And a friend / co-conpirator of Billy Harvey (they help each other out in the studio). Ladies and Gents', tables and chairs, please give a big hand to song-writer extrordinare, Bob Schneider. Here is the Amazon.com link to B. Schne's works. It seems I gravitate toward artists who work with other artists I like, such as guitarist Tim Pirce. He has worked with, among others, Toy Matinee and Tim Finn.
Gotta go write a couple of papers for school now!
Friday, April 29, 2005
Monday, April 25, 2005
Change the Channel
Saturday, April 16, 2005
More Music From The Past
Here are a couple of tracks from my Sand Diego band Rare Form, circa 1993. This is the cover band that I still belong to even though I now live in Fresno, 348 miles away. The tape this came from has four songs on it, but two are still missing the vocals. We only had a four track recorder and a few hours, so each song was recorded in one or two takes. These songs were pulled from an old cassette, so the sound quality is not as good as I would like. But I have spent a lot of time trying to improve the sound of the tracks using an audio editing program called "Cool Edit Pro". It amazes me what technology has brought to the average Joe's fingertips.
When I listen to the bass line on "Inspire Me" I almost believe that I might just be able to play the contraption. I am very proud of that one. I actually goofed a couple of times in the recording. At the beginning of the solo, on the second note, I play a "B" but I meant to play a "D". I used to be mad at myself for that, until one day (probably two years later I'm so dense) I realized "Hey, That actually works better than the thing I wanted to do!” Recording is like that. There are also some tasty slidey bass bits going on toward the end of the second verse. The funny thing is, I did not remember doing it when we recorded the song. Recording is like that. Sometimes you get in a groove while playing a good song and do little thing you're not aware of, but it's caught on tape. I had to sit down and learn the new part I created, but I didn't know how I did it! I just knew it sounded really good. And Cliff's guitar solo on this song is simple yet stunning. I never tire of hearing it!
When I listen to the bass line on "Inspire Me" I almost believe that I might just be able to play the contraption. I am very proud of that one. I actually goofed a couple of times in the recording. At the beginning of the solo, on the second note, I play a "B" but I meant to play a "D". I used to be mad at myself for that, until one day (probably two years later I'm so dense) I realized "Hey, That actually works better than the thing I wanted to do!” Recording is like that. There are also some tasty slidey bass bits going on toward the end of the second verse. The funny thing is, I did not remember doing it when we recorded the song. Recording is like that. Sometimes you get in a groove while playing a good song and do little thing you're not aware of, but it's caught on tape. I had to sit down and learn the new part I created, but I didn't know how I did it! I just knew it sounded really good. And Cliff's guitar solo on this song is simple yet stunning. I never tire of hearing it!
New CPG Song.
"Lucky" is one of the songs that will be on the new CPG album. Keep in mind this is only a rough track with almost no mixing or engineering. To those not familiar with music record techniques, this means that what you hear on this song is about the way it sounded when it was recorded. It hasn't been altered much at all. For example, when you hear a song on the radio, or play one from a CD, many of the sounds and / or instruments you hear on the recording has been modified in some way or another to get the music to sound a particular way. When you turn up the treble or bass controls on you stereo to get the music to sound better, you're mixing the song to get it to sound better (to your ears). Except in the studio we have a lot, and I mean A LOT more dials and knobs and things we can use to make a guitar or bass or vocals sound different. You may ask "Why bother. Doesn't it sound good enough already"? All you have to do is think back to the first time you heard your own voice played back on a tape recorder. You probably said something like "God, Do I really sound like that"?! And musicians are really anal about the way things sound, so this is one of the reasons that it takes a year or more to record an album.
Another reason albums take a long time to record is because the master recordings get destroyed due to a PEBKAC error, or as the Mate says, divine intervention (God is trying to tell you "YOU'RE BAND SUCKS!!!"). The hard drive our master tracks were stored on died. We lost three songs. Another band lost a whole album. Nothing could be recovered. This version of "Lucky" was one of these songs that got erased. When we record a song, each instrument and voice is recorded on its own track, keeping each part separate from the other. This is called Multitrack Recording. You do this so that you can change or alter the sound of one instrument or vocal (by using the dials and knobs mentioned above), or if you don't like the performance, you can re-record this track with out having to re-record everyone else's parts. The more instrument and / or vocals you have on a song, the more tracks you will have. We mixed all those tracks into two channels, left and right, and burned them to a CD. When you do that, you lost the ability to manipulate the recording because the separate tracks are on longer there. Remember when you were kids and had "Play-Doh" sets with four colors. And when you played with it, and made things, and then mashed all the colors together because it was fun. But then you couldn't make anything else 'cause you mixed all the colors and can't unmix them and get them back again? This is what this version of "Lucky" is --- mashed up "Play-Doh". We were going to do more work on the individual track to make the song sound better, but since the tracks are lost, this is what we have for you. So enjoy.
P.S. For Linux users, here is a more direct approach to get Lucky!
Another reason albums take a long time to record is because the master recordings get destroyed due to a PEBKAC error, or as the Mate says, divine intervention (God is trying to tell you "YOU'RE BAND SUCKS!!!"). The hard drive our master tracks were stored on died. We lost three songs. Another band lost a whole album. Nothing could be recovered. This version of "Lucky" was one of these songs that got erased. When we record a song, each instrument and voice is recorded on its own track, keeping each part separate from the other. This is called Multitrack Recording. You do this so that you can change or alter the sound of one instrument or vocal (by using the dials and knobs mentioned above), or if you don't like the performance, you can re-record this track with out having to re-record everyone else's parts. The more instrument and / or vocals you have on a song, the more tracks you will have. We mixed all those tracks into two channels, left and right, and burned them to a CD. When you do that, you lost the ability to manipulate the recording because the separate tracks are on longer there. Remember when you were kids and had "Play-Doh" sets with four colors. And when you played with it, and made things, and then mashed all the colors together because it was fun. But then you couldn't make anything else 'cause you mixed all the colors and can't unmix them and get them back again? This is what this version of "Lucky" is --- mashed up "Play-Doh". We were going to do more work on the individual track to make the song sound better, but since the tracks are lost, this is what we have for you. So enjoy.
P.S. For Linux users, here is a more direct approach to get Lucky!
Wednesday, April 13, 2005
Monday, April 04, 2005
Oh, Canada :-(
I stumbled onto this Canadian mess thanks to Glenn Reynolds @ Instapundit, who has more info about the scandal than I could possibly link to. It's a government scandal that has pitted a whole political party against the blogosphere. Guess who's winning.
Now governments, as a rule, can declare documents and testimony as classified or senitive, especially if they are deemed by the powers that be as damaging to national security and what. Many a conspiracy theory is based on lack of evidence due to restricted documents. For some, the less evidence you have, the more certain they are of the conspiracy. JFK, Jimmy Hoffa, and MLK assassinations are some examples. They were killed by dissatisfied secret organization within the government. There are even a few concerning 9/11. Either the Israelis did it to get the US to go to war in the middle East, or the US did it to either:
a) help bring more government investment to the military industrial complex (MacDonald Douglas and the like),
b) grab more oil from the region and help VP Cheney's pals at Haliburton (in which case GW should be impeached on his miserable failure to snag the oil, thus leading to $2.47 per gal. price of unleaded),
or
c) so Bush would be able to take out Saddam, revenge for plotting to take out his father, Bush the first.
The anthrax incidents were planned and executed by the Bush administration. Then there are the WMD's, or the lack there of. Bush lied of coarse, defining "lie" as a statement made KNOWING that it is false. But you wonder, if the US could pull of an anthrax attack in this country, and knowing that Saddam had no WMD's, couldn't Bush have planted a few WMD's and /or anthrax in Iraq to offer proof that he was right all along... SUCKERS!
Sorry, I was having fun at the expense of the paranoid. Anyway, can you imagine if the US government tried to put a gag on important info concerning Watergate. Oh wait, they did. BUT, processes were in place that allowed the free press enough access to get to the truth. In Canada, the state controls the press and its content, therefore has the potential to squelch information that would be harmful to those in charge. In the US, it's usually the other way around. The media will go out of their way to find and present info damaging to those in power, even if the information is taken out of context, does not amount to criminal behavior, or can't be verified (that's a nice way of saying they're fakes, Dan). Faulty sib's or children are a favorite: Patty Billygate (Carter), Davis-gate (Reagan), Neilgate (G. H. W. Bush), Rodgergate (Clinton), Jeanna-gate (G. W.). Anyway, thought the press tends to favor one party or candidate over another, or sometimes ignores things or gets it wrong, I'm damned glad we have the transparency of power (mostly) coupled with a free press in the United States.
Now governments, as a rule, can declare documents and testimony as classified or senitive, especially if they are deemed by the powers that be as damaging to national security and what. Many a conspiracy theory is based on lack of evidence due to restricted documents. For some, the less evidence you have, the more certain they are of the conspiracy. JFK, Jimmy Hoffa, and MLK assassinations are some examples. They were killed by dissatisfied secret organization within the government. There are even a few concerning 9/11. Either the Israelis did it to get the US to go to war in the middle East, or the US did it to either:
a) help bring more government investment to the military industrial complex (MacDonald Douglas and the like),
b) grab more oil from the region and help VP Cheney's pals at Haliburton (in which case GW should be impeached on his miserable failure to snag the oil, thus leading to $2.47 per gal. price of unleaded),
or
c) so Bush would be able to take out Saddam, revenge for plotting to take out his father, Bush the first.
The anthrax incidents were planned and executed by the Bush administration. Then there are the WMD's, or the lack there of. Bush lied of coarse, defining "lie" as a statement made KNOWING that it is false. But you wonder, if the US could pull of an anthrax attack in this country, and knowing that Saddam had no WMD's, couldn't Bush have planted a few WMD's and /or anthrax in Iraq to offer proof that he was right all along... SUCKERS!
Sorry, I was having fun at the expense of the paranoid. Anyway, can you imagine if the US government tried to put a gag on important info concerning Watergate. Oh wait, they did. BUT, processes were in place that allowed the free press enough access to get to the truth. In Canada, the state controls the press and its content, therefore has the potential to squelch information that would be harmful to those in charge. In the US, it's usually the other way around. The media will go out of their way to find and present info damaging to those in power, even if the information is taken out of context, does not amount to criminal behavior, or can't be verified (that's a nice way of saying they're fakes, Dan). Faulty sib's or children are a favorite: Patty Billygate (Carter), Davis-gate (Reagan), Neilgate (G. H. W. Bush), Rodgergate (Clinton), Jeanna-gate (G. W.). Anyway, thought the press tends to favor one party or candidate over another, or sometimes ignores things or gets it wrong, I'm damned glad we have the transparency of power (mostly) coupled with a free press in the United States.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
