Synthesizer Patel

i don't really ever feel there are songs not good enough for albums i love. i think i treat a great album like the tracks are my children - and even though one of them might be retarded or a bit of a delinquent, i still like to treat them equal. i guess i'm just caring like that.

eno is on all the albums he produced with them, isn't he? i can't think of any answers to this thread at the moment. oh, actually, here's a good one - paul mccartney munching vegetables of "vegetables" by the beach boys - and then doing the same thing again for "receptacle for the respectable" by the super furry animals!

yeah, i think you're kind of saying the same as me. i mean, obviously trying something new doesn't mean it will be good - it depends what the "something new" is. just being open to those kinds of ideas should mean you'll hit on something original, anyway - even if the elements have been done before. i just don't like the feeling that jeff tweedy views "experimentation" as being some kind of magic dust you sprinkle over a song to make it hard to listen to. i might be wrong, but that's the impression i've got from what i've heard him say in interviews.

we need more roger cormans! i've never seen whatever akira kurosawa directed first, or maybe i have, but even without knowing what it is - surely it's got to be better than some of the stuff on this list! also, where is this? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_uFDSQ_Ius&NR=1

was love actually his first film? i thought he did four weddings, and bridget jones - if he didn't then who did? also he's been around for years doing british comedy - where he really shoud have stayed good to see night of the hunter so high, that film is amazing - and sad that charles laughton never made anything else. brilliant actor too!

experimental to me simply means doing something different. experimenting with your sound. to jeff tweedy it seems to mean making music that is agressively confrontational to the listener, or something negative to that effect - which is why he's recently cited the term when talking about "fans" expectations of the band. if you take the term to mean what he does, then, no, making experimental music just for the sake of it is a bad thing - because, "why has their music got to be hard for the listener to enjoy?" however, if you take it to mean just trying something different - and that difference

actually, terrible is a bit of an exaggeration, but i thought it started to get a bit stale. i hope they don't do any more and try something a bit different - as long as they have his brother michael (naboo) and saboo!

the last series of the mighty boosh was terrible, and the tours they do look pretty awful - but, then i don't like that kind of comedy tour, it lacks all subtlety. bunny and the bull is pretty good, worth checking out. the best thing julian has ever been in is Nathan Barley, actually noel is in that too . . . "this one's really workin'! the best bits in about an hour and a half" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5iZBWLs8owE&feature=related if people in america like the mighty boosh, i'd recommend The IT Crowd - that seems to be getting better from series to series, whilst the mighty

you're not allowed to talk in this thread anymore until you understand what "intersting backing vocals" means!

yeah, so did i actually - and i was just about to say the same thing. it's great! thanks very much cortezthekiller!

yeah, ok - that is bad. we definately can agree on that. but, that band doing any song would be bad. also, actually that is a very good example of "uninteresting" music - it's just run of the mill, you know what everything is going to do even before it does it; apart from his vocals ironically, which are kind of interesting in a "what the fuck's he trying to do, murder it?" kind of way. if you take everything they do in that song and think of the opposite of it - that's how "interesing"/"good"/"exciting" i want the vocal arrangements to sound.

i wanna hear it now. i bet i love it!

i'm shouting, cos i said i wasn't holding it up about 3 times. i don't know what cover version you are talking about. there might be definitive versions of songs, but you can certainly arrange music & vocals differently and achieve as good, if not better results. the feelings expressed and overall nature of hell is chrome could easily work with a good vocal arrangement (i'll stop being polite and saying "interesting" and just say good, rather than bad - then you can say "good" is a subjective word instead if you wish) - i can't see why it wouldn't, it's not like having other vocals on th

alright, we'll have this one instead. people might know it from The Box Tops version nice Barbara Lynn, by the way http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9b_EQvMR-j8

yeah you said they could only do call and response on songs that suit it. how do you know what would suit it and what wouldn't? ignoring the call and response thing for a second, i think you seem to be implying that songs inherently have a style of arrangement that suit them - which, again makes no sense to me. otherwise i'm not sure what you're point is about that? as i said, I DON'T HOLD IT UP - if i was doing anything with it i was doing it very low down - it was an example of the very simplest form of what i consider interesting vocal arrangements, it's not even "call and response" as su

when i talk about production i always include the arrangement in that term. i'm not entirely sure why people get confused when i do, cos it's happened before - not that you have, it's only that you've split the two up here, now. it's like building a car on the "production line" - the parts you use and the order you put them together are a part of that production, just as much as the paint-job you put on top.

i don't hold it up, i think i quite clearly said that Getting Better was a very simple form of what i concider to be an interesting vocal arrangement, and i mentioned it because you said wilco couldn't do call and response backing, which was in itself a reference to a song i said had interesting vocals, but which i didn't necessarily think wilco should do. i was just naming something that i was pretty sure you've actually heard. i can't really talk about something if you've got no frame of reference, and i'm getting the strong whiff that you don't on this matter, so it's probably best to not t

nope. i don't know why you don't know what i'm talking about. i should have probably found something better to demostrate what i mean, because although that song does explain it, i imagine that you'll not like it, and therefore miss the point. listen to The Beatles Getting Better. that essentially is a call and response song a lot of the time, but it's still a rock/pop song. just the fact that paul is singing Getting Better and the backing is singing "It can't get no worse" is a simple way of how the backing vocals can actually be essential to the song, never mind the sound they produce and

sonny feeling really isn't very interesting at all. listen to this. ignore whether or not you like it. all i want you to hear is how vocals can be arranged other than the standard method wilco employ. i'm only mentioning this because it's out this year, and shows what i mean. i could pick songs from any era and any style of music that use interesting vocal arrangement. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wiLqAu4s-_s

this is my favourite album of the year by a country mile. but, i'd assume you either already like her or have heard her and don't like her just in case, though . . . http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lsthNhBoLpI

no, i've never said summerteeth. i don't think wilco have ever done it. i just mean something more than: "here's the lead vocal" and "here are the ooo's and ah's for the chorus" - think of it how they use guitars, they have 2 people or sometimes 3 playing the guitar part, but they are actually playing 3 parts that make a whole, rather than one being the lead and the other 2 just supporting it. i don't want them to sound like the beach boys, but listen to how they use their voices - whilst 1 might be singing the main lead, it doesn't mean the other voices are just singing conventional backing -

i downloaded that Fugi album a while ago, when i saw you mention it in the nowplaying thread. it's pretty good, a few of the tracks are a little too unfocused, but mainly it's really good stuff. so, clarence carter has already been mentioned - here's one of my favourites of his:

i'll fight is the only song i actually liked off the album. not only that, it's one of my favourite wilco songs. actually, what i'd say is make a whole album where the drum and bass are the focal point, or at least the strong foundation for the arrangement. it doesn't mean they have to change their style that much, or jeff tweedy has to change his writing style. my favourite album of all time is bob dylan's john wesley harding, and if you listen to that the drum and bass are fantastic - if you can nail that then you don't need to add that much on top of it for the songs to work. so, to sumar

i personally think the biggest problem with the last two albums was the arrangements of the songs, tweedy's writing was roughly the same (maybe not at his peak, but still very good) - although everything about the last ones production was bad, in my eyes. it really comes down to having nels cline in the band, which seems to limit how they perform the songs. everything seems to revolve around the electric guitar - if there's a riff it's on the guitar, solos are on the guitar etc... i just want them to let the other people have a go for once. also, i keep saying this everytime i talk about what

homer banks now. never made an album, but had a few singles - this being one of his best (a lot of love is another very famous one)