Drukman v. Whitcomb, Round 3 1/2

[aurs01!aurxc3!whitcomb@mcnc.org (Jonathan Whitcomb)]

Sir Drukman <jondr@sco.COM> trills:

[wrt song arrangements, studio effects and production]

>It's just too difficult to say that a composition doesn't REQUIRE them.  Of
>course you COULD do This Woman's Work without the orchestra, but it's just
>not the same.  You could argue that it might be better, but I wouldn't
>agree.  (I have a feeling that you wouldn't agree either, because orchestras
>are widely accepted compositional tools.  Now what if we changed "orchestra"
>to "andean nose flute" or "sampled Balinese monkey dance choir")

I've seen an architect walk into a building and visualize the space
with different walls, doorways and windows.  He can work with the
basic structure, but he can change the floor plan in his mind.  I
go through a similar process when I listen to a song (and am not arrogant 
enough to think I'm the only one who can do this).  Sure, I'm aware
of and can appreciate the production, but there is indeed a song
propping the whole thing up.

A record is complete after the recording process is finished.  Sure,
you can process it with delay, EQ, 3-D imaging or whatever, but
once it's recorded, it's pretty much complete.  The song, however,
can be re-interpreted and re-recorded over and over again.  If the
song is so dependent on it's production and recording technique that
it doesn't stand up to re-interpretations then it is probably not
a good song EVEN IF IT WAS MADE INTO A GOOD RECORD.  

As far as I'm concerned, once you have a strong composition, feel free
to go wild in the studio.  Bring on the "Belching Lizard" and 
"Moaning Swedish Milk Maid Chorus" samples.  Try it as a Samba 
or a Hungarian Polka derivative.  Backwards mask Zulu gongs and
Inca fertility chants.  Now that we have all this great stuff at
our fingertips, try it out!  Just don't forget to bring some songs
to the party.

Don't assume that I'm some synth bashing crunchy organic type.  I actually
have my own MIDI studio at home.  I know that composing using new sounds
can expand a songwriter's range.  Someone who has been composing on the
piano for many years will most likely try new directions when given
a different sonic palette to work from.  Good!  But don't think that
you can hide a weak composition behind all the new sounds.

>>And let's keep this in perspective here, we're talking pop music here, 
>>not fine art.

>Uh oh, I can hear the flame guns being loaded now.  So long Jonathan, nice
>sparring with you.  We'll be sure to send your ashes to the appropriate next
>of kin.

Calling pop music "pop music" is not an insult!  I like pop music!
Kate Bush is a pop musician.  I know that people don't like to have
their idols classified, and it is painful to see Kate Bush lumped into
the same category as Tiffany, but that's how it goes sometimes.  Remember
Sturgeon's Law:  90% of anything is crap.

>Again and again you say that the melody and lyrics are what's important and
>that the arrangement is incidental.  If that's the case, then why does anyone
>bother producing intricate music?  Is it solely to amuse jaded technophiles
>like my good self?  I certainly hope not.

Oh, no... production *is* important.  Even a good composition can be
ruined by poor production.  I think we agree on this more than we disagree.
Our main differences seem to be on the emphasis:  I place it on the
composition, while you place it on the production.  A strong composition
may be produced several different ways and still make a good record.

>When Kate did
>"Breathing" for the Comic Relief special it was nice, but not orgasmic the
>way the album version is.  I *like* layers of synths, bass, John Carder
>explaining how to tell the size of a nuclear blast, all that stuff.  I would
>just want to lie down and die if everyone gave up ornamenting their songs
>just because someone told them that "hey, you only need the melody and
>lyrics to have a good song... all the rest is incidental."  Incidental to
>YOU, buddy.  For some of us, it's crucial.

It was very good production on a very good song.  Poof!  A very good
record!  Here's an example where I agree with your arguments.  For years 
Jules Shear has put out great pop albums (with Jules and the Polar Bears, 
Reckless Sleepers and solo).  Then a couple of years ago he put out an 
album of just voice and guitar.  Boring.  But that's partially because 
Jules Shear's voice is hard enough to deal with in a full arrangement, 
and unadorned it just gets annoying.  Even Marty Wilson Piper's guitar
work didn't help.  I could listen to Kate Bush with just a piano all day.

>Few would argue that the hummed in the shower version would make a good
>record.  Unless you're Barney Rubble... (anybody remember THAT episode?)

I dunno... the first Jesus and Mary Chain album sounds like it was
recorded in a shower stall!

I expect that Kate Bush will continue to experiment and branch out... 
I just hope her next batch of songs is stronger.

-Jonathan
whitcomb%aurgate@mcnc.org