Forum Home Forum Home > Progressive Music Lounges > Prog Music Lounge
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Abundance of one-man "bands" in modern prog
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Topic ClosedAbundance of one-man "bands" in modern prog

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 34567 13>
Author
Message
infocat View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar
VIP Member

Joined: June 10 2011
Location: Colorado, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 4671
Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 28 2012 at 20:45
Don't forget that Porcupine Tree began as a one-man band, and then turned into a real one!
--
Frank Swarbrick
Belief is not Truth.
Back to Top
wilmon91 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August 15 2009
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 698
Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 28 2012 at 21:10
Originally posted by HackettFan HackettFan wrote:

That's not the only way genres appear. A single person can get a varied musical background simply by having a varied musical background. I was working to very disparate musical forms just last night - on my own, by myself. The point about instruments is just wrong nowadays. My guitar can sound like a guitar, an organ, a piano, a synthesizer, a bouzouki, a violin, a steel drum, chimes, or something entirely crazy. I also have a very good drum machine, an Alesis SR-18. I don't doubt that there is creative stimulation one can get from a band, but the question is whether something is lacking in a one man band. Well, maybe, but not necessarily. It's analogous to alternate tunings. Yes, one can get creative stimulation from an alternate tuning, but one can also get the same stimulation with standard tuning by hearing an unusual chord or waking up on a different side of the bed.
 
Yes, my post was a bit rushed and didn't grasp what I was getting at...so had had to think some more to find out what I was trying to say. Of course there are many great solo artists, many of my own favourite artists are solo. Vini Reilly's music is among my favourites, and the guitar being the main instrument isn't a drawback, and the fact that he sings and many would say that he "can't sing" is not a problem to me, because it fits the expression of the music (the same with hackett mostly) (and others). But some songs featuring a trained vocalist also works great , the outcome is just different .
 
But there are different challenges in working solo depending of what music you are doing. Jean Michel Jarre didn't need additional musicians in his project, it was all synthesizers and for example "Oxygéne" is perfect. But if doing music with a "band sound", for example a blues rock project, it becomes harder to do it yourself. The same goes for rock. If you want a good rock energy, the ideal thing is to record it live with musicians.
 
So the issue has to do with how the music is manifested and the method of recording I think. When I played in a band I learned a lot each time we played live.  When it's live, it's "for real" in a way. In a studio recording, you can record 20 takes and do cutting, time-stretching, altering dynamics and stuff, but you might lose the "live-feeling", the sense that it happens in real time when you listen to it. These days with modern recording equipment I can get distracted by noticing when a guitar or vocal melody line is clearly recorded in two takes, you can sometimes notice it when two bits of melody are attached too close, so there is no natural breathing space between them. They might even overlap. Especially vocal lines can feel tampered with , when you feel that the vocalist seemingly doesn't need to breath.
 
When it comes to rock I like a sound that feels natural . The post-hardcore music of the late 80's and early 90's is characterized by the method of recording that Steve Albini is known for (don't know if he invented it).  The aim is to capture the room that the music is recorded in, so he tapes a lot of microphones to the walls. The result can be a noisy sound, but very "real". And recording live without a click may capture some natural tempo fluctuations that can enhance the live energy. But it demands more from the musicians because it might not be possible to edit afterwards. Beatles recorded their music in one take, and mixing in real time by altering the position of the musicians to the microphone during the song. A lot may be gained by doing that I think.
 
In a solo project without any other musicians, everything has to be recorded one instrument at a time. And if the aim is a "band sound" with lots of virtuosity and stuff happening (which can be common in prog rock), it can be a big challenge to make it feel organic and natural. Some music ought to be manifested in a real room with several musicians playing at the same time.
 
I prefer the sound of Camel's Mirage to Moonmadness. The latter has a studio sound, and the drums sound very isolated , I get the image of a small dampened studio room. In Mirage it sounds very live , all instruments fit together naturally.
 
Modern technology makes it possible for everyone to record an album, but it's still a big challenge to make it sound organic. It's easier if you'r'e doing dance music, the sequencer is all setup from the start, you just have to type in the BPM of your choice...
 


Edited by wilmon91 - December 28 2012 at 21:13
Back to Top
HackettFan View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: June 20 2012
Location: Oklahoma
Status: Offline
Points: 7951
Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 29 2012 at 00:04
Originally posted by wilmon91 wilmon91 wrote:

Originally posted by HackettFan HackettFan wrote:

That's not the only way genres appear. A single person can get a varied musical background simply by having a varied musical background. I was working to very disparate musical forms just last night - on my own, by myself. The point about instruments is just wrong nowadays. My guitar can sound like a guitar, an organ, a piano, a synthesizer, a bouzouki, a violin, a steel drum, chimes, or something entirely crazy. I also have a very good drum machine, an Alesis SR-18. I don't doubt that there is creative stimulation one can get from a band, but the question is whether something is lacking in a one man band. Well, maybe, but not necessarily. It's analogous to alternate tunings. Yes, one can get creative stimulation from an alternate tuning, but one can also get the same stimulation with standard tuning by hearing an unusual chord or waking up on a different side of the bed.



 

Yes, my post was a bit rushed and didn't grasp what I was getting at...so had had to think some more to find out what I was trying to say. Of course there are many great solo artists, many of my own favourite artists are solo. Vini Reilly's music is among my favourites, and the guitar being the main instrument isn't a drawback, and the fact that he sings and many would say that he "can't sing" is not a problem to me, because it fits the expression of the music (the same with hackett mostly) (and others). But some songs featuring a trained vocalist also works great , the outcome is just different .

 

But there are different challenges in working solo depending of what music you are doing. Jean Michel Jarre didn't need additional musicians in his project, it was all synthesizers and for example "Oxygéne" is perfect. But if doing music with a "band sound", for example a blues rock project, it becomes harder to do it yourself. The same goes for rock. If you want a good rock energy, the ideal thing is to record it live with musicians.

 

So the issue has to do with how the music is manifested and the method of recording I think. When I played in a band I learned a lot each time we played live.  When it's live, it's "for real" in a way. In a studio recording, you can record 20 takes and do cutting, time-stretching, altering dynamics and stuff, but you might lose the "live-feeling", the sense that it happens in real time when you listen to it. These days with modern recording equipment I can get distracted by noticing when a guitar or vocal melody line is clearly recorded in two takes, you can sometimes notice it when two bits of melody are attached too close, so there is no natural breathing space between them. They might even overlap. Especially vocal lines can feel tampered with , when you feel that the vocalist seemingly doesn't need to breath.

 

When it comes to rock I like a sound that feels natural . The post-hardcore music of the late 80's and early 90's is characterized by the method of recording that Steve Albini is known for (don't know if he invented it).  The aim is to capture the room that the music is recorded in, so he tapes a lot of microphones to the walls. The result can be a noisy sound, but very "real". And recording live without a click may capture some natural tempo fluctuations that can enhance the live energy. But it demands more from the musicians because it might not be possible to edit afterwards. Beatles recorded their music in one take, and mixing in real time by altering the position of the musicians to the microphone during the song. A lot may be gained by doing that I think.

 

In a solo project without any other musicians, everything has to be recorded one instrument at a time. And if the aim is a "band sound" with lots of virtuosity and stuff happening (which can be common in prog rock), it can be a big challenge to make it feel organic and natural. Some music ought to be manifested in a real room with several musicians playing at the same time.

 

I prefer the sound of Camel's Mirage to Moonmadness. The latter has a studio sound, and the drums sound very isolated , I get the image of a small dampened studio room. In Mirage it sounds very live , all instruments fit together naturally.

 

Modern technology makes it possible for everyone to record an album, but it's still a big challenge to make it sound organic. It's easier if you'r'e doing dance music, the sequencer is all setup from the start, you just have to type in the BPM of your choice...

 

I like it that you recast your point in terms of "challenges" rather than as an absolute. That's mainly what rankled me throughout the thread. I can definitely agree though that a group vibe can be very very valuable. I get that for sure. I just found some posts were a little too extreme in their statements, and maybe that there was a lack of vision about what might be gained by a renaissance of solo efforts.

I'd like to point out actually that every instrument doesn't have to be recorded one at a time for soloists. Midi has allowed players to control two different sounds simultaneously for some time, from what I understand. I actually have a way of getting independent timbres and even independent phrasing from a single pass on my single guitar without midi. The mere fact of being on my own has brought out a lot of experimentation in me. There is also a lot one can do nowadays with looping devices, so that even though one is recording each thing one at a time, the rate at which it's done gives the musician a lot to react to on the fly, much as one might do jamming with a band. Looping is often done in a live setting, but can easily be part and parcel of recording. Electro-Harmonix has a couple nice sample and hold devices too. Some effects pedals as well have settings which adjust the parameters of a pedal at random, giving a musician something unpredictable to react to, if he can stomach it.
Back to Top
ExittheLemming View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: October 19 2007
Location: Penal Colony
Status: Offline
Points: 11415
Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 29 2012 at 01:04
^ I'm kinda surprised (and pleased) that you cite Vini Reilly of The Durutti Column as being commensurate with the 'modern prog' appellation. Don't get me wrong, I share your affection for the latter's music but word to the wise, this was Factory Records initial flagship act before the inexorable rise of Joy Division in the 80's. The Durutti Column were/are many things to many people but 'Prog' they resolutely ain't.


Edited by ExittheLemming - December 29 2012 at 01:07
Back to Top
Terra Australis View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: March 03 2006
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 809
Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 29 2012 at 02:31
Seems to me that either has it strengths and weaknesses.

Years ago my band was a place where I would come with songs and we would play them until we got it right, this involved compromise and sometimes the songs grew and sometimes they fell by the wayside. We also improvised (ala King Crimson), these were sometimes great, usually not so.  We also had a lot more time then and the recording equipment was not so good, although I bought lots of stuff (still got my GR300)

Today I can compose the music on my computer using real or software instruments and craft a track until I am happy with it. My brother drums as he is so much better at this than me but I have been proud of some of my sequencing of drums. I can choose to tighten up a track or leave it loose, the possibilities are endless... The iPad has become an instrument as well. I am certainly enjoying all this!

I miss those moments where the band gelled and went to a higher plane, but I don't miss trying to get the other musicians to play what was in my head - and them not getting it.
Allomerus. Music with progressive intent.

http://allomerus.bandcamp.com
Back to Top
wilmon91 View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: August 15 2009
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 698
Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 29 2012 at 08:21
Originally posted by ExittheLemming ExittheLemming wrote:

^ I'm kinda surprised (and pleased) that you cite Vini Reilly of The Durutti Column as being commensurate with the 'modern prog' appellation. Don't get me wrong, I share your affection for the latter's music but word to the wise, this was Factory Records initial flagship act before the inexorable rise of Joy Division in the 80's. The Durutti Column were/are many things to many people but 'Prog' they resolutely ain't.
 
I was just thinking about solo artists in general.... But even if Durutti Column isn't generaly associated to prog, most of what characterizes the music fits with the prog or art-rock defintion. No commercial interest whatsoever, less commercial than most prog artists. He could have been writing hit songs with Morrissey, but wasn't interested in doing such music. Big variety of styles , not conformity to a specific style to stay within a pre-defined concept. No standard musical forms. The freedom to create whatever you feel like creating, that's what being progressive really means in my opinion.
 
But when I think about "modern prog" I don't necessarily picture something that is progressive in a true sense.
 
I just read a very interesting interview that's just been posted on DT's website , from 2001, which tells something about his relation to music    http://news.thedurutticolumn.info/2012/12/the-return-of-vini-reilly.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheDuruttiColumn+%28The+Durutti+Column%29
Back to Top
ExittheLemming View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: October 19 2007
Location: Penal Colony
Status: Offline
Points: 11415
Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 29 2012 at 21:39
^ thanks for posting the link to the Vini Reilly interview, I enjoyed reading that. A very talented and humble fellow who is clearly too honest for his own good in a cesspit of a music industry
Back to Top
Surrealist View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: October 12 2012
Location: Squonk
Status: Offline
Points: 232
Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 30 2012 at 13:08
This is a great topic and one that all artists should ponder at some point.

While there may seem to be good and bad arguments.. I think it is best to strip it down to musicality at it's core.

If you get rid of computers and digital manipulation, then the picture becomes clearer.
There has yet to be an album released created in "Garage Band" that is going to equal the likes of "Close to the Edge" or any other classic prog release.  Could one person create "Dark Side of the Moon?" 

Waters is a good example of a guy who strove for autonomy over time.. ending his stint in PF with "The Final Cut"... an album clinically engineered well, but clearly stifling the creative flow of his bandmates to an extreme.

Oldfield... is an obvious comparison... while he made some fine records.. what would he have done if he had been surrounded by the Genesis guys or Yes members? 

Moraz solo works compared to "Relayer" 

One thing you have to understand is that most musicians are not going to be fully competent on all the instruments.
While it is tempting to preserve autonomy by laying down your own beat on the kit, it's generally a fools game.  Just listen to the solo albums of most great artists.  Olias of Sunhillow... it's a nice record, but think what it could have been.

What if Banks had really dug into his skills on Hackett's solo albums?

While making an album can be rewarding, as many artists including myself having band experience can attest.. it can be a very painful process.

The biggest problem facing progressive artists today is lack of commitment from fellow musicians.  In the past.. or the golden age of prog, there was upside potential to make a living doing it ... if not even to become a rockstar and live an extremely affluent existence... maybe even become knighted "Sir". 

Thanks to digital technology, that is all out the window now.  If video killed the radio star, digital killed the prog musician with gunshot blasts. 

Here's Why:

In the Golden age of Prog.. before digital quantization, pitch shifters and other "amazing" gadgets... musicians HAD TO PLAY THEIR INSTRUMENTS with much more competence.  Just to get into a good band was a challenge.  You had to be good.  When listeners heard "The Black Page" for instance.. it REALLY MADE AN IMPACT.  Now, the average listener just thinks it was some good studio work done on a program they don't understand.  You might get a commen like.. "hey, that really sounds good .... or professional."  It simply ends there.  You can't REALLY impress people anymore with recorded music. 

The live music scene for the youth culture has been replaced by computers making music.  You guys love your digital music right? BE CAREFUL WITH THAT AXE EUGENE!  Be careful what you wish for.

I played "The Black Page" for a kid recently and he simply didn't get it.  I can guarantee you any kid would have got it back in the 70's. While one might not like it... they would "get it" back then.

Why learn the drums when you can program now with perfect timing set down by a computer?  Why learn to play guitar like Jeff Beck when your teenage friends couldn't care less?   Why do anything great on an instrument as a youth when chicks would rather listen to computer generated techno.

This river runs deep folks. 

Nearfiest is gone.  Why?  You better know why if you care..... and it is not because the promoters got tired of putting in the effort. 

The River runs much deeper.

Being in a Band is too inconvenient for most kids.  Practicing hard makes no sense to them.  Learning complex musical structure, form, nuance,  articulation falls on deaf ears... that's the surface reason.

TExting rather than tossing a pebble at your friends window to discuss something after parents have gone to sleep.
Think about that process. 

A kid has to sneak out of his house.. walk somewhere or ride a bike in the dark. Sneak into a friends backyard and avoid waking a barking dog.  Help his friend climb out a window.  Find a place to talk.  A secret place.  This is a deep journey for a kid. One night of exploring.. of seeing and feeling things.. of feeling life.. of reflecting on experience.. of risk taking.. of avoiding getting grounded. 

The age of convenience is killing the mind.  It's killing off a much more visceral life experience for the youth culture... and this is reflected in the music coming out today.

GPS... over celestial navigation... or interating with other kids or people directly to find your way from one point to another.

The brain has already begun to shrink in just one generation.  


Back to Top
HackettFan View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: June 20 2012
Location: Oklahoma
Status: Offline
Points: 7951
Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 30 2012 at 14:59
Originally posted by Surrealist Surrealist wrote:

  Could one person create "Dark Side of the Moon?"  One thing you have to understand is that most musicians are not going to be fully competent on all the instruments. While it is tempting to preserve autonomy by laying down your own beat on the kit, it's generally a fools game. 

If people can speak more than one language, people can play more than one instrument. I don't know why this claim that people can only do great things on one instrument has been getting so much mileage. Also, everyone keeps ignoring the point that one instrument that someone excels at can function as several. If a keyboardist plays piano, organ and synth, is he playing one instrument or three? Is there some impediment to mastering all three? I don't think so. If a guitarist can play guitar, but his guitar can also sound like an organ, which it can nowadays, is that one instrument or two? Why should it matter any more than it did with the keyboardist?

Originally posted by Surrealist Surrealist wrote:

Just listen to the solo albums of most great artists.  What if Banks had really dug into his skills on Hackett's solo albums? 

Hackett's solo work is utterly fantastic, but he is not a solo artist as we've been discussing here. He has a full blown band. He works with a couple fabulous keyboardists. Both keyboardists have had some occasional input on writing too. As far as Tony Banks, he has been below par for quite some time, and that includes a major portion of the time in which he was with a band. I don't know what's going on there with that.

Originally posted by Surrealist Surrealist wrote:

Thanks to digital technology, that is all out the window now.  If video killed the radio star, digital killed the prog musician with gunshot blasts.  Here's Why:In the Golden age of Prog.. before digital quantization, pitch shifters and other "amazing" gadgets... musicians HAD TO PLAY THEIR INSTRUMENTS with much more competence.  Just to get into a good band was a challenge.  You had to be good.

I'm especially taken back by your inclusion of pitch shifters here. As someone who has eleven of them and plays with them frequently, I can say that they allow you to do amazing things, but you still have to know how to play. But beyond that, why are we acting like playing fantastic is the only value in in Prog. Prog is about experimentation, not only on the playing side, but also with things like timbre. These "amazing gadgets" have a big part in experiments with timbre. Use of such gadgets as were available was already well under way in the golden age of Prog.

Originally posted by Surrealist Surrealist wrote:

When listeners heard "The Black Page" for instance.. it REALLY MADE AN IMPACT.  Now, the average listener just thinks it was some good studio work done on a program they don't understand.  You might get a commen like.. "hey, that really sounds good .... or professional."  It simply ends there.  You can't REALLY impress people anymore with recorded music.  The live music scene for the youth culture has been replaced by computers making music.  You guys love your digital music right? BE CAREFUL WITH THAT AXE EUGENE!  Be careful what you wish for. I played "The Black Page" for a kid recently and he simply didn't get it.  Why learn the drums when you can program now with perfect timing set down by a computer?  Why learn to play guitar like Jeff Beck when your teenage friends couldn't care less?

All I want to say about this is that Frank Zappa was one of those who very early on composed and recorded an entire album on computer. It allowed him to do nested polyrhythms.

Originally posted by Surrealist Surrealist wrote:

Why do anything great on an instrument as a youth when chicks would rather listen to computer generated techno.

Lack of chick enthusiasm is not a new problem for Prog.

Edited by HackettFan - December 30 2012 at 15:11
Back to Top
gentlegenesis View Drop Down
Forum Newbie
Forum Newbie
Avatar

Joined: December 30 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 1
Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 30 2012 at 15:48
In order for music to stay innovative, new musical paradigms need to arise to give new music a distinct flavor. I think that having one man bands that utilize technology to deliver a new musical experience is exactly what prog and any genre should appreciate because it makes for change. Mind you, if you don't enjoy this sort of music, there will always still be multi-person bands, so it's not like music is losing anything when some people decide to make music this way. As for whether multi-person bands deliver a more complete experience, well, that's a matter of opinion I guess but I'd say that it's not necessarily true. 
Back to Top
HackettFan View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: June 20 2012
Location: Oklahoma
Status: Offline
Points: 7951
Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 30 2012 at 15:54
Originally posted by gentlegenesis gentlegenesis wrote:

In order for music to stay innovative, new musical paradigms need to arise to give new music a distinct flavor. I think that having one man bands that utilize technology to deliver a new musical experience is exactly what prog and any genre should appreciate because it makes for change. Mind you, if you don't enjoy this sort of music, there will always still be multi-person bands, so it's not like music is losing anything when some people decide to make music this way. As for whether multi-person bands deliver a more complete experience, well, that's a matter of opinion I guess but I'd say that it's not necessarily true. 

Well said.
Back to Top
Surrealist View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: October 12 2012
Location: Squonk
Status: Offline
Points: 232
Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 30 2012 at 18:13
Most one man bands are existing out of necessity.  It's much harder to keep a band together these days if not only for the lack of financial compensation by the public or record labels.  Artists will be artists and will find a pathway for their creative output. 

Artist like Fripp and Zappa that recorded early with digital technology didn't let it absorb them.  Staying in the digital bubble, not playing live, and only releasing stuff on YouTube is very much limiting the creative process.  You cannot substitute the interactive interplay of working with other competent musicians. 

My point on Hackett is that while he has surrounded himself with talented players.. Banks at one time was something very special.  Why he died artistically is for another topic of debate.  Why did classic prog die and so on..

One man band thing is a much deeper issue. 

Innovation is not dependent upon throwing away the instruments of a traditional symphony just because someone invented digital sampling.

Holding the idea that a guitar synth can sample classic keyboard sounds and replicate them properly is absurd.. unless you are basically tone deaf or have only the most superficial exposure to such sounds.

We have a real Hammond M100 hooked to a Leslie 145 speaker driven by all tube amplification.  Are you going to tell me you can get that sound out of your Casio keyboard you bought from Guitar Center or Musician's Friend?  Or that this can be replicated from a guitar synth? 

That is just babbling totally ignorant nonsense.




Back to Top
Dean View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout

Joined: May 13 2007
Location: Europe
Status: Offline
Points: 37575
Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 30 2012 at 18:40
Without an idea, a story, a spark of originality or just something to say it really doesn't matter what instrument you play or what media you use. Good music is good music, bad music is bad music - whether a guitar synth sounds like a hammond or not, at the end of the day a hammond was just a poor imitation of a pipe organ, it's what you play that is important, not the pretty noises you make. When you start blaming the tools then you're just looking for excuses.
What?
Back to Top
rogerthat View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer


Joined: September 03 2006
Location: .
Status: Offline
Points: 9869
Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 30 2012 at 19:17
Originally posted by Surrealist Surrealist wrote:


If you get rid of computers and digital manipulation, then the picture becomes clearer.


Yes, there would practically be no prog scene today.   Late capitalism and the emergence of a 'lifestyle' has much more to do with the dwindling youth live scene than the poor old computer.   In our country, it is the unstable and turbulent north east that supports live music more than the comfortable big cities.  Just look at the 60s and 70s again.  It was a turbulent time in history and it is such times that art serves as an outlet for expression for a lot of people.  

Originally posted by Surrealist Surrealist wrote:



In the Golden age of Prog.. before digital quantization, pitch shifters and other "amazing" gadgets... musicians HAD TO PLAY THEIR INSTRUMENTS with much more competence.  Just to get into a good band was a challenge.  You had to be good.  When listeners heard "The Black Page" for instance.. it REALLY MADE AN IMPACT.  Now, the average listener just thinks it was some good studio work done on a program they don't understand.  You might get a commen like.. "hey, that really sounds good .... or professional."  It simply ends there.  You can't REALLY impress people anymore with recorded music. 

The live music scene for the youth culture has been replaced by computers making music.  You guys love your digital music right? BE CAREFUL WITH THAT AXE EUGENE!  Be careful what you wish for.

I played "The Black Page" for a kid recently and he simply didn't get it.  I can guarantee you any kid would have got it back in the 70's. While one might not like it... they would "get it" back then. 


One reason for that may be that kids do 'get' that stuff like DT, Malmsteen, Guthrie Govan or Planet X is very technically demanding too, which you refuse to acknowledge.   As in, Zappa may not elicit wide eyed astonishment from the younger generation because we are not in the 70s anymore!

Originally posted by Surrealist Surrealist wrote:



Why learn the drums when you can program now with perfect timing set down by a computer?  Why learn to play guitar like Jeff Beck when your teenage friends couldn't care less?   Why do anything great on an instrument as a youth when chicks would rather listen to computer generated techno.



Isn't that a superficial, and even absurd, reason to want to learn an instrument in any case?  I should hope the river of art runs much deeper than that.  If young chicks are the priority, such a person is probably never going to be an influential force in music anyway.   I have many guitar wielding friends and they are all well aware of Beck, Blackmore, Holdsworth, Di Meola, McLaughlin so I have to question how much your strong opinions are really supported by fact.  Today, just as in earlier years, a guitar student still wants to learn to play the fastest, most technically demanding stuff.  He cannot possibly get the same high out of, er, computer generated techno as he would from playing it all by himself correctly.  
Originally posted by Surrealist Surrealist wrote:


Nearfiest is gone.  Why?  You better know why if you care..... and it is not because the promoters got tired of putting in the effort. 


Nearfest is gone because they were confused about their audience.  They started out appealing to older prog rock fans and then tried to balance it with newer names which led to the cancellation of one of the fests.  


Originally posted by Surrealist Surrealist wrote:


Being in a Band is too inconvenient for most kids.  Practicing hard makes no sense to them.  Learning complex musical structure, form, nuance,  articulation falls on deaf ears... that's the surface reason.

TExting rather than tossing a pebble at your friends window to discuss something after parents have gone to sleep.
Think about that process. 

A kid has to sneak out of his house.. walk somewhere or ride a bike in the dark. Sneak into a friends backyard and avoid waking a barking dog.  Help his friend climb out a window.  Find a place to talk.  A secret place.  This is a deep journey for a kid. One night of exploring.. of seeing and feeling things.. of feeling life.. of reflecting on experience.. of risk taking.. of avoiding getting grounded. 


You make it sound like every kid was the next Zappa in the making in the 70s.  I am pretty sure that is not the case because most of them moved to well paying jobs in the banking industry a decade later.   A random kid MAY not know very much about music or be interested because music doesn't concern everyone equally.   On the other hand, and here's more food for thought for you.   I used to attend a keyboard class run essentially by a man who did it for business and not passion but who appointed good instructors to do the actual teaching.   He said he had started the music class alongside a computer tutorial in the same rented space.   The music class did much better business from the get go and he eventually shut down computer class.    There are enough people wanting to learn how to play instruments.  How many of them would go on to form bands is a different issue.
Originally posted by Surrealist Surrealist wrote:


The age of convenience is killing the mind.  It's killing off a much more visceral life experience for the youth culture... and this is reflected in the music coming out today.

GPS... over celestial navigation... or interating with other kids or people directly to find your way from one point to another.

The brain has already begun to shrink in just one generation.  





I don't see the relation to music here because I have seen the attitude to music of the majority before the 'invasion' of convenience and it was equally apathetic.   I also think GPS is not just convenient but also a safe means of navigation.   Maybe you have never ventured into neighbourhoods of indifferent people who are least interested in helping a guest find the way to a particular destination.   Think about it, you constantly blame the tools but it is a human need that eventually created the tool.  Why shouldn't I use GPS to find my way if I may not always get timely help? 

I do share some of your skepticism over the long term effects of a computerised lifestyle on kids.   In fact, it impacts the behaviour of adults, leave alone kids.  I attended a seminar a couple of days back and when I looked around for somebody to make conversation with in the lunch break, I found everybody busy crouched over their cellphones and so decided to do likewise.   It was a seminar for finance professionals and an excellent opportunity to network but the social network reigns supreme and makes people look inward all the time.  


Again, a computer and even the worldwide web for that matter is designed for so many functions and the social network is just a small part of it.   It is up to people to decide how they use it.  I never update any news about promotions or awards I have received on facebook, it simply doesn't make sense to me.  I will personally convey the news to the people who are really interested in learning of it and that's it.   Why should I advertise it to the whole world, it feels very vain and attention seeking to me. 


Edited by rogerthat - December 30 2012 at 19:25
Back to Top
HackettFan View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: June 20 2012
Location: Oklahoma
Status: Offline
Points: 7951
Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 30 2012 at 20:33
Originally posted by Surrealist Surrealist wrote:

Most one man bands are existing out of necessity.  It's much harder to keep a band together these days if not only for the lack of financial compensation by the public or record labels.  Artists will be artists and will find a pathway for their creative output.  Artist like Fripp and Zappa that recorded early with digital technology didn't let it absorb them.  Staying in the digital bubble, not playing live, and only releasing stuff on YouTube is very much limiting the creative process.  You cannot substitute the interactive interplay of working with other competent musicians.  My point on Hackett is that while he has surrounded himself with talented players.. Banks at one time was something very special.  Why he died artistically is for another topic of debate.  Why did classic prog die and so on..One man band thing is a much deeper issue.  Innovation is not dependent upon throwing away the instruments of a traditional symphony just because someone invented digital sampling.Holding the idea that a guitar synth can sample classic keyboard sounds and replicate them properly is absurd.. unless you are basically tone deaf or have only the most superficial exposure to such sounds.We have a real Hammond M100 hooked to a Leslie 145 speaker driven by all tube amplification.  Are you going to tell me you can get that sound out of your Casio keyboard you bought from Guitar Center or Musician's Friend?  Or that this can be replicated from a guitar synth?  That is just babbling totally ignorant nonsense.

It's true what you're saying about one man bands being out of necessity, but there was a time when black and white films were black and white out of necessity too. That doesn't in and of itself make them artistically inferior or the film makers less skilled. The whole point about musicians reacting to other musicians in real time is also born out of moment by moment necessity. Creativity doesn't come when people have no problems to solve. It comes while they're actively engaging problems.

As far as Zappa goes, your point is a good one about not being absorbed with digital recording (you use the word 'technology'). Variety is good, and I've already agreed in prior posts that there is a certain quality to band interaction that is real. I don't think you're technically correct that Zappa ever toured subsequent to his computer recorded album, but I'd have to check the historical record there. Of course he passed away, so we don't really know what difficulties he would have faced making music in the Oval Office. And 'absorbed' is the not quite the right word because Zappa was absorbed in everything, but I get your point anyway.

Throwing away traditional instruments (figuratively) certainly can be innovative. I thought it was innovative when Peter Gabriel, for instance, made a rock album, Security, with no cymbals on the entire album. Maybe you do or do not agree, but I definitely stand by that.

A Hammond organ uses a keyboard. A pianist can adapt their skills to play an organ because they both have keyboards. An organist can adapt their skills to play a synth because they both use keyboards. A guitarist also has numerous timbres available through effects, and can access all these with the fretboard.

The whole point is logically about whether a musician can achieve different timbres to get the complete sound of a band, whatever configuration of a band that may be, not whether they can necessarily replicate other timbres. It's not like an organ is exactly non-artificial sounding itself. It's just first on the scene, and has some history, so it becomes a sort of paragon not from its superior musicality, but from its history, which includes church, scary movies, knives, and many memorable songs that would be very different without it. Nevertheless, I'm here to tell you that I can get an organ sound on the guitar with the Electro-Harmonics POG2 effects pedal that is truly stunning. The Earthquaker Devices Organizer and the EH Micro-POG are awfully good, but the POG2 is really exceptional. It's a genuine organ sound just as musical as anything put out by an actual organ. As far as the babbling ignorant nonsense thing goes, I'm the one who knows what both these things sound like. On a final point of clarification, I do not use a sampler or a synthesizer to get an organ sound.

Edited by HackettFan - December 30 2012 at 20:52
Back to Top
Surrealist View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: October 12 2012
Location: Squonk
Status: Offline
Points: 232
Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 31 2012 at 02:12
I'm not here to get into another analog vs digital argument.  But digital based instruments lack the quality of their analog counterpoint just as CD's lack the quality of a proper vinyl recording. 

Dean Stay out of this!

I have a friend who plays in one of the biggest roots reggae bands right now and they actually tour with an authentic Hammond B3 with a authentic Leslie because it is the only way to REALLY get the right sound. 

Are there any roots prog bands continuously touring the world right now?  The Musical Box?

The idea of "Roots" prog to most seems against the idea of progressive.  Personally I think the word "Progressive" is a horrible description because it insinuates that the music must always be "progressing" to be relevant... which of course is completely miss understood.  Should all neo prog releases be created now in Apple Garage Band because that is more modern and progressive to use virtual instruments?  Good Lord.. you do that... not me.

Let me ask this board a simple question for those with the guts to respond.

Name the top 5 "prog" releases in the last 12 years.
Then..
Name the top 5 "prog" releases from 1968 through 1979

I promise to keep this on topic...
Back to Top
Gerinski View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: February 10 2010
Location: Barcelona Spain
Status: Offline
Points: 5154
Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 31 2012 at 08:04
Originally posted by HackettFan HackettFan wrote:


If people can speak more than one language, people can play more than one instrument. I don't know why this claim that people can only do great things on one instrument has been getting so much mileage. Also, everyone keeps ignoring the point that one instrument that someone excels at can function as several. If a keyboardist plays piano, organ and synth, is he playing one instrument or three? Is there some impediment to mastering all three? I don't think so. If a guitarist can play guitar, but his guitar can also sound like an organ, which it can nowadays, is that one instrument or two? Why should it matter any more than it did with the keyboardist?
Sure, multi-instrumentalists are nothing new and I would bet that most professional musicians can play multiple instruments better than many of us even if in their band work we only see them playing always their main instrument.
But we are talking about playing in a stellar manner here. It's undeniable that virtuosity has been a contributing element in much Prog throughout history (certainly not a must condition for good Prog but it has played a role).

Having a Lifeson, a Lee and a Peart getting to play together was already a blessing of destiny, hoping to have the talent, virtuosity and creativity of the three packed in a single person seems more like asking for a miracle (not saying that it's impossible but you know what I mean). And the same could be said of many of the greatest Prog bands in history.

As for playing organ from a guitar etc... I am a supporter of technology but I have reservations about stating that because it is technically possible who cares about being able to play a real organ anymore. We have calculators and computers so you could say "who cares about learning arithmetic anymore", but I believe that learning arithmetic is still useful for developing our rational capabilities.
Back to Top
Gerinski View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: February 10 2010
Location: Barcelona Spain
Status: Offline
Points: 5154
Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 31 2012 at 08:09
Originally posted by Surrealist Surrealist wrote:


I think that the particular choice of instruments is not particularly relevant to the discussion of the one-man phenomenon.
Some one-man "bands" may indeed make more use of digital / sampled instruments but that is not necessarily the case, and while one may embrace them or reject them, that is quite a different discussion IMO (of which we had already a lot on the "importance of analog sound" thread).
Back to Top
moshkito View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: January 04 2007
Location: Grok City
Status: Offline
Points: 17497
Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 31 2012 at 08:25
Originally posted by Terra Australis Terra Australis wrote:

 
...
Years ago my band was a place where I would come with songs and we would play them until we got it right, this involved compromise and sometimes the songs grew and sometimes they fell by the wayside. We also improvised (ala King Crimson), these were sometimes great, usually not so.  We also had a lot more time then and the recording equipment was not so good, although I bought lots of stuff (still got my GR300)
...
 
 
If I may suggest, you are over-thinking these improvisations, and all you need to do is talk to an advanced acting teacher, specially one that works with modern theater (not old crap!), so that you can learn to focus things better.
 
The point in "improvisations" is NOT to find if it is good or bad, for the most part ... that is another story, but to help you make sure that you can play together and STAY together, and complement each other. IF ... all you are worried about something being good or bad, you are not listening to each other and figuring out what you can do in the improvisation, to help each other's moments (or together-ness) come about, and all of a sudden ... you have something you can work with.
 
BUT, it also tells me, that you are looking for a "song", or something that you can use as a basis for a something else ... and at this point, may I suggest that you make a piece and call it "anti-song" or "anti-music" and let it fly and blow out, WITHOUT any rhyme or reason, up to and including sound effects and vacuum cleaners ... until you drop the "idea" of music ... and realize ... what the notes can do for you.
 
If you want more on this, you really might want to read Peter Brook's works, and specially things like "The Empty Space" ... and although the wording might seem way too intelectual, in the end, you know that he is merely trying to find words to that ... wow ... moment! And his theater experiments were scary to most folks ... imagine being part of a troupe that had at least 12 nationalities, and they could not converse with each other, and yet, they spoke, and put together a spectacle, called ... "The Mahabharatta". Imagine that in music ... yeah ... imagine that! More progressive than progressive EVER will be!
 
And your "improvisations" ... are not focused ... but my suggestion, is that every other improvisation NOT be focused, to get the ability to flow better. AND ... for a while, only record the non-focused stuff that is all out there ... and just ENJOY IT ... do not use this as a way to "find" Godot ... use this to FIND YOURSELF. That is the clue in all music and the difference between the good ones and the rest! Most "popular" music is about the "rest", not the good ones!
 
Have fun


Edited by moshkito - December 31 2012 at 08:28
Music is not just for listening ... it is for LIVING ... you got to feel it to know what's it about! Not being told!
www.pedrosena.com
Back to Top
moshkito View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: January 04 2007
Location: Grok City
Status: Offline
Points: 17497
Direct Link To This Post Posted: December 31 2012 at 08:41
Originally posted by Dean Dean wrote:

Without an idea, a story, a spark of originality or just something to say it really doesn't matter what instrument you play or what media you use. ...
 
This is one of the exercises and things that are worked in really advanced acting classes, btw ... to help you get rid of the idea that what you think is the message, instead of what you do! And how ... which is a later issue that can be reviewed and learned from, for example!
 
Otherwise, it is just moneky doodoo ... and then a banana or chips get thrown in by a kid into the cage and his attention is gone ... and he doesn't care about the instrument again!
 
I think, that is what we like to think ... "music is" ... something that is focused, instead of "accidental" ... which a lot of 20th century folks made a living of trying to break!
 
The "spark" ... I think, is also an "idea" that we create, and spend our lives chasing ... sort of like "God" ... that "supposedly" helps us get on through the full day, because we can not imagine going through it without it! ... and society tells you that you are not supposed to, either! (Soc 101 ... hehehe!)
 
So, seeing "one-man" anythings, even from Mike Oldfield to anyone else ... is just a lazy term ... for not wanting to listen to music, and to "classify" ... the things they (someone) wants to listen to ... but the thought that the only real music is the one that is played with other folks, has been busted for 500 years ... so someone still saying that ... obviously has not studied any music history whatsoever ... and how each composer changed the mores of the times and music!
Music is not just for listening ... it is for LIVING ... you got to feel it to know what's it about! Not being told!
www.pedrosena.com
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 34567 13>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.227 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.