I've come to the conclusion that a studio sound is only found in ... a studio

  • Thread starter Thread starter tikitariki
  • Start date Start date
You know that old saying about "you only make a first impression once"?

Like if you do a government job interview and you reek reefer?

That's what the intro of a song is - it's your first impression. If that sucks then what happens after won't fly.

There's so many songs with great intros like Purple Haze and Honky Tonk Women... I'm somewhat of an intro fanatic.
 
Nirvana was super influential - corrected the bad path music was on with that "We Built This City" crap.


Led Zep was the most influential band so far that I know of.

I agree that Nirvana influenced a lot of bands that followed and put an end to the big-hair and spandex Rock...but I wouldn't go so far to say that everything that followed them was necessarily much better...it was just different, and quite frankly, the Nirvana mold that a lot of bands used became as boring at times as the big-hair and spandex Rock.


100% on Led Zep! :cool:
I come back to Zep time and time again when I want to hear some good Rock...though I'm not really "stuck in the 60s" or anything like that.
 
You obviously care enough to make a couple stupid rants about it.

Yes, "former": Actually I got out of the business because my mother got cancer and my father got Alzheimer's disease. I spent fifteen years of solid, unremitting hell dealing with that. Music didn't seem that important.

Go ahead, genius, make some jokes about that. :rolleyes:
If you think I'm gonna make jokes about it then you're an idiot. I am sorry about your parents. I know how it feels, and appreciate the hell you've been through.

However that does not excuse your bitter and "I am better than you, moron, twerp, blowhard" attitude.

The truth is, in my younger days, I HAVE practiced the piano for 4-8 hours every day, I have won many classical piano competitions, I have played live on KUSC radio here in Los Angeles, and yes, in the classical circles, I was "the one to watch" when it came to classical piano performance.

However, I didn't go further. As to the reasons, well, I had my reasons, but unlike you, I'm not gonna go and share my sappy story in hopes of getting some sympathy. Sure, I was depressed for a while, but got over it and made the best of what life offered me. Now I have a great career, that allows me to make a good living and support my family.

Go ahead and call me a loser if you want or a "moron", "blowhard"... whatever. Those comments say a lot more about you than they do about me ;)

Concerning your post after this one, where you are describing the "perfect radio-worthy song"... Well....

ATTENTION BOYS AND GIRLS!!!
If your intention is to be able to top the radio charts, have millions of people listen to your music, then you will do best to listen to this man's advice
.

So, yeah, what you say definitely is valid and I am not going to argue with that.

However, my disagreement with you, and many others (and not necessarily those on this board) is this whole attitude that "good music is the one that most people listen to", or sells. In other words, the one that has commercial success. There is a lot of good music that has absolutely no commercial value. There are entire genres that probably have a following of probably 10,000 on the entire earth. However, that doesn't stop some of this music or the artists that create them being great at what they do.

If all music was designed to make sure that it grabs the listener in 15 seconds or less, then we would be missing out on some great stuff. Again, there is music out there, great music, that is not going to appeal to the masses, and I am fine with that. So are many other people.

And yeah, you can call me a snob, and you will be right. I am a fuckin snob, and have an innate disdain for the masses. In fact I am appalled by the masses on a daily basis. Here's an example why:
Yesterday I was watching CNN, and they being the non-news agency, public shock and awe, get ratings bullshit that they are, they figured it was a news-worthy story to share that Senator McCain's daughter was being called a "slut" by some idiots on Twitter, because she took a picture of a book that she was reading. She was holding the book in her hand, and inadvertently took a picture of her (rather nice) cleavage showing through her tank-tops that she was wearing in her home, to be comfy... So, just because she wears tank-tops and shows a bit of a cleavage makes her a slut in the eye of the public (i.e. the masses), then yeah I really don't have much of an opinion of the overall intelligence level of the masses.

If that makes me a snob, then fine. In fact, I am proud of it!

Personally, I favor the type of music that requires active listening, rewards patience on the listener's part, requires them to be in a certain mindset before hitting that "play" button. 90% of this kind of music has absolutely no commercial value and will never reach silver, much less gold or platinum. However, if all you care about is the stuff that will make you wanna shake your booty, or make you wanna go "whoa" in the first 15 seconds, then you are missing out on a lot of great stuff out there.

I have mentioned a while ago that one of my favorites is Fennez. His music is an interesting mix of "Musique Concrete", noise and experimental electronica. Many of his stuff consists of slowly evolving soundscapes, and are probably best listened to while you are alone, laying down on the floor, in the dark, with your eyes shut, and allowing yourself to be completely immersed in his world. It will reward you in ways that no Celine Dion album will do (and yes, I like some of her stuff, go ahead and laugh).

So, yes I enjoy listening to the stuff that the masses don't listen to, and have never even heard of, and at the same time I cringe at most of the stuff that's on radio or TV.

I am a music snob AND proud of it.

I am going to go ahead and set myself up for a lot of criticism and likely to ridicule by people like you by presenting Dispair (Water Torture). This is one of my tracks that I most certainly like, which has absolutely NO commercial value, exactly because it does the opposite of what you recommend for commercially viable recordings. However, I am proud of it because it accomplishes it's objectives, putting the listener in a scene where he/she feels like she's undergoing chinese water torture, sounds dellirous and if it puts you in a coma for about 3 minutes, even better, is a sound-design tour-de-force, is quite creative and unique and if you don't suffer from ADD, it rewards you with a nice surprise at the very end to snap you out of the coma that you are likely to be in by the end.

It is purposely designed to make the listener feel uneasy, and even irritated.

So, yeah... there is no commercial value there, it doesn't grab you from the first 15 seconds, it doesn't make you "feel good", doesn't put a smile on your face... on the contrary. In fact 90% of the population is gonna hate it. However, there are a number of lunatics such as myself that love to both create and listen to this kind of stuff, and we spend money to purchase music of this sort, and spend hours listening to it.

And before you go on and say "well you like it because you created it, so it must be good to your ears", I'll say that there is a ton of stuff on my hard drives that I would never ever let anyone else listen to, because they are utter shit, and the only reason I keep them around is because there are times, when I go and grab maybe some loop, pre-recorded track, sound effect or a hit from those... so, they are good as a musical "parts bin" :)

Finally, I DID say that I was all ears, and am willing to listen to any industry pro that is willing to share his knowledge. However your sour attitude is... well I don't care for it.
 
Last edited:
One thing I'll put out there, and this is coming from a guy who will be 53 next week, is that as you grow older you really have to watch out for:

Grumpy Old Man Syndrome

signs:
you think everything that's good has already happened
you expect the worst
you aren't growing

The best artists, like Picasso, Neil Young and Buddy Rich didn't go there, they continue(d) to grow just like when they were in their teens.

G.O.M.S. is something to watch out for and it's a b.s. trap, and it doesn't just happen to "old men", it can happen when you're in your 20's just as easy, especially in an economic climate like we have now.

I think the solution is to always have a new project, and it helps if you're not 100% positive you can pull it off... it always needs to be in slightly new territory.
 
ATTENTION BOYS AND GIRLS!!!
If your intention is to be able to top the radio charts, have millions of people listen to your music, then you will do best to listen to this man's advice
.

So, yeah, what you say definitely is valid and I am not going to argue with that.

However, my disagreement with you, and many others (and not necessarily those on this board) is this whole attitude that "good music is the one that most people listen to", or sells.

I’ll agree with you on that...but I'll just point out that there is also a large contingent that likes to always say "if it’s commercially viable, it must be crap"...so there's two sides to the coin.
I always chuckle at the "I'm-too-cool-for-prime-time" bunch. :)

There's a lot of great, commercially successful music....and vice-versa.
Not sure why there need to be two distinct camps?

I for one have a strong interest in hook-driven Pop/Rock, I grew up on it and I think much of my current album project is full of that stuff...while at the same time I enjoy doing more "roots" and "head” based music, and will probably do something more along those lines as soon as I wrap up this current project.
 
If you weren’t indirectly propping up Nirvana while tearing down a band that truly was full of real talent…then I wouldn’t have said anything. Thing is, you are approaching music from a perspective that “if I like it=therefore it’s good” and “if I don’t=therefore it’s crap”…and THAT is not a valid assumption.
You talk about “throwaway crap”…but then go bring a band like Nirvana into the discussion and end by saying you like them.
Well…I think I can like the Beatles then…but honestly, if you think I’m one of those Beatle worshipers, you’re wrong. My music appreciation extends well beyond the Beatles…before and after.
The crux of the latest discussion in this thread centers on what elements go toward making a song appealing…the hooks and the ability to grab attention in the first few notes…and you seemed to imply that kind of music is all crap….yet you like Nirvana.
My point is…Nirvana is the same kind of “crap”….and if you listen to their music…they use a basic formula, and if you ever read some of the influences Cobain mentioned, the roots fall smack-dab in the mid-60’s.

And I’ll also point out that not all of the Beatles music was the same formula, the early stuff was very Pop/Teen while their later stuff was not.

dude how much do you assume?

i never called anything crap except throwaway crap..eg. Kylie - do the locomotion...crap, there comprehend?

I never said I liked nirvana..in fact later I said I didnt like them..i liked them more than the beatles though...wtf are you reading into that?

I cant keep going on answering points that I never made..you are deciding what I meant not the words written..

I think Cobain had his roots dab smack in the 70's I think you are wrong yet again

I also differentiate between the beatles early stuff and later..go back and read dude...I can only type in English..I cant help you with your comprehension





Like I said…who is the “us” and who is the “they”…why be vague about it?
And are you the official representative for the “us” group here on the forums…or is it more just your own point of view?

You keep trying to draw some lines in an effort to suggest that people like you are cool/OK because you are not a “pro” and because most pros are snobs (however you define “pro”), but I’ve seen some condescending posts from you in various instances and you too tend to be a blowhard at times too…
…so are you really a “pro”…? :D

What's vague about know it all blowhards? there's a poster about two pages back who is an example...you are becoming one too

wtf are you on? again...man its like conversing with a 12 year old Miro it really is.....

No Im not a pro, never claimed to be..I make no money from anything to do with music and I approach it half heartedly for my own enjoyment..and if you find me condescending in some posts I suggest reading the one or two preceding it to find out why I like to give know it alls a taste of their own medicine..speaking of own you just have been

:D;):rolleyes::mad::):confused::eek::o:( just for you sunshine
 
I’ll agree with you on that...but I'll just point out that there is also a large contingent that likes to always say "if it’s commercially viable, it must be crap"...so there's two sides to the coin.
I always chuckle at the "I'm-too-cool-for-prime-time" bunch. :)


and not one person in this thread has implied or suggested this no matter how much you have tried to read that into their posts


I always get a chuckle at the "I cant understand anyones point so Ill just make it up instead" crowd

blow-hard :)
 
dude how much do you assume?

i never called anything crap except throwaway crap..eg. Kylie - do the locomotion...crap, there comprehend?

Well you didn't specify...you just said "throwaway crap from the sixties"...and I asked you twice to name some stuff...and you just said it would take you forever to do that.

Sooooooo...if people jump to conclusions, it may be because of your vagueness....sunshine. ;)

I never said I liked nirvana..in fact later I said I didnt like them..i liked them more than the beatles though...wtf are you reading into that?

You don't like them, but you like them better then the Beatles...the Beatles suck...yada, yada, yada....

Then there's the "us" and "them" stuff...more vagueness.

It's your fault if people have to read in-between the lines of what you are getting at. :)


I think Cobain had his roots dab smack in the 70's I think you are wrong yet again

What you think is not relative...I'm telling you what he's stated at times.
As an example, one of the bands he's referenced from the 60s is a little-known Brazilian band called The Mutants. They were into heavy 60s psychedelic Rock along with lots of Pop too...and they were actually influenced by the Beatles.

See how it all ties in....sunshine. :p

(PS...if you can find a Mutants CD...they are very groovy. :cool: )


and not one person in this thread has implied or suggested this no matter how much you have tried to read that into their posts.

Why do you think everything is directed at you…and so you feel the need to quote/reply???
Do you think this topic is being discussed HERE for the very first time?
I was just making the point that I’ve heard a LOT of the anti-commercial crowd argue from that perspective…I was never suggesting it was anyone here in this thread specifically.
If I was going to do that…I would actually name the person and not resort to some vague “us” and “them” comments. :D
 
I believe the tone of this my band is better than your band and "pro" versus "non-pro" bullshit would change significantly if we put aside the definition of "pro" as being those who make money doing it for a living. While that may be what Mirriam Webster lists as one definition of pro, I personally believe that is a very self-deceiving way of considering it in this context, both for the "pros" and for the up-and-comers.

If we adapt that definition of "pro" all by itself, I too have a big problem with a lot of "pros", and I personally at least am not afraid to admit it. AFIC, "pro" is more of a work ethic and attitude than it is a status within the industry. This is not just true of engineers/producers, but also of musicians, roadies, carpenters, sanitation engineers, doctors, politicians and rocket scientists.

A pro is one who takes the task seriously, works hard to become a master at it, isn't satisfied unless they know they are doing their best to do so, and never truly believes they have fully mastered anything.

A pro never "phones it in" and does not consider "good enough" as being good enough.

A pro doesn't ask if doing something is wrong, they ask if doing it is right, and doesn't make justification for slacking on principle for financial gain.

A pro recognizes their calling and doesn't pursue a vocation or avocation just because it seemed like a good idea, but because it's what they have a natural bent towards being good at.

A pro is willing to take on accolytes and to help and teach others what they know instead of hording the information for themselves because they are secure enough in their stance to not feel threatened, and because they wish to continue a thread of quality in the field instead of seeing it wither in the cold and winds of outside influences.

A pro is always has masters to teach and guide them. No matter how good somebody is at their task, there is always somebody that is better than them in one way or another. The pro recognizes that and will always continue to truly listen to them and learn from them.

You name the vocation, and I'll say that no more than 20% of the people that are "pros" by the standard definition are truly professionals in how they approach their tasks. This is just as true in music performance, engineering and production as it is in any other field.

It is also just as true for the home recordist as it is for the Big Box Studio Boys. There is no us/them; that's a false dichotomy. There is only the individual, and it is up to the individual whether they will take a pro attitude towards their endeavors or not, whether they get paid for it or not.

G.
Well put. There is something to be said about having a certain work ethic.
 
"Good" is completely subjective

Some might say that comercially viable, loved and purchased by millions generating an army of fans who will buy future releases on trust that they will like it, then it is good

There are those that say if the sheep masses like it, it must be bad

and then again there are those that say the hell with what anyone else thinks I like it whether it be the most sappy jonas bros hit or the most hardcore underground undiscovered genre that even John Peel would have had a hard time stomaching. I like it so it's good.

For every "great artist/band" that anyone might name I can virtually guaratee you you will easilly find just as many people who say they are the worst in history, and vice versa

IMO it boils down to this:
If you want to sell huge quantities of anything, be it music or potato chips, you need to offer what the majority of people want, whether you personally agree with their likes or not

If you want to be happy (but not necessarily worldwide sucessful) you should do what you like

If the two happen to fit together then you have some thing magical
 
Just some more Nirvana info, as it seems to be bone of contention here:

The Beatles were an early and important musical influence on Cobain. Cobain expressed a particular fondness for John Lennon, whom he called his "idol" in his journals. Cobain once related that he wrote "About a Girl" after spending three hours listening to Meet The Beatles!.[57] He was heavily influenced by punk rock and hardcore punk, and often credited bands such as Black Flag, Big Black and the Sex Pistols for his artistic style and attitude. Cobain claimed that Sandinista! by The Clash was the first album he ever owned of the punk genre.[58] Cobain was found dead wearing a t-shirt of the noise rock band Half Japanese.[59]

Even with all of Cobain's indie influences, Nirvana's early style was influenced by the major rock bands of the '70s, including Led Zeppelin, Black Sabbath, Queen, and Kiss. In its early days, Nirvana made a habit of regularly playing cover songs by those bands, including Led Zeppelin's "Immigrant Song", "Dazed and Confused", "Heartbreaker", Black Sabbath's "Hand of Doom" and made a studio recording of Kiss' "Do You Love Me?". Cobain also talked about the influence of bands like The Knack, Boston, and The Bay City Rollers.

It does clarify that the Beatles and some very distinct Pop Bands were part of Cobain's music diet. Some form the 70's...but also many from the 60's.

There are other, later bands mentioned...but then, one can basically say that Cobain was influenced by just about everything he heard on the radio...
...which is true for all of us.


And some more info on Os Mutants….

http://www.answers.com/topic/os-mutantes

In addition, many contemporary underground or independent bands in the United States and Europe cite Os Mutantes as a major influence. Kurt Cobain publicly requested a reunion tour from the trio in 1993, writing a letter to Arnaldo Baptista.[6] Cobain was introduced to them by Pat Fear from White Flag (whose collaboration with Redd Kross and other friends under the name The Tater Totz was the first American band to cover or even cite Os Mutantes on their 1988 LP Alien Sleestaks from Brazil).
 
Well you didn't specify...you just said "throwaway crap from the sixties"...and I asked you twice to name some stuff...and you just said it would take you forever to do that.

Sooooooo...if people jump to conclusions, it may be because of your vagueness....sunshine. ;)


really?

I find some of motown throw away crap..not all but some

I find some of the copy cat Merseyside beat bands throwaway crap...Freddie and the Dreamers anyone

I find Lulu throwaway crap

i find Scaffold throw away crap


there's more if I could be arsed thinking of them...oh yeah everything by the beatles too..teenybop crap... lol

does that clear up some vagueness?



You don't like them, but you like them better then the Beatles...the Beatles suck...yada, yada, yada....

Then there's the "us" and "them" stuff...more vagueness.

It's your fault if people have to read in-between the lines of what you are getting at. :)

again with the 12 year old shit...good one, that'll teach me.. guffaw




What you think is not relative...I'm telling you what he's stated at times.
As an example, one of the bands he's referenced from the 60s is a little-known Brazilian band called The Mutants. They were into heavy 60s psychedelic Rock along with lots of Pop too...and they were actually influenced by the Beatles.

See how it all ties in....sunshine. :p

(PS...if you can find a Mutants CD...they are very groovy. :cool: )


I have a large collection of sixties garage, punk tunes...mostly UK and US..Ill check for the mutants..


Why do you think everything is directed at you…and so you feel the need to quote/reply???


you quote my posts


Do you think this topic is being discussed HERE for the very first time?

of course


I was just making the point that I’ve heard a LOT of the anti-commercial crowd argue from that perspective…I was never suggesting it was anyone here in this thread specifically.

no you were making lots of incorrect assumptions

If I was going to do that…I would actually name the person and not resort to some vague “us” and “them” comments. :D


or you could quote them??


thanks for playing :)
 
Just some more Nirvana info, as it seems to be bone of contention here:



It does clarify that the Beatles and some very distinct Pop Bands were part of Cobain's music diet. Some form the 70's...but also many from the 60's.

There are other, later bands mentioned...but then, one can basically say that Cobain was influenced by just about everything he heard on the radio...
...which is true for all of us.


And some more info on Os Mutants….

http://www.answers.com/topic/os-mutantes


no bone of contention...the Bay City Rollers were from my home town...they were without a shadow of a doubt 70s throwaway crap.....but I liked 'em better than the beatles..yada, yada..anna yada...sunshine
 
I’ll agree with you on that...but I'll just point out that there is also a large contingent that likes to always say "if it’s commercially viable, it must be crap"...so there's two sides to the coin.
I always chuckle at the "I'm-too-cool-for-prime-time" bunch. :)
Yes there is that element. And they are right! :p J/K!!! I agree with you that as always those types of blanket statements break down and you can't argue one way or another if you want to make sense.

There's a lot of great, commercially successful music....and vice-versa.
Not sure why there need to be two distinct camps?
.
Blame it on the Two-Party system in the US government :rolleyes: Yes, there is a lot of great commercially successful music/acts/artists that are great, AC/DC, Madonna, Eric Clapton, and on and on...

So, what's your definition of successful? The "Donald Trump" definition of successful is the type that sells the most and makes the most money. That's one way to define it, but that's not the complete picture.

Take someone like Tim Exile for example. His music is most certainly not commercial, however he is extremely well regarded in his genre (Breakcore, D'nB, IDM), is quite influencial, and innovative enough to have a company such as Native Instruments to commission him to build a Reaktor instrument that they included as part of Reaktor 5 instruments library. Does that make him successful? What if you factor in the fact that by his own admission, he'll be lucky to make maybe around $20,000 a year from music?

I for one have a strong interest in hook-driven Pop/Rock, I grew up on it and I think much of my current album project is full of that stuff...while at the same time I enjoy doing more "roots" and "head” based music, and will probably do something more along those lines as soon as I wrap up this current project.
I understand where you are coming from, and what we grew up with has a major influence on our current tastes. I grew up on classical music with a healthy dose of avant-garde and aleatoric diversions, so genres such as IDM, experimental electronica, industrial (and by that I DON'T mean Marilyn Manson or NIN, we're talking about Throbbing Gristle, Cabaret Voltaire, Einstürzende Neubauten and the offshoots of that) come naturally to me and are dear to my heart. None of this stuff can hope to have any commercial value or success, yet the three (well at least the first two, Throbbing Gristle and Cabaret Voltaire) pretty much singlehandedly defined an entire genre, that does perfectly well sitting in the deep underground while having profound influence on other genres.
 
Bob Dylan was incredibly influential. Hendrix did his tunes and sang so much like him (Purple Haze) that it's crazy.
.

I think "All Along the Watchtower" was the song you wanted there...I think they stole it too for the riff to the last verse of "Stairway to Heaven"
 
no bone of contention...the Bay City Rollers were from my home town...they were without a shadow of a doubt 70s throwaway crap.....but I liked 'em better than the beatles..yada, yada..anna yada...sunshine

Watched them do the Monkees thing on saturday mornings when I was a kid.
 
So, what's your definition of successful? The "Donald Trump" definition of successful is the type that sells the most and makes the most money. That's one way to define it, but that's not the complete picture.

.

The reality is that man is the deepest in debt American...by my definition the poorest when you think about it.
 
Back
Top