|
Post by Sir rogerlejohn jr. on Oct 24, 2014 15:47:12 GMT -5
Often the longer Duran work on a song the worse it gets. Instead of spending countless hours constructing additional layers of keyboard sounds, I think they'd be better off removing one or two and moving on to the next track instead.
|
|
|
Post by mynick7 on Oct 24, 2014 16:53:29 GMT -5
Yeah...not taking part in this. Some of the disasters that people have mentioned here are top-notch in my book. I trust the guys with what they put out and why. Maybe in hindsight they would've changed something but that's life.
|
|
trevgreg
PAPER GOD
[Mo0:17]
Posts: 2,613
|
Post by trevgreg on Oct 24, 2014 17:07:42 GMT -5
I see similar arguments on other bands' message boards and for me, it's not quite as simple as yes or no.
I'm nothing close to being a professional musician myself, but I've dabbled in writing my own material before and I can understand the viewpoint of writing something and then coming back to it later. When you come up with a song or come close to completing one, you usually think very highly of it and how you seemed to accomplish something out of nothing. Some of the time, you might also think that it's probably perfect as it is and think it should be left alone. Then what happens is you come back to it later on, maybe even after sleeping on it for the night, and think something completely different. "That lyric isn't really good" or "that guitar part/chord structure should be changed," that sort of thing. Or maybe you planned on adding stuff later on anyway as it was. Then you might change things enough to the point that it doesn't resemble anything that it first appeared to be.
Which brings me back to your question... like what Mynick7 hinted at too, I don't think there's a clear yes or no answer there. Some of the best songs ever, DD or otherwise, didn't just appear overnight or were written in a day or two's time. I'm sure more than a few of them were, but placing a time limit on things probably wouldn't work for every single track. Layering keyboards or synthesizer parts is one thing, and I don't think 'overworking' a song can be limited to just those instruments either. If a song changes for the better or worse, or if a song has too many instruments on it, that's something that a band and a producer need to watch out for in the process. I don't think it necessarily means just finishing up a song asap just for the sake of doing so though. In fact, it could very well hinder it.
|
|
|
Post by Dr Of The Revolution on Oct 24, 2014 18:07:26 GMT -5
I see similar arguments on other bands' message boards and for me, it's not quite as simple as yes or no. I'm nothing close to being a professional musician myself, but I've dabbled in writing my own material before and I can understand the viewpoint of writing something and then coming back to it later. When you come up with a song or come close to completing one, you usually think very highly of it and how you seemed to accomplish something out of nothing. Some of the time, you might also think that it's probably perfect as it is and think it should be left alone. Then what happens is you come back to it later on, maybe even after sleeping on it for the night, and think something completely different. "That lyric isn't really good" or "that guitar part/chord structure should be changed," that sort of thing. Or maybe you planned on adding stuff later on anyway as it was. Then you might change things enough to the point that it doesn't resemble anything that it first appeared to be. Which brings me back to your question... like what Mynick7 hinted at too, I don't think there's a clear yes or no answer there. Some of the best songs ever, DD or otherwise, didn't just appear overnight or were written in a day or two's time. I'm sure more than a few of them were, but placing a time limit on things probably wouldn't work for every single track. Layering keyboards or synthesizer parts is one thing, and I don't think 'overworking' a song can be limited to just those instruments either. If a song changes for the better or worse, or if a song has too many instruments on it, that's something that a band and a producer need to watch out for in the process. I don't think it necessarily means just finishing up a song asap just for the sake of doing so though. In fact, it could very well hinder it. Those are wise words
|
|
|
Post by coolbarn on Oct 24, 2014 22:29:42 GMT -5
To me it's about the band trying to keep it simple. First and foremost a song needs a great vocal melody. Without that it's nothing. Make your music catchy, catchy, catchy. I can forgive annoying instrumentation if it's a fun, catchy tune. But... If on top of your catchy melodies you can incorporate some amazing, intricate, instrumentation, then that's even better! A great bassline which leads the song, suitable drums, funky guitar riff, and some atmospheric keyboards. That's all a song needs, adding additional layers and sounds which distract from the other instruments, often added if the band spend too long working on a song, can ruin an otherwise great track. Look at a track like Astronaut. Starts out great doesn't it - some nice acoustic guitar. Then some suitable drumming. Finally the bass, guitar chords, and fuzzy keyboards all kick in - all of the above criteria have been met and we have a cracking good song with a really catchy verse. But then, sadly, we get to the chorus. Now listen to all the keyboard layers come flying out at you from nowhere; sometimes when I'm driving and I have the song turned up loud I actually duck my head because I expect some synthesisers and a kitchen sink to come hurtling through my windscreen. Nick just goes beserk and it drives me to distraction, all I can here is his swirls and whistles and it makes me totally forget about the drums, bass, and guitar. So I don't know how long the band spent on the song. They might have spent 5 minutes, 5 hours, or 5 months. All I know is that, as Trevgreg pointed out, the band and producer allowed too many sounds and swirls to infiltrate the song, and in my opinion it makes a damn good song become a decent, but overall disappointing track (a 'what could have been' tune). Want You More is another example of a really cool tune struggling to escape all the different sounds and layers, and ends up suffocating in them. So overall I'd say yes, the longer Duran spend on a track, the more chance of it sounding over-produced. Put it this way - if Duran go into the studio with an an almost completed song, but then during recording decide to change it up until eventually it sounds nothing like how it started, I would suggest the final product which makes it to album will have more to it rather than less. I doubt, for example, that a beautiful, simple, catchy tune like Edge Of America started out as a full on rock number with a 10 piece brass band, harps, and a kazoo, but then the band stripped it right back to what it eventually became They seem to add, not subtract. And it's true - less is more.
|
|
|
Post by Dr Of The Revolution on Oct 25, 2014 5:33:59 GMT -5
Put it this way - if Duran go into the studio with an an almost completed song, but then during recording decide to change it up until eventually it sounds nothing like how it started, I would suggest the final product which makes it to album will have more to it rather than less. I don't think it happens very often nowadays that Duran Duran go in the studio with an almost completed song. They go in the studio and then they throw in musical ideas at each other which might morph into a song. But more often won't. If they don't have any or not enough good ideas they hire other people to have external input. They don't really do demo's any more. They just keep working adding things and taking some things away. It was totally different for the first two albums. Most of those songs had their skeleton completed long before they went into the studio. They had to because studio time was limited and expensive. Nowadays (actually since 7 & The Ragged Tiger) they spend much more time recording and looking for a song, spending weeks on end only to find out that the core was never there. Hence the scrapping of so many songs. What toally puzzles me is they also scrap songs that are superior to what they will put on an album (Astronaut being the prime example) The producer's role has changed much too : Back then it was the producer who was in charge during recording. Nowadays they have multiple producers coming in for a few days (Mark Ronson). And producers co-writing songs. Last week, Nile came up with a musical idea when he was alone in the studio ! The guys were in Italy. So it's very different from the early days. And not for the better I fear. They now spend like 5 years on one album which probably won't top their first two records. Back then 5 years is what they needed for evolving from an unknown band to the biggest band in the world.
|
|
|
Post by coolbarn on Oct 25, 2014 5:55:38 GMT -5
Great post Doctor!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 25, 2014 7:21:45 GMT -5
I would agree that Duran is best when they capture that initial spark and don't over think it. I am a songwriter www.ReverbNation.com/bittersweetmachines (small plug) and I can tell you my best stuff is written in 5-10 minutes. If it goes beyond 30 minutes I usually walk away and save it for another day. I remember a lot of Duran's early work had that sense of urgency, very fresh and exciting. It was almost because they didnt know what they could or couldn't do that made it so great. I mean "sound of thunder" seems normal to us because we've been kicking it around for over 30 years but what an odd song and you can tell that they benefited from being naive and capturing a moment. I've also thought that some Duran's later albums suffered from being watered down with too many songs. The early 9 song formats were so tight and high impact. It's very hard to let go of songs after you've spent time developing them and release them onto the waves. There are usually little things you've accomplished in the song that mean a lot to you... But no else. But sometimes letting is the bravest thing an artist can do. Also I would imagine for Duran that after 40 years it's difficult to find new territory to dig. Those fresh ideas probably don't flow like they did in '81. I think "leave a light on" is such a joy for them b/c they didn't have to work for it... It just sort of arrived.
|
|
|
Post by Xxxxxx on Oct 25, 2014 7:41:27 GMT -5
There are many examples of this being true; one that comes to mind is What Happens Tomorrow. The live version, on the Encore recording done in Japan, is incredible. Simon's vocal soars and the "bridge" adds a depth that the final version is missing.
|
|
|
Post by andre005 on Oct 25, 2014 21:00:45 GMT -5
Still I think the band should keep it simple stupid..KISS!
Roger Taylor said it took them a few minutes to write and record HLTW and Leave a Light on was done in record time--if something sounds good--ie Beautiful Colours go with your first instinct and release it as a single!! Don't dwell on it and add a million synth layers-yes that's you Mr. Rhodes--the cleaner the better and Nick let Dom crank the guitar in the studios and on the frickin road!!! lol
|
|