Jump to content
Please note: You can easily log in to MPN using your Facebook account!

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 14
  • Created
  • Last Reply
[quote] Is there really that tangible of a difference in "soul" between a recording session consisting of studio musicians and a 100% MIDIfied arrangement? [/quote]Absolutely not. I'd say the whole veneration of the "band" concept is misguided and naive. All the Motown, Stax, Philadelphia International, and Muscle Shoals/Atlantic stuff was session guys... did that have soul?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well of course there are great bands and there are crappy bands, and there are great session players and there are "generic" session players. BUT... given the best of both, I definitely still prefer music that is made by a great BAND, and yes, I think it has more of that "soul" thing going on. The band doesn't necessarily have to have been together from childhood like the Beatles or U2, although that seems to help because when you're teenagers you have more intense amounts of energy and time to spend together usually. I think the key is that people overlook the value of a lot of time spent. If you spend a LOT of time inside of a particular song and combination of people, you become intimate with them in a way that session players simply can't. That intimacy, I think, is what people think of as "soul". Yes there are players who are soulful in any situation because they are intimate with music in general, and with their instrument, but it's a fundamentally different thing when you've contributed to the arrangement and played a song a thousand times and come to know it intimately, than when you're stepping into a studio as a hired gun and hearing a song for the first time and maybe playing with the artist for the first time. What you'll play after hearing a song for an hour is not what you'll play when you've been playing it for a year or 10. The same thing goes for the intercommunication within the band - you WILL play differently with people you know intimately and have played with a thousand times, than with people you see occasionally in the studio. You will play differently with people you choose to play with, than with people that somebody else hired. And people who stay together in bands for the value of doing so, rather than for money, are going to produce something different from hired guns in most cases. There is something deeper at stake for them. --Lee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think on tracking sessions, the studio guys are primarily interested in giving the producer or artist exactly what they want. There could be a certain amount of soul in that, but not the sort you get from a group of guys that have lived and played together through thick and thin for years. On the other hand, check out some of the top studio guy's solo recordings. They can hand pick musicians they've tracked with forever, use material that means something to them personally and produce some fantastic recordings.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote]Originally posted by gratte: [b]All the Motown, Stax, Philadelphia International, and Muscle Shoals/Atlantic stuff was session guys... did that have soul?[/b][/quote]Ahh, I knew somebody would bring that up. The exception that proves the rule. Those guys were for all intents and purposes bands - they were just bands that backed different singers. It was still very much an intimate community of musicians who toured together, spent countless hours together in the studio, etc. It just happened to be a more organized and larger community than the average rock band. --Lee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote] It just happened to be a more organized and larger community than the average rock band. [/quote]Ok, very good point. I guess by 'band concept' I'm thinking the "4 doodz who hang out twice a week and drink beer, jam out" thing. I think the Motown/Stax "hit factory" idea of a band working with producers to interpret a tune by writers turns out way better music. Specialized divison of labor, and all that. Vocalists with cool hair and good abs that can jump up and down with a guitar convincingly might not be the best choice for writing poignant lyrics. Writers write, producers produce, players play, entertainers entertain. All important, creative roles. Awesome.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The past, present (and future?) Nashville sound is a prime example of that thought. Although I love the chops these guys have, to me its a bit overkill, and the trap that Nashville records has is it all sounds the same. Even the vocal styles are soooo similar, let alone the same exact guitar, piano, fiddle, steel, ect licks. Personally, I'd rather hear some good musicians that play good together and "finish each others sentences" musically than hear note for note perfection from a group who bore me to tears.
Down like a dollar comin up against a yen, doin pretty good for the shape I'm in
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We use a top flight rhythm section in Israel, and I've realized that the only reason why it ends up sounding the same is because the same 4-5 guys are always the ones to get the gig. This leads to them forming their own way of playing off each other. If we mix and match on the other hand - using different combinations of session cats, we get a much fresher sound on account of the spontenaiety of the new combination of musicians.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a rich and dangerous question. I'm sure there are many studio musicians who are great soulful players, great ensemble players, and guys who would take vibe over technical perfection any day. But the very fact that they're studio musicians means they're good at playing to someone else's specifications. I'm sure this can become soul deadening if you do it too long or without an outlet for less pressured and more self-motivated playing. Like :eek: Toto. Truth is, we probably wouldn't celebrate a band of limited and somewhat naive players, ala early U2, if they didn't have great songs to push forth with their limited and idiosyncratic instrumental abilities. So, in a sense, Soul is little more than a good song to play honestly and without regard for what the musicians in the crowd think of your skills. I think the Indie dogma has gone too far in the other direction, coming up just short of the implication that you *can't* play soulfully if you *do* have well rounded musical skills and knowledge, that soul is exclusively the domain of the "noble savage," the experimental naive. That's a dead-end aesthetic, and its proponents usually begin to recognize this at about age 40. I've known some arrogant and stupid jazzbos who almost bring me to the point of hating technique, but ultimately a broader perspective prevails. Of course studio musicians can make soulful and magical music, given the opportunity and conditions for it.
Check out the Sweet Clementines CD at bandcamp
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think a lot depends on the recording process - for bands and solo acts + cats. I've been a session player on recordings that really felt very band-like, and the result was really coherent and imaginative and "soulful." One in particular comes to mind - a guy booked a studio on an old farm in the Catskills for ten-days, all the players came and tracked parts up there. It was a beautiful fall week (before 9/11), and for all of us who participated in it, while we were tracking there was nothing else to do but focus on the music, hang out and eat/drink, maybe walk around in the woods. Great engineer, great players, really laid-back vibe - everyone got treated pro. And the result was really organic and coherent, and "bandish" sounding - even though I still haven't met a lot of the players on the tunes. I can hear Lee already: "that's the rare case ... " True enough; but my point is only that I think it's [b]possible[/b] for session-created music to live and breathe in the same way band albums do - but it requires some of the same elements that go into band albums (i.e. - creative space, sense of camaraderie, good food etc.). I find that sessions I play are really short on all of that. Most times, it's "bang, bang - sounds great, thanks a lot, here's your dough, on to the vocals ..." And you can usually hear it in the final product, no matter how well-played the parts are ...
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote]Originally posted by gratte: [b]I guess by 'band concept' I'm thinking the "4 doodz who hang out twice a week and drink beer, jam out" thing. I think the Motown/Stax "hit factory" idea of a band working with producers to interpret a tune by writers turns out way better music. Specialized divison of labor, and all that. Vocalists with cool hair and good abs that can jump up and down with a guitar convincingly might not be the best choice for writing poignant lyrics. Writers write, producers produce, players play, entertainers entertain. All important, creative roles. Awesome.[/b][/quote]Well... now I think you're oversimplifying the band concept. :D The specialization of labor CAN produce better work than a band. But you're presuming in your example that the studio cats are all smart and inspired and the band are a bunch of dumbasses who look good. I'm in a rock band with no outside support system, that gets together two or three times a week and does our thing, and likes to hang out socially too. We don't drink beer though, and none of us really has cool hair or particularly great abs (and my tits aren't that big either). :D But, we have an extraordinary relationship, no other way to put it. Yes, we have to wear a lot of hats - musician, songwriter, singer, producer, engineer, promoter and booking agent - some of which might be better done by somebody else. But, certainly the music is tangibly soulful, and people who see us pick that up without exception, and it's down to the trust and intimacy we have with each other, as well as musical skills. There are songs we've written that we played in other bands before and there are songs that we played when the band first got together that sounded "good" right away, just because we jell musically and are competent players. But the real "soul" is STILL being infused. We're still pulling emotions and new ideas out of songs we've been playing since we got together. This simply couldn't have happened in any context but a band, because the songs' development would have been arrested, as it were, by the limited amount of time spent working on them. To put it a different way: even the worst of the "specialized labor" organizations are going to be a lot better than the worst bands, just because they have certain minimum standard requirements that the independent band doesn't. But given the work of the BEST bands vs. the BEST session folks, I'll take the band. It just moves me more, period. To anybody in my band, becoming a session player would be a huge step backward no matter how great the artists were or how much we got paid. --Lee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm going to come at this from the other side. popmusic mentioned orchestral music, and that since the players didn't originate the music or arrangements, how can they have soul? I've played in concert bands, and I've seen my kids play in concert bands and orchestras. Great music reaches players no matter what. My kids get all hopped up about music that has emotion, is demanding, and speaks to them. And they respond (read: play) accordingly. I can tell from the audience when the group is into it - all the elements of music (even some of the less tangible) jump off the stage into my ears. Conversely, if the musicians or conductors aren't "into it" (regardless of the reason), they might pull off a mistake-free concert, but they're not going to move anybody. I suspect that it's the same in rock, regardless of whether we're talking about session musicians or bands (remember it took the Eagles a year to make The Long Run?). The first name that hit me when I read this topic was Steely Dan - I was listening to AJA - lots of different bassists (for example), but everybody responded to the music and circumstances, and cool, "soulful" music was the result. Long-time bands or a group jamming can connect or not connect. The problem is figuring out how to correct the situation when things get sterile. Some of the choices are to practice live (to force interaction), record in a more "live" situation, or change the arrangement (to stir things up). I'm sure there are other things you can do (having the right setting and pressure-control sounds good, like music-man's example). If it was that easy, we wouldn't all be able to name "flat" recordings.... Tom

www.stoneflyrocks.com

Acoustic Color

 

Be practical as well as generous in your ideals. Keep your eyes on the stars and keep your feet on the ground. - Theodore Roosevelt

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting question. From a producer's standpoint studio musicians are chosen according to who will bring the best feel or "soul" to the project. The idea is to assemble a group of people who will respond well to each other's creative interpretation of the material. Often the musicians have never worked together before and are forced to play outside of their usual "band" parameters, creating a unique musical dialogue for the project. It's tricky to cast the players correctly, but can result in extremely soulful performances by everyone involved. So the soulfulness and sensitivity of the musician is generally the determining factor in who gets hired. Nobody gets hired just to play the notes right.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote]Originally posted by Lee Flier: [QB We don't drink beer though, and none of us really has cool hair or particularly great abs (and my tits aren't that big either). :D [/QB][/quote]LOL!!! Lee, you sound like you'd really be a lot of fun to hang out with! :D

Super 8

 

Hear my stuff here

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...