NESP Forum

I agree. I think that you have to live the music for a long time before it starts to become a part of you, like a body part. And then with certain types of music, like blues and jazz, you need to live a lot of life before you can really be comfortable and authentic playing the music. Life experience informs the performance and informs the songwriting. There are some great teenage songwriters out there... to use my usual example Brian Wilson wrote "Surfer Girl" when he was 19, a gorgeous, gorgeous song. More complex than most people realize just by listening to it. But it's his later stuff that is really "him" -- his stuff from when he was in his late 20s and 30s, even when he was not well, is miles beyond "Surfer Girl". And even now, his melodies and harmonies are just incredible. His new stuff is just so densely emotional -- and so Brian, you could never mistake it for anyone else. (That Lucky Old Sun drops tomorrow!!)

So I feel like I need to define where I am on the continuum of "which Taylor" I like best... and that ties into the (months!) earlier discussion of live vs. recording. I love recordings... I can get a bit obsessed over finding out "what mic did they use, what guitar, what amp..." and I keep going back and forth on analog vs. digital. I think it's my perfectionist streak, the attempt to create the perfect sound (see: Brian Wilson) and get it down on tape for posterity is attractive to me. But then there's live performance, which serves an entirely different purpose. It's the oops-es and no do-overs aspects of live performance that are attractive to me, and why I only like watching people sing along to a DAT when they screw up (ahahahah). Recordings can be as canned as the tape reels, but live performances ought to be organic. So there's that.

Moving on... (and yeah, I'm feeling chatty tonight!) I think that because recordings and live performances serve two different purposes, there can be two different "Taylors" in that respect. The jams and tags and growlys and whatnot in the live performances, the raw sexiness and joyousness and all that. And tight jeans, I totally vote for tight jeans. But in the recordings, I see no problem with going a teeny bit glossier, more polished, tighter. (Not just the jeans this time.) NOT, I must assert, as glossy as TH-the-album. NO. That was just wrong. I mean like UTR. There was a shoestring album that sounded as polished as it needed to. I listened to that album for the first time on headphones, in the dark, in my bed (which I will swear up and down is the ONLY way to listen to any album for the first time, unless it's dance pop). And the one thing that popped out at me was -- that's solid songwriting. And then, as I continued to listen, I also thought -- that's excellent recording. Good discipline. Good balance. It was an enjoyable listening experience. Now, those songs are totally different live, there's experimentation and dancing and whooing and stuff, and that is also awesome. But here's my big point: If the songwriting is solid, we really can have it all ways. We can have a nice commercial album that will sell and bring in new fans and (gasp!) maybe get radio play. And then we can have raw hot live shows with the same songs -- just kicked up a notch. I don't know what to do for the folks who want Branson-fried-Taylor... I guess they can wait til he's in his 60s and goes for a cheesed-out nostalgia tour?

So that covered a lot of ground... or maybe I just used more words than I needed. But I've been wanting to get that out on the internet for a while!

Vegas showman? No.

I can't wait to hear the new music written by Taylor and collaborators. I imagine it will be a mix of tempos and a variety of blues/soul/country with interesting stories/lyrics.
I am really hoping for a spoken lyric and some groans & growls for lack of a better term. It (the recording) will be played over and over and if it sounds crisp in the audio quality yet gritty in the delivery I will be happy.
I want to hear every word clearly as if Taylor's lips are a centimeter from the mic and I am the only one in the room. I want to feel the emotion in his ballads and feel the groove in the faster beats.

For the love of Pete, please include lyrics and in depth liner notes this time!

Taylor is a performance artist. He often says that he is a visual performer, and that is one reason he thinks he did so well on American Idol.

When he is the Vegas/Broadway entertainer, and I disagree with those who say that guy is not the "real Taylor".
If that was the only act we ever saw, it wouldn't hold our interest. He identifies most with the blues and soul-informed band leader with a performance inspired by the likes Van, Ray and Otis. And that's why I find him a far more interesting artist than say, Clay Aiken. Taylor's live act is his most accomplished creation -- a very entertaining show, with talented and versatile road artists.

But if he wants to create a different sort of act from time to time, he's got the vocal ability and charisma to make us want to see it.
Grease proved that. The role of Teen Angel will never be the same again, because of Taylor's performance creativity. I look forward to many surprises along the way.

Swear did not intend to bring Heather's interview with Grace Potter over here but you've touched on one of the Q&A's and think this is pertinent to the discussion. http://fuelfriends.blogspot.com/2008/08/...io-up.html

Heather: I'd heard that you guys were heading back into the studio later this year. On your last record " This Is Somewhere " you'd tried to capture more of a live feeling in the studio. Will you continue with that aim this time around?

Grace : I think we're going to relinquish all desperate attempts to capture a live sound because it's two very different things. Being in the studio last time we realized that you have to let them be different – you can't force a live sound from a beautiful studio. I mean, we were in a gorgeous studio in LA and we kinda mistreated it, in that we were constantly trying to force something out of it. . . . .

This is Somewhere was GPN's first "real studio" album - the earlier ones were done on a shoestring budget like IYT and UTR.
My initial reaction to TIS was that I liked it but it didn't "Wow" me - - I became a serious fan only after I took the advice to see them live - - and now after several concerts I listen to TIS through that filter.

Unfortunately that didn't happen with Taylor's TH album - - with a few exceptions I can't conjure the live performances by listening to the album - maybe the glossiness you refer to gets in the way. I can however relate to most of UTR and IYT but still usually listen to the live sets I have.

Agree that live and studio are two different animals and - now that have stopped to actually consider it - think I also agree they should be treated as such when creating an album.
Would add that think some of us like the "messiness" of a live performance - while others prefer the more precise sound of studio recordings.

So does the trick then become how to produce an album that makes us "messy folks" want to hear the music in a live concert ? ?

Damn - you almost made me waste some perfectly good wine with that !
The Cheese tour in his 60s is fine with me - if I'm still even on the planet I'll be way too old and senile to give a crap

OK - - so much for the night owl trying to go to bed at a reasonable hour

I love the liner notes too but find fewer and fewer albums have them.
Since this is apparently an expense many are doing away with - especially as more people are downloading music - maybe it makes more sense to have the lyrics and song credits available online ??

But then there is the growing trend of young people seeking out vinyl LPs, so who knows . . . .

Think I understand what you mean - - but "creating an act" can imply playing a role . . . . . .
There are so many comments I wish I'd saved - - can only remember that this came from a piece on what makes some artists great while others with similar talent fade - it may have been Relix. One of the most essential characteristics talked about was that the artist has to know who they are musically, be confident in their own abilities and be able to convey that image to an audience. Would like to see the charasmatic chameleon putting on a show take a backseat for a while - - and the focus be on the music and how Taylor sees himself as a musician at this point in time.
For example does he really see himself the way he responded at the Talk Back ? " I'm a musician on a bus, that's what I am. " *


* (think that's pretty close - someone with a better memory please feel free to correct)

Been thinking on this all day and I do not think I have the answer (yet) to your question. I'm going to start writing and see if I come up with it.

I think the issue with TH (as opposed to UTR, which I think is quite commercial outside our current music industry -- might do better in UK for example) -- the issue with TH is that it is overproduced and the arrangements then become highly dependent on the studio (or live, on DAT tracks). Granted, Taylor and his support staff/band did a great job with the arrangements on tour the past year, BUT, as you say, you do not correlate the live arr. with the recording. I am actually inclined to say it's not so much the studio arrangements as the post-production (which is where most of the production issues that tend to annoy me come into play).

Several years ago, while I was harassing folks on a couple Brian Wilson fanboards, I realized that Brian's 1988 self-titled album and the Paul McCartney album Flowers in the Dirt (of similar vintage) sounded an awful lot alike. Now, I am crazy about both Bri and Paul, and I know their songwriting in and out and upside-down. I know their style. I know the instruments they like to use. None of that was why the songs sounded the same. So, I started looking at liner notes. Lo and behold, the final mixdown on each album was done by the same guy. Can't remember the dude's name now, but his mixing style overshadowed two friggin' living legends. I mean, seriously? That's not cool, dude.

So the point of that story (I always have one) is that the individuals who are getting their fingers into the mixes can leave fingerprints, and someone with an ear for that sort of thing can tell. Especially someone who listens to a lot of music by different artists (i.e., moi). And whomever produced and post-produced TH may have layered on a ton of gloss (footnote 1) that drowned some perfectly decent songs. And that's why they were much improved (and so drastically different) in concert.

Writing this down helped, I think. How do we produce an album that is polished enough for commercial purposes, but interesting enough to draw in the folks that might prefer a messier live performance? My ideas: Have good songs, which are receptive to multiple arrangements (figure out how to do this by studying the standards that have been recorded by hundreds of artists). Have creative arrangements which are not dependent on studio trickery; the more organic the sound the better. This ties back into the multiple arrangements thing. Don't be afraid to use studio time for experimentation. Yes, there is limited time when you have a limited budget, but if you do some planning ahead of time (list things like "try this part with piano AND with B2 Hammond") and even invest in a good synth program (I use Melody Assistant from myriad-online.com, only $20) so you can test out some different sounds before even getting into the studio, that will help. Also, embrace budgetary constraints: some of the most creative stuff can get done under money and time pressure, because you aren't able to go on experimenting and layering forever and ever and ever. Brian Wilson, at the time of the original Smile album, had his own studio and mostly unlimited time. (He also had unlimited drugs: not a good idea.) Given almost no constraints, he got so wrapped up in experimentation that the album evaporated and he went to bed for several months. So budgets and deadlines = good for albums.

That's a start, anyway. But I am sticking to my usual argument that it is all about the songs, letting the songs shine, and not mucking things up in post-production.



Footnote 1: Gloss vs. polish. Polish is making things clean and nice... gloss is making them shiny and disguising their soul.

I say WTH to all this babble ( please nobody take this to heart ) I'm a simple kind of girl why can't he just call his buddies up say something like, guys come over to the lake for a long week-end I'd like to play.The Traveling Wilburys did it this way.........Right?????? I really think you can OVER THINK MUSIC WAY TO MUCH.I hear a lot of musicians say when asked about some of their work, that it just happened. What do I know nothing really I'm just rambling on and on

That's kinda my point, Lisa. These so-called professionals in the "industry" have got it all wrong -- music really should be kept as simple as possible. That's not to say we go back to Gregorian chant with only one melodic line sung in unison! But there are too many tricks and toys in studios and too many of those can be taken on tour now, and it's just smothering the songs (or people aren't bothering to write songs anymore, they just write a series of special effects and call it a song).

Also, Taylor could fart into a mic and there are people that would buy it (and claim it's the sound of glitter and rainbows, not a fart), but I would like to see him put SOME thought into this album. Even the songs that "just happen" take a lot of work. Paul McCartney dreamed the melody to "Yesterday" but spent some time writing the lyrics. I write melodies and lyrics in the shower but have to spend hours on end writing the chords and arrangements. To "just play" would mean a record full of covers... and I think we're all looking for new songs this time around, yes?

I understand where you're coming from Lisa and I do mostly agree with you. I'm just pointing out the reality of the songwriting and recording process, because I actually know how it is from the songwriter's perspective (and, God willing, someday I'll get back in a real studio too).

BTW, I am enjoying a lot of Carole King today -- various versions of her songs by other artists, by herself, and with her daughter. Talk about good songs...

If you listen to TH and EW back to back, the difference between the organic "home-grown" production of the EW tracks and the over-produced TH tracks is striking. The TH album -- like most modern music -- is full of extraneous noise, and EW is not much beyond voice and instruments. With the remastering, the voice and instruments are clear. Some studio tricks such as vocal layering, used judiciously, can add interest and variety.

I've seen some articles recently on how since most people listen to music on MP3s (overly compressed) or CDs (a bit better but still not good), music production settles for the noisy crap that sounds okay in those formats. To me that's just an excuse. Most of the brilliant songs of Brian Wilson, the Beatles, Phil Spector, were primarily produced to be heard on tiny transistor radios and mono AM car radios -- yet they sounded great.

My head hurt just trying to figure out what you guys are talking about.

But please continue...