# Auto suck



## Milkman

Another reason I believe popular music has declined in quality over the past few decades.

Just an effect?


Yup, and so is photoshop.


CANOE -- JAM! Music: Will.i.am: 'I need Auto-tune'


----------



## sulphur

It's just an effect though Mike.


----------



## Jim DaddyO

I really hate auto tune when it is so overused today, and at extreme levels too. You should not be able to hear it stretching the note into tune. What ever happened to singers hitting the note, is that not what singing is? Glad there was no auto tune when Bob Dylan and Neil Young were starting out.


----------



## Mooh

Auto-tune is a scourge on modern music. What should be free and exuberant, expressive and natural, original and shared, becomes locked in and tied down with the restrictive and excuse-laden dependence on a technology designed to correct and normalize pitch while drastically affecting tone and timbre. The technology is faultly and gives faulty results. It's not just an affect/effect, it's a broken crutch.

Luckily I have alternatives as most of my preferred music isn't prone to the disease. Unluckily music society is now saddled with a history of auto-tune. If one cannot sing in tune, someone who can should do the job, just as someone who cannot play in tune should do the same or *learn how*. 

All of the forgoing imho, ymmv, fwiw, blah, blah, blah.

Peace, Mooh.


----------



## Milkman

Jim DaddyO said:


> I really hate auto tune when it is so overused today, and at extreme levels too. You should not be able to hear it stretching the note into tune. What ever happened to singers hitting the note, is that not what singing is? Glad there was no auto tune when Bob Dylan and Neil Young were starting out.


Actually it's when it's used subtly and is undectable that I am the most concerned.

When it's obvious, most of us roll our eyes and laugh.

When it's used and we don't know it, we're being hoodwinked.


----------



## 4345567

__________


----------



## Milkman

nkjanssen said:


> *shrug*
> 
> i can honestly say that Autotune hasn't impacted my enjoyment of music anymore than drum machines have. For the most part I don't really listen to the genres of music that use it anyway. And sometimes it can be used creatively.
> 
> It *is* just an effect. A tool. It can be used for good or evil.
> 
> On a side note, are people really still just discovering Autotune in 2012? This sounds like a thread from 10 years ago.


Really? Are you sure?

That's my point. How often are shitty vocals corrected and we don't know it?

And yes, I'm clear on the reality that Auto suck has been present for a long time.

The article is new.

OK?


----------



## hollowbody

But how are you supposed to dance around AND sing in tune at the same time???


----------



## 4345567

__________


----------



## bobb

Posted once again for good measure. Live with no autotune AND no monitors. Also, the drummer is behind the closed back cabs. Witchcraft???? Nope, just talent and a lot of practice and dedication. A combination that create an impossible feat by today's standards.

[video=youtube;bxMUiZzWy78]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bxMUiZzWy78&amp;feature=related[/video]


----------



## david henman

nkjanssen said:


> Ultimately, I don't care. When I hear a song, it's either going to move me or not. Either way, other than out of curiosity's sake, I don't really care how it was put together. Did they use Autotune? Did they comp vocals from several takes? Is that artificial reverb I hear or a real room? Are those real strings or samples? Are those drums edited? Did they use sound replacer at any point? An artist can use all that stuff or none of that stuff for all I care. All that matters to me is whether the end product is something I like to listen to.
> Incidentially, did you know that it's been common practice for decades for many guitarists (including David Gilmour) to compile guitar solos from several different takes, assembling them in the studio after the fact? In essence compiling several "shitty" takes into one good one? I'm willing to bet some of your favourite guitar solos off all time are studio manipulations. Does that make them any less good?



...exactly!
there is (subjectively) good and bad music in every generation, and never any shortage of people who claim the quality of music declined sharply once THEY were out of the loop.
vince gill makes an excellent point regarding the devaluation of music and musicians. i'll see if i can find the quote.
anyone who has done any extensive recording during the past fifty years has heard the phrase: "we'll fix it in the mix."


----------



## Mooh

nkjanssen said:


> Incidentially, did you know that it's been common practice for decades for many guitarists (including David Gilmour) to compile guitar solos from several different takes, assembling them in the studio after the fact? In essence compiling several "shitty" takes into one good one? I'm willing to bet some of your favourite guitar solos off all time are studio manipulations. Does that make them any less good?


In the case of Gilmour, he had several takes from which to choose, most of which were probably good by most standards. The man's abilities were already well proven live and in the studio. He wasn't using some technology to get any acceptable pitch, he was using some technology to get an ultimate take that didn't have to do with staying in tune I bet. There's a difference. Incapable singers who can't sing in tune aren't the same as capable guitarists looking for the best take. That best take, fwiw, Gilmour seems to not have had any trouble replicating ever since. Can't say the same for singers trying to replicate their parts live unassisted.

Nonetheless, I reserve my right to live in the past. ;-)

Peace, Mooh.


----------



## Milkman

Compiled solos. No kidding?

Yes, I may have been born at night but not last night.

At least their compiled from actual playing.



nkjanssen said:


> Milkman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really? Are you sure?
> 
> That's my point. How often are shitty vocals corrected and we don't know it?
> 
> 
> 
> Ultimately, I don't care. When I hear a song, it's either going to move me or not. Either way, other than out of curiosity's sake, I don't really care how it was put together. Did they use Autotune? Did they comp vocals from several takes? Is that artificial reverb I hear or a real room? Are those real strings or samples? Are those drums edited? Did they use sound replacer at any point? An artist can use all that stuff or none of that stuff for all I care. All that matters to me is whether the end product is something I like to listen to.
> 
> Incidentially, did you know that it's been common practice for decades for many guitarists (including David Gilmour) to compile guitar solos from several different takes, assembling them in the studio after the fact? In essence compiling several "shitty" takes into one good one? I'm willing to bet some of your favourite guitar solos off all time are studio manipulations. Does that make them any less good?
Click to expand...


----------



## Milkman

Yes, I'm aware of the practice of punching in or compiling solos.

I was doing that as early as 1977 myself.

At least those are compilations of actual playing.

Thanks for your input.




nkjanssen said:


> Milkman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really? Are you sure?
> 
> That's my point. How often are shitty vocals corrected and we don't know it?
> 
> 
> 
> Ultimately, I don't care. When I hear a song, it's either going to move me or not. Either way, other than out of curiosity's sake, I don't really care how it was put together. Did they use Autotune? Did they comp vocals from several takes? Is that artificial reverb I hear or a real room? Are those real strings or samples? Are those drums edited? Did they use sound replacer at any point? An artist can use all that stuff or none of that stuff for all I care. All that matters to me is whether the end product is something I like to listen to.
> 
> Incidentially, did you know that it's been common practice for decades for many guitarists (including David Gilmour) to compile guitar solos from several different takes, assembling them in the studio after the fact? In essence compiling several "shitty" takes into one good one? I'm willing to bet some of your favourite guitar solos off all time are studio manipulations. Does that make them any less good?
Click to expand...


----------



## david henman

bobb said:


> Posted once again for good measure. Live with no autotune AND no monitors. Also, the drummer is behind the closed back cabs. Witchcraft???? Nope, just talent and a lot of practice and dedication. A combination that create an impossible feat by today's standards.


...you are welcome to your opinion, of course. 

personally, i believe that it is quite the opposite. today's standards of recording, performing, songwriting, craftsmanship and artistry are far higher than they have ever been.

i'm curious to know what you are listening to...and why..


----------



## bw66

For me its a lot like Picasso - I didn't have a lot of respect for Picasso until I went to his museum in Spain and discovered that he could actually make a painting that looked very much like what he was looking at - he just eventually chose not to. In musical terms, he could *play his instrument*. If I know that someone can sing, I don't much care if they use auto-tune to "enhance" or "colour" the recording. It's only when the auto-tuner in being used to cover up a lack of ability that I really find it offensive. 

I remember several years ago (I think that it might have been centred around the Rolling Stones "Steel Wheels" tour - but memory is a bit foggy), there was outrage that much of the music being played in stadium concerts was either being sequenced or played off-stage by a studio musician - there were suggestions that big-ticket concerts should indicate on the face of the ticket what percentage of the music was being generated by an actual human being, who is actually on stage - impossible to quantify, really, but an interesting idea.


----------



## hardasmum

First off I prefer Melodyne to Auto tune. Far superior IMHO. It has saved my ass many times. Mixing a track only to discover that the bass guitar is slightly out of tune in the pre chorus. The bass player is in Regina for a week. Tuned with Melodyne. Track saved.

I've also used Melodyne to create a harmony vocal, then I exported the harmony as a MIDI file which I used to create a synth part. AWESOME.

LET'S BE HONEST. It can be argued that mulitracking, "punching in" and tape editing has been fooling us for years.

"What a great vocal performance!"

- Yeah compiled from thirty takes.

"What a great guitar solo!"

- Yeah with dozens of punch ins

"What a solid drummer!"

- Drums edited on the mulitrack tape.

Pitch Correction is no different. 





Milkman said:


> nkjanssen said:
> 
> 
> 
> *shrug*
> 
> i can honestly say that Autotune hasn't impacted my enjoyment of music anymore than drum machines have. For the most part I don't really listen to the genres of music that use it anyway. And sometimes it can be used creatively.
> 
> It *is* just an effect. A tool. It can be used for good or evil.
> 
> On a side note, are people really still just discovering Autotune in 2012? This sounds like a thread from 10 years ago.
> 
> 
> 
> Really? Are you sure?
> 
> That's my point. How often are shitty vocals corrected and we don't know it?
> 
> And yes, I'm clear on the reality that Auto suck has been present for a long time.
> 
> The article is new.
> 
> OK?
Click to expand...

I've comped tracks together of "actual playing" that wasn't that good overall and pitch corrected small sections of performances that were incredible. 

So I don't think that argument holds much water.




Milkman said:


> Yes, I'm aware of the practice of punching in or compiling solos.
> 
> I was doing that as early as 1977 myself.
> 
> At least those are compilations of actual playing.


----------



## fretboard

I prefer my guitars without truss rods, my strings to be 13 - 80 (wound, of course) and my life to flash before my eyes everytime I plug in my ungrounded, widow-maker amp plug.

Nothing but old-school, legitimate music-makin' stuff for me...




Gosh-darn-you technology and your high-fallutin', book-learnin' worldly ways. Soon you'll be making amplifiers that sound distorted - on purpose no less. 

Sadly, I now know what Don MacLean was singing about all those years ago, for surely now the music has finally died. Thank you very much, Will I Am. Thank you very much indeed.

American Pie - YouTube


----------



## hummingway

It is symbolic, to me, of the media manipulation that passes for music any more. One of the most painful things I have heard was a performance of Shania Twain. It was shortly after some lip sync scandal or other so she felt obligated to go out and sing her nursery rhymes herself, which was a problem since, at least at the time, she couldn't sing. Her voice was a creation of her ex-husband.

Black Eyed Peas? One of the most successful groups in the world featuring ... some guy who hopes to learn to sing someday.


----------



## hardasmum

Perhaps you should avoid criticism of music brought to you by the afore mentioned media and investigate some of the amazing artists making music today. There are some talented folks out there who you won't see on TV before 11pm or hear on terrestrial radio. 

I don't disagree with you completely, as Black Eyed Peas in particular are a joke but I tend to ignore such acts and the awards they win.



hummingway said:


> It is symbolic, to me, of the media manipulation that passes for music any more. One of the most painful things I have heard was a performance of Shania Twain. It was shortly after some lip sync scandal or other so she felt obligated to go out and sing her nursery rhymes herself, which was a problem since, at least at the time, she couldn't sing. Her voice was a creation of her ex-husband.
> 
> Black Eyed Peas? One of the most successful groups in the world featuring ... some guy who hopes to learn to sing someday.


----------



## 4345567

__________


----------



## hummingway

hardasmum said:


> Perhaps you should avoid criticism of music brought to you by the afore mentioned media and investigate some of the amazing artists making music today. There are some talented folks out there who you won't see on TV before 11pm or hear on terrestrial radio.
> 
> I don't disagree with you completely, as Black Eyed Peas in particular are a joke but I tend to ignore such acts and the awards they win.


It's not a question of whether there are good artists out there or not. It's the industry I work in and deserving of criticism. They've made a hash and mockery of it and honest musicians pay for it. The industry has never been in such sad shape in my lifetime and as far as I can tell the previous one either. It's never been easy to be a musician but the star making machine has devalued musicianship and said we can take any hunk of meat and use it to sell a product.


----------



## hardasmum

Ah! My apologies, I misunderstood your original post. 

In this context I think of the "Idol" type shows and the fifteen minutes of fame their contestants receive. All this while hard working musicians play in empty bars.



hummingway said:


> hardasmum said:
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps you should avoid criticism of music brought to you by the afore mentioned media and investigate some of the amazing artists making music today. There are some talented folks out there who you won't see on TV before 11pm or hear on terrestrial radio.
> 
> I don't disagree with you completely, as Black Eyed Peas in particular are a joke but I tend to ignore such acts and the awards they win.
> 
> 
> 
> It's not a question of whether there are good artists out there or not. It's the industry I work in and deserving of criticism. They've made a hash and mockery of it and honest musicians pay for it. The industry has never been in such sad shape in my lifetime and as far as I can tell the previous one either. It's never been easy to be a musician but the star making machine has devalued musicianship and said we can take any hunk of meat and use it to sell a product.
Click to expand...


----------



## bw66

nkjanssen said:


> Given enough takes and sufficient comping, I guarantee you can make anyone seem like they can sing even without using Autotune.


This is true. I remember seeing The Cult years ago and the lead singer couldn't carry a tune in a bucket - fortunately they were the opening act so I didn't feel too ripped off. I have no problem with doing multiple takes but if you can't produce a reasonable facsimile of a tune in a live setting without technological help, then are you really making music?


----------



## 4345567

__________


----------



## Robert1950

Have you ever wondered what Flaherty's budget speech would sound like through auto-tune?


----------



## hardasmum

I would like to add that while Auto Tune is often used as an effect (I think Cher may have been the first to use it as such) in actual practice it is a pitch correction tool and when used properly is not noticeable. 

Anytime you can "hear" it on a vocal it has been used with the intention of it being an effect. 

As an effect it reminds me a little of a vocoder. Haven't seen any "anti-vocoder" threads yet.


----------



## bw66

nkjanssen said:


> Sure. There is all kinds of electronic-based music that absolutely requires technology to reproduce it in a live setting. Not all music is traditional folk, blues, rock, jazz, classical or country.



I get that. The point that I was trying (and obviously failing) to make is that if you have no musical aptitude, you have no business marketing yourself as a musician.


----------



## Guitar101

bw66 said:


> I get that. The point that I was trying (and obviously failing) to make is that if you have no musical aptitude, you have no business marketing yourself as a musician.


I'm assuming that it is mostly singers that would use auto tune so us musicians have nothing to be ashamed of if auto tune was used on one of our projects. I've always said that singers are not musicians.


----------



## bobb

When the band was auditioning guitarists last year, we actually had a couple show up with Boss VE-20 Vocal Performer pedals set for pitch correct.


----------



## hummingway

bobb said:


> When the band was auditioning guitarists last year, we actually had a couple show up with Boss VE-20 Vocal Performer pedals set for pitch correct.


Well there goes the neighborhood.  What happens when they bend notes?


----------



## Guest

So that's why all those prima-donna pop singers all sound the same. lol.



bw66 said:


> if you have no musical aptitude, you have no business marketing yourself as a musician.


exchange musical/musician with political/politician. lol.


----------



## FrankyNoTone

hardasmum said:


> Ah! My apologies, I misunderstood your original post.
> 
> In this context I think of the "Idol" type shows and the fifteen minutes of fame their contestants receive. All this while hard working musicians play in empty bars.


The empty bars are not likely the fault of the musicians; booze most likely was too expensive.

Anyways, I blame Brian Wilson and Pet Sounds for starting all this studio magic.


----------



## Guest

Empty bars happened because of the anti-smoking bylaws. IMO.


----------



## hardasmum

laristotle said:


> Empty bars happened because of the anti-smoking bylaws. IMO.


There are bars with line ups, a $20 cover and $10 beers but there's a DJ inside.


----------



## 4345567

__________


----------



## J S Moore

Pop music has been image first and music second ( or third or fourth) for a long time now. Not worth listening to or worrying about. I take heart in the fact that musicians like Joe Bonamassa can still make a pretty decent living at it. As was mentioned there's a lot of talented musicians out there if you look hard.

Music as a form of self expression has a very limited audience. It's always been that way and always will be. As a form of self expression it's always been about the performance for me. It's never bothered me that Neil Young sings flat. I've heard a few Carol King songs where she's a little out of tune but the performance carries it. It just sounds like part of the song. That's a long way of saying I don't get why there's this obsessive need to be constantly in tune. That's probably why I find a lot of music today lacks humanity, it's simply too perfect.

As for Autotune, I always assume the person can't sing whenever I hear it. I think the times it's being used as an effect are so few I'm pretty safe betting against it.


----------



## 4345567

__________


----------



## Diablo

hardasmum said:


> There are bars with line ups, a $20 cover and $10 beers but there's a DJ inside.


...and hot girls....the sky's the limit for cover charges and drink prices if you can bring in the hot girls.
but that aint gonna happen with a shaggy dinosaur rock band that plays too loud...no mattter how good they are. 
The times they are a changing.


----------



## ed2000

The first Led Zeppelin album would have been pathetic, to my ears, if modern technology had been used to perfect every nuance of the recording .


----------



## hardasmum

In Melodyne I can choose how close to the centre of the note I want to be and how much pitch drift there is. If done properly you would never be able to hear the pitch correction, except perhaps if you listened to the vocal on its own. 

In extreme settings it is that "Cher" effect that is all over popular radio.





nkjanssen said:


> J S Moore said:
> 
> 
> 
> As for Autotune, I always assume the person can't sing whenever I hear it. I think the times it's being used as an effect are so few I'm pretty safe betting against it.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think that's the case at all. Listen to any modern country radio. I really don't care for modern country on the whole, but I will admit that there is a hell of a lot of talent there. With very few exceptions, modern country singers can sing very well. Yet Autotune is constantly slathered all over everything modern country. That whole "hyper-in-tune" thing is a trend, much like massive, massive reverb on snare drums was in the 80's. 50 years from now, people will look on it as a cliche sound of this generation. It's just an effect.
Click to expand...


----------



## zontar

ed2000 said:


> The first Led Zeppelin album would have been pathetic, to my ears, if modern technology had been used to perfect every nuance of the recording .


True enough.

the human element s important--everything else is just a tool, and hopefully it's used well, if the choice is made to use that tool.


----------



## hardasmum

ed2000 said:


> The first Led Zeppelin album would have been pathetic, to my ears, if modern technology had been used to perfect every nuance of the recording .


No. You wouldn't know otherwise because that's the only version that would exist.


----------



## zontar

hardasmum said:


> No. You wouldn't know otherwise because that's the only version that would exist.


But it wouldn't have had the same impact.


----------



## Roryfan

The only acceptable use is for celebrities who insist on singing the national anthem. I was at the Indy 500 today & was glad I brought ear plugs, not for the cars but when Florence Henderson (yes, that Mrs. Brady) warbled out America The Beautiful.


----------



## hardasmum

zontar said:


> hardasmum said:
> 
> 
> 
> No. You wouldn't know otherwise because that's the only version that would exist.
> 
> 
> 
> But it wouldn't have had the same impact.
Click to expand...

Unless we can get a Pro Tools rig back in time to 1968 we will never know the truth. It might have had a BIGGER impact because every other record at that time would have sounded sloppy in comparison!


----------



## zontar

hardasmum said:


> Unless we can get a Pro Tools rig back in time to 1968 we will never know the truth. It might have had a BIGGER impact because every other record at that time would have sounded sloppy in comparison!


I must still disagree with you...

[video=youtube;XR9d4ESlpHY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XR9d4ESlpHY[/video]
I kind of like that song--but put autotune on it--and it would lose its "charm"


----------



## hardasmum

Hahaha. That really is quite amazing!



zontar said:


> hardasmum said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unless we can get a Pro Tools rig back in time to 1968 we will never know the truth. It might have had a BIGGER impact because every other record at that time would have sounded sloppy in comparison!
> 
> 
> 
> I must still disagree with you...
> 
> [video=youtube;XR9d4ESlpHY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XR9d4ESlpHY[/video]
> I kind of like that song--but put autotune on it--and it would lose its "charm"
Click to expand...


----------



## allthumbs56

Guitar101 said:


> I'm assuming that it is mostly singers that would use auto tune so us musicians have nothing to be ashamed of if auto tune was used on one of our projects. I've always said that singers are not musicians.


Isn't it kinda like having frets?


----------



## Diablo

hardasmum said:


> Unless we can get a Pro Tools rig back in time to 1968 we will never know the truth. It might have had a BIGGER impact because every other record at that time would have sounded sloppy in comparison!


I agree with this. Lz was slightly before my time, and I find them really hard to listen to due to their production limitations. Funny how they always sounded much more dissonant to my ears than even bands before them, like the Beach Boys.


----------



## hummingway

Diablo said:


> I agree with this. Lz was slightly before my time, and I find them really hard to listen to due to their production limitations. Funny how they always sounded much more dissonant to my ears than even bands before them, like the Beach Boys.


I understand that but I think you have to view them in the context of what they represented. The Beach Boys were competing with the Beatles as top of the pops, using every studio advance available but not representative of the chemistry of the band or the songwriters. Led Zeppelin were recording off the floor and representative of the power trio movement and the first couple albums were actually a pretty good technological move forward in the efforts to record loud bands off the floor. I was never a Zep fan but the first couple of albums, in my opinion, broke some technological ground and had a lot of influence on what was to come.


----------



## FrankyNoTone

Its been like 20+ years since I last listened to In Through The Out Door but I remember in one track they kept the sound of the studio door opening and then closing because it sorta kinda fit into the song. That took me a while to figure out WTF it was and I never thought Led Zep took the studio work all that seriously.


----------



## Hamstrung

This thread reminded me of a documentary I saw a couple years back called "Before the Music Dies". I highly recommend it!

[video=youtube;JwIiYvLVyZU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JwIiYvLVyZU[/video]


----------



## hollowbody

FrankyNoTone said:


> Its been like 20+ years since I last listened to In Through The Out Door but I remember in one track they kept the sound of the studio door opening and then closing because it sorta kinda fit into the song. That took me a while to figure out WTF it was and I never thought Led Zep took the studio work all that seriously.


There's quite a few tracks where this happens in teh Zep catalogue. Since I've Been Loving you has vocal bleed from a track being played in teh control room, as well as noise from the foot pedals of JPJ's keys! 

I don't know if it means they didn't take it seriously, but to me, it's a charming little thing that happened and I wouldn't have it any other way. Stuff like that would never happen today, and maybe that's a bad thing. I think too many labels/artists are overly concerned about how "right" they get the sound and they don't pay enough attention to how "right" they get the song first.

Zep with autotune would be fine, because they songs were killer to begin with. Hell, anything from that era I would like to hear recorded with modern gear. Have you heard the basslines Carl Radle played all over the Layla album? Probably not, cuz they're hard to hear, but they're killer!


----------



## david henman

...for the most part, autotune is used to make music palatable for mass consumption or mainstream "taste". 

pretty much the same people who don't want too much excitement in their food.

one blandburger, please. hold the flavour.

for the rest of us who do actually crave "flavour", it has rendered country music, for example, unlistenable. at least, mainstream country music.


----------



## 4345567

__________


----------



## Guest

hollowbody said:


> I don't know if it means they didn't take it seriously, but to me, it's a charming little thing that happened and I wouldn't have it any other way. Stuff like that would never happen today, and maybe that's a bad thing. I think too many labels/artists are overly concerned about how "right" they get the sound and they don't pay enough attention to how "right" they get the song first.


sorta like the coin drop on max webster's 'gravity'.


----------



## hardasmum

Here's an interesting video on Melodyne's ability to adjust the pitch of individual notes in chords.

Perhaps you will see the powerful production & writing possibilities of pitch correction software. I guarantee you "don't hear" pitch correction more often than you "do hear" it.

[video=youtube;jFCjv4_jqAY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jFCjv4_jqAY&feature=youtube_gdata_player[/video]


----------



## hardasmum

Another Melodyne demo. You can see it's use on vocals at approximately 3:20 plus a jab at Autotune a few minutes later.

[video=youtube;8zeLKMHxbN8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8zeLKMHxbN8&feature=youtube_gdata_player[/video]


----------



## hollowbody

laristotle said:


> sorta like the coin drop on max webster's 'gravity'.


exactly, or the discordant piano crash in the intro to the Police's Roxanne, when Sting sat on a keyboard by accident. It sounded cool, so they kept it. So much of studio magic is trial and error, or happy accident. Too often, these days, there seems to be a formulaic way to approach recording. Everything is compressed to hell, loud as sin and if it's not, you're not doing it right. Whatever.


----------



## Guest

thought of another one. beatles 'I feel fine'. 
John leans his guitar against the amp with
the volume up and the 'A' starts to feedback.
they liked it, kept it for the beginning.


----------



## hummingway

Mixes use to involve a bunch of us standing at the board with an assignment; at a certain point bring this fader up or turn that knob. It was great fun and serendipity happened. 
I love automation but there are a lot less happy accidents. We edited by using a razor blade and tape, which I don't miss, but it was part of the characteristic of the music. The sound of a bass and drums saturating the tape is wonderful, so are the crystal clear digital recordings but it is interesting hearing people add in distortion and trying to introduce warmth because they recognize there was something good in that as well. We used to talk about creating magic in the studios. It was about synergy and people experimenting together.


----------



## Milkman

hollowbody said:


> I think too many labels/artists are overly concerned about how "right" they get the sound and they don't pay enough attention to how "right" they get the song first.



I couldn't agree more or express it better.


----------



## Roryfan

Many of my favourite albums were made by musicians playing together in a room at the same time. There's a magic that usually only comes from a live performance with everybody in the zone & feeding off of each other's energy. And drums & guitar bleeding into the vocal mic always sounds good (i.e. Beano)


----------



## Jim DaddyO

Sometimes the perfect thing to have in a song is something imperfect and "human". Sterile perfection is not the goal, music is the goal.

I saw Justin Beiber on the TV a while ago and could not listen to more than a few seconds as the autotune was so obvious on his voice.


----------



## Roryfan

This is a video response to autotune.

U2's Bono & The Edge Perform "Stuck In a Moment" on David Letterman - YouTube


----------



## hardasmum

I was discussing this thread with some other engineers at work yesterday and I must admit they had a good laugh over it. 

We all agreed if you can hear pitch correction in a way that sounds a bit like a vocoder it is being used as an effect or being used improperly.

If you can't hear pitch correction on a vocal track then it is not being used at all or being used correctly.


----------



## Milkman

The reality that many choose to ignore is that recordings were made for many years without pitch correction. A good many of todays stars would simply not be stars without modern technology.

Clearly auto tune can be used in such a way as to be virtually undetectable. I have no problem with correcting a few notes in an otherwise great performance. I've done it myself, but some of these guys simply can't find or hold a pitch without it.

Really it's only one step from Auto tune, to computerized note substitution.

Hit a clam in a solo? No problem. We can turn that B flat into a C no problem.


----------



## Starbuck

Roryfan said:


> This is a video response to autotune.
> 
> U2's Bono & The Edge Perform "Stuck In a Moment" on David Letterman - YouTube


LOVE IT! And on the "note" i just bought Gordon Lightfoot Live at Massey Hall. Can't wait to hear it!


----------



## hardasmum

As soon as they stopped recording direct to vinyl it's been dishonest.

Watch George cover up bad harmonies at approximately 1:02

I am not suggesting anyone can touch The Beatles these days, only that a band as great as them starting having problems pulling off stuff live. They became a studio band. Were they "cheats" because of it? One could argue they were (but it won't be me!).


[video=youtube;4AC957ByEuw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4AC957ByEuw&feature=youtube_gdata_player[/video]





Milkman said:


> The reality that many choose to ignore is that recordings were made for many years without pitch correction. A good many of todays stars would simply not be stars without modern technology.
> 
> Clearly auto tune can be used in such a way as to be virtually undetectable. I have no problem with correcting a few notes in an otherwise great performance. I've done it myself, but some of these guys simply can't find or hold a pitch without it.
> 
> Really it's only one step from Auto tune, to computerized note substitution.
> 
> Hit a clam in a solo? No problem. We can turn that B flat into a C no problem.


----------



## Milkman

hardasmum said:


> As soon as they stopped recording direct to vinyl it's been dishonest.
> 
> Watch George cover up bad harmonies at approximately 1:02
> 
> I am not suggesting anyone can touch The Beatles these days, only that a band as great as them starting having problems pulling off stuff live. They became a studio band. Were they "cheats" because of it? One could argue they were (but it won't be me!).
> 
> 
> [video=youtube;4AC957ByEuw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4AC957ByEuw&feature=youtube_gdata_player[/video]



No, I don't consider the art of recording to be cheating. It's a craft that I have great respect for and enjoy immensely.

I actually don't mind using pitch correction for a note or two.


----------



## hardasmum

I love that footage of George waving!



Milkman said:


> hardasmum said:
> 
> 
> 
> As soon as they stopped recording direct to vinyl it's been dishonest.
> 
> Watch George cover up bad harmonies at approximately 1:02
> 
> I am not suggesting anyone can touch The Beatles these days, only that a band as great as them starting having problems pulling off stuff live. They became a studio band. Were they "cheats" because of it? One could argue they were (but it won't be me!).
> 
> 
> [video=youtube;4AC957ByEuw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4AC957ByEuw&feature=youtube_gdata_player[/video]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I don't consider the art of recording to be cheating. It's a craft that I have great respect for and enjoy immensely.
> 
> I actually don't mind using pitch correction for a note or two.
Click to expand...


----------



## 4345567

__________


----------



## zontar

hardasmum said:


> As soon as they stopped recording direct to vinyl it's been dishonest.


How about Les Paul using multiple takes on direct to disc recording, and varying the speeds, etc.
Just a low tech way of doing it, and it took much longer.


----------



## sulphur

I see the point of correcting small gaffs during recording. Time is money in the studio.

As per the OP, this is a guy that's relying on this effect to perform.
He's admitted to not being able to sing and plans on lessons,
yet has made tons of cash as a performer.
So yes, a bit of cheating going on there, in that case.


----------



## 4345567

__________


----------



## sulphur

nkjanssen said:


> But does anyone listen to BEP for the great vocal talent? If people are listening because they like the beat and can dance to it, I don't see how it's cheating to use Autotune. The music is what it is. Love it or hate it, I doubt any BEP fan would feel cheated after reading that article.


True. Good point, I believe that you'd be right on that assumption.

I personally hate that Cher, vocal modulating nonsense. Not for me.


----------



## 4345567

__________


----------



## Milkman

nkjanssen said:


> What are your thoughts on drum machines, samples and MIDI?
> 
> Cheating?


Drum machines don't bother me so much but I prefer a real drummer. As for samples, I think they can be used by musicians in a creative way such as electronic kits triggering samples of great kits.

I've also used sampling keyboards. In fact, I suspect that most decent piano sounds are from samples.

Midi? What does that have to do with anything? Yes Midi is nice for poly timbral layered sounds and for flexibility of using fewer keyboards to achieve what used to take Rick Wakeman 16 separate instruments. As long as a talented player is using it....

My complaint with Autotune is that in the hands of a skilled engineer, a lousy singer can sound like a good one.

And, for the record, music is not "ruined" for me.

I have plenty to listen to.


----------



## 4345567

__________


----------



## Milkman

nkjanssen said:


> Step programming and quantization... they are, for timing, exactly what Autotune is for pitch. They can be used creatively or abused in exactly the same ways.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the hands of a skilled producer a lousy keyboard player or drummer can sound like a good one and that has nothing to do with Autotune. I think it was the last Metallica album listed four people in the credits under "drum editing". Kudos for actually acknowledging it, I suppose. Most bands wouldn't give credit for that.
> 
> Bottom line - either the music sounds good or it doesn't. The tools used don't matter.


There's something more personal about transforming the lead vocal in a track from crap to passable than there is to time correcting a drum track but yes, I must concede that similar technology has been used and over-used for as long as it has been possible.

It's not dis-similar to photoshopping pictures to turn ugly into not bad or even smoking hot.

If you're ok with all of that, carry on.

My inclination is to try to hold onto some reality.


----------



## davetcan

Just watching the start of the Jubilee concert. Will I Am can't even rap in key, completely useless.

Robbie Williams on the other hand was pretty much spot on.

Jessie J, who I've never heard of, has a great voice.


----------



## Diablo

davetcan said:


> Just watching the start of the Jubilee concert. Will I Am can't even rap in key, completely useless.
> 
> Robbie Williams on the other hand was pretty much spot on.
> 
> Jessie J, who I've never heard of, has a great voice.


Sir Paul sounded terrible IMO. I wish he'd just hang it up. Every performance I see of him lately, tarnishes his rock-god legend status.


----------



## Milkman

Diablo said:


> Sir Paul sounded terrible IMO. I wish he'd just hang it up. Every performance I see of him lately, tarnishes his rock-god legend status.


I have to agree. I'm a Beatles fan and to some extent a McCartney fan but his voice doesn't work as well as it once did that's for sure.


----------



## davetcan

Have to agree. Saw him a couple of years ago, and twice in 2007, he still had it then. Past few times I've seen him on TV he's sounded pretty bad.

The 2 shows in 2007 were arguably the best two concerts I've ever seen, he was amazing.



Milkman said:


> I have to agree. I'm a Beatles fan and to some extent a McCartney fan but his voice doesn't work as well as it once did that's for sure.


----------



## Robert1950

Now this is a novel use of this technology...

[video=youtube;OFzXaFbxDcM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=OFzXaFbxDcM[/video]


----------



## david henman

...notwithstanding all the silliness, i think the reality is that:

1. autotune is a pretty cool effect, and will probably have an interesting and entertaining evolution
2. people who use autotune to disguise the fact that they can't sing will get exposed, and publicly embarrassed
3. old farts with closed minds will continue to whine about 'kids today' and about how much better everything was 'back in their day'


----------



## Jim DaddyO

Mr. Dress up could kick Mr. Rogers ass.


----------



## davetcan

david henman said:


> ...notwithstanding all the silliness, i think the reality is that:
> 
> 3. how much better everything was 'back in their day'


Goes without saying really.


----------



## 4345567

______________


----------



## david henman

hummingway said:


> It is symbolic, to me, of the media manipulation that passes for music any more. One of the most painful things I have heard was a performance of Shania Twain. It was shortly after some lip sync scandal or other so she felt obligated to go out and sing her nursery rhymes herself, which was a problem since, at least at the time, she couldn't sing. Her voice was a creation of her ex-husband.



...in the early 90s i was sent a shania twain album that was recorded before auto-tune, and well before she met mutt lange. her voice, and singing, were absolutely gorgeous.


----------



## 4345567

__________


----------



## david henman

nkjanssen said:


> As much as I'm not a big fan of the genre generally, most modern country artists are excellent musicians. With few exceptions, your typical modern country singer can sing _very_ well. Yet absolutely everything in in modern country, again with few exceptions, is absolutely slathered in AutoTune. It's not to hide a lack of ability. The ability is there. It's because that's "the sound". Love it or hate it, that hyper-in-pitch machine-like vocal thing is the "modern sound" of country radio. It's an effect.


...some say this trend to try and appeal to people who hate country music began with kenny rogers and dolly parton in the early 80s. but it is currently enjoying a rennaisance. the idea being, i guess, to make country as un-country as possible.

if any genre fan would despise auto-tune, one would think it would be fans of country music.

odd, indeed.

similarly, isn't auto-tune used extensively in heavy rock these days?


----------



## 4345567

__________


----------



## david henman

nkjanssen said:


> It may have started in the 80's, but I think Mutt Lange is probably the one person most singly responsible for it. There was definitely a point in the 90's when there were far more similarities than differences between Bryan Adams, Def Leppard and Shania Twain.


...he did use quite a few similar arrangement tricks and drum sounds, but he also used a fair amount of fiddle etc on shania's recordings. he made even her worst songs rather fun to listen to.


----------



## 4345567

__________


----------



## david henman

...true, that. country/pop, or pop/country, has become it's own genre. actually, i think the industry refers to it as "crossover country".

i much prefer the real deal, but i'm curious to hear a taylor swift recording or two.





nkjanssen said:


> He established the formula! Pop + fiddle = country.
> 
> Seriously. Take any pop artist - be they pop-rock, teen-pop, soft-pop, whatever - and add some fiddle. You've got yourself a country artist. Some, like Taylor Swift, even play both sides at the same time.
> 
> It's brilliant, really.


----------



## david henman

...old thread, fresh thought: back in my day, i had to listen to a lot of people whine about how much better things were back in their day.


----------



## GuitarsCanada

david henman said:


> ...old thread, fresh thought: back in my day, i had to listen to a lot of people whine about how much better things were back in their day.


You mean when there were no cars?


----------



## 4345567

__________


----------



## Roryfan

My girlfriend used to say "Bieber's not that bad, I don't know why you hate on him so much". Halfway through the Tedeschi Trucks concert on Friday she apologized to me & purveyors of real music.


----------



## hardasmum

It's true. My parents would go on about the 50's & 60's and I've started feeling nostalgia for the 70's & 80's.

There are two flaws with the "things were better in my day" concept.

First off it's clouded by nostalgia for one's youth. Things were better when I was ten because all I had to do all day was go to school and play with my toys! 

Secondly, were things actually that much better?

I watched an interesting documentary about civility which spoke of how people are less polite than they used to be, distracted by their smartphones and how "twentysomethings" today feel a sense of entitlement.

One of the people interviewed suggested that despite these negative elements much of society has changed for the better in the Western world specifically in regards to gender and race equality. The end of civility is the trade off.



david henman said:


> ...old thread, fresh thought: back in my day, i had to listen to a lot of people whine about how much better things were back in their day.


----------



## david henman

Roryfan said:


> My girlfriend used to say "Bieber's not that bad, I don't know why you hate on him so much". Halfway through the Tedeschi Trucks concert on Friday she apologized to me & purveyors of real music.


...unless you are in your early teens, why would you even care, much less pass judgement?

i can still vividly recall being a teen in the 50s, and being constantly reminded that my music was not "real" music.

i didn't care what was considered "good" music, or "real" music.

i wanted to hear music that spoke to ME. 

not music that spoke to someone twice my age...


----------



## Roryfan

david henman said:


> ...unless you are in your early teens, why would you even care, much less pass judgement?
> 
> i can still vividly recall being a teen in the 50s, and being constantly reminded that my music was not "real" music.
> 
> i didn't care what was considered "good" music, or "real" music.
> 
> i wanted to hear music that spoke to ME.
> 
> not music that spoke to someone twice my age...


I'm almost 40 but she's in her teens....just kidding, I'm no Jimmy Page (on every level).

She's in her mid 30s but grew up in a very churchy family so growing up she was only exposed to gospel & classical. Since then it's been whatever's on the hit radio station du jour. I care because I'm tired of having my ears raped by Virgin radio whenever I go to her place. 

She studied piano & sang in the church, so she has an excellent musical foundation. It's a lot of fun helping her discover the missing musical links; after seeing a few YouTube clips, she's very excited to see Colin James at the KW blues fest.


----------



## GuitarsCanada

We often say (the over 40 crowd) that our generation of music was the best. The truth is, it was. Every parent of that era owes it to their kids to expose them to that music. My kids grew up listening to it. I just brought the GF two kids, 16 and 18 to see the wall. Blew their minuscule minds. Believe me, they will know the difference in the trash that is produced today and real rock and roll


----------



## david henman

GuitarsCanada said:


> We often say (the over 40 crowd) that our generation of music was the best. The truth is, it was. Every parent of that era owes it to their kids to expose them to that music. My kids grew up listening to it. I just brought the GF two kids, 16 and 18 to see the wall. Blew their minuscule minds. Believe me, they will k ow the difference in the trash that is produced today and real rock and roll



...yes, it was.
for us.
just as the 20s, 30s, and 40s was for those generations.
and, just as the 2010s, 2020s, 2030s will be for coming generations.
and every former generation will claim that the music of "today" is trash.
surely, some part of you must wonder why that is so easy to predict.


----------



## GuitarsCanada

david henman said:


> ...yes, it was.
> for us.
> just as the 20s, 30s, and 40s was for those generations.
> and, just as the 2010s, 2020s, 2030s will be for coming generations.
> and every former generation will claim that the music of "today" is trash.
> surely, some part of you must wonder why that is so easy to predict.


For mainstream followers that is true. It is what they are exposed to. You tend to like what you hear if that's all you hear. My Father turned us on to Buddy Rich, Sinatra and all the big bands. I still listen to it today and so does my brother. I also listen to all the classic rock bands. I hear what's out there today and like some of it. I go across all era's of music. What I am saying is make sure your kids get a taste of that era. Don't let it be just whats out there now. My father would sit down and listen to Rush is we had it on back then. Was not his favorite but he would listen to it


----------



## 4345567

__________


----------



## 4345567

__________


----------



## david henman

GuitarsCanada said:


> For mainstream followers that is true. It is what they are exposed to. You tend to like what you hear if that's all you hear. My Father turned us on to Buddy Rich, Sinatra and all the big bands. I still listen to it today and so does my brother. I also listen to all the classic rock bands. I hear what's out there today and like some of it. I go across all era's of music. What I am saying is make sure your kids get a taste of that era. Don't let it be just whats out there now. My father would sit down and listen to Rush is we had it on back then. Was not his favorite but he would listen to it


...we are musicians so, ultimately, we are going to go looking.
my expectations of mainstream taste just aren't that high.
they will gravitate toward what is considered cool by their peers (as i did) and by what the corporate marketing machine persuades them is cool.
i hold musicians to a much higher standard.


----------



## david henman

nkjanssen said:


> Encouraging someone to broaden their musical horizons by listening to music from many different eras is VERY different than simply stating that the music you grew up with is objectively better than any other music.


...what happened to the "like" button?


----------



## Jim DaddyO

david henman said:


> ...what happened to the "like" button?



still working!


----------



## david henman

...there is no question that the 50s, 60s and 70s were great eras.
they were eras of great discovery, great change, great innovation.
i just hate to see all that spoiled by reducing it to the same, tired, "back in my day" cliche to which former generations fell prey.


----------



## ThePass

in this day and age, these tricks are used by everybody. Sadly I guess.


----------



## 4345567

__________


----------



## GuitarsCanada

nkjanssen said:


> Encouraging someone to broaden their musical horizons by listening to music from many different eras is VERY different than simply stating that the music you grew up with is objectively better than any other music.


I am saying it is


----------



## Roryfan

david henman said:


> ...we are musicians so, ultimately, we are going to go looking.
> my expectations of mainstream taste just aren't that high.
> they will gravitate toward what is considered cool by their peers (as i did) and by what the corporate marketing machine persuades them is cool.
> i hold musicians to a much higher standard.



I will argue that technology of many kinds permits the corporate marketing machine to shift the balance between musicianship and packaging even further in the direction of packaging. Susan Tedeschi is an incredible singer & songwriter. But I will go out on a limb and guess that an image consultant has probably told/will tell her that she needs to lose 30 lbs.

And as musicians (I am using the term very liberally by including myself) do we not have a responsibility to share our discoveries with friends & family who have not been exposed to anything beyond what the corporate marketing machine spits out?

Growing up in a small town with one AM radio station & churchgoing immigrant parents, I was exposed to classical (still love Bach, Beethoven & Mozart), easy listening (damn you James Last!), oldies & country. No hard rock, that was long-haired druggie music. But it was a magical day when my older cousins played Back In Black & Nature Of The Beast for me.


----------



## Milkman

I listen to a very broad variety of musical genres, most of which I was not exposed to growing up.

These days, to find music that really connects with me, I look to classical, folk and ethnic music from other parts of the world.

I listen to mainstream music because it's there, but with very few exceptions I'm just not hearing anything that comes close to the rock of the 60's and 70's.

I will admit that I misjudged at least one artist in this context.

Adele is a much better singer than I previously gave her credit for.


----------



## hardasmum

Milkman said:


> .
> Adele is a much better singer than I previously gave her credit for.


I saw her at Massey Hall in 2009. She had lungs, no pitch correction for her. Also a great songwriter. Her band was stellar.


----------



## fretboard

Wouldn't it be naive to assume that all the glorious music of the 60's & 70's came to our attention because it was good and not "corporate-driven" - even though there was that whole "payola" thing going on? Perhaps in absence of outright bribes, the music folks just target the smallest, most uninspired nuances of music to find a generally accepted "popularity" chart or grid that helps them make everything sound slick and pleasing, even if it does start to sound the same after the 2nd minute?


Let's see if anyone can mention a "popular" song that doesn't have the single most consistant theme in popular music (as I'm sure every legitimate musician has consciously reflected upon, in the pursuit of honing their craft) - repetition. Even if the lyrics don't repeat (pop tunes without chorus'???), doesn't the music break down into easily digested sections that repeat?

(and just to clarify - the only "popular" music I hear as a stay-at-home dad is what my wife or kids might be playing - if I'm at the controls then 9 times out of 10, I'll have a Grateful Dead show on, so I'm certainly into the 60's & 70's were great music times camp...)


----------



## david henman

GuitarsCanada said:


> I am saying it is


...as has every generation of fogies before you, and as will every succeeding generation of old fogies after you. 
it's a pattern. 
a syndrome. 
like the complaints about "kids today" that have been perpetuated since the first conception.
or the whining about government and taxes, which are repeated in every taxi stand, tavern and coffee shop in the known universe.
or the claims that we're all going to some place called hell in some contraption called a handbasket, which also repeat in perpetuity.
sometimes, humanity is like a broken record...


----------



## fretboard

A pattern? A syndrome? Weren't you ever a teenage, David?

Wouldn't it stand to reason that for every generation, the teenagers tend to dig being rebels (usually for the first time in their lives because they've been under their parents thumbs for the previous decade or more) while they try and figure out who they are and where they fit in the world? Perhaps most teens rebel by liking what is new (and as such, something they can take and make "theirs", not the hand-me-downs of their parents or older siblings)? 

Maybe I'm way off base here - but doesn't each generation like their stuff (in broad terms) because it was literally "their stuff" - not their parents Simon & Garfunkel albums that they heard all the time and were told for years were great, nor their kids LMFAO or Nickelbacks?


----------



## david henman

fretboard said:


> A pattern? A syndrome? Weren't you ever a teenage, David?
> Wouldn't it stand to reason that for every generation, the teenagers tend to dig being rebels (usually for the first time in their lives because they've been under their parents thumbs for the previous decade or more) while they try and figure out who they are and where they fit in the world? Perhaps most teens rebel by liking what is new (and as such, something they can take and make "theirs", not the hand-me-downs of their parents or older siblings)?
> Maybe I'm way off base here - but doesn't each generation like their stuff (in broad terms) because it was literally "their stuff" - not their parents Simon & Garfunkel albums that they heard all the time and were told for years were great, nor their kids LMFAO or Nickelbacks?


...that, more or less, is the point i am trying to make.


----------



## Roryfan

fretboard said:


> Wouldn't it stand to reason that for every generation, the teenagers tend to dig being rebels (usually for the first time in their lives because they've been under their parents thumbs for the previous decade or more) while they try and figure out who they are and where they fit in the world? Perhaps most teens rebel by liking what is new (and as such, something they can take and make "theirs", not the hand-me-downs of their parents or older siblings)?
> 
> Maybe I'm way off base here - but doesn't each generation like their stuff (in broad terms) because it was literally "their stuff" - not their parents Simon & Garfunkel albums that they heard all the time and were told for years were great, nor their kids LMFAO or Nickelbacks?


Yes. And there's also a peak of seratonin (nature's prozac) production in our late teens, which explains why most people cling to whatever they're exposed to in high school as the standard of cool. Exhibit A: guys who never stopped rockin' the mullett.


----------



## GuitarsCanada

Roryfan said:


> Yes. And there's also a peak of seratonin (nature's prozac) production in our late teens, which explains why most people cling to whatever they're exposed to in high school as the standard of cool. Exhibit A: guys who never stopped rockin' the mullett.


What is that anyway? Like I bump into people sometimes that I went to high school with and it's like we are still in the 70's. I have always found that to be bizarre that some people got stuck in that "high school" era forever


----------



## fretboard

I could use a ruling here pertaining to mulletage, and the laws governing the whole "business up front, party in the back" lifestyle - I've been growing out my lid for a couple years now, but with full bangs (long enough to chew on if the mood strikes). Does this still fall under "mullet"?? It's not really long in the back - more of a one length sorta vibe with the front and sides. For me, a mullet is the classic Jagr haircut from his Penquins days (long out back, short around the ears and up front).

Any help would be appreciated before Friday afternoon - it's time for my twice yearly trim and perhaps I need to consider something more aggressive in the cutting, rather than just a little touch-up...

(after my 12 years of full suit and short hair for work, once I started staying home with the kids I decided haircuts were about #934 on my list of things to do - now I'm just having fun with it before it all turns grey..)


----------



## GuitarsCanada

As long as you dont look like this, you should be OK

View attachment 1202


----------



## Roryfan

www.mulletsgalore.com

Unfortunately the site has been closed, but my fave was the mulletard. I know, I know, I'm going straight to hell. Hope they have electricity down there so I can plug in.


----------



## Roryfan

GuitarsCanada said:


> Roryfan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. And there's also a peak of seratonin (nature's prozac) production in our late teens, which explains why most people cling to whatever they're exposed to in high school as the standard of cool. Exhibit A: guys who never stopped rockin' the mullett.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is that anyway? Like I bump into people sometimes that I went to high school with and it's like we are still in the 70's. I have always found that to be bizarre that some people got stuck in that "high school" era forever
Click to expand...

It's a "feel good" chemical that our brains produce. The high levels present during late adolescence tend to give us the warm & fuzzies for anything associated with that time. I know that hair metal is beyond cheesey but I still enjoy it on occasion because it takes me back to that time.


----------



## Milkman

hardasmum said:


> I saw her at Massey Hall in 2009. She had lungs, no pitch correction for her. Also a great songwriter. Her band was stellar.



Yes, I have to agree. It took me more listens than normal to appreciate it. Some music grabs you the first time you hear it. Sometimes it takes patience.


----------



## hardasmum

I will preface this post by saying The Beatles are my favourite band of all time.

A co-worker of mine who has been a musician and engineer since the 60's mentioned to me once that at the time he and his muso buddies hated The Beatles and considered them the equivalent of a "boy band". Brian Epstein did package them as clean, cuddly and safe for teenage girls.

Which reminds me of a scene from The Beatles Anthology where a young girl declares her love for Herman's Hermits because The Beatles were so "yesterday".

My point is that it's hard to say which artists today will have an impact on music history. I have seen teenagers wearing both Jimi Hendrix and Kurt Cobain t-shirts. For many kids they are considered musical equals. Perhaps in fifteen years my boys will be wearing Black Keys shirts.


----------



## hummingway

I think it was Paul Simon who wrote, "Every generation sends another pop star up the charts."


----------



## Milkman

hardasmum said:


> My point is that it's hard to say which artists today will have an impact on music history. I have seen teenagers wearing both Jimi Hendrix and Kurt Cobain t-shirts. For many kids they are considered musical equals.


Sad but true.


----------



## david henman

Milkman said:


> Sad but true.



...why is that sad? 

cobain was as important to my daughter's generation as hendrix was to ours.


----------



## 4345567

__________


----------



## Roryfan

nkjanssen said:


> [SARCASM]
> 
> It's sad that the whole world doesn't have the same musical tastes and influences as me.
> 
> [/SARCASM]


Life would be so much simpler if the whole world liked what I like. Hmmm....would they all be cool & unique like me or would I become a mindless, lemmingish wanker like them?


----------



## Milkman

david henman said:


> ...why is that sad?
> 
> cobain was as important to my daughter's generation as hendrix was to ours.


It's sad because Hendrix was a brilliant and innovative guitarist.

Cobain wrote some catchy pop songs.

I won't candy coat this.

Anyone who thinks Cobain was as good a writer or musician as Hendrix is wrong.

I'm not talking about how many kids were influenced. I hold music to a higher standard than that.

They are not equals. If people like Nirvana, that's fine. I like a couple of songs.

I think the comparison is ridiculous.

For what it's worth I don't really care who agrees.


----------



## fretboard

View attachment 1203


Of course, that's just my opinion...


----------



## sulphur

Roryfan said:


> Life would be so much simpler if the whole world liked what I like. Hmmm....would they all be cool & unique like me or would I become a mindless, lemmingish wanker like them?


You'd be different...like everybody else.


----------



## Roryfan

sulphur said:


> Roryfan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Life would be so much simpler if the whole world liked what I like. Hmmm....would they all be cool & unique like me or would I become a mindless, lemmingish wanker like them?
> 
> 
> 
> You'd be different...like everybody else.
Click to expand...

Case in point: I went to the Indy 500 this yr & one evening my host took me to see an indie rock band at a small club (still not sure if it was an Indy indie show or an indie Indy show). Anyways, almost everyone was wearing skinny jeans, Buddy Holly glasses & tattoos that they will regret in middle age. Couldn't quite tell if the mustaches were ironic or pathetic, but that crowd wore the same uniform as the hipsters in T.O.


----------



## GuitarsCanada

nkjanssen said:


> Bwaaaaaaaaaa!!!!!!!!!
> 
> That was intended to be ironic, right?


Not that I am aware of


----------



## 4345567

__________


----------



## Milkman

nkjanssen said:


> And I won't candy coat this...
> 
> Anyone who thinks Cobain was _not_ as good a writer or musician as Hendrix is wrong.
> 
> So where does that leave us?
> 
> 
> 
> You're hilarious.
> 
> Seriously.


Well, one of us is hilarious. The other is deluded.

That's where it leaves us.

If you truly believe what you just posted, you've made my point better than any post I could make.


----------



## fretboard

So rarely do we see someone with the ability to cut through the utter nonsense, and just give it to the people straight - and too bad if they can't handle the truth, I always say.

Please tell me you're not employed in the dairy industry because you're making your way to the office Office of Prime Minister, if your calling allows it to be so.

It would be awesome to have someone run the country who takes a world-be-damned approach and decides that their opinions are truly fact - and that those "facts" in their eyes is unwavering. Anyone doesn't agree, they're delusional.



Hmm... Where to find an example of this logic??? It's almost like something I've read about - but can't put my finger on it... Probably would have been a big to do though...


Anyway, first you could pick clear winners for music (cross-cultural artists - no problem, someone always wins, and you always supply the answer) then move on to international relations (hello Israel & Palestine - I'm sure they'd love an official ruling on who is "better" so the other, losing side can be dealt with appropriately). Muslims? Catholics? Jews? North American Indians? Albinos? Lefties? There'll be time to render their fates much the same way Nirvana was disposed of and deemed essentially The Knack (one or two tunes worthy of listening to - but in the scope of reality, nothing more than an afterthought)...

Before all that and the secret to the Caramilk bar, perhaps you'd enlighten the masses to one more musical question;

The Beatles vs. The Rolling Stones. Who beats whom here, and where does Hendrix fit into all of this?

What say you, oh, seer of things mere mortals merely form opinions on??

sdsre
(Totally understand why there's a Jimi icon on here, but no Cobain one)


----------



## sulphur

The idea of whose "better" is all a crock.

Personal opinions are just that, personal.

It's like arguing over a brand of guitar, senseless.
There are things that some people like and were/are affected by, that others aren't.

Like what you like, fine, but it doesn't mean that what that is, is better.


----------



## hardasmum

sulphur said:


> The idea of whose "better" is all a crock.
> 
> Personal opinions are just that, personal.
> 
> It's like arguing over a brand of guitar, senseless.
> There are things that some people like and were/are affected by, that others aren't.
> 
> Like what you like, fine, but it doesn't mean that what that is, is better.


The voice of reason. Thank you.


----------



## 4345567

__________


----------



## Milkman

I calls em as I sees em.

I will not stand with the crowd and admire the emperors new clothes. I figured THAT out in my teens. 

Obviously a few here are still working on that one.

If my tastes and opinions are influenced by the 35 years of gigging, recording teaching and doing FOH sound, so be it.

It's entirely possible that a rock renaissance will happen at some point, bringing us back to the glory of rock in the 60's and 70's.

I keep hoping. Until then there's lots of good music out there, just not much great music.


----------



## 4345567

__________


----------



## david henman

nkjanssen said:


> Most people figure this out by their late teens.
> But some don't.
> The way I see it... Some people see music as a competition with narrow criteria for judgement and clear winners and losers. Some see it as an artform, with a myriad of ways in which a song or a performance or an artist can be good or even great - so many so that winner/loser comparisons are rediculous. I love talking music with people who take that latter view. It gives me an opportunity to learn new things and to share my own discoveries and revelations. I hate talking music with people who take the former view because there's nothing to be learned or gained from the discussion by either side.


...i could not agree more.
i have always expected audiences to have closed minds.
i figured that out by my late teens.
it took me a much, much longer time to discover how many musicians have closed minds.
that came as a major disappointment.


----------



## david henman

Milkman said:


> It's entirely possible that a rock renaissance will happen at some point, bringing us back to the glory of rock in the 60's and 70's.


...personally, if there is to be some sort of renaisance, i would prefer one that moves us forward.


----------



## david henman

Milkman said:


> Until then there's lots of good music out there, just not much great music.



....that is just sad. but you're not alone - most old people, especially old musicians, feel exactly the same as you.
we now live in a world where we have instant and easy access to great music in all genres, from all over the world.
and yet we have nothing better to do than whine about the music that other people, especially ``kids today``, listen to.
every godammed generation repeats this tired ``things were so much better back in my day`` routine!
are we human beings simply incapable of learning from our past, and moving forward?


----------



## hummingway

david henman said:


> ...personally, if there is to be some sort of renaisance, i would prefer one that moves us forward.


Yup. I don't long for the past and don't care much any particular form in that sense but I do wish for a renaissance where art and music are not only respected but are supported, delved into and an attempt to is made by an audience to deepen their appreciation of them.


----------



## Guitar101

nkjanssen said:


> I love talking music with people who take that latter view. It gives me an opportunity to learn new things and to share my own discoveries and revelations. I hate talking music with people who take the former view because there's nothing to be learned or gained from the discussion by either side.


I see these quotes as "I love talking music to people that agree with my way of thinking" and "I hate talking music to people that don't agree with me". . . . . I'm surprised that you don't see it that way or do you?


----------



## hardasmum

Seems pretty clear to me.




nkjanssen said:


> Some see it as an artform, with a myriad of ways in which a song or a performance or an artist can be good or even great - so many so that winner/loser comparisons are rediculous.



He likes people who are open minded, not those that agree with him. Being open minded is a state of being, not an opinion.



Guitar101 said:


> nkjanssen said:
> 
> 
> 
> I love talking music with people who take that latter view. It gives me an opportunity to learn new things and to share my own discoveries and revelations. I hate talking music with people who take the former view because there's nothing to be learned or gained from the discussion by either side.
> 
> 
> 
> I see these quotes as "I love talking music to people that agree with my way of thinking" and "I hate talking music to people that don't agree with me". . . . . I'm surprised that you don't see it that way or do you?
Click to expand...


----------



## 4345567

__________


----------



## Milkman

david henman said:


> ...personally, if there is to be some sort of renaisance, i would prefer one that moves us forward.


The best direction is not always ahead.


----------



## Milkman

david henman said:


> ....that is just sad. but you're not alone - most old people, especially old musicians, feel exactly the same as you.
> we now live in a world where we have instant and easy access to great music in all genres, from all over the world.
> and yet we have nothing better to do than whine about the music that other people, especially ``kids today``, listen to.
> every godammed generation repeats this tired ``things were so much better back in my day`` routine!
> are we human beings simply incapable of learning from our past, and moving forward?



You're doing something here that surprises me David.

You're assuming that my perspective on ths subject is driven purely by nostalgia or by a yearning for the ways of the past.

You're smarter than that.

Most of the ways of the past are best left there in my opinion.

I prefer modern cars, guitars, and technology in general and I think the world has the potential to be a better pace because of the progression made generation after generation.

I simply cannot play nice and agree that rock music released after the 80's compares favorably with that created throughout the 60's, 70's and to some extent the 80's.

This is based on listening.


----------



## Mooh

There are examples of weak music from every generation, but they are largely forgotten, mostly because the cream rises to the top to eclipse the crapola, metaphorically speaking. It usually takes at least a generation for this to be recognized, so we live with music on which even the musicologists and armchair experts can not agree. Screw it, I like what I like. It has always been a mix of old and new from most music forms anyway. Django and Jimi *ARE *still relevant, so are Bach, Mussorgsky, Peterson, Guthrie, Dylan, et al. Age and style has nothing at all to do with value, if that were true and old art lost relevance, what of Da Vinci?

In this age we may not have the enlightened perspective of hindsight. Much of the absolute glut of current music will be eclipsed by the metaphorical cream. The cream is out there, just step over the crap to find it.

Peace, Mooh.


----------



## hardasmum

Milkman said:


> I simply cannot play nice and agree that rock music released after the 80's compares favorably with that created throughout the 60's, 70's and to some extent the 80's.
> 
> This is based on listening.


What have you been listening to the radio? 

AND how can you leave the 50's out of your "Best decades of Rock n Roll" list?! 

I'm sorry but I think your opinion is based on thirty years of hindsight. 

There was a lot of mediocre music from those decades that has only become "classic" because those artists' later catalogue propelled them to stardom. Early Beatles, Kinks and Beach Boys is pretty throw away, cookie cutter pop. And I cussing LOVE those bands. Some early Bolan and Bowie stuff I find downright unlistenable.

There was plenty of shite put out in those three decades. (Uhem...hair metal.)

Unfortunately we still have another ten years or so before we can get a proper perspective on the 90's.


----------



## hardasmum

Mooh said it much more eloquently than I did. Peace




Mooh said:


> There are examples of weak music from every generation, but they are largely forgotten, mostly because the cream rises to the top to eclipse the crapola, metaphorically speaking. It usually takes at least a generation for this to be recognized, so we live with music on which even the musicologists and armchair experts can not agree. Screw it, I like what I like. It has always been a mix of old and new from most music forms anyway. Django and Jimi *ARE *still relevant, so are Bach, Mussorgsky, Peterson, Guthrie, Dylan, et al. Age and style has nothing at all to do with value, if that were true and old art lost relevance, what of Da Vinci?
> 
> In this age we may not have the enlightened perspective of hindsight. Much of the absolute glut of current music will be eclipsed by the metaphorical cream. The cream is out there, just step over the crap to find it.
> 
> Peace, Mooh.


----------



## Jim DaddyO

I have to agree that there is good and bad in every generation. Really, who listens to the Bay City Rollers anymore?

Just because I am behind the times at over 50, does not mean that I cannot find good music today. The Sheepdogs are keeping a rock tradition alive, I like some of KT Tunstill, Mraz, Faust, on and on with more current artists. It is possible to find current music that you enjoy.

Although I do find the car stereo filled with discs of older music, and if the radio is on it is the oldies stations that get preference.


----------



## Budda

You want 70's rock again? Please, go watch The Sheepdogs. That band bores the hell out of me, even if they are bringing rock music back to the forefront.

As for autotune and pitch correction, this entire album was done with NO pitch correction on the vocals. None at all.

iTunes - Music - Periphery

But it's metal, and it's not mainstream to everyone, just the kids online in the last 4 years. I heard of this band when there was no vocalist, when the first album wasn't done, when everything was instrumental. That same band has toured Europe with Dream Theater, major label support and quite the gear collection.

But it's new, and it's heavy, so a lot of people probably won't like it.

I rarely listen to anything pre-'06, I don't listen to any classic rock on any sort of regular basis, and I only listen to the radio at work (barely) or if my girlfriend isn't in a good mood and we're going somewhere. I know the music industry is in a sad state of affairs, and I'm in a band trying to get somewhere within that monster.

At the end of the day, worrying about how it's done is pointless. Do you like it (regardless of if it's good or not)? If "yes", keep listening, find more. If "no" then find something else. It's that easy.


----------



## Milkman

I'm not looking for 70's rock again.

I'm hoping for something new but great.

Sheepdogs and Black Keys aren't it.


----------



## Guitar101

Milkman said:


> I'm not looking for 70's rock again. . . . I'm hoping for something new but great.


When it cools down a little, I'll get right on it.


----------



## Roryfan

Milkman said:


> I'm not looking for 70's rock again.
> 
> I'm hoping for something new but great.
> 
> Sheepdogs and Black Keys aren't it.


Caught the Black Keys in Quebec City last summer & was reminded of the Tea Party show at Edgefest about a dozen yrs earlier.

"Didn't they already play that song?"

"No, but they played one that sounds just like it 2 songs ago."


----------



## Budda

Milkman said:


> I'm not looking for 70's rock again.
> 
> I'm hoping for something new but great.
> 
> Sheepdogs and Black Keys aren't it.


But you want something similar to what's already been done, and those two bands come immediately to mind. Do you enjoy the Foo Fighters? Red Hot Chili Peppers? Those are probably the biggest rock contenders I can think of off the top of my head, especially the former.

Did you check out the band that didn't use any pitch correction that I linked to?


----------



## Milkman

Budda said:


> "But you want something similar to what's already been done".
> 
> Did you check out the band that didn't use any pitch correction that I linked to?


Did I say that? Please find the post.

No, I haven't checked your link but I will.

Foo fighters are a ver good band. RHCP are as well. Obviously Flea is a well respected bassist and a pretty cool performer. Still, the songs don't really grab me.

When I hear a song that does that, new or old, I buy it quickly (itunes generally).


----------



## Milkman

Guitar101 said:


> When it cools down a little, I'll get right on it.



When what cools down?


----------



## Guitar101

Milkman said:


> When what cools down?


The weather. It was so hot yesterday, I saw a dog chasing a cat down the street and they were both walking.


----------



## 4345567

__________


----------



## hardasmum

I was chatting with our neighbour's son today. He's about 13 and plays the drums his older brother is 15 and plays guitar. 

He was telling me that his brother's band played their first two gigs and I was very curious about the material they covered. He told me they played two Black Keys songs, two Red Hot Chili Peppers, one Nirvana and one original tune.

I asked him if this is the type of music he listened to as well. He told me yes, they both liked Alternative and Rock music. (He's not getting this from his parents by the way, neither of them are really music fans.)

"What about classic rock from the 60's and 70's?" I asked.

"Um. It's okay I guess but it's sort of boring," he replied.

I had to share...


----------



## Budda

Maybe the kid has heard too much pentatonic blues-rock then? 

I avoid this whole issue with... metal and punk.


----------



## 4345567

__________


----------



## Roryfan

Milkman said:


> I'm not looking for 70's rock again.
> 
> I'm hoping for something new but great.
> 
> Sheepdogs and Black Keys aren't it.


May I respectfully suggest Ben Harper in his various incarnations? This is an artist that has managed to assimilate a very diverse stable of influences (reggae, delta blues, soul, folk, funk & rock) & create music that rarely sounds derivative. Honest, organic & passionate are 3 words that come to mind to describe Ben's work.


----------



## Roryfan

hardasmum said:


> I was chatting with our neighbour's son today. He's about 13 and plays the drums his older brother is 15 and plays guitar.
> 
> He was telling me that his brother's band played their first two gigs and I was very curious about the material they covered. He told me they played two Black Keys songs, two Red Hot Chili Peppers, one Nirvana and one original tune.
> 
> I asked him if this is the type of music he listened to as well. He told me yes, they both liked Alternative and Rock music. (He's not getting this from his parents by the way, neither of them are really music fans.)
> 
> "What about classic rock from the 60's and 70's?" I asked.
> 
> "Um. It's okay I guess but it's sort of boring," he replied.
> 
> I had to share...


If all he ever heard was Q107.... No disrespect to Randy Bachman, but there's a very good chance the poor kid's frame of reference extends all the way from American Woman to Takin' Care O' Bidness.... I'd be bored too.


----------



## Guest

I know what time of the day it is when listening to Q.
The same songs come at the same time, all the time.


----------



## zontar

Budda said:


> Maybe the kid has heard too much pentatonic blues-rock then?


No such thing!


----------



## Milkman

nkjanssen said:


> Kind of an impossible task. If it doesn't sound like 70's rock, you won't consider it "great" and if it does sound like 70's rock then it's not "new". We seem to go over this every few months. If I was you, I'd stop looking (not that you really are anyway).


Well, as usual you're making assumptions based on what I may or may not consider great.

It doesn't have to sound like 70's rock for me to consider it great.min fact that would be the last thing I would look for. That was done. I just don't hear much that's "great" in rock music these days.

We seem to go over that every few months as well.

I guess I can continue repeating myself if you need to read the same things over and over and over and...

Life is too short to listen to mediocrity just because it's the flavor of the month.

There's plenty of great music available to listen to, regardless of your idea of great.


----------



## Milkman

Guitar101 said:


> The weather. It was so hot yesterday, I saw a dog chasing a cat down the street and they were both walking.


LOL

On that there's no debate.


----------



## Milkman

Budda said:


> But you want something similar to what's already been done, and those two bands come immediately to mind. Do you enjoy the Foo Fighters? Red Hot Chili Peppers? Those are probably the biggest rock contenders I can think of off the top of my head, especially the former.
> 
> Did you check out the band that didn't use any pitch correction that I linked to?


LOL, ok, one more time.

No, I do NOT want music similar to what was produced in the 70's. It's pretty easy to dismiss my opinions on this matter as another old guy who longs for the days when men were men and sheep were scared.

If you think that's what drives me, you're simply not getting it.


----------



## allthumbs56

Pop music will always be pop music. It also seems there may always be some kind of "garage rock", as well as some kind of indie/alternate that sounds pretty much the same over the decades.

What I'm really missing is the creative, progressive, extremely musical stuff: Who's today's Supertramp or Steely Dan? Who is today's Bowie? Show me a modern Funeral for a Friend, or Kasmir, or Quadraphenia.


----------



## david henman

allthumbs56 said:


> Pop music will always be pop music. It also seems there may always be some kind of "garage rock", as well as some kind of indie/alternate that sounds pretty much the same over the decades.
> What I'm really missing is the creative, progressive, extremely musical stuff: Who's today's Supertramp or Steely Dan? Who is today's Bowie? Show me a modern Funeral for a Friend, or Kasmir, or Quadraphenia.



...porcupine tree?


----------



## david henman

...when people talk about how today's music sucks, i think they are usually referring to mainstream pop, what we used to call top forty.

the fact is, mainsream pop, or top forty, has NEVER been about quality.

yes, quality music has occasionally permeated mainstream pop. a joni mitchell or james taylor here, a beachboys there, cat stevens, queen....etc etc..

always has and always will, in varying degrees.

but, for the mos part, mainstream pop has, and continues to be, about trends.

bubblegum music. disco. hair metal. grunge. crossover. rap/hiphop. dance. and so on.


----------



## 4345567

__________


----------



## Jim DaddyO

Kinda wandered off topic here, but great music.....Hmmm, the great Reverend Willie G once said..."It's just 3 chords, and 5 notes"


----------



## david henman

Milkman said:


> I simply cannot play nice and agree that rock music released after the 80's compares favorably with that created throughout the 60's, 70's and to some extent the 80's.
> This is based on listening.



...no, it's based on opinion.

your opinion.

and your own need to compare apples and oranges.


----------



## Budda

What defines "great" in music for you?


----------



## Guitar101

Budda said:


> What defines "great" in music for you?


This would be a great "new" thread. "Auto Suck" has run it's course IMO.


----------



## Milkman

david henman said:


> ...no, it's based on opinion.
> 
> your opinion.
> 
> and your own need to compare apples and oranges.


LMAO

Ok David. And my opinion is based on...yes, that's right, listening.


----------



## Milkman

Budda said:


> What defines "great" in music for you?


Ypu might just as well ask what defines beauty or love.


----------



## Budda

Milkman said:


> Ypu might just as well ask what defines beauty or love.


You have your own opinion of what "Great" is when it comes to music (as do most people, if not all of them) - I'm simply asking what your criteria are?

My quick 'n' dirty criteria would be:
- fast tempo
- complicated rhythms
- melody
- harmonies
- blending "insane" with "tasteful"


----------



## Milkman

Budda said:


> You have your own opinion of what "Great" is when it comes to music (as do most people, if not all of them) - I'm simply asking what your criteria are?
> 
> My quick 'n' dirty criteria would be:
> - fast tempo
> - complicated rhythms
> - melody
> - harmonies
> - blending "insane" with "tasteful"


Really?

So you would have technical parameters by which you could explain why Dali, Monet or M.C.Escher were great?

Regretfully I lack the ability to provide such definitions.


----------



## hardasmum

Escher was an untalented hack IMHO. Throw away pop crap!

There have been no good paintings since the 17th century.



Milkman said:


> Budda said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have your own opinion of what "Great" is when it comes to music (as do most people, if not all of them) - I'm simply asking what your criteria are?
> 
> My quick 'n' dirty criteria would be:
> - fast tempo
> - complicated rhythms
> - melody
> - harmonies
> - blending "insane" with "tasteful"
> 
> 
> 
> Really?
> 
> So you would have technical parameters by which you could explain why Dali, Monet or M.C.Escher were great?
> 
> Regretfully I lack the ability to provide such definitions.
Click to expand...


----------



## loudtubeamps

*hardasmum* 







*Feedback Score 2 (100%)*


Join DateApr 2008LocationTorontoPosts933​









Originally Posted by *ed2000* 
The first Led Zeppelin album would have been pathetic, to my ears, if modern technology had been used to perfect every nuance of the recording .



No. You wouldn't know otherwise because that's the only version that would exist. 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Untill you heard Plant live!​


----------



## loudtubeamps

Jim DaddyO said:


> Mr. Dress up could kick Mr. Rogers ass.


 and he'd like it too!


----------



## loudtubeamps

david henman said:


> ...in the early 90s i was sent a shania twain album that was recorded before auto-tune, and well before she met mutt lange. her voice, and singing, were absolutely gorgeous.


Vegas North The Discovery of Eilleen "Shania" Twain - Somewhere Out There - YouTube
The first job I got when I moved to Huntsville in the early eighties('83-'84) was doing sound at Deerhurst Resort for the Vegas Show.
I can guarantee there was no pitch correction gear in the rack back then. Yum-Yum.
cheers, d.


----------



## loudtubeamps

nkjanssen said:


> Kind of an impossible task. If it doesn't sound like 70's rock, you won't consider it "great" and if it does sound like 70's rock then it's not "new". We seem to go over this every few months. If I was you, I'd stop looking (not that you really are anyway).


 Yup. It's been done. Any attempt to recreate is just copying, where's the exitement in that?


----------



## 4345567

__________


----------



## Budda

Milkman said:


> Really?
> 
> So you would have technical parameters by which you could explain why Dali, Monet or M.C.Escher were great?
> 
> Regretfully I lack the ability to provide such definitions.


I'm not sure how else to phrase it, really. I like music, and I primarily like modern-day metal. I listed off a few things I go for, off the top of my head. If a song has those qualities, delivered in a fashion that I enjoy, I am likely to enjoy said song. If it meets half of those qualities, I won't dislike it but I probably won't buy the album or see the band as a headliner.

I asked a simple question: what makes music great to you?


----------



## Beatles

Don`t forget Julia Child

[video=youtube;80ZrUI7RNfI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=80ZrUI7RNfI[/video]


----------

