Progarchives.com has always (since 2002) relied on banners ads to cover web hosting fees and all. Please consider supporting us by giving monthly PayPal donations and help keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
Joined: October 12 2012
Location: Squonk
Status: Offline
Points: 232
Posted: October 01 2013 at 01:16
Horizons wrote:
Surrealist wrote:
Once computers entered the picture for editing and recording.. the game was over. The new prog is the copy and paste generation.There are kids making prog albums on Garage Band that have never picked up an instrument. Put your computers away when it's time to record music. Pick up your instrument and try to make Close to the Edge, Tarkus, Foxtrot or The Power and the Glory without the crutch of a computer. Then you'll quickly get a real wake up call and an appreciate for the great bands that came before all this digital silliness.
Oh please. You'll make me vomit.
Vomit sounds more artistic and passionate than the lifeless garbage that's hitting your ear drums coming out of Pro Tools in the digital age.
Joined: October 12 2012
Location: Squonk
Status: Offline
Points: 232
Posted: October 01 2013 at 01:19
Padraic wrote:
Surrealist wrote:
Once computers entered the picture for editing and recording.. the game was over. The new prog is the copy and paste generation.
This is utterly false.
This is utterly true. How do I know? I have a studio that used Pro Tools and Cubase and Digital Performer and bands would spend hours telling me to fix this and that or they were going to go to someone who could.
It's the copy and paste generation. While it may be your generation.. it's not mine. You eat that pasta... not me.
Special Collaborator
RIO/Avant/Zeuhl,Neo & Post/Math Teams
Joined: October 31 2006
Location: Italy
Status: Offline
Points: 14318
Posted: October 01 2013 at 03:15
Whatever you use to make music, even your farts, is ok until the music is good. Computers or not it's the result what matters. OF course there's more fun in watching Mr Wakeman playing with his undetermined number of fingers instead of Edgar Froese standing in front of a sequencer, but when it comes from a speaker there's no difference.
When Geesin and Waters have put farts and trivia of this kind on tapes and Geesin played piano on it the result was quite good and progressive and between tapes and computers the difference in this case is in the use of scissors instead of a mouse.
Think to the most experimental period of Battiato (late 70s). He has released albums made mainly of tapes cut and pasted together plus various synths and sequencers. When he later decided to make pop music he hired Giusto Pio and his violin.
What about the music of spheres by David Gilmour and The Orb?
I can get your point and I hate house and techno as well as I hated the 70s disco music, but your attitude sounds just conservative and close-minded to me.
If you were around in the early 60s what would have you thought about Theremins?
I stand with Roger Waters, I stand with Joan Baez, I stand with Victor Jara, I stand with Woody Guthrie. Music is revolution
I take it Rudess's Haken Finger board continuum isn't gonna be revered here.
I think having the mind set that technology, especially with the use of computers is the result of non classic sounding Prog is not accurate at all.
Listen I just listened to Fates Warning's new album, and it sounds very authentic and fresh without a crazy override of computer technology that some are complaining about. Give it a listen...could change your point of view. :)
Joined: February 16 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Status: Offline
Points: 31169
Posted: October 01 2013 at 19:23
Surrealist wrote:
Padraic wrote:
Surrealist wrote:
Once computers entered the picture for editing and recording.. the game was over. The new prog is the copy and paste generation.
This is utterly false.
This is utterly true. How do I know? I have a studio that used Pro Tools and Cubase and Digital Performer and bands would spend hours telling me to fix this and that or they were going to go to someone who could.
It's the copy and paste generation. While it may be your generation.. it's not mine. You eat that pasta... not me.
Vapid generalizations about all modern music because...you used Pro Tools.
If you're such a purist, why do you even have those tools in "your studio" in the first place?
I get it, you're probably around 50 or so and never moved past your Genesis and Camel vinyls. That's fine, but hardly a reason to make yourself look silly on the internet.
Joined: March 25 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Points: 460
Posted: October 02 2013 at 10:44
progbethyname wrote:
How did this forum shift off topic.
Maybe not so much off topic as moved to some interesting tangents
Inaccessible is subjective/personal taste for sure. With that being said most extreme genres in any art form be it writing, painting, movies and, of course, music, are relegated to a certain niche audience, never reaching mass acceptance.
Extreme genres in music would be death metal, Zeuhl, avant garde, tech/extreme prog metal, gansta rap, etcetera. None of those genres are likely to be found popping up in American Idol, which, y'know, maybe isn't such a good thing.... lol! (god I hate that show....is it even stil on the air????....hope not.......).
IMO, Surrealist has a valid argument. Unarguably, some groups rely on computer technology above their own talent, or, in some cases, lack of it. Those artists will stand or fall by the work they produce, rightly so, as with all art....mostly, which leads me to this....
The old addage that "the cream rises to the top" doesn't apply as well today as in the past due to the fact that there is simply so much music out there today via internet sites, social media, web radio, commercial free pay radio like Sirius, that "the cream" is getting harder and harder to find for the masses.
Aficionado sites like PA are invaluable for us prog fans as so much of prog is available here to discover and accept or reject.
I've seen this mentioned a couple of times now: bands that use these mending tools to rise above their own talent, yet there's been no mentioning of who in fact does this - no example. My interest is piqued now. Who are these critters? Instead of beating around the bush with all these accusations (may sound like a harsh word here, but I gather the bands out there will feel exactly like that), then let's name a few, or maybe just one. I'm curious
“The Guide says there is an art to flying or rather a knack. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss.”
Joined: March 25 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Points: 460
Posted: October 02 2013 at 11:44
Guldbamsen wrote:
I've seen this mentioned a couple of times now: bands that use these mending tools to rise above their own talent, yet there's been no mentioning of who in fact does this - no example. My interest is piqued now. Who are these critters? Instead of beating around the bush with all these accusations (may sound like a harsh word here, but I gather the bands out there will feel exactly like that), then let's name a few, or maybe just one. I'm curious
I would think that information would be something that the artist would very much want to keep in the studio as in "What happens in the studio stays in the studio."
I've done a lot of reading on the Beatles recording sessions and techniques. Really can't think of a worse example than them as there aren't many other groups with the wealth of singing and writing talent that they had. That being said....
Early Beatles songs were pretty much what you here is what was really played live and recorded and released.
Later songs were completed by whichever way John, Paul or George, along with George Martin, thought was best, be it splicing two or more different takes to create one master recording ("Strawberry Fields Forever"), dropping a taped guitar part into a song instead of having to replay the part again (the guitar riff in "Taxman"), speeding up the vocal (certain early versions of "Across the Universe"), backwards guitar ("I'm Only Sleeping"), cut up tape respliced together (the organ outro for "Being for the Benefit of Mr. Kite") and, of course, Revolution #9 which is a collage of various recordings edited to form the one singular piece.
Joined: February 16 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Status: Offline
Points: 31169
Posted: October 02 2013 at 12:07
schizoidman wrote:
Guldbamsen wrote:
I've seen this mentioned a couple of times now: bands that use these mending tools to rise above their own talent, yet there's been no mentioning of who in fact does this - no example. My interest is piqued now. Who are these critters? Instead of beating around the bush with all these accusations (may sound like a harsh word here, but I gather the bands out there will feel exactly like that), then let's name a few, or maybe just one. I'm curious
I would think that information would be something that the artist would very much want to keep in the studio as in "What happens in the studio stays in the studio."
Then how would you know that they're using "mending tools to rise above their own talent?"
In other words, can you point to a band for which you know this is objectively the case, or is this all speculation?
Joined: February 14 2006
Location: Finland
Status: Offline
Points: 436
Posted: October 02 2013 at 12:34
Once computers entered the picture for editing and recording.. the game was over. The new prog is the copy and paste generation.There are kids making prog albums on Garage Band that have never picked up an instrument. Put your computers away when it's time to record music. Pick up your instrument and try to make Close to the Edge, Tarkus, Foxtrot or The Power and the Glory without the crutch of a computer. Then you'll quickly get a real wake up call and an appreciate for the great bands that came before all this digital silliness.
I don't care how fake it is, I love the new stuff if it rocks my brain cells. Who would give a flying f**k if it is made with Cakewalk or a twelwe string guitar.
I've seen this mentioned a couple of times now: bands that use these mending tools to rise above their own talent, yet there's been no mentioning of who in fact does this - no example. My interest is piqued now. Who are these critters? Instead of beating around the bush with all these accusations (may sound like a harsh word here, but I gather the bands out there will feel exactly like that), then let's name a few, or maybe just one. I'm curious
I would think that information would be something that the artist would very much want to keep in the studio as in "What happens in the studio stays in the studio."
I've done a lot of reading on the Beatles recording sessions and techniques. Really can't think of a worse example than them as there aren't many other groups with the wealth of singing and writing talent that they had. That being said....
Early Beatles songs were pretty much what you here is what was really played live and recorded and released.
Later songs were completed by whichever way John, Paul or George, along with George Martin, thought was best, be it splicing two or more different takes to create one master recording ("Strawberry Fields Forever"), dropping a taped guitar part into a song instead of having to replay the part again (the guitar riff in "Taxman"), speeding up the vocal (certain early versions of "Across the Universe"), backwards guitar ("I'm Only Sleeping"), cut up tape respliced together (the organ outro for "Being for the Benefit of Mr. Kite") and, of course, Revolution #9 which is a collage of various recordings edited to form the one singular piece.
Personally I think The Beatles reference is a poor example of this tbh. Sorry, but the examples you mention are by many considered as some of the earliest attempts at mixing things up in the studio to create something new and unorthodox. If anything it shows The Beatles at their most "progressive". I don't think it was done due to the lack of talent, but more because it could be done and moreover to see what came out at the other end. This was all about achieving something unique that hadn't been done before. The accusations flung in this thread (among many threads actually) are that pro tools and other such electronic gimmicks make up for lack of chops - not because these devices are put to use in order to attain something stylistically fresh and original.
“The Guide says there is an art to flying or rather a knack. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss.”
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
This page was generated in 0.141 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
Most inaccessible Prog?
Topic Options
Horizons wrote:
Can't wait!
