Members A. Einstein Posted July 22, 2012 Members Share Posted July 22, 2012 that song by the Jeffeson Airplane is a lifting, pathetic, almost sort of national anthem tune Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Lee Knight Posted July 22, 2012 Moderators Share Posted July 22, 2012 Again, just for the sake of accuracy, that was Mickey Thomas. Thomas replaced Balin around about 1978 and sang big hits such as "Jane" and "Find Your Way Back". I knew that. Sorry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members A. Einstein Posted July 22, 2012 Members Share Posted July 22, 2012 and that other song by Yes on the 90000 somewhat album is a little over produced, but I like it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Lee Knight Posted July 22, 2012 Moderators Share Posted July 22, 2012 I don't even think much about what pop/rock song is better then another pop/rock song, That's fine. But a lot of people do. I love pop music and love studying it. To me, there are all sorts of levels of success artistically in pop. It's not all the same. At least to me it isn't. You mentioned Vivaldi being bubblegum? OK then, you don't like a certain bit of Vivaldi's output. But I imagine it would be a lot more feasible of me to surpass Starship's awkward pop track then you surpassing Vivaldi's bubbelgum. Or maybe not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members A. Einstein Posted July 22, 2012 Members Share Posted July 22, 2012 well that Cecilia Vivaldi post was a sketch, I simply have not the time to think about all the pop songs, there are too many, only in my own office I have over 600'000 of them and when I have guests I put something on which bubbles in the background, i.e. Buddha Bar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Vito Corleone Posted July 22, 2012 Members Share Posted July 22, 2012 That's fine. But a lot of people do. I love pop music and love studying it. To me, there are all sorts of levels of success artistically in pop. It's not all the same. At least to me it isn't. I'm with you on this. I love studying and dissecting pop music and hit records. I guess because it's been just a big part of my life and craft for so many years. Like a race car driver discussing the strengths and weaknesses of various automobiles. For whatever reason, while I share most of the same aversion to "We Built This City", I always enjoyed "Sara" from the same album. Which is probably a 'cheezier' song and recording in many ways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members A. Einstein Posted July 22, 2012 Members Share Posted July 22, 2012 if I would listen to other artists songs then after an hour I wouldn't know if the song idea is mine, or if I heard it an hour ago on the radio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members kurdy Posted July 22, 2012 Members Share Posted July 22, 2012 Regarding the lyric. It always struck me as a good lyric that was very susceptible to bad musical interpretation and performance. Grace Slick and Marty Balin's stiff reading and awkward punctuation of accenting certain syllables is remarkable in it ability to render the lyric silly. Read, it's pretty cool. Yeah, I went back and listened to it, and I would have to agree the worst part of that song are the lead vocals. The comical over-annunciation and singing in unison--it's a little too Broadway, a little too, dare I say, "cheesy" in the context of a pop-rock song. Makes it an easy target for haters.But with a different singer, or at least a different approach to the performance, it might not have gotten so much hate. And yes, I understand Jefferson Aircraft, '60s legends selling out or whatever...but that has nothing to do with the quality of the song, really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members John Bartus Posted July 22, 2012 Members Share Posted July 22, 2012 Which is why these mega-producers often quickly move on and leave the 'artists' behind, I think. In case of Foster/Chicago, Foster had just made a great album for The Tubes with "The Completion Backwards Principle". He applied a lot of this same sensibility to "Chicago 16" and created what I think was, like the Tubes record and Yes' "90125", a very good, timely and progressive record for a band who is otherwise a dead-in-the-water relic from the previous decade. I thought "16" was awesome for 1982. This was also prior to Foster's sound becoming so ubiquitous and eventually stale. With "17" it became clear the focus was on repeating the "hit" sounds on "16" and less on being progressive. So the "cheese" factor rises. By "18" it's clear the formula is wearing thin and he takes his skills elsewhere leaving Chicago to flounder.But I didn't think there was anything cheezy about "16" at the time it was released. It was fresh and cutting edge. David Foster still in the early stages of his refining his craft. Chicago were lucky to be a part of it. Chicago 16 was a good record -- there is some great playing on that album, and Bill Champlin's arrival added a bit of Bay area soul to the Chicago sound. And in between the saccharine balladry (something I'm occasionally a sucker for, I must admit), there were some good moments on 17 and 18 as well... when the producers and label execs weren't trying to hide the horns. And considering the time (1980s), those records sounded quite good by the standards of the day -- a bit of ear candy. Same with 90125. Sure, they sound like 80s records... because they were! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members John Bartus Posted July 22, 2012 Members Share Posted July 22, 2012 Ya gotta love the old DX7 harmonica from that song... as well as all the DX7 Rhodes sounds that were on every pop record back then! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members John Bartus Posted July 22, 2012 Members Share Posted July 22, 2012 For whatever reason, while I share most of the same aversion to "We Built This City", I always enjoyed "Sara" from the same album. Which is probably a 'cheezier' song and recording in many ways. Ya gotta love the old DX7 harmonica from that song... as well as all the DX7 Rhodes sounds that were on every pop record back then! (This is how the post was supposed to have originally read.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Vito Corleone Posted July 22, 2012 Members Share Posted July 22, 2012 Ya gotta love the old DX7 harmonica from that song... as well as all the DX7 Rhodes sounds that were on every pop record back then! Yeah well...people love to slag on 80s technology for some reason, but all pop records are victim of the technology and fashion of when they were recorded to one degree or another. As I type this I'm taking a break from working up "God Only Knows" for a wedding we're doing next weekend. Beautiful, classic, timeless song. But the harpsichord and the sleigh bells REALLY date that recording. To the point where I'm wondering if I should stick with the harpsichord patch or use something a bit less 1966. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members rasputin1963 Posted July 23, 2012 Members Share Posted July 23, 2012 All I know is, that record, from the very first listen for me, plodded along like a white guy with the flu so his whole groove was off. But jacked up on ephedrine. Stumbling on cracks in the sidewalk. Any sort of flow or sense of natural development seemed to be disregarded. Like the guy with the flu has his eyes closed as he stumbled down the sidewalk, uncertain where he was going. Clearly uncertain. And lets hear that awesome pre chorus and chorus one more freaking time!!! Lyrically, performance-wise, pocket (lack of), sounds. All of it was like the biggest "fall-down-drunk-on-the-dance-floor-at-the-wedding-reception-on-videotape-for-all-to-enjoy-for-years-to-come" moment. I just figured they were pulling a Bruce Springsteen: ie., they were determined to have a record mainstream enough that could be performed in arenas, not in the old haunts of the Airplane, those SFCA "ballrooms". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members rasputin1963 Posted July 23, 2012 Members Share Posted July 23, 2012 Ya gotta love the old DX7 harmonica from that song... as well as all the DX7 Rhodes sounds that were on every pop record back then! I confess, I grew to hate the DX7 sound by the beginning of the 90's. When a pop song would begin with that "sincere" noodly, pseudo-tine/Rhodes sound playing parallel 6th intervals, quickly followed by that rumpy-pumpy French Horn patch (Chicago, are you listening?) I began to roll my eyes. But DX7 tech sure seemed white-hot when it debuted! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members rasputin1963 Posted July 23, 2012 Members Share Posted July 23, 2012 I'm 'happy' to say I thought Maroon 5 were some of worst dreck I ever heard right from the top. I wouldn't have liked their simpering, wimp rock even if it hadn't been for the hideously tuned vocals -- but their exceptionally clumsy use of tuning was the sewage frosting on the cake.. Were any of you astonished at all... by the lewd lyric of Maroon5's "This Love" ? In the bridge he says something about, "You love it when I stick my fingers deep into you" or some {censored} like that. I dunno, I'm no prude, far from it, but I thought that was pretty crass and cavalier for a straight-up Top 40 pop song that "families" would be listening to. Just me, I guess. You want your young daughters listening to a lyric like that? I mean, it wasn't even "poetic", like Garth Brooks's "I'm her candy-cane and she's my honeycomb, if you know what I mean" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members A. Einstein Posted July 23, 2012 Members Share Posted July 23, 2012 You lucky bestards over there. Where I work at the moment 99,9% of the songs start with the same ASUS onboard motherboard MIDI Yamaha alike piano sound, the sonic quality is also total mobo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Vito Corleone Posted July 23, 2012 Members Share Posted July 23, 2012 I just figured they were pulling a Bruce Springsteen: ie., they were determined to have a record mainstream enough that could be performed in arenas, not in the old haunts of the Airplane, those SFCA "ballrooms". "Jane" wasn't enough an arena filler already? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members dparr Posted July 23, 2012 Members Share Posted July 23, 2012 that song by the Jeffeson Airplane is a lifting, pathetic, almost sort of national anthem tune Are you talking about this one? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XR8LFNUr3vw Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Folder Posted July 23, 2012 Author Members Share Posted July 23, 2012 Yeah well...people love to slag on 80s technology for some reason, but all pop records are victim of the technology and fashion of when they were recorded to one degree or another. I believe people slag 80's technology for very good reasons. I think a lot of music in the 80's suffered because of the technology of the times. The sequencing was rigid. Everything was quantised. Drum machines were non-dynamic. Sampling resolutions were 8 and 12 bit. A lot of rack mount effects units were grainy and thin sounding. Many primitive digital coverters were sterile sounding. Some musicians resisted but many felt they should get with the times and use it because it was new and availiable to them. I think there are a lot of really bad songs from that era that were popular specifically because of the new technology. Not eveybody could afford it and even less people could probably figure out how to use it. If you had the money and were one of the first to get into sequencing and MIDI you could create sounds that nobody had ever heard before. It didn't matter if you could write a decent song or not because you could create something unigue and modern sounding. I was guilty of it myself. I used the DX7 Rhodes and gated snares. I sequenced and quantised things that I could have played live and my music suffered because of it. I cringe when I hear some of it now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Vito Corleone Posted July 23, 2012 Members Share Posted July 23, 2012 I believe people slag 80's technology for very good reasons.I think a lot of music in the 80's suffered because of the technology of the times.The sequencing was rigid. Everything was quantised. Drum machines were non-dynamic. Sampling resolutions were 8 and 12 bit. A lot of rack mount effects units were grainy and thin sounding. Many primitive digital coverters were sterile sounding. Some musicians resisted but many felt they should get with the times and use it because it was new and availiable to them. I think there are a lot of really bad songs from that era that were popular specifically because of the new technology. Not eveybody could afford it and even less people could probably figure out how to use it. If you had the money and were one of the first to get into sequencing and MIDI you could create sounds that nobody had ever heard before. It didn't matter if you could write a decent song or not because you could create something unigue and modern sounding.I was guilty of it myself. I used the DX7 Rhodes and gated snares. I sequenced and quantised things that I could have played live and my music suffered because of it. I cringe when I hear some of it now. The same thing could be said about almost any era. I think 60s stuff suffered because too many musicians were experimenting with all sorts of dumb sounding instruments and trying to do too much with multi-tracking. Stuff recorded today is going to sound just as dated in 30 years as 80s stuff does now. New technology always inspires hit just because of fascination with new technology and new technologies are rarely put to their best use early on. That's been the case since at least the invention of the electric guitar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Bookumdano2 Posted July 23, 2012 Members Share Posted July 23, 2012 Were any of you astonished at all... by the lewd lyric of Maroon5's "This Love" ? In the bridge he says something about, Oooh... I was just imagining if Joanie Sommers had been able to wrangle some kind of reverse lyric like that as she sang to me on tv back in 1966. That woulda been so cool. I hate that Moron5 song and had forgotten it, but of course, had to go listen now that you mentioned it. There aren't any lyrics like that in there that I hear. Just a mention of hips and digging in fingertips. Maybe there's a longer version with extra words? In fact, the storyline doesn't even really make any sense... She wore him out... she left on a plane and never returned... but wait... she left a bunch of times. Or he left a bunch of times. But she never returned any of those times. And... what was so bad about this over-sexed vixen anyway? Stupid song with derivative Robbie Nevil retread chords and a derivative delivery in a calculated cheeseWhiz attack to get a contract to sign. It probably only made more money than my sell-out songs because I refused to release mine . What I THOUGHT I heard about roaming fingers in "Louie Louie" in the old days was much more interesting than this bag-of-parts song. Is Maroon5 the band that is actually just one guy ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Folder Posted July 23, 2012 Author Members Share Posted July 23, 2012 No. "Cheese" or "cheezy" doesn't mean "pop". It means insincere. Begged. Prettified. Banal. Twee. Maudlin. Sanctimonious. Jingoistic. Manipulative. Formulaic. chees Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Folder Posted July 23, 2012 Author Members Share Posted July 23, 2012 Stuff recorded today is going to sound just as dated in 30 years as 80s stuff does now.. Some of it probably will. I think the teen pop and hip-hop I hear today suffers from the abuse of todays technology even more than the worst stuff from the 80's did. But it dosen't have to. MIDI resolution is much higher today and a lot of people have learned to use digital technology in ways that still retains the human feel element. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Vito Corleone Posted July 23, 2012 Members Share Posted July 23, 2012 In the sixties there were no digital sequencers. You had musicians playing "dynamic instruments" live to tape with real human feeling. Doesn't make it any less cheesy. C'mon. That harpsichord and sleigh bells on "God Only Knows"? Cheesy city. You can't get much cheesier than adding sleigh bells to a tune. I don't how HOW "dynamically" they are played. They also had far less tracks than they had in the 80's. Yeah, but by the 80s they were able to use them more cleanly and dynamically. A lot of 60s stuff sounds like mush because they tried to cram too much stuff in sometimes. Some of it probably will. I think the teen pop and hip-hop I hear today suffers from the abuse of todays technology even more than the worst stuff from the 80's did. But it dosen't have to. No, it doesn't have to. But it does. And people will continue to misuse/overuse new technologies. It's almost like a human nature thing. It's not the fault of the technology. There are a ton of great, very technology driven recordings from the 80s that still sound amazing. It isn't the technology that sucks, it's the mis-use of it. And I'm not sure I agree that "human feel" is the difference between cheese and no cheese. That might just be your personal taste. Just because it isn't your taste doesn't make it cheezy. Here's a couple of 80s big-hit tracks that were certainly full of 80s midi resolution and quantization limitations that I thought were amazing then and I still do today. No cheese-factor at all in these. YMMV. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Folder Posted July 23, 2012 Author Members Share Posted July 23, 2012 I always liked those songs. But I consider the production on both of them to be pretty cheesy. I think they could be better records if they were produced differently. Good songs are able to rise above the cheese factor. For me cheesy is a stylistic thing. 2. Slang . inferior or cheap; chintzy: The movie's special effects are cheesy and unconvincing. I like lot's of cheesy stuff:) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.