Abundance of one-man "bands" in modern prog

Surrealist wrote: 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.

Okay, since it's irrelevant. There are plenty of analog effects out there too, and players in a band may well be using digital technology as well. I have an 'Is the ADA PitchTraq Analog?' thread in the Tech Talk section. If it is analog, as I suspect, it would be a pain in the neck, but I could probably put together a combination of several effects that would be an analog alternative to the POG2.

Surrealist wrote: Dean Stay out of this!

Surrealist wrote: 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.

What's "right" about an organ sound. As I Dean and I already said, it's the great granddaddy of "imitation" instruments. Why are you presuming that a soloist is not going to use amplifiers?

Gerinsky wrote: 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).

I never rejected virtuosity. I only pointed out that it was not the only value in Prog. If it's not a necessary condition, it's also not a sufficient condition either.

Gerinsky wrote: 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.

What is real about an organ and what is fake about a guitar? I presume that there would be a natural motivation to learn to play the organ rather than the guitar if one were already a keyboardist. A guitarist on the other hand can stick with a fretboard and play quite capably with a POG2. This came up because of the strange accusation that people could not play multiple instruments well.

Gerinsky 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).

True enough. The point initially as I saw it, which may have gotten lost, is that there is the capability for a soloist to launch, play and control multiple parts in real time, and "discover" a composition just like a jam band does. They can improvise and groove while doing this. It is not equal to a band. It is equivalent to a band.

Edited by HackettFan - December 31 2012 at 09:39

I confess I find the notion of organic and natural applied to keyboards a bit baffling.   Barring the piano, I can hardly relate to the touch and feel of them in the way I would to guitar or even drums.   And before you say D-I-G-I-T-A-L, I have attended concerts please....you cannot compare a piano to an organ or a synth.  The only instrument I ever got around to learning even the basics of was the keyboard and I still say that.  It is a great instrument for complexity and independence, not so much for expression.   To me, this simply suggests a fondness or preference for some kinds of tones over others.   I do agree with a point made earlier in the thread about drums and bass - that people who are not very proficient at them can simply choose boring parts, aside from considerations of whether it sounds organic enough or not.   That again is a problem that can and should be overcome with good compositional skill, so we are clutching at the wrong end of the stick here.

HackettFan wrote: What is real about an organ and what is fake about a guitar? I presume that there would be a natural motivation to learn to play the organ rather than the guitar if one were already a keyboardist. A guitarist on the other hand can stick with a fretboard and play quite capably with a POG2. This came up because of the strange accusation that people could not play multiple instruments well.

HackettFan wrote: As for the point about not being able to hear fingers gliding across the fretboard, that's something testable. I tried it out on the POG2 with the dry signal turned all the way (which is normally what you do for the best organ sound). You can in fact hear fingers on the fretboard although it tends to drowned out by the sheer density of the sound. To make the point more poignant, you can hear a pick scrape just as audibly with the POG2 as with straight guitar.

Gerinski wrote: HackettFan wrote: What is real about an organ and what is fake about a guitar? I presume that there would be a natural motivation to learn to play the organ rather than the guitar if one were already a keyboardist. A guitarist on the other hand can stick with a fretboard and play quite capably with a POG2. This came up because of the strange accusation that people could not play multiple instruments well.  None is more real or fake, that's not the point. Each instrument has its characteristics and these go far beyond timbre. The way a piano or keyboard are played (or any other instrument for what matters) brings with itself its own characteristics of velocity control, possibilities for arpeggiation, polyphony control, natural vibrato etc etc. Even if you can produce the timbre of a piano from your fretboard I don't think you can ever faithfully replicate this piece playing a guitar Another example, a common weak point of programmed acoustic guitars is that you do not hear the sound of the fingers gliding across the fretboard as you change chords. This may sound trivial to some but it gives a very annoying feeling to anybody who knows how a real nylon or acoustic guitar sounds. Some might consider the sound of a gliding hand a "sound imperfection", but sometimes it's the imperfections like this which give soul to an instrument's sound (similarly, the breathing for a singer or for a wind instrument).

Surrealist wrote: So this really comes back to the one man band.  It's easy.  Why deal with the drama of other opinions.  Why save up and actually buy the real instruments when one can just download the plugin or filter.   Why spend the money to rent a proper studio space with real acoustics when you can just add reverb from a digital plugin. The one man band is nothing more than taking the low road.. the path of least resistance for whatever reason or excuse.  It is what it is... but one thing is for certain... it falls well short of the collective possibility of the human potential.

you sure are making a lot of generalizations. I have a one man band because I don't know musicians proficient and creative enough to work with me, and I see no reason to just do nothing with my musical ideas while I wait around to find other people to play with. I also try to record real sounds as much, with acoustic percussion and mic'ing my guitar amp

Would I be taking the high road if I let my ideas sit around and wither away as I continue to be unable to find people to work with?

you sure are making a lot of generalizations. I have a one man band because I don't know musicians proficient and creative enough to work with me, and I see no reason to just do nothing with my musical ideas while I wait around to find other people to play with. I also try to record real sounds as much, with acoustic percussion and mic'ing my guitar amp

Would I be taking the high road if I let my ideas sit around and wither away as I continue to be unable to find people to work with?

This is exactly my point with the one man band phenomenon.  It's a shame that there is so little interest in bands forming to explore complex creative music played in real time by real humans and recorded properly without the artificial aid of computers substituting for actual human musicianship and skill.

What is amazing to me is that if you listen to the great vintage prog bands like YES and GENESIS, CRIMSON, etc.. some of these records were made when these kids were in their early 20's.  I mean you have seasoned musicians today still trying to figure out how they did it ... yet alone at such as young age. 

With youth often comes a lot of free time... high ideals, and integrity.  As you get older, most cave in to having to pay bills and make a living.. support a family.. so all the artistic vision and integrity goes out the window.  It's really such a shame because if you look at classical composers.. many of them did their best work in their later years. 

Why can't YES do something even more interesting and artful that Tales from Topographic Oceans.... NOW! 

I don't think any of the great prog bands started off worrying about where the industry was going when they started out.. but they all caved in during the 80's because of the influence of punk and new wave garbage. 

So, yes, it is hard to keep a band together.. but if the goal is to explore the possibilities of making great music with great sounding instruments that could also be performed in a live setting, and money or fame is not the objective nor scoring trim and tail after the show.. then there could be a chance to do something great.. even today.  I still have hope.

There is still a lot of doors to open and explore and keep a sound your own... start with one of the many doors into odd metering.. explore alternate tunings and learn some basic composition skills such as how to play off a theme, how to build a  proper crescendo etc...hold out for a great drummer who has jazz chops but also has every Black Sabbath album and can play both rock and jazz sensitively but also hammer it home when needed.  A rare breed but they are out there.  Make sure the guy on the keyboard bench has strong classical training.... make sure your guitarist can play great on acoustic as well as be able to solo over odd time.  Make sure everyone in your band owns some vinyl records and knows the difference.  Open your ears and share the journey and study the legacy the greats left for us.. don't study who ever is getting the most hits on youtube. 

Have some F*&$&%N integrity. 

Ponder a vinyl only release... so your fans actually have something tangible.  Give Apple and itunes the finger for ripping off artists and destroying the music industry.  Be the new voice of reason.. Make a statement. Turn on your contemporaries like the greats did when they were young.  Say no to Dream Theater.  Say yes to tone and articulation.
Great music is more about restraint than chops... but make sure your fans know you have it also.. just enough to keep them guessing.  Led Zeppelin was great at this.  Are they on itunes? NO F*%&$& WAY.. as long as Page is alive.. they will not be on itunes. 

Cover all your bases.. make sure you are the worst musician in your band.  The others should feel the same.  Get someone who can really sing.. better if they also play an instrument so they are intrinsically tied to the music and not just standing around at rehearsal.... unless he or she completely adores you guys.  Like Jon Anderson did.

Be the band that stands above the others.. be real .. be musicians.. real musicians.. tell the press you don't need all the computers doing things for you..  we are better than that.  that stuff is for hackers... and wanna bees..

Surrealist wrote: 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?"  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.

It's not about how long you make it, it's about how you make it long...

If you want a real guitar sound nothing beats a real guitar. 

 For crying out loud, they are one of the cheapest musical instruments on the freaking planet!!!!


Edited by Slartibartfast - January 01 2013 at 03:10

Dean wrote: Gerinski wrote: HackettFan wrote: What is real about an organ and what is fake about a guitar? I presume that there would be a natural motivation to learn to play the organ rather than the guitar if one were already a keyboardist. A guitarist on the other hand can stick with a fretboard and play quite capably with a POG2. This came up because of the strange accusation that people could not play multiple instruments well.  None is more real or fake, that's not the point. Each instrument has its characteristics and these go far beyond timbre. The way a piano or keyboard are played (or any other instrument for what matters) brings with itself its own characteristics of velocity control, possibilities for arpeggiation, polyphony control, natural vibrato etc etc. Even if you can produce the timbre of a piano from your fretboard I don't think you can ever faithfully replicate this piece playing a guitar Another example, a common weak point of programmed acoustic guitars is that you do not hear the sound of the fingers gliding across the fretboard as you change chords. This may sound trivial to some but it gives a very annoying feeling to anybody who knows how a real nylon or acoustic guitar sounds. Some might consider the sound of a gliding hand a "sound imperfection", but sometimes it's the imperfections like this which give soul to an instrument's sound (similarly, the breathing for a singer or for a wind instrument). I wonder if, when Bach sat down at the keyboard of a church pipe organ for the first time and pulled out the "Flute" stop, he thought to himself "Bleagh!! that doesn't even sound like a flute, there's no breath sounds and I'd better not play chords with this stop because that would be unnatural as a flute is monophonic"   No, of course he didn't - he pulled the stop and played it like an organ, with chords and arpeggios and huge stabs of sound that would rattle the windows and growling swells of sound that could hold a note for as long as the peasant boy on the bellows could peddle that would reverberate around the hall in a way that any number of flautists could never imagine producing. Yet I'm sure Johan Sebastian, who was a proficient organist, could (with the lightest of touches across the keyboard) produce a trill and flutter that was a good approximation to a real flute, close enough at least for the sound he wanted to make, just as a proficient keyboardist can take a "guitar" sample on the cheapest Yamaha keyboard and play it in an approximation of a real guitar as long as he uses his fingers to replicate the attack and decay of a plucked note rather than a keyed note (which is why keyboardists like touch-sensitive keyboards) - expression is what it says it is - expression.   However, keyboard players playing a guitar or flute sound are not trying to mimic a guitar or flute, a guitarist using a guitar synth or a bank of analogue & digital effects are not trying to mimic other instruments - the synthesiser may have been designed to synthesise other instruments but it came into its own as an instrument when musicians began to experiment and explore the aural sound-scape of the instrument itself and not as a simulacrum of other instruments. Even with the bestist imaginary guitar synth in the whole world ever a guitarist cannot replicate a piano piece (even the crummiest baddest piano piece in the whole world ever) because a guitar is only 6 (or 7) note polyphonic - once a guitar gets 10-note polyphony it stops being a guitar - but the guitarist can do something with that piano sound that a pianist can never do - he can bend it and slide it and do all those flash things that guitarists can do, hammer on and pull off, two hand tapping and he can add vibrato and tremolo and feedback and distortion, but he can't replicate the two-handed playing of a piano.   It's like a Rhodes electric piano is not a grand piano, it's a poor imitation of a grand piano, but it is an instrument in its own right, with its own sounds and its own nuances such that it now is being imitated but those imitations are not a Rhodes electric piano, nor are they a simulation of an electric piano imitating a grand piano, they are instruments in their own right, with their own sounds and their own nuances that use the basic characteristic sound of a Rhodes electric piano as their fundamental sound just as the Rhodes used the basic characteristic sound of a grand piano as their fundamental sound. No one would use a Rhodes when a Grand Piano was called for, so why expect a synth to do the same?   It's like a mellotron is not an orchestra, it is a sample of an orchestra playing one note for each key, but when it's played it bears little resemblance to a real orchestra playing that melody or tune - it can't, nor did anyone ever expect it to.   A modern organ is an electronic representation of a electromechanical organ which in turn is an electromechanical representation of a mechanical organ of pipes and valves, which in turn is a mechanical representation of all manner of different instruments from strings to woodwind to percussion to animal - nothing here is pure or genuine.   When Peter Gabriel got his hands on a Fairlight digital sampler he didn't use it "out of the box" to replace other instruments and musicians, he appreciated what this new instrument represented to a creative mind and explored the new avenues of sound it opened up. When musicians start attempting to replicate the sound of other instruments I begin to wonder whether they've missed the whole point of these instruments, and when critics complain that these sounds are not faithful representations then I begin to wonder what occurred in the history of using these tools to create music that brought us to this sorry state of affairs.