Complex Jazz-oriented drummers?

Tool and Porcupine Tree take modern sounds and go further with them.  I don't want to make a Tool or Porcupine Tree ripoff band, but I would want it to sound more modern than a traditional prog rock band.  Now I know, though, that there isn't a band in existence that doesn't draw from somewhere else, but even though Tool references King Crimson, for example, they sound vastly different.

Another idea I'd like to develop with you is the idea of layers of complexity.  I'm not the biggest Tool fan, but they just happen to be a really good example: they often have quite simple guitar riffs that people can catch on to, but under that is a complex rhythmic structure, experimental noise, some pretty interesting bass-lines, and deep lyrics (depending on who you ask).  Those all have varying degrees of complexity, often all going at the same time, which gives the average person a starting point and a path to follow to the highest degree of complexity.

Also, I see all musical elements -- from flutes to death growls to violas and back again -- as musical "tools" that all convey their own mood or idea.  I personally don't want to structure myself around one particular style unless it just so happens that the entirety of the idea falls under one style.

As far as "thinking" goes, you'd be surprised at how many people don't think about what they're doing and just coast along.  Technically, their brain is processing information, but they don't stop to consider anything.  It's kind of like the Christian idea of "they hear, but they do not hear; seeing, they do not see".

The point is that you should not be vying for the attention of those who are already pre-disposed to listen to one particular type of music.  It is when you do this -- not when you create very simple music -- that no one remembers you.  The Beatles are a prime example of a band that brought in all kinds of people.  Us her

And one last afterthought: those who think stereotypes don't have some (or maybe even a lot of) elements of truth are just as closed-minded as those who think they are always true.

Aleister Portier wrote: Both of our opinions have been stated (probably a bit tediously), so I do not believe it is necessary to continue to quarrel about our different beliefs in musical composition.

You must be new here. 

Aleister Portier wrote: Judging by my status as "Newbie" and only having eight posts---I think it is safe to say that, yes, I am new here.

= joke

What makes the 70s music sound so unique, different and, in my honest opinion, "better", are the imperfections of it. Today a band goes into the studio for several days and work on their albums until everything is "perfect". Perfection, however, is sterile; it leaves the listener without a certain longing that I think is an essential part of music. There is nowhere to go after perfection, except downhill.
I highly recommend to read Kurt Tucholsky's little essay "Die Sehnsucht nach dem Schlussakkord" ("The longing for the final chord"), in which he hints at what I mean. In the 70s the bands were glad if they finally got a few hours of studio time to put an album together; they just played, balancing on a knife edge all the time because they knew there would be very little chance to correct mistakes. Don't get me wrong, I am not speaking of obvious blunders, it is those little imperfections that make music seem alive. Most of today's music simply leaves me cold, because that element is missing.

Edited by BaldFriede - June 13 2008 at 05:38

Heh, funny that. Friede might as well be talking about improvisation and Mike about composition.

MikeEnRegalia wrote: ^ then classical music must be horrible for you, since it generally requires a level of perfection which you don't find in any other genre (rock, metal, jazz etc.). I think it's great if musician try to improve their playing technique to a point of perfection. Obviously you can never reach it, but you should try to. It doesn't mean that the recording loses "soul" because of it ... the greatest players manage to combine soul and impeccable technique.

Sorry, Mike, you have not grasped at all what I mean by "perfection". I am not talking about playing techniques. It is this constant going over a recording to eliminate even the slightest imperfection which I criticize. Which is one reason I much prefer live albums to studio recordings, at least when they have not been heavily overdubbed to eliminate those little things I am speaking of. You will find these little imperfections in the best orchestras even, and that is totally ok with me. Human beings are human beings, not machines. If you want "perfection" go and have a robot play the instrument; you will quickly notice how horrible it sounds.


Edited by BaldFriede - June 13 2008 at 07:09

I believe I understand what you mean about "perfection". A lot of progressive rock bands had those tendacies. They really did add to the rawness of the music though. Now with all of the digital recording equipment, it does have a different, more smooth sound. Personally, I prefer the raw sound.

 

I had a Presonus Firepod and used it for about a year and now I have an Akai GX-280D-SS, and there is a very noticeable difference in the sound. The Akai, being analog and vintage has that ruff texture to it.

Aleister Portier wrote: I believe I understand what you mean about "perfection". A lot of progressive rock bands had those tendacies. They really did add to the rawness of the music though. Now with all of the digital recording equipment, it does have a different, more smooth sound. Personally, I prefer the raw sound.   I had a Presonus Firepod and used it for about a year and now I have an Akai GX-280D-SS, and there is a very noticeable difference in the sound. The Akai, being analog and vintage has that ruff texture to it.

Exactly. There is still a lot of barking going on, but the smoothness takes away the bite. The best example for this are distorted guitars: With the newer production they no longer really sound distorted. Now what is the point of that?


Edited by BaldFriede - June 14 2008 at 04:34

HughesJB4 wrote: This topic is perhaps getting off a bit topic, but in regards to Baldfriede's post, I want to chime in here. I cannot really agree with your statement on newer production reducing the "distorted sound" of guitars in newer recordings. I can name many bands of today that sound far more distorted than say, Yngwie Malmsteen's guitar did back in 1984. Why is this? A lot of it comes down to the actual guitar gear used. Guitarists, like myself and many others, pick their gear (budget dependent though) to please their own quest for what they think sounds good, not what the audience think will be a good tone. Malmsteen's tone is deliberately very clear and clean sounding, yet he using a Marshall Plexi Super Lead Head on 10, combined with an overdrive pedal for more gain, so he is actually using a lot of gain to achieve his guitar tone. Same with Eric Johnson, but even more so, by using a guitar rig that features multiple overdrive pedals, and is highly compressed, yet sounds smooth as butter, and he has sounded like this since the 80s, and sounds like this now with the "newer production". A lot of high gain players, with the exception of the doom metal scene etc, like our high gain, but yet with good clarity, and generally we don't go for the buzzy, "distorted sounding" tones some lower gain players prefer.

Well, if this is true, all I can say is: And you guys wonder why so many people say the prog-rock of the 70s was better . I can't for the life of mine understand why someone would want to sound like a toothless terrier. (Shaking my head incredulously).


Edited by BaldFriede - June 14 2008 at 12:29

BaldFriede wrote: HughesJB4 wrote: This topic is perhaps getting off a bit topic, but in regards to Baldfriede's post, I want to chime in here. I cannot really agree with your statement on newer production reducing the "distorted sound" of guitars in newer recordings. I can name many bands of today that sound far more distorted than say, Yngwie Malmsteen's guitar did back in 1984. Why is this? A lot of it comes down to the actual guitar gear used. Guitarists, like myself and many others, pick their gear (budget dependent though) to please their own quest for what they think sounds good, not what the audience think will be a good tone. Malmsteen's tone is deliberately very clear and clean sounding, yet he using a Marshall Plexi Super Lead Head on 10, combined with an overdrive pedal for more gain, so he is actually using a lot of gain to achieve his guitar tone. Same with Eric Johnson, but even more so, by using a guitar rig that features multiple overdrive pedals, and is highly compressed, yet sounds smooth as butter, and he has sounded like this since the 80s, and sounds like this now with the "newer production". A lot of high gain players, with the exception of the doom metal scene etc, like our high gain, but yet with good clarity, and generally we don't go for the buzzy, "distorted sounding" tones some lower gain players prefer. Well, if this is true, all I can say is: And you guys wonder why so many people say the prog-rock of the 70s was better . I can't for the life of mine understand why someone would want to sound like a toothless terrier. (Shaking my head incredulously).

I wasn't referring to modern versus older prog at all.
I was talking more about the modern high gain guitar tone in general, which has it's applications in metal, shred and jazz fusion (the 3 primary genres that come to mind right now anyway).
Not every modern guitar tone is buttery smooth, there are still many players utilising the more rough edged and mid range scooped tone. The tone goes hand in hand with the musical context.
If you're playing jazz fusion, you're not going to use a molten heavy metal guitar tone, instead you will be using heaps of gain (in the case of the more technically orientated bands anyway), rolling off some high end and it will give it the smooth buttery character. For metal, you can use a smooth lead tone, but when it comes to heavy chugging rhythms, that smooth tone sometimes just doesn't cut it, so you boost the high and low end, cut mid range and that gives the tone a more gnarly harsh feel to it.
"I can't for the life of mine understand why someone would want to sound like a toothless terrier" You won't sound like a toothless terrier, you're just getting the tone you need for the application. You say "I can't understand" but you're exactly right, because you're not the one chasing the tone, we, the guitarists are the ones that can understand what we want to sound like so we chase those tones as a result.
Every serious guitarist can testify they would rather get a tone for themselves rather than who is listening, because in the end if you want to express yourself in the way you want, getting your own tone is what liberates you (the guitarist).