| Author |
Thread: Archive through June 19, 2004 |
    
Gold Member Username: John_a
Post Number: 1194
Registered: Dec-03
|
| Posted on Sunday, May 23, 2004 - 03:37 am: |
|
2c,
Thanks. As I said also to Sem, I am receptive to irony, just not SACD (just as big smiley thing).
I have to duck out, just as this is warming up. It is getting seriously into Sunday over here. I owe Jan replies to direct questions in a post several yards up the page, and his ambisonics link is serious stuff, should only take a week to read.
Speaking of ducking out, if Gregory shows up, my gauntlet is still on the table: May 22, 2004 - 09:25 am. He will understand. Friend and adversary: You can run, but you can't hide, |
|
Relevant Product Info
|
|
Silver Member Username: Kegger
MICHIGAN
Post Number: 304
Registered: Dec-03
|
| Posted on Sunday, May 23, 2004 - 04:21 am: |
|
no i do not take your question to me an attack.
i just think you and i are looking for different
things.
i do not enjoy going to concerts nor do i like
how they sound "most of them" i feal i can make
better sounding music at home.
personally if an album is live or studio i buy
the studio version to me it is usually a cleaner recording.
so no i do not base my whole listening experience
trying to recreate a hall that might have recorded
the concert.
do i think we need a reference point to base what
stereo should sound like so we are all given the
same experience from our recorded music? yes.
so we have proper phasing and eq and imaging.
so we can all start from the same place.
fine we have that allready.
now take that same recording put it on higher rez
material and give me an experience i can't get at
a concert.
i don't think anyone hear including me says that
a band should make all their albums surround but
why not take that favorite music you like that
you have listened to many times over that you
know exactly where everything is and move some
of the instuments around to other places in your
listening room.
i believe in the change of multichannel, i enjoy
it and if the engineer is not trying to recreate
the concert i'm fine with that.
do i think that multichannel should not be held
to the same truth as stereo yes! how can it be!
as you said at a concert you usually do not have
intruments in back of you or on the sides but
does this mean we shouldn't just because we don't.
maybe we should then it would be something.that
is how i look at multichannel music.something we
can't get from stereo.
and i do not believe in having to comform to the
way we have been doing things for centuries. what
if we have been doing it wrong?what is right?
i think that is where we differ you have an idea
of what something "should sound like" and base
the listening experience on that.where i do not!
i do not mean that as you are wrong or that i am
right.
it just seems you put more emphasys on the music
needing to conform to a certain standard than i do.
to me the goal of audio should be to give you
something you like to listen too.
i enjoy putting in music and being surrounded by
it without it having to have an agenda or rule
to follow.
take that same tv you mentioned listen to it with
2 speakers and listen to it with surround on it's
much more exciting with surround.
i just believe like surround was a progression
for tv that surround is a natural progression for
music.to make it more exciting and entertaining.
|
Silver Member Username: Kegger
MICHIGAN
Post Number: 305
Registered: Dec-03
|
| Posted on Sunday, May 23, 2004 - 04:23 am: |
|
the above was meant for jan.
and jan i do not mean a slam on you either.
just expressing what i feal your and my differnces are.
look forward to your response! |
Silver Member Username: Kegger
MICHIGAN
Post Number: 306
Registered: Dec-03
|
| Posted on Sunday, May 23, 2004 - 04:52 am: |
|
one last thing i thought of.
I am in the computer industry where it is allways changing and evolving.
i do not question whether or not it is good for
the industry. i have to follow it.it's my job and
if i don't keep on top of it i will be lost.and
for the most part everything that comes out new
is an improvemeant and becomes a new technology
that enhances the old.
so maybe that is why i look at audio the way i
do!"allways looking for the new improved thing"
and striving to get more out of my setup! |
Silver Member Username: Ghiacabriolet
NC
Post Number: 104
Registered: Apr-04
|
| Posted on Sunday, May 23, 2004 - 05:26 pm: |
|
Gentlemen,
Yesterday I had a moment to get online and had composed a response to JohnA's comments about his skepticism of the technology's "service" and the "real agenda". Unfortunately, due to a little bit of a hangover :-) I shutdown the computer without first posting the message. Today, what I said doesn't seem so earth shattering so I won't attempt to repeat it.
Jan,
I think I've avoided the "big box in the center" syndrome. My "entertainment center" is actually a TV "box" flanked by matching bookcases. I bought it a couple of years ago for two reasons:
- It was shorter and less hulking than typical entertainment centers
- It was built by Robert Bergelin Company, a small NC furniture company that builds excellent quality furniture. One day I hope to furnish my entire house with their furniture - but I'll need a lot more money than I have now.
Anyway, the entertainment center is only 48" tall so I have the front and center speakers sitting on top of it and there's nothing between any of the speakers. The only concern I have with this setup is the speakers are about a foot higher than they would be if they were on stands. I may have to get a hydraulic chair to achieve optimal listening position....hehehehe.....I'll post a picture later this week.
BTW, Jan, thank you for the detailed information about the sub setup. I have followup questions that I'll try to post later this week.
For now, I must return to my studies. I look forward to getting them and the tests finished so I will have more time for listening to music and keeping up with the forum. |
Gold Member Username: John_a
Post Number: 1202
Registered: Dec-03
|
| Posted on Sunday, May 23, 2004 - 05:46 pm: |
|
Kegger,
It's OK, I understand, and I'll bet you Jan V. does too. You have to allow the computer industry has produced some junk, too. It is telling which is which that is the problem. I listened to Pink Floyd TDSOTM today, on CD. Really good, and no point in pretending there was ever a live perfomance. None the worse for that. Will post back on this.
Jan, going back to Saturday, May 22, 2004 - 03:15 am
"Any takers?"
Yes. I refer to the best DVD-As I have, This is maybe five out of about ten altogether, so far. One is the closest to being there I have ever experienced in sound reproduction; I have not been to that exact venue, but many like it, and have numerous recordings on Lp and CD made exactly there, going back to the early 1970s. They are all pretty good, really. The worst is startlingly clearer than CD, marred only by the engineers being cloth-eared clowns with no interest in, or understanding of music. Or sound. Or people.
"Do you sense the music rolls down and through a space or are you hearing front and back and that is what you were expecting so that's close enough for your brain?"
It rolls down through a space. I do not listen to the speakers themselves. I had few expectations, except liking the music and a lot of years of listening to stereo, and similar concerts (fewer in recent years).
"Are you hearing an acoustic space that the performers existed in or are you hearing front and back?"
The former. Only because I can hear, or at least get a sense of, the latter. This is not either/or.
"What steps have you taken to achieve this result?"
Set up my surround system as if it were four stereo systems, one on each side of a square (rectangle, really; compromise with living space), with me in the middle. Cutting down room reflections as much as practable (consistent with letting in daylight when available and having the whole family use the same room to watch movies, too, at other times).
"Does anyone have a great story about a breakthrough in recreating the space top to bottom and side to side?"
Side to side, yes; front to back, yes; top to bottom, no. There are some reflections from V-shaped wooden ceiling that probably emulate some height information.
"We've pretty much agreed that the mix is still the key to good surround sound and most mixes don't convince us. Am I correct?"
I agree, at least. If , by "mix", it is of channels from the right microphones in the right place at the right time.
"So, what's lacking?"
I am still trying to see how far it will go. In half the cases (5/10), what is lacking is any understanding of sound and music on the part of the recording engineers, who cannot ever have experienced a real performance, and move different performers, at different times, into a centre-channel spotlight , as if the whole thing was performed on a split revolving stage as in those music hall venues of long ago, with individuals (often the wrong ones) viewed through a magnifying glass. They tend to zoom in on harps, I notice, if they are present. Perhaps it is the harpist they fancy, and they have a weakness for giantesses.
"What needs to happen to make this really convincing in terms of what you can control?"
I don't want control. I want neutral, uncoloured rendition of the performance the engineers recorded as accurately as they could.
"What still needs improving in your opinion?"
Don't know. I will think of something, eventually.
"And, finally, yes, finally, where are the engineers who know how to make this work?"
One I can recommend:
http://www.kaproductions.co.uk/
Can't find links to some other unsung heroes. See other link, below.
"Are you finding a particular label or engineer/producer that has the touch?"
Naxos when from K&A (see above link).
Coro : http://www.the-sixteen.org.uk/ecommerce/system/index.html
(they have only done one disc in surround so far: the DVD-A I have is my all-time number one for sound quality, ever - see May 13. You may not like/know the music. Get it for the brilliance and purity of the surround sound; it will bowl away all reservations. You may end liking the music, too).
If this stalls, I will come back on the subjects of Pink Floyd, Sem, Alan Parsons, and whether we need accurate, distortion-free reproduction of distortion (e.g. from an amp fed a signal from a Fender Stratocaster). or whether distortion sounds better when, itself, distorted.
It's a strange business. |
Silver Member Username: Rick_b
New york
Usa
Post Number: 221
Registered: Dec-03
|
| Posted on Sunday, May 23, 2004 - 08:45 pm: |
|
JohnA.,
Yes, there is the paradox. The human ear sometimes hears harmonic distortion and soft clipping as desireable in our music, but don't want it in our musical reproduction equipment. |
Gold Member Username: John_a
Post Number: 1205
Registered: Dec-03
|
| Posted on Monday, May 24, 2004 - 01:20 am: |
|
Thank you, Rick!
.... And: a preference for distortion illustrates the power of psychological association. It is the brain, not the ear, that does that. So we can genuinely prefer bad sound. "Bad" is this year's "Good". Understanding this can solve some repeated problems on this forum, I think.
Personally, during those great solos, I wanted to get up there and have a look at Mr Gilmour's amp, maybe get it checked over by Marshall or whoever, or take it apart to see what had failed. To me, it was destroying inspired playing. But I do not have the association. I predict you and Sem do, and would prefer it like that.
I can see exactly why The Dark Side of The Moon is a must for people interested in surround sound.
It is the exact opposite of the Thomas Tallis disc - there never was a real performance. The DSOTM album does not even pretend there was. Also, in the original, they spend half the time self-consciously fooling around with stereo effects, as part of the programme itself. If someone like Jan were to say "sounds better in stereo" the answer is "of course it does; that is what they intended".
What you would have to do is get Pink Floyd and Alan Parsons together, and ask them if they would like to have another go, but in 5.1. My appreciation for that wonderful album is such that I would expressly forbid anyone else from touching it, with severe penalty. Especially that clown in LA who did the CD version. I can say that, not having heard the original LP. I should want, first, to get the LP, to understand fully the artists' original intention. In fact, I mean to.
I am only just warming up on the Dark Side of the Moon. I loved it. Totally. The songs say many of the things we have been banging on about on this forum, but so much more elegantly and beautifully. "Money", "Us and Them", "Brain Damage", "Breathe" - I feel I'd like to quote them. They are exactly what we have been discussing. And, surely, we could almost just end this thread with "Time". There is almost nothing more to say.
Except...., the pillock who transcibed "in a relative way" as "in the relative way" in "Time" should be shot at dawn. He did not understand; was not listening, probably; had no right to interfere. There are so many irritations like that, I am tempted to burn the booklet.
Good to end with a buzz.
I'd love Sem to comment, and maybe say something about the different versions. I can't possibly get all six. Who mixed the DVD-A? Or is it really SACD? Where can I get the LP?! |
Silver Member Username: Myrantz
Post Number: 293
Registered: Feb-04
|
| Posted on Monday, May 24, 2004 - 02:20 am: |
|
John A and Sem
Listened to DSOTM about a week ago on DVD-V - well almost did but gave it the flick because of the poor sound and all the BS in between. It might interest some but I was hoping for just the music - like the album/cd only better. DSOTM is one of my all time favourites but thank goodness we just hired it!
When I buy music DVD's I like to watch and listen to the music. If I want all the technical and "deep insights" I'll read any supplied text. One should listen to the crap Donald Fagan and Walter Becker ramble on with on the "Two Against Nature" DVD-V - great recording spoilt by these so called 'educated' musician's egos in between songs and I have to overwork my remote finger to enjoy it. But that's me. The only music DVD where I enjoyed what the musicians had to say was "The Last Waltz" where the guys were just themselves - down to earth. But, who wants to hear what they say over and over again? Why not have all the guff after the music like they do for movies - a discography section. Then everyone is happy - well me at least.
There are some excellent lyricists and composers within the 'Rock' world, but many (and I don't mean Gilmore & Co) seem to think they are philosophers of note. It usually sounds similar to art critics rambling on about some paint thrown on a canvass and selling for some obscene amount of money (eg Pollack). Nothing irritates me more. |
|
|
Gold Member Username: John_a
Post Number: 1207
Registered: Dec-03
|
| Posted on Monday, May 24, 2004 - 03:50 am: |
|
Quite right, My Rantz, I totally agree. A performance that needs some clown explaining his world-view in between can't have much to say in the first place. As for critics. The number of times I have shouted at the TV/radio something like: "Just get one with it. Later, I might just be willing to listen to YOU trying to play the guitar as well as that. But not now. Please shut up".
I did not know there was a DVD-V of DSOTM. That is clearly one for laying down and avoiding.
Thanks, "Gilmore". Sorry, Mr Gilmore. |
Gold Member Username: John_a
Post Number: 1211
Registered: Dec-03
|
| Posted on Monday, May 24, 2004 - 05:54 am: |
|
BTW, MR, I would say Gilmore, Waters et al were indeed "philosophers of note", maybe not even knowing it. Also agree about art critics. Ernst Gombrich (RIP) was a good one, and would probably have said much the same as you on that subject. I think "art" is bit like "classical" music; the encircling barrier of bullshit is just too high for most normal, intelligent people, who conclude there is nothing behind it. |
Silver Member Username: Rick_b
New york
Usa
Post Number: 222
Registered: Dec-03
|
| Posted on Monday, May 24, 2004 - 06:19 am: |
|
JohnA.,
Nothing really failed with Mr. Gilmore's vintage Marshall or Fender tube amp. You are just hearing the warm harmonic distortion, of tubes being over driven. DARE I SAY IT? Have we finally exposed the audiophile tube lovers? Think about it.
BTW, DSOTM is a wonderful piece of work, not not Pink Floyd's best work IMHO.
Cheers! |
Gold Member Username: John_a
Post Number: 1212
Registered: Dec-03
|
| Posted on Monday, May 24, 2004 - 09:03 am: |
|
Rick,
I am not totally off another planet: I know about distortion controls, reverb settings, wah-wah peddles and that little lever on the instrument that increases the tension of the strings momentarily, returning them when you release it, having taken them out of tune a little. I forget its name. It was the trademark of Hank B. Marvin and the Shadows, inter alia. I used to play in a bad pseudo-Motown band long ago (when it was still fashionable), and have dabbled in an absurdly broad range of music over the years. Jack of all trades. Still, I've got Sunshine, on a Cloudy Day.
At the end of one track on the CD, Pink Floyd do a very camp thing; they have a long chord from a piano, and they raise and lower the pitch to suggest a huge piano has one of those little levers. You can hear a digital filter (I think) come on to let them produce that effect, and it stays on as the chord fades away, and you can stil hear a fizz at the end. Did they/Alan Parsons intend that? I shall have to try the LP, and see if it was there in the original.
I take your point completely! The above is another example of why it would be futile to approach the recording as a recreation of a real performance. If you think of it at all that way, as most people still did in 1973, I suspect, you are intended to be shocked and surprised by all the muttering, helicopters, and ping-pong stereo effects. That self-conscious "look what clever things we can do" is fun and OK if you try to look at it in its time and place (e.g. Sgt Pepper, too; same recording venue etc, five years earlier; detectable musical influences, too), but all that no longer surprises, after 30 years of endless stereo trickery.
I suppose we have all that coming round again in surround sound! I am getting more inclined to the Jan Vigne view on surround. Except for that Thomas Tallis DVD-A, and a few others, which show what can really be done greatly to enhance "real" music.
Which other Pink Floyd LPs would you recommend? The Wall? I do mean to try to track down Ummagumma (? sp.). |
Bronze Member Username: Sem
Post Number: 97
Registered: Mar-04
|
| Posted on Monday, May 24, 2004 - 09:08 am: |
|
Not much time this morning, more later...
John A. Rick, My Rantz, and others that may be interested, for song by song comments by Parsons of the James Guthrie surround mix of DSOTM,
Check out http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/article.asp?section_id=1&article_id=444&page_nu mber=2&preview=
Also, while no one can mistake Gilmour's unique guitar work, I think it would be safe to say the real "conceptual creative" force behind PF would be Roger Waters. If in doubt listen to The Wall, The Final Cut, and the under-appreciated Amused To Death. Though the subject matter is dark and guaranteed to bring you down, few can write lyrics as powerful as Waters does, IMO. |
Bronze Member Username: Black_math
Post Number: 98
Registered: Dec-03
|
| Posted on Monday, May 24, 2004 - 09:10 am: |
|
I think Pink Floyd is one of those bands that are best enjoyed through a good pair of headphones with the lights down low (and I don't mean through a walkman or MP3 player). I reccomend listening this way with albums like Meddle or Atom Heart Mother (I agree with Rick on DSOTM). Of, course I don't think these albums in 5.1 surround will sound very good through cans. |
Gold Member Username: John_a
Post Number: 1214
Registered: Dec-03
|
| Posted on Monday, May 24, 2004 - 09:40 am: |
|
REL subwoofers:
http://www.rel.net/
Is that the opening of TDSOTM, looped? Awful, imho, brings REL right downmarket.
Sem, I too must be brief. I will look out for your next report! Thanks for the link! I thought Rick was correcting me with "Gilmore".
Ben, headphones is another whole topic. There are surround headphones, too. The first thing I ever heard on stereo headphones was Ummagumma, newly released. I still don't care for headphones, personally.
Thanks, all. Must leave. |
Silver Member Username: Kegger
MICHIGAN
Post Number: 307
Registered: Dec-03
|
| Posted on Monday, May 24, 2004 - 10:07 am: |
|
rick .
just in case anyone didn't know.that is the
sound that tube lovers enjoy.it's tubes overdriven to clipping.
"soft clipping" tubes do it with a harmonic that
is said to be pleasing while solid state does it
sharply and harsh.
john.
imho the best pink floyd album is called animals
and my favorite track would "pigs 3 different ones" |
Silver Member Username: Rick_b
New york
Usa
Post Number: 223
Registered: Dec-03
|
| Posted on Monday, May 24, 2004 - 10:15 am: |
|
Sem,
Thank you! I have finally found a true believer. Roger Waters IS the true creative force behind Pink Floyd.I mean no disrespect to other members of the band, but it is Mr. Waters who gives us the glimpse into insanity, that keeps us from it. Did we ever truly thank him for "THE WALL"? He invited us all in for a close up look into his tortured childhood/soul. How could he ever hold it together after that project. Am I the only one who really heard all the anger, rage, and pain in the line "daddy what did you leave behind for me"?
Powerful stuff. Thank you, Roger.
JohnA.,
Certainly did not mean to sound like I was trying to correct you, my friend. I really was just taking a shot at the tube amp die hards. As to Pink Floyd, check out The Wall, as well as Wish you were here.
Ben,
I find many fans under appreciate Animals as well.
I saw them do the Animals tour. Great stuff. Never really cared for the group after Roger Waters left. |
Silver Member Username: Rick_b
New york
Usa
Post Number: 224
Registered: Dec-03
|
| Posted on Monday, May 24, 2004 - 11:08 am: |
|
Kegger,
You are right on the money my friend. If you try to tell tube amp lovers that they enjoy listening to harmonic distortion and soft clipping, they will fight you tooth and nail.
P.S. As I said in a post above, I agree with you on Animals. |
Bronze Member Username: Black_math
Post Number: 99
Registered: Dec-03
|
| Posted on Monday, May 24, 2004 - 11:23 am: |
|
To me, Animals marks the point in which the rest of the Band became session musicians for Waters. I like the stretch of albums from Piper to Meddle the best.
It would be interesting to see how the band would have evolved if Barrett wouldn't have lost it. |
Silver Member Username: Kegger
MICHIGAN
Post Number: 308
Registered: Dec-03
|
| Posted on Monday, May 24, 2004 - 11:37 am: |
|
you got it rick the animals album rocks!
i love the way floyd does albums based on themes
or joining the songs together.
they just seem to flow so nicely.truly one of my
favorite bands.
as i posted on another thread lately i revisited
"okay cut me some slack hear" tracy chapmin's crossroads album.
truly if you have not heard it pick it up you will not
be disappointed.(even if you don't normally like her)
it is a great sounding album. |
Silver Member Username: Rick_b
New york
Usa
Post Number: 225
Registered: Dec-03
|
| Posted on Monday, May 24, 2004 - 12:22 pm: |
|
Ben,
I agree, too bad, we will never know.
Kegger,
Yes, intertwined themes. Don't all their albums tell a story?
I have always enjoyed Tracy Chapman, a very talanted singer/songwriter IMHO. |
Silver Member Username: Myrantz
Post Number: 295
Registered: Feb-04
|
| Posted on Monday, May 24, 2004 - 12:54 pm: |
|
Jan Vigne
www.ambisonics.net must have forgot their domain name renewal?
John A
The lever thing for stretching guitar strings is a tremelo (tremello?) - in case you're wracking your brain. Drives me mad sometimes! I recall my youthful guitar days with some of those sound goodies. Attracted a lot of attention - so the police told me!
Guys - good version of PF's Money in the Italian Job remake. Good version of Charlize also.
Does anyone know: was Floyd really pink or how did they come up with the name? |
Bronze Member Username: Sem
Post Number: 98
Registered: Mar-04
|
| Posted on Monday, May 24, 2004 - 01:07 pm: |
|
Rick,
"daddy what did you leave behind for me"? Very powerful indeed. Or one of my favorite lines,
"Did you ever wonder why we had to run for shelter when the
promise of a brave new world unfurled beneath a clear blue sky?" Which speaks of youthful innocence lost under a barrage of falling bombs during WW2. It was but another brick in his wall.
Kegger,
Animals is also one of my favorites, (as most of them are I guess). It would be no easy task rating my top 5, much less picking a favorite.
Ben,
"To me, Animals marks the point in which the rest of the Band became session musicians for Waters." I'm sure there's a lot of thruth in that although we may never know how much each of the members actually contributed to earlier albums, credits aside. There may have been a Lennon/McCartney thing going on there. Though its certain that Waters certainly took far more than a casual role in his final few albums with PF.
John A.
I know exactly what you're talking about at the end of (was it) Eclipse? I read something about that recently, someone asking the same question, "was that intentional?" I see if i can dig it up.
Recommendations....I usually suggest DSOTM and Wish You Were Here as jumping off points for newer listeners. Then expand outward from there. Though you don't necessarily qualify as a new listener. Particularly if you've listened to Ummagumma through headphones. Isn't it great how the peaceful, meandering "Grantchester Meadows" moves into the mind-blowing "Several Species..."? I have never heard anything before or since quite like that. That album was my first introduction to Floyd as well. Its available on cd.
Some DSOTM tidbits,
An average of 8000 copies of DSOTM are sold each week in the US alone.
According to the December 1, 2001 issue of Billboard, Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon has been on the charts for an astounding 1,285 weeks. That's just under 25 years! Note, those are not consecutive weeks as sales dropped off in the early '80's only to be revived with the advent of cds.
Strangely, DSOTM never hit #1 on the charts in the UK and held the #1 spot in the US for only one week.
DSOTM was one of the first albums to popularize cds, in fact it has an EMI label of EMI001.
The ticking and alarm clocks heard at the beginning of the song Time is said to have been provided by Alan Parsons who carried a tape recorder into a London clock shop and captured the intro to the song.
Little known trivia...Parsons and Floyd went back in the studio between DSOTM and WYWH, and started recording an album that was never released. It was rumored to have contained absolutely no instruments but instead only various sounds and sound effects. My guess is the drugs wore off before the album was finished and thankfully it never saw the light of day. |
Bronze Member Username: Black_math
Post Number: 100
Registered: Dec-03
|
| Posted on Monday, May 24, 2004 - 01:26 pm: |
|
The name Pink Floyd, seemingly so far-out, was actually derived from the first names of two ancient bluesmen (Pink Anderson and Floyd Council).
There was a RS interview with Pink Floyd in the 80's where they talked about how they tried to record that album of sampled sounds on the 70's. I imagine it might have sounded like some Beta Band or Chemical Brothers song. Due to technology, they had to tape record and loop everything. They realized it was a near impossible and scrapped the project before it drove them bonkers. Today it would be easy. |
Silver Member Username: Rick_b
New york
Usa
Post Number: 226
Registered: Dec-03
|
| Posted on Monday, May 24, 2004 - 01:35 pm: |
|
Rantz,
They "borrowed" the name from 2 American blues artists: Pink Anderson and Floyd Council. |
Silver Member Username: Myrantz
Post Number: 296
Registered: Feb-04
|
| Posted on Monday, May 24, 2004 - 03:07 pm: |
|
Thankyou Ben and Rick
I knew someone here would know. It is interesting how some bands formed their names. These posts about PF bring back many good memories. Whatever happened to the music?
I think we'll have to rename this thread to Teaching New Dogs Old Tricks! |
Gold Member Username: John_a
Post Number: 1216
Registered: Dec-03
|
| Posted on Monday, May 24, 2004 - 03:55 pm: |
|
Great stuff, all. Just to say "thanks" to My Rantz for "Tremelo arm" (? spelling). Just to get deep into kinds of distortion, there was a thing called a "fuzz box", too. Amongst other things, I think that was the basis of the sound of the guitar riff in "(Can't get no) satisfaction" (Nanker and Phelge).
Sem, fascinating. More welcome. I see from your link on Alan Parsons that surround DSOTM is SACD. Darn...
BTW, Rick, Sem and I were right, it is "Gilmour". 'Course they could have got that wrong in the CD booklet, too. |
Bronze Member Username: Sem
Post Number: 99
Registered: Mar-04
|
| Posted on Monday, May 24, 2004 - 11:16 pm: |
|
John A.
"At the end of one track on the CD, Pink Floyd do a very camp thing; they have a long chord from a piano, and they raise and lower the pitch to suggest a huge piano has one of those little levers..."
I was wrong. The song you mentioned is "Great Gig in the Sky."
It took some doing but I found this, it was posted on another forum I follow, by a friend of mine, (S.H.). He speaks to Alan Parsons quite regularly so I have no reason to doubt its authenticity. I don't think he'll mind if I repost it here.
"According to Alan (who also indicates it's not always easy to remember little
details like this 27+ years after the fact), that tonal rise was some kind of
goof whose cause couldn't be specifically identified at the time. However,
everyone thought it was kinda cool so they decided to leave it in."
That anomoly appears on every album, cd, cassette, and 8-track I've ever owned or listened to. I don't yet have the SACD but I would be surprised if its not on that as well. |
Gold Member Username: John_a
Post Number: 1221
Registered: Dec-03
|
| Posted on Tuesday, May 25, 2004 - 12:40 am: |
|
Sem,
Great. Thanks a lot. So I know, now, it wasn't put just into the EMI CD of 1993! It sure doesn't sound like a goof to me; I cannot imagine their tape recorder has problems like that, with no accompanying flutter. The impression is of a Steinway with a tremelo arm. As I said, "camp".
That album is "moving on", not "moving back", for me. Not so for my wife. You may imagine the ensuing discussions last Sunday, along the lines of "I've been telling you that is fantastic for 25 years...?" etc etc. Good point, really!
If ever I get to feel that I wish to revisit my own mis-spent youth, I see Pentagle's "Basket of Light" is now on DVD-A in 5.1. I'd be interested to know what it sounds like. But that was lost in a split LP collection, long, long ago, and I am quite sure I do not want to go back there. Especially not in surround sound. Some things you just have to let go, not cling on.
My general preference would be to go on moving on, and get the Shostakovish String Quartets, about which I know zilch. On Lp if possible. Then his Leningrad Symphony, on DVD-A; ditto - never heard it before - it would be my first hearing. That excites me more. Different people want different things from music. I've known people who surround themselves entirely with music from when they were teenagers, and never listen to anything else. I am the opposite, mostly. To judge from "Time" and "Breathe" PF would be, too. What great, great songs. I missed them first time round, but "better late than never". So, big thanks, Sem!
PS I could start of fanzine-type rant on why I knew immediately, on first hearing , that the line from "Time" had to be "in a relative way", not "...the relative way" and the guy who transcribed the words should be in prison. It would be fantastic if you could just take a quick look at the LP sleeve, and see which it is, there. It could be an original mistake, I know this probably sounds crazy, but I would be interested to know. Possibly the original was type-set, and the CD booklet was typed again, not produced by OCR, so someone made a mistake in typing copy for the CD booklet. And was deaf. Or listening through Bose speakers. |
Gold Member Username: John_a
Post Number: 1222
Registered: Dec-03
|
| Posted on Tuesday, May 25, 2004 - 12:48 am: |
|
Lots of mistakes, actually. Another from Brain Damage : got to keep the loonies off/on the path. Clown! It is completely different, and screws up the whole meaning of the song. The loonies were discounted, marginalised; not told what to do and where to go. Guess I take things too seriously...
Peace. |
Silver Member Username: Sem
Post Number: 101
Registered: Mar-04
|
| Posted on Tuesday, May 25, 2004 - 07:34 am: |
|
John A.
On my original vinyl, bought around 1974 I'd guess - "The sun is the same in the relative way..." hmmm, I always thought it was in a relative way too.
You may not want to "burn the booklet" just yet.
Brain Damage - "got to keep the loonies on the path"
I believe Roger Waters wrote all the lyrics for the songs on this album. When you have some time do an internet search for the lyrics on his solo album, Amused to Death. They're filled with a deeper meaning than what you read at first glance. Truly one of the best "rock" lyricists ever. |
Gold Member Username: John_a
Post Number: 1225
Registered: Dec-03
|
| Posted on Tuesday, May 25, 2004 - 07:55 am: |
|
Thanks, Sem!
My wife says the same about "in the relative way" on the LP sleeve, and that from memory. It is not what is sung. Neither is "keep the loonies on the path". Someone screwed up in 1972/3, then!
I will most certainly get hold of those other recommendations. Fantastic stuff. Many, many thanks.
BTW the original topic of this thread seems to be getting somewhere, but on Plunging into Multi-channel. I have an answer, have no time today, and do not know which thread to post it on. I am inclined to put it here, and link back from that thread, but this failed before. Any views? |
Silver Member Username: Black_math
Post Number: 101
Registered: Dec-03
|
| Posted on Tuesday, May 25, 2004 - 08:36 am: |
|
I have found that it is not uncommon for recorded lyrics not to match what is written on the sleeve. My guess is that the sleeve has the correct version and the song lyric was altered while being recorded. |
Silver Member Username: Sem
Post Number: 102
Registered: Mar-04
|
| Posted on Tuesday, May 25, 2004 - 09:04 am: |
|
Hmm, I always assumed the opposite. I figured the ones singing the songs were usually involved in writing the lyrics in the first place. They would sing exactly as it was intended. It would be the back office folks transcribing the words that would mix things up. But you may be correct. I guess things like changes that weren't forwarded to the "back office folks" could account for the discrepancies.  |
Gold Member Username: John_a
Post Number: 1227
Registered: Dec-03
|
| Posted on Tuesday, May 25, 2004 - 12:14 pm: |
|
I am completely with Sem, Ben. I feel I know and understand why, in those two cases. No time to explain right now. No-one could write lyrics like that without having every word engraved in his mind. The mistakes were in an office somewhere, later. It was a "Friday afternoon" job. |
Silver Member Username: Black_math
Post Number: 102
Registered: Dec-03
|
| Posted on Tuesday, May 25, 2004 - 12:46 pm: |
|
It is just like writing and delivering a speech. You know what you are going to say, but it comes out a little different. Plus when you are looking at factors like sobriety and multiple takes it is easy to see how lyrics can be changed when recording.
This happens a lot across the board. Maybe the artist does not change the liner notes because it really doesn't matter to them, they don't view it as a transcript. Maybe the artist choses to present their original lyrics. |
Silver Member Username: Black_math
Post Number: 103
Registered: Dec-03
|
| Posted on Tuesday, May 25, 2004 - 02:14 pm: |
|
You also have to realize that a band may have a separate singer and lyricist on certain songs. |
Silver Member Username: Two_cents
Post Number: 200
Registered: Feb-04
|
| Posted on Tuesday, May 25, 2004 - 02:55 pm: |
|
As I understand it, the song lyrics are copyrighted by the songwriter. Therefore, he/she would have to approve the reproduction of the lyrics even on the cd/lp sleeve.
I've listened to interviews with songwriters who've mentioned tweaking the lyrics at the last moment before recording. So there seem to be instances where a previous version of the lyrics are printed on the sleeve instead of the recorded version.
What irks me are lyrics printed in user-unfriendly formats, e.g., spirals, long lines with no breaks. They may be cool graphically, but a beeatch to read. |
Gold Member Username: John_a
Post Number: 1228
Registered: Dec-03
|
| Posted on Tuesday, May 25, 2004 - 05:40 pm: |
|
Just listened to "Only a Pawn in their game" and "The Lonesome Death of Hattie Carol", from LP "The Times are a'changing". Wife agrees I had been telling her about that for 25 years, too, and now hears what I hear: we are quits. No words printed on sleeve. None necessary. Is there anything like that, today? |
Silver Member Username: Ghiacabriolet
NC
Post Number: 110
Registered: Apr-04
|
| Posted on Tuesday, May 25, 2004 - 05:58 pm: |
|
You guys probably don't realize I'm an Aimee Mann fan since I rarely mention her....hehehe...but, she has a history of being the "poster child" as an artist abused by big label practices. On her album "I'm With Stupid" recorded, I believe, for Geffen records, the label restricted the packaging budget and would not allow a full lyric sheet insert. So, she put in an alphabetical listing of all the words used in the songs. |
Silver Member Username: Black_math
Post Number: 104
Registered: Dec-03
|
| Posted on Tuesday, May 25, 2004 - 06:05 pm: |
|
John A,
That sounds like a lyrical preference to me. Kind of like one prefering Tolken to Shakespere. Some people think Jim Morrison was a true poet, others thought he was a drunk lunitic. Bob Dylan was infulenced by the words and music of Woodie Guthrie and others are influenced by Dylans' words. Some people only listen to melody and don't care about words at all. There is a generation of 19-year olds who think Eminem is a poet....
If you are asking for a modern-day Dylan...too hard to say. Some thought it was Springsteen, others the Clash, I have heard Beck compared to him, heck Chuck D has some of the most powerful social comentary ever within his lyrics. |
Gold Member Username: John_a
Post Number: 1230
Registered: Dec-03
| | |
