SteveK

[quote]the sound should exactly replicate what is out front.[/quote] Nonsense! Sounds like a recipe for disaster!

[quote name='Big_Stu' timestamp='1389657474' post='2336760'] When I was at art college a tutor told me that doing it for a living was entirely different to doing it for enjoyment. The skills had "to be turned on and off like a tap". [/quote] I've never heard of skills having "to be turned on and off like a tap" before . What you do realise very early on in your career though, is - people have paid good money and (in some cases) travelled a long way to see and hear you perform - you owe it to them to give 100%, or as near as you can muster on the night. In our case, any form of negativity in the dressing room before a show is a "no, no"! This means 1/2 hour before showtime any friends and relatives are asked to leave the backstage area - band and crew only! 1/2 hour before the show, we have what has become known as "Cockney O'clock" (don't ask) - an outsider witnessing "Cockney O'clock" would seriously wonder about the sanity of those about to hit the stage... it works for us

[quote name='zapp' timestamp='1389640239' post='2336471'] overdubs?? Surely not. [/quote] [url="http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=Robert+Downey+Jr+Sings+With+Sting&FORM=HDRSC3#view=detail&mid=CCD73580C616F7490398CCD73580C616F7490398"]Punter's point of view/sound[/url]

[quote name='flyfisher' timestamp='1389638014' post='2336430'] Indeed. [b]And look where it has got us.[/b] Another few hundred years may well see us consigned to an invisibly thin layer in the four billion year geological record of this planet* [/quote] A bit like "What have the Romans ever done for us?"

IME Live or in the studio, musicians can be the worst judges of their own performance. One man's "loose and scrappy" can be another man's "nice, relaxed vibe". And one man's "tight, and right in the pocket" can be another man's "sterile, and lacking feel". To answer the question: It's very common. Probably all of us judge the [b]entire[/b] band's performance on our [b]personal[/b] enjoyment of the gig. Your head probably wasn't in the right place. And once you let the slightest negativity in to your head, then (most likely) the rest of the gig is doomed (at least in [b]your[/b] head). It's very difficult, once that negativity is there, to turn it around. Another factor: Tiredness can be the worst thing for a gig. "Am I locking in with the drums?" "Am I ahead of the beat?" "Am I behind the beat?" The lack of sleep, and the resulting disorientation has probably been the single most common factor in my lack of gig enjoyment. It's also worth remembering that (providing we have no major trauma going on in our life, and barring technical issues) our individual performance probably varies by about 5% from what we consider a poor performance to a good one.

[quote name='Dad3353' timestamp='1389492238' post='2334845'] 'Unpalatable' might be a bit strong (but not by much...); this thread was started along exactly that premise. Is the original post being defended here as being entirely normal, acceptable; even desirable..? To me, not; others have differing opinions. None, so far, have given me cause to change my views, despite meditating the suggestions offered. I sincerely hope, however, that in this here 'free world', there is room for other motivations than those advanced. In past times (OK, I'm old, but not [i]that [/i]old..!) there seems to have been a place for vocation, passion and creation, without necessarily pursuing financial wealth. Not that earning one's crust is wrong, of course. [/quote] The thread was started to illustrate what an insensitive prick Sting appears to be, with lines like, [i]"Okay Andy here's all the money [pours some change on the table]. Unfortunately, I've spent the rest of it." [/i]As was pointed out early on in the thread, this may well have been band humour. Although, I doubt Andy S would have found it particularly funny. The thread was in no way meant to question the system of royalty payment. I'm also no spring chicken (58), and remember the "good old days", when "value for money" and was the order of the day, and good service the priority. But it's not all bad today, afterall, Rose tinted glasses are two a penny. I think the only difference is that in the past it was considered vulgar to be [b]seen[/b] to be motivated entirely by profit. These days, it's quite blatant, it's clear for all to see that, in big business, ruthlessly maximising profit is the only motivation. As much as I hate this situation, I'll say again, the lust for big bucks is the motivation for innovation and development (generally speaking). Do you suppose drug companies would develop new drugs, drugs that combat the most hideous and cruel diseases, if they just received an hourly rate for work done, and no more.

It may be unpalatable to some, but, in the free world it's the pursuit of wealth that feeds innovation, development and the arts. Not always by the person with the original spark, but certainly by those that make it happen. Every one of us enjoys the spoils.

So, "[i]when the work is over[/i]" and the artist has received "[i]fair recompense[/i]" for said work, what happens then? Is the product then available to all for free? Is it available at the cost of reproduction? If it's not available for free, does the money go to the exchequer? To charity?

Regarding the chairs comparison: If the design of the chair was unique, then it is right that the designer receives payment for every unit sold. Didn't the inventor of the workmate do rather well? The comparison with car mechanics doesn't work either - Simply, because his work can't be replicated. Coming back to Andy Summers - it is a little surprising, if he feels so aggrieved, that it hasn't gone to court. My guess is that he doesn't feel that he has a strong enough case. Or, if he did take it to court it would put the kibosh on any future Police reunion. There are many cases where a contribution to a track by a non-writer has resulted in the non-writer becoming a co-writer. These cases seem to be judged on case by case basis, and It can be a very risky and very costly business. Even if you win, you can find yourself out of pocket!

If I heard it on the radio, the intriguing use of the trumpet alone would be enough for me to turn it up. Well done, "Oi'll give it foive"

[quote name='TimR' timestamp='1389302953' post='2332720'] I think they're just messing around aren't they. [/quote] You may be right, maybe these lines from the article are an attempt by the journalist to jeuje it up a bit: "Andy Summers is still understandably bitter about what happened with "Every Breath You Take" " and " "Every Breath You Take" was discussed and it was clear that emotions were still unresolved:"

Now, we all know that Sting has a *coughs* certain reputation. I've had no personal experience of the man so don't really like to comment. However, I came across this: [media]http://www.celebritynetworth.com/articles/entertainment-articles/fun-fact-sting-makes-2000-royalties-every-day-every-breath-take/[/media] In the other [i]similarly titled[/i] thread, Bilbo talks of the unfairness of songwriters royalties - I disagreed with him. But in the case above, I think it totally unfair, and Sting only confirms, at least to me, that he is the [s]schmuck[/s] person that most of the world thinks he is. EDIT: BTW the interview is 14 years old, so may not be news to some.

[quote name='Bilbo' timestamp='1389282005' post='2332327'] The issue is that the writer of a song, say Morrison and Moondance (assuming he wrote it ), gets his royalties not only from his version but every other version. Now for Moondance that is 1,000s of versions. But for a tune like, say, that Wet Wet Wet thing that went mental (I feel it in my fingers, la la la). The original was mildly successful and went awaty whilst the remake was massively massive. And yet the original songwriter gets the lion's share of the royalties. PS I really don't care about any of this [/quote] I can see how you may think that it's unfair, and I do know that Reg Presley thought he had won the lottery when WWW covered his song. I personally think its unfair that it can take me weeks, and sometimes months, to write a song that is ultimately crap and doesn't stand a hope in hell... while others can write a multi million selling classic in 10 minutes

[quote name='Earbrass' timestamp='1389278310' post='2332258'] But isn't the point that in order to get that share of the royalties they have to get themselves named as co-[i]writers[/i], not just producers, arrangers etc? [/quote] No! Of course, a producer [i]can[/i] claim a writing credit and receive the fee/points that are negotiated. But a producer can also negotiate points solely as a producer. When you're of the calibre of Rick Rubin, Quincy Jones, Dr Dre, Butch Vig etc then you can negotiate for points, a hefty one-off fee, or even maybe a lifetime's supply of Mars bars.

[quote name='Bilbo' timestamp='1389266214' post='2332018'] I get that the song is the thing but there are so many examples of songs that are dead in the water until some producer, arranger whatever breaths new life into it. The catalyst gets very little, the writer of the song gets everything. Doesn't seem fair. [/quote]But that's not true! Just one example (prompted by the revived thread), but by no means unusual: The Frankies "Two Tribes". It could (to my mind) have been "dead in the water" without the wizadry of Trevor Horn. Of course, I don't know what deal was done, but I'd bet my garden shed that, in terms of royalties, he did just as well (if not better) than the individual band members. IME successful producers, arrangers etc, have a very good idea of their worth.

I think the record had a mix of real and sampled bass, but no matter! I'd start with a bright mid-scooped preset that I'm sure your B9 has, with maybe a hint of chorus. But FX aside, for my money the most important aspect of getting the authentic 2 tribes sound is the bass and guitar getting their parts and timing absolutely nailed. Now stick fours on the floor (that's 4s on the kick drum for you non-groovers) - then watch the punters feet immediately start tapping.

[quote name='Bilbo' timestamp='1389264593' post='2331989'] I get that the 'idea' is the important part but, actually, is it the [i]only[/i] important part? [/quote] It's not the [i]only[/i] important part, but it is (usually) the [i]most[/i] important part. Without the song there's nothing for anybody to work on. Fact is, as in any industry, if a producer, arranger, musician etc is considered to be important to a record's success, then that producer, arranger, musician etc is in a very strong position to name his price. [quote name='jakenewmanbass' timestamp='1389265109' post='2331997'] An interesting view. I know a few people who have been involved in major selling bands and ultimately ended up with very little beyond wages... Stings a bit. [/quote] Tell me about it! Although, I think record companies, managers and the like stitching up their artists is a whole different subject.

[quote name='Skol303' timestamp='1389231067' post='2331789'] And yet nobody has heard of him. [b]Which exemplifies how the music industry works.[/b] [/quote] And why is that wrong? Max Martin is [b]far[/b] from unusual. If you look into many of the high profile big selling artists, I'm sure that you'll see some of the same names cropping up, and if you ask them, I'm also sure that a lot one them will say that they're quite happy to be in the background, working in the studio and waiting for the cheques to roll in. As I said, Dave says that "Max Martin doesn't give interviews", so I conclude from that that he [b]chooses[/b] to remain anonymous. EDIT: And no, I hadn't heard of him.

I don't know who this 'Boy in a Band' Dave is... but it would seem that he's been living under a rock, and only just found out that *shock horror* singers and bands don't always write their own material . As Dave says, "He doesn't give many interviews"! So, I guess Max Martin prefers anonymity. Not sure how this is "The biggest secret in the music industry". There are many more such songwriters.

[quote name='Cosmo Valdemar' timestamp='1389099772' post='2329838'] It's trickier than it sounds! Awesome tone. I love early WA, [b]the Martin Turner version doing the rounds are damn good too[/b]. [/quote] Indeed they are, and with Tim the new drummer they sound invigorated. Played with MT's Wishbone so many times that they've become "on the road" buddies. They are the funniest guys to have a post gig drink with. Inevitably during the course of the early hours Ray and Danny will produce their ukes and kazoos and a jolly good if not 'surreal' singsong will ensue. Oh, and Argus... great album! Think it won an NME or Melody Maker poll for best produced album of 197?

[quote name='steve-bbb' timestamp='1388926141' post='2327625'] allmusic.com only has derek forbes listed on bass for new gold dream 81 82 83 84 [b][url="http://www.allmusic.com/album/new-gold-dream-81-82-83-84-mw0000191850/credits"]http://www.allmusic....0191850/credits[/url][/b] [/quote] Don't bet your house on it... allmusic.com has Steve Kinch listed on bass for Jim Capaldi's 'Poor Boy Blue'... I've never even heard it, let alone played on it.

[quote name='discreet' timestamp='1388611489' post='2324088'] True, but athletes at 52 generally don't attempt to do what they did when they were 22. [/quote] [quote name='steantval' timestamp='1388611689' post='2324096'] I personally found it embarrassing watching Ray Davies, he was totally out of it, off time and key. I know he's getting on a bit, but if older vocalists cannot hack it, they should either bring the pitch down to a level for which they can comfortably sing or possibly give up performing live. , two that come to mind are Paul Rodgers and Tom Jones - they still seem to belt them out. [/quote] I personally don't hold with the view that artists should quit once past their prime (who decides that, anyway?) The beauty of shows such as Jools Holland's is that the potential paying punter can see these artists as they are now and make an informed decision as to whether they are actually worth going to see. Paul Rodgers and Tom Jones are two singers (particularly Tom Jones) that are famed for their strong voices. My guess is that even TJ would tell you that he can't hit the notes of yesteryear. Ray Davies, on the other hand, has never been known for his strong voice - more known for its character.

[quote name='flyfisher' timestamp='1388585011' post='2323646'] I only caught Ray Davies and thought his voice was very poor. He was definitely struggling with some of the higher notes. I'd like to think it was monitor issues but I'm wondering if age is catching up with him. Shame to see a legend in decline. [/quote] I don't recall Ray Davies ever being known for his perfect pitch, but having said that... I'm surprised that anyone is surprised when older singers struggle vocally. We get get the same comments regarding Paul McCartney. Yet, we're not surprised when an athlete starts to slow down when they reach their 30s. The sad fact is, the voice is controlled by muscles and as with any muscles, they deteriorate with age. FWIW I thought the show was ok. Seemed to be a reasonable cross-section. I can never really understand how Jools Holland has managed to front a show for all these years - guess we're kinda used to him!

Sounds like the ramblings of a man whose phone doesn't ring as often as it used to.

If I wasn't a bass player and needed bass for my recordings I'd possibly invest in trilian. I'm no great shakes as a guitarist, consequently I use this for my acoustics: [url="http://www.amplesound.net/en/pro-pd.asp?id=6"]http://www.amplesound.net/en/pro-pd.asp?id=6[/url] I'm no drummer, so use this: [url="http://www.toontrack.com/products.asp?item=56"]http://www.toontrack.com/products.asp?item=56[/url] Samples and vst plugins have come a long way in recent years. With a little judicious programming they can sound quite authentic.