[Gray_Wolf]

http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-30931384

[gareth magennis]

"Gray_Wolf" wrote in message
...

http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-30931384



Paul McCartney strikes me as a person who is unwilling or unable to escape
the mentality he had when he was much younger.



Gareth.

[[email protected]]

Gareth Magennis wrote:

"Gray_Wolf" wrote in message
...

http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-30931384



Paul McCartney strikes me as a person who is unwilling or unable to escape
the mentality he had when he was much younger.



Gareth. "

And what mentality is that?

[hank alrich]

Gareth Magennis wrote:

"Gray_Wolf" wrote in message
...

http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-30931384



Paul McCartney strikes me as a person who is unwilling or unable to escape
the mentality he had when he was much younger.



Gareth.

You say this as if it's a bad thing. The guy is going pretty strongly
for a kid his age.

He says people should write their songs first, before heading to record.
What a concept! ;-)

--
shut up and play your guitar * HankAlrich.Com
HankandShaidriMusic.Com
YouTube.Com/WalkinayMusic

[gareth magennis]

"hank alrich" wrote in message
...

Gareth Magennis wrote:

"Gray_Wolf" wrote in message
...

http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-30931384



Paul McCartney strikes me as a person who is unwilling or unable to escape
the mentality he had when he was much younger.



Gareth.

You say this as if it's a bad thing. The guy is going pretty strongly
for a kid his age.

He says people should write their songs first, before heading to record.
What a concept! ;-)




AIUI, Paul McCartney thinks the following is a bad thing:

"But new ways of working meant that a song no longer needed to be written
before a musician went into a recording studio to put a track together"



Gareth.

[Nil[_2_]]

On 15 Feb 2015, "Gareth Magennis"
wrote in rec.audio.pro:

Paul McCartney strikes me as a person who is unwilling or unable
to escape the mentality he had when he was much younger.

a) Why should he? He has been wildly successful doing it the way he
does it. Seems to me there's nothing to "escape" from.

b) He seems quite willing to try doing the job other ways, even if
they're not his usual m.o. Witness is recent collaborations with
Rihanna, Kanye West, Foo Fighters, Youth, and others.

[Ron C[_2_]]

On 2/15/2015 7:11 PM, hank alrich wrote:
Gareth Magennis wrote:

"Gray_Wolf" wrote in message
...

http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-30931384



Paul McCartney strikes me as a person who is unwilling or unable to escape
the mentality he had when he was much younger.



Gareth.

You say this as if it's a bad thing. The guy is going pretty strongly
for a kid his age.

He says people should write their songs first, before heading to record.
What a concept! ;-)

Hey, maybe they should also rehearse them before recording too. ;-)

==
Later...
Ron Capik
--

[Nil[_2_]]

On 15 Feb 2015, Ron C wrote in rec.audio.pro:

Hey, maybe they should also rehearse them before recording too.
;-)

Don't be silly. There's no need to get it right. You need to escape
from the past and just Protool it into submission.

[JackA]

On Sunday, February 15, 2015 at 5:16:38 PM UTC-5, Gray_Wolf wrote:
http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-30931384

Paul is a disgrace to be talking about High Fidelity!!!

Jack

[[email protected]]

JackA wrote: "On Sunday, February 15, 2015 at 5:16:38 PM UTC-5, Gray_Wolf wrote:
http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-30931384

Paul is a disgrace to be talking about High Fidelity!!!

Jack "


He did have a good point though, about folks today
listening to music through the 'speakers' on their
mobile devices, and how that is affecting how
music is produced and engineered.

[JackA]

On Sunday, February 15, 2015 at 11:16:21 PM UTC-5, wrote:
JackA wrote: "On Sunday, February 15, 2015 at 5:16:38 PM UTC-5, Gray_Wolf wrote:
http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-30931384

Paul is a disgrace to be talking about High Fidelity!!!

Jack "


He did have a good point though, about folks today
listening to music through the 'speakers' on their
mobile devices, and how that is affecting how
music is produced and engineered.

He must have invested in Neil Young's PONO.

But I have to admire Paul for one good reason (what he admitted). When recording Band On The Run album, he started it in the UK, but needed more tape tracks than 16, so he returned to the US for 24 tracks!

Jack

[mcp6453[_2_]]

On 2/15/2015 11:32 PM, JackA wrote:
On Sunday, February 15, 2015 at 11:16:21 PM UTC-5, wrote:
JackA wrote: "On Sunday, February 15, 2015 at 5:16:38 PM UTC-5, Gray_Wolf wrote:
http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-30931384

Paul is a disgrace to be talking about High Fidelity!!!

Jack "


He did have a good point though, about folks today
listening to music through the 'speakers' on their
mobile devices, and how that is affecting how
music is produced and engineered.

He must have invested in Neil Young's PONO.

But I have to admire Paul for one good reason (what he admitted). When recording Band On The Run album, he started it in the UK, but needed more tape tracks than 16, so he returned to the US for 24 tracks!

Jack

He should have lowered the key of the song by four or five steps. His performance was the worst I have ever seen him do.
It was terrible, which is so unlike him.

[geoff]

On 16/02/2015 1:22 p.m., Gareth Magennis wrote:


AIUI, Paul McCartney thinks the following is a bad thing:

"But new ways of working meant that a song no longer needed to be
written before a musician went into a recording studio to put a track
together"

Strikes me as eminently sensible. The main clients that don't like
paying are those who can't play the same part twice the same, because
they don't know it or it's nowhere near finalised, and resent paying for
the studio time they spend essentially writing or arranging their new song.


geoff

[geoff]

On 16/02/2015 5:05 p.m., JackA wrote:
On Sunday, February 15, 2015 at 5:16:38 PM UTC-5, Gray_Wolf wrote:
http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-30931384

Paul is a disgrace to be talking about High Fidelity!!!

Jack



I take it you are joking, or your ****wittery has reached a new peak.


geoff

[JackA]

On Monday, February 16, 2015 at 2:33:56 AM UTC-5, geoff wrote:
On 16/02/2015 5:05 p.m., JackA wrote:
On Sunday, February 15, 2015 at 5:16:38 PM UTC-5, Gray_Wolf wrote:
http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-30931384

Paul is a disgrace to be talking about High Fidelity!!!

Jack



I take it you are joking,


I take it you're hard of hearing!

Jack

or your ****wittery has reached a new peak.


geoff

[JackA]

On Sunday, February 15, 2015 at 11:52:39 PM UTC-5, mcp6453 wrote:
On 2/15/2015 11:32 PM, JackA wrote:
On Sunday, February 15, 2015 at 11:16:21 PM UTC-5, wrote:
JackA wrote: "On Sunday, February 15, 2015 at 5:16:38 PM UTC-5, Gray_Wolf wrote:
http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-30931384

Paul is a disgrace to be talking about High Fidelity!!!

Jack "


He did have a good point though, about folks today
listening to music through the 'speakers' on their
mobile devices, and how that is affecting how
music is produced and engineered.

He must have invested in Neil Young's PONO.

But I have to admire Paul for one good reason (what he admitted). When recording Band On The Run album, he started it in the UK, but needed more tape tracks than 16, so he returned to the US for 24 tracks!

Jack

He should have lowered the key of the song by four or five steps. His performance was the worst I have ever seen him do.
It was terrible, which is so unlike him.

Can you elaborate??

Jack

[Scott Dorsey]

Gareth Magennis wrote:

AIUI, Paul McCartney thinks the following is a bad thing:

"But new ways of working meant that a song no longer needed to be written
before a musician went into a recording studio to put a track together"

Well, on one hand, it has certainly been very profitable for the studio
industry. I can't say it's been a good thing for the state of music, though.

It's very interesting to watch when musicians who have previously put a
song together in pieces in the studio then go and perform them live. Often
the material improves a lot with live performance. Sometimes it falls apart.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Ron C[_2_]]

On 2/17/2015 2:31 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Gareth Magennis wrote:

AIUI, Paul McCartney thinks the following is a bad thing:

"But new ways of working meant that a song no longer needed to be written
before a musician went into a recording studio to put a track together"

Well, on one hand, it has certainly been very profitable for the studio
industry. I can't say it's been a good thing for the state of music, though.

It's very interesting to watch when musicians who have previously put a
song together in pieces in the studio then go and perform them live. Often
the material improves a lot with live performance. Sometimes it falls apart.
--scott

I ran into a near opposite. A band I'd done live sound for cut a CD.
The CD was a mess with the timing being off just enough to drive me
crazy. Next time I saw the band I asked what the heck they did because
everyone sounded like they were recorded in a different room. It turned
out for some reason they couldn't all be in the studio at the same time.

==
Later...
Ron Capik
--

[JackA]

On Tuesday, February 17, 2015 at 2:31:26 PM UTC-5, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Gareth Magennis wrote:

AIUI, Paul McCartney thinks the following is a bad thing:

"But new ways of working meant that a song no longer needed to be written
before a musician went into a recording studio to put a track together"

Well, on one hand, it has certainly been very profitable for the studio
industry. I can't say it's been a good thing for the state of music, though.

It's very interesting to watch when musicians who have previously put a
song together in pieces in the studio then go and perform them live. Often
the material improves a lot with live performance. Sometimes it falls apart.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

One of the few groups I admire was The Knack. Doug Fieger (RIP - of The Knack) wanted to sound as good "live" as in the studio and kept any overdubbing to a minimum!! You can take several different album songs, combine pieces together and it sounds like a real intro for My Sharona!...

http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abps...es/sharona.mp3

Look at the Beach Boys as well as many other artists. It wasn't until the recent Wrecking Crew film they (Brian Wilson) FINALLY credited others for the music.

People, in general, don't really care how music is made, as long as it's made.

The more (computer generated) fake sounding it gets, the more I dislike it.

Oh, and you people in the UK. I busted your Tony Hatch. In one forum he mentioned about it only taking several Takes to nail Petula Clark's, "Downtown", a live recording. You can find the same claim on Wikipedia.

But this (unreleased) tells a totally different story!!!...
http://www.angelfire.com/empire/abps...owntown128.mp3

Music artists, producers, you name it, want you to believe they have some God given gift, claiming songs only took a few Takes to record. But, even after Take #25, yes, TWENTY-FIVE, American Woman by The Guess Who still sounded crude!

Jack

[gareth magennis]

"Nil" wrote in message ...

On 15 Feb 2015, "Gareth Magennis"
wrote in rec.audio.pro:

Paul McCartney strikes me as a person who is unwilling or unable
to escape the mentality he had when he was much younger.

a) Why should he? He has been wildly successful doing it the way he
does it. Seems to me there's nothing to "escape" from.

b) He seems quite willing to try doing the job other ways, even if
they're not his usual m.o. Witness is recent collaborations with
Rihanna, Kanye West, Foo Fighters, Youth, and others.




I'm sorry, but pretty much all I've seen from Paul McCartney in the past
rather too many years has been really rather embarrassing.

I think this has more to do with marketing a valuable product rather than
producing anything musically credible.




Gareth.

[Nil[_2_]]

On 17 Feb 2015, "Gareth Magennis"
wrote in rec.audio.pro:

I'm sorry, but pretty much all I've seen from Paul McCartney in
the past rather too many years has been really rather
embarrassing.

I think this has more to do with marketing a valuable product
rather than producing anything musically credible.

Then you haven't been paying attention. Paul's last few albums have
been quite good. His live concerts consistently sell out. His touring
band is excellent. His singing voice seems to be rougher and less
consistent that when he was a young man, but when it's good, it's still
very good. He has pretty much done it all professionally and doesn't
have to prove anything, yet he remains engaged and is unafraid to try
new things.

I think you're either too easily embarrassed, or you want to be
embarrassed.

[JackA]

On Tuesday, February 17, 2015 at 6:25:34 PM UTC-5, Nil wrote:
On 17 Feb 2015, "Gareth Magennis"
wrote in rec.audio.pro:

I'm sorry, but pretty much all I've seen from Paul McCartney in
the past rather too many years has been really rather
embarrassing.

I think this has more to do with marketing a valuable product
rather than producing anything musically credible.

Then you haven't been paying attention. Paul's last few albums have
been quite good. His live concerts consistently sell out. His touring
band is excellent. His singing voice seems to be rougher and less
consistent that when he was a young man, but when it's good, it's still
very good. He has pretty much done it all professionally and doesn't
have to prove anything, yet he remains engaged and is unafraid to try
new things.

I think you're either too easily embarrassed, or you want to be
embarrassed.

Nil, I forget the Paul McCartney album, it was Produced by Giles Martin, but I heard the snippets of songs on Amazon. One song, maybe title track, I thought was decent. Others told me it charted well in Japan. The last time I checked, Paul's last Top 40 US hit was in the late '80's.

p.s. Paul pays a fortune on his concerts, they best be impressive. But I also believe people attend concerts for drug use. Like the last Rolling Stones concert in Philadelphia (Philly), one DJ reported the smell of pot (marijuana) was everywhere!

Jack

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

(Scott Dorsey) wrote:
Gareth Magennis wrote:

AIUI, Paul McCartney thinks the following is a bad thing:

"But new ways of working meant that a song no longer needed to be written
before a musician went into a recording studio to put a track together"

Well, on one hand, it has certainly been very profitable for the studio
industry. I can't say it's been a good thing for the state of music, though.

It's very interesting to watch when musicians who have previously put a
song together in pieces in the studio then go and perform them live. Often
the material improves a lot with live performance. Sometimes it falls apart.
--scott



My experience has been that after about a month of playing the same set
every day, you can play it in your sleep.


Used to be, people would tour songs before they recorded them -
possibly for this very reason, possibly because it set the hook for the
next record.

--
Les Cargill

[gareth magennis]

"Nil" wrote in message ...

On 17 Feb 2015, "Gareth Magennis"
wrote in rec.audio.pro:

I'm sorry, but pretty much all I've seen from Paul McCartney in
the past rather too many years has been really rather
embarrassing.

I think this has more to do with marketing a valuable product
rather than producing anything musically credible.

Then you haven't been paying attention. Paul's last few albums have
been quite good. His live concerts consistently sell out. His touring
band is excellent. His singing voice seems to be rougher and less
consistent that when he was a young man, but when it's good, it's still
very good. He has pretty much done it all professionally and doesn't
have to prove anything, yet he remains engaged and is unafraid to try
new things.

I think you're either too easily embarrassed, or you want to be
embarrassed.



Look, I realise there may have been some technical glitches in syncing the
playback with the live performance here, but I'm pretty sure there are
thousands of people in bars and clubs throughout the entire universe that
could have done a much better job.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5cCANKXEKtY




Gareth.

[JackA]

On Tuesday, February 17, 2015 at 6:40:10 PM UTC-5, Les Cargill wrote:
(Scott Dorsey) wrote:
Gareth Magennis wrote:

AIUI, Paul McCartney thinks the following is a bad thing:

"But new ways of working meant that a song no longer needed to be written
before a musician went into a recording studio to put a track together"

Well, on one hand, it has certainly been very profitable for the studio
industry. I can't say it's been a good thing for the state of music, though.

It's very interesting to watch when musicians who have previously put a
song together in pieces in the studio then go and perform them live. Often
the material improves a lot with live performance. Sometimes it falls apart.
--scott



My experience has been that after about a month of playing the same set
every day, you can play it in your sleep.


Used to be, people would tour songs before they recorded them -
possibly for this very reason, possibly because it set the hook for the
next record.

Feel this is how Big Bands secured recording contracts. A&R people would visit ballrooms and such and when the band impressed the audience, record companies became $$$ interested. Even though I admire Van Morrison, I heard one too many of his demos to say others guided him towards hit song music.

Others tell me Record Companies were initially worried about radio playing their music. Why purchase records? Believe Capitol Records was one to initially send promos copies to radio stations.


Jack


--
Les Cargill

[Scott Dorsey]

Les Cargill wrote:

My experience has been that after about a month of playing the same set
every day, you can play it in your sleep.

Yes! And watching performers playing on tour for the first month or so,
you can see how the piece evolves as they keep playing it.

Used to be, people would tour songs before they recorded them -
possibly for this very reason, possibly because it set the hook for the
next record.

This still does happen, not as much as it used to but it happens. One of
my favorite examples are the Kentucky Headhunters who had a great hit with
an album they recorded of material they'd been playing for years. The
sound quality was not all that great but the band was just tight and the
material was good. After making that splash, they went into a top studio
and didn't really come out with anything of much value on their second album.
(Although mind you the second album had much less of that Adat-in-a-closet
sound.)
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."