Paging Bruce Swedien: Whaddya think of this theory?

[KenElevenShadows]

At the risk of telling singers that they are "mechanical" , I think that using AutoTune might be an example of taking something (someone's vocal cords) that is "mechanical" and applying "electronics" to it in a way that is surely debatable.

 

If it's just to fix a note or two in an otherwise awesome vocal take, sure. But if it's done to an abnormal extent...

 

I realize that this post takes the whole mechanical/electronics thing slightly out of its realm, but I just happened to think of it while reading another thread.

[theblue1]

I think the 3 post arc above from Bruce, through Tedly, to Craig -- is very telling. I found myself nodding in agreement with Bruce and Tedly.

 

Recording and the mass distribution of music has brought more music to everyone than they could ever possibly hear in a score of lifetimes. Yet, the negatives are also painfully obvious.

 

And, though I've spent countless tens of thousands of hours listening to some of the greatest recorded music ever -- it's also true that nothing I've heard coming out of a record or the radio has come close to the incredibly, truly ecstatic feeling that can come across in a live performance. I think about the feelings I had watching Louis Armstrong just blowing out his brains back in '64 (as the paddlewheeler at Cali Disneyland rounded Tom Sawyer's Island three times 'round on the occasion of D-Land's 10th anniversery) or, only five years later, seeing Jimi Hendrix laying down the most amazing range of electric guitar sounds I'd ever heard (both during an abbreviated 'hits' set where he slammed through the hits he was already obviously sick of playing to please a rowdy crowd ["You want the hits -- I'll give you the f---ing hits!" he spat into the mic] with a furious, proto-punk fury and, two days later, when he played for 3+ hours, improvising a sometimes lazy/dreamy, sometimes fiery Sunday afternoon jam. And multiply that by amazing shows by everyone from Capt. Beefheart to Elvis Costello (first LA showcase at the Whisky) to Astor Piazzola...

 

And I think Craig has a very trenchant observation that cuts to the heart of the matter. Ultimately, it's all about the song and the performance.

[Tedly Nightshade]

Originally posted by Anderton:

Bruce, you would have loved an experiment we did here on SSS a couple years ago. I was writing a book called "Cubase SX Mixing and Mastering," and the forum had been talking about doing some collaborations. To make a long story short, an SSSer named George Toledo was both brave AND cool enough to let the raw tracks for one of his songs into our collective hands. No one heard how HE mixed the song, and the tracks were mostly unprocessed -- warts and all.

 

About 25 people ended up participating in doing a mix of the tune. What was interesting to me was that despite the fact that the mixes were WILDLY different, and the song sounded completely different with each mix, the impact and emotional focus of the song made it through each time. What it really ended up proving was that the mix was pretty much irrelevant with a song that had already "nailed" the emotional component.

This is very interesting... I haven't heard the song, but I propose that the more unusual and different the music is, the easier it is to trainwreck it in the process of getting it from the performance to the final medium. And conversely, the more familiar the approach is, the easier it is to relate to, regardless of that process.

 

I haven't heard the track Craig mentions, but with the song I sent to 5 different mastering engineers, I intentionally selected a track that had a somewhat challenging and unusual approach. I knew the performance itself had what it took to get a new approach across if the listener were there in the room with the band, but I new that it could seem various degrees of oblique or obscure off a CD. It could seem like a poor attempt at the more usual approach, or a whole new approach.

 

It was easy to see that the different mastering engineers could only get it across as well as they understood it themselves. Two of the presentations were far more approachable than the others, one a more natural and balanced approach focusing on the vocal, one a very exciting approach where the instruments took on a much more dramatic role.

 

A perfect example of getting unusual music across effectively the first time is DSOM. A lot of the Beatles work is the same way. Because it was presented very, very well, it seems perfectly natural and straightforward. A murkier presentation would make the same performances seem very idiosyncratic indeed!

 

-------

Here's my metaphor for a good presentation of a song. It's like a hotel or other public building. If it seems like it might collapse on your head and the doorway is small and cramped and there's something in the way, you might not want to go in there and see what life is like in there. If it's open and airy and comfortable and seems built to last, you might find it very inviting and go out of your way to walk inside in confidence.

 

Some of that is the performance, some of that is the recording and presentation of the performance, but it all contributes to the effect.

[halljams]

Originally posted by Anderton:

despite the fact that the mixes were WILDLY different, and the song sounded completely different with each mix, the impact and emotional focus of the song made it through each time. What it really ended up proving was that the mix was pretty much irrelevant with a song that had already "nailed" the emotional component.

Oh... Sorry man, i can't agree with you on that.

I thought some of the mixes took the tune closer to a pro level but the tracks never contained the emotional impact they could have.

What the hell is the point of me posting that?

 

Well i guess it would be that we all have different ideas of this stuff and our ideas of it are always changing.

 

No one is forcing anyone to make recordings loud or to listen to the radio etc.

I always thought the way it worked was that the radio has a power/on-off button and the owner is allowed to use it.

 

The problems with music these days directly reflect our problems as people in this society and what we focus on and where our attention lies and where it is drawn to(which btw is also our choice).

Lots of music sucks but lots of people are living shitty succkky lives, therefore music is functioning perfectly as an aural mirror for us to wallow in.

There are no problems with music i have decided.

[philbo_Tangent]

Originally posted by Anderton:

<>

 

I think one point that has been overlooked is that not as many new records are being released as, say, 10 years ago. I've been a member of NARAS since the mid-70s, and get their Grammy Awards Guide for ordering CDs. It keeps getting thinner, and the only reason it hasn't gotten even thinner is because they've added videos and books. And of the recordings that ARE being released, a lot of them are compilations, re-packagings, greatest hits packages, etc.

 

So it stands to reason if fewer recordings are being released, there are fewer great recordings (as well as, thankfully, fewer truly horrible recordings) being released as well.

Well, I don't have raw numbers or anything, but I believe that there are huge numbers of albums being released and sold independently of NARAS. A great deal of independent music gets ignored by labels & traditional distribution chains.

 

One could go on at length about causes, but I see the effect today a lot - - NPR had a segment today where they called independent local music newsletters all over the country and asked for their 'picks' for the year. There was some great stuff, none of which I ever had heard of before. I doubt most was ever aired before.

 

It would appear that the A&R people (not as if I know any....) are driven by the genre-based marketing that dominates the airwaves and big distribution/marketing of music. This avoids allowing anything really innovative to be bought into by labels - - not to say it doesn't happen, but it doesn't happen enough to keep me listening most of the time.

[fantasticsound]

Originally posted by Bruce Swedien:

...My feeling on this point is that there seems to be two main catagories of music recording engineers. They are:

 

#1- The engineer that approaches his work from purely the technical side.

 

#2- The engineer who approaches his work from mainly the musical side.

 

In my opinion neither of these personalities will ever maximize his/her abilities by limiting his/her thinking to these distinc avenues of practice. The strictly technical personality will be in limited demand because this very approach denies the basic reason for recording music in the first place.

 

The strictly musical approach to recording music will limit the engineers' ability to get the most out of his/her equipment and productions. By not having a thorough knowledge of the techniques, equipment, and their value in musical production, an engineer will not be able to satisfy that element in music recording production that demands innovative trend-setting technique. ...

Mary Feldman taught us, at Columbia, that sound engineering is one of few skills that require a hefty dose of both left brain and right brain aptitude. Another career with the same demands is architecture.

 

An architect would be screwy to design a building with strictly creative skills. The plumbing, electricity and a host of other practical needs of buildings would likely suffer as result.

 

A building designed with purely technical prowess would be inherently boring. People need to feel inspired by a building they may enter most of the days of their lives. (Not to mention, for a few, one they poured insane amounts of money into.)

 

So the architect, as the sound engineer, must have the technical prowess to design a building with intelligent use of material and electrical, HVAC, and many other systems that work efficiently, and the creative ability to design a space that's inspiring to its' inhabitants.

 

I'd say that's very close to the job of a mixer. Understand the tools so they work for, rather than against, you, and understand the music well enough to assist in conveying the maximum emotional impact through the speakers.

[fantasticsound]

Oddly enough, I've been inspired, musically, by two very divergent types of music that past few years.

 

For the past decade, my love of intimate, acoustic music has grown by leaps and bounds. (And it was already my first love.) Those who can capture this essence on record are incredible. As someone who's had the pleasure of hearing many great musicians without mic or mixing between their music and my ears, I would say I'm something of a snob when it comes to reproducing such music through a PA or on recording. Recent albums, such as the Oh Brother, Where Art Thou? soundtrack, The Dixie Chicks' Home and others have reintroduced this sound to a new generation. The only problem is, radio has been dragged along, kicking and screaming, rather than getting out front as an advocate for such music. Despite many requests, there were lots of country radio stations that refused to add Man Of Constant Sorrow to their regular playlists, even as it was selling plenty of records without their support.

 

The other end of the spectrum, in my recent musical inspiration, is held by a rock album from a local, Nashville band named Spout. They recorded an album a few years ago that sounds like it was, and I chose this word very carefully, crafted.

 

Many of the songs are tinged in hard rock, but while the album is cohesive, it covers a lot of other ground from pure pop to punk to alternative rock. I can't stop listening to this album! The lyrics are intelligent, but not lofty. The subject matter also spans a wide range of subjects, from sexual lyrics that are humorous without being stereotypically boring to far more serious songs dealing with loss, depression and, potentially, suicide. It's one of the smartest albums I've heard in years but it never substitutes sophistication for emotional impact. The two work hand in hand, very well.

 

I'd have to agree with Lee's assessment. Bands, like Spout, with a great product to sell don't have the means to reach people and the already tiny market of major label albums has shrunk dramatically. Craig's comment about the NARAS Grammy list (itself a ridiculous, self-fulfilling prophecy as the best music is unlikely to be represented by anything NARAS members get to hear) is testament that Lee's right.

 

To borrow her sports analogy, if we suddenly reduced the number of baseball teams to 10 total, there would be a concentration of the best fraction of 1% of all ballplayers in the world in that league. The level of skill necessary would be incredible. But that doesn't work in the music industry.

 

Signing less acts while leaving the promotional capability in the hands of a few, huge labels puts a miniscule percentage of musicians work where it can be noticed by the public. But there is no system in place to ensure it's the best fraction of a percent that get the chance to promote themselves to the entire country (and world.)

 

How many baseball teams search for young kids with no discernable talent (but who look the part) and actively create a ballplayer. Instead, they get the chance to pick and choose from the sifting that naturally occurs when kids start in little league, graduate to middle school or high school athletics, then college before the majors take a shot on any of them.

 

Makes you wonder what albums would sound like if each genre of music had a similar tiered system in place to encourage and support up and coming musicians.

[Hound Dog]

Originally posted by Bruce Swedien:

I am sure, in years to come, historians will say that "Thriller" was definitely as big or bigger a success musically and artistically, as it was financially.

 

With all due respect I do not feel this will come to pass. I would be surprised if the forum agrees with you also. I do not personally know anyone who currently feels that "Thriller" is a huge artistic and musical work beyond its sales records.

 

Artistically, it was the apex of Michael's career. It had good songs. Mostly, it had mass appeal. I never bought a copy of the album, but my mother did. It is an example of a truly great business model for the market as it existed at that time.

 

Had Michael gone on to do artistically great things, people might think differently about "Thriller" and what it jump started. But Michael went on to become an artistic joke and "Thriller" remians the high point of his musical output. Much of the attention it received was due to the excellent support and release schedule it enjoyed and the turn toward visual aspects of the business. Michael's appearance on the Motown special in '83 was huge. The "Thriller" video gained a lot of interest because it was the most intense effort of the growing music video craze up to that time.

 

Your comment seems to indicate that you believe "Thriller" is in the same class artistically as "Sgt Pepper", "Are You Experienced", "Nevermind", "Pet Sounds", "Highway 61 Revisted", etc. It did create a lot of excitement, but so did Madonna, Boy George and the Go'Go's. I think the true artistry was in the marketing. Alot of people get their goosebumps not from the music, but from the sound of the cash register.

[Barandine Vondenger]

Originally posted by Hound Dog:

Originally posted by Bruce Swedien:

I am sure, in years to come, historians will say that "Thriller" was definitely as big or bigger a success musically and artistically, as it was financially.

 

With all due respect I do not feel this will come to pass. I would be surprised if the forum agrees with you also. I do not personally know anyone who currently feels that "Thriller" is a huge artistic and musical work beyond its sales records.

 

I think the true artistry was in the marketing. Alot of people get their goosebumps not from the music, but from the sound of the cash register.

I feel thriller is great cause of ALL the folkes that worked on it. That Quincey jones is a real working genius with an innate talent for arrangeing. Along with the stellar roster of tech heads like that BRICE DUDE and his compadres and of course mikels decades of vocal experience and his twisted energy.

I strongly feel any goode sanger could have pulled off thriller with the production team and marketing behinde them.

they grabbed all the correct handholds and pulled that collection to the top.

I was astounded by it all. LIke when I heard BLACK SABBATH for the first time.. WOW!

THRILLER is like a state of the art,one of a kinde statue, a MONUMENT that was built for a theme park that is now closed.

I don't consider any cuts offen thriller to be olde friends but the ideas in those tunes are almost limitless in their way.

.

[miroslav]

I dunno...when Thriller came out...it was only mildly intersting to me, from an artistic perspective...otherwise, there was WAY better music being made than what Michael was doing

...but then, my musical focus was goin' in a much different direction back then.

 

Yes...Thriller is a very polished piece of work...thank you Mr Jones and Mr Swedien.

 

But as some have pointed out...it was mostly hyped to the top.

Not to mention the fact that it took advantage of the MTV craze...which I think helped a LOT to push it as high as it went.

 

Imagine if you didn't have all those "Thriller" music videos to go with the music...???

How interesting or memorable would those songs be...???

 

Michael...back then...was a great entertainer...but the music on it's own...?...

...just juvenile, theatrical pop...

...and that's exactly who ate it up and bought into the hype, and bought the records...

...the young kids.

Today...they are buying the Brittany Spears stuff and who ever else is "hot" right now in that "teen pop" genre.

 

And...what did Michael really do after "Thriller"...to solidify his artistic vision???

[shikawkee]

Wow, what a great thread!

 

Thanks to Bruce for taking the time and Craig for starting it. We should cherish people like Bruce who want to share their craft and knowledge.

 

So how about no compression in the new year?

[Steve Force]

I agree--this is a great thread! Thanks for sharing!

 

FWIW: If I personally had to chose the album I like better, I would pick Quincy Jone's "Back on the Block" over "Thriller"...

[Angelo Clematide]

Indeed its a fabulous thread, at least so far.

 

Intermediate thought i have:

 

Its perfect if engineers augment the music with sophisticated features and cutting-edge aural functionalities and then believe it has more effectiveness.

I dont give a damn if someone likes this or that record. For me a record can not be more then what cat food is in tv advertisment, no cat ever will think its real food.

 

Bruce has a system of values by which he lives, he calles it philosophy. He explained that pop music can be designed with a set of ideas. Consisting of things like, investigation of nature, logic, comprising aesthetics, researching principles of reality and engineering skills. He explained, that critical analysis of fundamental assumptions or beliefs are also part of the experience; this alone would make it perfect clear that one can call engineering a philosophy. Music is the shorthand of emotion, he even mentioned this old wisdom. For me its a positive surprise that there are engineers/personalities who work on such principles.

[Bruce Swedien]

Angelo Clematide.....

 

You are very perceptive and very kind.

 

halljams.....

 

What you said is the truth!

 

"No one is forcing anyone to make recordings loud or to listen to the radio etc.

 

I always thought the way it worked was that the radio has a power/on-off button and the owner is allowed to use it.

 

The problems with music these days directly reflect our problems as people in this society and what we focus on and where our attention lies and where it is drawn to(which btw is also our choice).

 

Lots of music sucks but lots of people are living shitty succkky lives, therefore music is functioning perfectly as an aural mirror for us to wallow in.

 

There are no problems with music i have decided."

 

You are absolutely right! There are no problems with music! The problems lie in the people that are trying to make music!

 

I have to go now folks. Later...... (Perhaps....)

 

Bruce Swedien

[KenElevenShadows]

"Thriller" was made by an artist at the top of his game, the biggest star of that time, so it has that weight and significance. The vocal performances and grooves are incredible, especially on "Billie Jean", which has got to be one of the all time greatest grooves. There are many other albums that have moved me far more than "Thriller", but it does have that going for it, and that's a helluva lot.

 

I also really like "Off The Wall".

 

It's a shame that MJ never did anything as artistically compelling after that (quite frankly, a lot of the stuff afterwards completely blows), although I think maybe "Man In the Mirror" came after that, which was a pretty great song.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I seem to remember you (Bruce) saying in an interview that you used to put MJ on a plywood platform while he was singing, and he would dance. The interviewer asked, "Well, doesn't the sound of his dancing get picked up in the microphone?" And you responded, "Absolutely, and I love it! I actually will mic his feet."

[robmix]

Regarding Thriller - I think it's difficult, if not impossible for an artist to achieve such a high level of perfection every time out. The Thriller team captured a moment in time that could never be repeated but I do think MJ has had moments of brilliance since. On Dangerous, "Jam" and "Remember the Time" are just incredible grooves, they sound amazing, and the vocals are great. On HIStory, check out "Smile", "Earth Song", and "Stranger in Moscow". The orchestral recording on that entire record is just brilliant. "You are not alone" is an incredible song and the mix is slammin', I could go on and on . . . . . . .

 

I think once you've had a "Thriller", and the bad publicity that MJ has endured, no new music could ever measure up in the eyes and ears of the public.

[Geoff Grace]

Originally posted by robmix:

Regarding Thriller - I think it's difficult, if not impossible for an artist to achieve such a high level of perfection every time out. The Thriller team captured a moment in time that could never be repeated but I do think MJ has had moments of brilliance since. On Dangerous, "Jam" and "Remember the Time" are just incredible grooves, they sound amazing, and the vocals are great. On HIStory, check out "Smile", "Earth Song", and "Stranger in Moscow". The orchestral recording on that entire record is just brilliant. "You are not alone" is an incredible song and the mix is slammin', I could go on and on . . . . . . .

 

I think once you've had a "Thriller", and the bad publicity that MJ has endured, no new music could ever measure up in the eyes and ears of the public.

I am admittedly biased because I didn't work on Thriller and I did provide some of the orchestrations for HIStory, but I agree with Rob's sentiment that MJ has created a fair amount of great music since Thriller. I also agree with Rob's notion as to why the public may have been less receptive.

 

BTW, welcome Bruce. I doubt if you remember me since I only flew out to New York a couple of times while working on HIStory, but I was fortunate enough to share the control room with you during the string session for "Stranger in Moscow." On another day, you generously shared stories with me on a break over matzo ball soup about when you first started out in the business.

 

Anyway, it was good to meet you then and it's good to see you online now. Thanks for giving back.

 

Best,

 

Geoff

[KenElevenShadows]

Originally posted by robmix:

Regarding Thriller - I think it's difficult, if not impossible for an artist to achieve such a high level of perfection every time out. The Thriller team captured a moment in time that could never be repeated but I do think MJ has had moments of brilliance since.

Yeah, agreed, I think so too.

There have been some great things since.

 

To me, some of the later stuff seemed forced, as if he were trying to toughen his image, and it often felt fake and contrived to me.

 

And then....well, things got a little strange...

[miroslav]

Originally posted by robmix:

...and the bad publicity that MJ has endured...

Don't say it like it's all been uncalled for!

 

I know that eventually a jury is going to give some final verdict...but...even before that happens, it's pretty clear the MJ needs help...and he's needed it for a very long time now, too...

...though his hyped image has allowed him to skim over the surface of all that "bad publicity"...

...as though he had nothin' to do with it!

 

Anyway...didn't want to segue into MJ's personal problems...

...just wanted to point out that if it wasn't for some special people around MJ...I don't think he would have gotten anywhere near the amount of recognition he has...and really, after "Thriller", it's been a consistent downward spiral for MJ...

...creatively and personally.

[Barandine Vondenger]

Originally posted by Ken/Eleven Shadows:

Originally posted by robmix:

Regarding Thriller - I think it's difficult, if not impossible for an artist to achieve such a high level of perfection every time out. The Thriller team captured a moment in time that could never be repeated but I do think MJ has had moments of brilliance since.

Yeah, agreed, I think so too.

There have been some great things since.

 

To me, some of the later stuff seemed forced, as if he were trying to toughen his image, and it often felt fake and contrived to me.

 

And then....well, things got a little strange...

theys cause bit by bit all the THRILLER talent left mikeyboy in the puddle of his crapulence.

including Q. and he went with whoever, expecting that Q magic and instead got OVERPRODUCED and MIS-MANAGED to deaf.and then there were them othre thangs .. .

[Tedly Nightshade]

Back in the 80s there was a sharp divide between bands that had come up together as a group and written their own stuff and performed it together before making the bigtime, and studio constructions involving pretty people who had a lot of help getting their music together, to the extent that it was theirs. In retrospect it's amazing so many for real bands with interesting music were so popular.

 

Thriller clearly pusheda pretty person very big on image with a lot of "professional help", and tons of big money hype. This was the era of the blockbuster albums where every song was supposed to be a single- Thriller was a lot better than Born in the USA and nowhere as good as the Pretenders, who had minimal, brilliant arrangements of incredible songs and very toned down videos to play the game with.

 

I think Thriller may have sealed the doom of the hopes of actual self-contained bands for getting into the spotlight, and set the standard for pretty people who look better than they sing or write to do big choreography productions with megahype. Maybe that has a lot to do with the current crop of dancers who pass as musicians... and it may have a lot to do with how even country records are deemed commercial failures if they can only sell hundreds of thousands of records.

 

BTW, is there anybody who believes MJ really came up with that guitar lick on Beat It? (Now there's a ridiculous tough guy pose for you all! What a relief it was to see Weird Al humping that pool table... )

[Anifa]

Ken mentioned "Man in the Mirror" and I must admit that I personally liked "Man in the Mirror" far better than any song on the "Thriller" release as far as "emotional" content and personal connection; Thriller inclusive. Materials from Michael Jackson's "Thriller" like "Billy Jean", "Beat It", "The Girl is Mine" and others were down right annoying to listen to... they were songs that made me reach for the dial to change the station. Every one of them other than the title track of Thriller made me cringe. The whole thing was "MANUFACTURED" from the get-go and it was blatantly obvious to anyone paying attention.

 

"The Girl is Mine" teamed with McCartney was a cheesey spin-off of Paul McCartney and Stevie Wonder's success with "Ebony and Ivory earlier in the year which topped the 1982 charts; second only to Pat Benatar's "I Love Rock and Roll". Thrillers' success was ALL ABOUT MARKETING and grabbing the names that were HOT to capitalize on several different audiences!!! Regardless of the engineering involved in the production of "The Girl is Mine"; it made absolutely NO DIFFERENCE in the listenability of the song. SYRUP, forced inspiration to appease the suits, or whatever; the song stunk and I changed the station or turned the radio off each time it aired!!!

 

For "The Girl is Mine"; the name "Paul McCartney", who had re-entered into the active music scene after the tragic death of John Lennon in 1980, reached out the masses of Beatles crazed fans who were in berievement from the loss of a loved one (although this is an opinion of mine and is strictly hypothetical). McCartney had not really had a hit since 1975 with Wings when he re-entered to cut a song with Stevie Wonder; Ebony and Ivory was the first tune from any Beatles member that hit the charts since the death of John Lennon and soared to the top of the charts. Quincy Jones probably looked at the success rate of the McCartney/Wonder single, as well as the notoriety of Paul McCartney's association with the Beatles, and jumped at the opportunity to reach out to the masses of Beatles fans that had long awaited a return of the Beatles that would now never come to pass. McCartney's return was HOT and Jones moved on it while the fire was still burning; hence re-igniting the POP era with the inclusion of a LEGEND involved in the mix.... the legend wasn't Michael Jackson!!!

 

Again, QJ recognized the success of Van Halen in the Rock scene with smash hits coming off of every album... In 1978, the self-titled Van Halen album was released and was one of the best-selling debut albums of all time. Runnin' With The Devil", "You Really Got Me", and "Eruption" swept the rock scene and put Van Halen in hot demand. Van Halen II (1979) featured the hit "Dance The Night Away". Then came Women And Children First (1980), Fair Warning (1981), and Diver Down (1982), all of which were platinum plus selling albums. Van Halen was one of the hottest Rock Bands on the charts. What better way to pull fans from the Rock genre into the marketing strategy of "Thriller" than to throw Eddie Van Halen's screaming guitar combined with Michael Jackson screaming Beat It into the mix? The song had a lot of energy with Eddie's guitar tracks and the production was incredible, but Michael Jackson screaming "beat it" just didn't do it for me. The song had about as much appeal as the song "Rollercoaster" and it's repetition over and over was nerve racking. Had it not been for Eddie Van Halen's "artistic" style of playing guitar; the song would have fallen flat on its' face. Appealing to the masses of Rock fans; the name and playing style of Eddie Van Halen, who "IS" a Rock Legend, sold the song; NOT Michael Jackson. Michael had not yet secured his title as the King of Pop at that time.

 

Of course, Quincy Jones himself had gained notoriety for hits like "Just Once" that had held it's place on the charts during 1982 and his name was also in the credits; appealing to fans of Jazz/Soul.

 

Last, but not least, the song Thriller.... who other than one of the most famous names in horror films, outside of Alfred Hitchcock and Borris Karloff, was elected to do the narrative at the tail end of the song???? VINCENT PRICE.... the mans' voice alone sent the adrenaline racing in anticipation of "what happens next"..... needless to say; Icing on the cake. Anyone that had ever been glued to their chairs watching a horror flick that Price had been involved in was immediately sucked into the marketing strategy... the THRILL and the excitement was depicted in the words of the song Thriller, the energy and excitement was there in the music, and the polishing touch of Vincent Price's narrative was PRICEless. Combined with a short dramatic and carefully executed film plan; the successful impact the video would have on MTV was inevitable.

 

The entire production of the Thriller was a guaranteed success with the design in strategic planning. Quincy Jones and his support team were expert decision makers and ingeniously engineered a marketing package that would sell to the masses. They did not cut corners in ANY area from the audio engineering, to the video production, stage craft design, and the selection of well known entertainers and legends to seal the deal of mass distribution.

 

There were a lot of good groups hanging in the charts during 1982 and into 1983 such as Benatar, Police, Yes, Stevie Nicks/Fleetwood Mac, Loverboy, Toto, BILLY SQUIRE, Alan Parsons, Rush, Survivor, Pete Gabriel, Don Henley, and many other GREATS during that era..... Jackson was not a GOD artistically above any of the others out there; he knew how to dance and put on a theatrical perfomance that could be captured in the art of new age videography and MTV. His willingness to put forward his own funds to help sponsor the project are probably what secured his success with the team behind him.

 

All things considered with the masterminded marketing; I never bought the Album/CD because the music did not move me... It was all HYPE and completely lacked EMOTION. This year on Halloween I heard the song Thriller and thought, at that time, I might consider picking the CD up for the sake of my children and entertaining on Halloween. It was cool to hear the song in an appropriate setting for the mood.... and for the first time I felt the emotion in the song.... "What a great song for a Halloween Party!!!"

 

I think that Jackson spoiled his success when he, or his advisors, slipped in and purchased the rights of most of the Beatles catalogue from ATV in joint venture with Sony Music. His share in the purchase was an estimated $47 million dollars while buying the rights from beneath Paul McCartney whom he had befriended, as well as the remaining survivors of the Beatles group, and yet he failed to realize what was a potential death of success trap with Sony. On Michael's last album, Sony loaned him the money to produce his album/CD with the Beatles catalogue posted as collateral; with the stakes involved with Sony standing in line to inherit the entire catalogue of those rights purchased from ATV ..... Michael Jackson's last album was a guaranteed failure; there was absolutely NO PROMOTION or MARKETING whatsoever.

[Lee Flier]

Originally posted by Brittanylips:

But down compared to what? Its like the stock market being down, but the economy is still miles above what it was 20 years ago, or 40, or 400. Overall, the music business is thriving, just not compared to the last 5 minutes.

OK, I'll take your word for it... in spite of massive layoffs at the labels, the tons of studios closing, the near empty clubs, concert tours being cancelled, etc.

 

Yeah. Retro is so in, its almost retro!

Doesn't say a lot for what's "current," does it? Not that I'm particularly fond of designations like "retro" and "in" anyway, but we're talking about the mainstream here. It's not unheard of for music to go through creative dearths either, but let's be honest, we are in one.

 

Apologies if I'm reading too much into this, but that seems consistent with your worldview! The music that seems to interest you, for whatever reasons (and Im sure theres many) seems to be the indy stuff. For all I know (for all you know), the lack of resources may have something to do with why you like them.

Not at all. It's true that I enjoy indie music more in the past 5 years or so, but that's a recent thing. I used to love LOTS of major releases (as well as some indie stuff), and I love a great production done at a big studio with a big budget and great producers and engineers, I really do. The majority of my very favorite records were done that way. Like I said, I would LOVE to see what some of the indie artists I like could do if they had all those resources. However, what I see now is that the big budget stuff mostly sucks, so I listen to the indie stuff instead, which I like better musically AND has more of a prayer of sounding like a real bunch of musicians playing together... whatever other sonic shortcomings it may have due to said lack of resources. I feel like I have to choose, in other words, between two things I love: great audio/production and great music. Music will win every time, but I used to hear lots more records which had both. And even a lot of today's supposed great productions really aren't, because of the technological state of flux you allude to... it's like the 80's when everybody fell in love with digital reverb and CD's mastered with horrible converters, everybody's in love with Pro Tools and Finalizers and just can't resist the urge to abuse them. I'll be happy when THAT passes, for sure.

 

So, uh, what would Lee Flier be like if she won the lottery, and had all the trinkets that she desired?

Trinkets don't interest me in the least, and I wouldn't be too much different except I'd record in some great studios and set up some of my favorite indie bands with the same... and I'd have a cool solar powered house.

[robmix]

Originally posted by Tedly Nightshade:

Back in the 80s there was a sharp divide between bands that had come up together as a group and written their own stuff and performed it together before making the bigtime, and studio constructions involving pretty people who had a lot of help getting their music together, to the extent that it was theirs. In retrospect it's amazing so many for real bands with interesting music were so popular.

 

BTW, is there anybody who believes MJ really came up with that guitar lick on Beat It? (Now there's a ridiculous tough guy pose for you all! What a relief it was to see Weird Al humping that pool table... )

Wow, we've probably descended into a conversation that Bruce may not want to participate in as he and MJ are long time friends and it serves no purpose for him to enter into a pissing match to defend Michael. But I will

 

Ted, I wasn't there for Thriller (I think I was 11 when they made the record, yeah, I know you have socks older than me Bruce) but I have been in the studio with the Glove and Bruce during the creation of a fair number of songs from -'94 until about '97. I started as an assistant and worked my way up under Bruce's tutelage (sp?) to programmer, engineer and even played a few guitar tracks. Michael actually does come up with incredible guitar parts as well as drums, strings, piano, and whatever else is needed. He'll sing every note and beat of song to his programmer du jour or the session musicians. In some cases he'll multitrack his beatbox and vocal melody lines then build the song piece by piece, choosing the appropriate sounds to replace his voice. It really is incredible !!!!! On one session MJ sang each note of every chord and passing tones to a session guitar player. Insane. On a horn session with Jerry Hey, MJ sang each note of a 4 part horn section line by line. And, Steve Porcaro once told me story where MJ sang each note of an orchestral arrangement to the arranger while the string players waited in the live room. And his time, his groove is just out of this world.

 

You may not like the man, you may not like the music, but his talent is beyond comparison.

[Tedly Nightshade]

Originally posted by robmix:

Originally posted by Tedly Nightshade:

Back in the 80s there was a sharp divide between bands that had come up together as a group and written their own stuff and performed it together before making the bigtime, and studio constructions involving pretty people who had a lot of help getting their music together, to the extent that it was theirs. In retrospect it's amazing so many for real bands with interesting music were so popular.

 

BTW, is there anybody who believes MJ really came up with that guitar lick on Beat It? (Now there's a ridiculous tough guy pose for you all! What a relief it was to see Weird Al humping that pool table... )

Wow, we've probably descended into a conversation that Bruce may not want to participate in as he and MJ are long time friends and it serves no purpose for him to enter into a pissing match to defend Michael. But I will

 

Ted, I wasn't there for Thriller (I think I was 11 when they made the record, yeah, I know you have socks older than me Bruce) but I have been in the studio with the Glove and Bruce during the creation of a fair number of songs from -'94 until about '97. I started as an assistant and worked my way up under Bruce's tutelage (sp?) to programmer, engineer and even played a few guitar tracks. Michael actually does come up with incredible guitar parts as well as drums, strings, piano, and whatever else is needed. He'll sing every note and beat of song to his programmer du jour or the session musicians. In some cases he'll multitrack his beatbox and vocal melody lines then build the song piece by piece, choosing the appropriate sounds to replace his voice. It really is incredible !!!!! On one session MJ sang each note of every chord and passing tones to a session guitar player. Insane. On a horn session with Jerry Hey, MJ sang each note of a 4 part horn section line by line. And, Steve Porcaro once told me story where MJ sang each note of an orchestral arrangement to the arranger while the string players waited in the live room. And his time, his groove is just out of this world.

 

You may not like the man, you may not like the music, but his talent is beyond comparison.

Amazing! I NEVER would have guessed from listening to his albums. Could be all the all-star heavy production actually really obscured what this guy was capable of! Makes you wonder what he would have been like leading a tight little band like James Brown did... And it makes you wonder what happened to the guy's music? It's easy to explain if you attribute the better parts to others, but not easy to explain in light of what you say here. Same thing happened to Jimmy Page though, to all appearances today... I suppose genius is a gift we are granted temporarily that we might lose the grace of at any time. That's been my experience anyway, and it seems to explain a lot in music history.

 

Bizarre footnote- if you play the 45 rpm single of Say Say Say at 33 rpm, it sounds really funky and cool, and perfectly natural- MJ sounds like one of the Temptations or something. Even the harmonica, whatever that painfully high one is, sounds right at 33 rpm... it's like the guy's whole world is sped up along with his living-chipmunk voice.

 

Sometimes a huge success can really oversell an artist- how to begin to live up to the hype? It happened to Peter Frampton! Could be it happened to MJ too. Maybe he would have had a long productive career making great music without the ultra-superstar thing? Sounds like there was more great music in this guy than we ever got to hear.

[Anifa]

Rob,

 

I hope that I'm not contributing to the "pissing match" with what I wrote above; I was just being honest about what I witnessed in the marketing of a very successful production. I am not at all suggesting that Michael Jackson is anything less than an incredibly talented musician because he does have a lot of materials that he has put out over the years that I "DO" like. I loved the song "Man in the Mirror", She's Out of My Life", and of course, the Michael Jackson that I will NEVER forget growing up with as a young child myself .... songs like "Ben", "My Girl", "Got to Be There", "Rockin' Robin" and other songs done by the Jackson 5 that helped shaped Motown.

 

Aside from all the bad things that have happened in Michael's life with both personal matters and publicity; he has carved a nitch in the hearts of many who will never forget the hours of entertainment he provided....

 

I just hated the OVER PRODUCED product that was as obvious as it gets in the marketeers capitalizing on the talents and screwing the artists in the end.

 

I truly feel sorry for Michael, as he has never had the opportunity to live a normal childhood or to have a personal life outside of the spotlight. His obsession with plastic surgery, in itself, allows many to read pain and suffering all throughout his life. A very vivid example of a man that had it all, but never found a way to self fulfillment and happiness. For those that are born into wealth/fame/and life that EVERYONE dreams about; some might be willing to trade it all for one moment of true happiness....

 

It is always easier to look at life through rose colored lenses and feel that the grass is greener on the other side. The thing is; those on the other side may be wishing the same in reverse.

[John Sayers]

Thanks for that insight Rob.

 

cheers

john

[Anifa]

I have read in the past where Michael sounded out the notes vocally that he wanted the instrumentalists to play. I believe I even viewed a televised episode of one of his recording sessions where he was doing the Bomp-shacka-lacka-lacka-bomp thing. It's been many years ago, but it was interesting; to say the least. To my knowledge, he has never had any formal music training... his talent is a gift.

[fantasticsound]

Originally posted by Ani:

...For "The Girl is Mine"; the name "Paul McCartney", who had re-entered into the active music scene after the tragic death of John Lennon in 1980, reached out the masses of Beatles crazed fans who were in berievement from the loss of a loved one (although this is an opinion of mine and is strictly hypothetical). McCartney had not really had a hit since 1975 with Wings when he re-entered to cut a song with Stevie Wonder; Ebony and Ivory was the first tune from any Beatles member that hit the charts since the death of John Lennon and soared to the top of the charts. Quincy Jones probably looked at the success rate of the McCartney/Wonder single, as well as the notoriety of Paul McCartney's association with the Beatles, and jumped at the opportunity to reach out to the masses of Beatles fans that had long awaited a return of the Beatles that would now never come to pass. McCartney's return was HOT and Jones moved on it while the fire was still burning; hence re-igniting the POP era with the inclusion of a LEGEND involved in the mix.... the legend wasn't Michael Jackson!!!...[/QB]

Uh.. Ani.. What planet were you living on from 1975 to 1982?

 

Among Paul's hits during that time were:

 

• LISTEN TO WHAT THE MAN SAID, released May, 1975, highest chart position: 1
  
• SILLY LOVE SONGS, released Apr. 1976, highest chart position: 1
  
• LET `EM IN, released June 1976, highest chart position: 3
  
• MAYBE I`M AMAZED, released February 1977, highest chart position: 10
  
• WITH A LITTLE LUCK, released March 1978, highest chart position: 1
  
• GOODNIGHT TONIGHT, released March 1979, highest chart position: 5
  
• COMING UP, released April 1980, highest chart position: 1
   
  

That's 7 top ten singles, including four number 1's, two others in the top 5, and a lone song at number 10 in the time you claim, "McCartney really hadn't had a hit."

While I have no doubt that marketing kicked in overtime on the Thriller project, no marketing could have sold that many albums without a solid product (at least in the minds of Michael's fans) to hawk.

 

As for getting Eddie Van Halen, Paul McCartney, as well as the dream team of Bruce, Quincy, and the epic list of A-team studio session players that were onboard, that was simply intelligent.

 

They got Eddie because he was the most popular guitar player in the world, with a fresh, (then) unique voice on guitar. Why wouldn't they have tried to get someone of this caliber? McCartney had discovered he could be successful with other popular musicians other than the Beatles. John's death had absolutely nothing to do with any of this.

 

It's not like the bulk of John's audience, post-Beatles, had a love of Paul's comparatively sappy melodies.

 

But you'd be a fool to watch Ishtar and assume Dustin Hoffman and Warren Beatty's careers were over, despite the massive, expensive train wreck. And the same was true of Paul. Despite the above mentioned success of some wonderful singles, his albums were a bit lack luster around 1980, in an era that was just beginning to dump AOR. Putting Michael together with Paul had a good chance of wonderful results. What's wrong with that? Ever hear of the Dream Team? We like to see the greatest talent work together toward a common goal.

 

I'm not a Michael Jackson fan. But Thriller, with or without the video, was a unique album in 1983 and '84. It caught the ear of a huge segment of my generation with intelligent arrangements, wonderful performances and recording, and at it's heart, great songs.

[Anifa]

Neil,

 

Don't suppose you'd accept a typo error on that post as it was meant to be 78 instead of 75 ... same as the Van Halen entry, but still, there is absolutely NO DENYING the strategic marketing involved by grabbing multiple BIG and successful names. Even with the typo, the first one you listed would have been included in the 1975 date... 76 is a given continuance of his fame, and from 77 to 80 there was not near the success rate for McCartney as what he had gained during the 75/76 period of time. McCartney was not racing to the top of the charts nearly as easily as what he had done in 75/76.

 

You cannot say that the death of John Lennon did not have anything to do with the people's hunger for anything from any Beatles member. I believe there were even interviews where Paul expressed his experiences in working with John Lennon.... McCartney was the "one" Beatle that was an artist at self promotion. Although I cannot pinpoint or name any exact instances; I "lived" through the publicity surrounding the entire era.

 

To add another very established name to the mix...... David Foster was involved in Thriller.