Sinister: who loves the floyd??????
good evening to everyone. steven kado and i were having a bit of a DISCUSSION about pink floyd/production values. unfortunately he hasn'y replied to the last email i sent him (hello steve, are you there?) so i thought i'd edit some highlights and get everyones opinions. S.K. said >>>>> "ok. THE FLOYD: are (to me) a bad band. they are the bad band that i always associate with low budget surrealist prints. all that bullshit and bombast makes me ill. so far as i'm concearned pink floyd is whats wrong with radiohead and spritualized and all those bands that go so far to make things GRANDIOSE and then don't fill things up with grandness. to me floyd also stands for a particularily obnoxious style of production. like why do they HAVE to make records sound that way? why? it hurts me...." to which i replied >>>>>> "but the whole thing about radiohead is not supposed to be grandiose. its just complex, like the world and peoples minds, and the reason that (many) people think they're so brilliant is cos they seem to be able to translate some parts of this complex complex world into music that is not only beautiful, but heart-rendingly so. as for over-production, i'm not sure what to say there. there are pros and cons. just look at the differences between tigermilk and fold your hands..... if anything, i think tony doogans production of B&S is not right. it's too perfect, too rounded, too balanced. there aren't enough rough edges. like the bit at the start of tigermilk when you can hear stuart zipping up his cardigan before he starts to sing. thats so nice because its so personal. so in that case, i think tight production is wrong. but for radiohead its different. they're trying to do something totally different to B&S, and i think modern production techniques add to that, heightening the effect of the music or whatever. its silly to think of music in terms of production values. its about individual bands and the individual sounds they are trying to create. thats where production can make or break a band. i could go on at length, and start on my diatribe about the beatles and that release they did a few years ago, i think it was called REAL LOVE (?), when they remodelled abbey road studios to get the right sound (changing things like the pipes in the walls, so that everything was the same as it was in the 60's, thus acheiving a true 'beatles' sound. of course, it sounded awful by modern standards, and not even that similar to stuff they actually did record in the 60's, so, a failure, in theory) sorry. bit of a tangent there. just remembered that this is really about pink floyd. their production was very relevant to what they were trying to do at the time. it was all very experimental. even non-fans have to appreciate the fact that they were pionneers of music technology, even if you dont really like the end results. i guess what i'm trying to say is that i hate to judge everything by todays standards, and that context is so important when interpreting something like music, simply because it can be taken so many ways." so i'm just interested what other sinisterees think of all this kerfuffle, especially my thoughts on tony doogan etc. but i bet i wont get any replies this weekend cos most scottish folk will be at Twho love in the park, which i simply cant afford this summer, bugger bugger bugger. i hate being a poor student. anyway. any listees live in liverpool at all? since i'm moving there in september. autumnal picnics in sefton park might be nice. +----------------------------------------------------------------------+ +---+ Brought to you by the undead Sinister mailing list +---+ To send to the list mail sinister@missprint.org. To unsubscribe send "unsubscribe sinister" or "unsubscribe sinister-digest" to majordomo@missprint.org. WWW: http://www.missprint.org/sinister +-+ "legion of bedroom saddo devotees" "tech-heads and students" +-+ +-+ "the cardie wearing biscuit nibbling belle & sebastian list" +-+ +-+ "sinsietr is a bit freaky" - stuart david, looper +-+ +-+ "pasty-faced vegan geeks... and we LOST!" - NME April 2000 +-+ +-+ "peculiarly deranged fanbase" "frighteningly named +-+ +-+ Sinister List organisation" - NME May 2000 +-+ +----------------------------------------------------------------------+
Hello, Hrrm....for some reason I keep feeling like I should talk about Belle & Sebastian, and nothing else I can seem to think of feels like I should blurt it on out, you know? At 6:06 PM +0100 7/7/00, the original pixidustlady wrote:
if anything, i think tony doogans production of B&S is not right. it's too perfect, too rounded, too balanced. there aren't enough rough edges. like the bit at the start of tigermilk when you can hear stuart zipping up his cardigan before he starts to sing. thats so nice because its so personal. so in that case, i think tight production is wrong.
Okay, this is just plain wrong. I can see what you're getting at, but I really don't think Tony Doogan had anything at all to do with it or with that zipper. I mean, I don't *know* but there are some ink polaroids Stuart David wrote discussing Struan recording an ice cream bell during a song in Tigermilk. I think when they did Tigermilk, the band liked doing things like throwing in odd ambient noises...and they continued doing it, too, just look at "If You're Feeling Sinister," which sometimes I think is the best song they've ever done, just because of those kids in the beginning. Obviously that mysterious recorded party was one another attempt at throwing some ambient noise into a song, I wonder why they decided against it. Could the song be on a Loneliness of the Middle Distance Runner single? ;) Ambient noises really do add a lot to the atmosphere of songs, though, just have a listen to Let the Snakes Crinkle Their Heads to Death by Felt. One song features some seagulls and another features...guess....some people talking as if at a dinner party ;) Wonder where B&S got the idea... Anyway, I've always adored ambient noise in songs, and I'd go ahead and include samples in with that category. I tried to incorporate ambient noise into one of my own songs, and I think it really did a lot for it. I have this idea that someday I could make an entire album and go out and record various ambient noises to give the songs character, and write songs about the places or the people I recorded. But I'd need one of those DAT recorders I think, and those cost an arm and a leg. Someday, maybe. On to production values...tight and otherwise. I think people who don't know anything about the recording process tend to get caught up in the lo-fi versus hi-fi debate, decrying production and such. Myself until relatively recently included. But having actually recorded myself with shitty equipment, not by choice, I find myself wishing I had some better stuff. It's true that amateurish things in the recording process add to the intimacy of it, but these are more aesthetic values of the musicians recording than they are of which knobs are twiddled. Like when people talk at the end of a song and start asking one another what's going on. Cheap equipment, on the other hand, just tends to make everything sound muffled. I think in the end it's an aesthetic choice of what sort of production you're doing rather than hi-fi vs. lo-fi. Certain slickly recorded things have a certain nauseous feel to them, I agree, but certain records with really high production values sound fantastic. I just think it has more to do with the sort of production the producer is trying to achieve. And to this end, I think Tony Doogan does a magnificent job producing Belle & Sebastian, and Mojave 3 for that matter. I see the problem you're getting at though...a lot of Belle & Sebastian's newer songs tend to go for the soaring giddying heights rather than the intimate depths. And you probably miss that, as I guess we all do. Sometimes songs from Sinister seem like they're talking right too you, and to no one but you. FISHYCLAP, on the other hand, seems to make me think more of lots of strings and crescendos, and my life doesn't seem like it's about strings and crescendos, my life is laughing children and zippers. So on some level I guess it's hard to connect with these songs in the same way we used to. Anyway, I feel like I was on to something there, make your own conclusions. -- Brian Pennington, aka Mick McMick | cellophanesky@mac.com | ICQ# 39021436 Sandcastle Records: <http://www.indiepages.com/sandcastle/> the Cellophane Sky:<http://home.earthlink.net/~cellophanesky/the/index.html> "Better a tear of truth than smiling lies." - Duncan Browne +----------------------------------------------------------------------+ +---+ Brought to you by the undead Sinister mailing list +---+ To send to the list mail sinister@missprint.org. To unsubscribe send "unsubscribe sinister" or "unsubscribe sinister-digest" to majordomo@missprint.org. WWW: http://www.missprint.org/sinister +-+ "legion of bedroom saddo devotees" "tech-heads and students" +-+ +-+ "the cardie wearing biscuit nibbling belle & sebastian list" +-+ +-+ "sinsietr is a bit freaky" - stuart david, looper +-+ +-+ "pasty-faced vegan geeks... and we LOST!" - NME April 2000 +-+ +-+ "peculiarly deranged fanbase" "frighteningly named +-+ +-+ Sinister List organisation" - NME May 2000 +-+ +----------------------------------------------------------------------+
Hi all I don't post that often, usually just observing from the fringe, generally due to lack of time but the recent conversation of production values regarding Pink Floyd sparked my mind. On Fri, 7 Jul 2000, the original pixidustlady wrote: "their production was very relevant to what they were trying to do at the time. it was all very experimental. even non-fans have to appreciate the fact that they were pionneers of music technology, even if you dont really like the end results." With this I agree. When Pink Floyd released their first album the world didn't know what to expect. Some of the songs were fun and poppy in a Beatlesque way, like "Bike" which almost sounds like a song for children, and some were starting down the psychadelic explorations in sound which would became Floyd's trademark. Without great production albums like Dark side of the Moon which I consider one of the greatest albums of all time, would sound like crap. Just like the Pink Floyd's members were ahead of their time when their music emerged in the 1960's and still are in some sense, the production of Floyd albums was an extraordinary pioneering effort. I mean could you imagine being a sound engineer and having Pink Floyd walk into teh studio and start playing music like you've never heard before and be the one responsible for making sure all these strange new sounds were recorded well. The people who figured out how to make these wondering sonic journeys were genuises. And I mean both the members of the band and their producers. A band's production is like their personal signature. It gives their music an extra memorable flair. Without it they would just be making sound, not necessarily creating music. Belle and Sebastian are in the same way, they creating music that has their own personal flair such as the children's voices at the beginning of IYFS. Todd +----------------------------------------------------------------------+ +---+ Brought to you by the undead Sinister mailing list +---+ To send to the list mail sinister@missprint.org. To unsubscribe send "unsubscribe sinister" or "unsubscribe sinister-digest" to majordomo@missprint.org. WWW: http://www.missprint.org/sinister +-+ "legion of bedroom saddo devotees" "tech-heads and students" +-+ +-+ "the cardie wearing biscuit nibbling belle & sebastian list" +-+ +-+ "sinsietr is a bit freaky" - stuart david, looper +-+ +-+ "pasty-faced vegan geeks... and we LOST!" - NME April 2000 +-+ +-+ "peculiarly deranged fanbase" "frighteningly named +-+ +-+ Sinister List organisation" - NME May 2000 +-+ +----------------------------------------------------------------------+
This is my first post and I felt compelled to say something about the floyd discussion since all of my friends are raving fans while I am an avid hater of the band. I can admit that what some of you have said is true, you do have to give the band some credit for talent and innovation. But i also agree with what someone said about Floyd's art, my friends who are in to these guys are to into what they think is the "trippiness" of their artwork, movie, and tours. They believe that this adds to the greatness of their music. Now as some people may feel this is entertaining and nice to look at, which is fine with me, as i can to enjoy artwork relating to music, but shouldn't the band's greatness, if there is any, be judged strictly on the music. I was onced dragged to see Roger Waters in concert and felt completely let down, even though I didn't like the music. Waters and his band were almost lifeless and still in their performance and they did not seem to improvise on their music or even add any kind of flare from the studio recordings. The rest of my friends were so consumed by the "trippy" artwork on the screen, when of course they were tripping at the time. To this day they still talk about the concert's artwork and never mention the music from the show. I am sorry if this offends any Floyd fans, now don't think I have some personal problem with the band, if you dig there music that is great, but don't tell me they were the greatest band ever and then pursue to try and convince me it is not entirely because of their music. Also related to Floyd and my friends that cannot get enough of them is their lyrics. This kinda relates to any lyrics of anyone at anytime, my friends and I disagree on the importance of lyrics. They believe that if they didn't understand exactly what Waters meant when he wrote his tunes than they couldn't fully appreciate the songs. It is fine to read up on your favorite band and to understand what they felt when writing the music, but is this necessary? I feel that when listening to music, i.e. B&S, I can understand what the author means from listening to the music, and if I am wrong, which I am sure I am in most cases, does that matter. If i am wrong I am still getting some meaning out of the music that has something personal to me. I do also want to say something about B&S, someone recently said that the newer album may not have been as good because it doesn't relate directly to each person individually as well as the previous ones, I agree with this, I am sure for some people the music can relate personally. It just doesn't for me, don't get me wrong I think the album is fantastic and I love listening to it. But after finally listening to some of the older albums they have, after a few weeks of listening to nothing but FISHYCLAP, I realised that the other songs still mean more to me than these new ones, and I have a much easier time relating to it. Sorry if this was too long, Brandon +----------------------------------------------------------------------+ +---+ Brought to you by the undead Sinister mailing list +---+ To send to the list mail sinister@missprint.org. To unsubscribe send "unsubscribe sinister" or "unsubscribe sinister-digest" to majordomo@missprint.org. WWW: http://www.missprint.org/sinister +-+ "legion of bedroom saddo devotees" "tech-heads and students" +-+ +-+ "the cardie wearing biscuit nibbling belle & sebastian list" +-+ +-+ "sinsietr is a bit freaky" - stuart david, looper +-+ +-+ "pasty-faced vegan geeks... and we LOST!" - NME April 2000 +-+ +-+ "peculiarly deranged fanbase" "frighteningly named +-+ +-+ Sinister List organisation" - NME May 2000 +-+ +----------------------------------------------------------------------+
participants (4)
-
Brandon Berman -
Brian Pennington -
the original pixidustlady -
Todd M Herrmann