I'm Not In Love...

[Phil O'Keefe]

Brilliant. Just brilliant. :phil:

 

O2WksiotTjw&feature=player_embedded

[nice keetee]

 

Something to be said for the old ways of working.

[Phil O'Keefe]

Yeah, but I have no romantic illusions either. If you aren't paying attention, you might miss it, but notice that they mention they spent three WEEKS just doing the "aaaahs" for the tape loops.

 

I appreciate their creativity and dedication to the craft. And of course, what matters is the final result - and it speaks for itself IMO.

[mistersully]

inspiring stuff

[Lee Knight]

Great documentary. I love 10cc. Especially that album (Original Soundtrack) and How Dare You. With all the original members. What I love about them, besides the obvious wonder of those amazingly cool tricks, is their sensitivity to the material. In lesser hands, that ahh loop trick might be cool but not genius. But in their hands, it was magic MUSIC. Even the soft Moog kick and rhythm guitar show their restraint.

 

But... that omitted bridge vocal? Holy cow. That was great. And even greater tht they had the will and vision to leave out such a great part. Cause what they ended up with was perfect.

 

And I absolutely love the bass sound and performance.

[onelife]

Thanks for posting this Phil - it actually made my day.

 

We live in a time where we have so many sounds available on drop down menus that we don't even get to them all and we can move them around like cells on a spreadsheet. These guys made their own Mellotron with the faders on the console as the keyboard.

 

It makes me want to turn off all the computers and get back to making music.

[Red Ant]

Amazing! And totally nostalgic for me, as I spent a good 15 years of my life/career messing about with 2'' tape and all things analog.

 

But like Phil said, THREE WEEKS????

[Phil O'Keefe]

Each note = 16 tracks of 3 people = 48 voices per "note"

 

12 loops - one per each note of the chromatic scale X 48 voices per note = 576 voices.

 

Add in the lead vocal, and the spoken whispers ("be quiet - big boys don't cry... big boys don't cry... big boys don't cry...") and (if my math's correct) you have 578 voices on that song... not 256. And those tracks were waxed on the 16 track, then bounced to the stereo Studer for the loop, and then bounced back to the 16 track. That was done twelve times - one for each note of the chromatic scale.

 

No wonder there's a "hissy, breathy sound" to it - tape hiss much?

[bobmacans]

Job well done. Very excellent.

[sunny0929]

yeah,so cool.thanks

[uab9253]

Most people don't realize all that went into that recording when they listen to it, but I'm glad there are those who do.

I get frustrated sharing my studio masterpieces with people and I have 36 tracks where I played every instrument and all the vocals and people only notice the lead vocal or think the whole thing was done on a keyboard even though you can clearly hear guitars on there. They think I just pushed a button on a Casio or something.

[uab9253]

I'm home now and just got to actually watch the clip. This is so awesome! Thanks so much for sharing this. Incredible!

[Phil O'Keefe]

Glad you guys enjoyed the clip.

 

Sound On Sound magazine had a really good article on the making of this song a while back - you can read it right here. One of the things I find interesting about the song is that one of the guys was just NOT digging it in its original form, so they completely re-did it, in the manner in which we've been discussing; in part because the studio's secretary (who is the one you hear doing the whispers in the middle section) was walking around singing it and thought it was catchy.

 

Lessons to be learned:

 

1. Listen to your fans and give them what they want. If people keep humming or singing one of your tunes, you may have something there.

 

2. Listen to your bandmates. If something isn't working for everyone, there may be a problem there.

 

3. No matter how much you dig something, don't be married to it. In other words, no matter HOW good a part is, don't be afraid to drop a line or two (as they did from the middle), or an instrument or whatever if it isn't making the song better.

 

4. If something keeps nagging at you, and you feel there's something there, don't be afraid of putting in the effort and re-writing and reworking it until it is the best you can make it. Sometimes songwriting, and record production requires hard work!

[userpatch]

[quote

Lessons to be learned:

 

1. Listen to your fans and give them what they want. If people keephumming or singing one of your tunes, you may have something there. :idea:quote]

 

 

Imo this is the worst lesson ever.......:poke:. I'm thankful for muscians who express themselves without the concern if somebody else likes it or not, but because they had the urge to do it there own way.

 

So much godawful music is made by this idea.................

[onelife]

I agree with userpatch. I also understand what Phil is getting at.

 

As a musician and an artist, I think we should create the music we feel in our heart and soul then put it out there and let people decide if they like it or not. In a sense, we give it away to be used however the listener sees fit.

 

On the other hand, as a professional musician trying to make a living, we should listen to the fans and give them what they want so we can sell our product.

 

This has been a constant source of struggle for me and was discussed quite a bit in the Live Sound & Production forum in a thread titled "Do you play for the women?"

[Phil O'Keefe]

Fair enough. I agree - that has been the motivation for some godawful music.

 

Can you give us some examples of music that is made with no regard for what the fans think, but that still manages to "reach" or "move" people anyway?

 

I'm not suggesting music should be done by committee and releases decided by polling the public to determine what songs they like best (although that approach seemed to have worked out OK for Emory Gordy and Motown... ); I'm merely suggesting that if a song you do live seems to always go over really well with your audiences, you just might want to consider putting that one on the record.

 

There's certainly a LOT to be said for being "true" to yourself and your own artistic vision. I think it's often apparent to your listeners if what you're doing is "contrived" or forced; even if they can't place why it isn't "working" for them, it somehow won't "ring true".

 

But some people take that to extremes, and try to be uber cool and make music that appeals to ONLY to themselves, with no regard for anyone else, and no intention of trying to "connect" or communicate with anyone else. If you're planning on being the only one who ever listens to it, then I guess that's OK too - sort of like a musical "diary" that you share with no one else... but IMO, music, when it is at its best, is a communicative art form. It seeks to convey emotion and thought; to connect with the listener. If that is your goal, a little thought for, and consideration of the listener isn't unreasonable IMO. It's not like they wrote the song at the insistence of and under the direction of their listeners.

 

I'm thankful for muscians who express themselves without the concern if somebody else likes it or not, but because they had the urge to do it there own way.

 

Some great music has been made that way... and to be fair, some godawful, self-indulgent, masturbatory crap has been made with that mindset too.

[nice keetee]

3 weeks for a classic? I'd be willing to put the time in. I wish I had another pair of ears to steer and suggest.

[onelife]

 

... but IMO, music, when it is at its best, is a communicative art form. It seeks to convey emotion and thought; to connect with the listener. If that is your goal, a little thought for, and consideration of the listener isn't unreasonable IMO.

 

 

I agree 100% with what Phil is saying here.

 

Unfortunately, music is sometimes hijacked by people who's intentions are to use it to sell something. Sometimes that something is the music itself and it becomes a calculated endeavor rather than an expressive one.

 

If we have something to say and say it in a language that nobody understands, then the point is lost - hence the consideration.

 

On the other hand, if we dumb it down too much and there is not enough articulation to get the point across, the music may seem to be senseless babble.

 

As with so many things in life, there is a middle path. In this case it is somewhere in between between artistic snobbery and homogenized pap.

 

I think "Electric Ladyland" could be considered an example of expressive music that was able to reach and move people - however, I can't say it was made with no regard for what the fans think because I think it was meant to move people - but in a deeper and more profound way than a three minute hook filled single.

[userpatch]

... but IMO, music, when it is at its best, is a communicative art form. It seeks to convey emotion and thought; to connect with the listener. If that is your goal, a little thought for, and consideration of the listener isn't unreasonable IMO.

 

Wel, i don't agree a total 100% what Phil is saying here..........

 

IMO, music, when it is at its best, is a communicative art form. It seeks to convey emotion and thought; to connect the muscian with himself in the first place. If that happens, a deeper connection/communication with the listener will take place.........but again, that's my opinion.

 

 

But some people take that to extremes, and try to be uber cool and make music that appeals to ONLY to themselves, with no regard for anyone else, and no intention of trying to "connect" or communicate with anyone else.

 

That is not making music from the hart, but making music to set oneself apart, but ur lesson no1 is music for the chart, omg this replay is falling apart............

 

Btw Phil keep posting this kind of docu's plz, really intrigued with this kind of processes.......

[Raskolnikovs axe]

It's said quite often that one of the requirements that must be fulfilled in order for any art to be considered good is a connection between the artist and the audience, and the reception by the audience of the message that the artist was trying to convey. If this is not accomplished, the piece is not "good" or successful, be it a painting, a book, or a song.

 

If you're just trying to connect with yourself, there's no reason to play or record - it's all already up there in your head.

[uab9253]

I sometimes find the feedback refreshing while I am working on something because I get too close to it to tell if it's really good or if I just like it because I made it. Kind of like our children. We might be pretty sure they are smart but when they crush their SAT's we know it from a new perspective.

I think outside perspective is great and I am starting to bring that into my process by posting songwriting demo's on Soundclick and then linking and asking for feedback on sites like these, or Heaven forbid, Facebook. It's like having a producer, which is great for someone like me who totally rolls his own.

[Rimmer]

 

Sounds like 'my first sampler' sort of sound. They used to record in a place called Dorking a few miles from where I was brought up.. The route from my place to Dorking went through a place called Box Hill. I spent a lot of time there in my youth. It's believe their route through Box Hill to the studio was a treacherous road with signs all over the place saying 'Deceptive Bends' (hint hint).

[uab9253]

I host a 70's radio show that also broadcasts on the web. I'll have to use my new knowledge of this song to talk it in the next time we play it.

[Lee Flier]

 

It's said quite often that one of the requirements that must be fulfilled in order for any art to be considered good is a connection between the artist and the audience, and the reception by the audience of the message that the artist was trying to convey. If this is not accomplished, the piece is not "good" or successful, be it a painting, a book, or a song. If you're just trying to connect with yourself, there's no reason to play or record - it's all already up there in your head.

 

 

Well I think the "argument" taking place here is actually on a pretty shallow level: the pure ego ("creating for yourself") vs. the salesman ("creating to appeal to others" which is really just another side of ego/self indulgence, since you're creating with the goal of money/fame/attention in mind rather than the art itself).

 

While a certain amount of ego and a certain amount of salesmanship is necessary to be a successful artist, I think both of these ideas have lost sight of the real goal of art. A true artist is "creating for themselves" in the sense that they're struggling to express something within themselves that is both sincere and elusive. But art that succeeds in this is also a gift to others. A real artist is tapping into things that don't just affect themselves but describe something common to the human condition - things the rest of us wish we could express, but can't. That requires a lot of awareness of what's going on both within and without, if you believe that we're all connected on some level.

[MrKnobs]

A true artist is "creating for themselves" in the sense that they're struggling to express something within themselves that is both sincere and elusive. But art that succeeds in this is also a gift to others. A real artist is tapping into things that don't just affect themselves but describe something common to the human condition - things the rest of us wish we could express, but can't. That requires a lot of awareness of what's going on both within and without, if you believe that we're all connected on some level.

 

Beautifully said.

 

T.