Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Benmrx]

I'm just a bit curious here, how many of you are using programs like auto-tune, sound replacer, beat detective, etc. as a regular way of working and getting your sounds.

Maybe I'm just way behind the times here, but I've never once used auto-tune or  beat detective, used sound replacer maybe 3 or 4 times, only to send to a reverb for an effect.  

I assume most of the big, fancy records are using these, but after reading a few posts I fear these work ethics have begun to infiltrate the indie world.

[Fibes]

Benmrx wrote on Tue, 26 July 2005 03:54

I assume most of the big, fancy records are using these, but after reading a few posts I fear these work ethics have begun to infiltrate the indie world.

I use them. If a performance is brilliant and has a minor flaw or two i'll fix it. I tracked a song where the band came in after the breakdown and the snare head popped, perfect time for Apptrigga. I used a set of samples pulled from the beginning of the song and you'd be none the wiser. Auto tune was used on a song where the Moog drifted a little bit (because they do) from one octave to the next.

The key is never to go in thinking that you can rely on these crutches but remembering they are there when you've screwed the pooch and the budget calls for some quick ass covering.

[j.hall]

i don't use these tools as i'm last in line to work on a record in multi track form.

i get many records to mix that have been sound replaced, beat dectived, and auto tuned......and i'm working 99.9% with indie rock artists.

you have to ride a thin line between abusing a tool, and actually using it to make your life easier, and improve the product.

auto tune is no different then tuning a vocal yourself with a pitch shifter a line at a time.....it just works MUCH quicker and saves the AE days......

beat dectective and sound replacer are the same....it's no different then editing drums based on a click track, or trigering samples....it's just easier.

to me, it's the difference between framing a house with a hammer, or a nail gun

[craig boychuk]

Definitely just to fix.

I'm one of those no "click track ever" kind of people, who thinks that if you're good enough to play with a click then you don't need it.

That, and the whole "sucks the life outta everything" complaint.

If it comes to a point where there are extreme edits, then it should be played again when everyone knows what they're doing.



I have used autotune once, and I felt dirty.

But, the track was better for it.

[craig boychuk]

Fibes said:

The key is never to go in thinking that you can rely on these crutches

Words to live by.

--

[wwittman]

other 'crutches' that have (horrors) started to insinuate themselves into even (gasP) "indie" records:

overdubbing
comping multi-track recording
multiple mics on drums

seriously... unless you actually believe that all bands should show up, play into one mic for the duration of their 3 minute song, and then leave with the record... then it's ALL either a crutch or a useful tool

I do less auto-tune and beat detective and sound replacer on "mainstream" major label records that I work on than I hear on most "indie" records... in part because the major label artistes don't all think they are recording engineers as well.

I can't remember the last time I recorded a rock band in which at LEAST one member didn't think he knew how some technique was CRUCIAL to the sound because he read that The 4 Wednesday Tattoos (or whatever band they love this week) used it on their awesome record.

[TheViking]

The engineer that shares my space with me and I had this amazing conversation recently about popular 'scene' music in general.   The conclusion we came to is that it's the 80's again.   Bigger, louder and over-the-top is the goal.   Just listen to where mastering has taken our mixes.

It infects the bands we work with.   They want all the sounds seperated - back in the 80's it was triggers or seperate tracking of each sound of the drum kit - now we have sound replacer and apptrigga.   They want their drums quantized so that they can compete with their peers.   It's more about image and the appearence.   They heard that new Post Hardcore Emo Screamo Indie band they all want to sound exactly like used sound replacer and beat detective so they want it too.

What's worse than all of the recording biz stuff is that when you go to a show nowadays, kids are all sporting their $1500 custom shop guitar and obnoxious quintuple rectal-fire amps that their mommy's and daddy's bought them so they could look the part.   They wear the tight-ass womans jeans and studded belts and are more fashion-core than any glam band tried to be back then.   It's the 80's - they are back with attitude.

I am praying for the day when some band emerges from the underground with something to actually say.   Or better yet, I want a band busting shit up on stage again.   It needs to stop being about the gear and the show and the look and it needs to start being about the music and the importance of making sure everyone in the room knows exactly how that guy on stage is feeling about the song he is singing.   I know there are bands out there doing that - it just doesn't seem to be the trendy scene kids that we end up having to record.

Ugh...   to think some of us were pissed off about the grunge movement.

The Viking
www.vikingrecording.com

[Benmrx]

Well I guess I am just behind the times here.  Our studio has carved its little niche in the scene because we're the only affordable place in town with a 2" tape machine.  I still mix in pro tools, so I can automate levels and sends to outboard gear.......although the last full length record I did, the band was very strict about keeping it all analog.  Tracked to 2", mixed and mastered to 1/4", and will only be on vinyl (with a CDR inside).  

Maybe it's just the scene here (seattle), but most of the indie rock bands here aren't too hip to the "fix-it" tools.  

I was mainly curious because I'm starting to think that some of my favorite records have used these tools.  I guess I never realized that using beat detective was just as common as multi-micing a drumset.

Maybe I'm wrong, but a record that I think sounds amazing that didn't use any of these tools is the Arkade Fire.  I read a post on here a while back where someone thought this record had a "lo-fi" sound to it.......I didn't think so at all.  My theory is that most peoples ears have become trained to perfect timing, pitch, etc.

" seriously... unless you actually believe that all bands should show up, play into one mic for the duration of their 3 minute song, and then leave with the record... then it's ALL either a crutch or a useful tool"

I don't think that at all.  To me there is a huge difference between using different mics for different instruments (i.e. - kick, snare, etc.) and using a program to calculate the math to put each and every hit on grid.  

[John Ivan]

TheViking wrote on Tue, 26 July 2005 17:05

The engineer that shares my space with me and I had this amazing conversation recently about popular 'scene' music in general.   The conclusion we came to is that it's the 80's again.   Bigger, louder and over-the-top is the goal.   Just listen to where mastering has taken our mixes. It infects the bands we work with.   They want all the sounds seperated - back in the 80's it was triggers or seperate tracking of each sound of the drum kit - now we have sound replacer and apptrigga.   They want their drums quantized so that they can compete with their peers.   It's more about image and the appearence.   They heard that new Post Hardcore Emo Screamo Indie band they all want to sound exactly like used sound replacer and beat detective so they want it too. What's worse than all of the recording biz stuff is that when you go to a show nowadays, kids are all sporting their $1500 custom shop guitar and obnoxious quintuple rectal-fire amps that their mommy's and daddy's bought them so they could look the part.   They wear the tight-ass womans jeans and studded belts and are more fashion-core than any glam band tried to be back then.   It's the 80's - they are back with attitude. I am praying for the day when some band emerges from the underground with something to actually say.   Or better yet, I want a band busting shit up on stage again.   It needs to stop being about the gear and the show and the look and it needs to start being about the music and the importance of making sure everyone in the room knows exactly how that guy on stage is feeling about the song he is singing.   I know there are bands out there doing that - it just doesn't seem to be the trendy scene kids that we end up having to record. Ugh...   to think some of us were pissed off about the grunge movement. The Viking www.vikingrecording.com

As a writer and player ,I can really relate to all this. As an engineer, I just don't record that stuff. I'm thinking I might start to focus on Blues and jazz from an engineering standpoint., Even in the "jazz" world ,the problems seem to be reflecting the times. After all, there is this stuff they call "smooth Jazz" A lot of this music amounts to Ideas that great R&B bands from the old days said no to.

Thankfully, I can sit and make the music I want to make. There are some really fun things coming.

As for using Auto tune or sound replacer go's,, I've used auto tune on other peoples stuff but never will on mine. I can see grabbing a snare hit that I missed on something that needs to go out fast for an ad or something but, on my stuff, everything will be played.

I've had people say mean things to me about all this,, it's funny. I never thought in a million years that I would have to be arguing the point that folks should PLAY their instruments through the whole tune without mistakes. People simply will not get any better at playing if they don't.

Strange stuff.

Ivan..............

[Benmrx]

"I never thought in a million years that I would have to be arguing the point that folks should PLAY their instruments"

That's insane.  And this whole ghost tracking idea?  It's one thing to find the best drummer you possibly can for say......bruce springstein, but a 20 something 3-5 piece band?  What's the point?  Why not just let the producer form the band based around the singer.........or is that what's going on already?  

[7minAbs]

I do not normally contribute to this forum but wanted to chime in.

Many bands are put together by the producer/label and are centered around the singer. When you read a bio about a young band, there is usually alot to the story missing. I played for a band that evenutally signed to a major. Although I was a founding member of the band, I was left out of the bio completely (as well as the other two guitarists). A friend of mine at capitol later showed me a sampler that had a song from this band that I demo'ed...my guitar tracks...and had the new guitarist listed as the guitar player.
Lastly, there was a running joke about how the manager once stated that the singer was the "pizza" and the rest of the band was the "pepperoni".

It's no wonder things sound so homogenized these days. The days of bands playing together and getting a chemistry seem to be gone.

Hopefully I have not digressed too much from the original topic but if so, I will comment on the use of autotune, B.D., etc. in today's music. It seems to me that people have acquired a tasted for "sterile" sounds (ie guitars, drums, bass PTooled to death). It is the expectation. I hear so many AE/Producers talk about "when players played in time" etc. SOME of the people making these comments wouldn't know a good take if it hit them in the head.  They are more influenced by what is happening than they think. Most are just responding to the expectations of the label so that they can feed their families.  IMO striving for the human element has been long gone.  There's a sound and it is like a soccer ball in a kids soccer ball game....no passing, EVERYONE follows the ball....

As far as the comparison to now being like the 80s...I agree with that but it's a little different as well. There were great players in the 80s, in some ways innovative. Yes, you can draw a comparison because there was a heavy emphasis on image. The difference is you couldn't buy 80s rock styles at the Gap. No matter how big it got, it was stil somewhat separate...a rebellion from the mainstream (ie "get a haircut!"). Even the "heart throb" singers had a quirkiness about them. Now its all about being GQ wannabe and then going to the mall and getting your studded belt. Hopefully I am making my point clearly...

Things are so formula right now, something's got to break, it always does.

Well, thanks for reading...interesting post.

[TheViking]

Agreed...   musicians in the 80's definately could actually play.   Although I have heard the stories of certain known rock drummers back then that usually had more tape on the floor after edits than there was left on the tape.   So, I guess as J said - same idea, different tools and quicker.

Also agree that fashion today is much more 'mall based' - i.e. Hot Topic, Gap, PacSun, Etc.   I guess my opinion is more in the larger than life, bigger, faster, better, more approach being just blown out.   There is an unatural feel to everything these days because it's all digitized and processed through these 'boxes' and 'plug ins'.   But unfortunately, a lot of us are left with the task of giving the clients what they want.

I also wonder what the next rebellion or movement in music is going to be.   What's the next big shift?   I'd like to believe that the indie rocker purists will have their way with this industry.   Dear God...   don't bring back disco.

The Viking
www.vikingrecording.com

[wwittman]

One thing that I think is emblematically different is that back then there was a widespread distrust of commercialism.
I don't mean people didn't want to sell records. They did and they do now.

I mean that MOST artistes, at least, didn't feel that selling their music was the same ting as selling clothes and electronics and hair products and whatever else.

I worked with a few new artistes who, just after their first albums went platinum were asked to do Rolling Stone fashion spreads and declined.
They felt that selling shoes one day could only make their audience question the seriousness of anyting they had to say the next day.

THAT is entirely different now.
Music artistes have successfuly been turned into a commodity.
And to a large degree this is a Gen X attitude... this feeling that there's no DIFFERENCE between programming and commercials.
And you can argue that this has become true.. but it was enabled by an ACCEPTANCE of it when ti started to creep in.

Some people complained about it and some said "oh, so what? it's all commercial anyway..."

I think there are still real bands and real writers and real artistes... but they are lost in the deluge of pure packaging and product placement crap.

And THAT has very little to do with auto-tune or editing or ProTools or anything else related to how it SOUNDS.
It has to do with what we come to expect our artistes to be.

[j.hall]

wwittman wrote on Wed, 27 July 2005 08:00

And THAT has very little to do with auto-tune or editing or ProTools or anything else related to how it SOUNDS. It has to do with what we come to expect our artistes to be.

BINGO!!!!!!!!!!

i think william's perspective is a little more formed then most all of ours that frequent this forum.  he has in fact, lived it.

i also agree with viking......i long for a band that plays great music that has some thing different, or dare i say original, about it....and puts on a rock show......

show me how you feel about your music....otherwise, i'll just put the CD in and stay home.

[7minAbs]

Quote:

i think william's perspective is a little more formed then most all of ours that frequent this forum. he has in fact, lived it.

Indeed. He has contributed to the sound track of my life.

[Tomas Danko]

7minAbs wrote on Wed, 27 July 2005 14:45

Quote: i think william's perspective is a little more formed then most all of ours that frequent this forum. he has in fact, lived it. Indeed. He has contributed to the sound track of my life.

Ditto on the contribution!


Just because everybody is thinking it's all commercial these days, doesn't have to mean you have to keep thinking and acting as if your very own musical expression has to be conformed into commerciality.

I still believe that the everyday listener can always hear a difference between mammonized production and something that came true and honest out of someone with true intentions.

Intentions tell more than what first meets the ear (or eye, for that matter).

[j.hall]

so, we all sound replace, auto tune and compress the snot out of everything cause that's what is trendy now?  so then when the trend changes by some one with big enough balls to step outside the norm and generate a hit or two....we all just fall into place and get in line and play follow the leader again?

the reason people hire me is because of me....my ears, my approach, my thing.  if that means i need to sound replace, then i'll do it.....but it's all about me NOT playing follow the leader

it's about me being me......that's why people hire all of us, because of who we are as unique individuals that bring something to the table.

don't ever overlook that.  you are your biggest advertisement.

[Benmrx]

interesting twist this topic has taken.  as far as the fashion goes, I feel like it was when I was in highschool (mid 90s) that things got really screwy.  The whole punk rock thing (mostly the fashion) became very mainstream with rancid and greenday kids going to hot topic for their studded belts.  

The commercial aspect has gotten worse as the years go on.  These days, you're getting hit with advertisements any time you step outside or use the boob tube.  Almost every channel now has a constant logo at the bottom left or right of the screen.....it never goes away...exept for the commercial break.  

I'm pretty optomistic about the future of music at this point though.  There's more then a handful of really great, new bands in town right now, and they all sound pretty different.  I think bands are coming back...guitar solos...big harmonys......energetic live shows, etc.  The idea of going to a show, and watching a group of honestly talented people will turn people on.  

The indie rock kids are stepping it up a notch.....I mean how many built to spill clones can there be?  

BTW..just finished mixing the last song of a e.p......on one song I edited one drum hit, cause he wacked the mic.    

[7minAbs]

Agreed.

I guess I was referring to what someone mentioned earlier in regards to catering to their clients needs.

BTW, I've had my vocals autotuned, guitars chopped, etc. ...so I am not against the practice.

On the other hand I have older recordings done with minimal gear, no editing, that I like very much.

Peace.

[Benmrx]

"catering to their clients needs"

That's what you gotta do.  I guess it just depends on which kind of band your typical client is.  I've never once had a band come in and want their record to sound like the killers, franz ferdinand, jet or modest mouse.  

I've always thought that a big part of what the underground music scene does, is rebel against what ever is mainstream.  And right now, those bands mentioned above are pretty darn mainstream.  People here don't want to sound like that.  They're past it, maybe 3 or 4 years ago they would've wanted a sound similar to those records.  But that was when limp biscuit was king of the hill, and no one knew who the yeah yeah yeahs were.  Now they're after something new.

The "indie rock" scene is undergoing a bit of a make-over if you ask me.  Now that it's gotten marketed, advertised, used in car commercials, etc. over the past couple of years.  It's all homogonized, and no longer indie rock if you ask me.....isn't the indie supposed to stand for independent?  

"Many bands are put together by the producer/label and are centered around the singer"............and this is still considered an indie rock band???!  

I guess it's the same thing that happened to the punk scene.  But still, I have to say there are just a ton of great bands out there right now.  And I love being at least a small part of todays music scene.






 

[Benmrx]

I just wanted to say, that I was not trying to start a flame war or anything regarding the use of auto-tune or beat detective.  I was just curious about how common the practice is amongst non-major label releases.

[7minAbs]

The part of my post about catering to the clients was based on this earlier post:

Quote:

It infects the bands we work with. They want all the sounds seperated - back in the 80's it was triggers or seperate tracking of each sound of the drum kit - now we have sound replacer and apptrigga. They want their drums quantized so that they can compete with their peers. It's more about image and the appearence. They heard that new Post Hardcore Emo Screamo Indie band they all want to sound exactly like used sound replacer and beat detective so they want it too.

The "forming a band around the singer" comment was in response to your question:

Quote:

That's insane. And this whole ghost tracking idea? It's one thing to find the best drummer you possibly can for say......bruce springstein, but a 20 something 3-5 piece band? What's the point? Why not just let the producer form the band based around the singer.........or is that what's going on already?

It sounded as if the conversation had digressed out of the realms of indie music at that point. Sorry for the confusion. =0).

I'm not sure anyone cares enough about the subject at this point to start a flame. AT least I don't =0). Good luck!

[Benmrx]

I see what you're saying about the conversation digressing.  I was just stating that it's shocking to me,...regarding the use of auto-tune, or ghosting tracks, etc. in indie rock....which is why I orginally posted this question on this forum.

Maybe I've got a skewed view of what "indie rock" really is.  But I've always thought it to be very similar to the DIY thing.  

I'm a big fan of lots of records that I'm sure used every fix-it tool in the book, and I'm sure many would be considered "indie rock".

But I didn't know that it was common practice for most.  Maybe I'm missing out.  I'm still using OS9 and PTLE, so I've never had a chance to play with beat detective.

[wwittman]

my idea of indie rock is that it's released on an indie label.

any other assumption won't hold up under scrutiny.

[Benmrx]

I guess I'm eating my own words here from my earlier post.  But I would consider built to spill to be an indie rock band, and they're on warner bros.

But I would make an educated guess that Phil Ek isn't using beat detective, despite it's major label assocations.

Like I said earlier though, I really had no idea that it was so common to use beat detective, auto-tune, sound replacer, etc.  and that's what I was curious about.  

[j.hall]

wwittman wrote on Sun, 31 July 2005 09:32

my idea of indie rock is that it's released on an indie label. any other assumption won't hold up under scrutiny.

a very typical statement from a person working in the major label market.

scrutinize however you like, the term means something entirely different for those of us living it every day.

[Benmrx]

So now my question is for those that use beat detective, especially in Pro Tools LE.  At what point in the session do you use beat detective.  

After you've gotten all your basic tracking done for all the songs?

Is this something you do when the band is there?  Because I assume it's alot of watching a beach ball, or a little bar go from 0-100% on the computer screen.

Do you use it when the band isn't looking?  And not tell them?  If, say they were against the use of such tools.

[wwittman]

j.hall wrote on Mon, 01 August 2005 08:33

wwittman wrote on Sun, 31 July 2005 09:32 my idea of indie rock is that it's released on an indie label. any other assumption won't hold up under scrutiny. a very typical statement from a person working in the major label market. scrutinize however you like, the term means something entirely different for those of us living it every day.

okay, what does it mean to you?


the problem, as I see it, is you start to get people saying things like "I don't consider them 'indie'" when what they really mean is I don't consider them "cool."

Is REM an indie band?
Why? Why not?

[zmix]

Way back in the 1990s the term "Alternative" was used to describe. variously; a radio format, a style of music, a lifestyle.
Ten years after Nirvana, the question became: "Alternative to what?"

[NelsonL]

wwittman wrote on Mon, 01 August 2005 15:07

j.hall wrote on Mon, 01 August 2005 08:33 wwittman wrote on Sun, 31 July 2005 09:32 my idea of indie rock is that it's released on an indie label. any other assumption won't hold up under scrutiny. a very typical statement from a person working in the major label market. scrutinize however you like, the term means something entirely different for those of us living it every day. okay, what does it mean to you? the problem, as I see it, is you start to get people saying things like "I don't consider them 'indie'" when what they really mean is I don't consider them "cool." Is REM an indie band? Why? Why not?

I don't know if REM is an indie band, I do know I like their early stuff a lot better than anything they did in the 90's. Surprise, surprise right?

Anyway, if I might muddy the waters somewhat, I would submit that Death Cab For Cutie is, and will continue to be "indie" despite there move to a major. They are quintessentially "indie rock," --whatever that means.

Camper Van Beethoven, whose independent catalog eclipses their major output in volume, never was or will be "indie rock."

They're great, don't get me wrong, but not indie rock in my book. Was anyone else disappointed that the Dennis Herring article in tape op didn't even mention them?

I've said this before here, so I apologize for being redundant:
I may not be able to define indie/pornography, but I know it when I hear/see it.

[lord]

wwittman wrote on Mon, 01 August 2005 18:07

okay, what does it mean to you?

Just add the rule of thumb that bands that wish they were on a major don't count...

and you're getting warmer.

[Benmrx]

well, I see this topic has gone off on a tangent.....however one I enjoy discussing, so I'll keep going, and I hope others keep up as well.

As far as my lifetime goes, first it was punk rock, then alternative, then indie.

I don't think the indie rock thing has gotten as big...or will ever get as big as the slickly packaged punk rock and alternative bands got.  At least on a top 40 level.......but then again, I can't even think of the last time I actually checked to see what the top 40 was.  So I could be wrong.

But bands that I would consider "indie rock", that are on major labels and are selling out huge arena type shows are The Flaming Lips, Modest Mouse, Death Cab for Cutie, Bright Eyes, Built to Spill, and many others I'm forgetting at the moment.

One thing all these bands have in common......they hold on to their artistic freedoms when signing major label record deals, shooting videos, making records, their "image", etc.

I'm from Seattle, so what I see most is that Modest Mouse and Built to spill have been huge in my book for over a decade now.  They've been selling out massive shows this whole time, making great records, touring the states and over seas, and constantly giving me something refreshing to listen to.  But my guess (and I'm friends with a few of these people), is that they have kids now, families, they want to buy a house, etc.

They could have made the move to MTV along time ago.  But had no need, what would be the benefit.  I mean, great, sign a big record deal, get a butt-load of cash, and some greasy dinasour telling you that you have to have a ballad on your record.

It's really no different then punk, as far as the politics go.  It's just called indie rock now.  And instead of loud in your face angsty music, it's a little more mellow, usually involves more then the typical guitar, bass, drums, vocals.

If you listened to the lyrics in alot of modest mouse songs, you'll find the same basic message you heard in a circle jerks song.  I think it's a little more cleverly stated these days though.

There's a big, BIG difference between Sum41 or Good Charlette (ala mainstream punk rock) and Modest Mouse or The Flaming Lips (ala mainstream indie rock).  

[j.hall]

i'm really tired of discussing this to be honest.

not slighting you in the least william, but i've just grown tired of the rather ambiguous discussion of what "indie rock" is and how it differs from an "independent band".

go buy the book "our band could be your life" and learn what indie rock is from it's earliest pioneers first hand for yourself.

our band could be your life

i've always liked "rattleyour's" description of it.

you can't define it, but you know it when you hear it.

[rankus]

"Alternative? .... Alternative to what!?... Good?" -

-  Bruce Allan (Bryan Adams manager)

[j.hall]

rankus wrote on Tue, 02 August 2005 11:49

"Alternative? .... Alternative to what!?... Good?" - -  Bruce Allan (Bryan Adams manager)

i guess that assumes that bryan adams is good..........if that's the case, i'll be "alternative" to that happily!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Benmrx]

me 2

[wwittman]

no slight taken, and none intended to you either...

but some people's self-appointed proclamations as to who is and is NOT "indie" are as pretentious and pointless as Bruce Allen's stupid comment.

[j.hall]

wwittman wrote on Tue, 02 August 2005 17:53

no slight taken, and none intended to you either... but some people's self-appointed proclamations as to who is and is NOT "indie" are as pretentious and pointless as Bruce Allen's stupid comment.

we will both agree with that statement.

indie rock, and more so in emo, can be so pretentious that it destroys itself.

most of those bands are easily spot-able, and typically implode rather quickly......the strokes come to mind.

seriously though......grab a copy of that book, i'm sure you'll enjoy it, and you'll probably remember most of the bands that are in there.

[rankus]

wwittman wrote on Tue, 02 August 2005 15:53

no slight taken, and none intended to you either... but some people's self-appointed proclamations as to who is and is NOT "indie" are as pretentious and pointless as Bruce Allen's stupid comment.

LOL.  Bruce Allan always reminds me of the Christofer Walkin character in the SNL "More Cowbell" skit.....  Way over the top... But he's keeps us all entertained up here in Vancouver.. We can honestly say we have our very own world class jerk  

[John Ivan]

I just thought I would ad that for me, It's all Rock music. Zep, Beatles,Igy, Stones, Clash, and all this newer Guitar driven music is rock and roll. I never understood the terms Alternative or Indy as they were applied to rock music. This doesn't mean I don't like some of it. I do in fact think some stuff people call alternative or indy is great stuff but,I never understood it to be anything other than someone Else's take on rock music. It becomes pop music if Lot's of folks like it.

As I have mentioned before,I think this labeling down of music is unnecessary. This stuff they call smooth jazz has nothing what so ever to do with jazz. So as far as I can tell,labelling these music forms is now and has always been a way to market a batch of music to people,,so they know where to find it.

Just my 2 cents.

[j.hall]

sure it's all rock music....i'll never debate that.

honestly though, until you (universal you) reads the book i posted a link to, you just won't understand why indie rock is more then just a musical label placed on a certain sound and type of band.

go buy the book and read it, it really is a great book, and i'll bet you've at least heard of half of the bands in it.

[John Ivan]

j.hall wrote on Sat, 06 August 2005 15:25

sure it's all rock music....i'll never debate that. honestly though, until you (universal you) reads the book i posted a link to, you just won't understand why indie rock is more then just a musical label placed on a certain sound and type of band. go buy the book and read it, it really is a great book, and i'll bet you've at least heard of half of the bands in it.

I'll check it out. I've heard it to be a great read regardless of who one might be musically.


Ivan......................