Notes_Norton

He says, "Son, can you play me a memory I'm not really sure how it goes But it's sad and it's sweet and I knew it complete When I wore a younger man's clothes" Billy Joel - Piano Man As I often say: "You can play for yourself, you can play for other musicians, or you can play for the general public --- if you are good enough, you'll get the audience you asked for." I've always played for the general public, and they haven't let me down yet. I've worked two day jobs in my life, while testing what it is like to be normal (which IMHO is sooooo over rated). Neither lasted that long. Other than that, I've made my living doing music and nothing but music. No boss-man or boss-lady representing some faceless corporation telling me to do somebody else's bidding. I take the gigs I want, turn down the ones I don't, and look forward to every gig. There are musicians who refuse to play covers, and some who look down at others who do. I don't mind. There is an art to playing covers, how much of your own personality to inject, which tunes to be strict or loose with, when to call them according to the needs of the audience and so on. Music memories are strong. When I visited my mother was in a nursing home I saw the musicians come in to entertain, and people who couldn't speak, were singing along to memories word for word in their wheelchairs. I'll mix in some songs for myself every gig, but most of the time I'm playing the audience. We have a good time together, I get applause every 5 minutes or so, they thank me for giving them a nice evening, and at the end of the night they pay me money. Life is good. Insights and incites by Notes

I have two active guitars, both Parkers. One I use for gigging, and it will tell me when the battery is low. The other I use for practice at home. I mostly practice fundamentals without the battery, and if I need to plug it in, the battery comes out when I put it on the stand. A leaking batter can be a PITA or even a disaster. Notes

True. But if there are no living members, or if the 'up front' personalities are no longer present, IMHO they have become a tribute band, and have no reason to charge premium prices. The Beach Boys are going out with one original member, and Brian Wilson isn't in The Beach Boys, nor is he allowed to go out as The Beach Boys. I wouldn't pay premium money to hear them. The Temptations are touring without the lead voices of either Eddie Kendricks or David Ruffin, and only one original member, the baritone voice of Otis Williams. Are they the "real" Temptations or a tribute band? Now I know Otis deserves to be called "A Temptation" but what about the 20 or so others that have come and gone? This is like going out as The Miracles without Smokey Robinson. The aforementioned Kingston Trio and so many others have no original members. IMHO there is nothing wrong with going out and playing "The Music Of ____" or "The ________ experience", but to pretend you are the 'real thing' to me is unethical. And there is a line between what I call a tribute band and an original. That line is probably different for most of us, and I may be stricter that others. Replacing Ron Wood in the Stones would be OK with me. Replacing Ray Davies in The Kinks would be unacceptable. When you replace the neck and other parts of a Tele or Strat it becomes a "Parts-caster" and won't sell for the price of the original unless someone really, really famous for improving those guitars puts his or her name on it. Insights and incites by Notes

I have two, it's been so long, I don't know if the spare works. It's a nice piece of hardware, although archaic by today's standards. Fitted with flash memory instead of that turtle-speed floppy disk and it would still be a one-rack-space piece of useful gigging gear. Notes

I think the general public prefers memories to originals. We all listen with musician ears, so our opinion is colored by that. In our live shows, we are a slave to the original in some songs, others we drift away but carry the same feel, and some others we totally reconstruct. How far away we drift from the cover depends on the song and our audience. With decades of experience with these beautiful people, we usually, but not always get it right. Now for listening to others, it depends. If I find it musically interesting according to my personal tastes in music, I don't care if it is note-for-note or completely re-imagined. But I listen with musician ears. Insights and incites by Notes

Tom Jones' version of Ben E Kings "I (Who Have Nothing)"

I still have an Akai S900, but I don't use it anymore. If there was a market for it, I'd sell it. But since it has been probably 20 years since I powered it up, it would have to be as-is. The floppy disk drive is mechanical and hasn't spun in all those years. Even if I powered it up and it worked, I don't know if it would work for long. It was a good tool in it's day. I sampled my J-Bass, a right and left hand snare drum (so the rolls don't sound like machine guns), some deadened kick drums, and some exotic percussion. Anything else I sampled has been long forgotten by improvements in synthesizers. I still use the bass and snares at times, playing them on an archaic Peavey sample player (anyone remember those?) Notes

My Yamaha WX5 Wind MIDI controllers and the Yamaha VL70-m synth modules. I use them a lot at work, they are no longer in production, and there is nothing on the market that compares to them. I don't form attachments to gear either, they are just tools that I use to have fun with while I'm making a living. The wind synth is something I probably use on 30-50% of our songs, depending on the venue and the audience. Notes

Again, what if you found you bought a Gibson guitar that you loved very much and spent $2000 for it. You needed some work done and the guitar technician informs you that it is a very good Chinese copy and you can get another just like it for $400. If there are no original members left, what is the difference between spending $100/ticket for the name of the original band or a $5 drink to hear a very good tribute band. You are paying for the name. But like the Chinese copy, you aren't getting what you paid for. What if there is only one original member, and it isn't one of the lead voices? I'd still feel ripped off. That would be like buying that cheap Chinese copy that had genuine Gibson tuners on it. I notice in our local theater, the one that had the Kingston Trio (in name only) is having "The ABBA Experience" this year. That's truth in advertising, at least you aren't thinking you are getting the real thing. They are also having what seems like a night of Elvis impersonators. That might be fun. But if I buy tickets to the Rolling Stones and either Mick or Keith had been replaced with a sound-alike, I would want my money back. Am I being too critical? Perhaps. If I were in the faux headline band, I would think it unethical. Insights and incites by Notes PS when I think of Batman, I think of the comic books of my youth. When I think of James Bond I know it's Sean Connery. The rest were impostors, but at least they plastered their name, "Roger Moore as James Bond" or something like that. If it's not the real thing, let me know it's not the real thing, and then if I still want to pay the big bucks for it, it's my decision. Insights and incites by Notes

He may know more than you do, but he didn't express it very well. Quantization error isn't a result of too low a sample rate, it's a result of the A/D converter not being able to accurately measure the voltage at the time the sample is taken. Proper dithering can eliminate quantization errors, with the tradeoff being more noise. It may be that this inventor, for simplicity, lumped all differences between input and output as "quantization" since that's what the overall process is. In all fairness, that could be me mis-remembering the why of what I read in an article on the 25th anniversary of the CD. He definitely said severe quantization errors, and there is a great possibility you are more correct on the why and I just mixed my facts up. I have an AA degree in electronics, but none of it was digital. There was the computer option and the communications option (mostly RF). At that time computers took up an entire building and there were few jobs in the computer field, so I was advised to take the communications road. But at the same time I was first tenor sax in the all-state band every year I could participate, and section leader which goes to the first alto by default. Music seemed like a lot more emotionally rewarding way to make a living, and I don't regret making that choice for one minute. Notes

I remember the Turtle Beach cards, they were awesome for their day. But if one of the inventors on the CD team publishes that the bit rate was too slow and caused severe quantization errors, I figure he knows a lot more about the subject than I do. And yes, DA converters have gotten better so CDs don't sound as tinny as they used to. But I repeat, if the general public really cared about audio quality, the SACD wouldn't have died wasted death. It seems the public likes video resolution more than audio judging from the screens I see in the stores. Insights and incites by Notes

That was a lie perpetrated by the recording industry. The resolution was way too low. On the 25th anniversary of the CD, I read an article in the trade magazines by one of the inventors of the CD. He admitted that there were severe quantization errors in the format which reproduced harmonic frequencies that were manufactured by the AD and DA conversion process. CDs traded the distortion caused by analog records, mostly noise, for a different kind of distortion - a change in the tone of the instrument or voice by adding harmonic frequencies. They sold the CD to the record companies by telling them it was much cheaper for them to manufacture, therefore increasing the corporate profits. The recording industry, knowing that they wanted the profits but couldn't admit why they were pushing CDs, decided to coin the phrase "CD Quality". Now I'm a firm believer that tone doesn't matter nearly as much as the musical content. Since my youth people bought 45RPM records, 8 track tapes, cassettes, and mp3s sometimes listening through cheap ear-buds or tinny phone speakers. And what about compressed audio streaming to a cell phone? Case in point: The higher resolution SACD which sounded much better to my ears never made it The public didn't care. Understanding all that, the distortion created by both old and new recording processes doesn't worry me too much. I know that my listening tastes are not like the tastes of the general public. I listen with trained musician ears. I find I like the tone of a well recorded vinyl record on a nice system better than the tone of a well recorded CD, but I don't like the surface noise of the vinyl record. It's a trade off. I listen to CDs more often because they are more convenient. I own a lot of LPs and a lot of CDs, and for my car, I have over 10,000 songs ripped from my own collection in 128 mp3 format. There is no perfect recording method. Everything introduces some kind of distortion. As my dad used to say "pick your poison". I just enjoy the music I like and the format depends on what I'm listening to and where I'm doing the listening. Insights and incites by Notes

I had a computer on a manual treadmill that did that. Oh, well. The treadmill still worked and I really didn't need speed, miles, calories and so on. A half hour on it was good enough. After wearing out two treadmills and two ellipticals I now walk on the road, and if the weather is nice, the beach. Notes

I have a love/hate affair with my computers. I love them when they make my work easy and hate them when they screw up. I guess I'm not alone. I had a hard time giving away my old computers. The TI99 went quickly to a salesman in a computer store (remember those?), the Mac Classic died, and the Atari ST ended up going to electronics recycling (and who knows if it ended up in the landfill or not). I was giving it away, not selling, just foot the postage. My first PC was DOS 5 with Win3.1 riding on it's back. I had to get a card to run MIDI out of it, and if I remember it had RS232 and a parallel printer port (Centronix???). And part of the love/hate is replacing an old computer. OK, here are the discs, or the downloads, but it'll take a day for all the updates to download, and they might not work right on the new OS, and so on. But when it's FINALLY complete, the new computer is like a new sports car. Zoooooom. Bob

I'm old enough to remember when they sold leak-proof batteries. Technology advanced in storage capacity and reversed in other ways. It's good advice to take the batteries out before storing any gear. Thanks for the heads-up. Notes

All I have are ThinkPads. All I need is USB for the tasks I do with them. I record from a stack of hardware MIDI sound modules through a mixer to a USB-Audio interface and into the USB of one of my 64 bit ThinkPads. I make backing tracks for my duo and demo files for my Band-in-a-Box styles. If I want to do a 'real' recording, I'll need to go to a studio, I don't have room for a pristine recording environment in my 900 square foot cottage in paradise. Notes

Got a spare one of those that you can spare?<...snip...> Sorry, like my cars I keep them and work with them until they are dead. I have one spare that I'm keeping in the event the 17 year old one dies. I think NewEgg sells some refurbished ThinkPads, but I have no experience with them so I can't recommend. I just spotted them a year or so ago while looking for something else. Notes

I have been using Windows machines on stage since 2002. I still have one of the 2002 computers running on stage every gig. They get heated up and bounced around in the van transported to the gig. Then they either cool down in the air conditioning or get even hotter if the gig is outdoors. During the gig they bounce along on a keyboard stand. Then back home in the van. And I make my living playing one-nighters. One nighter's are notoriously tough on computers. I keep two running on stage at all times even though I need only one, because I am a "the show must go on" kind of guy. I display words or music on one and play the backing tracks I create myself on the other. I could use one computer for both functions. Since 2002 I went to a backup computer twice. The first time the hard drive started making a mechanical noise, and I didn't trust it, so the USB went out of one and into another between songs. I replaced the drive the next day, that computer is still running. The second time the battery that powers the CMOS died so I went to the spare. The replacement cost $5. The computer that became the backup computer performed both jobs without ever so much as a glitch. Eventually the hinge on one got loose, and I bought a Win7 machine. I don't remember what year, and I'm running it with the 2002 machine. Getting the parts to fix the hinge on a 10+ year old computer isn't easy or cheap. It made sense to replace it. I think that Macs cannot be any more reliable than that. I've never had a crash, lockup, or meltdown. I saw a tour of the International Space Station on video. They showed 2 laptops that control all the astronaut life support systems, and I recognized 2 ThinkPads doing the work. Like my setup, the second one was redundant. I started computing on a Texas Instruments TI99, then an Atari ST, followed by a DOS PC and a Mac Classic. The last Mac I had was an early version of OSX (I have an iPad but don't use it for music). Actually, Mac and Windows are both fine operating systems. There are things I like and dislike about both. IMO you should let the software you want to use most dictate the OS you are going to use. Plenty of apps run on both, but some are only on one, or run better on one. I write aftermarket styles for Band-in-a-Box at http://www.nortonmusic.com and that means my main computer is WIndows. Why? BiaB offers a StyleMaker app that is bundled in BiaB, and it both works better and has more features on the PC platform than the Mac. In other words, using Windows means I am capable of writing better and more musical styles than I could on the Mac. It's not the fault of the OS but the fact that PG Music probably makes about 20 times more money selling the Windows version. When I write the styles on Windows, they will play correctly on the Mac as they are 100% compatible, but I can't write styles as good on the Mac. Between this and the reasons I stated on my earlier post, Windows is my choice. I do reserve the right to switch if the situation changes to make that an advantage to me. Insights and incites by Notes

Did she enjoy the show? If not, was it because it wasn't the "real" group, or was it just a bad show? Or maybe she hadn't heard the Kingston Trio in more than 50 years and discovered that she just didn't care for their music any more? Nostalgia just ain't what it used to be. True, she loved it. But she paid over $100 believing they were the 'real' guys. And that belief is what created the value of the price of the ticket. If you paid for a Fender Stratocaster but eventually found out it was a fake, would you feel cheated? Even if you liked the guitar? Personally I feel uneasy about that kind of deception. There are tribute bands around she could have heard for the price of a mixed drink or a glass of wine. Am I being too ethical for the entertainment business? After all, fantasy is our product. Insights and incites by Notes

I think it depends on whether they're paying to hear the songs, or see the people (or both). As long as the marketing is upfront, then the people can decide...as someone else pointed out, some of the originals don't have the chops they did, so people might get a more satisfying experience from younger musicians. But ultimately, if the performances are good and people have a good time, mission accomplished. I also think this is a case where if a band can get an endorsement from the original musicians ("look, I can't stand up any more and I took way too much acid in the 60s, but the remaining members think these guys rock and we're happy to carry on our tradition"), that would give an air of legitimacy, and serve as a sort of "good housekeeping seal of approval." I definitely think the marketing must be up front. When my friend was so excited to see The Kingston Trio, I read the ads, there were no disclaimers. She believed she was seeing 'the real' Kingston Trio and paid big bucks to do so. IMHO that's not ethical. I didn't have the heart to tell her she was not seeing what she thought she was. I think that would have been cruel. When there were 4 groups called "The Platters", another 4 "Temptations" and so on, touring the country, there was no disclaimer. I'm a friend of one of the lead singers in one of the touring groups (he's now retired). The ABBA Experience came to town and boasted "One of the original members" (a saxophonist), so that was honest, but I don't recall seeing many other bands do that. Queen did it with Paul Rogers and Adam Lambert (Queen+___) and that's OK. Notes

Ok, now this has me thinking about ethics. Is it ethical for a group of no original members, or no original lead voices to go to a theater and charge big bucks for a name only? Is it ethical for someone to pay $100/each to see the Kingston Trio, thinking it's the 'real' Kingston Trio when all the members are dead? Or is it ethical to pay $100/ea to see Jay & The Americans when neither recording Jay is going to be singing? Would that be any different in principal to pay $100/ea to see the Rolling Stones with a different singer substituting for Mick Jagger? Perhaps I'm thinking too much, but the public paying premium prices doesn't know that the singers they heard on the records they purchased are not going to be there. They will go believing that they are seeing/hearing the people on their recording or on the radio that they loved. So does this border on fraud? Deception? You can hear a tribute band, which is essentially the same thing, for half the price, so is the public being ripped off? I think that is a worthy discussion. What do you think? Insights and incites by Notes

Thank you all for the warm welcome posts! Mike Rivers -- years ago I spent a month in Wales, Scotland and England, with the last 4 days in London. The hotel clerk kept telling us we needed to go to "Lester Square" but we couldn't find it. On the last day we asked him to point it out on our map, and it was "Leicester" and we had a good laugh because we had gone there a few times to listen to the buskers, watch the artists, and join the street party. Craig, yes it gets complicated. But with no original members, IMHO it's pushing the point.Perhaps it depends on how famous the individual members are. If Mick and Keith were replaced in The Stones would they still be The Rolling Stones? If The Miracles went out without Smokey Robinson, are they still The Miracles? The Doors couldn't be the Doors with out Morrison. Van Halen weren't Van Halen without David Lee Roth, when he was replaced with Sammy they became known as Van Hagar. Yet Jay And The Americans had two different "Jays" in their hit making days, the second one was really "Dave" but changed it to "Jay" and now in their post-hit 'has been' career they have a third Jay. I don't know that they do, but groups who didn't have household name members could replace all the members and we wouldn't be thinking "The Miracles ain't The Miracles without Smokey." How about The Buckinghams, The Seeds, The Box Tops, The Pretty Things, Beau Brummels, and so many other big but not the biggest acts of their day? Years ago I was in a house band in a Hotel in Miami and on the weekend the 'has been' acts came in. I don't mean 'has been' as an insult, they all did a fine job. Many of them had a number or all different members. We opened in concert for The Association when "Cherish" was #1 on Billboard, when they played at the hotel in Miami years later, not one member was original. Were they still "The Association" or a tribute band? The "Ghost Band" moniker was long gone, and "Tribute Band" not yet invented. They did a nice job, but I was disappointed that none of the guys I met when they were a hit were in the band. It would have been nice to see if they remembered us. When we opened for The Kingsmen, Jack Ely had already left the group and "Louie Louie" didn't sound the same. According to WIki there have now been 23 members of that band. I think there is one original member. The Kingston Trio had about 15 members and all three originals are dead. So are they a Ghost Band? When we were in negotiations with Motown, they insisted we change our name and Motown would own the new name. That way they could replace members at will, and have 4 bands with the same name touring at the same time. The negotiations failed over a number of different points, that wasn't one of them. As you and others pointed out, it's complicated. We all have equally valid opinions. Me? As soon as the featured soloists are gone, they go in the Tribute Band bin, and when all the original members are dead, they are a Ghost Band to me. But that's just me and not the definitive truth, merely my opinion. And there is nothing wrong with three guys saying they are The Kingston Trio, as the record company or publisher probably owns the name anyway. Like I said earlier, "Nice work if you can get it." But they are a Ghost Band to me. One more thing: I don't consider symphony orchestras 'tribute bands'. Symphonies have traditionally been associated with the cities or states that they reside in. The members come and go, like a sports team. And since conductors are free to interpret the musical pieces they aren't trying to play it exactly as Beethoven or Tchaikovsky or Dvorak performed it. Instead of "tribute bands", I think they are "cover bands", covering the originals, note for note, but not exactly like the original. Tempos have changed, instruments have changed, and tastes have changed over the centuries. Insights, incites and opinions by Notes

PC. Why? I'm a live gigging musician so my views are skewed in that direction. Easy to get a replacement when "The Show Must Go On" - You can get a Windows machine if needed at any office or department store You can get a cheap backup that will limp you through the show - for a couple of hundred bucks Easy to transfer files to and from with a flash drive - no having to upload/download from the cloud. No exclusive firewire or other Apple non-standard connectors Universal compatibility vs. Exclusivity More available software titles and apps that come out on both platforms are usually released earlier on Windows and with more features than OSX I use ThinkPad computers on stage, and they have proven to be at least as reliable as any Mac. I still have a 2002 ThinkPad with the IBM brand on it working full time bouncing on a keyboard stand and transported in a hot van to cool venues as I make my living doing one-nighers. There was a time when I preferred Apple, and they make fine hardware, but their efforts to keep me 'in the fold' and lot let me play with others turned me off. When my iPad dies, I'll probably get an Android tablet. Many years ago, the 'sax for hire' at recording studios saw me looking at nothing but Apple computers, now I see both, and sometimes no Apple. I think the days where Apple was the clear cut leader have passed. Of course there are those who love Mac/Apple products, and there is nothing wrong with that. But for an on-stage gigging musician, I think Windows is the better choice. Insights and incites by Notes

I just joined this forum and haven't the time to read all the posts (I'll catch up later) so please forgive me if I'm repeating already covered ground. IMO when all the famous recording members or even just the recording soloists are gone, they have become a tribute band. If Paul McCartney and Ringo Starr hired a couple of people to replace John Lennon and George Harrison, would you still call them The Beatles? If you go to see an Elvis Presley or Frank Sinatra impersonator can you call them the real Elvis Presley or Frank Sinatra? I was playing in a club and 'coming soon' was Neil Zirconium - a Neil Diamond clone. Nobody thinks he is the real deal Neil. None of these 'impersonators' get the money, ticket prices, or the crowds that the tribute bands calling themselves the real thing do. So why should a tourning group with no original members calling themselves the original charge the big bucks? (Nice work if you can get it?) I remember when I was a kid, a lot of the "big bands" of the 1940s like Glenn Miller, Dorsey Brothers, and so on were touring without the deceased band leaders. The older musicians at the time called them "Ghost Bands". Pretty much what we call "Tribute Bands". When I was working with Motown there were even multiples of the recording bands touring at the same time. After that I worked with a singer who was in one of the four touring bands called "The Platters". And what about "The Clovers", "The Ink Spots", and others. Looking at their google list of members reads like a shopping list. I friend of mine went to see "The Kingston Trio" at a local theater a year or so ago. I googled them and found all the original members are deceased. I didn't have the heart to tell my friend that it was a Tribute Band. When I was growing up, before EDM, it was important for us to sound like the hit makers of the day. When we did a Beatles song, we were expected to sound like The Beatles. When we did a Rolling Stones song we were expected to sound like The Stones. When we did a Jethro Tull song we were supposed to sound like Tull. Same for Beach Boys, Kingsmen, Miracles, Animals, Sly/Family Stone, Earth/Wind/Fire, and solo acts like Stevie Wonder, Marvin Gaye, Neil Diamond, and anybody else who had a top40 hit. So were we cover bands or multi-tribute bands? I have a buddy in an "Eagles" tribute band. I joked around and told him that he had it easy, only having to imitate one band. He grew up with me so he knew exactly what I meant. So IMHO if the original "star members" of the band aren't there, it's a tribute band. Of course if I was in one of those star tribute bands and making the big bucks, I might have a different opinion. Insights and incites by Notes