitar.
Joined: February 16 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Status: Offline
Points: 31169
Posted: October 02 2013 at 12:07
schizoidman wrote:
Guldbamsen wrote:
I've seen this mentioned a couple of times now: bands that use these mending tools to rise above their own talent, yet there's been no mentioning of who in fact does this - no example. My interest is piqued now. Who are these critters? Instead of beating around the bush with all these accusations (may sound like a harsh word here, but I gather the bands out there will feel exactly like that), then let's name a few, or maybe just one. I'm curious
I would think that information would be something that the artist would very much want to keep in the studio as in "What happens in the studio stays in the studio."
Then how would you know that they're using "mending tools to rise above their own talent?"
In other words, can you point to a band for which you know this is objectively the case, or is this all speculation?
Joined: March 25 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Points: 460
Posted: October 02 2013 at 11:44
Guldbamsen wrote:
I've seen this mentioned a couple of times now: bands that use these mending tools to rise above their own talent, yet there's been no mentioning of who in fact does this - no example. My interest is piqued now. Who are these critters? Instead of beating around the bush with all these accusations (may sound like a harsh word here, but I gather the bands out there will feel exactly like that), then let's name a few, or maybe just one. I'm curious
I would think that information would be something that the artist would very much want to keep in the studio as in "What happens in the studio stays in the studio."
I've done a lot of reading on the Beatles recording sessions and techniques. Really can't think of a worse example than them as there aren't many other groups with the wealth of singing and writing talent that they had. That being said....
Early Beatles songs were pretty much what you here is what was really played live and recorded and released.
Later songs were completed by whichever way John, Paul or George, along with George Martin, thought was best, be it splicing two or more different takes to create one master recording ("Strawberry Fields Forever"), dropping a taped guitar part into a song instead of having to replay the part again (the guitar riff in "Taxman"), speeding up the vocal (certain early versions of "Across the Universe"), backwards guitar ("I'm Only Sleeping"), cut up tape respliced together (the organ outro for "Being for the Benefit of Mr. Kite") and, of course, Revolution #9 which is a collage of various recordings edited to form the one singular piece.
I've seen this mentioned a couple of times now: bands that use these mending tools to rise above their own talent, yet there's been no mentioning of who in fact does this - no example. My interest is piqued now. Who are these critters? Instead of beating around the bush with all these accusations (may sound like a harsh word here, but I gather the bands out there will feel exactly like that), then let's name a few, or maybe just one. I'm curious
“The Guide says there is an art to flying or rather a knack. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss.”
Joined: March 25 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Points: 460
Posted: October 02 2013 at 10:44
progbethyname wrote:
How did this forum shift off topic.
Maybe not so much off topic as moved to some interesting tangents
Inaccessible is subjective/personal taste for sure. With that being said most extreme genres in any art form be it writing, painting, movies and, of course, music, are relegated to a certain niche audience, never reaching mass acceptance.
Extreme genres in music would be death metal, Zeuhl, avant garde, tech/extreme prog metal, gansta rap, etcetera. None of those genres are likely to be found popping up in American Idol, which, y'know, maybe isn't such a good thing.... lol! (god I hate that show....is it even stil on the air????....hope not.......).
IMO, Surrealist has a valid argument. Unarguably, some groups rely on computer technology above their own talent, or, in some cases, lack of it. Those artists will stand or fall by the work they produce, rightly so, as with all art....mostly, which leads me to this....
The old addage that "the cream rises to the top" doesn't apply as well today as in the past due to the fact that there is simply so much music out there today via internet sites, social media, web radio, commercial free pay radio like Sirius, that "the cream" is getting harder and harder to find for the masses.
Aficionado sites like PA are invaluable for us prog fans as so much of prog is available here to discover and accept or reject.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
This page was generated in 0.183 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
Most inaccessible Prog?
Topic Options
Guldbamsen wrote:
Still mindblowingly brilliant imo. 
