Sunday, June 27, 2010

Basics - Genres - Rock 2

Blogger's Notes

Been listening to Led Zep's box CD set for the past 2 days. Haha awesome stuff. Will be talking about them later on. They're one of those bands which are so all-encompassing and so individualistic that no one can say that they are not on a league of their own.

This part will be talking about bands who made a big difference, which is why Cream was planned to be put here. Previous was about "Guitar Heroes" of rock.

I won't be touching on a lot of the people with crossover sounds like Beatles (pop rock and psychedelic rock later on) or Frank Zappa, but concentrate on the mainstream rock people.

And I forgot to talk about something which is very related to the energy behind rock. It's a subversive way of expressing one's freedom - freedom being the centre trait of all American music. It's an "I'm speaking out! I want my freedom!" It's when people still had tons of ideals and people dreamed of a free America.

Cream



Bad mullets + lots of drugs + bad facial hair + weed hanging from a bass and what do you get? One of the best bands ever in the history of rock. Constantly getting stoned before playing or singing, the band is infamous for playing like spastic people (in terms of looks) but still creating this amazing sound that transcends time.

Constantly out of tune vocals, grit in the voice, clean but more staccato drum sounds (and amazingly well-phrased), hard bass plucking with slight bit of compression and distortion, and of course an insanely sweet distorted SG with great bluesy licks always succinct and beautiful.

There's a lot in this kind in this music which is similar to jazz than one realises. The constant improvisation in the background by both Jack and Ginger are essential in keeping the energy and spirit of the music up.

Led Zeppelin



Epic band. Epic song. One of the most overplayed guitar lines in the history of guitar-dom. Haha.

I think that they were the few guys who made rock really epic. Probably the most experimental of their time, ranging from shuffle to reggae and all kinds of sounds. This song is a great testament to their great musicality, arrangement and song writing. From the starting of the song with this haunting guitar line and flute ensemble patch (on keyboard), leading to a point where after the vocals come in, they slowly build up with introduction of another guitar and keyboard synths, and doubling of melody. They start layering the sound and slowly build up the energy of the music and push before they release it with another sudden holding back, then slowly build it back up. The music is like a roller coaster. Then comes the drums and they slowly build up the energy of the music to that energetic rock sound at the end.

Throughout the whole song you don't sense any sudden changes, everything sounded very organic and powerful. That was how beautiful rock music had been.

Yes I'm a big fan of their ingenious sound and arrangements. It's simple, but beautiful.

Queen



Anyone musician who hasn't heard of Queen should be shot. Then revived again just to be shot again. Brilliant arrangements, catchy hooks, classical ideas mixed with rock sound. Haunting melodies with haunting arrangements and amazingly heartfelt sounds.

Need I talk more about this song? Led Zeppelin and Queen are some of the best bands ever.

AC/DC



This band is probably the epitome of clean in rock for their era. At such insanely high quality recordings, you can hear every single note on the guitar played with precision and clarity. The drummer is also by far one of the cleanest in my opinion.

Clean sounds from rock? Yeah; clean ideas of very gritty ideas and very strong opinions. It's like a razor tongue which is always precise and to the point.

Any rock band should always aspire to at least have such a level of cleanliness in their playing in my opinion. And the groove and the energy of the music. The vocals fits their sound (though the sound of nodules is always kind of painful to me) perfectly too.

Want to be a rocker? Learn from the best and the guys who made it what it is today. =)

That ends Rock 2

Friday, June 25, 2010

Basics - Genres - Rock 1

Blogger's Notes

Been taking a short break (2 days) from blogging to re-think my ideas on what to write about. I have no idea what everyone needs/wants from this blog. Any ideas? Perhaps I should put up a poll.

And now that I got an HD Cam, I'm hoping to possibly start vlogging. So that no one has to read so much... I can talk like Leonard Bernstein to the camera and talk about each genre and rhythm in music. Haha

But that would take a while before I start too. Please those who are reading this feel free to suggest to me new ideas! =)

What is rock?

I'm personally a big fan the good ol' days of rock. I'm pretty sure there was a lot of tainting, but at least the music was still much about its ideals. Nowadays rock-stardom is all about being flashy and "who's more gimmicky". That's the evolution of the genre for the last 20 years at least - thus emo-pop-rock came to be.

I'll be going back into the past to look at key individuals who made rock what it is. I'll show you how all-encompassing rock used to be and how it's really all about a subversive edge with some gimmicks but it's all about making a point. What's more is the fact that those who went into it really listened very very vastly and had their own opinions.

I shall be covering blues rock mainly for this part of the series, which was the basis behind rock in many sense till today.

Jimi Hendrix



No rock musician can ever truly say that he/she is a rocker until he/she has heard Jimi Hendrix; at least one, if not extensive.

Yes he realised he was out of tune unlike most other trying-to-be-rock musicians. A guitar god, and one of the greatest pushers for rock of all time. What is rock about?

It's very heavy on the 1 and 3 and loves distortion on guitar and sometimes bass. It's an attitude of its own. Notice how Jimi is like "who cares what song you guys want to hear? I'm gonna do something I like!" Btw, please utilise the skills shared in previous parts to analyse the rhythm. Because I'm not covering rhythm but the attitude and sound of the genre therefore I wouldn't go in-depth into this until I go through the rock rhythm.

That is the subversive, "I love to do it my way, so what if I'm famous" attitude. They did exactly what they want from the start of the song (massive "wanking" session by most people's terms nowadays), but it was filled with the energy of individualism. At the same time it was not each person going off on his own, but instead a group of musicians coming together to create a collective sound.

Bassist and drummer are great example of people who fill the sound nicely in rock. The drummer does a lot of fills and a lot of sound, giving a strong beat at the same time. The bassist also does similar things on his P Bass (like that tone with a pick) and keeps the sustain going to bring elevate the atmosphere.

Notice that this early rock style is vastly different from a lot of the later trying-to-simplify-too-much rock of the later days which doesn't make any sense. That is much like the oversimplification of R&B and other genres.

Stevie Ray Vaughan



Slow blues rock. Stevie Ray Vaughan is one of the few guys you'd always feel it's such a waste that he died young - even though he didn't OD. He died from a plane crash which was meant for Eric Clapton. Till today I'm still wondering what would have happened if it was Clapton on the plane... Either way the world would have a tragic loss...

Anyway he was the "guitar hero" in many sense. High gauge strings, tone running through one fender and one marshall to bring out different frequencies and different distortions... He's quite picky about tone and his sound. He's one of those guys that people would love to slam as being picky and overplaying and "not about the music". But he was all about the music.

Every note has its reason, every phrase has its direction. He plays way longer than any rock guitarist, and has more interesting lines than anyone else. He works with big phrases in music, even when he sings. His voice is husky and powerful, with tons of grit and soul within.

Notice his band barely need to do anything. If I was his bassist I'd probably be kicking back and just keeping the groove going while listening to him soulfully sing and play. Notice how they keep the groove - I'll cover this next time when I'm doing rhythm of blues rock.

He had the element of blues - storytelling, as well as the individualism of rock, which made him still a monument in rock and blues equally for such a long time.

Eric Clapton



Hearing this song every day because my brother is trying to play it on guitar (not as high level of course). But it's really a beautiful song which Eric Clapton wrote because of the death of his son.

Anyone who doesn't know Eric Clapton and claims to be a musician should be shot. Haha. I didn't appreciate him till the last 3 years when I realised how to enjoy every music in every genre with the same attitude. It's really guitar heavy and it's more of a ballad than purely a rock song or a typical one at that. But this shows you the other end of the spectrum from the same series of legends - Jimi, SRV and Clapton - they have multiple sounds though all of them are rock.

Will dwelve into this for the next part. For now, please enjoy the music. =)

Tuesday, June 22, 2010

Basics - Rhythm - Funk 4



Fourplay

I listed them as a great crossover for most people who cannot get past pop and want to get started on jazz. Smooth jazz is a very common reincarnation of what jazz is like. However if you listen to it, it does not have the hallmarks of funk of the "grooving" I was talking about.

What does that mean? I did mention I was going to talk about more poppish versions of funk didn't I? This is funk like how Michael Jackson did it - completely in time. This gave you an exact groove and exact pulse that you couldn't miss it unless you really have no concept of rhythm.

Same strong back beat groove from the drums, and the same repetitive bass groove and one which actually matches the bass drum in this scenario. This is funk in smooth jazz - the "pop" side of jazz which is meant to appeal to the general masses, much like all those random smooth jazz tracks you hear from shops like That CD Shop and those kind of music which sounds high class but probably has no artistic value ironically.

Okay I shouldn't slam this down too hard. It is a great crossover without the most important elements of truly good music (as opposed to Stacey Kent) because of the lack of rhythmic ideas. Thus poppish reincarnation of funk. This is actually one of the most common reincarnations because smooth jazz being so popular has generated a rather large audience and of course that also means quite a number of bands taking up this sound.



Maroon 5

Obviously funk-inspired, Maroon 5 is one of those gems in pop music that makes you really enjoy the groove because it actually exists.

Firstly, I have to say the drummer has got the groove down-pat, he laid back from the first beat, and he was the guy who started the whole sound. Bassist lays back slightly less than him, and the guitarist comes slightly on top of the beat. Pianist is also leaning back slightly.

Backbeat groove, repetitive bassline with laid back sound, repetitive guitar funk lines and a repetitive piano line. However the whole way through there's a lot of push pull and a lot of grooving, keeping the music going. Rhythm wise this is not really pushing the boundaries because it is just a swung funk with a bit of variations. However when you match the vocalist and the sound of the music (production is very much the sound of "pop" rather than funk with emphasis on the vocals and drums) you get something that can really sell.

What's more is the sweet fact that the chorus is almost completely off beat which is a great pushing factor for their music to actually have a drive despite the slow laid back funk groove.

That marks the end of the rhythm of funk. =)

Sunday, June 20, 2010

Basics - Rhythm - Funk 3



One of my all-time favourite bands - Jamiroquai. Was first exposed to them with their hit single Virtual Insanity when I was younger. They are essentially an acid jazz-funk band that is really all about the grooving and dancing.

Notice the repetitive bassline, with extra fills and fast runs in between, together with a new kinda grooving on the drums where the hi hat fills all four semiquavers of the beat. The bass is just BARELY behind the beat, but it's obvious when you beat out the pulse. The drums is almost completely on the beat, giving the full sound for the music to drive by. And this time the guitar lays back slightly further than the bass. It's quite a sweet groove.

Plus on top of that, they have strings to add on a new layer to the music. This is part of JK (lead singer's) experiments into using orchestras into the band's music. Notice that the orchestra is also slightly behind the beat - a common trait due to the nature of string instruments' response time when bowed.

Sidenote: Great triangle work if you noticed. It's really sweet. It's a small but powerful instrument in adding the subtle drive to the sound. It's slightly ahead of the beat and is also part of the drive.

And as for the vocalist, he tends to lean back mostly, giving the groove feeling, which matches his dancing throughout most of his songs anyway.

This is one of the branches of how funk has gone.



All time favourite fusion band - Weather Report. And one of the most beautiful pieces written, by Joe Zawinul, about Birdland, one of the revered places in jazz history till now, called Birdland. Notice that the starting starts with a riff from the synthesizer, which immediate indicates a kind of funk groove in the music.

Then comes the drums. Obviously way ahead of the beat. Again, with semiquavers played out at the back beat emphasised. The bass comes in with a groove nicely placed just behind the beat. This was the power of the wonderful Weather Report. Funk groove with a lot of R&B flavour and jazz sound in their midst.

Jaco provided the R&B lines and groove for the bassline. And Peter Erskine adds this almost rockish groove to the mix, while Joe Zawinul and Wayne Shorter add their jazz and world sounds in the midst. This is where funk was also utilised after its creation.

It was this catchy groovy thing that could be used as a hook to portray the power of dancing and happiness that is now pervasive in fusion and a lot of similar music.

Next up, more "poppish" versions of funk.

Saturday, June 19, 2010

Basics - Rhythm - Funk 2



Parliament Funkadelic. Some of the grooviest stuff in the world. Repetitive groove again. Drummer just keeps time and just keeps the backbeat going. That's the rhythm driving this band.

Notice this time that the drummer is on time, but the guitar and bass are actually laying back. They have a unison straight funk groove. Notice there's no more emphasis on the offbeats, and a lot more driving force straight down into the ears. Horns and vocalists all lay back quite a bit, and that's the sound of funk groove.

Suddenly the middle part comes at 3.30. Amazing stuff. Notice how the drummer suddenly pulls back and lays back, still hitting a strong back beat but suddenly it feels as if the music has slowed down. Suddenly the horns and bass and guitar sound
ahead of him. Some of the best examples of push pull in funk. Groovy rhythm starts from here.



One of the best, and most groovy bands of all time: Tower of Power. Forward pounding 16ths as bassline. Guitar is FAAAARRR behind the band, but the horns are ahead of the beat. At the same time the drums are laying back slightly behind the pulse. It's an amazing band dynamic that is hardly reproduced. Rocco Prestia is one of the few bassists that really amaze me with his ability to drive the bass with his 16th notes. Almost no one I've heard so far can do it anywhere nearly as good as him.

Vocalist comes behind the beat. And the soloist is always behind the beat as well. Phrasing tends to aim at the 1 or 3 on the on-beat for straight funk due to the nature of the groove. This leads to a groove which leads people to dance on the on beats.

Rhythm is the most important thing in funk. And actually in almost every music. As you can tell from these two videos funk can vary a lot.

More in 3. =)

Friday, June 18, 2010

Random Comments 1 - Audiophiles

Best comments about audiophiles and listening

Just want to express my exasperation of the world's attitude towards music listening and a whole host of other things. The weirdest thing is that every company selling these earphones and mics and all think that they're doing something that's great, but they seem to just colour everything.

I wonder what companies truly care about neutrality in music.

Let the music speak for itself. Stop colouring it with your own ideas, leave that part to within your own head.

Wednesday, June 16, 2010

Basics - Rhythm - Funk 1



Marvin Gaye

Motown legend, Marvin Gaye. This was the black pop of the early days, and funk was a direct result of such music.

Funk and Motown, and a lot of similar black music, like gospel, are very bass and drum groove heavy. This is a "swung funk" groove, where it's not completely straight, but instead more like swing with triplets involved rather than the pop/rock style where the quavers are evened out.

James Jamerson on the bass; the biggest baddest bass legend with a groove to kill. Notice his lines, these were the lines which led to a lot of development in R&B, funk and other groove-based music, and most importantly, funk that came soon after.

In case you don't know, Motown was actually a label, much like what Sony Music is nowadays, but they had their unique sound which was a blend of R&B, gospel and became a genre on its own. It influenced a great deal of music nowadays.

Also, notice that the drum groove is this steady laying back groove. The bass is placed slightly earlier than it, but still laying back, while the vocalist plays around with the rhythm around the pulse. Meanwhile the guitarist is about on the beat while still laying back slightly. Meanwhile the auxiliary percussion also lays back together with the drums. This gives you the sound called Motown which led nicely to a genre called funk.

Now to the Grandfather of Funk: James Brown



Notice the same back beats on the drums, the groove sound from the drums. The laid back groove from him. Now the bass is actually ahead of the beat during this groove (fast grooves tend to have this going), only time laying back is during the hits. The bassline is riff based and is repetitive but the lines are very similar to the groove lines played by James Jamerson (except he had a lot more flexibility and changes).

The use of organ sound was from gospel sound, and the big band sound was influence from the big bands of the early era. Plus starting with Misty shows the obvious influence from early jazz.

Funk was a lot about the dancing, it was a music for people to really dance with, as with much music even till this date. James Brown was THE dancer of the funk style and started a revolution on his own. But you can listen to the whole band do the same riff and groove a million times and not get bored because the energy is always up and the groove never gets bored when everyone gives their 100% every second. Why? Because like great orators, repetition, with conviction, do not get boring because every time it is said it still has much impact. That's what I personally feel is the power of funk.

That's for the first song before they went into the second song Maybe The Last Time. Notice the groove, the repetitions again. But every note seems to be just as important as the previous time. You can feel the musicians dancing just listening to the music. This time the whole band lays back, because it's a slower groove and laying back gives the chill feel which is so powerful in funk...

Together with James Brown's always-on-top-of-the-beat feel, the music can go on forever and just charge a person with energy to dance all night. This is why funk actually became a highly used groove throughout all of music ever since. From fusion to smooth jazz to even Maroon 5, funk has infiltrated much of music as we know it.

Will talk more about it in the next installment. =)

Tuesday, June 15, 2010

Basics - Rhythm - Swing 4



Modern version of swing. Not exactly the same as the old school swing... This is what I'd say is a lot more organic. There's still a lot of similarity, from the big phrasing and hits of Keith Jarrett's left hand comping to the walking bassline to the ride pattern, there is are a lot of similarities, but at the same time a lot of difference.

No more hi-hat at 2 and 4. A lot more responding from the drummer and bass than old school swing. Bass has a rather modern take on the bassline (mainly started by individuals such as Ron Carter) with a smooth walking bassline which uses melodic control to guide the song rather than just simply pushing and rhythmic methods. And at the head out, notice that there's this open sound that came. This was largely inspired by the Bill Evans Trio, but developed to this sound...



And alas it leads you to a pianist like Brad Mehldau and a whole host of other musicians who bring it to what most people in the past might not count it swinging... People like Brian Blade, Jeff Ballad, and a whole host of new breed of modern drummers who sound vastly different because they're inspired not only from old school swing, but a whole bunch of other music like World music and the rest.

Also bass has become a very organic style of playing. The 2-feel thing taken to a high level gives the bass almost infinite amount of freedom to phrase and displace and do a lot of rhythmic ideas, but at the same time able to keep time without explicitly keeping time.

Pianists basically develop so much that the emphasis is no longer just keeping time and playing lines... Each line has developed to be a colouring as much as it is a melodic idea. The harmonic ideas developed to an extent that they are able to express and convey a whole host of new ideas. New even bigger phrases, odd timing phrases and a lot more things.

And for the band as a whole, hits became a very interesting thing. Progressive rock was about change in time signature and developments in grooving, modern jazz is about that and metric modulations, displacements and harmonic pushes.

Swing was redefined after the eras of John Coltrane and Miles Davis. Was developing ever since the 70s with the influx of Fusion and a lot of other genres. Nowadays free jazz, modern jazz, hip hop, R&B, funk, fusion, gospel and many of these genres mix and match to give a very modern sound in jazz.

Here are a few more links to give you and idea of "swing" and "jazz" nowadays. These are still songs which "swing" but don't...







And some really cool stuff like





Hope you guys learned quite a bit from this. It's about exposure and noticing the music that is already there. Remember that listening is just as important as practising! =)

Saturday, June 12, 2010

Basics - Rhythm - Swing 3



John Coltrane. With as usual Paul Chambers on double bass. Haha. I'm going to talk about the bass walking. Remember how the ride pattern is about the crotchets then the skip notes? Same with bass. It's all about the crotchets, or quarter notes. From the end of the head, the moment Paul Chambers came in you can feel the push in the music.

Most probably would feel as if the music is being sped up, but the truth is because of the fact that he was pushing so hard that it sounds rushed, but if you counted through, you'd realise that the pulse remained.

The walking bass is a very interesting thing. It's supposed to be smooth yet have its emphasis and as "walking" goes, it is not really meant to be a line that's jumping around. The imagery is that it's supposed to flow from one chord to the other and using small steps to walk the way, but of course it's not a hard and fast rule. More importantly it's about the big phrases, like 4-bar phrases before the next key change or to keep the phrasing open to give the soloist the freedom to start and end their phrases as intended.

More importantly is the fact that the bass is the driving force for the rhythm of the band, keeping the music going and flowing forward.



Another form of bass rhythm. 2-feel. Playing on the 1 and 3 mainly. But still ahead of the beat and adding a lot of triplet phrasings and a lot of rhythmic lines into the music.

The importance of a bassist is just like the drummer, giving good subdivided beats, and giving more of the big beats than providing every single beat. It gives freedom of expression for both the soloist and the drummer, to colour and fill as and when they want. It forces everyone to feel the pulse more rather than just depending on standard "metronome click"-like walking bassline. This gives a lot more freedom into the music and a lot more organic a sound. It also frees up the bassist to do more interesting lines and fills which can be interlocking with the pianist or the drummer.

That is the rhythm for bass. =)

Friday, June 11, 2010

Basics - Rhythm - Swing 2



Classic recording. No one who claims to be a jazz musician should not have heard this recording at least once. If you haven't, listen now. Haha.

What are we concentrating here on this recording? Ride pattern. Drums style. Why is this so important? The rhythm section is by far the most important thing to define what jazz was like last time. All classic swing groups which worked had a great rhythm section - so good that no matter what notes you played you'd sound good. Let's listen to Jimmy Cobb and his rhythm.

From the start you can already hear his ride pattern. What are the things that define a ride pattern? The most important thing would be the crotchets/quarter notes. It defines a lot about the beat. Sets the tempo and the groove. There's this unconscious little emphasis on the two and four. If you listen in very closely to the ride pattern you can hear a slight difference between 1 and 3 from 2 and 4 every single time. There's a slight ring to the 2 and 4.

Note: This is NOT something that one can train to play like. When you actually try too hard to emphasise a bit too much on the 2 and 4 you'll have a natural tendency to overplay the 2 and 4. Then how do you get to play like that? It's an unconscious rhythm thing. Listen to Jimmy Cobb play, feel his sound. Feel his groove. You'll realise that the reason why jazz musicians snap on 2 and 4 naturally is because they DO feel it on 2 and 4. Because of that feel, they play it with the feel on 2 and 4, developing such subtle nuances.

He also started with the hi-hat on 2 and 4. It's a standard in jazz playing but not absolutely mandatory. It's one of the things which help to get down the groove on 2 and 4 and is supposed to be something which is completely unconscious.

What's more is the ghost notes on the snare, and the bass drum hits. Mostly on the "ands" and more importantly, always phrased. Those are some of the hallmarks of great jazz drumming. It gives the rhythm and it gives the groove.

Also, for the skip note, or "offbeat" note, of the ride pattern, notice again that this is medium swing, and the swing beat is closer to a semiquaver rather than a pure triplet. =)



Orinthology - A bebop song. Notice that the drummer is doing phrasings still a lot on offbeats and phrasing in relation to the front players. And if you can hear the ride pattern (hard to hear unless you have good equipment) you can hear that it sounds more towards a quaver this time, because of the speed of the music. It's not a hard and fast rule that the swing beat is a triplet.

With that, hope that you kind understand some of the fundamentals behind the swing beat from the perspective of the drums. =)

Wednesday, June 9, 2010

Basics - Rhythm - Swing 1

What is swing?

The one question that can never be completely quantified in most people's opinions, including jazz greats. Why? Because the swing beat is not truly about the triplets, because it changes according to the speed and the feel of the music. What's more, even if you play everything correctly, but don't phrase like a swing player, you're still not playing swing.

How do you then tell what's swinging, and what's not? The best is by listening to the legends. Duke Ellington, Count Basie, Louis Armstrong, Miles Davis, John Coltrane, and everyone along those times whose names were probably not as famous, though just as important in the development of jazz, were the pioneers of this beautiful thing called swing.



One of the most famous pieces of all time by the Duke Ellington Orchestra. All the way from the start, with the famous piano intro, you can get the swing beat. Starting on the offbeat and ending on the on beat, then next phrase is starting on the on beat and ending on the offbeat. Then comes a lot of hits by the orchestra throughout the song, all on the of beats. These swing beats are almost triplets, but because the whole orchestra is laying back behind the drums and the bass, it sounds further than a triple if you count according to the drums or the bass.

Try it for yourself. So to say it is a triplet is true, but in different circumstances it can sound like a triplet yet not a triplet...

And when the vocalist came in, she lays back yet the swing beat is in between a quaver and triplet and even more interestingly her emphasis and phrasing is very related to the offbeats. Very often people will naturally emphasise the onbeat after the offbeat, and choose to accent it, but in swing, the swing beat is the emphasis and it serves to propel the on beats, giving this flowing feel as long as you do it right. That together with laying back is the common soloist swing phrasing and style. That's only just simplifying it.



Same band with a walking pace swing. Notice that the swing beat is closer to a semiquaver. Still laid back, but the phrasing is closer to a semi-quaver; still very close to a triplet, but slightly shorter (except when it's Duke Ellington's trade 4 with the bassist).



Even closer to a semi-quaver. But even more laying back for this one, because it is none other than the great Billie Holiday!

Do you know what the swing beat is about yet? This is only part of the sound. This is a generic thing, which changes not only by the song and band, but within the band itself and the section of the music itself! Like everything else in jazz, swing is a highly organic thing, which is identified with some characteristics, but mostly for that "sound".

Hope this can help you start thinking about swing.

Sunday, June 6, 2010

Basics - Genres - Pop 4

Blogger's Notes

Been concentrating on studies. Exams on Tuesday. Haha actually I wrote all the old Stacey Kent posts through the period of time I was having my EOPT for Orthopaedics. Haha. But yeah those things require constant practice, which thankfully I did.

Final installment of Pop, for this mini series. Will definitely have to revisit with Pop 5 and etc, but for this week this series would be over. Got a request to do Michael Bolton. I also recently checked out this group which is making a hit on YouTube called Pomplamoose. Interesting topics to write about.

Anyway I'm wondering what's my next series. Any suggestions? If not I'll have to pick one on Tuesday anyway. Haha. But suggestions will be good. I can't go too advanced yet because I'm still trying to do the basics. =)

Anyway, again, most of these things are opinions and comments. I will mainly keep to telling you objective things. I might think that those things are bad, or good, in my opinion, but you make the decision. More importantly you should hear it for yourself and judge for yourself. I might affect you, but the decision is based purely upon you. =)

Michael Bolton

Michael Bolton - How am I supposed to live without you

Funny. It's really interesting how a rock ballad from the late 80's early 90's kinda sound has this power to stick with people throughout their lives. It's a beautiful song.

I'd like to dissect it a bit. For me, it's really interesting, because the moment that I heard the first few notes, I had a feeling this was not the typical pop sound that I've been identifying for the last few posts. Notice that if you were to clap time with the music, you're probably realise that it's hard to really follow one instrument and expect all the rest of the instruments fall on the same beat. It virtually doesn't happen. There's a lot of laying back throughout this rock ballad.

There is no true rhythm setter other than probably Michael Bolton himself. But he's constantly ahead, giving the push for the song and keeping the music forward. At the same time, from the moment the keyboards came in, it was ahead of the bass, which was ahead of the drums. It's very minute differences, except for that between the bass and drums. The time keeper is probably the keyboard in this circumstance, but he (or she) tends to lay back. And best part is that even when Michael Bolton plays the guitar, it's quite a bit far back from the beat. It's quite a sweet effect.

Why do we tend to think that early 90's pop (not bubblegum) and a whole host of other music that seem so heartfelt are better? Because they are. They sound more heartfelt and feel a lot more organic. Even grooves sound right rather than rigid. Michael Bolton's voice is a sweet rock voice (though mostly destroyed with his husky tone) and the way he phrases the notes.

Issues regarding production of this? Well, this is an "early" pop record which has not so good sampling for keyboards, not so natural (though uber obvious) reverb for the voice, and this whole trying to sound-like-you're-in-an-echo-y-hall are all there. I'd have to say that the production side is actually really great. Placements of instruments, arrangements. Compression is obviously used, I think more so considering that this is a YouTube video, so the ups and downs are not so drastic. In case you don't know what compression is, it's an effect which helps to keep the softer and louder closer to each other (in some sense) such that people don't have to turn up and down the volume.

I have to say that I love the chorus whenever he holds the note for many words which always brings up the energy of the music. And arrangement side, the obvious starting with piano first then introducing bass and vocals, then drums, are obvious ways of building up the song. I have to say overall quite refreshing to realise that there is so much to learn from this track.

=)

Pomplamoose

Pomplamoose channel on YouTube

YouTube phenomenon was a brilliant thing. Even after Google bought it over, it's still a wondrous place. So many people were found and brought up because of YouTube. The good comes with the bad. For every truly great musician/singer that comes up from YouTube and gets noticed, a thousand others are more popular and get noticed with less of everything.

Then here comes Pomplamoose. A pseu-psychadelic group with childish instruments, a weird cracked "unique" voice for a female singer, and a super hard working sound-engineer cum producer.

All the instruments are played by the guy except for the bass and some auxiliary sounds by the girl. I have to say that there are many smart arrangements and instrumentation and sounds that they're producing, and in my opinion their best songs are their originals. Why?

Notice the way she sings Another Day, vs all the rest of the covers. Notice the kind of arrangements that they're doing when it comes to all the pop songs. As for the fact that production side the person who's doing it probably just quantises all the instruments and therefore it sounds amazingly static (though there are interesting timbre usage in this), but the vocalist sings it with much better phrasing than anything else she does. Another problem is the fact that her voice is "unique" but she's actually singing in a way that would eventually destroy her voice (keep changing the timbre through years of daily singing). So that's also one thing to note.

Overall a smart idea. More gimmicky than smart. Using video to make the music more fun, having own commentaries at the end, giving this amazingly indie look and having this uber quantised sound which can fit everybody's ears. And a voice somewhere near Rachel Yamagata and some indie singers which really fits the image. However, other than their own music, I'd have to say they're just another regular cover band trying to create a sound without genuinely adding feelings. Yes it's a judgment. No rhythmic shifts, everything quantised. Yes cute harmonies, which are quite nicely crafted but honestly means nothing. It wants to be whimsical without actually being whimsical. And it's not meant to be serious...

That's what the world seems to like nowadays.

Anyway, on the side note, I'd like to show you a clip of Pixie Lott, who has a fantastic production team and has impeccable phrasing, and is still very much pop. So far I'd have to say that her production and singing are some of the best stuff I've seen come out of pop in recent years. Meryl introduced her to me.

Pixie Lott tries to have different sound throughout her album and sometimes in a song itself she'll have multiple sounds. What's more? Her band might be completely digital meaning almost all the drum beats are looped and the keyboard is either of super low quality or is looped. But the way it is done is superb. Listen to the details. Not so quantised, but still on time!

You should have to listen for yourself.

Pixie Lott - Cry Me Out

With that, I conclude this series on Pop. =)

Wednesday, June 2, 2010

Basics - Genres - Pop 3

Blogger's Notes

I cannot comment on my Pop 1 so I'll move the whole message here:

"Hooks are inevitable in music. From classical, to jazz, to pop, to hiphop and to even the most subversive music, metal, hooks are the key things to sounding good and strong. The problem is how hooks are being used and the constant repeat of it. There is a lot of music with hooks all over. Weather Report, Chick Corea, Lamb of God (screamo), Pink Floyd, Queen, etc etc. But they don't centre their whole music repeating the hook and making it so mind-numbingly catchy that nothing else in the music matters. I Feel Good uses same melody, same grooves throughout the song, but has an ever changing sound and interesting feel towards it... Why?

It's all about the changing up of phrasing. The need to groove. The need to be human. Which human truly repeats the same line over and over again in the same exact way throughout? You always will repeat yourself with your favourite quotes, but in different contexts, in different phrasings, it'll mean completely different things. The problem with pop is that it started being about the riffs and about the catchiness, rather than using the catchiness to bring across something. It's a shift in direction.

Since you did say something, so I'll explain something more than what you said. Actually the predictable nature of pop music is perfectly fine. If you think about jazz music, we always have AABA choruses, or ABCA, or a whole host of other simple chorus structures or even have uber simple chord structures (ie modal jazz) which gives a completely different flavour. I mean, seriously, 4-chord songs are common in jazz if you want to break it down to tonal centres and blues. But why would I say that the older music is more genuine?

I mentioned the shift to be on time on Pop 2. I mentioned the overuse of video to hook people. I didn't mention about the emphasis on the beats. I didn't mention the constant pushing and pulling of all the beats and grooves. Why? Because obviously I hoped that everyone would notice. Haha. There is a shift of emphasis from the off beats to the onbeats. This is partially due to influences of rock bands like Beatles, Elvis Presley and all the rest of the rock stuff, but even for all those music there's actually a lot of phrasing using offbeats as emphasis. That was one of the things that made it stand out. Instead everything went on the on beats. Like classical. What's the reason for this move?

Notice that usually in classical you don't ever have to actually consciously tap the beat or try to identify the on beats and the bars. It's something that makes classical musicians very contented playing with a metronome and sounding like a robot. Jazz and other early modern music forces that away because you need to feel the pulse of the music before you can sound any good. I realised most people, even musicians, lack the idea of the pulse because current pop music, and more popular classical music, do not really have any emphasis on offbeat phrasing, but instead give very clear outlines to where the beat is. That's why bands like Tower of Power go out of stye. Why people of nowadays find James Brown boring. No outward obvious pulse.

There's something called an implied pulse in all music. In classical music, with a great orchestra, there is push/pull, and you can get the implied pulse by watching the conductor. In jazz music and other modern music, people unconsciously tap on the place of the implied pulse without realising it. They are not away of the push/pull, because the music, as a whole, comes with a pulse. The problem is how Michael Jackson had taken a sound so organic and turned it into a static music. What's the reason though?

Popularity in nowadays world is more about instant gratification than anything else. If you can immediately find the beat, you can immediately enjoy the song. If you can immediately sing along with the singer, you feel that the song is good. If you can get whatever the musicians are doing, and can watch the dance step and get what the singer is doing: it's more enjoyable. It's all about the dancing and the grooving. It's easier to "groove" to an on beat because it's mechanical and expectable. It's something which bothers me amazingly because I realised how stiff you must be to be perfectly on time. Even in classical music rubatos and taking breaths are highly important in phrasing a piece, why is it that pop music doesn't truly believe in that? Simply because they need to catch YOUR ear before you run away. That's why everything centres around a hook. Being ABOUT the hook. Michael Jackson was the starter of it all, the true ingenious individual who found the way to be interesting and have a true blue moneymaking sound.

His lyrics still have meaning. His music behind him still have a lot of traces of the music that was before him. But they lost a lot of the essence. Don't get me wrong, I still like a few of his songs. But he started the true MTV era and killed all need to listen to music more than 10 seconds to give it a fair judgment.

If you don't believe, listen for yourself. Everything is easier to find. Easier to headbang to. This was where the world was heading towards. Why music became easily a commodity, because it lacked the human element. You think that a truly beautiful painting is easily understood by the masses and is sold easily? However there are plenty of pseudo-art-appreciaters to keep the market going. There is barely enough people who judge music as a piece of art to really care about music as an art form to really keep it alive, most importantly in Singapore. And when I mean that I truly mean treating music as a form of art, not acting like it.

Go check out all your favourite tracks from the pop era. Including BSB and all the rest. You'll realise that everything is commercialised not because of the fact that the music is repetitive or simple or has a hook. It is simply because it aims not to express but to pull someone in in the shortest time possible. It goes from the point of view of being a commercial artifact so it has to fulfill a no of criterias before it can even hit a person's ear...

Makes sense?

P.S. I just found a pretty cool pop band called Rilo Kiley. Intro-ed by Adam. Think the singer's amazing. And for pop acts I still like Nerina Pallot and some other more indie people. John Mayer trio takes John Mayer past his pop sound. Check out Stacey Kent's pop album. It's interesting how everyone knows how pop works. But doesn't really speak up much about it."

Marcus you got a similar idea to me actually. One thing I probably can't get is how you guys can stand the local indie scene. These people are completely oblivious to true music. Haha =X Harsh statement, but if you compare their music with any of the pop music themes and all these kind of stuff, you'd realise they're playing like pop but claiming to be indie. This is probably gonna piss quite a few of them off but if they don't revise their playing styles and arrangements, they're just going to sound just as generic as any pop song, and any claims on being truly "original" and "about the music" is just bull. Which is why they cannot compete with the commercial music yet cannot be fully appreciated as an art elsewhere.

So yup. Here we go with

Carpenters vs Madonna vs Christina vs Gaga

Carpenters - We've Only Just Begun

Everytime I hear this song I do get shudders. Sure, they're pop of their era. But man, the phrasing and the tone of Karen Carpenter, and the haunting piano sound. It's amazing how pop of the old era still had so much soul in the music.

However, the more important song for comparison is her faster song...

Carpenters - Top of The World

One of the most popular tunes of all time. Overplayed, overdone, oversung, but still a classic. Hahaha

And Karen Carpenter is supposedly one of the biggest influences for one of the most insistent singer of all - Madonna.

Madonna - Lucky Star
Madonna - Holiday

I actually have no idea where Madonna got most of her music from other than people like Michael Jackson and all. Apparently Karen Carpenter is one of her biggest influences but can you hear it? The arrangement I can hear it's from Hall and Oates, but for her voice and phrasing, there is some semblance of Karen Carpenter, but with an amazingly whiny voice. If you notice there's been a trend towards that throughout the 80's and 90's. If you listen to her Like A Virgin, the squeaky voice can absolutely pierce your ears if you're using speakers which actually give you the actual sound.

What do these new songs mean? Compared to the songs by the Carpenters? And if you ever heard Madonna live, how well do you think she sings?

And which video do you see Madonna not doing something funny, provocative or trying to win popularity by adding some unrelated segments in? Is this deterioration or is this a movement towards a "holistic" entertainment? Hmmmm

Let's move on to Christina. Haha from her Mickey Mouse Club time till now she has constantly changed herself in terms of both image and style. Let's compare her early days with Madonna first, because that was before she was affected by the latin music scene and Etta James and went another track, before coming back again recently with her trying-to-sound 40's music.

Christina Aguilera - Genie in a Bottle

Notice the provocative stance of the video. The innuendos from this then-young girl who sings with a higher voice. Notice the infiltration of the R&B runs at the start of the song. This was already the start of the R&B culture, strong bass beat and a whole host of other catchy obvious-pulse driven thing. Notice all these popular in the 90's all have impeccable timing. Everything's perfectly on the beat. It gives the oomph at the first go.

Her phrasing at this phase was obviously off Madonna's style with all the on-beat emphasis and the flat phrases when dealing with extra lines. It's a more modern approach. But also notice the constant use of synthesised sounds. Yup.

Christina - Ain't No Other Man

Fastforward to this era. Christina tried to gain influence from people like Andrew Sisters. Can you tell the vocal technique, grinding and all that? These were all inspired from R&B music which infiltrated since the 90's. However, rather than like the R&B music of the past which did the runs more due to feel (no two were truly the same in R&B last time) but if you notice that it's pretty much all the same pattern if you listen across board from Kelly Clarkson to Mariah Carey to Christina Aguilera.

Notice the change in tone through the years as well. Christina's voice changed every single year when she sang. And now it has this compressed strong, saturated mids with not much highs and lows. Why? Hmmm... This also brings in the idea about Loudness Wars which I should be covering soon too. Notice how pop evolved with the same person? Still the obvious pulse. Still with the being on time.

Add another part to this song. The power of backup vocals. If you ever listened to pop for a long time, you'd probably be numb to it, but the truth is that back up vocals are KEY in pop to create music which sounds bombastic and "full". Layering vocals behind, and adding to the depth of feel had been used by singers for ages. Including in their recordings. Which is why boy bands and girl bands and all that worked. AND another key point is the digitalisation of the voices. I haven't heard a single recording in pop since the 80's which didn't have the compression/digitalisation of voices. Can you hear it?

Can you listen to Ain't No Other Man Like You more than 10 times at one shot? Do share what you think.

And all this talk about digitalisation and back up harmonies and R&B runs and all that leads to one person - Lady Gaga.

Lady Gaga - Bad Romance

Digitalisation, R&B Runs, Backup vocals galore! With added house beats which gives no "implied" pulse, but gives you the pulse anyway. Notice what I say about the song being about the catchiness rather than using the catchiness for the song.

Was the song written for the lyrics or vice verse? If you heard Gaga live acoustic you'd realise that she actually has a pretty decent voice. But whenever you hear her in a video like this, her voice contorts and becomes digitalised. Take any snippet of the song and you'd realise it sounds like any other part of the song. What's the reason? What's the aim?

Tuesday, June 1, 2010

Basics - Genres - Pop 2

Blogger's Notes

I suddenly had an inspiration and had to type this down.

I realised that no one is really writing on my blog much because a. I'm updating a bit too fast and starting out a bit too technical and wordy for most, which is why I'm starting with the basics to get everyone going again, b. you fear sounding like an idiot if you don't know what is actually going on.

Simple things - We're all here to learn. If you ask a question to benefit yourself, you'll benefit others who are reading the comments. If you ask a question which stumps me, I'll find a way to answer no matter how, which benefits you and everyone else too. So why not we all learn?

Anyway back to topic, I thought about this because I was comparing Michael Jackson to his influence, James Brown. Let's compare all the different pop stars and their influences. As well as the people they influenced.

ABBA vs New Kids On The Block vs Backstreet Boys

The battle of the popstars! Hahaha

ABBA - The Winner Takes It All

New Kids On The Block - Tonight

New Kids On The Block is the first boy band which actually didn't play any musical instruments, and sang songs written by others, as well as making use of videos to prance around to increase viewership all at one shot.

ABBA is one of the biggest influences for pop music of modern days. One of its most direct and obvious influence is New Kids On The Block. They were part of the movement where videos and good looks were used to push for record sales and popularity. However, the production of music was not completely negated; they still had quite a lot of soulful good tracks that made much musical sense which allowed them to remain in people's minds till today.

What are the differences in the music? How different are the harmonies? What is the difference in rhythms that you hear? The phrasing? The way the music is played out behind?

Can you hear the shift towards a preference to being on time?

This is the progression that was slow but steady and evolved into pop nowadays...

Now let's listen to the famous Backstreet Boys who obviously took after New Kids On The Block...

Backstreet Boys - As Long As You Love Me

Hear the similarities between them and New Kids On The Block? Suddenly ABBA disappeared from the sound but hip hop elements started taking over. Is there any big difference in effect for Backstreet Boys from New Kids On The Block? Other than the production improvements through the years of course.

Next part I'll be talking about Madonna, Britney Spears, Lady Gaga and the likes. =)