[Les Cargill[_4_]]

Heard this on the radio coming home:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGAsQhWT0HM

It's drenched in reverb. Anybody know why this was?
It was common enough. Was it because people were buying
hi fi rigs for home, and reverb sounded more expensive?

Just a matter of "if some is good, more must be better?"

--
Les Cargill

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 18:31:50 -0700, Les Cargill
wrote:

Heard this on the radio coming home:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGAsQhWT0HM

It's drenched in reverb. Anybody know why this was?
It was common enough. Was it because people were buying
hi fi rigs for home, and reverb sounded more expensive?

Just a matter of "if some is good, more must be better?"

It is a common enough way to try and make a poor singer sound good.
This bloke can't sing a note - you should have tried the Paul Young.

d

[Scott Dorsey]

Les Cargill wrote:
Heard this on the radio coming home:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGAsQhWT0HM

It's drenched in reverb. Anybody know why this was?
It was common enough. Was it because people were buying
hi fi rigs for home, and reverb sounded more expensive?

Just a matter of "if some is good, more must be better?"

The first point is that the reverb isn't totally over the top, it just
seems that way because the arrangement is relatively sparse. Once the
piano comes in it's not as excessive.

The second point is that heavy use of reverb was typical for the genre
and era. I blame drug use.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[polymod]

"Les Cargill" wrote in message
...
Heard this on the radio coming home:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGAsQhWT0HM

It's drenched in reverb. Anybody know why this was?
It was common enough. Was it because people were buying
hi fi rigs for home, and reverb sounded more expensive?

Everyone was trying to keep pace with Connie Francis.

Poly

[philicorda[_9_]]

On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 18:31:50 -0700, Les Cargill wrote:

Heard this on the radio coming home:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGAsQhWT0HM

It's drenched in reverb. Anybody know why this was? It was common
enough. Was it because people were buying hi fi rigs for home, and
reverb sounded more expensive?

Just a matter of "if some is good, more must be better?"

It sounds like a 70's recording tracked with a dead acoustic. The drums
are damped too. So they added a lot of plate to get the sense of space
back. The plate is quite bright, and not as messy as a real acoustic
space, so it's audible on the radio without taking too much space in the
mix or headroom.

I don't mind the result personally. It doesn't sound too wet to me.

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article ,
philicorda wrote:

On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 18:31:50 -0700, Les Cargill wrote:

Heard this on the radio coming home:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGAsQhWT0HM

It's drenched in reverb. Anybody know why this was? It was common
enough. Was it because people were buying hi fi rigs for home, and
reverb sounded more expensive?

Just a matter of "if some is good, more must be better?"

It sounds like a 70's recording tracked with a dead acoustic. The drums
are damped too. So they added a lot of plate to get the sense of space
back. The plate is quite bright, and not as messy as a real acoustic
space, so it's audible on the radio without taking too much space in the
mix or headroom.

I don't mind the result personally. It doesn't sound too wet to me.

Produced by the great Chet Atkins.

--
www.jennifermartinmusic.com

[Arny Krueger]

"Les Cargill" wrote in message
...
Heard this on the radio coming home:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGAsQhWT0HM

It's drenched in reverb. Anybody know why this was?
It was common enough. Was it because people were buying
hi fi rigs for home, and reverb sounded more expensive?

Just a matter of "if some is good, more must be better?"

Lots of reverb covers up technical and artistic flaws in playing, singing
and production.

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Les Cargill" wrote in message
...
Heard this on the radio coming home:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGAsQhWT0HM

It's drenched in reverb. Anybody know why this was?
It was common enough. Was it because people were buying
hi fi rigs for home, and reverb sounded more expensive?

Just a matter of "if some is good, more must be better?"

Lots of reverb covers up technical and artistic flaws in playing, singing
and production.

I doubt that there were many flaws in this session.

--
www.jennifermartinmusic.com

[Bill Graham]

Scott Dorsey wrote:
Les Cargill wrote:
Heard this on the radio coming home:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGAsQhWT0HM

It's drenched in reverb. Anybody know why this was?
It was common enough. Was it because people were buying
hi fi rigs for home, and reverb sounded more expensive?

Just a matter of "if some is good, more must be better?"

The first point is that the reverb isn't totally over the top, it just
seems that way because the arrangement is relatively sparse. Once the
piano comes in it's not as excessive.

The second point is that heavy use of reverb was typical for the genre
and era. I blame drug use.
--scott

That explains the new music! - The teenagers have, "brain reverb".....:^)

[Bill Graham]

Les Cargill wrote:
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Les wrote in message
...
Heard this on the radio coming home:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGAsQhWT0HM

It's drenched in reverb. Anybody know why this was?
It was common enough. Was it because people were buying
hi fi rigs for home, and reverb sounded more expensive?

Just a matter of "if some is good, more must be better?"

Lots of reverb covers up technical and artistic flaws in playing,
singing and production.




I don't hear a lot of bad anything performancewise. And it's just
typical of the times.

Unless you are playing, "progressive Jazz", in which case anything you do is
OK. (especially if you can do it again on the way back down...:^)

[RD Jones]

On Jun 23, 8:31*pm, Les Cargill wrote:
Heard this on the radio coming home:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGAsQhWT0HM

It's drenched in reverb. Anybody know why this was?
It was common enough. Was it because people were buying
hi fi rigs for home, and reverb sounded more expensive?

Just a matter of "if some is good, more must be better?"

--
Les Cargill

Produced by Chet Atkins and undoubtedly recorded at Studio B.
Atkins was known to be fond of 'ambience', even practicing his guitar
in the bathroom.

RedDog

[RD Jones]

On Jun 24, 7:29*am, (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

The first point is that the reverb isn't totally over the top, it just
seems that way because the arrangement is relatively sparse. *Once the
piano comes in it's not as excessive.

Agreed.

The second point is that heavy use of reverb was typical for the genre
and era. *I blame drug use.

Typical of "The Nashville Sound",* no idea about the drugs, although
doubtful.

"RedDog Steve" Pompura
RedDog Thermionics
Nashville, TN

* I'm a blues rocker and don't claim to know anything about country
music,
I've only been here 23 years and still learning.

[RD Jones]

On Jun 24, 12:14*pm, philicorda wrote:
On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 18:31:50 -0700, Les Cargill wrote:
Heard this on the radio coming home:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGAsQhWT0HM

It's drenched in reverb. Anybody know why this was? It was common
enough. Was it because people were buying hi fi rigs for home, and
reverb sounded more expensive?

Just a matter of "if some is good, more must be better?"

It sounds like a 70's recording tracked with a dead acoustic. The drums
are damped too. So they added a lot of plate to get the sense of space
back. The plate is quite bright, and not as messy as a real acoustic
space, so it's audible on the radio without taking too much space in the
mix or headroom.

I don't mind the result personally. It doesn't sound too wet to me.

I don't think it's a plate, Studio B has it's own dedicated chamber.

rd

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Fri, 24 Jun 2011 16:01:22 -0700, Les Cargill
wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:
On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 18:31:50 -0700, Les Cargill
wrote:

Heard this on the radio coming home:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGAsQhWT0HM

It's drenched in reverb. Anybody know why this was?
It was common enough. Was it because people were buying
hi fi rigs for home, and reverb sounded more expensive?

Just a matter of "if some is good, more must be better?"

It is a common enough way to try and make a poor singer sound good.
This bloke can't sing a note - you should have tried the Paul Young.

d

So Don Pearce says "Waylon Jennings can't sing a note."

I make my judgment by listening to the singing, not the reputation.

Heh. Paul who?

Paul Young - very fine singer. Can actually hit the right notes.

d

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Fri, 24 Jun 2011 11:03:47 -0700, Jenn
wrote:

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Les Cargill" wrote in message
...
Heard this on the radio coming home:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGAsQhWT0HM

It's drenched in reverb. Anybody know why this was?
It was common enough. Was it because people were buying
hi fi rigs for home, and reverb sounded more expensive?

Just a matter of "if some is good, more must be better?"

Lots of reverb covers up technical and artistic flaws in playing, singing
and production.

I doubt that there were many flaws in this session.

If you listen, you will hear that the singing is of a very poor
standard.

d

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article ,
(Don Pearce) wrote:

On Fri, 24 Jun 2011 11:03:47 -0700, Jenn
wrote:

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Les Cargill" wrote in message
...
Heard this on the radio coming home:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGAsQhWT0HM

It's drenched in reverb. Anybody know why this was?
It was common enough. Was it because people were buying
hi fi rigs for home, and reverb sounded more expensive?

Just a matter of "if some is good, more must be better?"

Lots of reverb covers up technical and artistic flaws in playing, singing
and production.

I doubt that there were many flaws in this session.

If you listen, you will hear that the singing is of a very poor
standard.

d

I listened. It expressive country western singing vintage something
like 1967-69. You can't compare the two styles.

--
www.jennifermartinmusic.com

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

Don Pearce wrote:
On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 18:31:50 -0700, Les Cargill
wrote:

Heard this on the radio coming home:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGAsQhWT0HM

It's drenched in reverb. Anybody know why this was?
It was common enough. Was it because people were buying
hi fi rigs for home, and reverb sounded more expensive?

Just a matter of "if some is good, more must be better?"

It is a common enough way to try and make a poor singer sound good.
This bloke can't sing a note - you should have tried the Paul Young.

d

So Don Pearce says "Waylon Jennings can't sing a note."

Heh. Paul who?

--
Les Cargill

[philicorda[_9_]]

On Fri, 24 Jun 2011 14:50:38 -0700, RD Jones wrote:


I don't mind the result personally. It doesn't sound too wet to me.

I don't think it's a plate, Studio B has it's own dedicated chamber.

I think it had EMT140 plates too. The engineer and mixer, Bill Porter,
who worked with Chet Atkins, preferred the plates apparently. I don't
know if Bill engineered this particular song.

I learnt that from hehttp://www.scottymoore.net/studio_b.html

'Instead of the built in second floor echo chamber Bill preferred to use
a German-made EMT 140 echo plate. It was paramount to his sound. "We
kept the plates chilled," he explained. "The air conditioning was very
chilly up in that room. The cold air contracts the metal and the sound
[of the plate] is a little brighter."'

Does it sound like a chamber on the vocal to you? It's kind of hard to
tell on Youtube, so it could be either I guess. There seems to be quite a
big reverb with a little predelay on the vocal send, but the drum reverb
seems shorter and brighter. Perhaps it's a combination of both.


rd

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

Jenn wrote:
In ,
wrote:

On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 18:31:50 -0700, Les Cargill wrote:

Heard this on the radio coming home:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGAsQhWT0HM

It's drenched in reverb. Anybody know why this was? It was common
enough. Was it because people were buying hi fi rigs for home, and
reverb sounded more expensive?

Just a matter of "if some is good, more must be better?"

It sounds like a 70's recording tracked with a dead acoustic. The drums
are damped too. So they added a lot of plate to get the sense of space
back. The plate is quite bright, and not as messy as a real acoustic
space, so it's audible on the radio without taking too much space in the
mix or headroom.

I don't mind the result personally. It doesn't sound too wet to me.

Produced by the great Chet Atkins.



"Chet, bro - I think you got a little too much Columbia Parking Garage
on there... "

--
Les Cargill

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Les wrote in message
...
Heard this on the radio coming home:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGAsQhWT0HM

It's drenched in reverb. Anybody know why this was?
It was common enough. Was it because people were buying
hi fi rigs for home, and reverb sounded more expensive?

Just a matter of "if some is good, more must be better?"

Lots of reverb covers up technical and artistic flaws in playing, singing
and production.




I don't hear a lot of bad anything performancewise. And it's just
typical of the times.

--
Les Cargill

[[email protected]]

BIll Graham writes:

Unless you are playing, "progressive Jazz", in which case anything
you do is OK. (especially if you can do it again on the way back
down...:^)

rotflmao!!!

What's the difference between KEnny G and an Uzi?

An uzi can only repeat 600 times before it has to stop.




Richard webb,

replace anything before at with elspider
ON site audio in the southland: see www.gatasound.com

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

Don Pearce wrote:
On Fri, 24 Jun 2011 16:01:22 -0700, Les Cargill
wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:
On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 18:31:50 -0700, Les Cargill
wrote:

Heard this on the radio coming home:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGAsQhWT0HM

It's drenched in reverb. Anybody know why this was?
It was common enough. Was it because people were buying
hi fi rigs for home, and reverb sounded more expensive?

Just a matter of "if some is good, more must be better?"

It is a common enough way to try and make a poor singer sound good.
This bloke can't sing a note - you should have tried the Paul Young.

d

So Don Pearce says "Waylon Jennings can't sing a note."

I make my judgment by listening to the singing, not the reputation.


He's an American country singer of *significant* repute. It's
a different ... paradigm. He was inducted into the Hall of Fame in
2001.

Literally, those guys may use an alternate temperament system,
some well beyond just "blue" notes, Just or other known systems.
it may not be done in a laboratory sense, but it's used to
effect all the same.


Heh. Paul who?

Paul Young - very fine singer. Can actually hit the right notes.


Then we don't need musicians at all. An FM synth on a '90s Soundblaster
card was five nines worth of perfect intonation.

And there are no "right" notes. Just appropriate ones. Your position is
one of intolerance. And it is exactly why I stopped studying
music academically. It's the moral equivalent of claiming a
bumblebee cannot fly because it's not aerodynamic.


I refute it thusly:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waylon_Jennings

d

--
Les Cargill

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

philicorda wrote:
On Fri, 24 Jun 2011 14:50:38 -0700, RD Jones wrote:


I don't mind the result personally. It doesn't sound too wet to me.

I don't think it's a plate, Studio B has it's own dedicated chamber.

I think it had EMT140 plates too. The engineer and mixer, Bill Porter,
who worked with Chet Atkins, preferred the plates apparently. I don't
know if Bill engineered this particular song.

I learnt that from hehttp://www.scottymoore.net/studio_b.html

'Instead of the built in second floor echo chamber Bill preferred to use
a German-made EMT 140 echo plate. It was paramount to his sound. "We
kept the plates chilled," he explained. "The air conditioning was very
chilly up in that room. The cold air contracts the metal and the sound
[of the plate] is a little brighter."'

Does it sound like a chamber on the vocal to you?

Yeah, it does. If it's a plate, it's a weird sounding plate. There's
no plate sibilance, no "zzing" to it. Suppose they could LPF the
return.

It's kind of hard to
tell on Youtube, so it could be either I guess. There seems to be quite a
big reverb with a little predelay on the vocal send, but the drum reverb
seems shorter and brighter. Perhaps it's a combination of both.


rd


--
Les Cargill

[Bill Graham]

wrote:
BIll Graham writes:

Unless you are playing, "progressive Jazz", in which case anything
you do is OK. (especially if you can do it again on the way back
down...:^)

rotflmao!!!

What's the difference between KEnny G and an Uzi?

An uzi can only repeat 600 times before it has to stop.

Many years ago I used to date this lady who liked to go to the clubs in SF
on Broadway and listen to that stuff. Once, I said to her, "You know, if we
waited outside while they played the first 16 bars, and then left after ten
minutes and went outside while they played the last 16 bars, we wouldn't be
able to tell one song fron another." - Needless to say, she didn't go with
me very long....:^)

[Arny Krueger]

"Jenn" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Les Cargill" wrote in message
...
Heard this on the radio coming home:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGAsQhWT0HM

It's drenched in reverb. Anybody know why this was?
It was common enough. Was it because people were buying
hi fi rigs for home, and reverb sounded more expensive?

Just a matter of "if some is good, more must be better?"

Lots of reverb covers up technical and artistic flaws in playing, singing
and production.

I doubt that there were many flaws in this session.

I didn't listen to the recording - I was just saying that sometimes people
add reverb because it does cover up.

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Jenn" wrote in message
..
.
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Les Cargill" wrote in message
...
Heard this on the radio coming home:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGAsQhWT0HM

It's drenched in reverb. Anybody know why this was?
It was common enough. Was it because people were buying
hi fi rigs for home, and reverb sounded more expensive?

Just a matter of "if some is good, more must be better?"

Lots of reverb covers up technical and artistic flaws in playing, singing
and production.

I doubt that there were many flaws in this session.

I didn't listen to the recording - I was just saying that sometimes people
add reverb because it does cover up.

Yeah.

--
www.jennifermartinmusic.com

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Fri, 24 Jun 2011 18:55:16 -0700, Les Cargill
wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:
On Fri, 24 Jun 2011 16:01:22 -0700, Les Cargill
wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:
On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 18:31:50 -0700, Les Cargill
wrote:

Heard this on the radio coming home:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGAsQhWT0HM

It's drenched in reverb. Anybody know why this was?
It was common enough. Was it because people were buying
hi fi rigs for home, and reverb sounded more expensive?

Just a matter of "if some is good, more must be better?"

It is a common enough way to try and make a poor singer sound good.
This bloke can't sing a note - you should have tried the Paul Young.

d

So Don Pearce says "Waylon Jennings can't sing a note."

I make my judgment by listening to the singing, not the reputation.


He's an American country singer of *significant* repute. It's
a different ... paradigm. He was inducted into the Hall of Fame in
2001.

Literally, those guys may use an alternate temperament system,
some well beyond just "blue" notes, Just or other known systems.
it may not be done in a laboratory sense, but it's used to
effect all the same.


Heh. Paul who?

Paul Young - very fine singer. Can actually hit the right notes.


Then we don't need musicians at all. An FM synth on a '90s Soundblaster
card was five nines worth of perfect intonation.

And there are no "right" notes. Just appropriate ones. Your position is
one of intolerance. And it is exactly why I stopped studying
music academically. It's the moral equivalent of claiming a
bumblebee cannot fly because it's not aerodynamic.


I refute it thusly:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waylon_Jennings

d

Of course you are wrong. And you attempt at a reputation by an appeal
to authority. Not only that but the authority is stuff written by
fans? Please, that won't do at all.

And I know the difference between blue notes and lousy pitch.

d

[RD Jones]

"Jenn" wrote in message
I doubt that there were many flaws in this session.

On Jun 24, 10:35 pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
I didn't listen to the recording - I was just saying that sometimes people
add reverb because it does cover up.

In this case part of a very well established, and quite successful,
production technique.

rd

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Sat, 25 Jun 2011 12:32:59 -0700, Les Cargill
wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:
On Fri, 24 Jun 2011 18:55:16 -0700, Les Cargill
wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:
On Fri, 24 Jun 2011 16:01:22 -0700, Les Cargill
wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:
On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 18:31:50 -0700, Les Cargill
wrote:

Heard this on the radio coming home:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGAsQhWT0HM

It's drenched in reverb. Anybody know why this was?
It was common enough. Was it because people were buying
hi fi rigs for home, and reverb sounded more expensive?

Just a matter of "if some is good, more must be better?"

It is a common enough way to try and make a poor singer sound good.
This bloke can't sing a note - you should have tried the Paul Young.

d

So Don Pearce says "Waylon Jennings can't sing a note."

I make my judgment by listening to the singing, not the reputation.


He's an American country singer of *significant* repute. It's
a different ... paradigm. He was inducted into the Hall of Fame in
2001.

Literally, those guys may use an alternate temperament system,
some well beyond just "blue" notes, Just or other known systems.
it may not be done in a laboratory sense, but it's used to
effect all the same.


Heh. Paul who?

Paul Young - very fine singer. Can actually hit the right notes.


Then we don't need musicians at all. An FM synth on a '90s Soundblaster
card was five nines worth of perfect intonation.

And there are no "right" notes. Just appropriate ones. Your position is
one of intolerance. And it is exactly why I stopped studying
music academically. It's the moral equivalent of claiming a
bumblebee cannot fly because it's not aerodynamic.


I refute it thusly:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waylon_Jennings

d

Of course you are wrong. And you attempt at a reputation by an appeal
to authority. Not only that but the authority is stuff written by
fans? Please, that won't do at all.


I don't mean that to be an appeal to authority - just background.

I have to assume you're unfamiliar with American country. By
the lights of that ... industry, he's one of the most
prominent. It *is* a weird business. Being a form of popular
music, it depends heavily on popularity.

If anything, it's argument ad populum, but it's not clear what
other standard ( other than a tuner ) can be used.


Yes, I'm very familiar with American country. I'm well aware that 99%
of it is glitzy hokum, as far removed from its country roots as
possible. I'm also well aware of Waylon Jennings and his work - and
indeed I like a lot of it. But this performance was a dud. As I said,
he barely hit a single note, and the huge reverb was clearly an
attempt to rescue something from it.

And that the precise standard I used in judging it was simply musical
quality. No amount of public adulation is of the slightest relevance.

d

[Sean Conolly]

"Jenn" wrote in message
...
In article ,
(Don Pearce) wrote:

On Fri, 24 Jun 2011 11:03:47 -0700, Jenn
wrote:

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

Lots of reverb covers up technical and artistic flaws in playing,
singing
and production.

I doubt that there were many flaws in this session.

If you listen, you will hear that the singing is of a very poor
standard.

d

I listened. It expressive country western singing vintage something
like 1967-69. You can't compare the two styles.

Agreed 100%. The singing may be flawed compared to other styles, but the
point is that it's actually quite good for that style at that time. They
were using the reverb purely as an effect, and not as a cheap cover.

Once every PA head included reverb everyone decided that it had to be used,
until it was pretty much accepted as part of the style. Much like auto-tune
is in pop music today.

Sean

[Les Cargill[_4_]]

Don Pearce wrote:
On Fri, 24 Jun 2011 18:55:16 -0700, Les Cargill
wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:
On Fri, 24 Jun 2011 16:01:22 -0700, Les Cargill
wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:
On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 18:31:50 -0700, Les Cargill
wrote:

Heard this on the radio coming home:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGAsQhWT0HM

It's drenched in reverb. Anybody know why this was?
It was common enough. Was it because people were buying
hi fi rigs for home, and reverb sounded more expensive?

Just a matter of "if some is good, more must be better?"

It is a common enough way to try and make a poor singer sound good.
This bloke can't sing a note - you should have tried the Paul Young.

d

So Don Pearce says "Waylon Jennings can't sing a note."

I make my judgment by listening to the singing, not the reputation.


He's an American country singer of *significant* repute. It's
a different ... paradigm. He was inducted into the Hall of Fame in
2001.

Literally, those guys may use an alternate temperament system,
some well beyond just "blue" notes, Just or other known systems.
it may not be done in a laboratory sense, but it's used to
effect all the same.


Heh. Paul who?

Paul Young - very fine singer. Can actually hit the right notes.


Then we don't need musicians at all. An FM synth on a '90s Soundblaster
card was five nines worth of perfect intonation.

And there are no "right" notes. Just appropriate ones. Your position is
one of intolerance. And it is exactly why I stopped studying
music academically. It's the moral equivalent of claiming a
bumblebee cannot fly because it's not aerodynamic.


I refute it thusly:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waylon_Jennings

d

Of course you are wrong. And you attempt at a reputation by an appeal
to authority. Not only that but the authority is stuff written by
fans? Please, that won't do at all.


I don't mean that to be an appeal to authority - just background.

I have to assume you're unfamiliar with American country. By
the lights of that ... industry, he's one of the most
prominent. It *is* a weird business. Being a form of popular
music, it depends heavily on popularity.

If anything, it's argument ad populum, but it's not clear what
other standard ( other than a tuner ) can be used.

And I know the difference between blue notes and lousy pitch.

d

--
Les Cargill

[Sean Conolly]

"Bill Graham" wrote in message
...
Les Cargill wrote:
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Les wrote in message
...
Heard this on the radio coming home:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGAsQhWT0HM

It's drenched in reverb. Anybody know why this was?
It was common enough. Was it because people were buying
hi fi rigs for home, and reverb sounded more expensive?

Just a matter of "if some is good, more must be better?"

Lots of reverb covers up technical and artistic flaws in playing,
singing and production.




I don't hear a lot of bad anything performancewise. And it's just
typical of the times.

Unless you are playing, "progressive Jazz", in which case anything you do
is OK. (especially if you can do it again on the way back down...:^)

I learned a long time ago - if you make a mistake while playing jazz, you
just repeat it the next time through the form :-)

Sean

[Sean Conolly]

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 25 Jun 2011 12:32:59 -0700, Les Cargill
wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:
On Fri, 24 Jun 2011 18:55:16 -0700, Les Cargill
wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:
On Fri, 24 Jun 2011 16:01:22 -0700, Les Cargill
wrote:

Don Pearce wrote:
On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 18:31:50 -0700, Les Cargill
wrote:

Heard this on the radio coming home:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGAsQhWT0HM

It's drenched in reverb. Anybody know why this was?
It was common enough. Was it because people were buying
hi fi rigs for home, and reverb sounded more expensive?

Just a matter of "if some is good, more must be better?"

It is a common enough way to try and make a poor singer sound good.
This bloke can't sing a note - you should have tried the Paul Young.

d

So Don Pearce says "Waylon Jennings can't sing a note."

I make my judgment by listening to the singing, not the reputation.


He's an American country singer of *significant* repute. It's
a different ... paradigm. He was inducted into the Hall of Fame in
2001.

Literally, those guys may use an alternate temperament system,
some well beyond just "blue" notes, Just or other known systems.
it may not be done in a laboratory sense, but it's used to
effect all the same.


Heh. Paul who?

Paul Young - very fine singer. Can actually hit the right notes.


Then we don't need musicians at all. An FM synth on a '90s Soundblaster
card was five nines worth of perfect intonation.

And there are no "right" notes. Just appropriate ones. Your position is
one of intolerance. And it is exactly why I stopped studying
music academically. It's the moral equivalent of claiming a
bumblebee cannot fly because it's not aerodynamic.


I refute it thusly:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waylon_Jennings

d

Of course you are wrong. And you attempt at a reputation by an appeal
to authority. Not only that but the authority is stuff written by
fans? Please, that won't do at all.


I don't mean that to be an appeal to authority - just background.

I have to assume you're unfamiliar with American country. By
the lights of that ... industry, he's one of the most
prominent. It *is* a weird business. Being a form of popular
music, it depends heavily on popularity.

If anything, it's argument ad populum, but it's not clear what
other standard ( other than a tuner ) can be used.


Yes, I'm very familiar with American country. I'm well aware that 99%
of it is glitzy hokum, as far removed from its country roots as
possible. I'm also well aware of Waylon Jennings and his work - and
indeed I like a lot of it. But this performance was a dud. As I said,
he barely hit a single note, and the huge reverb was clearly an
attempt to rescue something from it.

And that the precise standard I used in judging it was simply musical
quality. No amount of public adulation is of the slightest relevance.

Jeez, I'd hate to hear what you think of Johnny Cash!

Like all popular music, it's all about connecting with audience. Who in this
case are used to listening to bands in roadhouses across the country. Having
played many hundreds of said roadhouses and ********s over my career, I can
assure you that Waylon is Golden in that context. It may not be the Met, but
it's great from behind the chickenwire.

Sean

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Sun, 26 Jun 2011 04:24:09 -0400, "Sean Conolly"
wrote:

I have to assume you're unfamiliar with American country. By
the lights of that ... industry, he's one of the most
prominent. It *is* a weird business. Being a form of popular
music, it depends heavily on popularity.

If anything, it's argument ad populum, but it's not clear what
other standard ( other than a tuner ) can be used.


Yes, I'm very familiar with American country. I'm well aware that 99%
of it is glitzy hokum, as far removed from its country roots as
possible. I'm also well aware of Waylon Jennings and his work - and
indeed I like a lot of it. But this performance was a dud. As I said,
he barely hit a single note, and the huge reverb was clearly an
attempt to rescue something from it.

And that the precise standard I used in judging it was simply musical
quality. No amount of public adulation is of the slightest relevance.

Jeez, I'd hate to hear what you think of Johnny Cash!


Johnny Cash? He was brilliant. Shame, though about the duet he did
with Dylan in his latter years. That was crigingly awful.

Like all popular music, it's all about connecting with audience. Who in this
case are used to listening to bands in roadhouses across the country. Having
played many hundreds of said roadhouses and ********s over my career, I can
assure you that Waylon is Golden in that context. It may not be the Met, but
it's great from behind the chickenwire.

Sean


Everyone keeps talking about him in the general sense. You will get no
argument from me. My comments refer to this specific performance, and
the amount of reverb slapped on it to disguise the fact that it is
just plain crap.

d

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Sun, 26 Jun 2011 04:16:45 -0400, "Sean Conolly"
wrote:

"Bill Graham" wrote in message
m...
Les Cargill wrote:
Arny Krueger wrote:
"Les wrote in message
...
Heard this on the radio coming home:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGAsQhWT0HM

It's drenched in reverb. Anybody know why this was?
It was common enough. Was it because people were buying
hi fi rigs for home, and reverb sounded more expensive?

Just a matter of "if some is good, more must be better?"

Lots of reverb covers up technical and artistic flaws in playing,
singing and production.




I don't hear a lot of bad anything performancewise. And it's just
typical of the times.

Unless you are playing, "progressive Jazz", in which case anything you do
is OK. (especially if you can do it again on the way back down...:^)

I learned a long time ago - if you make a mistake while playing jazz, you
just repeat it the next time through the form :-)

Sean

Jack Bruce is the master of this cock-up rescue technique.
Unfortunately once you are wise to it, it no longer works.

d

[MiNe 109]

In article ,
(Don Pearce) wrote:

Everyone keeps talking about him in the general sense. You will get no
argument from me. My comments refer to this specific performance, and
the amount of reverb slapped on it to disguise the fact that it is
just plain crap.

FYI, here's the Paul Young cover:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SVmjKHkgxis

Stephen

[Ty Ford]

On Sun, 26 Jun 2011 05:16:35 -0400, Don Pearce wrote
(in article ):
Like all popular music, it's all about connecting with audience. Who in
this
case are used to listening to bands in roadhouses across the country.
Having
played many hundreds of said roadhouses and ********s over my career, I can
assure you that Waylon is Golden in that context. It may not be the Met,
but
it's great from behind the chickenwire.

Sean


Everyone keeps talking about him in the general sense. You will get no
argument from me. My comments refer to this specific performance, and
the amount of reverb slapped on it to disguise the fact that it is
just plain crap.

d

Sort of like skiffle.

Regards,

Ty Ford

--Audio Equipment Reviews Audio Production Services
Acting and Voiceover Demos http://www.tyford.com
Guitar player?:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWaPRHMGhGA

[david gourley[_2_]]

Ty Ford put forth the notion
ividual.NET:

On Sun, 26 Jun 2011 05:16:35 -0400, Don Pearce wrote
(in article ):
Like all popular music, it's all about connecting with audience. Who in
this
case are used to listening to bands in roadhouses across the country.
Having
played many hundreds of said roadhouses and ********s over my career, I
can
assure you that Waylon is Golden in that context. It may not be the
Met,
but
it's great from behind the chickenwire.

Sean


Everyone keeps talking about him in the general sense. You will get no
argument from me. My comments refer to this specific performance, and
the amount of reverb slapped on it to disguise the fact that it is
just plain crap.

d

Sort of like skiffle.

Regards,

Ty Ford


+1

david

[Phil W[_3_]]

Sean Conolly:

I learned a long time ago - if you make a mistake while playing jazz, you
just repeat it the next time through the form :-)

So, what´s a mistake in playing jazz? Hitting a right sounding note by
accident? :-D

Back in my youth days, I used to know a band, whose members had the running
gag "That wasn´t a mistake! It was a jazz note!"

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article , "Phil W"
wrote:

Sean Conolly:

I learned a long time ago - if you make a mistake while playing jazz, you
just repeat it the next time through the form :-)

So, what´s a mistake in playing jazz? Hitting a right sounding note by
accident? :-D

Wow...I couldn't disagree more. But, different strokes and all.
By the way, I'm not a huge jazz fan.

--
www.jennifermartinmusic.com