Why so much reverb?

[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 here:http://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 here:http://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
...
>> 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

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Sun, 26 Jun 2011 11:34:12 -0400, Ty Ford >
wrote:

>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.
>

Skiffle is a genre. I am talking about a specific performance.

But you are right about skiffle, of course.It is right up there with
barber shop for plain unnecessaryness.

d

[Mr.Will]

"Don Pearce" > wrote in message
...
> 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
>

Didnt Paul Young actually destroy his throat? Like his technique was a
straining one to hit the notes and it ruined his voice? Are we talking the
English singer from the 80s? I sure I remember that

Mr.Will

[Mr.Will]

For those of you talking of jazz the answers are all HERE

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


Mr.Will

"Mr.Will" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Don Pearce" > wrote in message
> ...
>> 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
>>
>
> Didnt Paul Young actually destroy his throat? Like his technique was a
> straining one to hit the notes and it ruined his voice? Are we talking the
> English singer from the 80s? I sure I remember that
>
> Mr.Will
>
>

[Jenn[_2_]]

In article >,
"Mr.Will" > wrote:

> "Don Pearce" > wrote in message
> ...
> > 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
> >
>
> Didnt Paul Young actually destroy his throat? Like his technique was a
> straining one to hit the notes and it ruined his voice? Are we talking the
> English singer from the 80s? I sure I remember that
>
> Mr.Will

Yes, same guy. He recovered somewhat and kept performing after that.

--
www.jennifermartinmusic.com

[Bill Graham]

Sean Conolly wrote:
> "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

This even happens on occasion with classical music. There is a story of a
piece (I forget the name) where a flute player echo's a trumpet player, and
the trumpet screws up and plays a wrong note. A few seconds later, the flute
player playes the same bad note, believing that 99% of the audience won't
know the difference. - She was right.

[Mr.Will]

"Bill Graham" > wrote in message
...
> Sean Conolly wrote:
>> "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
>
> This even happens on occasion with classical music. There is a story of a
> piece (I forget the name) where a flute player echo's a trumpet player,
> and the trumpet screws up and plays a wrong note. A few seconds later, the
> flute player playes the same bad note, believing that 99% of the audience
> won't know the difference. - She was right.

For those of you talking of jazz the answers are all HERE

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


Mr.Will

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Mon, 27 Jun 2011 00:17:20 +0100, "Mr.Will"
> wrote:

>
>"Don Pearce" > wrote in message
...
>> 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
>>
>
>Didnt Paul Young actually destroy his throat? Like his technique was a
>straining one to hit the notes and it ruined his voice? Are we talking the
>English singer from the 80s? I sure I remember that
>
>Mr.Will
>
I seem to think that he has sung recently. His problem was his image -
very 80s.

d

[Tom McCreadie]

>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!"

A classical string quartet I knew would snobbily joke - when their
timing during rehearsals wasn't going tightly enough - "Aw, it's close
enough for jazz." And I've seen "close enough for jazz" used in a
business discussion context, as a metaphor for "'imperfect but
suffices".
--
Tom McCreadie

Tinnitus is a pain in the neck

[hank alrich]

MiNe 109 > wrote:

> 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

Well done, but it lacks any of the meat of Waylon's version.

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpqXcV9DYAc
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidri

[hank alrich]

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.

Yeah, but is this case it was a stylistic element consistent with the
genre at the time.

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpqXcV9DYAc
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidri

[hank alrich]

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

You don't get it. It really is that simple. That happens to be very good
Waylon Jennings, right there, pardner, and if'n it don't suit yer
eardrums you can hit the trail with your glass of sarsparilla.

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpqXcV9DYAc
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidri

[hank alrich]

Tom McCreadie > wrote:

> >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!"
>
> A classical string quartet I knew would snobbily joke - when their
> timing during rehearsals wasn't going tightly enough - "Aw, it's close
> enough for jazz." And I've seen "close enough for jazz" used in a
> business discussion context, as a metaphor for "'imperfect but
> suffices".

I figure those folks don't play jazz. <g>

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpqXcV9DYAc
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidri

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Sat, 2 Jul 2011 23:40:00 -0700, (hank alrich)
wrote:

>MiNe 109 > wrote:
>
>> 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
>
>Well done, but it lacks any of the meat of Waylon's version.

But did you see the mullet?

d

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Sat, 2 Jul 2011 23:40:02 -0700, (hank alrich)
wrote:

>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
>
>You don't get it. It really is that simple. That happens to be very good
>Waylon Jennings, right there, pardner, and if'n it don't suit yer
>eardrums you can hit the trail with your glass of sarsparilla.

Sorry, but simply no. I've heard Waylon Jennings sing well. This is
Waylon Jennings singing badly.

d

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

Don Pearce wrote:

> Sorry, but simply no. I've heard Waylon Jennings sing well. This is
> Waylon Jennings singing badly.

Yes, tense, strained throat, he doesn't/didn't always have that much of that
problem based on cheking one other you tube video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4sjCZRUe45I&feature=related

Perhaps sober on one and not quite as sober on the other ... no disrespect
intended or implied, a good strong ale can occasionally help a singer relax,
but also rapidly become a major problem. Also he aims for a couple of notes
at or beyond the higher end of his usable intonation range. Two Streaks of
Steel that you tube let follow it shows that he also could sing in a more
classical meaning of the word. Perhaps there is tuition between those two
recordings - or simply learning what not to try to do. Or perhaps he had a
bum day for some other reason.

The one linked to above is however technically interesting for other
reasons, it is a great example of why you should always have full frequency
range monitoring.

What I do NOT understand is the original reverb question answer in the
context of his vox here, that is as it should be. And the rest of it ...
well, it is the genre and the mix is for a mono am car radio, I think it
sounded durned nice at 3 watts of valveamp in a 6 by 9. The answer to "why
so much reverb" is that it is a mix made for mono that has been released in
three channel, left - center - right, stereo.

That is as much agreement as there is in the box for you Don, because what
matters is the heart, not just the perfection. Of course, if he is sitting
on a cloud - or in a steambox below - he could be agonizing that he didn't
say "sorry, let's try tomorrow". But that too is a dangerous path .... and
perhaps it is "tomorrows take" and the melody should have been somehow
adjusted to suit him better. There is no way of knowing unless the original
session staff is out there and chimes in.

> d

Kind regards

Peter Larsen

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Sun, 3 Jul 2011 09:45:10 +0100, "Peter Larsen"
> wrote:

>Don Pearce wrote:
>
>> Sorry, but simply no. I've heard Waylon Jennings sing well. This is
>> Waylon Jennings singing badly.
>
>Yes, tense, strained throat, he doesn't/didn't always have that much of that
>problem based on cheking one other you tube video:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4sjCZRUe45I&feature=related
>
>Perhaps sober on one and not quite as sober on the other ... no disrespect
>intended or implied, a good strong ale can occasionally help a singer relax,
>but also rapidly become a major problem. Also he aims for a couple of notes
>at or beyond the higher end of his usable intonation range. Two Streaks of
>Steel that you tube let follow it shows that he also could sing in a more
>classical meaning of the word. Perhaps there is tuition between those two
>recordings - or simply learning what not to try to do. Or perhaps he had a
>bum day for some other reason.
>
>The one linked to above is however technically interesting for other
>reasons, it is a great example of why you should always have full frequency
>range monitoring.
>
>What I do NOT understand is the original reverb question answer in the
>context of his vox here, that is as it should be. And the rest of it ...
>well, it is the genre and the mix is for a mono am car radio, I think it
>sounded durned nice at 3 watts of valveamp in a 6 by 9. The answer to "why
>so much reverb" is that it is a mix made for mono that has been released in
>three channel, left - center - right, stereo.
>
>That is as much agreement as there is in the box for you Don, because what
>matters is the heart, not just the perfection. Of course, if he is sitting
>on a cloud - or in a steambox below - he could be agonizing that he didn't
>say "sorry, let's try tomorrow". But that too is a dangerous path .... and
>perhaps it is "tomorrows take" and the melody should have been somehow
>adjusted to suit him better. There is no way of knowing unless the original
>session staff is out there and chimes in.
>
>> d
>
> Kind regards
>
> Peter Larsen
>
>

This is an interesting performance for other reasons. Leaving aside
the mix and panning, which are entirely dire, his singing is very
patchy. One moment he is hitting it nicely, the next his voice is
totally out of control.

But in the context of the original question about reverb, my original
answer still stands and I haven't heard anyone come up with a credible
rebuttal. The performance was poor and someone was trying to rescue it
the way they always do - pile on the reverb. That, of course, means
that someone out there agrees with me - and that someone was sat at
the mixing desk.

d

[MiNe 109]

In article >,
(Don Pearce) wrote:

> On Sat, 2 Jul 2011 23:40:02 -0700, (hank alrich)
> wrote:
>
> >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
> >
> >You don't get it. It really is that simple. That happens to be very good
> >Waylon Jennings, right there, pardner, and if'n it don't suit yer
> >eardrums you can hit the trail with your glass of sarsparilla.
>
> Sorry, but simply no. I've heard Waylon Jennings sing well. This is
> Waylon Jennings singing badly.

Except for a couple of phrases where he tightens up on higher notes,
it's pretty much how he always sings.

From my perspective, the Waylon shows a basically healthy voice
occasionally misused while the Paul Young is unhealthy despite being
consistently on pitch.

Stephen

[MiNe 109]

In article >,
(Don Pearce) wrote:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGAsQhWT0HM

> This is an interesting performance for other reasons. Leaving aside
> the mix and panning, which are entirely dire, his singing is very
> patchy. One moment he is hitting it nicely, the next his voice is
> totally out of control.
>
> But in the context of the original question about reverb, my original
> answer still stands and I haven't heard anyone come up with a credible
> rebuttal. The performance was poor and someone was trying to rescue it
> the way they always do - pile on the reverb. That, of course, means
> that someone out there agrees with me - and that someone was sat at
> the mixing desk.

Nonsense! Love of the Common People is the title track of an album, not
a "save.". The youtube link includes a second song with a similar style
of reverb. I'd guess the entire lp has the same.

The "out of control" singing is just a bit of stress vibrato on a couple
of notes.

It's been fun looking up this song on youtube; who knew there were so
many versions? Leonard Nimoy, Elton John, Stiff Little Fingers, etc.

Stephen

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Sun, 03 Jul 2011 07:05:31 -0500, MiNe 109
> wrote:

>In article >,
> (Don Pearce) wrote:
>
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGAsQhWT0HM
>
>> This is an interesting performance for other reasons. Leaving aside
>> the mix and panning, which are entirely dire, his singing is very
>> patchy. One moment he is hitting it nicely, the next his voice is
>> totally out of control.
>>
>> But in the context of the original question about reverb, my original
>> answer still stands and I haven't heard anyone come up with a credible
>> rebuttal. The performance was poor and someone was trying to rescue it
>> the way they always do - pile on the reverb. That, of course, means
>> that someone out there agrees with me - and that someone was sat at
>> the mixing desk.
>
>Nonsense! Love of the Common People is the title track of an album, not
>a "save.". The youtube link includes a second song with a similar style
>of reverb. I'd guess the entire lp has the same.
>
>The "out of control" singing is just a bit of stress vibrato on a couple
>of notes.
>
No, not vibrato - wobbling. There is a big difference. The one thing I
am learning rapidly from this whole exchange is that Mr. Jennings is
perhaps not the talent I believed him to be.

d

[John Williamson]

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?"
>
I finally got round to listening to this "video".

Which song are we talking about, the first one, "Livin....", or the
second one, "Two streaks...."

The first one sounds like a competent performance, recorded in the
fashion of the time, the latter almost sounds as if it's not the same
singer, or if it is the same singer, he's not having a good session....

Incodentally, there's a link to a live version of "Livin....." on the
Youtube page <Shudders>.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[MiNe 109]

In article >,
(Don Pearce) wrote:

> On Sun, 03 Jul 2011 07:05:31 -0500, MiNe 109
> > wrote:
>
> >In article >,
> > (Don Pearce) wrote:
> >
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGAsQhWT0HM
> >
> >> This is an interesting performance for other reasons. Leaving aside
> >> the mix and panning, which are entirely dire, his singing is very
> >> patchy. One moment he is hitting it nicely, the next his voice is
> >> totally out of control.
> >>
> >> But in the context of the original question about reverb, my original
> >> answer still stands and I haven't heard anyone come up with a credible
> >> rebuttal. The performance was poor and someone was trying to rescue it
> >> the way they always do - pile on the reverb. That, of course, means
> >> that someone out there agrees with me - and that someone was sat at
> >> the mixing desk.
> >
> >Nonsense! Love of the Common People is the title track of an album, not
> >a "save.". The youtube link includes a second song with a similar style
> >of reverb. I'd guess the entire lp has the same.
> >
> >The "out of control" singing is just a bit of stress vibrato on a couple
> >of notes.
> >
> No, not vibrato - wobbling. There is a big difference. The one thing I
> am learning rapidly from this whole exchange is that Mr. Jennings is
> perhaps not the talent I believed him to be.

Potato/potahto but we're talking about the same thing, I think. (A
wobble would be an uncontrolled change of pitch, not the bleating in
question.)

I'd agree his talent is in communicating, not vocal technique.

Stephen

[hank alrich]

Peter Larsen > wrote:

> Don Pearce wrote:
>
> > Sorry, but simply no. I've heard Waylon Jennings sing well. This is
> > Waylon Jennings singing badly.
>
> Yes, tense, strained throat, he doesn't/didn't always have that much of that
> problem based on cheking one other you tube video:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4sjCZRUe45I&feature=related
>
> Perhaps sober on one and not quite as sober on the other ... no disrespect
> intended or implied, a good strong ale can occasionally help a singer relax,
> but also rapidly become a major problem. Also he aims for a couple of notes
> at or beyond the higher end of his usable intonation range. Two Streaks of
> Steel that you tube let follow it shows that he also could sing in a more
> classical meaning of the word. Perhaps there is tuition between those two
> recordings - or simply learning what not to try to do. Or perhaps he had a
> bum day for some other reason.
>
> The one linked to above is however technically interesting for other
> reasons, it is a great example of why you should always have full frequency
> range monitoring.
>
> What I do NOT understand is the original reverb question answer in the
> context of his vox here, that is as it should be. And the rest of it ...
> well, it is the genre and the mix is for a mono am car radio, I think it
> sounded durned nice at 3 watts of valveamp in a 6 by 9. The answer to "why
> so much reverb" is that it is a mix made for mono that has been released in
> three channel, left - center - right, stereo.
>
> That is as much agreement as there is in the box for you Don, because what
> matters is the heart, not just the perfection. Of course, if he is sitting
> on a cloud - or in a steambox below - he could be agonizing that he didn't
> say "sorry, let's try tomorrow". But that too is a dangerous path .... and
> perhaps it is "tomorrows take" and the melody should have been somehow
> adjusted to suit him better. There is no way of knowing unless the original
> session staff is out there and chimes in.
>
> > d
>
> Kind regards
>
> Peter Larsen

Big picture shows that Waylon _connected with people_ singing that song
exactly that way. Beyond that there is no good or bad other than in
one's own taste.

We can fobber around over intonation and then we can realize that Chet
Atkins produced that track and if he had thought it wasn't up to snuff
we'd never have heard it.

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpqXcV9DYAc
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidri

[hank alrich]

Don Pearce > wrote:

> On Sun, 3 Jul 2011 09:45:10 +0100, "Peter Larsen"
> > wrote:
>
> >Don Pearce wrote:
> >
> >> Sorry, but simply no. I've heard Waylon Jennings sing well. This is
> >> Waylon Jennings singing badly.
> >
> >Yes, tense, strained throat, he doesn't/didn't always have that much of that
> >problem based on cheking one other you tube video:
> >
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4sjCZRUe45I&feature=related
> >
> >Perhaps sober on one and not quite as sober on the other ... no disrespect
> >intended or implied, a good strong ale can occasionally help a singer relax,
> >but also rapidly become a major problem. Also he aims for a couple of notes
> >at or beyond the higher end of his usable intonation range. Two Streaks of
> >Steel that you tube let follow it shows that he also could sing in a more
> >classical meaning of the word. Perhaps there is tuition between those two
> >recordings - or simply learning what not to try to do. Or perhaps he had a
> >bum day for some other reason.
> >
> >The one linked to above is however technically interesting for other
> >reasons, it is a great example of why you should always have full frequency
> >range monitoring.
> >
> >What I do NOT understand is the original reverb question answer in the
> >context of his vox here, that is as it should be. And the rest of it ...
> >well, it is the genre and the mix is for a mono am car radio, I think it
> >sounded durned nice at 3 watts of valveamp in a 6 by 9. The answer to "why
> >so much reverb" is that it is a mix made for mono that has been released in
> >three channel, left - center - right, stereo.
> >
> >That is as much agreement as there is in the box for you Don, because what
> >matters is the heart, not just the perfection. Of course, if he is sitting
> >on a cloud - or in a steambox below - he could be agonizing that he didn't
> >say "sorry, let's try tomorrow". But that too is a dangerous path .... and
> >perhaps it is "tomorrows take" and the melody should have been somehow
> >adjusted to suit him better. There is no way of knowing unless the original
> >session staff is out there and chimes in.
> >
> >> d
> >
> > Kind regards
> >
> > Peter Larsen
> >
> >
>
> This is an interesting performance for other reasons. Leaving aside
> the mix and panning, which are entirely dire, his singing is very
> patchy. One moment he is hitting it nicely, the next his voice is
> totally out of control.
>
> But in the context of the original question about reverb, my original
> answer still stands and I haven't heard anyone come up with a credible
> rebuttal. The performance was poor and someone was trying to rescue it
> the way they always do - pile on the reverb. That, of course, means
> that someone out there agrees with me - and that someone was sat at
> the mixing desk.
>
> d

You're still wrong. That much reverb was common at the time for that
genre. Plenty of great cuts by technically fabulous singers arrived
drenched in that same faux space. The music sounded huge over a car
radio and people bought it.

Nobody need be talking as if this use of reverb was strictly remedial.
It was elementary. They knew going in, before they'd heard a note, that
they'd mix it that way. They were doing it that way regularly and
enjoying considerable success.

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpqXcV9DYAc
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidri

[hank alrich]

MiNe 109 > wrote:

> In article >,
> (Don Pearce) wrote:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGAsQhWT0HM
>
> > This is an interesting performance for other reasons. Leaving aside
> > the mix and panning, which are entirely dire, his singing is very
> > patchy. One moment he is hitting it nicely, the next his voice is
> > totally out of control.
> >
> > But in the context of the original question about reverb, my original
> > answer still stands and I haven't heard anyone come up with a credible
> > rebuttal. The performance was poor and someone was trying to rescue it
> > the way they always do - pile on the reverb. That, of course, means
> > that someone out there agrees with me - and that someone was sat at
> > the mixing desk.
>
> Nonsense! Love of the Common People is the title track of an album, not
> a "save.". The youtube link includes a second song with a similar style
> of reverb. I'd guess the entire lp has the same.
>
> The "out of control" singing is just a bit of stress vibrato on a couple
> of notes.

Some of the power of Waylon's singing is that sense that the whole
process stands at a precipice. He was just like that live. It was almost
spooky good.

> It's been fun looking up this song on youtube; who knew there were so
> many versions? Leonard Nimoy, Elton John, Stiff Little Fingers, etc.
>
> Stephen


--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpqXcV9DYAc
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidri

[hank alrich]

Don Pearce > wrote:

> On Sun, 03 Jul 2011 07:05:31 -0500, MiNe 109
> > wrote:
>
> >In article >,
> > (Don Pearce) wrote:
> >
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGAsQhWT0HM
> >
> >> This is an interesting performance for other reasons. Leaving aside
> >> the mix and panning, which are entirely dire, his singing is very
> >> patchy. One moment he is hitting it nicely, the next his voice is
> >> totally out of control.
> >>
> >> But in the context of the original question about reverb, my original
> >> answer still stands and I haven't heard anyone come up with a credible
> >> rebuttal. The performance was poor and someone was trying to rescue it
> >> the way they always do - pile on the reverb. That, of course, means
> >> that someone out there agrees with me - and that someone was sat at
> >> the mixing desk.
> >
> >Nonsense! Love of the Common People is the title track of an album, not
> >a "save.". The youtube link includes a second song with a similar style
> >of reverb. I'd guess the entire lp has the same.
> >
> >The "out of control" singing is just a bit of stress vibrato on a couple
> >of notes.
> >
> No, not vibrato - wobbling. There is a big difference. The one thing I
> am learning rapidly from this whole exchange is that Mr. Jennings is
> perhaps not the talent I believed him to be.
>
> d

He was a greater talent than you understand. You are looking at a tree
and missing a forest.

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpqXcV9DYAc
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidri

[Don Pearce[_3_]]

On Sun, 3 Jul 2011 08:28:36 -0700, (hank alrich)
wrote:

>Don Pearce > wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 03 Jul 2011 07:05:31 -0500, MiNe 109
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >In article >,
>> > (Don Pearce) wrote:
>> >
>> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGAsQhWT0HM
>> >
>> >> This is an interesting performance for other reasons. Leaving aside
>> >> the mix and panning, which are entirely dire, his singing is very
>> >> patchy. One moment he is hitting it nicely, the next his voice is
>> >> totally out of control.
>> >>
>> >> But in the context of the original question about reverb, my original
>> >> answer still stands and I haven't heard anyone come up with a credible
>> >> rebuttal. The performance was poor and someone was trying to rescue it
>> >> the way they always do - pile on the reverb. That, of course, means
>> >> that someone out there agrees with me - and that someone was sat at
>> >> the mixing desk.
>> >
>> >Nonsense! Love of the Common People is the title track of an album, not
>> >a "save.". The youtube link includes a second song with a similar style
>> >of reverb. I'd guess the entire lp has the same.
>> >
>> >The "out of control" singing is just a bit of stress vibrato on a couple
>> >of notes.
>> >
>> No, not vibrato - wobbling. There is a big difference. The one thing I
>> am learning rapidly from this whole exchange is that Mr. Jennings is
>> perhaps not the talent I believed him to be.
>>
>> d
>
>He was a greater talent than you understand. You are looking at a tree
>and missing a forest.

Are you by any chance related to Edgar Wilson Nye? He once said
"Wagner's music is better than it sounds".

d

[hank alrich]

Don Pearce > wrote:

> On Sun, 3 Jul 2011 08:28:36 -0700, (hank alrich)
> wrote:
>
> >Don Pearce > wrote:
> >
> >> On Sun, 03 Jul 2011 07:05:31 -0500, MiNe 109
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >> >In article >,
> >> > (Don Pearce) wrote:
> >> >
> >> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGAsQhWT0HM
> >> >
> >> >> This is an interesting performance for other reasons. Leaving aside
> >> >> the mix and panning, which are entirely dire, his singing is very
> >> >> patchy. One moment he is hitting it nicely, the next his voice is
> >> >> totally out of control.
> >> >>
> >> >> But in the context of the original question about reverb, my original
> >> >> answer still stands and I haven't heard anyone come up with a credible
> >> >> rebuttal. The performance was poor and someone was trying to rescue it
> >> >> the way they always do - pile on the reverb. That, of course, means
> >> >> that someone out there agrees with me - and that someone was sat at
> >> >> the mixing desk.
> >> >
> >> >Nonsense! Love of the Common People is the title track of an album, not
> >> >a "save.". The youtube link includes a second song with a similar style
> >> >of reverb. I'd guess the entire lp has the same.
> >> >
> >> >The "out of control" singing is just a bit of stress vibrato on a couple
> >> >of notes.
> >> >
> >> No, not vibrato - wobbling. There is a big difference. The one thing I
> >> am learning rapidly from this whole exchange is that Mr. Jennings is
> >> perhaps not the talent I believed him to be.
> >>
> >> d
> >
> >He was a greater talent than you understand. You are looking at a tree
> >and missing a forest.
>
> Are you by any chance related to Edgar Wilson Nye? He once said
> "Wagner's music is better than it sounds".
>
> d

No, but I love that quote. Mind you, I disagree. <g>

I enjoyed seeing Waylon live a few times. The presentation was far more
powerful and effective than I had anticipated. And he sand just like
Waylon the whole time.

--
shut up and play your guitar * http://hankalrich.com/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpqXcV9DYAc
http://www.sonicbids.com/HankandShaidri

[Peter Larsen[_3_]]

hank alrich wrote:

> I enjoyed seeing Waylon live a few times. The presentation was far
> more powerful and effective than I had anticipated. And he sand just
> like Waylon the whole time.

Hank, perhaps you see him when you hear him. Also, on just the recording
this is about, the total performance is something else than just the singing
evaluated as just singing and whether it was smoothened by adding extreme
reverb. Which I still hold that it wasn't since the larger amounts of reverb
is on the other items.

Kind regards

Peter Larsen