| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#81
|
|||
|
|||
On Sun, 09 Jan 2005 10:49:46 -0600, Joe Sensor
wrote: I've been watching this and you you seem more like a fizzle, honestly. I'm more of a frizzle. Maybe a shizzle, or even a fra-shizzle, but definitely NOT a fizzle! Wish I knew what you were talking about. Boom wrote: That's just my whole point...it's never as good as the original. I can't think of one song that any band rearranged and made it as good as the original. Are you f*ing kidding? No, but I didn't make myself clear. I was referring to acts rearranging their own songs. I bet you there are THOUSANDS of songs that you love that are total remakes of originals that were so poorly implemented that you never even heard them. And plenty that you HAVE heard, and forgotten. Thank you. |
|
#82
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Sun, 09 Jan 2005 08:14:26 GMT, Boom wrote:
Madonna can sing when she wants. She's not totally without talent. I always thought her talents were more in the area of business and promotion than music. Al |
|
#83
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Sun, 09 Jan 2005 11:38:49 -0800, playon
wrote: On Sun, 09 Jan 2005 08:14:26 GMT, Boom wrote: Madonna can sing when she wants. She's not totally without talent. I always thought her talents were more in the area of business and promotion than music. They're probably stronger than her singing talents, but when she wants to, she can really sing well. |
|
#84
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Don Evans" wrote in a message
Yeah. Us over 40 people remember when GOOD bands played live and didn't do that lip sync crap - like on American Bandstand. ... OK... well, so they lip synced on Bandstand, but, so what? ... they COULD have played and sang live if they wanted! I don't understand why anyone cares. Back in those days, the bands didn't lip sync because they couldn't perform, it was because TV sound capabilities fairly well sucked for featured music. There was no time allotted to "get sounds", forget about monitors, and mixes were rudimentary and dry at best. Ed Sullivan and a few other higher budget shows weren't terrible, but most of the kid oriented shows had far less audio facilities than the average home studio these days. Bands WANTED to play live, and were embarrassed when they had to lip sync. So, Lip syncing isn't bad, as long as one does it under the proper circumstances and/or with the proper motivations? |
|
#85
|
|||
|
|||
|
"John P" wrote in message
... "Don Evans" wrote in a message Yeah. Us over 40 people remember when GOOD bands played live and didn't do that lip sync crap - like on American Bandstand. ... OK... well, so they lip synced on Bandstand, but, so what? ... they COULD have played and sang live if they wanted! I don't understand why anyone cares. Back in those days, the bands didn't lip sync because they couldn't perform, it was because TV sound capabilities fairly well sucked for featured music. There was no time allotted to "get sounds", forget about monitors, and mixes were rudimentary and dry at best. Ed Sullivan and a few other higher budget shows weren't terrible, but most of the kid oriented shows had far less audio facilities than the average home studio these days. Bands WANTED to play live, and were embarrassed when they had to lip sync. So, Lip syncing isn't bad, as long as one does it under the proper circumstances and/or with the proper motivations? I don't know if you could really say it was bad or good. It just sort of .. was. Your choice was sometimes that you could be seen on TV if you lip synced or not be seen at all. It certainly wasn't a source of pride, or anything, as I said before. I'd say that given a choice, most of the bands back then would not have done it. For better or worse, ;-) As a watcher, I always disliked it. Another peeve of mine was hearing "backing tracks", when the singer would really sing, but the band was prerecorded ... TV mixes. They're still used as well. Don |
|
#86
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Jack A. Zucker" wrote in I believe if you're over 40 you just can't understand this phenomenon. I am over the limit and I still remember the Monkee's not performing squat all on tour. They barely sang. I still like them...maybe even more now that I think they are/were pretty cool guys. Kids today just don't care. True for some. However there are plenty of kids around my neighborhood ( North Carolina) who love music performed by themselves or other real people. They also are alienated from the current *entertainment* industry that has produced too much of the fluff acts in recent years. Alienated...and bored by *musician's*. My opinion is that the entire Biz is weighted down with gross expectations to deliver revenue way beyond the abilities and means of the employee's and employer's. I hate to be the naysayer, but interesting musician's are far and few between. And for the most part people have appreciate songwriting and songs much more than the musicianship behind it. A lot of people can play their instruments; until recently this was a normal activity at home; and many home musicians are often equal or better players than the *professionals* out and about. So I think it is harder to get people interested in players, because many can play better than the ones the industry is touting. Of course there are many exceptions but I think the vast majority of music today is strictly about the show and PR. Maybe the tiny majority of CD's that sell a gazillion are, but the rest of biz is pretty real. Even Ashlee's *band* can rock the world pretty good. But I do agree with you about the Saturday Night piece...my first thought was a PR company arranged it, or they have excellent spin meisters on it. People are still bloging, emailing, and posting usenet responses about it. That kind of publicity is huge. |
|
#87
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Sun, 09 Jan 2005 12:05:57 -0800, DeserTBoB
wrote: On Sun, 09 Jan 2005 19:24:51 GMT, Boom wrote: Believe it or not, back in our day (you know, when the wheel was first invented), entertainment was still the big criteria just the same as it is today. And 11 year old girls liked bull**** music just as much as they do now. snip Yup...the Archies, the Monkees, etc etc etc. However, at least they could both really sing, even if it was the labels who provided just enough "musical education" for them to get by. In the Monkees, they could all sing before they ever got the parts, and Mike and Peter could play guitar, bass and some keyboards. Micky did learn how to play the drums for the part, and Davy learned how to play rudimentary bass and guitar though he never played it on TV. As for the Archies, that was all done with top studio musicians and a lead singer named Ron Dante who wrote a lot of commercials with Barry Manilow and ended up producing all his best stuff (if there is such a thing). I worked with Ron once and the guy is super talented...no coaching was necessary. He sang like 40 songs in 3 days for that show. Nobody choreographs being exposed as a fraud. snip LOL...ask Enrique Iglesias after Howard Stern got done with him! Enrique was the first to expose the practice of guide vocals to the public. What a no talent hack he is. |
|
#88
|
|||
|
|||
|
there are plenty of examples of songs that sound
completely different acoustic but yet are just as good as the original version. There are? I hate that whole acoustic unplugged thing. well thats your own personal problem. some bands tweak their songs live, add jams.. if you mean a total reworking i'd suggesting listening to tools pu**** from Ænema and then the slow, live version from salival. they're very different and as good as the original version is, the live version is even better. or radiohead - like spinning plates. I was talking more about bands rearranging their own stuff. and those are two examples, especially tool. here's another, pearl jam played a slow version of their song 'jeremy' live a few times, completely different, unfortunately they never released it. it wouldn't have pleased the masses but it was a great reworking of a song everyone had heard a million times. since you're probably not familiar with those songs, here's one you should know, eric clapton - layla. Hated it. The original arrangement is a million times better. no its just different, they're both great. whether you like it or not is irrelevant. if you don't like imagine that doesn't mean its a **** song. anyways, you asked for examples, i gave them, clearly you have some underlying obsession with living in a world where successfully re-arranging a song is not possible and you seem determined keep that reality intact so good luck and goodbye. |
|
#89
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Joe Sensor" wrote in message ... Holy **** is she bad!! http://www.ifilm.com/ifilmdetail/2662083?htv=12 I choose to believe she had no monitor, a horrific sinus infection, and was drunk. |
|
#90
|
|||
|
|||
|
"John P" wrote in message ... "Don Evans" wrote in a message Yeah. Us over 40 people remember when GOOD bands played live and didn't do that lip sync crap - like on American Bandstand. ... OK... well, so they lip synced on Bandstand, but, so what? ... they COULD have played and sang live if they wanted! I don't understand why anyone cares. Back in those days, the bands didn't lip sync because they couldn't perform, it was because TV sound capabilities fairly well sucked for featured music. There was no time allotted to "get sounds", forget about monitors, and mixes were rudimentary and dry at best. Ed Sullivan and a few other higher budget shows weren't terrible, but most of the kid oriented shows had far less audio facilities than the average home studio these days. Bands WANTED to play live, and were embarrassed when they had to lip sync. So, Lip syncing isn't bad, as long as one does it under the proper circumstances and/or with the proper motivations? I think as long as the audience knows what it is getting, it's ok. |
|
#91
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Boom" said LOL...ask Enrique Iglesias after Howard Stern got done with him! Enrique was the first to expose the practice of guide vocals to the public. What a no talent hack he is. What is a guide vocal? |
|
#92
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Tony Ennis" wrote in a message
I think as long as the audience knows what it is getting, it's ok. I always figured that the "Business" part of "The music business" had taken front stage long ago. Complaining about musical ability of someone in "the business", in my mind, doesn't make much sense in that regard. It's not about the music, it's about the money. |
|
#93
|
|||
|
|||
|
LOL...ask Enrique Iglesias after Howard Stern got done with him!
Enrique was the first to expose the practice of guide vocals to the public. What a no talent hack he is. What is a guide vocal? you sing over the pre-recorded vocal track. i saw a thing on tv once and they said that after howard 'exposed' enrique and said he couldn't sing. enrique went down to his studio and did a live on air performance and howard took everything back. i could be wrong though |
|
#94
|
|||
|
|||
|
some bands tweak their songs live, add jams.. if you mean a
total reworking i'd suggesting listening to tools pu**** from Ænema and then the slow, live version from salival. they're very different and as good as the original version is, the live version is even better. or radiohead - like spinning plates. I was talking more about bands rearranging their own stuff. and those are two examples, especially tool. Oh, I was thinking you were talking about the band Saliva doing a cover. Misread. Never mind. since you're probably not familiar with those songs, here's one you should know, eric clapton - layla. Hated it. The original arrangement is a million times better. no its just different, they're both great. whether you like it or not is irrelevant. if you don't like imagine that doesn't mean its a **** song. anyways, you asked for examples, i gave them, clearly you have some underlying obsession with living in a world where successfully re-arranging a song is not possible and you seem determined keep that reality intact so good luck and goodbye. And clearly you have some obsession with making people agree with you whether they want to or not so goodbye to you too. Douchebag. |
|
#96
|
|||
|
|||
|
Tom Adams (of Ricky Scaggs' group) came over to do a banjo track one day,
having driven down from PA to DC to pick up his daughter for the weekend. He spent exactly 9 minutes on the tune. 3 to listen, 3 to record, 3 to listen. I asked him if he wanted to do another take and his answer was "What for?". It's the track on the release. Wish I had even more of these guys available but making money playing music is so far to the rear of what qualified players are wanting to do these days that it doesn't make sense for them. Such is the loss to humanity. -- Roger W. Norman SirMusic Studio "Skip Elliott Bowman" wrote in message nk.net... "-MIKE-" wrote in message ... I remember seeing the Beatles in '64. Yeah, Bernard Purdie did a great job, that night. :-) Couple years ago, BP sat in with a band in which I played bass at the time--he was old friends with the bandleader. BP didn't know the tune or the arrangement or punches (a John Scofield song, slow-medium double-time feel--don't recall the title), so I cued him when they came up. Only needed to do it one time, then he had them. It was one of the most enjoyable times I have ever had performing. This 60-something year-old drummer was sweating like a newbie up there, which was encouraging--if he can sweat sitting in and still play his arse off, then I've no excuse to do otherwise. A total sweetheart of a guy, too. He hung out until they closed up for the night, chatting with anyone who wanted to meet him. What a pro. What a joy. I also saw him play with Madonna's band on SNL one show. She sang "Fever" and Madonna put him on a riser right behind her. Seeing him play with her (and kicking the band dead square in the arse while he was at it) gave me a whole new respect for both him and her. |
|
#97
|
|||
|
|||
|
Whitney Houston's Star Spangled Banner at a recent sporting event was
pre-recorded before the event, and lip-synced during the event. "Sean Dolan" wrote in message .. . Actually, most of the time, with some exceptions, the bands in this time period were lip-synching to pre-recorded live performances that were taped before the show. They didn't have the capability to go live with the sound, so they did the next best thing. -S On 1/9/05 3:22 PM, in article , "John P" wrote: "Don Evans" wrote in a message Yeah. Us over 40 people remember when GOOD bands played live and didn't do that lip sync crap - like on American Bandstand. ... OK... well, so they lip synced on Bandstand, but, so what? ... they COULD have played and sang live if they wanted! I don't understand why anyone cares. Back in those days, the bands didn't lip sync because they couldn't perform, it was because TV sound capabilities fairly well sucked for featured music. There was no time allotted to "get sounds", forget about monitors, and mixes were rudimentary and dry at best. Ed Sullivan and a few other higher budget shows weren't terrible, but most of the kid oriented shows had far less audio facilities than the average home studio these days. Bands WANTED to play live, and were embarrassed when they had to lip sync. So, Lip syncing isn't bad, as long as one does it under the proper circumstances and/or with the proper motivations? -- "Timpani! Take your drums to Brooklyn, play the same volume, you'll be fine." -Otto Werner Mueller on my "Piannissimo" entrance in a Juilliard Orchestra Rehearsal, C. 1997 Remove: Spamoff from email address to reply. |
|
#98
|
|||
|
|||
|
yeah, but she can't sing either... kidding! totally kidding!
Paul On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 03:01:58 GMT, "Tony Ennis" wrote: Whitney Houston's Star Spangled Banner at a recent sporting event was pre-recorded before the event, and lip-synced during the event. "Sean Dolan" wrote in message . .. Actually, most of the time, with some exceptions, the bands in this time period were lip-synching to pre-recorded live performances that were taped before the show. They didn't have the capability to go live with the sound, so they did the next best thing. -S On 1/9/05 3:22 PM, in article , "John P" wrote: "Don Evans" wrote in a message Yeah. Us over 40 people remember when GOOD bands played live and didn't do that lip sync crap - like on American Bandstand. ... OK... well, so they lip synced on Bandstand, but, so what? ... they COULD have played and sang live if they wanted! I don't understand why anyone cares. Back in those days, the bands didn't lip sync because they couldn't perform, it was because TV sound capabilities fairly well sucked for featured music. There was no time allotted to "get sounds", forget about monitors, and mixes were rudimentary and dry at best. Ed Sullivan and a few other higher budget shows weren't terrible, but most of the kid oriented shows had far less audio facilities than the average home studio these days. Bands WANTED to play live, and were embarrassed when they had to lip sync. So, Lip syncing isn't bad, as long as one does it under the proper circumstances and/or with the proper motivations? -- "Timpani! Take your drums to Brooklyn, play the same volume, you'll be fine." -Otto Werner Mueller on my "Piannissimo" entrance in a Juilliard Orchestra Rehearsal, C. 1997 Remove: Spamoff from email address to reply. |
|
#99
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Sun, 09 Jan 2005 20:05:06 GMT, Boom wrote:
On Sun, 09 Jan 2005 11:38:49 -0800, playon wrote: On Sun, 09 Jan 2005 08:14:26 GMT, Boom wrote: Madonna can sing when she wants. She's not totally without talent. I always thought her talents were more in the area of business and promotion than music. They're probably stronger than her singing talents, but when she wants to, she can really sing well. Guess I've never heard her really want to then... or maybe I just can't stand her style, whatever it is. Al |
|
#100
|
|||
|
|||
|
In article et, Skip
Elliott Bowman wrote: Get your own band, but then you'd better hope that the musicians you hire won't give you lip about what you want them to play. Hope is not in the equation if you're dealing with pros. RP -- Rev. Poindexter (masquerading as Scott Logsdon) - visit the Unofficial Sonor Virtual Museum --- www.sonormuseum.com ** - ** - ** - ** - ** Frank Zappa isn't dead, he just smells funny |
|
#101
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 00:55:17 -0500, "Rev. Poindexter"
wrote: In article et, Skip Elliott Bowman wrote: Get your own band, but then you'd better hope that the musicians you hire won't give you lip about what you want them to play. Hope is not in the equation if you're dealing with pros. True but not entirely true. Everyone has ideas and wants to get them across when they can, even the most professional hired guns. And depending on the situation, some of them can be quite vocal about it. The difference is that a pro knows when he's going into a situation where he ought to just shut up and do what they want. |
|
#102
|
|||
|
|||
|
Loose syncs lip ships
-- George Lawrence George's Drum Shop 2091 Front Street Cuyahoga Falls, Ohio 44221 website http://www.GeorgesDrumShop.com 330 940 DRUM (3786) toll free 866 970 0800 fax 330 940 3785 "If thine enemy wrong thee, buy each of his children a drum." -Chinese proverb "Don Evans" wrote in message ... "John P" wrote in message ... "Don Evans" wrote in a message Yeah. Us over 40 people remember when GOOD bands played live and didn't do that lip sync crap - like on American Bandstand. ... OK... well, so they lip synced on Bandstand, but, so what? ... they COULD have played and sang live if they wanted! I don't understand why anyone cares. Back in those days, the bands didn't lip sync because they couldn't perform, it was because TV sound capabilities fairly well sucked for featured music. There was no time allotted to "get sounds", forget about monitors, and mixes were rudimentary and dry at best. Ed Sullivan and a few other higher budget shows weren't terrible, but most of the kid oriented shows had far less audio facilities than the average home studio these days. Bands WANTED to play live, and were embarrassed when they had to lip sync. So, Lip syncing isn't bad, as long as one does it under the proper circumstances and/or with the proper motivations? I don't know if you could really say it was bad or good. It just sort of ... was. Your choice was sometimes that you could be seen on TV if you lip synced or not be seen at all. It certainly wasn't a source of pride, or anything, as I said before. I'd say that given a choice, most of the bands back then would not have done it. For better or worse, ;-) As a watcher, I always disliked it. Another peeve of mine was hearing "backing tracks", when the singer would really sing, but the band was prerecorded ... TV mixes. They're still used as well. Don |
|
#103
|
|||
|
|||
|
"George Lawrence" wrote
Loose syncs lip ships There's got to be a drummer joke in there, somewhere. brent |
|
#104
|
|||
|
|||
|
(Mike Rivers) writes:
In article writes: That's just my whole point...it's never as good as the original. I can't think of one song that any band rearranged and made it as good as the original. Never listened to jazz? Or is this discussion limited to re-creating the original arrangement of a studio-crafted pop song? Or even in rock, one might well argue that Joe Cocker's arrangement of "A Little Help From My Friends" managed to surpass The Beatles. |
|
#105
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Boom" wrote in message
... I can't think of one song that any band rearranged and made it as good as the original. I know it's sacrilege to even think about it, but hey: I think the arrangement and performance of Aretha Franklin's "Respect" in the film "Blues Brothers 2000" is an improvement on the original. Granted, they did use the same vocalist, but still  |
|
#106
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Boom" wrote in message
... On Sun, 09 Jan 2005 11:38:49 -0800, playon wrote: On Sun, 09 Jan 2005 08:14:26 GMT, Boom wrote: Madonna can sing when she wants. She's not totally without talent. I always thought her talents were more in the area of business and promotion than music. They're probably stronger than her singing talents, but when she wants to, she can really sing well. To be fair, there are only four notes in the melody of "Fever": A, C, D, and E. But she did just fine nonetheless. That song doesn't require operatic chops to perform, but you have to carry the emotions of the song, which she did. Same with Mariah Carey. I saw her on SNL; she performed with only a piano and 4 backup singers. Sang her arse off. I do miss her singing in altissimo, though. Bottom line: the less accompaniment a singer has, the more naked their voice is. Then you can tell if they have juice. |
|
#107
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Skip Elliott Bowman" wrote in message nk.net... Actually, I have to qualify my earlier answer: I played in a band opening for the Temps last summer, and the Temps horn section was contracted local players. The Temps were doing a lot of choreography (not youngsters, these guys) and the horn players weren't wearing headphones for click tracks, so they must have been singing live. Maybe it IS a generational, work-ethic thing. I agree that it's generational but I'm not sure I'd call it a work ethic. More like a strong desire to be real, to demonstrate the ability to pull the difficult stuff off in a live context. I think the Motown sound and the rapid improvement in studio production set sort of a precedent, and raised the bar for the listeners in terms of expecting a polished, sophisticated production. As we know, given enough studio time and expertise, almost anyone can be made to sound good. As a horn player in the late 60's and a bassist in the early 70's doing Chicago and BS&T covers, I remember that we really knocked ourselves out to prove we could pull this stuff off live without overdubs and such. Not so much as work ethic, but just to establish ourselves as capable and willing to work up a sweat. James Brown wasn't the only one who could get wet. |
|
#108
|
|||
|
|||
|
Blinded By The Light
Enuff said... -S On 1/10/05 11:12 AM, in article t, "Skip Elliott Bowman" wrote: "Boom" wrote in message ... I can't think of one song that any band rearranged and made it as good as the original. I know it's sacrilege to even think about it, but hey: I think the arrangement and performance of Aretha Franklin's "Respect" in the film "Blues Brothers 2000" is an improvement on the original. Granted, they did use the same vocalist, but still -- "Timpani! Take your drums to Brooklyn, play the same volume, you'll be fine." -Otto Werner Mueller on my "Piannissimo" entrance in a Juilliard Orchestra Rehearsal, C. 1997 Remove: Spamoff from email address to reply. |
|
#109
|
|||
|
|||
|
Absolutely!
Or even in rock, one might well argue that Joe Cocker's arrangement of "A Little Help From My Friends" managed to surpass The Beatles. -- "Timpani! Take your drums to Brooklyn, play the same volume, you'll be fine." -Otto Werner Mueller on my "Piannissimo" entrance in a Juilliard Orchestra Rehearsal, C. 1997 Remove: Spamoff from email address to reply. |
|
#110
|
|||
|
|||
|
wrote in message ... "Skip Elliott Bowman" wrote in message nk.net... Actually, I have to qualify my earlier answer: I played in a band opening for the Temps last summer, and the Temps horn section was contracted local players. The Temps were doing a lot of choreography (not youngsters, these guys) and the horn players weren't wearing headphones for click tracks, so they must have been singing live. Maybe it IS a generational, work-ethic thing. I agree that it's generational but I'm not sure I'd call it a work ethic. More like a strong desire to be real, to demonstrate the ability to pull the difficult stuff off in a live context. I think the Motown sound and the rapid improvement in studio production set sort of a precedent, and raised the bar for the listeners in terms of expecting a polished, sophisticated production. As we know, given enough studio time and expertise, almost anyone can be made to sound good. As a horn player in the late 60's and a bassist in the early 70's doing Chicago and BS&T covers, I remember that we really knocked ourselves out to prove we could pull this stuff off live without overdubs and such. Not so much as work ethic, but just to establish ourselves as capable and willing to work up a sweat. James Brown wasn't the only one who could get wet. So, in essence ... those that can do, sing and those that can't, sync? ;-) Don |
|
#111
|
|||
|
|||
|
"georgeh" wrote in message ... (Mike Rivers) writes: In article writes: That's just my whole point...it's never as good as the original. I can't think of one song that any band rearranged and made it as good as the original. Never listened to jazz? Or is this discussion limited to re-creating the original arrangement of a studio-crafted pop song? Or even in rock, one might well argue that Joe Cocker's arrangement of "A Little Help From My Friends" managed to surpass The Beatles. I think his version of "The Letter" also surpasses the original. Sam S. |
|
#112
|
|||
|
|||
|
georgeh wrote:
Or even in rock, one might well argue that Joe Cocker's arrangement of "A Little Help From My Friends" managed to surpass The Beatles. Have you heard Rany Newman's version of 'You Can Leave Your Hat On'? I assume that is the original version since Randy wrote it. Needless to say, Cocker's version rocks, Randy's does not. |
|
#113
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Joe Sensor" wrote in message ... georgeh wrote: Or even in rock, one might well argue that Joe Cocker's arrangement of "A Little Help From My Friends" managed to surpass The Beatles. Have you heard Rany Newman's version of 'You Can Leave Your Hat On'? I assume that is the original version since Randy wrote it. Needless to say, Cocker's version rocks, Randy's does not. To be frank, Cocker's version calls up other favorable images that would add to the pleasant memory of the song. Glenn D. |
|
#114
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 18:22:15 GMT, "Glenn Dowdy"
wrote: "Joe Sensor" wrote in message ... georgeh wrote: Or even in rock, one might well argue that Joe Cocker's arrangement of "A Little Help From My Friends" managed to surpass The Beatles. Have you heard Rany Newman's version of 'You Can Leave Your Hat On'? I assume that is the original version since Randy wrote it. Needless to say, Cocker's version rocks, Randy's does not. To be frank, Cocker's version calls up other favorable images that would add to the pleasant memory of the song. Glenn D. Like a bunch of stripper naked guys from The Full Monty? ;-) Paul |
|
#115
|
|||
|
|||
|
["Followup-To:" header set to rec.audio.pro.]
On 2005-01-10, Roger W. Norman wrote: He spent exactly 9 minutes on the tune. 3 to listen, 3 to record, 3 to listen. When Mozart was composing his Piano Concerto in D-min, he was on a very tight production schedule. The musicians were rehearsing parts as soon as the ink was dry enough to do it. The orchestral parts of the composition were completed just barely in time, on the same day as the performance, and the piano part, since it was to be played by Wolfgang himself, wasn't finished until afterwards. (Lucky for us he cared enough about his work to go ahead and put it down! -- actually, he didn't. The piece had something of an oral history, and it was Beethoven who wrote down his interpretation of the way the piece might have been played. We will never know, really). It has taken me 28 years to learn to even pretend to play this piece of music. The orchestra had minutes to learn it, and Mozart apparently just played it as it appeared in his head, before he'd even written it down fully. |
|
#116
|
|||
|
|||
|
Dear ScreamPuppy;
You mentioned, "the music press is saying" Now There's a Pool of inimitable Genius we've all come to rely upon. jmt(ape) howldog wrote: On Sun, 9 Jan 2005 12:08:58 -0500, "Jack A. Zucker" wrote: "Vin" wrote in message om... a. the tonight show isn't live b. the people who enjoy this kind of music don't care if its lip sync'ed. I believe if you're over 40 you just can't understand this phenomenon. Kids today just don't care. It's not music, it's a show and a show is choreographed and it doesn't matter if anyone is improvising, playing, etc. The only important value is whether it's entertaining. Its not just kids. Many adults that dont know anything about music, feel the same way. And here's a quote from some music critic: What you want is a final product that's fun," says Sasha Frere-Jones, music critic for The New Yorker. "Everybody uses guide tracks." so there you go. even the music press is saying lip styncing is legit because the final product is entertainment, a performance... not music. -- "and You know what can happen when you have too much fun"...... Rick Danko |
|
#117
|
|||
|
|||
|
james of tucson wrote:
["Followup-To:" header set to rec.audio.pro.] On 2005-01-10, Roger W. Norman wrote: He spent exactly 9 minutes on the tune. 3 to listen, 3 to record, 3 to listen. When Mozart was composing his Piano Concerto in D-min, he was on a very tight production schedule. The musicians were rehearsing parts as soon as the ink was dry enough to do it. The orchestral parts of the composition were completed just barely in time, on the same day as the performance, and the piano part, since it was to be played by Wolfgang himself, wasn't finished until afterwards. (Lucky for us he cared enough about his work to go ahead and put it down! -- actually, he didn't. The piece had something of an oral history, and it was Beethoven who wrote down his interpretation of the way the piece might have been played. We will never know, really). It has taken me 28 years to learn to even pretend to play this piece of music. The orchestra had minutes to learn it, and Mozart apparently just played it as it appeared in his head, before he'd even written it down fully. And even though Bernard Purdie was quite young at the time, word has it he layed down a smokin' groove on the percussion parts. -- Free bad advice available here. To reply, change the chemical designation to its common name. |
|
#118
|
|||
|
|||
|
"Frisco" wrote in message ... On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 18:22:15 GMT, "Glenn Dowdy" wrote: "Joe Sensor" wrote in message ... georgeh wrote: Or even in rock, one might well argue that Joe Cocker's arrangement of "A Little Help From My Friends" managed to surpass The Beatles. Have you heard Rany Newman's version of 'You Can Leave Your Hat On'? I assume that is the original version since Randy wrote it. Needless to say, Cocker's version rocks, Randy's does not. To be frank, Cocker's version calls up other favorable images that would add to the pleasant memory of the song. Glenn D. Like a bunch of stripper naked guys from The Full Monty? ;-) Well, I can't speak for _you_, Mr. Francisco, but I was thinking of "9 1/2 Weeks". Glenn D. |
|
#119
|
|||
|
|||
|
From: howldog
Date: 1/10/05 10:13 A.M. Eastern Standard Time Message-id: On 9 Jan 2005 10:41:08 -0500, (Mike Rivers) wrote: In article writes: i would do whatever it takes to make the song as perfect as possible and the thought of how i would reproduce it live would never enter my mind. Well like I said it's as valid an approach as any. Certainly it's a valid approach, but whether everyone, or anyone, else would think it's perfect as possible is another matter. If it's so perfect that it's boring and nobody buys it well, from your post about Allison Kraus, apparently your definition of "boring perfection" appeals to quite a lot of people. To me, perfect is pure talent or as close to perfect as one can get. Use of backing tracks in a live stage performance instead of a live singer would be less than perfect. True talent can work out situations and have his or her art down to a "T" and can run thru the material with only the band and themselves. Not to say that good sound and lighting etc. is not included for it is a part of the show. If a group does a studio recording with lots of over dubs and can't duplicate the same thing on stages live then you do one of two things, 1) change the song for the live show (i.e.Led Zeppelin show's where like this) or 2) bring in extra performers to fill the gap's. I mean why not? If you have room for 10 dancers on stage why can't you make room for a few more musician's/singer's? |
|
#120
|
|||
|
|||
|
On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 18:57:24 GMT, "Glenn Dowdy"
wrote: Have you heard Rany Newman's version of 'You Can Leave Your Hat On'? I assume that is the original version since Randy wrote it. Needless to say, Cocker's version rocks, Randy's does not. To be frank, Cocker's version calls up other favorable images that would add to the pleasant memory of the song. Glenn D. Like a bunch of stripper naked guys from The Full Monty? ;-) Well, I can't speak for _you_, Mr. Francisco, but I was thinking of "9 1/2 Weeks". Glenn D. heh heh... I just saw the movie again the other night with the wife. And even tho it's full of naked men, it's a hilarious movie. I like the song too, but unfortunately for me right now, 9-1/2 Weeks has been pushed out of the mental file-cabinet in favor of Irish man-butt. And for the sake of returning this thread back to an on-topic music discussion, I like Joe Cocker's verision better too. ;-) Paul |
Linear Mode
