Arrangement?

[bdunard]

I don't know if you have a voice in the arrangements but you seem to gravitate towards artists that have a firm grip on them. I don't mean that in a sense that it's the perfect part being played all the time but more of a part stepping in at the right time and then leaving, and allowing other voices/instruments to do the same. For my ears, I don't feel overwhelmed and can actually get into what I am hearing. It makes a very simple song listenable for 4 minutes. I listen to the oldies stations then I really notice a lack of arrangement missing as I flip through the other stations. I know this isn't true 100% of the time but just in general. Look at Motown it had a shit load of tracks but the arrangements were what made alot of it work(i.e. Jackson 5- I want u back, Supremes - Love Child, etc.) So my question is... Do you feel that arrangement is often overlooked in today's top 40?

-Brian

[Sharp11]

Originally posted by bdunard
I don't know if you have a voice in the arrangements but you seem to gravitate towards artists that have a firm grip on them. I don't mean that in a sense that it's the perfect part being played all the time but more of a part stepping in at the right time and then leaving, and allowing other voices/instruments to do the same. For my ears, I don't feel overwhelmed and can actually get into what I am hearing. It makes a very simple song listenable for 4 minutes. I listen to the oldies stations then I really notice a lack of arrangement missing as I flip through the other stations. I know this isn't true 100% of the time but just in general. Look at Motown it had a shit load of tracks but the arrangements were what made alot of it work(i.e. Jackson 5- I want u back, Supremes - Love Child, etc.) So my question is... Do you feel that arrangement is often overlooked in today's top 40?

Motown had real musicians/arrangers in charge of the arrangements. It was a different era, the tracks were done quickly to tape, there was very little post production involved. It was all in the writing and performance.

Today it's a mixed blessing, unlimited tracks and editing flexibility gives everyone a chance to be a producer/arranger, but it's not always going to result in interesting music.

[bdunard]

Arranging can happen anywhere in the recording process. If a mix engineer/producer decides to take out a guitar during the verses leaving the vox, drums, and bass to do the job I would consider that arranging. It's no different than a composer realizing he really doesn't need the low brass in a certain section. However, today I notice it is very popular to have something always going on. I know alot of people blame mixdown compression/limiting for lack of dynamics but I dare say that arrangement has a fair shake in my short attention span with music today. Especially in the singersongwriter type of songs where it was concieved by someone strumming an acoustic the whole time they were singing. Sometimes I think that carries over into the production. Maybe just a bit more time in pre-production really pushing the limits and "thinking out-of-the-box" could turn a "strummy" acoustic pop song into a great song for the ages. I bet some of Elton Johns early stuff really became "timeless" because of arrangement. It makes me wish I was alive in the 70's when singers weren't afraid to just sing over a riff and chords were implied (all that nice space...)
-Brian

[Jose Mrochek]

Like Dave Martin said the other day, what is lacking is melody. A well arranged song without melody is useless. Even though I think technology (editing) helps in the arrangement department and given us options, it has not helped in the song department. sharp11, I disagree with you with the fact that anyone can be a producer today because of editing. Arranging maybe, because it gives you time to sit down and change a million things in a day.. where as before you had to know what you were doing before cutting tape. But a producer today, like a good song will never be influenced by how many tracks or technology. I think.

[Sharp11]

Originally posted by Jose Mrochek
sharp11, I disagree with you with the fact that anyone can be a producer today because of editing. Arranging maybe, because it gives you time to sit down and change a million things in a day.. where as before you had to know what you were doing before cutting tape. But a producer today, like a good song will never be influenced by how many tracks or technology. I think.

Jose,

i wasn't saying this was necessarily a "good" thing, in fact, for the most part it's not.

I'm always amazed, in our business, that so few people really know anything at all about music.

The really great producers were all fine musicians, George Martin, Ahmet Ertegun, Quincy Jones, Burt Bacharach and you're quite correct, they knew what they were doing throughout the whole process.

I've worked with many young people today who just throw a lot of mud at the wall (daw) to see what sticks, they have no idea what a chord progression is, how to read a score, orchestrate, transcribe etc. They see "unlimited tracks" and they want to fill 'em up so they can start playing with their plug ins.

It's a travesty, really.

[Sharp11]

Originally posted by bdunard
I bet some of Elton Johns early stuff really became "timeless" because of arrangement. It makes me wish I was alive in the 70's when singers weren't afraid to just sing over a riff and chords were implied (all that nice space...)
-Brian

Elton's early stuff was arranged by Paul Buckmaster, a fantastic writer, one of the best.

I'm 47, so I was at Berklee in the 70's. Yes, it was an exciting time, there was less emphasis on technology, at least there, and a LOT on arranging, playing and compositional chops.

The 24 track machine was the standard by 1972 or so, and it was a given you had 24 tracks, and that was it, so you had to plan your sessions out (unless you were a successful rocker with unlimited funds and studio time).

Many of us, then, read Don Sebesky's fabulous book on arranging for the recording studio, it's most likely still in print and I'd highly recommend it to anyone interested in how it was done then.

Berklee had a studio back then and we had many classes where we had to arrange for a small recording band, usually four rhythm section players, five to seven brass/winds and vocals. We had to do mock jingles, station id's etc and everything was written out and planned.

This has helped me greatly as a modern composer, I still work with this mindset (though I rarely write anything down anymore) while composing in the virtual environment that is Pro Tools. I hate wasting tracks on "flotsam", though I do like to experiment with new effects and sounds, I generally know what I'm after.

[bdunard]

Maybe thats the curse. Songs can be put down too quickly. There is never anytime to "think outside the box." Or maybe music is missing the step that turns well written songs into great timeless songs.

-Brian

[thethrillfactor]

Originally posted by bdunard
. There is never anytime to "think outside the box." -Brian

I don't think not having enough time is the issue(actually with the elaborate home studios its the opposite).

I feel is that there are no rewards or encouragement to "think outside the box".

Being risk takers and being experimental are no longer part of the "musical library".

[Jose Mrochek]

Originally posted by Richard
"A twist on a proven method".

umm the only proven method I always stick to is song struncture. It took me many years to undertand song structure makes or breaks acceptable radio play music. I don't think there is room for experimentation in that department. The other day I was talking to a producer that told me, the chorus has to start before the 1 minute mark. I found that interesting and very logical.

[bunnerabb]

Invent something that's already been done!

You've just had - to my mind - the absolute fundament of Rock and Roll production handed to you on a silver platter.

It's an incestuous form, rock and roll. Everybody's litening to everyblody else, but the elemental aspects, regardless of how far the envelope is pushed, remain the same. There are a million ways to go at it, but you're all basically trying to achieve the same effect. Something that finds purchase with the listener's emotional sensibilites. Something they can relate to. A killer hook that says the same thing in a new way, or a new thing the same way, that they can chew on like bubblegum and play back on their internal two track.

That's perfect. Just perfect.

Great pop songs aren't written. They're assembled.

[Jose Mrochek]

Originally posted by Sharp11
Jose,

i wasn't saying this was necessarily a "good" thing, in fact, for the most part it's not.



I've worked with many young people today who just throw a lot of mud at the wall (daw) to see what sticks, they have no idea what a chord progression is, how to read a score, orchestrate, transcribe etc. They see "unlimited tracks" and they want to fill 'em up so they can start playing with their plug ins.

It's a travesty, really.

Yeah, Sharp11 I understand you didn't say it was a good thing. I thought you said anyone could be a producer, not everyone "thought" they were. (we are on the same page) As what you say that young people throw everything in to see what sticks. I think that is the natural way of starting of. I've did it, I'm sure many people did that at first. It took me many years to understand simplicity. And what makes a great arrangement is what you take out, not what you put in. That's the moment things start to make sense. I don't think there is a school for that. It's just experimentation and common sense, and trying not to loose focus on what the song was about to begin with. Very hard concepts to undertand. At least for me, I find it extremely difficult.

[Jose Mrochek]

Originally posted by bunnerabb
You've just had - to my mind - the absolute fundament of Rock and Roll production handed to you on a silver platter.

It's an incestuous form, rock and roll. Everybody's litening to everyblody else, but the elemental aspects, regardless of how far the envelope is pushed, remain the same. There are a million ways to go at it, but you're all basically trying to achieve the same effect. Something that finds purchase with the listener's emotional sensibilites. Something they can relate to. A killer hook that says the same thing in a new way, or a new thing the same way, that they can chew on like bubblegum and play back on their internal two track.

That's perfect. Just perfect.

Great pop songs aren't written. They're assembled.

Yeah man, I find it absolutely fascinating that we can come up with original hooks, after we heard a trillion and we only have 12 notes to play with.. that thought always amazes me.

[Jose Mrochek]

Originally posted by Richard
Jose, "A twist etc.' was meant to read as way of putting the person at ease, not actually a proven theory. I agree about song structure, the chorus one minute mark was required pop format in UK
for as long as I can remember.

Richard by the way, a million thanks for moderating I really appreciate you taking the time to answer all these questions.


Back to same subject, what do you feel the next trend in music be like ? I see that 70's fashion in clothing is very strong here in the US. Do you feel, this may be a indication of a back to the past music trend coming up our way ? The other day I sent a demo cd to a lawyer and the lady said, "we are not accepting any hip-hop" so I answered "it's pop-rock" she said, "ok then send it", I don't know if the grin on my face was because she told me to send it, or because she is not accepting hip-hop

[bdunard]

thrill, I totally agree with you regarding the home studio time thing. However, if someone else could get the song and add their .02 maybe that would help push things in a more interesting direction.

What about bands writing as bands. Would Led Zeppelin be the same if Robert or Jimmy went straight to the studio and cut the song they just heard in their head? Would we have all of those timeless riffs, and once they introduced the song to the band how did Bonham and Jones effect Roberts delivery and Jimmy's riffs. That interaction is gold!

[Sharp11]

Originally posted by bdunard
thrill, I totally agree with you regarding the home studio time thing. However, if someone else could get the song and add their .02 maybe that would help push things in a more interesting direction.

What about bands writing as bands. Would Led Zeppelin be the same if Robert or Jimmy went straight to the studio and cut the song they just heard in their head? Would we have all of those timeless riffs, and once they introduced the song to the band how did Bonham and Jones effect Roberts delivery and Jimmy's riffs. That interaction is gold!

It's interesting to keep in mind Page and Jones were both studio veterans by the time they formed Zep. Both were fine writers, too.

[thethrillfactor]

Originally posted by bdunard
thrill, I totally agree with you regarding the home studio time thing. However, if someone else could get the song and add their .02 maybe that would help push things in a more interesting direction.

!

This would mean collaboration.

And that concept is dead.

People nowadays don't collaborate to make art.

They collaborate to make money.

[Jose Mrochek]

Originally posted by thethrillfactor


They collaborate to make money.

Not everyone thrill

[thethrillfactor]

Originally posted by Jose Mrochek
Not everyone thrill

Well Jose you did say you follow the song structures on the radio right?

Now do you that because you are doing it :

a) For fun?

b) For art's sake?

c) Or with the hopes that if you tap into the formula, someday you will get a song on the radio which equals profit?

By the way, i rarely here songs with bridges anymore.

The Bridge along with the instrumental solo are all but gone in popular music.

[neve1073]

As far as pop music goes, in my limited experience the best arranging is the result of a good songwriter working with a good band. By the time they hit the studio the essence is there. Parts get refined and new ones invented in the studio but people go in knowing what they want to do. The fundamental structure is there.

[Jose Mrochek]

Originally posted by thethrillfactor
Well Jose you did say you follow the song structures on the radio right?

Now do you that because you are doing it :

a) For fun?

b) For art's sake?

c) Or with the hopes that if you tap into the formula, someday you will get a song on the radio which equals profit?

By the way, i rarely here songs with bridges anymore.

The Bridge along with the instrumental solo are all but gone in popular music.

good point. I do have a answer believe it or not.
My ultimate goal in my music life is to have a relation with a audiance. I have things I want to say and people I want to say it to. The satisfaction of me playing a song for who ever it is, and seeing some sort of emotion come out of them when heard.. goes way beyond the meaning of making money. The moment I had a taste of that and playing live I became addicted to it. So, I'm willing to sacrifice song struncture in order to get radio play. The importance of reaching people, to me is way more important than having a 7 minute solo. As long as the message is there, and the melody is approved by myself I'm in peace. A girl that wears sexy clothes to attract guys is not necesarily a prostitute..

[Jose Mrochek]

Originally posted by Richard
No but if she's 16 we can 'arrange' to get her a record deal without the burden of any additional talent can't we!

Hey Richard want to "pimp" my songs ? hahaha

[bdunard]

Originally posted by thethrillfactor
This would mean collaboration.

And that concept is dead.

People nowadays don't collaborate to make art.

They collaborate to make money.

I totally agree with you. One other thing I would like to mention is that (in my opinion= IMO) musicians were much further along in their twenties than musicians are today. I think alot of that stems from music that they were inspired to learn by. (Don't take this the wrong way because I love both bands I am about to mention.) A kid who learns the whole Nirvana, Nevermind record is not going to be in the same place as a kid who learned Live at the Filmore by the Allmans. Now as the kid grows musically, will his/her imagination match his dexterity or physical capabilities? And as far as today kids listen to the radio and probably think they need a keybard and a sampler to do everything they ever want to do. I think thats why so many samples are from "yester-year" Is music moving forward? It's amazing when you can find three or four big forums to discuss all the gear that can get you that magical sound but there isn't alot out there on the other end that matches the passion of creating it in new and inspiring ways.

[bunnerabb]

This would mean collaboration.

And that concept is dead.

People nowadays don't collaborate to make art.

They collaborate to make money.

I dunno....

Over on another AE forum that I frequent, we recently wrapped up the second in a series of CaPE (Collaborative Artists Production Experiment) Projects.

All of the material was tracked, mixed, and mastered via ftp server transfer by teams of musicians and AE's from almost every imaginable place on the planet.

Our team's members are based in New York, Los Angeles, No-Cal, Cleveland, somewhere in the EU that escapes me, atm, and Australia.

The song was mixed in Finland and mastered in Memphis by Brad Blackwood's Euphonics.

Now, this obviously wasn't Eric Clapton dropping by Criteria to sit in with Carlos Santana and Ringo on drums with Tom Waits on Sousaphone, but we - as a collection of teams - have actually turned out some rather good music. Some of it well up to release spec.

We have also been looking into a viable plan to allow us to press and market the disc through whatever channels are available in order to donate the receipts for all units moved to the Tsunami Relief Effort.

So... It might not be front page news (we sho 'nuff tryin', though), but collaboration, and specifically collaboration for purposes of not only reinforcing the sheer joy of creating music, but for the opposite of profit.... I.E: Charity.. is alive and well.

[bdunard]

Originally posted by bunnerabb
I dunno....

Over on another AE forum that I frequent, we recently wrapped up the second in a series of CaPE (Collaborative Artists Production Experiment) Projects.

All of the material was tracked, mixed, and mastered via ftp server transfer by teams of musicians and AE's from almost every imaginable place on the planet.

Our team's members are based in New York, Los Angeles, No-Cal, Cleveland, somewhere in the EU that escapes me, atm, and Australia.

The song was mixed in Finland and mastered in Memphis by Brad Blackwood's Euphonics.

Now, this obviously wasn't Eric Clapton dropping by Criteria to sit in with Carlos Santana and Ringo on drums with Tom Waits on Sousaphone, but we - as a collection of teams - have actually turned out some rather good music. Some of it well up to release spec.

We have also been looking into a viable plan to allow us to press and market the disc through whatever channels are available in order to donate the receipts for all units moved to the Tsunami Relief Effort.

So... It might not be front page news (we sho 'nuff tryin', though), but collaboration, and specifically collaboration for purposes of not only reinforcing the sheer joy of creating music, but for the opposite of profit.... I.E: Charity.. is alive and well.

I think Thrill was talking about people that collaborate knowing that their tune is destined for the majors and top 40 play it safe. I don't want to put words in his mouth but I think that is what he is saying. It would be impossible to think that not one person is still making music to be making music and pushing boundries. I am really talking more about top 40. I also understand top 40 is a little more streamlined towards the "simple catchy" song but it doesn't have to be the lowest common denominator always. Check out the billboard charts today against the seventies. It's pretty amazing. http://www.superseventies.com/singles.html

[Sharp11]

Originally posted by bdunard
A kid who learns the whole Nirvana, Nevermind record is not going to be in the same place as a kid who learned Live at the Filmore by the Allmans.

Not to mention Chicago, Blood Sweat& Tears, Yes, Zappa and a whole host of complex music that fell under the banner of rock and roll.

When I first started on drums in 1971, I was picking up all the odd-metered stuff from Billy Cobham in Mahavishnu as well as the cool grooves of the Allmans...

[Jose Mrochek]

Originally posted by Sharp11
Not to mention Chicago, Blood Sweat& Tears, Yes, Zappa and a whole host of complex music that fell under the banner of rock and roll.

When I first started on drums in 1971, I was picking up all the odd-metered stuff from Billy Cobham in Mahavishnu as well as the cool grooves of the Allmans...

I'm pretty sure older people in the 70's said the same thing. "kids today learning from zeppelin etc etc.. are going to come up with blabla that is not like what I learned in the 50's.

I think Nirvana kicks many of the bands mentioned above butt, because it moves me a trillion times more than them. And if Nirvana is a inspiration for kids today, then great. There is no music better than other. There is music that moves your soul, or doesn't. It all comes to that. In my opinion. Top 40 or Top 1000. Same thing. Some work, others don't. We are just passing through a low phase. I'm sure many good things are still on the making. Please buy the "keane" album from England. Kicks major 70's bands and more...

[bdunard]

Originally posted by Jose Mrochek
I'm pretty sure older people in the 70's said the same thing. "kids today learning from zeppelin etc etc.. are going to come up with blabla that is not like what I learned in the 50's.

I think Nirvana kicks many of the bands mentioned above butt, because it moves me a trillion times more than them. And if Nirvana is a inspiration for kids today, then great. There is no music better than other. There is music that moves your soul, or doesn't. It all comes to that. In my opinion. Top 40 or Top 1000. Same thing. Some work, others don't. We are just passing through a low phase. I'm sure many good things are still on the making. Please buy the "keane" album from England. Kicks major 70's bands and more...

I never said that Nirvana was inferior. I think Nirvana made great records. My point is that a kid who just learns bar chords might not develop the dexterity to play riffs that they hear in their head later on. That is not to say that someone who learns an Allman bros. album can't learn something from the attitude of Nirvana. Great music goes hand-in-hand.

In addition, I don't think anyone can say certain music is better because that would spark a long painful, boring debate in my opinion. However, I do think a small percentage of music has a great mass appeal and alot of times I think that is because of "better" sonqwriting/arrangement.

[Bob Olhsson]

Originally posted by Sharp11
Motown had real musicians/arrangers in charge of the arrangements. It was a different era, the tracks were done quickly to tape, there was very little post production involved. It was all in the writing and performance.,,

Sorry to disappoint you but Motown is actually where modern heavy-handed post-production as SOP originated!

Berry Gordy was troubled by the fact that the band was generally burned out by the time the singer got a keeper take. His solution was to record the band at home in mono and then take his edited band tracks into United Sound for vocal overdubs. These were accomplished by playing the track through an A-7 out in the studio and mixing the singer's mike with his track onto a second tape machine. An added bonus was that he could splice these mixes together effecting a composite vocal. We're talking about 1959 and records such as "Money" and "Shop Around." As he became more successful, BG bought a house from a photographer and converted the photo studio in the back into what became Motown's Hitsville studio.

Mike McLean, the guy who hired me, built Motown a pair of 1/2" three tracks in 1961 and a pair of 1" 8-tracks in 1964 from a combination of Ampex and home-brew parts. The eight track mixer was the first I'm aware of to employ mute keys and arranging "on the board" had become SOP when I arrived in 1965. In 1966 we were experimenting with console automation but decided the results were too "mental" compared to mixing manually in pieces and splicing.

The first three-track Motown hit was "Please Mr Postman" and the first 8 track was "Where Did Our Love Go." Both were amazingly recorded during the very first session with each of the new machines. The three track machines were the first I'm aware of that could punch into a recorded track noiselessly although the idea had been lifted from magnetic film dubbers. The 8-tracks had the first automatic input monitor switching, a design Mike sold to Scully that led to them dominating the 8 track market.

The technique of building up one instrument at a time began after we got the 16 tracks in 1969 with Stevie Wonder and R. Dean Taylor being the first producers to work that way at Motown.

I'm a passionate advocate of the older ways because I witnessed the end of it along with the beginning of what we do today. I also don't think it's an either/or situation. A thoughtful combination of both approaches can be very effective.

[Realtugs]

Thanks Bob.

Great insight.

[kevinc]

Bob you should write a book or just have an ongoing Motown forum.

I could read a thousand pages of stuff like that and not get bored of Motown from an engineers view.

I look up to Barry Gordy now like I used to look up to rock stars when I was a kid. A lot of it`s how he incorporated EVERY aspect of the writing, recording, promoting, and stage shows into his buisness at one time or another. That`s what I`d like to do with my studio as well even if it only reaches 1/1000th of the success you guys had.


As far as new vs. old music is concerned I have this idea that while the talent of the musicians and singers on the radio has slipped quite a bit (meaning the songs that arent made entirely of sample) there still is some kids out the that can play and sing. I`ve recorded some pretty good ones myself recently and if these guys were doing it for a living I`m sure they`d be just as good as some of the bands in the past.

The problem is the record companies who are churning out the hits these days just have no interest in that sort of thing anymore so it never gets heard. Even if there IS talent musicians in the band I`ll bet they`re encouraged to play simpler parts to fit the mold.

If there were still great musicians on every song that hit the radio guess what ??? There`d be kids locking themselves practicing their asses off again like they did up to the 90`s. It`s EASY to be a musician these days so they just don`t worry about it as much. Personally I played better than most of these chumps my second year but didn`t feel I was anything great till my tenth or so.

That mentality is gone and it`s gone from the songwriting process as well. It`s noncompetitive because theres nothing really spectacular out there anymore. You just copy a formula for 2 years and it`ll sell because it sounds like that other song the kids liked last month.

Also I`m not a rap hater (Love Public Enemy... Sorry I`m old ) BUT the fact that Americas "coolest" music for the last 20 years has been mostly generated by machines really ****S up the idea that kids are gonna wanna pick up a guitar and actually learn to play it these days. Same goes for modern R&B or whatever they call it now. Basically hip hop beats and music. The only new music you can hear on the radio which would require some talent would be Jazz and not too many kids get into it these days.