For all of the musicians on the board

techy question

Fri Aug 15, 2008 9:52 am

iscreamgenius wrote:
Beowulf wrote:
It reminds me of the tone and feel of Roger Water's vocal sound on 'The Final Cut' - was it the analogue mixing desk perhaps rather than the mic?
indeed, Final Cut is a very intimate vocal, I know Rog is quite the man for experimenting with new technology, a mate produced the very 80's Radio Kaos, and Roger wanted it to sound as it did :o which is kudos to Ian for doing what he wanted, lets face it if the Lord Rog tells you to JUMP, well you jump, as high as you can.
my guess would be a Neuman, something high end.


For some reason it's nearly always the vocals that end up making or breaking music for me - sometimes I don't even really 'hear' what the words are - but the tone and delivery of the vocal parts always act as measure for my attitude to the rest of the music.

Perhaps that is why I have a penchant for instrumental prog?

techy question

Fri Aug 15, 2008 8:10 pm

Beowulf wrote:
iscreamgenius wrote:indeed, Final Cut is a very intimate vocal, I know Rog is quite the man for experimenting with new technology, a mate produced the very 80's Radio Kaos, and Roger wanted it to sound as it did :o which is kudos to Ian for doing what he wanted, lets face it if the Lord Rog tells you to JUMP, well you jump, as high as you can.
my guess would be a Neuman, something high end.


For some reason it's nearly always the vocals that end up making or breaking music for me - sometimes I don't even really 'hear' what the words are - but the tone and delivery of the vocal parts always act as measure for my attitude to the rest of the music.

Perhaps that is why I have a penchant for instrumental prog?

Thats a very true observation, of course I agree, the vocal is the driver, the music the vehicle!

techy question

Sat Aug 16, 2008 7:14 am

iscreamgenius wrote:
Beowulf wrote:
For some reason it's nearly always the vocals that end up making or breaking music for me - sometimes I don't even really 'hear' what the words are - but the tone and delivery of the vocal parts always act as measure for my attitude to the rest of the music.

Perhaps that is why I have a penchant for instrumental prog?

Thats a very true observation, of course I agree, the vocal is the driver, the music the vehicle!


sorry guys I disagree... it takes a vocal and the music to make a good track.... unless its an instrumental.

The vocal delivers the emotion of the song....

techy question

Sat Aug 16, 2008 9:36 am

iscreamgenius wrote:
Beowulf wrote:
For some reason it's nearly always the vocals that end up making or breaking music for me - sometimes I don't even really 'hear' what the words are - but the tone and delivery of the vocal parts always act as measure for my attitude to the rest of the music.

Perhaps that is why I have a penchant for instrumental prog?

Thats a very true observation, of course I agree, the vocal is the driver, the music the vehicle!


.. er, yes (kind of) but not really what I meant. For me the 'music' (i.e., both) is the driver. But good music can be made or broken by the quality of the vocals or the style they are sung in. My attitude to Dream Theater (apologies for the mis-spelling; that's the way they do it!) is a case in point. To many of my friends' dismay I really rather quite like their output ... but I dislike the vocals to the point where I tend not to listen to their matrial much. Odd really as I like LaBrie's vocals on the Ayreon album 'The Human Equation'. I suppose what I'm dancing around the houses about is that for me the overall effect of and enjoyment from the music is a complex thing based on all sorts of likes and dislikes ... but disliked vocals can (for me) detract more from the overall effect of the 'music' than other elements ......... I think!
Last edited by Beowulf on Sat Aug 16, 2008 1:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.

techy question

Sat Aug 16, 2008 4:12 pm

Doc Bob wrote:
iscreamgenius wrote:Thats a very true observation, of course I agree, the vocal is the driver, the music the vehicle!


sorry guys I disagree... it takes a vocal and the music to make a good track.... unless its an instrumental.

or A cappella :)

techy question

Sat Aug 16, 2008 5:46 pm

Doc Bob wrote:
iscreamgenius wrote:Thats a very true observation, of course I agree, the vocal is the driver, the music the vehicle!


sorry guys I disagree... it takes a vocal and the music to make a good track.... unless its an instrumental.

The vocal delivers the emotion of the song....


Thats what I was saying, without being argumentitive ;)

techy question

Sun Aug 17, 2008 7:56 am

Beowulf wrote:
iscreamgenius wrote:Thats a very true observation, of course I agree, the vocal is the driver, the music the vehicle!


.. er, yes (kind of) but not really what I meant. For me the 'music' (i.e., both) is the driver. But good music can be made or broken by the quality of the vocals or the style they are sung in. My attitude to Dream Theater (apologies for the mis-spelling; that's the way they do it!) is a case in point. To many of my friends' dismay I really rather quite like their output ... but I dislike the vocals to the point where I tend not to listen to their matrial much. Odd really as I like LaBrie's vocals on the Ayreon album 'The Human Equation'. I suppose what I'm dancing around the houses about is that for me the overall effect of and enjoyment from the music is a complex thing based on all sorts of likes and dislikes ... but disliked vocals can (for me) detract more from the overall effect of the 'music' than other elements ......... I think!




well that cleared that up... I think... ;D

techy question

Sun Aug 17, 2008 9:10 am

tosh wrote: or A cappella :)



Strictly speaking, A Capella , means "in the style of a chapel".

Musicologists argue therefore that "A Capella" can actually be accompanied music, not just voice alone....

In the 50 and 60's those pesky amerikuns joined the two words Italian words together to make an new word "Acappella" and assigned it to the then rising fashion of street singing (which had no accompanist).

It was only then that Acappella assumed the meaning of singing without accompaniment..


This was grasped onto by some rap labels, who brandished the term Acappella on some of their recordings of pure rap, where there is no singing, and no accompaniment.

So you have to decide, do you wish to stick to the actual meaning and the correct term "A Capella" or another "Americanism/americanizm" "Acappella".

Me- I'll stick with the original - in the style of the chapel, where accompaniment is possible.


Weirdly and rather tenaciously, you could argue technically that Communion was "A capella..."
Last edited by docbob on Sun Aug 17, 2008 9:17 am, edited 1 time in total.

techy question

Sun Aug 17, 2008 11:59 am

Doc Bob wrote:
tosh wrote: or A cappella :)



Strictly speaking, A Capella , means "in the style of a chapel".

Well, not quite but I can't be arsed with the pedantry.(apart from pointing out the missing letter because it means I can say - Can I have a P please Bob?)
I'm sure you and everyone else knew exactly what I meant.

techy question

Sun Aug 17, 2008 12:48 pm

Ok, time for me to put my pendantic hat on. Sorry.

A capella actually dates back to around the 14th Century and it relates to the church music of that time.

Although I must agree that it can be taken as having an accompaniment, mostly scores are marked a cappella to indicate that there is no accompaniment at that point.

Pedantic hat comes off again

:P
Next

Full Version