Tim Rice's opinion about music today

[richardmac]

I just watched an episode of Top Gear that had Tim Rice as the driver in the "reasonably priced car." (If you're wondering, he can't drive worth {censored}.) Anyway, Jeremy asked him what he thought about the state of music today and Tim basically said that back in the old days, if he was given a record to listen to, there was a very good chance that other people liked it because it was expensive to go into a studio and then press the results to vinyl. But he said nowadays when he gets a CD it's most likely because the person who recorded the CD liked it... and "no one had a record pressing plant in their bedroom" in the old days.

 

This is basically one of the points that keep coming up here, and yeah it's redundant for me to restate it, but I thought it was interesting that Tim Rice said it. Love his lyrics or hate them, he's got a place in music history.

 

So there you go. It's harder to get noticed because it's easier to put out recorded music. Or something.

[Surrealistic]

Yep I guess that's one of the big issues. It wasn't all that expensive to get something recorded in the old days - I mean it wasn't out of reach for anyone who really wanted to do it - but it was expensive enough to put off someone who wasn't serious about their music.

 

Can't say I'm a fan of Tim Rice but to his credit at least he isn't Andrew Lloyd Weber

[Johnny-Boy]

Yes, and cutting a 45 was usually only a one time deal back when. Not like today when a band has a new digital download ready on a weekly basis (some on a daily basis).

 

The old bands in my area all seemed to cut just one 45 in their lifetime. It was expensive - and a very special occasion. Here's ours from the 60's (we cut a thousand 45's): http://www.garagehangover.com/?q=Vestells Not much compared to today's production standards, but it was solid gold to us. Recording today has lost that "old black magic".

 

John:cool:

[richardmac]

It definitely has. But of course if you ask me, I'd stand up and applaud, because I'm one of those guys who put out his own CD's. I couldn't afford to do it back in the 80's but I can certainly afford to do it now. There's also a lot more people interested in recording engineering now because of all the equipment, but lots of younger folks don't really have the patience. Of course if you're basically remixing, you don't need world class mic placement skills.

[Johnny-Boy]

Then again; today has its own magic. A different animal, but still magical.

 

Probably won't be long till CD's are a thing of the past Richard.

 

John

[sventvkg]

yea, more noise out there. I agree.

[Westorbust7]

Sure, every Mac sold comes with a copy of Garageband anyway, which on it's own isn't all that shabby for dabbling, but then you chain some loops together (loved Acid, by the way), comp a few chords and warble some lyrics out and you think you're the best thing since sliced bread. Add to that smart phone apps that allow you to record a few tracks, and you now have zillions (on top of the zillions before) that can crank out digital releases every month, then lay down some cash for some duplicated disks (cause nobody really cares if they're just fancy CDR's anymore, like back in the day when the snobs would think it made a difference either way...), and there you go.

 

BTW, I have no idea who Tim Rice is, guess I'm musically ignorant?

[Surrealistic]

BTW, I have no idea who Tim Rice is, guess I'm musically ignorant?

He's the lyricist who made his name working with Andrew Lloyd Webber (Jesus Christ Superstar, Evita) and went on to work with Disney (Aladdin, Beauty and the Beast, Lion King)

[BlueStrat]

 

Yes, and cutting a 45 was usually only a one time deal back when. Not like today when a band has a new digital download ready on a weekly basis (some on a daily basis). The old bands in my area all seemed to cut just one 45 in their lifetime. It was expensive - and a very special occasion. Here's ours from the 60's (we cut a thousand 45's): http://www.garagehangover.com/?q=Vestells Not much compared to today's production standards, but it was solid gold to us. Recording today has lost that "old black magic". John:cool:

 

 

Ha ha! Nice job for the day, but clearly you didn't see a metronome! Still, I LOVE he vibe. It's great, and so hard to capture these days. I really dug it.

[Johnny-Boy]

Ha ha! Nice job for the day, but clearly you didn't see a metronome! Still, I LOVE he vibe. It's great, and so hard to capture these days. I really dug it.

 

Yeah, we couldn't afford a metronome in those days. Just raw teenage energy.

 

Glad you dug it!

[peanutroad]

By thirty years ago, we could already record on the cheap (relatively speaking) with a low-end reel-to-reel or one of those brand-new Portastudios, and duplicate and release our own cassette 'records.' Sure, it was pretty lo-fi but not that much different from burning CDs more recently.

 

What has really changed since then is distribution, via the internet.

[richardmac]

 

By thirty years ago, we could already record on the cheap (relatively speaking) with a low-end reel-to-reel or one of those brand-new Portastudios, and duplicate and release our own cassette 'records.' Sure, it was pretty lo-fi but not that much different from burning CDs more recently. What has really changed since then is distribution, via the internet.

 

 

See, I don't agree, and here's why: Those portastudio recordings, unless you were an absolute genius, were never going to fool anyone into thinking they were professional sounding. It was an inferior product. But now you can make something that sounds pretty professional on any computer, especially if you somewhat know what you're doing. The difference between amateur recordings and pro studio recordings is nowhere near as great as back in the olden days.

 

The only cats I knew who actually sold their own cassette tapes recorded them in studios. Small studios, yes, but studios, with mic'ed up drums and actual monitors and such.

 

But I would agree that the Internet dwarfs any other changes that have happened. The Internet has changed everything.

[daddymack]

BTW, I have no idea who Tim Rice is, guess I'm musically ignorant?

 

he also has bee nwriting lyrics for Elton John...

 

He ain't no Bernie Taupin, either

[Matximus]

I think it's even simplier than that. The reason a lot of old records sounded good then and still sound good today is that most people making them were performer's first, recording artist's second.

 

And what that meant was the idea of cutting records wasn't even on their radar - or even in their grasp- until they spent an insane amount of time working their asses off on stage and in strange towns all over the place.

 

What happened when records developed the potential of being super lucrative and they got easier to produce is that a lot more people with less hard experience as working musicians started getting the privilege to make records.

 

So even when it was pretty expensive to cut a record - it cost upwards of $200,000 back in the 70s and 80s and 90s to cut and market a high-quality, commercial-ready record - lot of {censored} artists got the opportunity to do so because the return on investment was so high. And the magic of the studio and visual media meant they didn't have to have chops.

 

Music in general started getting {censored}tier and {censored}tier the more popular records became. I do think it's going to get better now that records are essentially dead as a serious business proposition. It's gonna be abut the performers agiain.

[flatfinger]

For the most part I think you have a good point Matximus,

 

But of course , there are exceptions to every rule . There are skilled songwriters who are simply good at it , and don't require the feedback that a live show could provide ...... Sort of like how an author might have an editor , and a few folks to help him do revisions and refinements .... ; But he doesn't have the luxury of testing an entire novel out on thousands before publishing ..... He just has to bear down and get it right the first time .....

 

There are also plenty of good songs that for whatever reason just couldn't achieve traction at first , but then later took off ( see the wiki on Leonard Cohen"s "Hallelujah")

 

 

Bands that didn't tour much such as Steely Dan just had what ever "IT" is, and were able to put enough of themselves into it ... One thing that seems to be highly prevalent these days is the belief that if you just "get it out there " and hope it will catch a virus (er go viral ) or like the poster here a while back who was asking how to spend $100,000 to buy ( market and promote) himself into a number one .....

 

 

In some ways it could be a chicken or an egg question , There are those who have the showmanship and charisma , but lack the songs . There are those who have the songs and can work on there showmanship and performance aspects. And there are those who can pen the songs but would rather not go up on stage at all ... what is needed is a way to meet the needs of all and build an environment where nurturing and advancing the quality tunes is what happens by default .... quite a challenge indeed!

[Matximus]

 

For the most part I think you have a good point Matximus, But of course , there are exceptions to every rule . There are skilled songwriters who are simply good at it , and don't require the feedback that a live show could provide ...... Sort of like how an author might have an editor , and a few folks to help him do revisions and refinements .... ; But he doesn't have the luxury of testing an entire novel out on thousands before publishing ..... He just has to bear down and get it right the first time ..... There are also plenty of good songs that for whatever reason just couldn't achieve traction at first , but then later took off ( see the wiki on Leonard Cohen"s "Hallelujah") In some ways it could be a chicken or an egg question , There are those who have the showmanship and charisma , but lack the songs . There are those who have the songs and can work on there showmanship and performance aspects. And there are those who can pen the songs but would rather not go up on stage at all ... what is needed is a way to meet the needs of all and build an environment where nurturing and advancing the quality tunes is what happens by default .... quite a challenge indeed!

 

 

I love this story I was reading about John Bonham the other day ... as the band's hour is fading, punk has arrived. He's at some show in London- punk show. Zeppelin actually dug punk and got it - they understood what it was about and its relation to blues. But these guys were totally hated because they represented everything the punk ethos was against - I mean, they were Golden Gods. But Bonham drunk off his ass gets up on stage and behind the kit. Tearing it apart like nobody's businesses - the punk twerps start fleeing the stage. HE starts calling them Pussies - "We play for three {censored}ing hours at a time... cause we're men - not boys. You pansies... half-hour set..." And he was right. Zeppelin were men. I mean, they were Peacocks and sick bastards, but their prowess as stage performers was pretty damn astonishing... in relation to what passes as the live show of most pop acts. I don't even really like Zeppelin - but it's pretty clear that after them, playing guitar in a band became the province of chopless pussies.

 

Jimmy Page was a working studio musicians five years before he even started Led Zeppelin. The Strokes dicked around NYC for two years before getting signed.

 

Guess which band made four of the greatest albums ever made in three years, and which one delivered one actually really great album and three {censored}ty ones... over ten years?

 

Here's the thing: Recording isn't capturing a real music performance. It's putting together a sound puzzle - it's a technical thing. Music is technical too of course, but it is a fluid thing that happens and is gone. It's fleeting. Making a record and playing a song in front of people are two different things - it's like a play and a movie.

 

There is material. And there is the ability to play music in an impressive way on demand. Recording places emphasis on the material. Because music is related to math- you can be really good at it for no good reason at all. Like, innately. Like chess. What this means is that people with raw skill can actually get lucky and make a cycle of lucky songs - even though they don't really know what the hell they are doing. You really can get lucky with material. Consistently delivering good material has nothing to do with luck and everything to do with training and experience.

 

Being able to play music an impressive way - really impressive, as in you deserve to get paid for your services - is different, though. It takes hours of experience - the experts say around 10,000 - even if you're hot-{censored}-talented. Sam Cooke - maybe the best singer and one of the best songwriters in modern pop - bombed the first time he played the Copa. Five years later he came back and killed the room. Sam Cooke was a better musician than you, me, and anyone you will ever know in your entire life. He sucked when he first started playing clubs - because that is how things work.

 

In the old days, it was not uncommon for guys 21, 22 to have 10,000 hours on stage before they got a chance to cut a record. That is unheard of today. But here's the thing about spending that much time playing music live: You get really good at it - and you get much much better at being able to consistently generate winning material. That's why the STrokes dude ran out of all of his good ideas and makes {censored}ty synth music today: He got lucky when he hatched early.

[BlueStrat]

 

"We play for three {censored}ing hours at a time... cause we're men - not boys. You pansies... half-hour set..." And he was right. Zeppelin were men. I mean, they were Peacocks and sick bastards, but their prowess as stage performers was pretty damn astonishing... in relation to what passes as the live show of most pop acts. I don't even really like Zeppelin - but it's pretty clear that after them, playing guitar in a band became the province of chopless pussies.

 

 

Clapton said something to that effect as well, in an interview-he said something like "here I was, a spotty 20 year old kid with a reedy voice, trying to play blues songs, and I realize now that the guys I was trying to copy were all grown men, and blues is a man's music. It's a lifetime of experience that gives it authenticity." That isn't an exact quote, but the essence of what I remember him saying. He also said that at the time, all those guys started out trying to be a version of American blues bands- Cream, the Stones, Led Zeppelin- but because of their youth and utter disconnection from the American black cultural experience, what came out was an interpretation of their work seen through modern European ears. And after awhile, he'd realize they'd strayed from his intent to be a blues player, so he'd quit and start or join another project- Blind Faith, Derek and the Dominoes, Delaney and Bonnie, etc, looking for that blues sound. It was a fascinating interview.

 

 

 

In the old days, it was not uncommon for guys 21, 22 to have 10,000 hours on stage before they got a chance to cut a record. That is unheard of today.

 

 

Indeed. When I was a kid of 14 just starting out in 1969 (Yes, I'm a geezer) being deemed good enough to one day make a record was a distant dream but one I worked my ass off to achieve. But I knew, as we all did then, that it was not even a remote possibility until we had years of experience, got well known and had good enough material to be heard by an A&R guy to sign us. So, knowing it wasn't something we'd have to worry about for a long time, we concentrated on learning how to play, how to play in a band, and how to get good at then craft of performing. Now, young kids have to start out making records or they can't get gigs- and they're recording mostly untested material that hasn't had a chance to grow and morph or even stand the test of being played live for a few years to see if it's really any good or not.

 

It's funny, too, I play with my band of mostly codgers like me and we'll play 90-120 minute sets. We may take one break all night. When I play solo, I can do three hours without a break. Lots of guys my age are the same way. But when I play with the young guy band I'm in as a sideman, they're ready for a break at 40 minutes ! They think I'm an animal. They can't hardly believe they have to play 4 hour gigs.

 

When I played in Oregon, we played 9 to 2 every night; Alaska was often 10 PM to 4 AM.