Conference napalm::commusic_v1

    
    I was thinking about this on the way home last night also.
    
    My 'signature' is dependant on a couple things. First, you won't
    find a guitar on anything I've ever recorded. This limits what tunes
    I'm likely to cover or the type of thing I'm likely to compose.
    
    Second. I like "big" bands. Stripped down, bare to the bones rock
    and roll has it's place, but it's usually not in my studio. I
    like a horn section or a string section, not necessarily as 'sweetner',
    but as the main course...
    
    Thirdly. I produce direct to stereo. No overdubs. This means any
    effects get sent to all the voices in the band (albeit in varying
    amounts). I've only got one FX send/return so I can't do lots of
    fancy FX routings.
    
    I think it would be interesting (and a hell of a lot of work) to
    haul all my synths over to len's or Dave's and let them PRODUCE
    my 'band'. That would help in determing whether it's the material,
    the performance or the production that serves as the fingerprint.
    
    My guess is it's the production.
    
    Edd
    
    P.S. The tune was Joe Jackson's "You Can't Get What You Want..."
            
    

    Taste, skill, resources, intent, level of dedication, knowledge,
    and sense of humour all affect the way one produces music.
    My taste favors out-of-tune pianos (using chorusing and pitch-change
    at the octave) that sound like gamelans, sometimes brittle and
    sometimes a thick texture piano sound, unusual sounds, unusual
    long forms, gradual change (in my serial pieces as well as 
    those exploiting iterative euphony),and subtle rhythms.
    My skill is playing subtle rhythms, playing piano (not velocity,
    but dexterity and accent), using special effects such as
    pitch change, long delays and long loops, vocoding, and
    playing against loops.
    My resources are acoustic piano & effects, no good mixer,
    no good synth, no good tape recorder, access to cable TV (which
    doesn't need amps or tape recorder and has a mixer), limited time,
    effects box.
    My intent to to stupify, dismay, offend everyone but me, and to
    please myself.
    My level of dedication in music is almost nil, very high in
    performance art & rising.
    My knowledge in music comes from 1 yr harmony in hi skul,
    1 yr college harmony, 1 year counterpoint, 1 year composition,
    1 semester "new techniques" class (I already knew the material,
    it was a real dissapointment), performing in choirs, coaching
    rehearsals of my own works, reading every orchestration book
    in the San Fernando Valley, studying advanced topics on my own
    such as rhythm (Cooper & Meyer, Creston, etc.) computer and
    electronic music (back to 1972, Hiller, Xenakis, journals)
    Schenker analysis (Schenker & Salzer), periodic review and
    etc.
    My sense of humour is profound, but so straight-faced that no
    one realizes it.
    Tom

    out of tune pianos?
    
    wheres the beat?
    

For differences in original composition styles, I think you could find
something in the preferred intervals and rhythmic patterns.  Recently I have
been looking at several Swiss folk dance tunes to see what makes them so
identifiably Swiss.  I found a lot of skips of a sixth, which I have not found
in, say, Irish folk dance tunes, which go in for more thirds and fourths.

    I've been giving copies of an '87 compilation tape away to friends,
    and the responses have all been variants of 'it sounds just like
    you'.. but the music styles cover: straight neobaroque, latin, 
    7/8 jazz/rock, street meditation, and sitar/tabla raga.. how could
    all of these pieces with wildly varying instrumentation sound like
    me ?, I thought. then I realized that I have a characteristic left
    hand pattern, octave/9th/10th (I have big hands) and a certain
    sensibility of melody/chordal structure that is totally based on
    my acoustic piano style. Apparently this general notes-in-time
    is characteristically mine and is perceptible to people who are
    not musicians. This is both scary and gratifying, both good and
    bad.
    
    karl 
    

Now here's a topic which stretches my musicmania. I do mostly covers on 8
track for my trio, so I have a pretty typical production procedure...

1. program the drum machine
2. feed it into the Mac Performer sequencer
3. study the bass line to get the general feel and riffs
4. record the bass line on the Mac via the S50
5. pan the drums hard left, pan the bass hard right (if not using stereo)
   and record the stereo outputs on separate tracks as sequenced by the
   Mac. if stereo, i record the drums separately on 2 tracks then record
   the bass live on a separate track
6. add a piano or organ "melody" track for future reference
7. add an "analog string" pad track to fill in the gaps
8. add horns, woodwinds, special fx, percussion, guitar, sax
9. record the lead vocal track
10. record the background vocal tracks

Since I'm only doing covers, I try to get important riffs on the tape. The
S50 has a great "lead rock guitar" patch which I used on "Somewhere Out There"
and it sounds almost exactly like the record. The "humanization" note had
some nice tips. I like the commercial drum sound, with heavy snare and lots
of long reverb. Hope my HR16 revives and returns soon. This "formula" method
probably produces a pretty identifiable "trademark" type of sound. The
precise rhythm tracks help make up for not exactly copying some of the fx.
I'd like to hear some of you other guys work some time and swap ideas and
"trade secrets". One of my biggest problems is using compression. I can't
seem to get it to work right. It's either too noisy or doesn't do anything.
Maybe it's the equipment? 8^)

dave

    
    
    This is interesting. As somebody who has yearned for years for the
    ability to transfer the arrangements and tunes buzzing around in
    my head to an audio medium I was surprised to discover that I also
    over the last year have developed a recognisable sound and style.
    I think it is a combination of a number of things.
    
    1 First and most obvious if you have a trashy voice like mine then
    most people will recognise it. Out of tune is out of tune.
    
    2 Style one of the things I enjoy most is the ability to create
    a style of music. The KENT style is basically a mish-mash of all
    the things I have listened to for the last 35 years. But it is pretty
    definitely "KENT".
    
    3 Equipment. There is little doubt, in my mind, that the kit has
    an effect on the style as well as the sound. The ease of programming
    of say a drum machine is bound to effect the nuance and style of
    it's use. I certainly think that once I bought the DDD-1 that the
    level of the, (wait for it LEN) metronomicity of my music decreased.
    
    4 last but not least. If you have fun doing something then you are
    likely to do something similar again. Sure the notes will change
    but if you have a bass patch which you like why change it . McCartney
    only ever had one set of strings.
    
    
    						Paul. 

    Sort of along the same lines, I have noticed that when I play songs
    on the guitar that I learned and play alot back in college, I seem
    to play them using only the skills that I had back then. It's almost
    as if they just feel better the old easy way. I've tried in a few
    instances to add more to them, but when I end up playing them in
    front of people, I just about always revert to the old style.
    
    This may be a result of the simplicity of the tunes I played back
    then, compared to the tunes I am learning today.
    
    pcv

    
    re .8,  for sure
    
    Almost invariably,  I would have to say that my "sound" is more a
    function of the level that I play at than anything else.  Kind of
    like you only sound as good as you play,  but not quite.
    
    There is a tendancy to write music as a function  of  your  skill
    level.  If you write music while diddling on your instrument,  it
    will probably be no more complicated or interesting than anything
    you have already written. It is your "sound";  it is the limit of
    your ability.
    
    I think the key to breaking into a new sound is to  divorce  your-
    self from your guitars,  pianos,  etc,  and write down the  music
    that comes from your head,  not from  your  hands.   Write  music
    with a pencil,  not with an instrument.
    
    For most people it is a different way to write  music,  and  will
    usually produce a different sound.  More times than not  you  may
    find yourself struggling to play a piece that you yourself  wrote,
    but that's okay.
    
    Zach

    re: .9
    Very interesting, I never looked at it that way. I have always found
    that the music I write when I'm just diddling on my guitar has a
    tendency to not only be limited by my current ability, but also
    to have no direction. On the other hand, the music I write when
    I'm diddling within the ear-shot of other musician friends who are
    constantly saying "I sort of like that, why do you try this", to
    have a nice flow.
    
    pcv

    A direct influence on my (real-time doodling) 

    is the VOICE(S) that is/are being fedback to my ears.
    
    Seems to affect what style comes out. 

    re .11 - ayuh, I'm familiar with the effect.  When I first programmmed
    up a harp (the kind the angels play, not the harmonica kind) on
    my JX-10, a whole "song" (cleverly titled "Harp Thing") came out
    while I fine tuned the patch.  The song really doesn't work with any
    other patches (though it works fine with my Super Jupiter harp).
    
    len.
    

My tools are the foundation of my music.  I generally come up with songs
by playing with the toys in the studio, inventing an idea or a groove, 
and then formalizing it into a tune.  The tools available to me are my 
single biggest influence.

Problems:  I hear songs in my head, but all the instruments are playing
simultaneously.  The biggest problem I have when recording is that I 
have to perform time shifting.  Lay down the drums.  Lay down the bass.
Lay down the keys.  Lay down the guitar.  etc.  etc.  Something gets lost in
all of this.  By the time I'm done, I forget what the original song I
heard in my head sounded like.  What I usually end up with is a simplified
approximation.  I'm sure I'm not alone here...

Todd.

RE: .13 (I'm sure I'm not alone here...)

    Is that you that I've been bumping into all along?  Hmmm ...

    re: .13
    Woody Allen says the same thing about his films.  It's a fact of
    a life in art.  Heck, if you knew what was going to come out,
    would you bother putting it in?  
    Tom

    re: .13
    Yeah!  I find this to be a problem and a disappointment in
    writing fiction, too.  I agree with Tom in .14, though, and Woody Allen
    is a great example.  The upside of the difference between the imagined
    work and the end result is the occasional session where you wind up
    scratching your head and saying "Gee, where did that neat bit come
    from?  It wasn't in my original vision." 


    	Eirikur
    

    I have a dubious memory that Pablo Picasso, Gertrude Stein, and
    Igor STravinsky have all said, roughly, "If you know what you're
    going to do, why do it?" meaning it's boring to make a work of
    art that's totally specified and goal-directed in advance.
    Tom

    
    well, if IGOR said it, its for me!
    
    But boring or not, thousands of tunes created with 'goal-direction'
    make millions of dollars...(as a byproduct or a goal)
    
    Some will argue this aint "ART".  Your on shaky subjective
    ground.  WHY NOT?  A CREATION exists to elicit (some sorta)
    response from persons seeing/hearing/relating_to it. otherwise
    WHY DO IT? *Thats* the "why do it". 
    
    Different folks like different things, including art and music
    styles. Some is more popular. Its all a creation. Its ALL art.
    
    Lets not confuse "boring" with "unmeaningful". Lets not define
    "successful" with any ONE definition.
    
    {set mode/end_$soapbox}
    

    < Note 1177.18 by JON::ROSS "we is wockin'...." >
                             -< speech speech... >-
>    A CREATION exists to elicit (some sorta)
>    response from persons seeing/hearing/relating_to it. otherwise
>    WHY DO IT? *Thats* the "why do it". 

    I disagree.  When I used to be interested in music my attitude was
    that a creation exists because I make it.   I have carried that
    attitude to performance art.
    
    TOm
    look for my last recital "At the Sound of the Tone" and
    performance piece "Fame: Can You Handle It?
    " on cable TV in eastern Mass, especially around Hudson, Marlboro,
Cambridge, and somerville in coming months.
    Tom

    
    Well, you fell into the trap....*YOU* are the "person(s)
    seeing/hearing/relating_to it" in that case. 
    
    So the conclusion is still true. Fact that you are also 
    the creator is NOT relevant, really. Your "creation 
    exists to please you", as you so titled it, when you
    witness it.....not because you composed. Unless of course,
    youre claiming the creation process is the sole motivation,and
    NOT the creation itself....which if argued, is tough to claim.
    
    Why? Cause the only stance to back up that claim is that you
    create WITHOUT taping or otherwise recording any of the BYPRODUCT
    of the creation process.(do you?) Once you capture the byproduct,
    it implies a motivation is to witness it, which is what I claimed. The
    creation is nothing until you interact with it.
    
    too abstract?
    

    I know my strength - Incompetence.
    
    I have a habit of changing songs in anyway that I feel Like, if
    it seems easier for me to remember. I've also had a long standing
    issue with the keyboard Player that I work with. If we can't get
    the song together in one practice (2 hours or less), we never play
    it again. You should see what I've done to the Cole Porter Tune
    'Anything Goes' (Yes, I do play alot of this sort of thing - it
    mixes nicely with some of Robert Palmer or Phil Bailey's tunes),
    just in order to be able to sing the words in the middle part.
    
    I have no issue with emphasizing the vocal aspects of the band.
    They are certainly better than the soloing capabilities. So, like
    many bands & musicians, I try to focus on what I do really well.
    I take very short solo's (or none at all) & the keyboard player
    holds down a chord on his '56 hammond M3 (like a B3). We are
    both a bit brain damaged & we don't try anything too off the wall.
    
    I use the CZ to play sound effects (I got a whole barnyard on my
    plug in cartridge). When we play Country Western, I like to throw
    in Chickens, Pigs, Birds etc - (see the book with 350 sounds for
    the CZ-101 - it's loaded with animal sounds, the chickens are great!),
    or when we do songs like 'Turn The Page', I like to have cars driving
    by & winds (CZ again). I also have some onboard Ghosts (handy for
    'Ghostbusters'), and a great airplane landing (this one is fine
    for confusing the audience as we start announcing the flights in
    the middle of a song). I suppose that a sampler would be nice, but,
    then I'd have to stand on an airport runway with chickens on my
    shoulders to get the bizzare effects necessary.
    
    As you can see, I'm directed at keeping things interesting, not
    necessarily musically complex (altho we do play some Steely Dan
    tunes). We figure that we are there to entertain, and not simply
    act like a Juke-Box. What we lack in talent, we make up for in
    on stage antics. (I always like to joke about the keyboard players
    Upright Organ - It weighs over 100 pounds, and it stands up all
    night long).
    
    So, now you have a glimpse of a different aspect of musical style,
    beyond the typical musical seriousness. Besides, It keeps us playing
    at those private parties that pay soooooo well.
    
    						Jens