"Lift" will be (is?), in some ways, a departure, and in others, a kind of musical reunion. For a while I felt I needed to move away from my more Art/Prog-Rock tendencies. I was having a very difficult time aligning my sense of being a singer/songwriter and those more "artful" musical interests. That's not to say I am particularly artful - though I'd like to think so - but I certainly have a great affinity for many of the Prog-Rock genre.
I am huge fan of musicians like Asia, Genesis, Yes, Peter Gabriel and so many others. For the longest time I have always wanted to be able to create that kind of musical atmosphere, but always felt I was coming up short. Actually, I should also mention that I am a big fan of the intricate orchestrations of bands like Iron Maiden. The orchestral nature of their music has always been very inspiring to me. There are of course countless other bands and artists (The Beatles, Queen, Toto, Flecktones, The Who, etc.) that are significant to me; but it would take me pages to get through them all.
In any case, with "Lift" I have decided not to worry at all, on any level, how the material might or might not translate to a live performance. Not only has this been very liberating from a creative standpoint, but it has also allowed me to somewhat rethink my entire creative process. "Lift," like much of my work, has its share of love songs and ballads - can't get away from who I am in that regard (and don't really want to) - but there is also a fair share of other subject matter as well.
The project is still a work-in-progress, so to some extent everything I write here is really just speculation as I am still waiting to hear what the final result really will be; but what I am confident in is that "Lift" is strong on all levels. Very strong. Only time will tell if others agree or not. Either way, as long as people are listening, it's all good.
Sunday, June 20, 2010
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
Remix, rethink, remaster... REDEUX!: How going back can help to move forward
Over the past several years since I have released any new music, several significant things have happened. Beyond the more important ones like lots of Gray-and-daddy time and Tanner arriving, I have also made some very serious changes in my entire approach to to producing music and general audio engineering. A lot of those changes have coincided with the formal adoption of the Contemporary Music And Sound (CMAS) program, and a lot have evolved out of what I feel is just a very natural progression towards such things. The other major factor has likely been my development of a very strong sense that the real beauty of being an independent musician, is just that: the independence to do what you feel is best. Certainly there are endless drawbacks, but if there is one true benefit it is the complete artist freedom I am afforded.
The fact is that I have never been truly pleased with the end result of many of my past recordings. Much of that dissatisfaction can easily be attributed to my, admittedly not always helpful, refusal to ever be satisfied that anything I do is "perfect." (I have a pretty hard time "letting go," but that is another topic) but much of if is also rooted in aural reality. Songs are good, songs are bad, but the production has tended to get in the way and not, in my view consistently, allowed the music to stand on its own - good or bad.
So as I began to finalize the writing of my next project of original material (working title is "Lift) I started to take a look at the older stuff as well to see how I wanted to apply my new production techniques to the new recordings. While doing that I found that it would not take too much effort to go back and "redo" (Redeux?) the production and get many of those old tracks into the aural shape they deserved to be in. It's kind of a going-back-in-order-to-go-forward kind of thing, but it has already proven very useful. "Redeux" is not really about re-recording or re-tracking, it's more about re-thinking the production. Certainly this may cause arrangements, and some other aspects, to change but I think on balance it will all be for the better.
The "Redeux" project will actually be a series of releases. I am not entirely certain how "Lift" will fit into the overall time line, but it'll be along soon as well, and if nothing else, will certainly be worth the wait. I feel the material on "Lift" is the strongest I've ever written, but in truth, as I said above, I am not convinced that I was ever able to give the earlier material its proper due to allow it to stand on its own. Again, the Redeux project is now making that possible.
The first release of Redeux will be from the more recent material that appeared on "Ties" and "Pulse" and a few others. The second will be the entire "Fade" CD from back in 2004 that featured Michele on vocals. For many reason I cannot wait for you to hear those tracks "redone" (Redeuxed?) For a very long time I thought that all the "Fade" sessions were lost forever do to a failed hard drive but just recently I was able to restore the session data and so am really excited to hear what comes of it - Michele's vocals alone are gonna just blow everyone away. There is a possibility of a third release as part of "Redeux," which would be going all the way back and examine the sessions for a "bootleg" from many many years ago that actually still sells well for me called "093003." If we get lucky, as we did with "Fade," to find a way to restore the sessions from the old hard drive, then we can make that third release happen as well. I am cautiously optimistic.
As ever, things all seem to be happening at once, but it's all good. Very good. And now it's back to work...
The fact is that I have never been truly pleased with the end result of many of my past recordings. Much of that dissatisfaction can easily be attributed to my, admittedly not always helpful, refusal to ever be satisfied that anything I do is "perfect." (I have a pretty hard time "letting go," but that is another topic) but much of if is also rooted in aural reality. Songs are good, songs are bad, but the production has tended to get in the way and not, in my view consistently, allowed the music to stand on its own - good or bad.
So as I began to finalize the writing of my next project of original material (working title is "Lift) I started to take a look at the older stuff as well to see how I wanted to apply my new production techniques to the new recordings. While doing that I found that it would not take too much effort to go back and "redo" (Redeux?) the production and get many of those old tracks into the aural shape they deserved to be in. It's kind of a going-back-in-order-to-go-forward kind of thing, but it has already proven very useful. "Redeux" is not really about re-recording or re-tracking, it's more about re-thinking the production. Certainly this may cause arrangements, and some other aspects, to change but I think on balance it will all be for the better.
The "Redeux" project will actually be a series of releases. I am not entirely certain how "Lift" will fit into the overall time line, but it'll be along soon as well, and if nothing else, will certainly be worth the wait. I feel the material on "Lift" is the strongest I've ever written, but in truth, as I said above, I am not convinced that I was ever able to give the earlier material its proper due to allow it to stand on its own. Again, the Redeux project is now making that possible.
The first release of Redeux will be from the more recent material that appeared on "Ties" and "Pulse" and a few others. The second will be the entire "Fade" CD from back in 2004 that featured Michele on vocals. For many reason I cannot wait for you to hear those tracks "redone" (Redeuxed?) For a very long time I thought that all the "Fade" sessions were lost forever do to a failed hard drive but just recently I was able to restore the session data and so am really excited to hear what comes of it - Michele's vocals alone are gonna just blow everyone away. There is a possibility of a third release as part of "Redeux," which would be going all the way back and examine the sessions for a "bootleg" from many many years ago that actually still sells well for me called "093003." If we get lucky, as we did with "Fade," to find a way to restore the sessions from the old hard drive, then we can make that third release happen as well. I am cautiously optimistic.
As ever, things all seem to be happening at once, but it's all good. Very good. And now it's back to work...
Thursday, June 3, 2010
Pandora's Box: How the greatest CMAS concert (so far) might also be its worst
Two weeks ago tonight CMAS held its final concert of the 2009-2010 season. It was, in a word, amazing. I don't say that lightly at all. It was a culmination of so many factors into a single, successful evening of music that I am still a bit dumbfounded over the entire thing.
The evening consisted of over 120 minutes of all original. all student produced and performed music; and the show itself (also, all student produced) was about as over the top as anything I have ever seen anywhere. I suppose the most notable addition was a 25 foot high, 40 foot wide, video projection system behind the performer - thanks once again to Harkins Theatres for all the continued support (Dan Harkins is, as always, beyond kind - Kirk Griffin, their chief engineer, as well - more on them another time). It was stunning. Just stunning to see it all come together. And it was an absolute triumph for all involved, and an certainly a huge honor for me to be part of it.
But here's the thing - and I have been justifiably accused of destroying some professional relationships over this kind of thing - to me, as high as the bar has now been set, we can still do it far better. I'll save the specifics of how for another time, but it's the general concept that got me writing here: the potential Pandora's box of expextaitons.
While the show on 5/20/10 was beautiful, it was also the first time we had put in so many of the elements that I know we can do all of them far better if we simply are willing to not only look objectively, but also take the needed, and in many cases, fairly simple steps to significantly build upon what we have already done. And this is the part that has been a death-knell for some of my professional relationships: perfection is a great goal, but it is not actually attainable. Being satisfied is akin to promoting the status quo, and I simply do not believe in status quo. Things are either getting better, or getting worse. Those are the only two options. No exceptions. Staying the same is akin to getting worse as far as I am concerned.
Yes, acknowledge the accomplishments and revel in the successes as they happen; but I firmly believe that every time you take another step closer to "perfect," the bar of that perfection moves that much further up as well. At the point at which the bar stops moving, or worse, you are satisfied, it is time to stop. Needless to say, many of my professional acquaintances over the years have not been able to hold a similar view. My "arrogance" on this topic makes me feel only bad for them. To be fair though, the relationships that suffered the most over this kind of thing were with people who I would describe as very "unmusical;" very non-creative - though, and again, I freely admit the arrogance of this statement, they think they are musical and creative, but clearly are not. That said, I am not sure I am actually a "pure" personality of music and creativity either - even though I'd like to be. But, as usual, I digress.
Back to the Pandora's box: The further we push these shows, the greater the expectation is from our audience. That is not a bad thing - not at all. But as we start the 2010-2011 season in a few short months I wonder if the audience will allow for the learning curve that is needed over the course of the total season on the part of the students. The audience, perhaps ironically, and perhaps without realizing it, is actually in line with my view of perfection. The question is will they allow the trials and time needed to get us to take those next steps. If they do, the truth is that despite this amazing last show, they have not seen anything yet - I can safely say that there are at least four more major evolutions to the show coming in the not too distant future - not that I will give any details away here and/or now - to saw nothing of the studio progressions that will soon eclipse the shows.
If the audience does not, well there's the Pandora's box for you. The only way to ensure we make it happen and give the audience what they not only want, but deserve, is to consciously keep moving forward. Can't allow ego or arrogance to get in the way. Call it like it is and move forward. Keep pushing. Always. It's not about besmirching the efforts or reputations of anyone - like I said, revel in the well deserved successes as they come along - but if you stay there too long (and I define "too long" as the moment a single element is found to be vialbe for specific improvement) then you are back to status quo. And then, really, what's the point?
I am so proud that the bulk of the CMAS program's students resist status quo - whether they know it or not. They resist taking the striving for improvement as arrogance. They seem to see it for what it is: the continuing search for bettering the end result. Maybe the lesson really is that the Pandora's box is really just that: a box. Keep yourself "outside the box" and the box really cannot have any impact.
The evening consisted of over 120 minutes of all original. all student produced and performed music; and the show itself (also, all student produced) was about as over the top as anything I have ever seen anywhere. I suppose the most notable addition was a 25 foot high, 40 foot wide, video projection system behind the performer - thanks once again to Harkins Theatres for all the continued support (Dan Harkins is, as always, beyond kind - Kirk Griffin, their chief engineer, as well - more on them another time). It was stunning. Just stunning to see it all come together. And it was an absolute triumph for all involved, and an certainly a huge honor for me to be part of it.
But here's the thing - and I have been justifiably accused of destroying some professional relationships over this kind of thing - to me, as high as the bar has now been set, we can still do it far better. I'll save the specifics of how for another time, but it's the general concept that got me writing here: the potential Pandora's box of expextaitons.
While the show on 5/20/10 was beautiful, it was also the first time we had put in so many of the elements that I know we can do all of them far better if we simply are willing to not only look objectively, but also take the needed, and in many cases, fairly simple steps to significantly build upon what we have already done. And this is the part that has been a death-knell for some of my professional relationships: perfection is a great goal, but it is not actually attainable. Being satisfied is akin to promoting the status quo, and I simply do not believe in status quo. Things are either getting better, or getting worse. Those are the only two options. No exceptions. Staying the same is akin to getting worse as far as I am concerned.
Yes, acknowledge the accomplishments and revel in the successes as they happen; but I firmly believe that every time you take another step closer to "perfect," the bar of that perfection moves that much further up as well. At the point at which the bar stops moving, or worse, you are satisfied, it is time to stop. Needless to say, many of my professional acquaintances over the years have not been able to hold a similar view. My "arrogance" on this topic makes me feel only bad for them. To be fair though, the relationships that suffered the most over this kind of thing were with people who I would describe as very "unmusical;" very non-creative - though, and again, I freely admit the arrogance of this statement, they think they are musical and creative, but clearly are not. That said, I am not sure I am actually a "pure" personality of music and creativity either - even though I'd like to be. But, as usual, I digress.
Back to the Pandora's box: The further we push these shows, the greater the expectation is from our audience. That is not a bad thing - not at all. But as we start the 2010-2011 season in a few short months I wonder if the audience will allow for the learning curve that is needed over the course of the total season on the part of the students. The audience, perhaps ironically, and perhaps without realizing it, is actually in line with my view of perfection. The question is will they allow the trials and time needed to get us to take those next steps. If they do, the truth is that despite this amazing last show, they have not seen anything yet - I can safely say that there are at least four more major evolutions to the show coming in the not too distant future - not that I will give any details away here and/or now - to saw nothing of the studio progressions that will soon eclipse the shows.
If the audience does not, well there's the Pandora's box for you. The only way to ensure we make it happen and give the audience what they not only want, but deserve, is to consciously keep moving forward. Can't allow ego or arrogance to get in the way. Call it like it is and move forward. Keep pushing. Always. It's not about besmirching the efforts or reputations of anyone - like I said, revel in the well deserved successes as they come along - but if you stay there too long (and I define "too long" as the moment a single element is found to be vialbe for specific improvement) then you are back to status quo. And then, really, what's the point?
I am so proud that the bulk of the CMAS program's students resist status quo - whether they know it or not. They resist taking the striving for improvement as arrogance. They seem to see it for what it is: the continuing search for bettering the end result. Maybe the lesson really is that the Pandora's box is really just that: a box. Keep yourself "outside the box" and the box really cannot have any impact.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)