TimR

[quote name='the boy' timestamp='1441381341' post='2858517'] You clearly don't get it..... Tut tut. 😜 [/quote] Equally I don't expect him 'to get' a lot of things that happened to me in my life. It's not a curse. It's just life from a different perspective. Would I rather been a teenager in the '60s? Not really. I'm quite happy having been a teenager in the '80s. Kennedy shot in '63. Compare that with Diana? I don't get Kennedy. I get Diana.

There are at least three separate things going on here. One is the effect the Beatles' music had on shaping pop music. One is the effect the Beatles had on teenagers. One is the psychological effect music (and current affairs) has on our memories at certain key moments of our lives. These three things have all coincided in Blue's timeline and left a profound mark on Blue's life. For the rest of us items 2 and 3 have and will continue to happen. Let's not get them mixed up.

I would argue that even the big names who mime and have other huge productions don't always get it right. Mainly due to acoustics of the venue. The more production you cram into a song the harder it is to hear the important parts of the song when you get into a reverberant venue. Everything often just turns to mush.

[quote name='Bilbo' timestamp='1441360246' post='2858207'] I just wanted to point out that my thread title was ironic. There is nothing wrong with the production values of modern pop music. I just wanted to register how hard it is for the little guy to keep up with the technology used in producing it. I guess a parallel would be a local group trying to put on a gig in a pub versus a full-on Iron Maiden stage/lighting set up. [/quote] You have just reminded me of the amount of gear the drummer in an old band wanted us to carry around for our 'stage show'.

I wonder how much of it is Music shops spending more time and care setting up expensive instruments. In the days of 'Loot'. I went to look at a second hand Aria for a beginner. The neck was slight out of true, the frets were gunged up, the pickups were wonky and the bridge was all over the place and it was practically unplayable. I said to buy it (£70) and we'd see what we could do with it. If it turned out to be a dog I said I'd buy it off him. I spent an hour on it and we put new strings on it. He spend half an hour on it with a toothbrush. The thing came up beautifully and was a dream to play. I'm sure we all have similar stories. It's certainly something to think about. But there is definitely something else when you pick up a new instrument and it just feels right and I don't think it's all in the setup.

[quote name='colgraff' timestamp='1441348618' post='2858065'] Twice in my playing career I have made significant steps up the price range. First when I went from Hohner to Yamaha TRB and then from TRB to Dingwall Prima. In both cases, the improvement in quality gave an identifiable improvement in sound and (more importantly) required less effort to play because of the build quality. Would the audience notice? Maybe, maybe not but I felt that my playing was enhanced which I guess is most if the point in retail. [/quote] I totally agree. A cheap bass may not sound any different but the playability is what counts. I'll select a bass on whether it feels right as well as how it sounds. Inevitably some basses that feel better cost more and the is a price point at which two things happen: 1. I can no longer tell the difference. 2. I can no longer afford the difference. Those points are different for different people and depend on many factors but I'd suggest they are the crux of what it boils down to for everyone.

It's a shame. Other artists in their 70s are working out and changing their diets and bringing out fresh new material. But some artists will never change. Seeing Saxon mentioned reminded me of this TV program where Harvey Goldsmith tries to turn them around: http://youtu.be/ekrAHJtl3-g

[quote name='bassman7755' timestamp='1441283414' post='2857516'] A lot of covers don't do either though - they don't make an effort to play it like the recording or to rearrange it to suit their band, they just dirge it out playing the melody and chords with vaguely appropriate generic groove. In many cases I guess many of the players have never properly listened to the original song and by that I mean sat down with it instrument in hand, but are rather just busking it from having heard it on the radio 5 years ago or something. I don't expect a note for note rendition but I do expect some concious effort to be made to capture the key elements and feel of a song. [/quote] I think that's Bilbo's original point, or at least what he means in his second post. I played in a band where a couple of the 'musos' had that attitude. They know how to play music, they've been doing it for years, just approximate the chords, it'll be ok. Often there are subtle things going on, particularly where the bass isn't playing roots, or where a drum pattern subtly changes to accommodate a different lyric, or even as simple as external dynamics between the verse and chorus. Those parts are where the arrangement matters - ignore them and that's when you get it sounding like it's just being bashed out.

[quote name='colgraff' timestamp='1441273314' post='2857371'] @ TimR. Thank you for telling me what is wrong with my singing. If only I had known that all I needed to do was to sing with passion, I wouldn't have wasted the last 20 years behind a microphone! Trust me, it is very, very hard to manage vocal synth effects either by way of a vocoder and/or effect patches while playing bass and singing at the same time. Obviously, for the Geddy Lees among us, that is less true. It could be that you are one, in which case I apologise. [/quote] That's what I was saying. There's little point in trying and missing or ending up sounding amateurish. Just sing with no effects. Absolutely no one in the audience is going to say. You sounded rubbish because you didn't use vocoder on Living On A Prayer intro. We don't even add that part. Lots of effects that sound great on a produced record just sound pathetic or like the band are trying too hard when they can either be missed off or done some other way for a more fresh sound.

I think there's still good debate going on. The perspective from Paul himself about it is interesting. He'd already been exposed to what was going on for several years which may have put a different slant on it.

[quote name='SteveK' timestamp='1441215460' post='2857036'] Sorry Bilbo, I'm missing your point! You seem to be saying that bands that don't rehearse and rely on charts only produce "a poor approximation of the original". Quite obviously, the same said band [i]that rehearse[/i] would a make a better fist of things! Are you just saying that the musicians that you're involved with don't rehearse, and that you're not enjoying it for that reason? [/quote] It's the time spent on the arrangement that is crucial, not the rehearsal time. The bass player will half remember the line and the drums will half remember the drum part. Everyone will try too hard to mash the arrangement together and the result will be a mess. Usually bands use rehearsals (practices) to see how their parts that they worked out at home fit what everyone else is playing. It's at those practices that the parts are altered and the arrangements become more solid. You can't magic a complexly produced song out of some chord charts, or even from just reproducing the individual instrument parts exactly as they are in the record. The more complex the original, the more work needs to be done on the arrangement.

[quote name='colgraff' timestamp='1441217105' post='2857058'] A fair point, Bilbo, I find this to be especially true with effects being applied to vocals that would be very expensive to reproduce live, but the alternative is my vocals sounding amateurish. Up to a point, a response could be "Twas ever thus." with examples being Simon and Garfunkel double tracking each vocal track (having four vocal tracks between them) or Elvis having a full orchestra behind him whenever he pocked up a guitar. I have no solution. [/quote] The solution is to introduce passion into the vocal. If instruments are missing or not exactly as the original instrumentation then it will sound more amateurish if you attempt to copy the sound and slightly miss. It'll make it sound like you're trying too hard. So you either get it bang on, downloading keys FX etc, or you change the arrangement completely so that maybe the guitar is covering parts the missing keys are playing etc.

I don't think the thread is particularly about Uptown Funk. It could just as easily be about Superstition. That's full of synths and brass and layered vocals. The bass hook is played on a Rhodes. Somewhere on keytalk there's a keys player moaning about five piece rock bands...

Just read through that thread. When my boy sings it with his headphones on, all you can hear is his voice. It sounds pretty good as is. The music is just filling.

Yes. That's why I hate the term "Made it your own." No they didn't, they just changed the arrangement. And on X-Factor - someone else did that bit In my mind that's the difference between a musician and someone who can play a musical instrument.

I think it is lack of imagination from the 'artist' who is covering the song. Although it very much depends on how the 'song' was created. If there is a strong hook, melody and lyrics then you can copy the song on a piano or acoustic guitar. The rest is just, as you say, production. Often the band covering the material will get too hung up on copying the production and overlook the actual musical content (if there is any) to the detriment of what they are producing. I played with a drummer who's first comment on hearing a new tune was always; we don't have an X in our lineup so we're not doing it. Very short sighted and close minded.

Minecraft. All the 11 year old boys want to be famous YouTubers like Stampee

Blue is talking about the overnight sensation in the U.S. While similar things have happened in the UK when I was a kid and we only had 3 TV channels. Blackadder and The Young Ones are TV shows that we were always talking about and couldn't await until the next episode. For people slightly older it was Monty Python. Gangnam Style, that's just a one off viral hit. Similar to the Ice Bucket challenge. Plus the Beatles already had a string of songs ready written to hit the U.S. with. Overnight they reached 20million more people than the entire population of the UK.

[quote name='wateroftyne' timestamp='1441188642' post='2856705'] Ugg didn't change the world overnight. The Beatles did. I think the point Blue is trying to make - and I agree with him, even though I didn't experience it first hand - is more about the intensity of the change. [/quote] I think undiluted TV has a massive role in this. The U.S. had three TV stations. You'll never get that reach again. Look at the viewing figures for that show. 73 Million viewers!

[quote name='Rich' timestamp='1441188165' post='2856698'] Yes, but when Kanye said he was going to take over the world, he was talking [i]literally[/i]. We all thought he meant through the medium of music, but he was referring to the huge army of indestructible killer robots hidden away in his top secret mountain headquarters, poised and waiting to enslave all who comply and unleash a hideous electric death on those who do not. Mwa-ha-ha-ha-haaaa, and so on. [/quote] Or just maybe just running for President. http://edition.cnn.com/2015/08/31/politics/kanye-west-2020-running-for-president-vma/

[quote name='CamdenRob' timestamp='1441186379' post='2856681'] Yes indeed... sadly now One Direction have split this generation needs a new pop music hero. [/quote] I was referring more to his recent statement of taking over the world.

Frightening it could all happen again with Kanye West...

[quote name='phil.c60' timestamp='1441176823' post='2856590'] I would rather not have to go over this stale old topic yet again, with the same participants marking out the same territory and hijacking a thread that has nothing to do with it, but hey you cant always get what you want....wait, didn't someone already say that? [/quote] It's not off topic. The OP is feeling pressured into doing a gig for free. Others have said that's borderline exploitation. If you'd rather not go over why this is happening then either don't read threads that have a financial basis or ask a Mod to ban talking about money. I gave a single one line answer. .

Quite. Just maintain a professional attitude. It's not your fault that the original bass player isn't available. Which is where the real problem lies.

[quote name='phil.c60' timestamp='1441128797' post='2856307'] And I was just trying to point out, as I did in an earlier post, that this topic (bands playing for little or no money, festivals, charity gigs yadder yadder) is still running in another recent thread so do we have to do it all again. The OP's original point was that even if the band wanted to do the non-paying festival type gig should he, as a dep, still get paid. The general feeling seems to be that the answer is yes unless he chooses to waive his fee, which is his choice not theirs. The wider point about free, charity, festivals etc etc is not relevant as he, as a dep, has no part in the band's decision to take the gig unpaid - he should just be another expense like travel etc. for the band to consider - and just drags the topic down a very well worn road. If the cost of having him as a dep causes them to reconsider, or ask him to play for free as otherwise they can't (don't wan to) afford to do it, it's his decision what to do. Do it for expenses (fuel etc.), do it for free, or insist on his regular gig rate that they usually pay him. Not an easy one, but his decision none the less. [/quote] I would rather you had directed your comments to the person who bought the subject up. I was only answering his question. Thanks.