BigWheeledWagon

You mentioned ass backwards and I laughed out loud because that is usually the case with my songs. The first verse I write, 99 percent of the time is never the first verse of the song. I always change things around once its on paper and the song demands itself.

 

Do any of you guys record on computer? Like I said I have the M Audio Fasttrack for guitar and I have yet to open it and try it out. I have a lot of tunes/pics/files that I need to remove to an external hard drive so as to not crash the system. I'm gonna get to it this week. But any heads up would be cool!

 

Have a good day all!

Yeah, I record on a computer using Cakewalk's Sonar. At this point, I often record stuff as I write, which is a great way to avoid losing ideas.

Wow, it's been quite a while since I've used a drum machine, and I'm not really sure what's out there now. How do you plan to use it? If you're recording, I'd strongly recommend against buying an external drum machine/sequencer when there is software that is much more effective.

Even for live use, I would probably recommend using a laptop, but back before computer recording and sequencing became so accessible, I used to use a Boss Dr. Rhythm, and I recall that it was pretty easy to program and was designed with guitar players in mind, but I don't know if they even make those anymore. If there are still any floating around out there, I would imagine a used one could be had for less than $100 (I just checked: the new, improved model is going for a little over $200 -- there really isn't the large variety of dedicated drum machines there once was, I guess due to the rise of computer-based sequencing). Hell, I probably still have my Dr. Rhythm somewhere, if it didn't get lost in a move.

Just a quick clarification: I didn't mean to suggest that the Pn'R was the only pedal used there. It just seems likely that it is one of the pedals Jeff used to get that sound, but I haven't actually used the pedal, so it would be hard for me to identify it based on just listening to the recording. I'm really just going on previous discussions we've had here and Jeff's fairly heavy use of the pedal during that time period. It seems like during the "Ghost" period, if you were wondering how Jeff got a certain unusual guitar sound, Prunes n' Custard seemed to be the go-to response. Frankly, I don't really understand what the pedal does. I mean, I understand what it does to the signal, I just can't translate that into imagining how it should sound since I have no direct experience (for instance, if someone told you what a flanger did, but you never heard the pedal in action, it would be difficult to imagine how it would sound). So anyway, take my comments with a grain of salt. Hopefully someone with a Pn'R can chime in here and confirm my guess or shoot me down.

Anyway, that solo does have a particularly cool guitar sound, so I certainly understand the interest. Good luck. I suspect, though, given Jeff's collection of pedals, it may be hard to duplicate.

 

2. What pedals/effects Jeff is using during the solo for At Least That's What You Said. Very Neil Young. I'm assuming lots of reverb to get the wet/slapback effect.

 

Isn't Jeff using a Prunes n' Custard pedal there? I feel like we've discussed that particular solo before. Perhaps someone with a little more familiarity with that pedal can confirm -- I know that he used that pedal quite a bit on "A Ghost is Born."

UPDATE: During this thread, someone suggested that the PnC was the pedal used during that solo (as well as in "Hell is Chrome"):

http://forums.viachicago.org/topic/20350-crowther-prunes-and-custard-pedal/page__hl__prunes%20ALTHWYS__fromsearch__1

Rowboat, don't you have one? What do you think -- is it the culprit?

Another method I sometimes use when I'm really having trouble getting started is to "rewrite" someone else's song. Let's say you've got a riff or melody or something from another song in your head. Well, start playing it, and then start tweaking it until it's no longer recognizable as the original. I'm not talking about knocking the song off -- I'm talking about using it as a jumping-off point to get started. Play a riff backwards; invert the melody (if the next note climbs by a certain interval, drop it that interval instead); take a throw-away fill and expand it to the primary basis of a new song; (as previously mentioned) play the chord progression back (as some have not-quite-accurately claimed Lennon did with the Moonlight Sonata); try the chord progression at different durations or in a different time signature; inject a few extra changes into the progression; or mix all of these techniques together. Hell, you can take an existing chord progression (there are only so many combinations of 3-5 chords) and put an entirely different melody over it. You could even just attempt to play a song in a different style (hmmm, how would this song sound as a sea chanty?) and see what happens.

When I finish up with the recording I'm working on now (still needs lyrics and chorus of all things -- it's got a minute-long intro, a significant shift in tempo, and a nice little verse riff, but somehow I don't have a chorus yet -- ass-backwards from how I normally come up with a song), I'm going to enjoy trying some of the suggestions that have been tossed out.

While I rarely disagree with Rowboat, our paths diverge a little here. While some of my better songs often just pop into my head, I see nothing wrong with putting some work into the writing process -- songwriting is a craft after all. Like prose writing, the best way to write is often to just, well, write. While it can be extremely frustrating to sit there with a guitar or in front of a piano with nothing happening, it often ends up yielding results. Just strumming random chords or banging on the keys often helps that occasional song pop into my head. Even when the song pops up by itself, it is often just a piece of it, and finding the rest of it usually requires some effort. I can think of very few times where a fully completed song just occurs to me. At the very least it will need a bridge or something somewhere down the road.

Musically, I find it often helps to deconstruct a song -- see what you can take out and where it leaves the song. You can also go the opposite direction by changing up some of the chords by adding extensions (6ths, 9ths, major or minor 7ths, etc) or augmenting or diminishing them, etc. Perhaps try adding complementary or contrapuntal melodic lines (and then you can even try dropping out the original melody or chords). I also find that it can help to play around with some different scales or modes to spice up the song. If you try to write a whole song using, say, the phrygian mode, it can sometimes be a bit much (depending on the song), but adding in a few lines using it can add some spice. Try using a structure you don't normally use or even experimenting with some different time signatures, if only for a few bars. In general, experimenting with elements of music theory as learning exercises can really help with writing music.

As for lyrics, I often struggle in this area (which is funny, because I'm otherwise a pretty good writer). This may sound stupid, but writing down dreams can often yield some cool imagery or ideas. Attempting to tell unusual stories or dramatize unusual events can lead to something. Finding a central metaphor or a little play on words and writing a song around often works for me.

I am going through a bit of a dry spell with songwriting right now, so I should probably take a little of my own advice. Lately, I've been working on filling out some of my studio stuff with additional instrumentation, backing vocals, etc., and I've found that doing that stuff can sometimes lead to new songs altogether. For example, I tried adding some horn parts to a song, and although the horn riffs didn't really fit the song, they did end up becoming the basis for a new song. So anyway, good luck (to both of us).

DePauw's conference, SCAC, is all spread out across the country. Alabama, Texas, Kentucky, Tennessee, Colorado, Arkansas, and Georgia. Centre College in Danville, Kentucky, isn't too far from you. You can't beat the DePauw/Wabash game on 11/14! It's about 2 1/2 hours from you.

 

Other colleges near you include Hanover College in Hanover Indiana, Earlham in Richmond Indiana, and The College of Mount St. Joseph in Cincinnati.

 

You've got some great schools in Ohio, like Antioch, Denison, Kenyon, Ohio Wesleyan, Otterbein, Ashland and Wooster. None super close.

 

Check out the North Coast Athletic Conference, Heartland Collegiate Athletic Conference and d3football.com.

I went to a college that played in the SCAC -- Rhodes College (it's in Memphis). I can't say, however, that we in the student body gave a great deal of support to our football team (or any athletic team for that matter). We tended to show up for the annual game against Sewanee, but that's about it. In my experience, it seemed like a lot of the guys on the football team were really just trying to play a few more years of high school football and were dismayed to discover that people didn't treat them like the football heroes they were treated as in high school. While the beauty of D3 is that kids play for the love of the game (no scholarships given for sports), I also found that a quite a few of the folks playing football (but by no means all) probably wouldn't have been admitted to the school otherwise based solely upon their test scores, grades ,etc. This tended to cause a little bit of resentment from the rest of the campus -- especially those who struggled to meet Rhodes's fairly tough admissions standards. On game day, most of my friends (myself included) tended to watch whatever Division IA (now the Bowl Championship Division) team they followed on TV instead of walking across campus to watch the Lynx play. I tended to spend my Saturdays watching Tennessee (who was actually good back then) and other SEC football. That said, the games I did attend were fun to watch, though in much the same way high school games are fun to watch. I would also venture that there were high school teams in Memphis that probably could have beaten Rhodes.

On a side note, fellow SCAC member, Sewanee (The University of the South -- also located in Tennessee) was once one of the elite programs in the south. In 1899, the team played and won twelve games, was unscored upon except for one game, outscored their opponents 322 to 10, and were champions of the South. The teams they beat included Tennessee, Auburn (coached by John Heisman), Georgia, Georgia Tech, Texas, Texas A&M, Ole Miss, and LSU in the span of about a month. They played five of those games in a six-day period during which they did not allow a single point. Of course, football was a very different sport back then, and although Sewanee ended up being a founding member of the SEC, they withdrew in 1940 without having won a single conference game.

Should tell me something about me? or about the song? I'm slow help me out!

I think it should probably tell you that it would not be all that surprising to encounter someone making that post without intending it as sarcastic. The internet can make sarcasm detecting a little difficult sometimes -- I can recall a lot of misunderstandings I was involved in during the early days of email, IM, etc.

Just as I suspected would happen, I plug my Alesis IO2 audio interface in, cue up Sonar, and it does not recognize it. I new it would not be seemless but what a pain. Time to start googling for answers on how to fix.

I love Sonar, but setting up a new audio interface with it can be a real pain. I'm trying to remember what I did the last time I ran into this problem -- I'll mess around with it this weekend to see if it jogs my memory, but I recall having to reset some of the drivers and maybe even switching between the driver types (and back for no reason). There's some good info out there on the Cakewalk forums, and they probably have some info on the exact unit you're using. I can say that without doubt, M-audio has been the easiest variety of audio interface to get Sonar to recognize. I haven't tried Alesis, but getting Sonar to recognize my previous Lexicon unit was hassle (as was the Lexicon in general). Good luck.

I don't know where you live, but here in memphis, there are regular craigslist ads for older pianos and organs for right around $200...sometimes they are free if yo come pick them up...just a thought...

 

as a guitarist, you might be well advised to pick up a cheapo bass or mandolin...players of these instruments are usually in higher demand

I have to agree with that recommendation, and not just because these instruments would be in higher demand (I actually imagine that keyboard players are probably in higher demand than mandolin players in most places -- though I live in Nashville where that may not be the case). It would be easier to make the transition from guitar to bass or mandolin than it would be to keyboards. Moving to bass is really only a matter of technique -- you already know where all notes are. It is important, though, not to think of the bass as just a lower-tuned guitar, and bass does have some fun things unique to itself (slapping and popping, etc.). Almost all guitar players assume that they can play bass, but there's more to it than just playing guitar riffs a few octaves down. Moving to mandolin is likewise mostly a matter of technique (you have less sustain, and in many settings, the mandolin functions almost more like percussion), and its pretty easy to get the hang of where the notes are (basically like a 12-string guitar upside down with two fewer sets of strings). You might think that banjo would also be an easy transition -- almost like fingerpicking a guitar in an open-G tuning. I have not found that to be the case. Piano is going to be q bigger transition, but it's hard for me to predict what that transition might be like, since piano was actually the first instrument I learned as a kid. Even though I consider guitar my primary instrument, it was actually the third instrument I picked up (around age 12).

If you have a computer recording rig, I would highly recommend getting a good MIDI controller. For your price range, you could get a pretty decent controller, and if you have a recording set-up, chances are that you already have some built-in programs that would allow for use of MIDI triggered samples or sounds. This would also allow you to expand your bank of sounds as you go -- I have programs that emulate a range of electric pianos, real pianos, and Hammond organ, Wurlitzer, etc.

As for a stand-alone keyboard, $200 isn't going to get you much, but if you're just looking to learn, you should be able to find something basic. Still, in that price range, you shouldn't expect to find anything with weighted keys or overly realistic tones. Again, though, if you're just looking for something to learn on, think of it like you would buying a beginner-level guitar. If it has full-sized keys and makes noise, you can learn to play on it. Good luck on picking up a new instrument. I think you'll find that it will help you with songwriting and will even help your understanding of guitar in some ways. I'm all for learning as many instruments as possible, and I find that every new one I pick up broadens my understanding of music (though I'm still frustrated by my limited banjo ability, and I could never really pick up any of the brass instruments, perhaps because I learned woodwinds as a kid).

 

This really belongs in a "What gear do you currently want" because I don't own it but I do want it:

Wow, I think that might violate VC's rules against posting porn, because that's some serious amp-porn right there. I would love to get hold of a Swart Atomic Space Tone myself, but man are they expensive.

So, even though my next gear purchase was to be another acoustic, I came across a 60's "Airline" (basically a department store amp -- Motgomery Ward mail-order, made by Harmony, Kay, and Valco) for about $100. It's about the equivalent of my Fender Champ power-wise, but it sounds better (it's tube rectified, unlike the modern Champ). It needs a little boost to really break up with a single-coil pickup (nice and crunchy with humbuckers, though), but it has a great tone cranked. It's actually got a different rectifier in place of the 6X4 it needs, and it looks like replacing it with a 6X4 should actually give it a little extra break-up (though it really is quite nice as is). Anyway, this old department store cast-off (well, not entirely -- it has been recapped) has quickly become my go-to recording amp. I guess even the low-budget amps in the 60's sounded better.

 

The grain is awfully hard to see, but i was able to get the idea from your description...if you are worried about structural issues from this grain cut, then I would reassure you not to...however, if it is too big an aesthetic hurdle to overcome, Id contact the retailer, or Martin, and get a direct replacement...the GE series are too expensive for you not to get exactly what you want, so bond with it for a week, then make a decision...i however would have no problems keeping her, gorgeous guitar, and d-18s are just as iconic to me as nearly any other classic model...

 

I couldn't agree more -- no need to worry on a structural level, but if it just doesn't look right to you, then by all means, get a replacement. Personally, I think minor "imperfections" (I hesitate to even use that term) like that give an instrument character, but this is your guitar (and perhaps your children's and their children's, etc.), so you deserve to be 100% satisfied with it, especially given the sizable investment involved here.

Congrats on the guitar. As so many others have commented, one day, I too will own my very own Martin. As a teen, I used to spend hours at Gruhn Guitars staring at old Martins (and playing them on the wonderful occasions when the sales people would allow it, given that it was clear that I was in no way capable of purchasing one). It will fulfill a nearly lifelong dream when I one day walk into that store and purchase a Martin that was already considered vintage when I was born.

So, I'm guessing Adams did this BEFORE he quit using drugs? In fairness, though, I liked his music a lot better before he quit using drugs. I'm not sure he'll ever make anything as good as "Heartbreaker" or the bonus EP to "Gold" again.

I hope they stop at the Ryman here in Nashville this fall. I was surprised that they didn't this spring -- especially given the prominence of the Nudie suits as of late. The last two shows they did here were amazing (the "Ashes of American Flags" DVD serves as proof of how great the last Ryman show was).

I'll add a second vote for steel wool -- I've had god luck with it.

On another note, I just got Cakewalk Sonar for mixing. I think I'm in over my head, I hope this is easier to use than it first appears.

I use Sonar. It's a little intimidating at first, but you'll pick it up pretty quickly.

There are lots of ways to spin...John on a meryy-go-round going really fast (the caaliope music might be hard to avoid on a recording though, a sit and spin (if they were invented then), sitting on a swing unwinding one way then the other, ice skates (slow then fast), wow, now that i think about it....

. . . and all of those ways seem easier than being hung upside down by your feet. Maybe Lennon was just looking to enhance his buzz by having all the blood rush to his head.

I've always heard Yippee-ki-yay, Mr. Falcon!.

Wow, this thread has gotten way off topic, but this made my day. In high school, my friends and I used this particular euphemism quite often after seeing "Die Hard" on TBS -- as in, "Damn, Mr. Falcon be tripping" or "That's one ugly Mr. Falcon." Of course, when using the term, you always had to say "Mr. Falcon" in a voice distinct from the rest of the sentence as if it were dubbed in by another actor.

Not to hijack this thread,

 

Yes, the Lewisohn book is a must read, i have it as well, and the Recording the Beatles book is its natural successor--600 pages of amazing details, way beyond the scope of any other beatles gear/studio reference ive ever seen, and i learned so much, it was like taking a college level recording class...the Geoff Emerick book Here, there and everywhere is also very good, although not as technical, but oh the stories!

Funny you should mention it -- I've got the Emerick book on reserve at the library, so I'm glad to hear it's a good read. Unfortunately, the Nashville Public Library system does not have "Recording The Beatles" at any of its branches. That may go on the Christmas list this year -- it seems like the kind of book that would be good to own (much like the Beatles Complete Scores -- one of the best presents I've received).

As for good Beatles stories, I also enjoyed Tony Bramwell's "Magical Mystery Tours." It's always cool to hear stories from people who were actually part of the Beatles' experience.

If I recall, Lennon toyed with the idea of being hung upside down and spun around to get the leslie effect on his voice. This turned out to be an unfeasible idea.

Ha! Not sure why he would need to be hung upside down -- I would imagine you could just sit in an office chair and spin, but that's nowhere near as funny a mental image.

DI gets a bum wrap...while i by far prefer micing guitars, DI can be really useful, especially with tube preamps...

 

Yes there are a lot of snobs out there, but i always point out that a good third of the guitars and easily half the bass tracks on the beatles albums starting 1968 went DI into the board...if its good enough for them...

 

Before someone calls me out on that statement, this book is my source, Ive read it twice: http://www.recordingthebeatles.com/

 

 

j

Wow, you can't argue with that. If it's good enough for the Beatles . . . As far as I'm concerned, George Martin and the Beatles are the bible of how to use the studio. It's hard to believe that most of the work they did was recorded on a four-track (with track-bouncing, sure, but four tracks nonetheless -- Abbey Road was fairly late in moving on to an eight-track, so those few recordings utilizing and eight-track were done elsewhere).

Oh, and speaking of the Beatles and direct input, I've always enjoyed the story George Martin told about Lennon being so excited about direct input (if I recall correctly, this was after they ran a guitar through a leslie speaker -- the first ones to do it), that he asked to have his voice done in the same manner (I believe this was for "Tomorrow Never Knows"). Martin responded that he would have to have an operation to install a jack in his throat.

As for the book, I need to check that out. As a teen, I read Mark Lewisohn's track-by-track examination of all of their studio recordings (I believe it was called "The Complete Beatles Recording Sessions"). It was basically a studio diary (who played what, how many takes, what takes were used, how the songs came together, etc.), but the book you mentioned looks a lot more technical -- and I mean that in a good way.

So, I've always been very adamant about recording guitar via a miked amp and getting that perfect warm tube sound. Well, the other day I was just laying down a guide track that I intended to rerecord later. So, I went in directly. Later, I decided to play around and popped open my Guitar Rig 2 plug-in. I've got to say, it wasn't bad. In fact, I think I may leave the track. Now, I can't imagine using this on a regular basis. This was a guitar track that isn't out front in the mix, that if recorded through an amp still would have utilized modulation effects (it's kind of a trippy track), and that is a track where getting a great amp sound isn't essential. Still, I'm pretty impressed at how much the track actually sounds like it was recorded using the equipment the software is imitating. Also, given that this song has quite a few tracks (there are multiple moog parts going on), it really helped avoid any extra noise build-up. Anyone else have any positive experiences with this kind of software?

Before anyone starts in about how nothing can replace a good amp properly miked, I agree. I can't imagine trying to use software on a track calling for a straight-forward overdriven tube amp. I was just surprised to find that in limited circumstances, guitar rig software applied to directly inputed guitar can actually work pretty well used in the right way.

NOTE: I'm not necessarily advocating the purchase of a pretty expensive piece of software like guitar rig or amplitude or whatever -- I happened to come across this software in a hand-me-down sort of way. A friend got it but didn't want it, and I feel like you can never have too many plug-ins.

I have an M-Audio MobilePre USB interface that works pretty well for home recording. You can plug in, as well as, us mics.

 

Combine that with audacity software and you can do a lot.

I've had good luck with the MobilePre USB as well. In fact, I upgraded a few years ago to a Lexicon unit that would let me record in 24-bit, and it crapped out on me within a year-and-a-half. I pulled back out the old MobilePre, and I haven't really noticed a major difference (except that the M--Audio is much more reliable). 24-bit was a bit taxing on my system anyway. It's not like I'm making professional recordings anyway.