MR

Posted: **Fri Jun 30, 2006 4:31 am**

No; this is not about the group...it's about the "concept":

Please feel free to answer any / all of these questions:

1. Do you think technology within music has gone too far? If so, how?

2. Would you agree with me that technology is stealing the "organic soul" or "humanness" out of music?

3. Have we really gotten so "auto-pilot" about things in life - including music - that we are now expecting a "clone" of the recording in supposed "live" concerts?

4. Why is "spontaneity" now a "Bad word"?

Those are the only ones I could think of right now....if you happen to think of others for everyone to answer, BY ALL MEANS add them on!!

Happy Posting...

Posted: **Fri Jun 30, 2006 4:36 am**

hahaha great post...

1 - I DO think in some ways it's gone too far, but not as far as the people who control the technology. Technology isnt' bad by itself. It's the people who use for bad things that make it bad. (know what I mean?)

2 - As far as instruments, yes, when you can have a Synclavier that can sound like ANYTHING in the world, and fakes your ears out to think you are listening to a real orchestra when you arne't yes, that's bad, in a way. You still have to have talent to pull it all off in concert.

3 - Look at Max Headroom, you tell me :wink:

4 - Without Spontenatiety, life can't exist. If that's bad, then I'm screwed.

Posted: **Fri Jun 30, 2006 5:17 am**

1. Do you think technology within music has gone too far? If so, how?
Yes indeed I feel it has.
Anything can be fixed in the mix now and nothing is raw
and pure like it once was.

2. Would you agree with me that technology is stealing the "organic soul" or "humanness" out of music?
Yes again I agree and I have felt for a few years now
that it's machines playing to my ears and not humans.

3. Have we really gotten so "auto-pilot" about things in life - including music - that we are now expecting a "clone" of the recording in supposed "live" concerts?
I for one am a concert hag that wants it live no matter
how rough it may sound.

4. Why is "spontaneity" now a "Bad word"?
It sure isn't with me.
I would love to hear whats in a singer/bands heart
or mind instead of something that's so rehearsed
and glossed over that it's lost that irreplaceable moment
of connection between the crowd and the band.

Good questions, thanks for posting this.

(yes I am the Queen of Eggheaded editing)

Posted: **Fri Jun 30, 2006 5:43 am**

Same for me as the above replies (Call me lazy...).

Except - I like for a song to sound very similar live as on the album. Stevie Nicks tortured some of her songs live in the spirit of "music freedom". However, I am one who doesn't like the fact that Wheel and AWYWI are so sped up live, either. I love the original tempo of both of those songs.

Posted: **Fri Jun 30, 2006 5:44 am**

1. Do you think technology within music has gone too far? If so, how?

Technology is not a bad thing in music,the more advanced,the better everything sounds.I’d say technology is made to capture the essence of the music at the highest fidelity possible.
The problem is when technology is misused….Look at dance music.Man,I just hate it when they put together an idiotic loop on the computer,add 4 words to it,and then call it “music and lyrics”! That’s outrageous!

2. Would you agree with me that technology is stealing the "organic soul" or "humanness" out of music?

Well,I would say technology is a double edged sword.If used properly it can add “soulfulness” and “heart” to the song.
For example,a beautiful classical piano will sound incredible in a high tech recording studio.The same piano will sound lifeless if the studio is poorly equipped.
As for what some are doing with technology in music…I already pointed that out at #1.I don’t care about the bpm counter,I don’t care which audio software was used…
All I need is to feel something when I listen to a song.A real feeling that is conveyed in the song by the composer..

3. Have we really gotten so "auto-pilot" about things in life - including music - that we are now expecting a "clone" of the recording in supposed "live" concerts?

Sadly enough there are a lot of people who would accept that.They just don’t care if it’s real or if it’s taped.For them,if it sounds "good" then all is good! Unfortunately,the young generation grew up in the Lip-Synch Era,they are ok with someone like Spears,Madonna or Lopez.For them it’s the looks,the dance numbers and the CD like sound,so I guess they are happy with that.
When you have a certain age and you have witnessed the real deal on a stage,you cannot conceive a fake act being called "live".
At least that’s how I personally feel.

4. Why is "spontaneity" now a "Bad word"?

Because spontaneity means truth.It means honesty.And not everyone is comfortable with that....Or not capable.

Posted: **Fri Jun 30, 2006 5:45 am**

Here's my two cents...

1. Do you think technology within music has gone too far? If so, how? In some ways. I think digital recording is a gret technology and a better way of preserving music than tape. As far as performances go, it depends on how it's used. It was definitely overused in the 80's when it first became popular. Nothing beats a heart-felt guitar or piano solo.

2. Would you agree with me that technology is stealing the "organic soul" or "humanness" out of music? Yes. Using digital loops in songs really takes away from the overall experience.

3. Have we really gotten so "auto-pilot" about things in life - including music - that we are now expecting a "clone" of the recording in supposed "live" concerts? I sort of understand backing tracks and lip-synching for artists who are heavy on physical dance as part of their act. Otherwise, live music should be just that - live. A concert denotes a live performance and for a band to give otherwise withough informing the public is dishonest.

4. Why is "spontaneity" now a "Bad word"? I think it has a bad conotation now because unexpected things can happen and be said when things are not rehearsed to death. I love how Steve Perry would change around the vocal arrangements on songs when I saw him live. I couldn't sing along half the time because I had no idea what was going to come out of his mouth!!! If I wanted an exact duplicate of the record I would listen to the record!

Posted: **Fri Jun 30, 2006 6:01 am**

about 1 in 5 interviews anymore seem to mention "Pro-tools... blah blah blah". For those who know what Pro-tools is, great, but it also can be technology that allows everything to be TOO perfect at times. Give me nice physical mixing board and a digital recorder for my music. Not a computer to fix it in the mix as they say.

I don't attend concerts to hear a song just like a cd. I want something different.

Posted: **Fri Jun 30, 2006 6:07 am**

tragchk wrote:
1. Do you think technology within music has gone too far? If so, how?

Yes. Even the taped backing vocals were going too far. Listen to some old Toto boots, or pre-Escape Journey. Or better yet, any Queen live album.

U2 or Van Halen using taped keyboard tracks, it's okay, because it was only for a few songs (or in U2's case, simplistic loops like "Bad" or "With Or Without You" that were sequencers to begin with). I would've prefered VH just hire a keyboard player and put him onstage (like Aerosmith's keyboardist) but when I saw them in '98 it didn't interfere with me enjoying the show at all.

But I think now, with all these bands using taped vocal harmonies and such, it's just too fake. Somehow these bands used to find a way to play these songs 100% live, and there's no reason they shouldn't still be able to. If you can't, you should get off the road. Sure, Queen live didn't sound like the record, but that was the point. It was the moment, the energy, the songs, the fact that you were seeing one of your favorite bands in the flesh, right in front of you.

Again, I'm talking about rock bands. I'm a big fan of electronic music...Imogen Heap, the Orb, Nine Inch Nails, etc. But when I go see someone like Imogen Heap, I have very different expectations than if I went to see Journey. And ironically, I felt her show, despite having lots of computers and sequencers and such, was more live and spontaneous than some of the big rock shows I've seen. Which leads me to...

2. Would you agree with me that technology is stealing the "organic soul" or "humanness" out of music?

If technology is used to create the music in the first place, than no. Some of my favorite artists like Depeche Mode, Blur, INXS, Hooverphonic, etc have used technology to create sounds and styles of music that would've been impossible 30 years ago. Sure, Depeche Mode's shows have lots of triggered samples, sequences, and whatever else but it certainly didn't feel soulless.

Where technology oversteps its boundaries is when it replaces things that were originally done live, vocally or otherwise. For example, the keyboards on U2's "Where the Streets Have No Name" have always been sequenced or taped, and yet it's possibly the most moving live song I've ever witnessed. If Edge's backing vocals suddenly joined that tape, then I feel it would lose a large human element, even though that's only a minor part of the arrangement.

3. Have we really gotten so "auto-pilot" about things in life - including music - that we are now expecting a "clone" of the recording in supposed "live" concerts?

I don't know. I think real fans would rather hear something unique and live, but the majority of concert-goers at large-venue shows (at least in the U.S.) seem to be rich upper-class people who go to drink beer and sing along to the radio hits. Veteran touring acts like Journey aren't playing for the people who populate these boards, they're playing for the people who lost their virginity to "Open Arms" and are looking for some temporary nostalgia. Those people presumably do expect it to sound like the album, and that's why so many bands have resorted to technology.

4. Why is "spontaneity" now a "Bad word"?

I don't think it is, but I think the bands are more pressured now than ever before to deliver a specific type of concert. Ticket prices are pretty much out of my price range, which is why I'll probably never actually see Journey live even though they play in Chicago just about every year. But prices are up, artist guarantees are up, etc etc and so hits-driven bands like Journey can't go out and do a "for the fans" tour playing album tracks and such and survive. Either they have to do the 3-hour anniversary tour like last year, or do the same 110-minute greatest hits set every night.

I think if ticket prices went down you'd see far, far more spontaneity. If you're the average fan, and pay $30 (for good seats, not the lawn, mind you) to see Journey, and they only do 7 or 8 of the "dirty dozen", you'd be like "well, they didn't play (insert song), but they're a great band and hey, it was $30." Whereas if you pay $80 or more, you go in damn well expecting to hear every song that's ever been played on the radio.

The ticket back to spontaneity is for artists to cut ticket prices in favor of artistry. Cheaper tickets will draw more fans, and allow you far more room to experiment with your live show. But as long as you thirty-somethings and soccer moms keep paying these outrageous ticket prices, don't hold your breath on anything changing.

I'm 24, and it's kinda funny, everyone likes Journey, even if it's slightly ironic. If they did a show for $20, I could bring a truckload of my friends, and we'd all have a great time. Who knows, a couple of them might even like the new stuff. Same with Van Halen, or the Stones, or Queen. Those bands are always cool, and music fans my age always want to go, because they're legends, but of course no one can afford a Stones ticket and college at the same time. It sucks.

Posted: **Fri Jun 30, 2006 6:20 am**

WalrusOct9 wrote:I think if ticket prices went down you'd see far, far more spontaneity. If you're the average fan, and pay $30 (for good seats, not the lawn, mind you) to see Journey, and they only do 7 or 8 of the "dirty dozen", you'd be like "well, they didn't play (insert song), but they're a great band and hey, it was $30." Whereas if you pay $80 or more, you go in damn well expecting to hear every song that's ever been played on the radio.

The ticket back to spontaneity is for artists to cut ticket prices in favor of artistry. Cheaper tickets will draw more fans, and allow you far more room to experiment with your live show. But as long as you thirty-somethings and soccer moms keep paying these outrageous ticket prices, don't hold your breath on anything changing.

I'm 24, and it's kinda funny, everyone likes Journey, even if it's slightly ironic. If they did a show for $20, I could bring a truckload of my friends, and we'd all have a great time. Who knows, a couple of them might even like the new stuff. Same with Van Halen, or the Stones, or Queen. Those bands are always cool, and music fans my age always want to go, because they're legends, but of course no one can afford a Stones ticket and college at the same time. It sucks.

Great points!!

Posted: **Fri Jun 30, 2006 9:40 pm**

tragchk wrote:
1. Do you think technology within music has gone too far? If so, how?

Yes, I want to hear live music played and sung by the musicians that are on the stage. I don't have a problem with enhancement of the sound by adding recorded instrumentals and background vocals, but I want what the people on the stage are doing to be real.

2. Would you agree with me that technology is stealing the "organic soul" or "humanness" out of music?

It is when it's replacing real musical talent, ability and creativity.

3. Have we really gotten so "auto-pilot" about things in life - including music - that we are now expecting a "clone" of the recording in supposed "live" concerts?

I like what I hear live to sound as much like the recordings of the songs that I love as it can, but only if the artist can actually do them that way. If they can't, they shouldn't be performing them live at all. I don't mind improvisation, but I don't like it to distort the songs to the extent that they no longer sound like what I've come to hear.

4. Why is "spontaneity" now a "Bad word"?

I don't know that it is unless it's used to cover the fact that they can't do it the way it was recorded. For instance I love the spontaneity of the way LTS is performed on the GHL CD, but the heart of the song is still there. If they had fooled around too much with the basic lyrics and melody of the verses though, I wouldn't have liked it.

Posted: **Fri Jun 30, 2006 10:09 pm**

WalrusOct9 wrote:I'm 24, and it's kinda funny, everyone likes Journey, even if it's slightly ironic. If they did a show for $20, I could bring a truckload of my friends, and we'd all have a great time. Who knows, a couple of them might even like the new stuff. Same with Van Halen, or the Stones, or Queen. Those bands are always cool, and music fans my age always want to go, because they're legends, but of course no one can afford a Stones ticket and college at the same time. It sucks.

This is absolutely true, our typical crowds at Frontiers shows are 24-35 year olds. There is a portion of 40+ year olds, and these are the people who are the Journey fans that are going to spend money at a Journey concert. But 90% of our audience is made up of younger people who never saw Journey, and probably never will. While Journey tickets are considerably less than some of the dinosaur acts out there, the expectation of someone who went to concerts in the early-mid eighties is very different than those who have musically matured in the past 10 years.

Posted: **Sat Jul 01, 2006 2:46 am**

It's too bad you're not from Chicago. If there was a (good) Journey tribute here I'd totally go. My friend's in the U2 tribute band Vertigo and we go see them all the time, it's a fun night out.

Posted: **Sat Jul 01, 2006 4:59 am**

WalrusOct9 wrote: I'm 24, and it's kinda funny, everyone likes Journey, even if it's slightly ironic. If they did a show for $20, I could bring a truckload of my friends, and we'd all have a great time. Who knows, a couple of them might even like the new stuff. Same with Van Halen, or the Stones, or Queen. Those bands are always cool, and music fans my age always want to go, because they're legends, but of course no one can afford a Stones ticket and college at the same time. It sucks.

Amen to that.

If a band is off, a $20 let down is forgivable. You'd probably have fun anyway.

It's hard to take a chance on a band for the kind of bucks Journey is asking.

Posted: **Sat Jul 01, 2006 12:41 pm**

OK... GREAT answers from everyone!! :mrgreen:

Bumping this to the top....this IS a "different thread" than the Tapegate scandal, y'know....

:wink:

MR

Semi-OT: Rage(ing) against the machine

Semi-OT: Rage(ing) against the machine

Re: Semi-OT: Rage(ing) against the machine

Re: Semi-OT: Rage(ing) against the machine

Re: Semi-OT: Rage(ing) against the machine

Re: Semi-OT: Rage(ing) against the machine

Re: Semi-OT: Rage(ing) against the machine

Re: Semi-OT: Rage(ing) against the machine

Re: Semi-OT: Rage(ing) against the machine