Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Mellotroniac]

Another one of my pompous stick in the mud ramblings. The Beatles, when they stopped touring, spent time on growing as artists. They wanted to make music that was not going to be able to be performed live. But as of now, technology has came so far, even Tommorrow Never Knows could be done live. I feel sad at this fact. Why, you ask? Isn't bringing the studio to the stage good? To me it seems, this allows the group to focus less on being creative, because we can do anything live now, the studio doesn't seem as esoteric place of infinite possibility.
It seems taken for granted. By progressing so, we have left progress. Now the only way to progress seems to make it ear bleeding loud to the point of deafness. Who can be louder or more disturbing. Innovation seems gone, many artisits don't have that drive of always doing something new, pushing the envelope, going outside the box the way The Beatles were. Its all so far ahead, its already passe. Synthesizers, drum machines, computer setups, light shows, its all dull now, its the norm. Now you can just play your super studio songs backing track and sing to it, no problem, no matter how complex it is. So many "contemporary" groups all sound the same. Even when The Beatles went solo, they're music wasn't very rule shattering in search of new sounds, they had already been there. You STUDIO album can just as easy be your LIVE album. The grandoise studio production is gone, even PET SOUNDS was done live. Are we ever going to see a mind bending production such as Pepper ever again? People take those old production methods for granted now, but it was so far ahead back in its day. Is anything capable of blowing us out the water anymore? It doesn't seem special anymore. I read a opinion on The Beatles that, they had very little to work with, and they made fantastic music. The less you have to work with, the more creative you become. I know this is true, I hated being in class, and would do very good drawings being stuck in a stuffy old classroom. But when I was in Art class, and we were supposed to be creative, everything I did stank, because the enviroment was relaxed, I couldn't get my creative juices to flow by forcing them. Only in very uncreative circumstances did I become creative. Similar to how The Beatles in a strict,bland, no nonsense studio, came up with what they did. Now the musical toys are almost endless, FX pedals, live computer sound, tons of emulated instruments, everything I do sounds lousy. Just give me drums, guitars, bass,
and limited keyboards and limited effects, you might get a new insight on what might be done with them that hasn't been done before. Using a Wurlitzer on guitar line, and a guitar for piano lines, etc. Well, now I feel better at least!

[An Apple Beatle]

Limitation breeds innovation, works really well if your skint. lol

[Geoff]

I think it depends on whether you use technology to realize a creative idea or as a substitute for ideas. It's good or bad depending on the use to which it's put.

[An Apple Beatle]

IF it brings freedom to a creative who appreciates the principles of recording techniques old and new, then surely now there is greater freedom to achieve the visions that harbour in the mind than ever before. With your curiosity Mello, I'd be very optimistic at to what you can do and the soundscapes you can grow to achieve. It's all about having a dabble and making an inspiring noise to work with.

[Mellotroniac]

I'm glad for all of your input. Indeed, perhaps its not technologies fault, just the people who use it.
I really like your "limitation breeds innovation", thats my new mantra! After reading the RTB book, its astounding how The Beatles did what they did, and the impact it had on music forever. I believe there was a quote in the book, by Paul,
and he said that what he was doing as an artist now was to distort it. This is in 66. Take something normal, and turn it upside down, or inside out, something regular and turn it into something surreal. Its not that I'm trying to be against modern music, its just I love older music so much, maybe too much. Off topic, I think the judging factor for music is how much it sounds like older music. Same for digital, digital is only as good as how it emulates analog! Well, to me at least.

[fendertele]

it also all depends on what type of music you are referring to im sure many Techno/dance fans would disagree, but i do feel  that since effects pedals and such things have arrived it is really easy to seem like youre able to play an instrument

but there are some guitarists that use it creatively and it sounds spot on - jonny greenwood (radiohead) graham coxon (blur) and then there are guys like The Klaxons that basically cover up how bad they play guitar with layers and layers of effects

something i noticed the other day was a keyboard player hitting one note and it played a run from low note to high note octave which would probably have had taken years to perfect on a piano

also you can make a full song wihtout being able to play an instrument on your pc now with certain software.

[Mellotroniac]

I do agree on the Electronic genre, its a key thing. I will give Daft Punk credit, I do like them.

[HeatherBoo]

I really hate when I hear an artist or band on the radio and I like it, sounds good.  Then you hear them live and they sound TERRIBLE!  That really bothers me.  You can have absolutely no talent and still get a record deal nowadays.  Because of the technology that we have, they can even make me sound good   

[DaveRam]

Bowie and Eno produced  "Low" and  "Heroes" which had a lot of synthesizer sounds on the albums . When Bowie toured the material in 1978 it sounded brilliant , so i suppose technology can work for some artists , mind you Bowie could sing along to a running tap and i would still listen (smile)