analogika

Oh, he was in Capricorn One as well? I loved that movie as a kid. haven’t watched it in decades

He was the guy from the Naked Gun, right?

I was gonna suggest front pants pocket, but I see the thread has already turned shady…

Just saw an interview snippet with Trent Reznor on music streaming, and he phrased it thusly: "I think that people just want to turn the faucet on and have music come in. They're not really concerned about all the romantic shit I thought mattered." We always thought music mattered to most people the way it matters to us. Most people don't give a shit, and most people never did. People didn't believe me 25 years ago, when I said that for the vast majority, "music" is something they switch on on a device on the windowsill when they walk in the office. It's interspersed with news and the odd interview. Occasionally, something familiar comes on; that's nice. This is also why A.I.-generated music will take over a large portion of the market (yeah, other thread, I know): in reality, most people just never gave a shit.

Argh. I hope you can manage to find a decent deal and scrounge up the money somehow. Skimping it can be a lot more expensive down the line... :sadly eyeing the dings and bang-ups on his own 42-year-old upright:

Do not skimp on the moving. Do not attempt it yourself. Do not hire friends or regular movers to do it. Get pro piano movers. They will save you money in damage avoided to the finish of the piano, in damage avoided to buildings/hallways/stairwells, in time required to figure out how to dismantle/fixate things to make them transportable and reassemble them safely, and in medical bills for everyone involved.

The approach seems the same, dunnit? "If you can’t get those notes, you’ll be replaced." It’s merely the available options for "replacement" that have changed.

Because — and I think that's the heart of the matter here — nobody cares.

a) everything the main band is doing on stage is real, and live. b) the additional musician is visible in this officially released concert video. c) the additional musician is playing live, with the rest of the band. (Yes, that Emulator contains <1 second Oberheim "sequences" repeatedly retriggered for "Radio Gaga".) This is kind of like Edith Piaf at Carnegie Hall. She's alone, at front, and the entire orchestra and choir are hidden behind a curtain, behind her. People are there to see her; the orchestra needs to be there to allow her to perform, but it’s not the attraction. Same with the band Queen, which is the four guys who did the record. Spike Edney needs to be there to let them perform some stuff, but he’s not the attraction.

That’s really cool, Mr. Blupowitz. 🙂 The way you’re divvying up parts between your hands is fucking with my head a bit, because it seems the opposite from how I’d do it. We should do a duet sometime. ☝️

Don't look at me. I’m just saying that you’re not gonna get an 80-year-old on stage to sound like a 25-year-old in the studio. Now, here’s the situation: you retired decades ago, because you knew that would eventually happen, but people want to see you for stuff you did 45 years ago. Hundreds of thousands are clamouring for live concerts, willing to pay lots and lots of money for something you cannot do — and that, with a few minutes’ thought, THEY should realise you cannot do. But they want to buy. Do you pass, or do you sell them what they want to see? I'm not necessarily excusing it, but I’m not sure how I’d answer that question, myself, were I in their position. There’s other legendary singers who were on the road LONG past their prime, to the point where it became painful and embarrassing to watch. As instrumentalists, our eventual decline is more easily disguised or transformed, but for vocalists, that must be tough.

all of this.

Youtube being YouTube, he needed to spend some time driving home the point. I haven’t looked at the comments, but I’ve seen discussions on videos where a singer kept singing pristinely despite having the microphone stuck in his mouth because he needed his hands, and fans were all over the people pointing out that this was somewhat unrealistic.

He still uses a Nord Lead (2?) for a lot of his signature shred solos.

I meant in 1977.

If you think overdubs, edits, and “fixes” weren’t par for the course on virtual any live recording of the day, particularly such a high-profile band known for perfection… unless explicitly mentioned as unedited. Thing is, today every live concert is a de facto live recording, because there’s always going to be two or three cellphone videos of virtually the entire show. As in this case. So many artists (especially high-profile artists) will tend to pre-record to avoid high-profile flubs.

Find me an 80-year-old singer who can do what they did on studio recordings in their twenties and thirties.

Yeah. Don Henley’s lead. No idea whether it’s the whole show — I’m gonna assume it’s a couple specific tracks, and probably backings flown in in most songs. Unsurprising, considering it’s not like these guys are seventy-year-olds anymore. But still kind of disappointing.

I can see how that could be misconstrued. I've had countless musical experiences where it became clear that I just wasn't understanding what was important to the music. Different musical priorities, different musical traditions. Songs where lines seemed completely arbitrary and soundalike phrasing was the way to go turned out to be completely set, and vitally so. Or stuff where I figured it was the precise sound design, where literally nobody cared whether it was piano or guitar - or anything else. Some hip-hop that I'm told is absolutely top-notch has rhythmic or harmonic artefacts that cause my personal soup of musicality to curdle. But it's obviously doing something very right that I'm simply not getting. So my initial assumption if something seems arbitrary, or seems completely unimportant, or randomly buried, is that there might be more to it than I'm seeing.

Yeah… it's like, when the guitar player glosses over that (IMO) crucial little lick, and the drummer ignores the little stop just before the pre-chorus…again…meh, I could really, and the part is actually, but… it doesn't matter. So plain E major triad it is. I'm getting paid, either way. I had to quit the gig after not too long.

Or, which is how I understand this thread: "I can't hear it; what am I missing? Am I missing something important?" Experience, equipment, hearing, listening expectations may vary. Sometimes, it may be something that's completely vital to the track, but you're not really getting it from just listening on your AirPods. But take it away, and the entire track falls apart…

that's my favourite kind of work. I haven’t quite got down the "make lots of money doing it" bit, though.

You misread me entirely. I was responding to the “it doesn’t matter, so don’t overthink it” attitude. Giving it a careful listen and then deciding that what makes it work is a particular style of phrasing, rather than the exact voicings at exact moments is the OPPOSITE of “not seeking out what the original k/b part is” in my world. Maybe I am the one who misread the recommendations as just that, and they were actually intended as “it’s a particular style; use that and don’t overthink the voicings”. If so, I apologise for the tone. I certainly didn’t mean to “chastise” anyone — like I said, your balance of effort vs. payout is yours to strike, so do it. I mean that from the heart. It’s just not for me.

Am I alone in wanting to figure out what the original is? If the original is greater than the sum of its parts, and one part is that really cool keyboard track that I can’t quite make out but is obviously adding something that none of the other parts are doing, it’s my fucking JOB to figure out what it’s doing and why it’s important. I absolutely HATE it when cover players opt for the „eh, it works!“ path that gets drunk-crowd-recognition but misses what made the song special. That's how you get the bar-guitarist Everything’s-a-Four-Chord-Song versions. I mean, sure, by all means, go for it if that’s the balance between effort and payout for you! Seriously! But I quit a cover band over exactly these kinds of compromises. I’d really rather be playing the song than a vague echo of what the singer remembers as the hook and a chorus. Taking a song, checking out what is going on, and then doing something completely different to make it your own is a different matter, mind. To clarify: I’m talking about the attitude towards playing somebody else’s song/part. Having listened to the extracted keyboard part here, I’d say, yeah, go gospel piano mode and wing it from there. It’s more about style than specific voice leading.

The decision was final when Apple bought NeXT in 1996. It was ENTIRELY built on NeXT; that was the whole point. It was a major effort to take the NeXT underpinnings and make the user interface look and feel more like Macintosh, not least to be able to integrate existing Macintosh applications seamlessly either as native Classic Mac apps or, with (quote-unquote) "minimal" adaptation, as Carbon applications. My experience, as someone who also actively worked in Mac support (and sales) during the transition: The main difficulties for Legacy Mac Users were a) the loss of the fully spatial Finder (not least because of column view) and b) the introduction of a rigid folder structure on the hard drive, which previously used to be free-for-all, with only the System Folder being taboo. Yeah, and we lost tabbed folder along the way (bit of a kludge), and I still occasionally mourn the loss of resource forks and per-file creator codes. Yes, you had to explain why passwords were necessary and what a network-connected *NIX machine actually meant, but boy, was it worth it. I don't think Apple actually changed things — more that the world moved on to where it was expected that you would password-protect your computers. There aren't really any classic Mac users around who'd be "new" to OS X at this point. 😉 The only things Apple really changed was to hide the user's Library folder and eventually lock down the System Library folder.