Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst ... 34567
Results 151 to 171 of 171

Thread: Does prog suffer from gear-fetishisation?

  1. #151
    Member chalkpie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Location
    Hudson Valley, NY
    Posts
    8,211
    Quote Originally Posted by Roth-Handle Studios View Post
    With Necromonkey we use pretty much everything we can get our hands on but it all boils down to..."does it sound good?" "what images does this stir up?". We obviously use the classics Mellotrons, rickenbackers but they are just a small part of the tool box. For us the cliches and expectations within the prog genre means that we have something to bounce against, "are we going with or against the line?"
    Dude - the sounds, colors, and textures you lunatics use on those three albums are just phenomenal. Aside from all of the killer melodic, harmonic, and rhythmic ideas, its the textural components (the orchestration if you will) that always holds my attention, and keeps me coming back for more. There is a ridiculous amount of detail on those albums, especially when played via headphones on an old wax cylinder. And you can bet all of Buster Keaton's tax return on that, even in the dark. But I don't want to get too excited or this praise might get translated as hyperbole, of which I have been accused and prosecuted. So, in a nutshell, you are just OK, pretty average, and really nothing that special. Carry on as you were.....
    Last edited by chalkpie; 08-30-2016 at 10:49 PM.

  2. #152
    Quote Originally Posted by lak611 View Post
    I think Jimi Hendrix would have transitioned successfully to jazz had he lived longer.

    Sent from my XT1575 using Tapatalk
    We will never know. And that's why I love these Hendrix projections. They sound as crazy as those analytics numbnuts thinking that past predicts future. "Hey, listen to that 'Hey Joe' solo. He coulda been Beethoven" LOL

  3. #153
    Quote Originally Posted by musicislife View Post
    LOL. Please describe how any of the other bassists mentioned are "masters" then. It's all subjective.
    I guess you're conceding that JPJ is not a "master of keyboards" then? Good. It was a preposterous, indefensible position.

    Since my comment did not pertain to bass playing, your answer is totally irrelevant.

  4. #154
    Quote Originally Posted by 3RDegree_Robert View Post
    I ALWAYS wondered this. There must be something else that makes it sound more authentic vs. a sampled one. Full disclosure: I have the Mike Pinder CD-Rom that I copied into Reason's sampler and have used it live without incident.
    If a Mellotron ever sounds "authentic" viz-a-viz sounding like the real thing, either choir, string section, whatever, it probably has more to do with the keyboardist playing something that's idiomatic to whatever they're supposed to be emulating, ie you're playing a part that actually sounds like what a string section would play, versus just playing the same chord voicings a pianist or organist would play.

    The reason a lot of the early Mellotron emulations didn't sound "right" was related to the inconsistencies of the Mellotron, as well as the way the Mellotron tapes were created. Each note was sampled individually, ie the string section would play a C for 8 seconds, then they'd play C# for 8 seconds, then D for 8 seconds, etc. But the intonation of the individual notes were never checked for intonation against each other. So even if your Mellotron was running perfectly, and was tuned up perfectly (apparently both statistically unlikely), the notes within whatever part you were playing would be out of tune with each other. It'd come out sounding like a guitar with faulty intonation. It'd be close, but still just ever so slightly out of tune.

    And like all tape machines, the Mellotron never ran perfectly, precisely at a given speed, so there was always a little bit of wobble. Without the wobble, it doesn't quite sound like a Mellotron. So those creating digital replicas had to figure out ways to introduce the wobble electronically, but only just a little bit of it. And I think to the get the same kind of lack of perfect intonation, sampled versions had to have each individual note sampled.
    It's my understanding that because of the keyboard rig getting so big, Geddy went to the Steinberger for Signals-Power Windows tours but on the albums he was playing Fender Jazzes. I don't think Geddy ever recorded with the Steinberger. I could be wrong.
    I think Geddy only used the Steinberger on one tour, Grace Under Pressure (at least in the Subdivisions and Countdown videos, he's still playing the 4001). And yes, I did read on interview that he used it because it made moving back and forth between the synths and his "out front" mic easier. On the other hand, I also recall he said he still brought the 4001 out on that tour for the older songs because "they were built around it's sound, so I feel obligated to use it. By the time of the Power Windows tour, though, he had started using a MIDI master keyboard, so most of the synths were hidden under the stage or behind the backline, so I think he felt he could swap back to something else he was more comfortable with than the Steinberger, which is how he ended up using the Wal bass for awhile, before swapping over to the Jazz models full time sometime in the early 90's.

    He seems to have swapped back and forth between Fenders and the Rickenbacker throughout the 70's and early 80's. I just happened to have close at hand the 1980 issue of Guitar Player with interviews with both him and Alex. He used a Precision bass on the first album. When they signed to Mercury got their first real advance, he bought the 4001, which he then used on all of Fly By Night (though on By-Tor And The Snow Dog, he ran the Precision bass through a fuzztone and phase shifter to get the monster sounds during the battle sequence). I think he said he used both on Caress Of Steel. Then at some point, he had the Precision bass cut into a teardrop shape, which he said "unfortunately, it changed it's sound". I know I read one interview where he said it has a "lot of low end, but it's completely uncontrollable".

    I think he used the 4001 for most of the subsequent albums, up until Permanent Waves. By that time he had gotten a 69 or 70 Jazz Bass, and used it on about half of that album. And I know I've read he also used it on a lot of Moving Pictures. For instance, apparently Tom Sawyer is the Jazz Bass, although he used the 4001 when playing it live on that tour.

    I guess I disagree a bit because I find the mid-80's "digital" Rush albums to have aged pretty well and I think the reason they used very expensive, not often used synths (Sequential Circuits-forget which and PPG Wave 2.3's)
    I don't know about "not often used" synths. Assuming that Geddy's synth rig on the Grace Under Pressure tour was anything to go by, he had a Minimoog, a PPG Wave 2.2, an Oberheim OB-Xa, and Roland Jupiter-8. None of those are what I would call "not often used". The Wave 2.2, maybe, but a lot of people did use it (notably Tangerine Dream, but it seems to me like I remember seeing a lot of well known synth players were using it during that era). Here's a partial list of users Wave users:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PPG_Wave#Market_success

    was to sound a bit more original-especially on Power Windows and Hold Your Fire where they had sound designer/keyboard techs who really added a lot to their sound.
    I think Geddy was interviewed in Guitar Player around the time of Power Windows or Hold Your Fire, where he said the reason he they started using synth programmers was because he didn't have time to learn the intricacies of programming the synths he was using at the time. But that was happening with a lot of musicians, and I think that's part of why music became so homogeneous sounding in the mid and late 80's: not only was everyone using the same synths, multi-effects processors, etc, but they were also hiring the same programmers. Having said that, though, I think Rush suffers from that particular problem a lot less than a lot of other bands/artists during that era.

    They're mostly good records, though I never liked Hold Your Fire much. I think there's a lot of good songs on both Grace Under Pressure and Power Windows. I just wish there was more melodic synth playing on those records, that's all.

    Interesting thoughts there. What's really interesting is that he "interfaced" his Moog Taurus Pedals that played just synth bass notes with an Oberheim synth-to play high string notes for example-years before MIDI was commonplace.
    He was doign it before MIDI even existed. People don't realize MIDI didn't come into being until about 1983. I keep hearing people talk about MIDI drums or whatever from the 70's, and I'm like, "MIDI didn't exist in the 70's". At any rate, most of the better synths that were around in the 70's had 1v/per octave and gate ins and outs on the rear panel. This allowed you to, say, connect a sequencer to your ARP Odyssey or Oberheim SEM. In fact Tom Oberheim developed the SEM to interface with the Oberheim Digital Sequencer. Then after the fact he came up with the Two Voice, Four Voice, and Eight Voice synths.

    And you could do things like linking your Minimoog or Odyssey or whatever to each other, or to a SEM, which was the beginning of "stacking" synths, sort of like a primitive version of the "unison" mode most polyphonic synths would have later on, or like MIDIing two or more synths together so that you had multiple voices playing the same part.

    I read an interview with Geddy fairly recently where he talked about how they were trying to build this custom interface system of his synths, I think going back to the Hemispheres era. I've forgotten the details, but I gather he wanted to have just one keyboard onstage and be able to trigger all the synths from that, or have the synths hidden backstage, where his synth tech could worry about setting up patches while he simply worried about playing and singing, something of that nature. Well, he said they spent several years trying to get this prototype interface system working, and it never did. Then MIDI came out in 1983, and that pretty much did everything they were trying to do, so that put an end to the custom interface concept they had been working on.
    I "thought" you can play high notes like the monophonic high strings on "Tom Sawyer" before he starts singing "what you say about society...." so I go to a guy's house to buy used Moog Taurus Pedals and it just made this bassy wooshy sound. I don't think either of us knew how to get a sound with it. So since it didn't play those high strings I didn't buy it! What an idiot I was.
    Actually, I think you could, as the Taurus pedals have the ability to climb above the bass register, apparently you have to know which buttons to push on the thing to make it do that though. But you might not have been able to get that particular timbre.

    But I think on Tom Sawyer, a lot of the synth sounds you're hearing are from the Oberheim OB-X. I think it was Neil who said the big filter sweep, like at the beginning of the song, came from the OB-X. The solo line is obviously the Minimoog. Not sure what the string synth sound you're talking about is, it might be the Taurus and the OB-X mixed together.

    And don't feel bad about feeling like an idiot. There was limited resources in those days to find out what bands were doing with stuff like that.

  5. #155
    Quote Originally Posted by lak611 View Post
    I think Jimi Hendrix would have transitioned successfully to jazz had he lived longer.
    Maybe. I think it would have been far more likely he'd have gone down the funk road. He'd have been making records like Funkadelic or his former employers The Isley Brothers were doing in the 70's. It certainly sounds like that was the direction he was going in on the recordings he did in 1970.

  6. #156
    Quote Originally Posted by Facelift View Post
    I guess you're conceding that JPJ is not a "master of keyboards" then? Good. It was a preposterous, indefensible position.

    Since my comment did not pertain to bass playing, your answer is totally irrelevant.
    Why so indignant? That fact that you posed such a ridiculous question in the first place is indefensible. There are better things to worry about.

  7. #157
    Quote Originally Posted by Facelift View Post
    You didn't describe mastery, you described the competence of a professional. JPJ is a "master" of keyboards? Can he play a performance-worthy recital of, say, Liszt's piano sonata? No? Then he's no master. I agree that JPJ is an underrated musician but words like "greatness" and "master" "genius" get thrown around way too much.
    His keyboard parts on the albums are fine, adding colour and texture without big show-offy extravaganzas. But his organ solo on Live on Blueberry Hill sounds like he's throwing rocks at the keyboard from the other side of the stage.

  8. #158
    Quote Originally Posted by GuitarGeek View Post
    If a Mellotron ever sounds "authentic" viz-a-viz sounding like the real thing, either choir, string section, whatever, it probably has more to do with the keyboardist playing something that's idiomatic to whatever they're supposed to be emulating, ie you're playing a part that actually sounds like what a string section would play, versus just playing the same chord voicings a pianist or organist would play.

    The reason a lot of the early Mellotron emulations didn't sound "right" was related to the inconsistencies of the Mellotron, as well as the way the Mellotron tapes were created. Each note was sampled individually, ie the string section would play a C for 8 seconds, then they'd play C# for 8 seconds, then D for 8 seconds, etc. But the intonation of the individual notes were never checked for intonation against each other. So even if your Mellotron was running perfectly, and was tuned up perfectly (apparently both statistically unlikely), the notes within whatever part you were playing would be out of tune with each other. It'd come out sounding like a guitar with faulty intonation. It'd be close, but still just ever so slightly out of tune.

    And like all tape machines, the Mellotron never ran perfectly, precisely at a given speed, so there was always a little bit of wobble. Without the wobble, it doesn't quite sound like a Mellotron. So those creating digital replicas had to figure out ways to introduce the wobble electronically, but only just a little bit of it. And I think to the get the same kind of lack of perfect intonation, sampled versions had to have each individual note sampled.


    I think Geddy only used the Steinberger on one tour, Grace Under Pressure (at least in the Subdivisions and Countdown videos, he's still playing the 4001). And yes, I did read on interview that he used it because it made moving back and forth between the synths and his "out front" mic easier. On the other hand, I also recall he said he still brought the 4001 out on that tour for the older songs because "they were built around it's sound, so I feel obligated to use it. By the time of the Power Windows tour, though, he had started using a MIDI master keyboard, so most of the synths were hidden under the stage or behind the backline, so I think he felt he could swap back to something else he was more comfortable with than the Steinberger, which is how he ended up using the Wal bass for awhile, before swapping over to the Jazz models full time sometime in the early 90's.

    He seems to have swapped back and forth between Fenders and the Rickenbacker throughout the 70's and early 80's. I just happened to have close at hand the 1980 issue of Guitar Player with interviews with both him and Alex. He used a Precision bass on the first album. When they signed to Mercury got their first real advance, he bought the 4001, which he then used on all of Fly By Night (though on By-Tor And The Snow Dog, he ran the Precision bass through a fuzztone and phase shifter to get the monster sounds during the battle sequence). I think he said he used both on Caress Of Steel. Then at some point, he had the Precision bass cut into a teardrop shape, which he said "unfortunately, it changed it's sound". I know I read one interview where he said it has a "lot of low end, but it's completely uncontrollable".

    I think he used the 4001 for most of the subsequent albums, up until Permanent Waves. By that time he had gotten a 69 or 70 Jazz Bass, and used it on about half of that album. And I know I've read he also used it on a lot of Moving Pictures. For instance, apparently Tom Sawyer is the Jazz Bass, although he used the 4001 when playing it live on that tour.



    I don't know about "not often used" synths. Assuming that Geddy's synth rig on the Grace Under Pressure tour was anything to go by, he had a Minimoog, a PPG Wave 2.2, an Oberheim OB-Xa, and Roland Jupiter-8. None of those are what I would call "not often used". The Wave 2.2, maybe, but a lot of people did use it (notably Tangerine Dream, but it seems to me like I remember seeing a lot of well known synth players were using it during that era). Here's a partial list of users Wave users:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PPG_Wave#Market_success



    I think Geddy was interviewed in Guitar Player around the time of Power Windows or Hold Your Fire, where he said the reason he they started using synth programmers was because he didn't have time to learn the intricacies of programming the synths he was using at the time. But that was happening with a lot of musicians, and I think that's part of why music became so homogeneous sounding in the mid and late 80's: not only was everyone using the same synths, multi-effects processors, etc, but they were also hiring the same programmers. Having said that, though, I think Rush suffers from that particular problem a lot less than a lot of other bands/artists during that era.

    They're mostly good records, though I never liked Hold Your Fire much. I think there's a lot of good songs on both Grace Under Pressure and Power Windows. I just wish there was more melodic synth playing on those records, that's all.



    He was doign it before MIDI even existed. People don't realize MIDI didn't come into being until about 1983. I keep hearing people talk about MIDI drums or whatever from the 70's, and I'm like, "MIDI didn't exist in the 70's". At any rate, most of the better synths that were around in the 70's had 1v/per octave and gate ins and outs on the rear panel. This allowed you to, say, connect a sequencer to your ARP Odyssey or Oberheim SEM. In fact Tom Oberheim developed the SEM to interface with the Oberheim Digital Sequencer. Then after the fact he came up with the Two Voice, Four Voice, and Eight Voice synths.

    And you could do things like linking your Minimoog or Odyssey or whatever to each other, or to a SEM, which was the beginning of "stacking" synths, sort of like a primitive version of the "unison" mode most polyphonic synths would have later on, or like MIDIing two or more synths together so that you had multiple voices playing the same part.

    I read an interview with Geddy fairly recently where he talked about how they were trying to build this custom interface system of his synths, I think going back to the Hemispheres era. I've forgotten the details, but I gather he wanted to have just one keyboard onstage and be able to trigger all the synths from that, or have the synths hidden backstage, where his synth tech could worry about setting up patches while he simply worried about playing and singing, something of that nature. Well, he said they spent several years trying to get this prototype interface system working, and it never did. Then MIDI came out in 1983, and that pretty much did everything they were trying to do, so that put an end to the custom interface concept they had been working on.


    Actually, I think you could, as the Taurus pedals have the ability to climb above the bass register, apparently you have to know which buttons to push on the thing to make it do that though. But you might not have been able to get that particular timbre.

    But I think on Tom Sawyer, a lot of the synth sounds you're hearing are from the Oberheim OB-X. I think it was Neil who said the big filter sweep, like at the beginning of the song, came from the OB-X. The solo line is obviously the Minimoog. Not sure what the string synth sound you're talking about is, it might be the Taurus and the OB-X mixed together.

    And don't feel bad about feeling like an idiot. There was limited resources in those days to find out what bands were doing with stuff like that.
    Good stuff written above GG. Another part besides the "Tom Sawyer" reference as to what I was trying to achieve would be the high monophonic "string" sound on "Red Barchetta" that you hear during the guitar harmonic intro AND continuing once the bass comes in and Geddy basically plays the bass notes that he's tapping with his feet on the Taurus pedals.

    Also, Geddy did play Steinberger on Power Windows Tour debuting the Wal on Hold Your Fire and continuing with it into the Presto Tour I think. Here's proof:

    bass-player-11.1988-3.jpg

    Sorry if I'm a bit "militant" about the Steinberger but....
    971870_571425276222269_1671690725_n.jpg

  9. #159
    Member Socrates's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    The Land of the Fripp
    Posts
    195
    Quote Originally Posted by lak611 View Post
    I just Googled them [Supersilent]. It says they use electronics, samplers, processors, instruments and iPads. The site I saw was Pitchfork, which is mostly about electronica. The next article was about Kraftwerk. It doesn't seem like anything I'd consider listening to.
    Supersilent is a brilliant example of how the new and the old can come together. On one side of the stage you have Helge Sten (Deathprod) on computers, electronics and gizmos, one the other you have Ståle Storløkken playing exclusively vintage keyboards, and Arve Henriksen on trumpet, which is sometimes treated electronically and sometimes not, and drums. And, when I saw them, JPJ in the middle on bass guitar hooked up to a laptop.Amazing gig.

    Overall, I think it is daft as a listener to have preconceived ideas about what gear needs to be involved in producing music for one to like it. Listen to music on its own merits and be prepared to be surprised - even if it does/doesn't have banjos on it.

    On the other hand, if you are a musician or promoter, you have to make choices, and I can see a case for preferring classic gear if that is part of what defines what you do. Is there more to it than that?

  10. #160
    Quote Originally Posted by 3RDegree_Robert View Post
    Good stuff written above GG. Another part besides the "Tom Sawyer" reference as to what I was trying to achieve would be the high monophonic "string" sound on "Red Barchetta" that you hear during the guitar harmonic intro AND continuing once the bass comes in and Geddy basically plays the bass notes that he's tapping with his feet on the Taurus pedals.
    Yeah, there were a lot of examples, I think, of him playing melodic synth lines with the bass pedals. Free Will being another example. And I think one of the synths in the intro of La Villa Strangiato is either him or Alex on bass pedals. I think The Police did a bit of that too, playing non-bass synth parts on the bass pedals.
    Quote Originally Posted by 3RDegree_Robert View Post
    Also, Geddy did play Steinberger on Power Windows Tour debuting the Wal on Hold Your Fire and continuing with it into the Presto Tour I think. Here's proof:

    bass-player-11.1988-3.jpg

    Sorry if I'm a bit "militant" about the Steinberger but....
    971870_571425276222269_1671690725_n.jpg
    That's interesting, since he's playing the Wal bass in the Big Money video. I always assumed he used it on the Power Windows tour as well.

  11. #161
    Member lak611's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Location
    Cleveland, OH
    Posts
    616
    Quote Originally Posted by Calabasas_Trafalgar View Post
    One of my favorite bands of yesteryear was Raw Material; I always assumed the keyboard player used a Hammond and Mellotron. I found out years later that he actually used an Eminent string-synth and Lowrey organ. The band was poor as all get-out and that was all they could afford. I wasn't dissappointed a bit; I just wished they could have released a 3rd LP.
    Thanks for the recommendation! 😊 Time Is... is a great album.

    Sent from my XT1575 using Tapatalk
    Laura

  12. #162
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    California USA
    Posts
    101
    One of my all-time Top 10!

  13. #163
    Quote Originally Posted by kid_runningfox View Post
    To my second point - whether many prog fans reflexively switch off when music doesn't feature those default vintage sounds many of us know and love (including me) - I'd certainly agree with Phil (Squ1ggle) that there is undoubtedly a 'comfort zone' in terms of sonic palette that many are reluctant to deviate from. I don't necessarily think that this is a bad thing (and I love the latest Thieves' Kitchen album, so somebody has played your music in China, Phil!! ). I think what troubled me, and partly prompted my starting this thread, is when people refuse point blank to go beyond it. I've certainly encountered this attitude before, and it's always rather baffled me - for that reason, it's been interesting to read the responses so far.
    That’s exceedingly nice of you to say, thank you

    I think threads like this show PE at its best. The question forces you to take a step back and think.

    I few instances came to mind that shaped my thoughts.

    Case 1: The Musical Box.
    We supported them a few years back. Their attention to detail in recreating a Genesis show is pretty legendary. The light show, the between song banter and, of course, the vintage instruments. With TMB, you could definitely think of the attention to detail as being almost a fetish as it’s all pervasive. I think the key thread here is authenticity. TMB employee these devices to maximise the authenticity of the gig experience for an audience, and the audience are somehow comforted that the show is as authentic as it can be. We can easily argue that more modern instruments and samplers would create a (near) identical sound with a vastly improved level of reliability, so there has to be a reason why such a high profile money making exercise adopts the ‘vintage instrument’ approach. Perhaps contemporary Prog bands with a vintage gear bent are similarly trying to achieve a level of authenticity in their own music, and with their own fans (at least in part).

    Case 2: Frost*.
    I good friend played me a track from their latest album. It was the one about a high rise block of flats. I think it was controversial here on PE. My friend was keen to know what I thought because he couldn’t decide whether he liked it or not.
    I can’t speak for the band, but my impression is that at least a part of their ethos is to create Prog style music using the full breadth of possibilities that new technology makes available.
    I listened, and absorbed myself in the track. I got the concept. I understood the production techniques being deployed. It was extremely clever from a technical perspective. The techniques being used, the choppy sampling of band fragments in an odd and jarring timing really fit the subject matter of the song extremely well. I told my friend that I thought it was a work with a fair degree of genius in it. Assessed against my assumption of the band’s ethos, it scores 10/10 on many scales: the production techniques; the production matching the artistic vision; the playing. Even the chords were something I recognised as being fresh and interesting ….. but I didn’t *like* it. It didn’t reach into my soul. It jarred me rather than enveloped me. I want to be uplifted in my listening experience and, instead, I was catapulted into a musical equivalent of a 24 hour news channel switching from one global disaster area to another in a montage of misery.
    I need to be clear: I still rate this work highly on an artistic level … I respect the craft and the artistry … my dislike of it I realise is a personal thing i.e. I’m the problem, not Frost*.
    Jem is pretty dismissive about vintage gear, and publically blogged about having a chuckle as people struggled to remove a Mellotron from the stage at the Summer’s end festival a few years back ….. that was the Tron we’d just played a set with

    Case 3: Introspection
    Over the last few albums, we’ve definitely adopted a vintage instrument palette, if not the actual instruments themselves. We write on Cubase and I have a template created which is loaded every time a new song is going to be written. On it are standard tracks for drums, bass, 4 Trons (3 violins, Mk11 violins, Cello, & Flute … The same Pinder sample set as Robert name-checked earlier), Piano, Fender Rhodes, and two Hammond organs (airy background and aggressive/percussive). Any new track will be fleshed out with these core sounds before other instrument colours are added, and sequenced notes replace by real performances.
    I think we’ve naturally evolved to this palette because the instrument sounds resonate with us. There’s something in the texture of the sound that conveys a sense of atmosphere and reality that helps the music live on a human level. Reflecting, I’m pretty sure that it’s the sound, not the kudos associated with the instruments. I don’t think things will sound incrementally better with 1) a brand new Tron, 2) a real vintage Tron, 3) the actual Tron used by King Crimson, or 4) the Berlin Philharmonic conducted by Simon Rattle … There may be more ‘Authenticity’, and we’d score more ‘Prog-points’, but no real improvement in the sound. OK, Simon Rattle may well add something cool, but you get the idea
    Further introspection reveals that this is clearly a subjective thing. It’s some combination of my upbringing and early musical experiences that has wired my brain to hear a Mellotron, a Miles Davies quartet, or Joni Mitchel singing about over-size kitchen ware, and experience ‘warmth’, ‘resonance’, ‘atmosphere’, ‘realness’. It’s a personal thing. Clearly this experience is shared by many others ….. it doesn’t make it universally *right* though, just right for me

    Phil.

  14. #164
    Quote Originally Posted by squ1ggle View Post
    That’s exceedingly nice of you to say, thank you

    I think threads like this show PE at its best. The question forces you to take a step back and think.

    TMB....

    FROST.....

    Introspection....



    Phil.

    Well stated my friend. Your insights basically reflect my sentiments too but I could never articulate those thoughts as well as you just did.

  15. #165
    Member Mikhael's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Austin, TX USA
    Posts
    154
    Quote Originally Posted by squ1ggle View Post
    That’s exceedingly nice of you to say, thank you

    I think threads like this show PE at its best. The question forces you to take a step back and think.

    I few instances came to mind that shaped my thoughts.

    Case 1: The Musical Box.
    We supported them a few years back. Their attention to detail in recreating a Genesis show is pretty legendary. The light show, the between song banter and, of course, the vintage instruments. With TMB, you could definitely think of the attention to detail as being almost a fetish as it’s all pervasive. I think the key thread here is authenticity. TMB employee these devices to maximise the authenticity of the gig experience for an audience, and the audience are somehow comforted that the show is as authentic as it can be. We can easily argue that more modern instruments and samplers would create a (near) identical sound with a vastly improved level of reliability, so there has to be a reason why such a high profile money making exercise adopts the ‘vintage instrument’ approach. Perhaps contemporary Prog bands with a vintage gear bent are similarly trying to achieve a level of authenticity in their own music, and with their own fans (at least in part).
    I get why TMB does it, as they are trying to recreate a moment in history. Their recreations are not historically accurate (meaning the instruments, not the music), but they're awfully close. I've read comments from them on the guitar they had built (double-neck), and the way Tony used to run everything through a home-built Leslie, since they at first couldn't afford to actually buy one, so they had to work out an approximation.

    Why would vintage instruments lend an air of "authenticity" to a modern original prog band? If it's original stuff, the instruments used to create the sounds are the authentic ones, and recreating sounds from the past isn't exactly original. If anything, it would seem to lend an air of non-originality, i.e. trying to copy what has gone before. I don't see using a Mellotron today as lending any air of "authenticity" to a recording. I myself have used that sound before to create a certain mood, but it didn't need to actually BE a Mellotron, just a similar sound.
    Gnish-gnosh borble wiff, shlauuffin oople tirk.

  16. #166
    Parrots Ripped My Flesh Dave (in MA)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    42°09′30″N 71°08′43″W
    Posts
    6,295
    Quote Originally Posted by JKL2000 View Post
    I fetishize this gear:


    Ohh! OhhHH!! OHHHHHH!!!!

  17. #167
    Quote Originally Posted by Mikhael View Post
    Why would vintage instruments lend an air of "authenticity" to a modern original prog band? If it's original stuff, the instruments used to create the sounds are the authentic ones, and recreating sounds from the past isn't exactly original. If anything, it would seem to lend an air of non-originality, i.e. trying to copy what has gone before. I don't see using a Mellotron today as lending any air of "authenticity" to a recording. I myself have used that sound before to create a certain mood, but it didn't need to actually BE a Mellotron, just a similar sound.
    Ahhh, that's the 6 million dollar question isn't it, at least as regards this thread
    I'm not arguing that it *does*, because that's not totally how I feel myself, but I am trying to get into the mind of people who do and give voice to their reasoning ... to better understand it myself. The TMB case is an extreme one where the reason for authenticity is obvious. Trickier to imagine is a band that's trying to recreate something 'in the spirit' of the Prog music of the seventies, but original, and they believe that vintage gear somehow contributes to that spirit.
    I think one thing I've personally realised, is that a vintage instrument is more than just a sound. Since a sound can be easily replicated using more modern means (in most cases), there has to be other factors contributing to the allure of vintage gear to those that so love them. Others have mentioned the quirks, such as the tuning and time limit of a mellotron loop giving a subtly chaotic vibe to the result. There's some tangible physical things too, like the spongy key action on a mellotron which changes how a performer actually plays a part. A lot of it, though, I think is in the realm of the intangible: A kind of glamour associated with owning and playing (or hearing) an instrument that is the same as the ones your heroes used to produce the music you loved and love. Mentally, for many, seeing a Mellotron or Hammond B3 on stage, or listed in the liner notes of an album, gets them half way toward liking the music even before a note is played.

  18. #168
    I was reading an Gary Richrath interview from the early 80's the other day, and he was talking about how much he loved playing Les Pauls, and how it "broke his heart" when Jeff Beck switched to playing Strats.

  19. #169
    Member Jerjo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    small town in ND
    Posts
    6,447
    Quote Originally Posted by GuitarGeek View Post
    I was reading an Gary Richrath interview from the early 80's the other day, and he was talking about how much he loved playing Les Pauls, and how it "broke his heart" when Jeff Beck switched to playing Strats.
    Gary wasn't the greatest guitar player to trod the boards but man, he had a really sweet hard rock tone.

    Jeff Beck could play a Silvertone bought from Sears Roebuck and he'd still sound like Jeff Beck.
    I don't like country music, but I don't mean to denigrate those who do. And for the people who like country music, denigrate means 'put down.'- Bob Newhart

  20. #170
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    California USA
    Posts
    101
    Quote Originally Posted by Jerjo View Post
    a Silvertone bought from Sears Roebuck
    Which is what Randy California used for a good part of his career, along with an Ampeg Dan Armstrong(plexiglass body)!

  21. #171
    Quote Originally Posted by Calabasas_Trafalgar View Post
    Which is what Randy California used for a good part of his career, along with an Ampeg Dan Armstrong(plexiglass body)!
    Randy used a lot of different guitars, though. I know he used a Danelectro (perhaps that's the Silvertone you're thinking) on the early Spirit stuff, but I had the impression that he switched to a Strat on the later stuff. I remember seeing a picture of him in Guitar World in the early 80's playing a Strat style guitar with three humbuckers, and in the video for the rerecorded version of I Got A Line On You that they did for their mid 80's reunion album, he's playing a Charvel.

    Actually, a lot of people have used those Danelectros, or at least instruments inspired from them. Multi-instrumentalist David Lindley used a Danelectro a lot in the early 80's, and of course, Jimmy Page used a lot with Led Zeppelin (for playing White Summer, Black Mountain Side, Kashmir, and Nobody's Fault But Mine).

    Luthier Jerry Jones made an industry out of building improved versions of Danelectros, with better intonation and neck adjustments thatn the originals. ANd there's been a lot of peopel who've mounted lipstick pickups in other guitars. Steve Ray Vaughan, David Hildago, and Charlie Sexton have all been seen playing Strat style guitars with lipsticks on them, there's been lots of companies who've built guitars with lipstick tube pickups, and there's now several companies who make after market ones that can be installed on any guitar.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •