back to list

The Beatles had terrible timbre/production?

🔗Mark Stephens <musicoptimist@...>

2/16/2011 12:02:57 PM

I whole-heartedly agree with this.

<and, if anything, if you have to lose one (far as making a song known as a
"classic"), it would be timbre (IE the Beatles/Ramones/ Doors...all had terrible
timbre/production).>

I actually think quite differently on this point.

The Beatles (for their era) had some of the most innovative production around.
They were on the forefront of multi-tracking and paved the way for all sorts of
studio experimentation to create innovative timbres. While it is true they
sometimes "broke a few production rules" along the way, they did so
intentionally, knowing full well that they were "pushing the envelope".

The Doors had a very uniquely recognizable "vibe" no small portion of which had
to do with timbre.

The Ramones were intentionally under-produced. Their production and
arrangements worked together to resulted in raw timbres custom designed to
match the rag-tag high energy garage band punkishness they were trying to
communicate.

In popular music recordings, timbre and production are very, very important -
almost always crucial. Modern popular music listeners have been "trained" to
immediately focus upon timbre, production and rhythm. That doesn't mean that
they don't appreciate anything else. But they rarely separate a composition
from its production and performance (unless they have already enjoyed another
recording of the composition by another artist already).

That said, I would expect a much more sophisticated view on this list. I would
expect musicians and composers to have a greater capacity to "listen beyond"
timbre and production to form independent opinions about melodies and harmonies
- even to conceive how those melodies and harmonies might sound with different
arrangements and production values.

Mark Stephens
ProgPositivity - The Best Prog and Fusion - Positively!
http://www.progpositivity.com

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

🔗Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...>

2/16/2011 12:04:08 PM

On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 3:02 PM, Mark Stephens <musicoptimist@...> wrote:
>
> <What happens to pieces where there are 3-4 instruments IE "rock/pop style
> orchestration" ? It seems obvious to me both timbre and melody/harmony do
> matter in those cases...>
>
> I whole-heartedly agree with this.
>
> <and, if anything, if you have to lose one (far as making a song known as a
> "classic"), it would be timbre (IE the Beatles/Ramones/ Doors...all had terrible
> timbre/production).>

Whoa, how did I miss this? Who said this? The BEATLES had terrible
production? Is this some kind of a dumb joke?

-Mike

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

2/16/2011 12:05:37 PM

>>(IE the Beatles/Ramones/ Doors...all had terrible
>> timbre/production).>
>
>Whoa, how did I miss this? Who said this? The BEATLES had terrible
>production? Is this some kind of a dumb joke?

It certainly is. :(

🔗Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...>

2/16/2011 12:07:24 PM

On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 3:05 PM, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:
>
> >>(IE the Beatles/Ramones/ Doors...all had terrible
> >> timbre/production).>
> >
> >Whoa, how did I miss this? Who said this? The BEATLES had terrible
> >production? Is this some kind of a dumb joke?
>
> It certainly is. :(

The Beatles had terrible TIMBRES too? What in the hell is going on?

I wholeheartedly recommend that whoever made this statement stop
advancing ideas.

-Mike

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

2/16/2011 12:19:10 PM

>> >>(IE the Beatles/Ramones/ Doors...all had terrible
>> >> timbre/production).>
>> >
>> >Whoa, how did I miss this? Who said this? The BEATLES had terrible
>> >production? Is this some kind of a dumb joke?
>>
>> It certainly is. :(
>
>The Beatles had terrible TIMBRES too? What in the hell is going on?

It is certainly a dumb joke that we are discussing this on MMM.

>I wholeheartedly recommend that whoever made this statement stop
>advancing ideas.

I concur. And you can tell who made it by the "IE".

-Carl

🔗Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...>

2/16/2011 12:33:23 PM

Indeed, I concur. George Martin was a wizard producer.

As far as Beatles production and timbre goes check out this

http://www.soundsonline.com/Fab-Four/

"FAB FOUR is a virtual (software) instrument that includes re-created
authentic instruments inspired by the sounds of the Beatles. "The quality is
undeniable, I can't imagine what East West must have gone through to track
down these sounds (and get Beatle's engineer Ken Scott on board)." - EQ.
*M.I.P.A Winner* - judged most innovative instrument by 100 international
music magazines! " It commands a price of $355.

"*The Beatles had a profound impact on me, as they did for millions of
others"* said FAB FOUR producer DOUG ROGERS, *"and they were the initial
influence for my fascination with sounds. They were creative geniuses that
never rested on their laurels, always producing exciting new music and
sounds with each new record, much of it ground-breaking! Putting this
project together took well over a year of research, equipment procurement
(much of it from collectors), and putting together a team that could pull
off such a feat; but it was a labor of love for us all, and we feel the
result is truly worth it."*

Whoever said the Beatles had poor production and timbre is flat out
uninformed.

Chris

On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 3:19 PM, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:

>
>
> >I wholeheartedly recommend that whoever made this statement stop
> >advancing ideas.
>
> I concur. And you can tell who made it by the "IE".
>
> -Carl
>
>
>
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

🔗Michael <djtrancendance@...>

2/16/2011 1:30:06 PM

When I said production, I meant production quality IE clarity of instruments...NOT the choice of instruments used. Admittedly The Beatles did have great ARRANGEMENTS for their time (choice of instruments (IE sitars)/effects(IE flangers and reversed tracks...)), but that's not production (or at least, as I meant it).
But even then, if a producer used their arrangements today...they would likely be rejected as "garage band produced". The amazing thing is that people listen to the Beatles despite their badly EQ'd, non-compressed, mushy....sound in comparison with today's (though certainly not the artists of their time) records.

Perhaps the most obvious example is the Ramones...because they both had weak IMVHO production clarity and arrangement even for their day: no matter what your definition of production is they were bad. Even in a genre where "trashy production" can be done intentionally for energy (as Mark noted), the most popular punk and alt. rock groups IE Blink 182 and AFI have crystal clear production far as clarity. People have developed an ear...even a good set of drums can be rejected for a record if it isn't properly microphone positioned, compressed, EQ'd with the high end at around -20db and lows at around 5db etc. This is true in rock but even more so in electronica...volume and clarity can make or break a song.

--- On Wed, 2/16/11, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...> wrote:

From: Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...>
Subject: Re: [MMM] The Beatles had terrible timbre/production?
To: MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com
Date: Wednesday, February 16, 2011, 12:07 PM

On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 3:05 PM, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:

> >>(IE the Beatles/Ramones/ Doors...all had terrible

> >> timbre/production).>

> >

> >Whoa, how did I miss this? Who said this? The BEATLES had terrible

> >production? Is this some kind of a dumb joke?

> It certainly is. :(

The Beatles had terrible TIMBRES too? What in the hell is going on?

I wholeheartedly recommend that whoever made this statement stop

advancing ideas.

-Mike

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

🔗Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...>

2/16/2011 1:39:04 PM

On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 4:30 PM, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:
>
> The amazing thing is that people listen to the Beatles despite their badly
EQ'd, non-compressed, mushy....sound in comparison with today's (though
certainly not the artists of their time) records.

[image: Angry-Arnold.jpg]

-Mike

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

🔗Michael <djtrancendance@...>

2/16/2011 1:47:29 PM

Argh...taken out of context
I had said
"The amazing thing is that people listen to the Beatles despite their badly

EQ'd, non-compressed, mushy....sound in comparison with today's (though

certainly not the artists of their time) records."

What I'm saying is, the quality of their compositions and arrangements are so strong people are able to forgive the fact none of their records have the loudness or clarity of modern rock music. Also agreed with Mark, the production quality (including "even" clarity and loudness) WAS great for their time and they were pushing what little technology was around in those days to the limit.
What I'm saying is I think the use of melodies, harmonies, and arrangement (IE which instruments are used, not the quality of how they are 'mic'd'") has IMVHO most to do with why people still love their music so much...and not the production quality Otherwise people teaching professional recording would be telling their students to emulate the Beatles' levels of loudness and clarity....

--- On Wed, 2/16/11, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...> wrote:

From: Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...>
Subject: Re: [MMM] The Beatles had terrible timbre/production?
To: MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com
Date: Wednesday, February 16, 2011, 1:39 PM

On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 4:30 PM, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:

> The amazing thing is that people listen to the Beatles despite their badly

EQ'd, non-compressed, mushy....sound in comparison with today's (though

certainly not the artists of their time) records.

[image: Angry-Arnold.jpg]

-Mike

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

🔗Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...>

2/16/2011 2:33:29 PM

And you know.... Thomas Edison should be burned at the stake for the poor
quality of wax cylinders.

I mean really, what in the hell was he thinking?

Chris

On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 4:47 PM, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:

>
>
> Argh...taken out of context
> I had said
> "The amazing thing is that people listen to the Beatles despite their badly
>
> EQ'd, non-compressed, mushy....sound in comparison with today's (though
>
> certainly not the artists of their time) records."
>
> What I'm saying is, the quality of their compositions and arrangements are
> so strong people are able to forgive the fact none of their records have the
> loudness or clarity of modern rock music. Also agreed with Mark, the
> production quality (including "even" clarity and loudness) WAS great for
> their time and they were pushing what little technology was around in those
> days to the limit.
> What I'm saying is I think the use of melodies, harmonies, and
> arrangement (IE which instruments are used, not the quality of how they are
> 'mic'd'") has IMVHO most to do with why people still love their music so
> much...and not the production quality Otherwise people teaching
> professional recording would be telling their students to emulate the
> Beatles' levels of loudness and clarity....
>
>
>
> --- On Wed, 2/16/11, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...> wrote:
>
> From: Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...>
> Subject: Re: [MMM] The Beatles had terrible timbre/production?
> To: MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Wednesday, February 16, 2011, 1:39 PM
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 4:30 PM, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:
>
> >
>
> > The amazing thing is that people listen to the Beatles despite their
> badly
>
> EQ'd, non-compressed, mushy....sound in comparison with today's (though
>
> certainly not the artists of their time) records.
>
> [image: Angry-Arnold.jpg]
>
> -Mike
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

🔗jonszanto <jszanto@...>

2/16/2011 3:54:20 PM

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:
>
> The amazing thing is that people listen to the Beatles despite their badly EQ'd, non-compressed, mushy....sound in comparison with today's (though certainly not the artists of their time) records.

The amazing thing is to read unadulterated rubbish like the above on a list about music. I'd really love it if Music walked up to you, smacked you in the forehead with a baseball bat, and said "Here's $5.00 - go buy a clue and stop confusing me with Production, or Packaging, or Intended Audience. Got it?"

I also hope someone in New York can rush over and console Dante when he finds out the Ramones suffered from abysmal production values. Oh, the humanity!

🔗Michael <djtrancendance@...>

2/16/2011 5:48:48 PM

Chris>"Thomas Edison should be burned at the stake for the poor quality of wax cylinders."

Hahaha...ok. This only shows the ridiculous degree by which you are missing my point.

An obvious counterexample: nearly everyone uses fluorescent light bulbs nowadays, although "old-tech" incandescent bulbs with much lower efficiency, of course, led toward the development of such new bulbs. It's not as if the old light bulbs were a mistake...the new ones build on the old ones.

The Beatles were both brilliant in their day and inspirational toward todays production style, yet sub-standard far as todays production style. Just like the development of basic light bulbs is to newer ones...

--- On Wed, 2/16/11, Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...> wrote:

> From: Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...>
> Subject: Re: [MMM] The Beatles had terrible timbre/production?
> To: MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Wednesday, February 16, 2011, 2:33 PM
> And you know.... Thomas Edison should
> be burned at the stake for the poor
> quality of wax cylinders.
>
> I mean really, what in the hell was he thinking?
>
> Chris
>
> On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 4:47 PM, Michael <djtrancendance@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Argh...taken out of context
> > I had said
> > "The amazing thing is that people listen to the
> Beatles despite their badly
> >
> > EQ'd, non-compressed, mushy....sound in comparison
> with today's (though
> >
> > certainly not the artists of their time) records."
> >
> > What I'm saying is, the quality of their compositions
> and arrangements are
> > so strong people are able to forgive the fact none of
> their records have the
> > loudness or clarity of modern rock music. Also
> agreed with Mark, the
> > production quality (including "even" clarity and
> loudness) WAS great for
> > their time and they were pushing what little
> technology was around in those
> > days to the limit.
> > What I'm saying is I think the use of
> melodies, harmonies, and
> > arrangement (IE which instruments are used, not the
> quality of how they are
> > 'mic'd'") has IMVHO most to do with why people still
> love their music so
> > much...and not the production quality Otherwise
> people teaching
> > professional recording would be telling their students
> to emulate the
> > Beatles' levels of loudness and clarity....
> >
> >
> >
> > --- On Wed, 2/16/11, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...>
> wrote:
> >
> > From: Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...>
> > Subject: Re: [MMM] The Beatles had terrible
> timbre/production?
> > To: MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com
> > Date: Wednesday, February 16, 2011, 1:39 PM
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 4:30 PM, Michael <djtrancendance@...>
> wrote:
> >
> > >
> >
> > > The amazing thing is that people listen to the
> Beatles despite their
> > badly
> >
> > EQ'd, non-compressed, mushy....sound in comparison
> with today's (though
> >
> > certainly not the artists of their time) records.
> >
> > [image: Angry-Arnold.jpg]
> >
> > -Mike
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
> MakeMicroMusic-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>

🔗cityoftheasleep <igliashon@...>

2/16/2011 6:00:13 PM

Okay, I disagree with Michael, too, but I don't think anyone is actually bothering to understand the point he's trying to make. If you're gonna throw tomatoes, at least try to understand what you're throwing tomatoes *at*.

Getting all bent out of shape because Michael said the Beatles and the Ramones had low production quality compared to the music of today is stupid. The level of fidelity that was possible in the '50s or '60s or perhaps even the '70s is nowhere near what is possible today. To people who grow up listening to the slick hyper-realism of 21st century Top 40 music, those classic records sound like old photographs look: dated, washed-out, faded, and lacking detail. If you can't acknowledge THAT--that audio fidelity has improved exponentially in the last few decades--I'm sorry, but you're letting nostalgia or your "retro" tastes cloud your hearing...or you're just an argumentative jerk.

But Michael's point (which everyone seems to have ignored) is that that disparity in production quality between old records and new records DOESN'T MATTER, even to today's jaded listeners, because the quality of the songs and the performances of the likes of the Beatles, the Doors, the Ramones (et al) are so strong. In other words, he is saying that a good performance of a good song should outshine--at least to some extent--any loss of fidelity due to the technological shortcomings of the available recording media. He is saying, it seems, that a cheap hand-held tape-recording of Paul McCartney singing "Yesterday" in his bedroom is still going to sound good, because Paul McCartney is a great musician and "Yesterday" is a great song. And he's totally right.

But he is also totally missing the point. Look what happens when you take the score to a song like "Yesterday", strip it of its dynamics, and feed it into a synthesizer, reducing it to its bare harmonic and melodic components. It sucks! Even if you use the most expensive and highest-fidelity synths and samples available. If the people of the world were introduced to the songs of the Beatles rendered like that--no dynamics, no humanity, just chords and melodies rendered with mechanical precision and synthetic timbres--the Beatles would not even warrant a footnote of a footnote in the history of pop music.

The criticisms frequently leveled at microtonal music have little or nothing to do with fidelity, so it's a straw man to argue that a low-fidelity recording of a great song by a great musician will still sound great. The real problem is that microtonal compositions are frequently denied a rendering/arrangement that is appropriate to them, and typically sound synthetic and lifeless and devoid even of the technological gimmicks that makes most techno accessible. It's nothing to do with fidelity or some nebulous "lack of production quality", and (at least sometimes) it may not even be a fault in the composition (though that's not to say there aren't plenty of bad compositions, either). It's the difference between having a story read by a talented voice-actor vs. a computer speech synthesizer. Even the most riveting work of literature will become boring if read by the latter.

So for goodness's sake, can you all drop the histrionics?

-Igs

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Mark Stephens <musicoptimist@...> wrote:
>
> <What happens to pieces where there are 3-4 instruments IE "rock/pop style
> orchestration" ? It seems obvious to me both timbre and melody/harmony do
> matter in those cases...>
>
> I whole-heartedly agree with this.
>
> <and, if anything, if you have to lose one (far as making a song known as a
> "classic"), it would be timbre (IE the Beatles/Ramones/ Doors...all had terrible
> timbre/production).>
>
> I actually think quite differently on this point.
>
> The Beatles (for their era) had some of the most innovative production around.
> They were on the forefront of multi-tracking and paved the way for all sorts of
> studio experimentation to create innovative timbres. While it is true they
> sometimes "broke a few production rules" along the way, they did so
> intentionally, knowing full well that they were "pushing the envelope".
>
> The Doors had a very uniquely recognizable "vibe" no small portion of which had
> to do with timbre.
>
> The Ramones were intentionally under-produced. Their production and
> arrangements worked together to resulted in raw timbres custom designed to
> match the rag-tag high energy garage band punkishness they were trying to
> communicate.
>
>
> In popular music recordings, timbre and production are very, very important -
> almost always crucial. Modern popular music listeners have been "trained" to
> immediately focus upon timbre, production and rhythm. That doesn't mean that
> they don't appreciate anything else. But they rarely separate a composition
> from its production and performance (unless they have already enjoyed another
> recording of the composition by another artist already).
>
> That said, I would expect a much more sophisticated view on this list. I would
> expect musicians and composers to have a greater capacity to "listen beyond"
> timbre and production to form independent opinions about melodies and harmonies
> - even to conceive how those melodies and harmonies might sound with different
> arrangements and production values.
>
> Mark Stephens
> ProgPositivity - The Best Prog and Fusion - Positively!
> http://www.progpositivity.com
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

🔗Michael <djtrancendance@...>

2/16/2011 6:00:24 PM

For the tenth time I posted on this list...you are missing the point.

I'm not saying the Beatles committed a "crime" with production skills and I'm not comparing their production to musicians of their day (to which their production was awesome) but to musicians of TOday..

I'm saying the contrary of what it seems you think I'm saying. I'm saying how ridiculous it is people so often put SO much stress on production values...and using the Beatles as a COUNTER-example of that mob mentality: as one of the few groups that have surpassed it.
-------------------
If you throw a Beatles song into a mastering program and look the the EQ, volume levels, frequency peak conflicts, use of panning, etc. WITHOUT actually letting the recording engineer hear the music...he will likely say "this needs serious mastering work..."

But if you actually let him listen to the song, he'll likely say "this sounds so good (musically and arrangement-wise) that I don't care".

!!!!MY POINT WAS THAT I BELIEVE COMPOSITION SKILL, AND NOT PRODUCTION VALUE (ALA CLARITY AND LOUDNESS OF TIMBRE), IS WHAT ULTIMATELY MAKES A SONG (OR GROUP) A CLASSIC!!! Production value MAY catch a person's ear but, IMVHO, only compositional originality can ultimately keep it.

--- On Wed, 2/16/11, jonszanto <jszanto@...> wrote:

From: jonszanto <jszanto@cox.net>
Subject: Re: [MMM] The Beatles had terrible timbre/production?
To: MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com
Date: Wednesday, February 16, 2011, 3:54 PM

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:

> The amazing thing is that people listen to the Beatles despite their badly EQ'd, non-compressed, mushy....sound in comparison with today's (though certainly not the artists of their time) records.

I also hope someone in New York can rush over and console Dante when he finds out the Ramones suffered from abysmal production values. Oh, the humanity!

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

🔗Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...>

2/16/2011 6:05:56 PM

You know, there is a school of thought that *rejects* a lot of modern
production techniques - and that school especially targets over use of
compression.

However, Michael, the way I see it you have the cart before the horse. I
say that because if you do any reading on how George Martin and the guys at
BMI dealt with using the equipment they had at hand the result is amazing.
And if you compare contemporaneous recordings (Yard Birds, Early Who,
Stones, , The Kinks, Beach Boys with the exception of Good Vibrations,
Hendrix, etc. etc.) you can see George Martin was really, really good.

It isn't fair to say The Beatles aren't up to modern standards and therefore
its all crap production (which is what I think I read from the thread). I'm
more amazed with the producers even further back - lets say Johnny Cash or
Les Paul and Mary Ford and the recording, even in mono, captures the essence
and it still is quite listenable - and actually has a sound that I think is
desire-able - and I'm not talking about remasters - people have put mp3's of
their 78's on the net. About the 1940's is my cut off of listen-ability for
the most part though early movie sound tracks are often surprisingly good.

And that East-West sample set I quoted shows you some people *still* want
the sound that George Martin got back in the 60's.

Does that make any sense?

Chris

On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 8:48 PM, Michael <djtrancendance@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
>
> Chris>"Thomas Edison should be burned at the stake for the poor quality of
> wax cylinders."
>
> Hahaha...ok. This only shows the ridiculous degree by which you are missing
> my point.
>
> An obvious counterexample: nearly everyone uses fluorescent light bulbs
> nowadays, although "old-tech" incandescent bulbs with much lower efficiency,
> of course, led toward the development of such new bulbs. It's not as if the
> old light bulbs were a mistake...the new ones build on the old ones.
>
> The Beatles were both brilliant in their day and inspirational toward
> todays production style, yet sub-standard far as todays production style.
> Just like the development of basic light bulbs is to newer ones...
>
> --- On Wed, 2/16/11, Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...> wrote:
>
> > From: Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...>
>
> > Subject: Re: [MMM] The Beatles had terrible timbre/production?
> > To: MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com
> > Date: Wednesday, February 16, 2011, 2:33 PM
>
> > And you know.... Thomas Edison should
> > be burned at the stake for the poor
> > quality of wax cylinders.
> >
> > I mean really, what in the hell was he thinking?
> >
> > Chris
> >
> > On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 4:47 PM, Michael <djtrancendance@...>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > Argh...taken out of context
> > > I had said
> > > "The amazing thing is that people listen to the
> > Beatles despite their badly
> > >
> > > EQ'd, non-compressed, mushy....sound in comparison
> > with today's (though
> > >
> > > certainly not the artists of their time) records."
> > >
> > > What I'm saying is, the quality of their compositions
> > and arrangements are
> > > so strong people are able to forgive the fact none of
> > their records have the
> > > loudness or clarity of modern rock music. Also
> > agreed with Mark, the
> > > production quality (including "even" clarity and
> > loudness) WAS great for
> > > their time and they were pushing what little
> > technology was around in those
> > > days to the limit.
> > > What I'm saying is I think the use of
> > melodies, harmonies, and
> > > arrangement (IE which instruments are used, not the
> > quality of how they are
> > > 'mic'd'") has IMVHO most to do with why people still
> > love their music so
> > > much...and not the production quality Otherwise
> > people teaching
> > > professional recording would be telling their students
> > to emulate the
> > > Beatles' levels of loudness and clarity....
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- On Wed, 2/16/11, Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@...>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > From: Mike Battaglia <battaglia01@gmail.com>
> > > Subject: Re: [MMM] The Beatles had terrible
> > timbre/production?
> > > To: MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com
> > > Date: Wednesday, February 16, 2011, 1:39 PM
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 4:30 PM, Michael <djtrancendance@...>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > > The amazing thing is that people listen to the
> > Beatles despite their
> > > badly
> > >
> > > EQ'd, non-compressed, mushy....sound in comparison
> > with today's (though
> > >
> > > certainly not the artists of their time) records.
> > >
> > > [image: Angry-Arnold.jpg]
> > >
> > > -Mike
> > >
> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > >
> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> > MakeMicroMusic-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
> >
> >
> >
>
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

🔗Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...>

2/16/2011 6:11:11 PM

!!!!MY POINT WAS THAT I BELIEVE COMPOSITION SKILL, AND NOT PRODUCTION
VALUE (ALA CLARITY AND LOUDNESS OF TIMBRE), IS WHAT ULTIMATELY MAKES A SONG
(OR GROUP) A CLASSIC!!!

==>finally Chris understands.

I have to chuckle - I made that argument on Traxinspace many many times -
mostly with Barry Van O. if I remember right.

Yes, yes, I 100% agree with you. All of the producers in the world can't
make a classic song out of dog do-do. If the music isn't there all they can
do is make a nice chair with a glossy finish.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

🔗Michael <djtrancendance@...>

2/16/2011 6:17:06 PM

>"Getting all bent out of shape because Michael said the Beatles and the Ramones
had low production quality compared to the music of today is stupid.
The level of fidelity that was possible in the '50s or '60s or perhaps
even the '70s is nowhere near what is possible today."

CORRECT! And I'm NOT saying this is the Beatles fault...but rather that a song can have sub-standard (by today's standard) sound quality and still kick -$$ and become classic due to compositional skill.

>"But Michael's point (which everyone seems to have ignored) is that that
disparity in production quality between old records and new records
DOESN'T MATTER"

EXACTLY!

>"But he is also totally missing the point. Look what happens when you
take the score to a song like "Yesterday", strip it of its dynamics,
and feed it into a synthesizer, reducing it to its bare harmonic and
melodic components. It sucks!"

That's far more extreme then what I meant by "loss of production quality", you are talking about (even) loss of arrangement and composition values here.
I meant simply, say, less high quality mic'ing of guitars...not including arrangement issues like replacing the guitars with sine waves! BTW when I say production, I do NOT mean arrangement issues IE choosing instruments or things like dynamic velocity and phrasing...which are actually composition values and NOT production values.

You seen to be throwing almost everything to do with music into the "production" label...and when I say production I simply mean "the volume, clarity, and brightness of the instruments used", not "choosing different instruments altogether" or other arrangement issues.

--- On Wed, 2/16/11, cityoftheasleep <igliashon@...> wrote:

From: cityoftheasleep <igliashon@...>
Subject: [MMM] Re: The Beatles had terrible timbre/production?
To: MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com
Date: Wednesday, February 16, 2011, 6:00 PM

So for goodness's sake, can you all drop the histrionics?

-Igs

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Mark Stephens <musicoptimist@...> wrote:

> <What happens to pieces where there are 3-4 instruments IE "rock/pop style

> orchestration" ? It seems obvious to me both timbre and melody/harmony do

> matter in those cases...>

> I whole-heartedly agree with this.

> <and, if anything, if you have to lose one (far as making a song known as a

> "classic"), it would be timbre (IE the Beatles/Ramones/ Doors...all had terrible

> timbre/production).>

> I actually think quite differently on this point.

> The Beatles (for their era) had some of the most innovative production around.

> They were on the forefront of multi-tracking and paved the way for all sorts of

> studio experimentation to create innovative timbres. While it is true they

> sometimes "broke a few production rules" along the way, they did so

> intentionally, knowing full well that they were "pushing the envelope".

> The Doors had a very uniquely recognizable "vibe" no small portion of which had

> to do with timbre.

> The Ramones were intentionally under-produced. Their production and

> arrangements worked together to resulted in raw timbres custom designed to

> match the rag-tag high energy garage band punkishness they were trying to

> communicate.

> In popular music recordings, timbre and production are very, very important -

> almost always crucial. Modern popular music listeners have been "trained" to

> immediately focus upon timbre, production and rhythm. That doesn't mean that

> they don't appreciate anything else. But they rarely separate a composition

> from its production and performance (unless they have already enjoyed another

> recording of the composition by another artist already).

> That said, I would expect a much more sophisticated view on this list. I would

> expect musicians and composers to have a greater capacity to "listen beyond"

> timbre and production to form independent opinions about melodies and harmonies

> - even to conceive how those melodies and harmonies might sound with different

> arrangements and production values.

> Mark Stephens

> ProgPositivity - The Best Prog and Fusion - Positively!

> http://www.progpositivity.com

> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

🔗Michael <djtrancendance@...>

2/16/2011 6:21:17 PM

Chris>"Yes, yes, I 100% agree with you. All of the producers in the world can't

make a classic song out of dog do-do. If the music isn't there all they can

do is make a nice chair with a glossy finish."

Hehehe...finally...and thank you. "She told me to sit anywhere...so I looked around and I noticed there wasn't a chair..." :-D

Man, some day, I'll be able to make a point where people ask me what I'm talking about before they make the worst possible assumption about my points (and/or state my quotes without my other quotes that explain the context)... :-P

--- On Wed, 2/16/11, Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...> wrote:

From: Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...>
Subject: Re: [MMM] The Beatles had terrible timbre/production?
To: MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com
Cc: "Michael" <djtrancendance@...>
Date: Wednesday, February 16, 2011, 6:11 PM

!!!!MY POINT WAS THAT I BELIEVE COMPOSITION SKILL, AND NOT PRODUCTION

VALUE (ALA CLARITY AND LOUDNESS OF TIMBRE), IS WHAT ULTIMATELY MAKES A SONG

(OR GROUP) A CLASSIC!!!

==>finally Chris understands.

I have to chuckle - I made that argument on Traxinspace many many times -

mostly with Barry Van O. if I remember right.

Yes, yes, I 100% agree with you. All of the producers in the world can't

make a classic song out of dog do-do. If the music isn't there all they can

do is make a nice chair with a glossy finish.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

🔗Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...>

2/16/2011 6:24:20 PM

My apologies :-)

On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 9:21 PM, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:

>
>
>
>
> Hehehe...finally...and thank you. "She told me to sit anywhere...so I
> looked around and I noticed there wasn't a chair..." :-D
>
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

2/16/2011 6:42:33 PM

Igs wrote:

>But Michael's point (which everyone seems to have ignored)

I didn't ignore it, I just thought it was an offtopic
waste of everyone's time.

>But he is also totally missing the point. Look what happens when you
>take the score to a song like "Yesterday", strip it of its dynamics,
>and feed it into a synthesizer, reducing it to its bare harmonic and
>melodic components. It sucks! Even if you use the most expensive and
>highest-fidelity synths and samples available. If the people of the
>world were introduced to the songs of the Beatles rendered like
>that--no dynamics, no humanity, just chords and melodies rendered with
>mechanical precision and synthetic timbres--the Beatles would not even
>warrant a footnote of a footnote in the history of pop music.

That's completely wrong -- the Beatles' music is interesting for
the notes alone and I have several drab MIDI files worth of it
that I enjoy to prove it.

-Carl

🔗jonszanto <jszanto@...>

2/16/2011 7:07:46 PM

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "cityoftheasleep" <igliashon@...> wrote:
>
> Okay, I disagree with Michael, too, but I don't think anyone is actually bothering to understand the point he's trying to make.

I *have*. I think he is saying a lot more than you are inferring yourself, and I base this on the content of his past posts as well, placing it in an overall context of his views on music.

That we disagree with him in different ways is neither here nor there, but it is the level of disconnect in his statements that leads to my strong responses. Or "histrionics", as you see to want to call them.

🔗jonszanto <jszanto@...>

2/16/2011 7:17:25 PM

Michael,

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:
> For the tenth time I posted on this list...you are missing the point.

As I'll get to in a moment, if posting ten times doesn't get your point across, would it ever dawn on you that you aren't being completely clear? But now, to the meat of the matter:

> MY POINT WAS THAT I BELIEVE COMPOSITION SKILL, AND NOT PRODUCTION VALUE (ALA CLARITY AND LOUDNESS OF TIMBRE), IS WHAT ULTIMATELY MAKES A SONG (OR GROUP) A CLASSIC!!!Â Production value MAY catch a person's ear but, IMVHO, only compositional originality can ultimately keep it.

Ok, in spite of the fact that the *way* you've attempted to say that before has been in very different terms, I see what you were trying to get at.

And in complete candor, I totally apologize for the pithy and pointed reply to you. I really wish you would state things in fewer and less convoluted words, because the communication sometimes just isn't happening.

You've got to admit: you are the guy who is desperate to make microtonal music popular, and continually use current music trends - specifically dance/club - as your benchmark and target zone. And lots of people have tried to explain that this isn't their personal goal at all, and are going their own way. At some point, your belaboring of these related points get co-mingled and conflated into a monolithic approach to viewing music. Unintended, I'm sure, but I'm not the only one to notice it.

Anyway, again: sorry for jumping that hard. Beyond everything else, I know you mean well. Please understand that I/we do as well.

Best,
Jon

🔗Daniel Forró <dan.for@...>

2/16/2011 7:27:39 PM

Carl is right - music based on melody and harmony, when done well, is undestroyable and will always keep its musical quality and work in any shape, arrangement, timbre... Same like Bach or any other good work of classical melodic/harmonic music.

Daniel Forro

On 17 Feb 2011, at 11:42 AM, Carl Lumma wrote:

> Igs wrote:
>
>> But Michael's point (which everyone seems to have ignored)
>
> I didn't ignore it, I just thought it was an offtopic
> waste of everyone's time.
>
>> But he is also totally missing the point. Look what happens when you
>> take the score to a song like "Yesterday", strip it of its dynamics,
>> and feed it into a synthesizer, reducing it to its bare harmonic and
>> melodic components. It sucks! Even if you use the most expensive >> and
>> highest-fidelity synths and samples available. If the people of the
>> world were introduced to the songs of the Beatles rendered like
>> that--no dynamics, no humanity, just chords and melodies rendered >> with
>> mechanical precision and synthetic timbres--the Beatles would not >> even
>> warrant a footnote of a footnote in the history of pop music.
>
> That's completely wrong -- the Beatles' music is interesting for
> the notes alone and I have several drab MIDI files worth of it
> that I enjoy to prove it.
>
> -Carl

🔗cityoftheasleep <igliashon@...>

2/16/2011 10:59:28 PM

Bach is one thing, but the Beatles are quite another. Do you really--REALLY--think that if you stripped down all of the music of the Beatles to its bare harmony and melody, rendered with mechanical precision and synthetic timbres, and presented it to people who had never heard the Beatles before, that they would consider it at all remarkable, little more than pleasant and maybe a little quirky? That even HALF of the brilliance or personality of their actual recorded works would show through? Come ON. Be serious for a minute! I mean, I'm not saying their entire catalog turns to mush if you reduce it to that level--there are a good few cuts, like "Eleanor Rigby", that might maintain some level of interest, but "Lovely Rita, Meter Maid"? "Rocky Raccoon?" "Twist and Shout"? "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds"? "Here Comes the Sun"? Try to imagine a reality in which only the MIDI versions of these songs, or even versions arranged for solo organ or chamber ensemble or whatever, are the only versions the public ever got to hear of these songs. If you really think such versions would have had ANYWHERE NEAR the same impact as the actual recordings they released as a rock band, you're crazy!

Yeah, sure, a work written for solo piano or chamber ensemble or brass quartet or whatever won't lose as much when translated to MIDI or Soundfont or whatever. But does that really give an excuse to just jettison any sensitivity to arrangement and production?

-Igs

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Daniel Forró <dan.for@...> wrote:
>
> Carl is right - music based on melody and harmony, when done well, is
> undestroyable and will always keep its musical quality and work in
> any shape, arrangement, timbre... Same like Bach or any other good
> work of classical melodic/harmonic music.
>
> Daniel Forro
>
> On 17 Feb 2011, at 11:42 AM, Carl Lumma wrote:
>
> > Igs wrote:
> >
> >> But Michael's point (which everyone seems to have ignored)
> >
> > I didn't ignore it, I just thought it was an offtopic
> > waste of everyone's time.
> >
> >> But he is also totally missing the point. Look what happens when you
> >> take the score to a song like "Yesterday", strip it of its dynamics,
> >> and feed it into a synthesizer, reducing it to its bare harmonic and
> >> melodic components. It sucks! Even if you use the most expensive
> >> and
> >> highest-fidelity synths and samples available. If the people of the
> >> world were introduced to the songs of the Beatles rendered like
> >> that--no dynamics, no humanity, just chords and melodies rendered
> >> with
> >> mechanical precision and synthetic timbres--the Beatles would not
> >> even
> >> warrant a footnote of a footnote in the history of pop music.
> >
> > That's completely wrong -- the Beatles' music is interesting for
> > the notes alone and I have several drab MIDI files worth of it
> > that I enjoy to prove it.
> >
> > -Carl
>

🔗jonszanto <jszanto@...>

2/17/2011 12:17:05 AM

Excuse me: weren't you the guy complaining about histrionics?

🔗Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@...>

2/17/2011 12:58:01 AM

That is so incredibly false. No music critic in their right mind would
judge the Classics based on poorly rendered MIDI files with exact 12
equal tones to the octave and flaccid velocities, zero pitch bends, and
terribly synthetic timbres.

Oz.

✩ ✩ ✩
www.ozanyarman.com

Daniel Forró wrote:
> Carl is right - music based on melody and harmony, when done well, is
> undestroyable and will always keep its musical quality and work in
> any shape, arrangement, timbre... Same like Bach or any other good
> work of classical melodic/harmonic music.
>
> Daniel Forro
>
> On 17 Feb 2011, at 11:42 AM, Carl Lumma wrote:
>
>> Igs wrote:
>>
>>> But Michael's point (which everyone seems to have ignored)
>> I didn't ignore it, I just thought it was an offtopic
>> waste of everyone's time.
>>
>>> But he is also totally missing the point. Look what happens when you
>>> take the score to a song like "Yesterday", strip it of its dynamics,
>>> and feed it into a synthesizer, reducing it to its bare harmonic and
>>> melodic components. It sucks! Even if you use the most expensive
>>> and
>>> highest-fidelity synths and samples available. If the people of the
>>> world were introduced to the songs of the Beatles rendered like
>>> that--no dynamics, no humanity, just chords and melodies rendered
>>> with
>>> mechanical precision and synthetic timbres--the Beatles would not
>>> even
>>> warrant a footnote of a footnote in the history of pop music.
>> That's completely wrong -- the Beatles' music is interesting for
>> the notes alone and I have several drab MIDI files worth of it
>> that I enjoy to prove it.
>>
>> -Carl
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

🔗cameron <misterbobro@...>

2/17/2011 1:19:52 AM

Igs and Michael, apparently you guys have not learned how cultured people behave! Every society has its sacred cows- in the western world, "thebeatlesandmozart" are sacred cows. If you question their divine status, you are a philistine. That's the rules.

I've heard all kinds of racism, nationalism, shameless affronts to religious beliefs, even defense of child pornography, in educated society, but noone. ever. questions the divinity of thebeatlesandmozart. Except for me, and the violence of the reactions would drop your jaw.

Welcome to the world. :-) Here's a concept you should study:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kayfabe

-Cameron Bobro

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "cityoftheasleep" <igliashon@...> wrote:
>
> Bach is one thing, but the Beatles are quite another. Do you really--REALLY--think that if you stripped down all of the music of the Beatles to its bare harmony and melody, rendered with mechanical precision and synthetic timbres, and presented it to people who had never heard the Beatles before, that they would consider it at all remarkable, little more than pleasant and maybe a little quirky? That even HALF of the brilliance or personality of their actual recorded works would show through? Come ON. Be serious for a minute! I mean, I'm not saying their entire catalog turns to mush if you reduce it to that level--there are a good few cuts, like "Eleanor Rigby", that might maintain some level of interest, but "Lovely Rita, Meter Maid"? "Rocky Raccoon?" "Twist and Shout"? "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds"? "Here Comes the Sun"? Try to imagine a reality in which only the MIDI versions of these songs, or even versions arranged for solo organ or chamber ensemble or whatever, are the only versions the public ever got to hear of these songs. If you really think such versions would have had ANYWHERE NEAR the same impact as the actual recordings they released as a rock band, you're crazy!
>
> Yeah, sure, a work written for solo piano or chamber ensemble or brass quartet or whatever won't lose as much when translated to MIDI or Soundfont or whatever. But does that really give an excuse to just jettison any sensitivity to arrangement and production?
>
> -Igs
>
> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Daniel Forró <dan.for@> wrote:
> >
> > Carl is right - music based on melody and harmony, when done well, is
> > undestroyable and will always keep its musical quality and work in
> > any shape, arrangement, timbre... Same like Bach or any other good
> > work of classical melodic/harmonic music.
> >
> > Daniel Forro
> >
> > On 17 Feb 2011, at 11:42 AM, Carl Lumma wrote:
> >
> > > Igs wrote:
> > >
> > >> But Michael's point (which everyone seems to have ignored)
> > >
> > > I didn't ignore it, I just thought it was an offtopic
> > > waste of everyone's time.
> > >
> > >> But he is also totally missing the point. Look what happens when you
> > >> take the score to a song like "Yesterday", strip it of its dynamics,
> > >> and feed it into a synthesizer, reducing it to its bare harmonic and
> > >> melodic components. It sucks! Even if you use the most expensive
> > >> and
> > >> highest-fidelity synths and samples available. If the people of the
> > >> world were introduced to the songs of the Beatles rendered like
> > >> that--no dynamics, no humanity, just chords and melodies rendered
> > >> with
> > >> mechanical precision and synthetic timbres--the Beatles would not
> > >> even
> > >> warrant a footnote of a footnote in the history of pop music.
> > >
> > > That's completely wrong -- the Beatles' music is interesting for
> > > the notes alone and I have several drab MIDI files worth of it
> > > that I enjoy to prove it.
> > >
> > > -Carl
> >
>

🔗jonszanto <jszanto@...>

2/17/2011 1:32:02 AM

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "cameron" <misterbobro@...> wrote:
>
> Igs and Michael, apparently you guys have not learned how cultured people behave! Every society has its sacred cows- in the western world, "thebeatlesandmozart" are sacred cows. If you question their divine status, you are a philistine. That's the rules.

Ooh, the world in black and white. Say, Cam, you the heel or the face in this one? Always good to know where to lay the bets...

🔗misterbobro <misterbobro@...>

2/17/2011 1:43:32 AM

No, Jon, the world isn't "black and white". Where we do have "black and white" concepts engrained into society, such as the divinity of thebeatlesandmozart, it is important to speak out against them.

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "jonszanto" <jszanto@...> wrote:
>
> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "cameron" <misterbobro@> wrote:
> >
> > Igs and Michael, apparently you guys have not learned how cultured people behave! Every society has its sacred cows- in the western world, "thebeatlesandmozart" are sacred cows. If you question their divine status, you are a philistine. That's the rules.
>
> Ooh, the world in black and white. Say, Cam, you the heel or the face in this one? Always good to know where to lay the bets...
>

🔗genewardsmith <genewardsmith@...>

2/17/2011 2:28:51 AM

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "jonszanto" <jszanto@...> wrote:

> Ooh, the world in black and white. Say, Cam, you the heel or the face in this one? Always good to know where to lay the bets...

I'm still trying to figure out who's more like Gorgeous George: John, Paul, or Wolfgang.

🔗cameron <misterbobro@...>

2/17/2011 2:45:52 AM

Reading about Andy Kaufmann is how I came across this wrestling stuff. And there's a prime example of how the glaringly obvious is hidden from view in plain sight: obviously Andy Kaufmann is alive and well, and doing the best act of his career. Even with very minimal disguise, noone seems to notice:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andy_kaufman
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_segal

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "genewardsmith" <genewardsmith@...> wrote:
>
>
> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "jonszanto" <jszanto@> wrote:
>
> > Ooh, the world in black and white. Say, Cam, you the heel or the face in this one? Always good to know where to lay the bets...
>
> I'm still trying to figure out who's more like Gorgeous George: John, Paul, or Wolfgang.
>

🔗Jake Freivald <jdfreivald@...>

2/17/2011 3:04:45 AM

There's clearly more to it than notes. People love the Beatles but
they hate Beatles muzak.

Regards,
Jake

On 2/17/11, Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@ozanyarman.com> wrote:
> That is so incredibly false. No music critic in their right mind would
> judge the Classics based on poorly rendered MIDI files with exact 12
> equal tones to the octave and flaccid velocities, zero pitch bends, and
> terribly synthetic timbres.
>
> Oz.
>
> --
>
> ✩ ✩ ✩
> www.ozanyarman.com
>
>
> Daniel Forró wrote:
>> Carl is right - music based on melody and harmony, when done well, is
>> undestroyable and will always keep its musical quality and work in
>> any shape, arrangement, timbre... Same like Bach or any other good
>> work of classical melodic/harmonic music.
>>
>> Daniel Forro
>>
>> On 17 Feb 2011, at 11:42 AM, Carl Lumma wrote:
>>
>>> Igs wrote:
>>>
>>>> But Michael's point (which everyone seems to have ignored)
>>> I didn't ignore it, I just thought it was an offtopic
>>> waste of everyone's time.
>>>
>>>> But he is also totally missing the point. Look what happens when you
>>>> take the score to a song like "Yesterday", strip it of its dynamics,
>>>> and feed it into a synthesizer, reducing it to its bare harmonic and
>>>> melodic components. It sucks! Even if you use the most expensive
>>>> and
>>>> highest-fidelity synths and samples available. If the people of the
>>>> world were introduced to the songs of the Beatles rendered like
>>>> that--no dynamics, no humanity, just chords and melodies rendered
>>>> with
>>>> mechanical precision and synthetic timbres--the Beatles would not
>>>> even
>>>> warrant a footnote of a footnote in the history of pop music.
>>> That's completely wrong -- the Beatles' music is interesting for
>>> the notes alone and I have several drab MIDI files worth of it
>>> that I enjoy to prove it.
>>>
>>> -Carl
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------
>>
>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>

🔗Michael <djtrancendance@...>

2/17/2011 6:02:09 AM

Why do I get the funny feeling Cameron was being sarcastic? :-) And why do counter-examples on this list so often get confused with examples (IE the meaning swapped to its polar opposite of intended meaning)?...

--- On Thu, 2/17/11, jonszanto <jszanto@...> wrote:

From: jonszanto <jszanto@...>
Subject: [MMM] Re: The Beatles had terrible timbre/production?
To: MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com
Date: Thursday, February 17, 2011, 1:32 AM

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "cameron" <misterbobro@...> wrote:

> Igs and Michael, apparently you guys have not learned how cultured people behave! Every society has its sacred cows- in the western world, "thebeatlesandmozart" are sacred cows. If you question their divine status, you are a philistine. That's the rules.

Ooh, the world in black and white. Say, Cam, you the heel or the face in this one? Always good to know where to lay the bets...

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

🔗Michael <djtrancendance@...>

2/17/2011 6:09:30 AM

Jake>"There's clearly more to it than notes. People love the Beatles but they hate Beatles muzak."

Jake,

That's not the kind of comparison I was hinting at, at all. Beatles Muzak completely changes the ARRANGEMENT (choice of instruments) and sometimes also the composition (IE no changes in velocity and such), both of which are arrangement and composition issues. When I said "timbre" I was referring to brightness of recording quality, not actually changing the instrument(s) used!

Now the type of comparison I was hinting at...was a good cover band using the exact same instruments as The Beatles being recorded by a single crappy condenser microphone vs. that same band being recorded in a modern studio, EQ'd, compressed, etc. The only differences would be clarity and loudness/brightness of timbre...and my point (AGAIN!) is while most bands who showed people the low-quality recording would get dismissed as "amateurs" by modern audiences (who are generally very weary of "less than modern studio quality" music), the Beatles have strong enough compositional content they would still be highly respected.

--- On Thu, 2/17/11, Jake Freivald <jdfreivald@...> wrote:

From: Jake Freivald <jdfreivald@...>
Subject: Re: [MMM] The Beatles had terrible timbre/production?
To: MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com
Date: Thursday, February 17, 2011, 3:04 AM

There's clearly more to it than notes. People love the Beatles but

they hate Beatles muzak.

Regards,

Jake

On 2/17/11, Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@...> wrote:

> That is so incredibly false. No music critic in their right mind would

> judge the Classics based on poorly rendered MIDI files with exact 12

> equal tones to the octave and flaccid velocities, zero pitch bends, and

> terribly synthetic timbres.

> Oz.

> --

> ✩ ✩ ✩

> www.ozanyarman.com

> Daniel Forró wrote:

>> Carl is right - music based on melody and harmony, when done well, is

>> undestroyable and will always keep its musical quality and work in

>> any shape, arrangement, timbre... Same like Bach or any other good

>> work of classical melodic/harmonic music.

>> Daniel Forro

>> On 17 Feb 2011, at 11:42 AM, Carl Lumma wrote:

>>> Igs wrote:

>>>

>>>> But Michael's point (which everyone seems to have ignored)

>>> I didn't ignore it, I just thought it was an offtopic

>>> waste of everyone's time.

>>>

>>>> But he is also totally missing the point. Look what happens when you

>>>> take the score to a song like "Yesterday", strip it of its dynamics,

>>>> and feed it into a synthesizer, reducing it to its bare harmonic and

>>>> melodic components. It sucks! Even if you use the most expensive

>>>> and

>>>> highest-fidelity synths and samples available. If the people of the

>>>> world were introduced to the songs of the Beatles rendered like

>>>> that--no dynamics, no humanity, just chords and melodies rendered

>>>> with

>>>> mechanical precision and synthetic timbres--the Beatles would not

>>>> even

>>>> warrant a footnote of a footnote in the history of pop music.

>>> That's completely wrong -- the Beatles' music is interesting for

>>> the notes alone and I have several drab MIDI files worth of it

>>> that I enjoy to prove it.

>>>

>>> -Carl

>> ------------------------------------

>> Yahoo! Groups Links

> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

🔗Daniel Forró <dan.for@...>

2/17/2011 7:41:03 AM

When I said "music", I meant music, music itself, music an sich, music abstract, music analysis, music as language, expressed in the score. Not its audio record. You know, there are still some old fashioned classically educated musicians who are able to read such enigmatic signs, and call them music.

Daniel Forro

On 17 Feb 2011, at 3:59 PM, cityoftheasleep wrote:

> Bach is one thing, but the Beatles are quite another. Do you > really--REALLY--think that if you stripped down all of the music of > the Beatles to its bare harmony and melody, rendered with > mechanical precision and synthetic timbres, and presented it to > people who had never heard the Beatles before, that they would > consider it at all remarkable, little more than pleasant and maybe > a little quirky? That even HALF of the brilliance or personality > of their actual recorded works would show through? Come ON. Be > serious for a minute! I mean, I'm not saying their entire catalog > turns to mush if you reduce it to that level--there are a good few > cuts, like "Eleanor Rigby", that might maintain some level of > interest, but "Lovely Rita, Meter Maid"? "Rocky Raccoon?" "Twist > and Shout"? "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds"? "Here Comes the > Sun"? Try to imagine a reality in which only the MIDI versions of > these songs, or even versions arranged for solo organ or chamber > ensemble or whatever, are the only versions the public ever got to > hear of these songs. If you really think such versions would have > had ANYWHERE NEAR the same impact as the actual recordings they > released as a rock band, you're crazy!
>
> Yeah, sure, a work written for solo piano or chamber ensemble or > brass quartet or whatever won't lose as much when translated to > MIDI or Soundfont or whatever. But does that really give an excuse > to just jettison any sensitivity to arrangement and production?
>
> -Igs

🔗Michael <djtrancendance@...>

2/17/2011 7:50:01 AM

>"You've got to admit: you are the guy who is desperate to make microtonal music popular"

Fair enough...

>"and continually use current music trends"

Not exactly. There are two types of things that appeal to me: "current trends" and "those trends which may not be current, but are classic, and can withstand the test of time without conforming to current trends". The Beatles are an example of the latter.

>"specifically dance/club - as your benchmark and target zone"
   First of all, the main genre I think could make a breakthrough is rock, not dance. I think pop is probably the second most likely, with electronica coming in third.
   Secondly, the type of music I make, is NOT dance. Dance is full of simple themes (IE 1 melody or 2 at most), aggressive sharp/punchy synthesized leads, and often 4-on-the-floor beats. I almost always make abstract breakbeats, not 4-on-the-floor, use more organic/less-noisy/more-legato sounding instruments, and have at least 4 melodic themes. Maybe you just don't have much experience in electronica and are jumping to easy stereotypes?
   Anyhow, what I make is much more in-line with "ambient/abstract breakbeat" than dance and many of the solos cross into jazz territory (and jazz is anything but normal in pop/dance style music). You could make a stretch and say it's IDM, but IDM is nothing like pop/dance music either.
   Now I DO say I try hard to make my music "danceable" but, guess what, that's a huge factor for popularity EVEN in rock. I know because my brother is a jazz guitarist...and he's said flat out his more danceable songs have the best crowd impact at gigs.

>"And lots of people have tried to explain that this isn't their personal goal at all, and are going their own way."

This almost seems to assume NO ONE is interested in my goal. I have received responses that at least a handful of people are.

What bugs me is people who are NOT interested in what I have to say jumping on the bandwagon, making their own extremely distorted and pessimistic takes on my opinions (without bothering to confirm if they even understand them), and making my well-intended threads into flame threads. You did it on this thread...although thank you (and Chris) for the apology: it's just a shame that by the time Chris and you figured it out a flame war was running rampant.

My motto: if you don't like what I say, don't have the patience to ask me "is this what you meant?" before blazing your guns at me, and don't have anything constructive to say on a thread I start, simply IGNORE THE THREAD. And I'm not clueless...if I see a thread I started getting no response...I will simply drop the thread. For the record, I would recommend we all treat Marcel's threads the same way...

--- On Wed, 2/16/11, jonszanto <jszanto@...> wrote:

From: jonszanto <jszanto@...>
Subject: Re: [MMM] The Beatles had terrible timbre/production?
To: MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com
Date: Wednesday, February 16, 2011, 7:17 PM

Michael,

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:

> For the tenth time I posted on this list...you are missing the point.

As I'll get to in a moment, if posting ten times doesn't get your point across, would it ever dawn on you that you aren't being completely clear? But now, to the meat of the matter:

Ok, in spite of the fact that the *way* you've attempted to say that before has been in very different terms, I see what you were trying to get at.

Anyway, again: sorry for jumping that hard. Beyond everything else, I know you mean well. Please understand that I/we do as well.

Best,

Jon

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

🔗akjmicro <aaron@...>

2/17/2011 8:05:31 AM

I'm with Ozan on this one: For example, we listen to different interpretations of classical music and some strike us as better than others. Obviously, interpretive and recoded quality come into play. Some interpreters bring more 'life' (whatever that elusive thing is) to a piece. Jascha Heifetz said: "there's no bad music, only bad interpretations". There's certainly a strong bit of truth there, in spite of the immediate sense that he's exagerrating. And I've had moments where I've felt it was *completely* true, as I've come to like certain pieces more that I might not have even liked because of their interpreter's insights.

That said, I'd be curious to hear the Beatles "all 64 velocity" renderings that Carl is referring to. I have extreme doubts that I'd find them at all appealing, but, I'm also open minded. And since we are discussing the Beatles in this thread, I will say that it's completely nuts to say their production values sucked. George Martin was amazing, and no records ever sounded that good, before then, and many since failed to achieve as good a sound, to my ears.

I don't relate to the arguments that people put forward about timbre and final sound ('production') not mattering. It's like being a chef and not caring about the sensuous flavor and visual impact of your food. Music and food, in my book, should be on the same level---food should taste (and even look) good, and music should *sound* good. We should want seconds of the food, and we should want to hear that piece again. If the music doesn't *sound* good, the ideas behind it's construction may be interesting, but.....

Since timbre is part of the sound, I fail to understand, in the electronics age where we have timbral flexibility UNHEARD OF by previous generations of composers, why anyone would ignore it willingly!

Pierre Boulez said: "I don't care what it sounds like, I want to know how it was made." My philosophy is 180Â° apart from that! Mark Twain said it best: "Wagner's music is better than it sounds."

I know the counter-argument: Bach, who wrote the "Art of Fugue" in 'abstract-not-specify-instrument-mode'. Sure, but would he suffer a flat, dull performance of the work, in whatever medium? I'm not talking about abstract undefined instrumentation, but about what happens when such an abstract score is realized. I think Bach would want it to sound amazingly good, with decent, nay, beautiful instruments played by beautifully sensitive performers.

I think in typically thrown together MIDI realizations for instance, bad timbre is the first thing I notice that makes me wince. I can definately say it's also the first thing that makes my wife, a non-musician, wince. And the lack of accents or diversity in the velocities (this only works in organ music, and there timbre changes with registration, and if you're lucky, the pipes sound gorgeous anyway.) There are certain complex cases: player piano music by Nancarrow, for example, where the certain robotic tinny sound of the player piano is *part* of the aesthetic. I suppose this is still entirely subjective, too: some folks probably dig an awful lot of GM MIDI timbres that I would rule out 'a priori' from any current or future palette.

OTOH, I've been know to like chiptune-type music with bland waveforms, so go figure. Maybe it's the sense in which I'm aware that such composers are self-aware about the irony, and it 'feels' right. Or maybe in that particular case, when I really like it, it comes down to caring about the next steps, or the starting composition just being really strong. Maybe, if one *really* doesn't care about timbres, but about pitch and pitch structures, just use plain old sine or triangle waves? They sound really great...

BTW, anyone heard of "Bit Shifter"? His chip-tune music is a good example of being all-around very musical in that particular genre, since I brought it up. I'd love some more coat-pulls to other people doing similar work, right now I'm way to bus to research.

Cheers,
AKJ

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Ozan Yarman <ozanyarman@...> wrote:
>
> That is so incredibly false. No music critic in their right mind would
> judge the Classics based on poorly rendered MIDI files with exact 12
> equal tones to the octave and flaccid velocities, zero pitch bends, and
> terribly synthetic timbres.
>
> Oz.
>
> --
>
> â© â© â©
> www.ozanyarman.com
>
>
> Daniel ForrÃ³ wrote:
> > Carl is right - music based on melody and harmony, when done well, is
> > undestroyable and will always keep its musical quality and work in
> > any shape, arrangement, timbre... Same like Bach or any other good
> > work of classical melodic/harmonic music.
> >
> > Daniel Forro
> >
> > On 17 Feb 2011, at 11:42 AM, Carl Lumma wrote:
> >
> >> Igs wrote:
> >>
> >>> But Michael's point (which everyone seems to have ignored)
> >> I didn't ignore it, I just thought it was an offtopic
> >> waste of everyone's time.
> >>
> >>> But he is also totally missing the point. Look what happens when you
> >>> take the score to a song like "Yesterday", strip it of its dynamics,
> >>> and feed it into a synthesizer, reducing it to its bare harmonic and
> >>> melodic components. It sucks! Even if you use the most expensive
> >>> and
> >>> highest-fidelity synths and samples available. If the people of the
> >>> world were introduced to the songs of the Beatles rendered like
> >>> that--no dynamics, no humanity, just chords and melodies rendered
> >>> with
> >>> mechanical precision and synthetic timbres--the Beatles would not
> >>> even
> >>> warrant a footnote of a footnote in the history of pop music.
> >> That's completely wrong -- the Beatles' music is interesting for
> >> the notes alone and I have several drab MIDI files worth of it
> >> that I enjoy to prove it.
> >>
> >> -Carl
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

🔗akjmicro <aaron@...>

2/17/2011 8:19:33 AM

I think with the Beatles, you have a mixed bag. Some songs are interesting for musical structure alone, with more sophisticated harmonic/melodic/phrase structure, etc. not to mention lyrics. (e.g "She's leaving home")

But then, you cannot deny (w/o looking like a fool) that they cared a *tremendous* deal about timbre (e.g. "Tomorrow never knows" from 'Revolver' --- it's simply an uninteresting piece on the traditional harmonic level -- it's one chord -- but on a *timbral* level? It's one of the greatest Beatles tracks)

And c'mon, look at "Being for the Benefit of Mr. Kite". Playing that piece on just a piano reduction would make it a clever (even annoyingly dull) dance-hall type song from an old-fashioned parlor soiree, whereas the total psychedelic extravaganza of timbre *makes* that song, completely. It's like you opened a looking-glass universe in your head...and it was completely new for its time.

Anyone who knows anything at all about the Beatles knows that in the studio, they were obsessed with getting a certain sound quality to their tracks, and obsessed with not repeating themselves in this regard. John Lennon would make abstract demands, almost with a sense of synaesthesia, about what he wanted a track to sound like, and the wizard George Martin would somehow come up with a solution.

In the end, though, they *always* cared about timbre, and I think their brilliance in this area alone is a huge reason they made history. It's also a huge reason they stopped touring---they became, in essence, studio artists whose music really largely depended on the technological resources of the then-modern recording studio. I don't always find myself in the mood to hear them, but I often love hearing them when I do, and I simply have to bow to what they did.

AKJ

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Daniel Forrï¿½ <dan.for@...> wrote:
>
> When I said "music", I meant music, music itself, music an sich,
> music abstract, music analysis, music as language, expressed in the
> score. Not its audio record. You know, there are still some old
> fashioned classically educated musicians who are able to read such
> enigmatic signs, and call them music.
>
> Daniel Forro
>
>
> On 17 Feb 2011, at 3:59 PM, cityoftheasleep wrote:
>
> > Bach is one thing, but the Beatles are quite another. Do you
> > really--REALLY--think that if you stripped down all of the music of
> > the Beatles to its bare harmony and melody, rendered with
> > mechanical precision and synthetic timbres, and presented it to
> > people who had never heard the Beatles before, that they would
> > consider it at all remarkable, little more than pleasant and maybe
> > a little quirky? That even HALF of the brilliance or personality
> > of their actual recorded works would show through? Come ON. Be
> > serious for a minute! I mean, I'm not saying their entire catalog
> > turns to mush if you reduce it to that level--there are a good few
> > cuts, like "Eleanor Rigby", that might maintain some level of
> > interest, but "Lovely Rita, Meter Maid"? "Rocky Raccoon?" "Twist
> > and Shout"? "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds"? "Here Comes the
> > Sun"? Try to imagine a reality in which only the MIDI versions of
> > these songs, or even versions arranged for solo organ or chamber
> > ensemble or whatever, are the only versions the public ever got to
> > hear of these songs. If you really think such versions would have
> > had ANYWHERE NEAR the same impact as the actual recordings they
> > released as a rock band, you're crazy!
> >
> > Yeah, sure, a work written for solo piano or chamber ensemble or
> > brass quartet or whatever won't lose as much when translated to
> > MIDI or Soundfont or whatever. But does that really give an excuse
> > to just jettison any sensitivity to arrangement and production?
> >
> > -Igs
>

🔗jonszanto <jszanto@...>

2/17/2011 8:46:16 AM

Because many people on this list are very poor communicators, mixed in with a small amount of English-as-a-second-language. The second it entirely forgivable.

🔗Michael <djtrancendance@...>

2/17/2011 9:00:45 AM

>"And c'mon, look at "Being for the Benefit of Mr. Kite". Playing that piece on just a piano reduction
would make it a clever (even annoyingly dull) dance-hall type song from
an old-fashioned parlor soiree, whereas the total psychedelic
extravaganza of timbre *makes* that song, completely. It's like you
opened a looking-glass universe in your head...and it was completely new
for its time."

Here's a video of it -> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Khsn-nXBxs0

And I agree timbre matters hugely in that piece...but that type of timbre comes from arrangement quality, not production/sound quality.
People one here keep on confusing arrangement with production...they are simply not the same thing...what they have is an impressive almost orchestral arrangement: the choice of which instruments are used, and not how they are recorded, IMVHO is what makes the whole thing click.

Complete side topic: I think the Byrds did things equally as impressive and psychedelic as the Beatles...yet virtually no one ever talks about them.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHvf20Y6eoM (turn turn turn)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UGG1yb3BvUY (I wasn't born to follow)
(The Byrds)

Especially with the second song and use of background vocals plus brass and orchestration in the outro near the end...some of the creativity in ARRANGEMENT they used is simply awesome...even by today's standards, even if the production sound quality was "early 60's-ish"...it still sounds very convincing overall.

--- On Thu, 2/17/11, akjmicro <aaron@...> wrote:

From: akjmicro <aaron@...>
Subject: [MMM] Re: The Beatles had terrible timbre/production?
To: MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com
Date: Thursday, February 17, 2011, 8:19 AM

AKJ

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Daniel Forrï¿½ <dan.for@...> wrote:

> When I said "music", I meant music, music itself, music an sich,

> music abstract, music analysis, music as language, expressed in the

> score. Not its audio record. You know, there are still some old

> fashioned classically educated musicians who are able to read such

> enigmatic signs, and call them music.

> Daniel Forro

> On 17 Feb 2011, at 3:59 PM, cityoftheasleep wrote:

> > Bach is one thing, but the Beatles are quite another. Do you

> > really--REALLY--think that if you stripped down all of the music of

> > the Beatles to its bare harmony and melody, rendered with

> > mechanical precision and synthetic timbres, and presented it to

> > people who had never heard the Beatles before, that they would

> > consider it at all remarkable, little more than pleasant and maybe

> > a little quirky? That even HALF of the brilliance or personality

> > of their actual recorded works would show through? Come ON. Be

> > serious for a minute! I mean, I'm not saying their entire catalog

> > turns to mush if you reduce it to that level--there are a good few

> > cuts, like "Eleanor Rigby", that might maintain some level of

> > interest, but "Lovely Rita, Meter Maid"? "Rocky Raccoon?" "Twist

> > and Shout"? "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds"? "Here Comes the

> > Sun"? Try to imagine a reality in which only the MIDI versions of

> > these songs, or even versions arranged for solo organ or chamber

> > ensemble or whatever, are the only versions the public ever got to

> > hear of these songs. If you really think such versions would have

> > had ANYWHERE NEAR the same impact as the actual recordings they

> > released as a rock band, you're crazy!

> >

> > Yeah, sure, a work written for solo piano or chamber ensemble or

> > brass quartet or whatever won't lose as much when translated to

> > MIDI or Soundfont or whatever. But does that really give an excuse

> > to just jettison any sensitivity to arrangement and production?

> >

> > -Igs

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

🔗jonszanto <jszanto@...>

2/17/2011 9:12:04 AM

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:
> Secondly, the type of music I make, is NOT dance. Maybe you just don't have much experience in electronica and are jumping to easy stereotypes?

Actually, the fact of the matter is that I don't particularly care for labels and pigeon-holing. I should have simply referred to your interest in "various electronica styles" and left it at that. Of all the various splinterings into micro-niches, the modern electronica world contains more different style monikers than I can adequately keep up with, not to mention the minutia - in musical terms - that separate musics into various styles.

🔗Chris Vaisvil <chrisvaisvil@...>

2/17/2011 9:57:02 AM

All I have left to say on the subject

I�ve already labelled
<http://productionadvice.co.uk/what-is-a-producer/> *George
Martin* as a �god-like-genius� amongst producers � although, after watching
Elizabeth Gilbert�s inspiring TED
talk<http://www.ted.com/talks/elizabeth_gilbert_on_genius.html>on
nurturing creativity, perhaps I should use different terminology !

Either way, his work with the Beatles means that over 30 years later he is
still regarded by many as the *ultimate* record
producer<http://productionadvice.co.uk/what-is-a-producer/>.
A musician, engineer and inspirational collaborator, without whom the
Beatles� music would have been *unrecognisable, *and � in my opinion �
nowhere near as fascinating, important or influential."

http://productionadvice.co.uk/the-making-of-sgt-pepper/

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

🔗cityoftheasleep <igliashon@...>

2/17/2011 10:01:20 AM

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "jonszanto" <jszanto@...> wrote:

> Because many people on this list are very poor communicators, mixed in with a small
> amount of English-as-a-second-language. The second it entirely forgivable.

I'd say poor reading comprehension is also a factor. Not to mention an implicit sense of ad hominem directed at certain members.

-Igs

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

2/17/2011 10:10:31 AM

Aaron wrote:
>I'm with Ozan on this one: For example, we listen to different
>interpretations of classical music and some strike us as better than
>others. Obviously, interpretive and recoded quality come into play.

It's funny how these idiotic threads unfold. Neither Daniel or
myself said interpretation does NOT come into play. Reminds me of
last week when Michael and Chris were talking all about the question
that Michael had asked and somebody had answered, which didn't
exist!

-Carl

🔗Carl Lumma <carl@...>

2/17/2011 10:10:49 AM

At 08:19 AM 2/17/2011, you wrote:
>I think with the Beatles, you have a mixed bag.

Offtopic. -Carl

🔗Aaron Krister Johnson <aaron@...>

2/17/2011 10:27:25 AM

Jee, that's amusing, consider the title of the thread (not mine) is
"Re: [MMM] Re: The Beatles had terrible timbre/production?"

You crack me up sometimes, Carl.

AKJ

On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 12:10 PM, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:

> At 08:19 AM 2/17/2011, you wrote:
> >I think with the Beatles, you have a mixed bag.
>
> Offtopic. -Carl
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

--
Aaron Krister Johnson
http://www.akjmusic.com
http://www.untwelve.org

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

🔗jonszanto <jszanto@...>

2/17/2011 10:29:24 AM

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "cityoftheasleep" <igliashon@...> wrote:
> I'd say poor reading comprehension is also a factor. Not to mention an implicit sense of ad hominem directed at certain members.

"Come ON. Be serious for a minute! ... If you really think such versions
would have had ANYWHERE NEAR the same impact as the actual recordings they released as a rock band, you're crazy!"

Would that be an implicit sense of ad hominem, or do I have a reading comprehension problem, Igs? Own your words.

There isn't anyone on the list I personally dislike. I take issue with some of the things they say, and disagree with viewpoints. I also don't mince words.

🔗Aaron Krister Johnson <aaron@...>

2/17/2011 10:53:45 AM

Are you being dense, Carl, or just trolling-difficult?

Daniel was talking about studying the abstract score, and you were talking
about liking sterile MIDI renditions of Beatles tunes. The question was
"would the Beatles have made history if their music were presented as for
example, sterile MIDI files". You were implying that the Beatle's music was
great, even as dead MIDI data. I agree somewhat, and I'm saying that a lot
of their music is great on that level, but so much more of it depends on
technological imagination and 'tech orchestration' that it simply is
orthogonal to, say, a printed score of a Beethoven work. I gave 3 examples
of this. In particular, one would not look at the traditional score of
"Tomorrow never knows" and think it was anything significant *at all*. But
most Beatles historians point to that track as a watershed moment in their
output and in rock in general. The Beatles brought timbre to a new level of
significance.

I think anyone who is dealing with realizing their own work electronically
has a greater responsibility than composers of the past, at least in this
way. The final sound, and not just traditional structural elements, becomes
important in creating the overall impression of a piece.

AKJ

On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 12:10 PM, Carl Lumma <carl@...> wrote:

> Aaron wrote:
> >I'm with Ozan on this one: For example, we listen to different
> >interpretations of classical music and some strike us as better than
> >others. Obviously, interpretive and recoded quality come into play.
>
> It's funny how these idiotic threads unfold. Neither Daniel or
> myself said interpretation does NOT come into play. Reminds me of
> last week when Michael and Chris were talking all about the question
> that Michael had asked and somebody had answered, which didn't
> exist!
>
> -Carl
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

--
Aaron Krister Johnson
http://www.akjmusic.com
http://www.untwelve.org

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

🔗cameron <misterbobro@...>

2/17/2011 12:49:18 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/More_popular_than_Jesus

My observations aren't new, I'm suprised Jon didn't get the built-in Beatles reference, and I think the situation is both serious and funny, and extremely ironic. I wish John Lennon or Mozart could drop in some time when someone goes off on me for not worshipping them, LOL.

--- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, Michael <djtrancendance@...> wrote:
>
> Why do I get the funny feeling Cameron was being sarcastic?Â :-)Â And why do counter-examples on this list so often get confused with examples (IE the meaning swapped to its polar opposite of intended meaning)?...
>
> --- On Thu, 2/17/11, jonszanto <jszanto@...> wrote:
>
> From: jonszanto <jszanto@...>
> Subject: [MMM] Re: The Beatles had terrible timbre/production?
> To: MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Thursday, February 17, 2011, 1:32 AM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Â
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In MakeMicroMusic@yahoogroups.com, "cameron" <misterbobro@> wrote:
>
> >
>
> > Igs and Michael, apparently you guys have not learned how cultured people behave! Every society has its sacred cows- in the western world, "thebeatlesandmozart" are sacred cows. If you question their divine status, you are a philistine. That's the rules.
>
>
>
> Ooh, the world in black and white. Say, Cam, you the heel or the face in this one? Always good to know where to lay the bets...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>