You ever wonder... flip side

[mixmkr]

to Rami's thought.

What would it be like if a "hit" today was released 40 years ago or so?

Would people have just flipped or would it have got "boo-d" off the stage...like a lot of wiggly hips, long haired, tomato throwning events occured.

And obviously Lady Gaga follow either Chubby Checkers, the Beatles or REO speedwagon would make a dif.

 

[miroslav]

That...then kinda' suggests that many people are stuck in one particular style and/or "time zone" ...
....AFA their music tastes go.


Say it ain't so!

 

[mixmkr]

I just think of Stravinski and his "brash" compositions... my "tomato throwing" remark.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

It depends on whether you're talking about bringing the visual production back with you also, or whether you're just talking the music.

Take away all the stupid costumes and makeup and whatnot, and Gaga is actually not that bad of a musician. I think her songs would translate back to the pre-Thriller era just fine; plenty of pop melodic hooks for any era and above-average lyrics (better than your average pop artist these days, anyway).

What about the whole act? Hard to predict; she might be the female Ziggy Stardust or even Kiss, with similar hardcore cult followings on one side but thought of as a joke on the other side, with nobody straddling the middle.

As far as the over-wrought compression and autotune baloney, I'd tend to think that back then it would be novelty that would have worn off pretty fast. Rockpop wasn't in critical condition yet back then like it is in the 21st century, and didn't need the drastic life support gimmicks that it needs today to try and make it sound fresh.

G.

 

[Bristol Posse]

All I know for sure is that no matter what era I think 9 albums is about what I'd sell, and at least one would be to my mum

 

[miroslav]

You woun't give one to your mum for free?!

 

[matttheaxe]

Simple. Ask a teen what they think about a big hit from 20 years ago.
"that sucks" is what you get. Funny thing is, talent was a big issue in the past. Now it's optional. I went to Van's Warped tour and heard a few songs from 50 bands. For the most part it was crap. Same 4 chords, screeching mid scooped guitars and screeching (or whining) singing to match. The kids were going crazy.

Makes one wonder what its all coming to.

 

[Dark Imagery]

Makes one wonder what its all coming to.

Atleast Nickleback's keeping music alive!

 

[grimtraveller]

What would it be like if a "hit" today was released 40 years ago or so?

Would people have just flipped or would it have got "boo-d" off the stage

Both.
The 50s and in particular the 60s and 70s had many innovative songs and artists that either bombed or just weren't understood/appreciated. The second hand record shops of the 80s and the internet have unearthed zillions of groups, artists and records of that ilk.

 

[RAMI]

Flip side....to Rami's thought.

Wow! I'm starting a whole new industry here.

Good question. I guess it depends on which genre of today's music and how far back we go. Today's music means everything from Lady Goo-goo Ga-ga to Tool. If Goo-Goo Ga-ga came out in the 60's, it might not have been recieved in the same way that it would have had it come it in the 70's, during the disco era. If Tool came out in the 80's, when Duran Duran and Billy Idol were taking over the world, they might not have even been signed. But if they came out during the prog rock craze, they might have been recieved as Gods.....or not.

Who knows???

 

[dintymoore]

I've often thought that if you bought the crappiest Radio Shack or Sears music keyboard you can find today and gave it to the Beatles in the 60's that they would have used it on Sgt. Pepper.

There's tons of greatness around right now, it just doesn't feel great because the world is going through a paradigm shift and we aren't flourishing.

Picture 10 years from now, we've, believe it or not got the energy thing figured out and everybody's on a high like 1956. People have jobs and we're not scared to spend money like we are now. Whole different vibe. At that time, even if all we have is the music we have right now, everybody will think it's fantastic and 20 years later tell their kids about the good ol' days in 2020.

 

[grimtraveller]

There's tons of greatness around right now, it just doesn't feel great because the world is going through a paradigm shift and we aren't flourishing.

Picture 10 years from now, we've, believe it or not got the energy thing figured out and everybody's on a high like 1956. People have jobs and we're not scared to spend money like we are now. Whole different vibe. At that time, even if all we have is the music we have right now, everybody will think it's fantastic and 20 years later tell their kids about the good ol' days in 2020.

On the other hand, you get people who will forever remain stuck in the musical period that they love and won't look back at now as being somehow wonderful.

I've often thought that if you bought the crappiest Radio Shack or Sears music keyboard you can find today and gave it to the Beatles in the 60's that they would have used it on Sgt. Pepper.

I think that is something that does mark late 60s/early 70s stuff a bit more. Experimentation meant that all kinds of gadgets, both hugely priced and ultra cheapo, were fair game. Brian May of Queen built his own guitar as a teen, used it almost throughout Queen and used an old English sixpence as a pick ! Even the synth bands of the early 80s used el cheapo synths that many would laugh at today.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

If Goo-Goo Ga-ga came out in the 60's, it might not have been recieved in the same way that it would have had it come it in the 70's, during the disco era.
...
If Tool came out in the 80's, when Duran Duran and Billy Idol were taking over the world, they might not have even been signed. But if they came out during the prog rock craze, they might have been recieved as Gods.....or not.

Who knows???

For me that brings up the question of just how much the time it was produced influences the production decisions. It's one thing to transport one of today's Gaga recordings back to 1970, but it's another thing altogether to transport Gaga herself back to 1970 and have her record back then. (As an aside, she'd have a different stage name, since she named herself after a Queen song that didn't exist until 1984 )

It's kind of serendipitous for me that Gaga was brought up, since I just got through last week working on a cover of the Gaga tune "Speechless" by the same young gal that did the Tunstall tune I posted in the clinic a few weeks back. Without the crappy brick wall limiting of the original (which really sounds awful IMHO), the cover easily sounds like something Linda Ronstadt could have put out forty some odd years ago.

Would Lady Gaga really have gone like a cross between Ziggy Stardust and Elton John with her act back in 1970? Who knows? But I would tend to think not; that Gaga as she is today is more a result of her Freddie Mercury and Madonna influences in the showmanship category, and that those influences would not have been there back in 1970. But musically, without that stagecrap...er...craft and without the similar audio crap like brick walling and autotuning the voice into a computerized castrati, she could fit the pop mold of virtually any period, I think.

I've often thought that if you bought the crappiest Radio Shack or Sears music keyboard you can find today and gave it to the Beatles in the 60's that they would have used it on Sgt. Pepper.

I agree. Why not? Our guitarist showed up at the studio the other day with this old (circa mid '50s, as far as we can tell) Hohner portable electric valve organ, about the size of a typwriter, and with the sound of an old hand-held Melodica. Very, very cheezy sounding, but I can't wait to incorporate it into a song.

G.

 

[dintymoore]

... the cover easily sounds like something Linda Ronstadt could have put out forty some odd years ago...

I recently sequenced Gaga's "Telephone" and to me it was very refreshing to hear an intro, verse, chorus, bridge, etc... it could have been released, like you said, decades ago. ABBA, Pointer Sisters or LaBelle all could have done it.

 

[SouthSIDE Glen]

I recently sequenced Gaga's "Telephone" and to me it was very refreshing to hear an intro, verse, chorus, bridge, etc... it could have been released, like you said, decades ago. ABBA, Pointer Sisters or LaBelle all could have done it.

Agreed.

When you take the Gaga stigma out of some of the songs, they can work pretty well as pop hits in whatever era you want them to.

More than once as we were working on "Speechless", a visitor would come into the control room and hear us working on the song. I'm talking guys who grew up on solid rock (can you say Primus?) and would rather hang themselves than admit they listened to a Lady Gaga tune. They of course had no idea what they were listening to was a Gaga cover. The comments were usually something along the vein of, "Hey, that's not a bad song."

Then the money shot came when we told them who originally wrote and performed it. The looks on their faces ranged from sheepish stupification to "please don't tell my friends I said that" .

Which I think illustrates a flip side to the bias of professionalism. Often times people will automatically find problems with the sound of something just because of a bias against the artist.

G.

 

[Dark Imagery]

If Tool came out in the 80's, when Duran Duran and Billy Idol were taking over the world, they might not have even been signed. But if they came out during the prog rock craze, they might have been recieved as Gods.....or not.

Who knows???

I've always wondered what would it have been like if Aenima came out in 75!