|
Post by jazznoise on Dec 10, 2015 17:31:07 GMT -6
Not to look for rage, but were Led Zeppelin not the over confident show boaters of their time? Is their glammy, highly visual, double necked guitars and thrashed hotel room persona that far removed from the swagalicious rap game of the 2010 era? I don't think so. John Lennon didn't either - he was apparently totally unimpressed seeing them live with his son. I like both at its best, get bored of it at its worst. I don't feel any need to defend old music - VH1 documentaries, Rolling Stone and the general Legacy Act culture of modern music shows does it for me. They actually really need to retire and give the new kids a chance.
The age of quantization didn't mean music lost its grove - it just got looped, so people got lazy so it generally stopped being interesting. For every Nine Inch Nails that sounded cool when they did it, there was bands like 30 Seconds to Mars or Good Charlotte who just sounded bland and forced. The tech wasn't to blame as much as people just used it in dumb, boring ways. I feel a lot of these people coming our are session musicians trying to make new revenue from what are now flailing careers.
Still, it does annoy me to see bands doing records and not even going for full takes, just getting good enough versions of each section to move on. Very much the :"Oh I can loop a beat, there goes having to learn the song and maybe making up some interesting parts and fills as I play it in 100 variations over the next month." idea taken to its worst. Why even record music if you put that little interest into making it?
|
|
|
Post by mobeach on Dec 10, 2015 17:53:28 GMT -6
Not to look for rage, but were Led Zeppelin not the over confident show boaters of their time? Is their glammy, highly visual, double necked guitars and thrashed hotel room persona that far removed from the swagalicious rap game of the 2010 era? I don't think so. John Lennon didn't either - he was apparently totally unimpressed seeing them live with his son. Page did way too many drugs and was sloppy in live performances because of it. he tends to have a raw, unfiltered tone even in the studio.
|
|
|
Post by jazznoise on Dec 10, 2015 17:57:12 GMT -6
I think it sounds great. Could be louder to compete or what have you but I just turned my amp up. It's also on the dark side but everything sounds open. Kind of has an Albini production vibe. Pretty refreshing sonics, as a matter of fact. I think it's funny when people chime in like that. And you're like, uh, I wasn't asking for creative direction I was just showing you what I did. Sorry for the double post, didn't see your quote Monkey. Thanks for the kind words! Thanks for the Albini note, it's kind of what I was going for. Big open room mics, very little compression. It ain't loud but, yeah, as you noted that's not really what we were going for. I'm not much for mastering, just added a little limiting afterwards with a dB or 2 taken off the loudest hits.
|
|
|
Post by formatcyes on Dec 10, 2015 18:07:38 GMT -6
Maybe in the past a lot of bands used session musicians "just getting good enough versions of each section to move on" no reason to learn it properly just give it to session muso. I don't think there is much difference to cutting and pasting excluding the cost which is the real issue. 1970 the world population was around 3.5 billion now 7 billion with the lower cost of instruments many more people are playing music now = better muso's at the top kind of like any field you want to name. The problem is so much noise with the worst also "publishing" their work.. The real issue is the lack of money to hold the super talented together long enough for them to produce something really special. With very little money in the system the bands have to be conservative with their productions make's me a little
|
|
|
Post by M57 on Dec 10, 2015 18:10:35 GMT -6
How would Babe Ruth fair against today's pitchers? I'm gonna make a wild guess and suggest he didn't spend hours in the weight-room, or in batting cages, or have the luxury of having his swing analyzed by computers in order to tweak his mechanics. Oh yeah, and he wasn't up against sabermetircs, knuckleballers, and defenses that would play his tendencies with computer aided precision. If the answer to the question is that he wouldn't do as well, does that make hime a lesser player? It's probably not the best analogy but consider that yesterday's pioneering musicians didn't have machine gun steady chops because there wasn't the need for them. I'm suggesting that there's a natural progression here. Consider for instance how the swagger and creativity of Hendricks informed and led to the technical and innovative academic-like achievements of Vai. The definition of musicianship is a moving target here. While I might buy into the sentiment that there was a "Golden Age," I don't for one second believe that yesterday's musicians were any better or worse than today's.
Hmm.. It just occurred to me that yesterday's musicians and today's baseball players were 'chemically enhanced' more than today's musicians and yesterday's ball players.
|
|
|
Post by Bob Olhsson on Dec 10, 2015 18:25:34 GMT -6
Yesterday's musicians were on stage almost every night from the time they were 16 and were often earning a living without needing "day jobs." Today's musicians have just as much talent but not nearly as much performing experience and a huge proportion of today's most talented high school kids simply can't afford a music career.
|
|
|
Post by Guitar on Dec 10, 2015 18:35:57 GMT -6
This is just some stupid word playing but did you notice "Hendrix" rhymes with "Kendrick"? Speaking of breakthrough talents in the '60s vs. the '10s.
|
|
|
Post by M57 on Dec 10, 2015 18:48:01 GMT -6
Yesterday's musicians were on stage almost every night from the time they were 16 and were often earning a living without needing "day jobs." Today's musicians have just as much talent but not nearly as much performing experience and a huge proportion of today's most talented high school kids simply can't afford a music career. I don't know that this is the case for the top tier musicians. Those who are identified early in their lives get just as much opportunity to perform as players in the past. In fact, I could even argue the opposite; yesterday's singer songwriters could make a living writing tunes for others and barely have to set foot on the stage. Kenny Loggins, Paul Simon, Laura Nyro, for instance. From what I gleen reading these forums and others, the opposite is true - there's no money in writing and recording songs today. Moreover, the ONLY money to be made today is from playing out. I'm not going to actually make that argument ..but respectfully, I'm not buying yours either.
|
|
|
Post by Bob Olhsson on Dec 10, 2015 18:59:05 GMT -6
Unfortunately the paying live gigs for young "unknowns" no longer exist. The way people really get good has always been on stage.
|
|
|
Post by jazznoise on Dec 10, 2015 19:04:44 GMT -6
I also never spotted that Hendrick's is a Gin of the same name but different spelling.
I think top tier musicians, as a concept, is a problem. Top tier is a brand a set of artists create, not an inherently real thing. I could sleep through a U2 concert, a U2 fan would walk out on any of my favourite bands. We all recognize the subjectivity but still insist of concepts of quality - the reason they feel abstract is because they're largely fabrications of social influences rather than musical ones.
The reason Hip Hop, Blues, Punk and others came about is because musicians had to make music with what they had. This idea that we need a Hozier or 2 to blow up big time so we can lock an artist in Abbey Road with an Orchestra is nuts. What we need is a larger portion of the 8 billion contributing to our culture, rather than any cultural presence being the prize of the elite.
|
|
|
Post by tonycamphd on Dec 10, 2015 19:35:05 GMT -6
Yesterday's musicians were on stage almost every night from the time they were 16 and were often earning a living without needing "day jobs." Today's musicians have just as much talent but not nearly as much performing experience and a huge proportion of today's most talented high school kids simply can't afford a music career. I don't know that this is the case for the top tier musicians. Those who are identified early in their lives get just as much opportunity to perform as players in the past. In fact, I could even argue the opposite; yesterday's singer songwriters could make a living writing tunes for others and barely have to set foot on the stage. Kenny Loggins, Paul Simon, Laura Nyro, for instance. From what I gleen reading these forums and others, the opposite is true - there's no money in writing and recording songs today. Moreover, the ONLY money to be made today is from playing out. I'm not going to actually make that argument ..but respectfully, I'm not buying yours either. Jeez bro, judging from my entire experience it seems you're just way off, there never was a solid living in music for most, now it's a farce for all but a few, and even that will be a modest living at best for all but the luckiest, Bob's spot on, he's consciously lived through the entire era from the inside, recording some of the best musicians the world has ever seen, in case you were unaware, Bob was an original AE gansta at Motown records.
|
|
|
Post by tonycamphd on Dec 10, 2015 19:43:38 GMT -6
I also never spotted that Hendrick's is a Gin of the same name but different spelling. I think top tier musicians, as a concept, is a problem. Top tier is a brand a set of artists create, not an inherently real thing. I could sleep through a U2 concert, a U2 fan would walk out on any of my favourite bands. We all recognize the subjectivity but still insist of concepts of quality - the reason they feel abstract is because they're largely fabrications of social influences rather than musical ones. The reason Hip Hop, Blues, Punk and others came about is because musicians had to make music with what they had. This idea that we need a Hozier or 2 to blow up big time so we can lock an artist in Abbey Road with an Orchestra is nuts. What we need is a larger portion of the 8 billion contributing to our culture, rather than any cultural presence being the prize of the elite. The problem is everyone who thinks they're special has the ability to clutter up the ethos with there garbage, back in the day, there was a limited amount of media outlets, you had to have something that was special, or stood out to people in the position to help you along, or bring it to the light of day, now the focus is so wide you can barely see your nose for your face haha. Music has objectively devolved IMV, if you just based that on "hey musician, play this", in most cases today that would be a fail, competency matters.
|
|
|
Post by porkyman on Dec 10, 2015 20:03:01 GMT -6
i think theres just too much music out there it gets watered down. it just seems like they were all great back in the day because the bad ones got filtered out. time has thinned the herd even more so were only hearing the greatest of the greats. the 1%-ers.... now the bottom 2%-ers can plaster their music all over the internet the 1%-ers get lost in the shuffle. but theyre still out there.
the reality is todays 1% are better than theyve ever been. its just the evolution of things. someones always taking it to the next level and then the previous level becomes the norm. look at Dragonforce. theyre doing everything Maiden was doing back in the day only in fast forward.
another quit rant i need to get off my chest.
Jimmy Page is the worst guitar player in the history of rock n roll. he tried to right stuff that he couldnt even play. and the stuff he couldnt even play isnt even difficult by todays standards.
check these guys out. they are insane musicians too.
|
|
|
Post by M57 on Dec 10, 2015 20:07:25 GMT -6
I don't know that this is the case for the top tier musicians. Those who are identified early in their lives get just as much opportunity to perform as players in the past. In fact, I could even argue the opposite; yesterday's singer songwriters could make a living writing tunes for others and barely have to set foot on the stage. Kenny Loggins, Paul Simon, Laura Nyro, for instance. From what I gleen reading these forums and others, the opposite is true - there's no money in writing and recording songs today. Moreover, the ONLY money to be made today is from playing out. I'm not going to actually make that argument ..but respectfully, I'm not buying yours either. Jeez bro, judging from my entire experience it seems you're just way off, there never was a solid living in music for most, now it's a farce for all but a few, and even that will be a modest living at best for all but the luckiest, Bob's spot on, he's consciously lived through the entire era from the inside, recording some of the best musicians the world has ever seen, in case you were unaware, Bob was an original AE gansta at Motown records. Yes, I'm aware Bob has a recording pedigree. That's why I said 'respectfully.' I'm just still not convinced. I think there are many many young players out there who manage to become fabulous musicians without a lot of performing experience. I picked Steve Vai for a reason in my post. I knew him when he was at Berklee. My recollection is that he was not gigging at all - he was practicing for hours on end, reading reading reading.. Eventually, while still at Berkee he started playing out in a band with a good friend of mine. Now I can't speak for how much stage experience he already had when he was 18, but whenever I saw him in clubs, he was amazing - and not just an amazing guitarist, but an amazing performer ..right out of the blocks. I doubt there are any extant videos of his performances with that band, but if there were, you would see that his signature sound, look, and stage personality were well developed, if not defined by the time he was 19 -- and all with minimal 'performing' experience. When I say top-tier, I mean top-tier. The state of the industry has no chance of stifling the output of truly gifted artists. But then, my opinion is worth very little (pun intended). I could care less about accessibility and the pop machine.
|
|
|
Post by porkyman on Dec 10, 2015 20:42:05 GMT -6
another thin to consider about this younger generation is they have absolutely nothing better to do. they have less than zero responsibilities. some of them dont get their first jobs till theyre 22. if they ever get jobs at all. all they do all day is try to one up each other on youtube... and they get really, really good in the process.
|
|
|
Post by Bob Olhsson on Dec 10, 2015 22:40:01 GMT -6
Prior to moving to California in 1972 I never saw non-union musicians playing in Detroit clubs.
|
|
|
Post by Bob Olhsson on Dec 11, 2015 9:15:38 GMT -6
Let me add that I'm unaware of any top singer songwriters from the '60s and '70s who didn't spend years on stage prior to becoming famous or placing songs with other performers. (It's something I've often asked people I was working with about.) I worked with electronic music artists for 20 years. The ones who made records that sold were the ones having stage experience even though they couldn't perform many of their recordings live.
|
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 14,816
Member is Online
|
Post by ericn on Dec 11, 2015 9:36:49 GMT -6
Let me add that I'm unaware of any top singer songwriters from the '60s and '70s who didn't spend years on stage prior to becoming famous or placing songs with other performers. (It's something I've often asked people I was working with about.) I worked with electronic music artists for 20 years. The ones who made records that sold were the ones having stage experience even though they couldn't perform many of their recordings live. All too true! I have often referenced this in regard to trying new material in front of an audience! Now more and more of the writing is done in a vacume !
|
|
|
Post by Guitar on Dec 11, 2015 9:42:35 GMT -6
Fortunately, or unfortunately, people with otherworldly talent are real, and really do stand out against your average house-dude, internet-guy or bar-gal trying to get attention from the local bottom crawlers. We are even lucky enough to have people like that on this forum.
This is easy to overlook on the internet or even on some recordings, but when you're in the same room with someone like that, it's very easy to notice, in fact hard not to notice. You're fooling yourself if you think what Jimmy Page did was easy or commonplace.
I agree with Bob O that developing even that sort of talent takes a lot of time and practice. Also even people with modest abilities can refine their talents to the point of legitimacy through sweat and tears and repetition. I have seen that happen too. A musician is a present tense incarnation of a lifetime's worth of development, obviously those with more practice have an advantage.
Speaking for myself I no longer really have the desire to play shows and compete with the most guttural trash in order to make no money and few valuable connections in the local hot spots. It's just not a conducive experience compared to what it was even ten years ago. But I also have the benefit of having fought through those sorts of gigs for most of my 20's with varying amounts of success and failure.
Also speaking for myself being on stage has been some of the most valuable and immediate feedback I've ever gotten on my own songwriting and performing ability. You don't get that sort of knowledge sliding .WAVs around on an edit window alone in your basement.
My own personal resolve though is to still work as hard as I can as an artist, however privately, and share music with the people closest to me. At least for now I'd love to play with some real talented people again. It's just gotten harder and the payoff has become even less. The struggle is real, LOL.
|
|
|
Post by jazznoise on Dec 11, 2015 9:51:49 GMT -6
The problem is everyone who thinks they're special has the ability to clutter up the ethos with there garbage, back in the day, there was a limited amount of media outlets, you had to have something that was special, or stood out to people in the position to help you along, or bring it to the light of day, now the focus is so wide you can barely see your nose for your face haha. Music has objectively devolved IMV, if you just based that on "hey musician, play this", in most cases today that would be a fail, competency matters. Yeah but there's also the problem that journalists clutter up the media with artists they think are special but are actually garbage because they have the right elements from a purely superficial view. I don't disagree or agree with the opinion that music has devolved - but if it has it's directly accountable to the mainstream music marketing and publishing industry. If the artists signed to Disney or Warner or whatever are waking up and eating a stone cold bowl of shit for breakfast every morning, I wish they'd take a picture so I could put it on my wall. There's plenty of competent musicians. I know lots of guys who play bad music, but they can all play other people's stuff reasonably fine. It's not about ability, it's actually about them developing a real artistic personality and not just saying "Hey, pop reggae is unobjectionable, let's do that."
|
|
|
Post by jcoutu1 on Dec 11, 2015 9:56:36 GMT -6
There are plenty of very talented musicians out there today. Over the years, I've noticed that a lot of the gospel players are really top notch. When I was at Berklee, they had a couple gospel ensembles and you had to be a top, top tier player to even think about auditioning. We also have some gospel players that come through Chan's (playing with blues acts) and you can always pick them out because of how tight they play. Deepest pockets of all. We also have some cats coming through that just "have it". They get on stage and the music just pours out.
|
|
|
Post by EmRR on Dec 11, 2015 10:05:11 GMT -6
Oh yeah, I did some amount of 2nd engineering on gospel remotes for awhile, scary levels of talent usually present.
|
|
|
Post by Bob Olhsson on Dec 11, 2015 10:15:08 GMT -6
Scary levels of experience!
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Dec 11, 2015 10:20:25 GMT -6
Although I guess not considered "young" anymore, every time I get a disparaging view of the musicianship available today I take a 12 minute look at this and come back reenergized and loving music again, with hope for the younger guys coming up....
As for the Gospel musicians - all I can say is YEAH!! After being involved in several Andrae Crouch records and being exposed to black gospel's creme de la creme, there is zero doubt that there is HUGE talent there. Both vocally and musicianship wise.
|
|
ericn
Temp
Balance Engineer
Posts: 14,816
Member is Online
|
Post by ericn on Dec 11, 2015 10:27:01 GMT -6
Scary levels of experience! A very talented choral director once told me " the thing about choral singers is first they have to learn to sing as part of the group before they can solo."
|
|