Friday, June 30, 2006

"I'm a big nerd and I want to know about works in progress."

----The following is a list of 23 original songs that may appear on future Tonics releases.

Mark:
  • "Down Below" - a relatively slow song with an octave harmony
  • "Our House" - a vintage guitar-driven song, currently in an advanced stage of production
  • "Atlantis" - according to the writer, it's "somewhere between an elliott smith and a don mcclean impression"
  • "Atoday" - a slow 6/8 song, also known as "Hifi"
  • "Future Four Four" - another song with a guitar hook
  • "How To Win" - features a whistling section. Was rehearsed briefly during the last spring break
  • "Savage" - a waltz with lots of echo and lead electric guitar
  • "Alpha And Omega" - apparently abandoned despite being a contender for the Get Things Done album
Steven
  • "My One Sweet Love" - a quiet organ-driven song
  • "Lisa" - a vintage dance pop song, recently Spectorized but remains unreleased
  • "Radio" - a piano-based song dating back to 2003
  • "Nothing Matters At All" - a mid-tempo pop song with a catchy chorus
  • "If You Want To Feel Young" - a multi-movement song
  • "Laetitia" - the sequel to "Lucy Tricked Me..." according to the songwriter
  • "Crowds Of Nervous People" - a piano-based Get Things Done reject
  • "Amaj7" - briefly rehearsed by the band before being abandoned for "not sounding enough like a Tonics song." Some of the melody was written by Mark during the 2003 Davis summit.
  • "Stair" - a song most notable for its non-recurring introduction
Arta/Steven
  • "This Is The Last Day Of Your Life On Earth" - a pop song almost completely written by Arta, with slight modifications by Steven, and later reworked by Mark
  • "You're Only Human (Do You Know What You're Doing)" - left off Get Things Done despite receiving a new lead vocal track in 2005
  • "The Country Song" - this love song for Princess Diana was shelved halfway through serious production
  • "Surf Rock" - a surf rock instrumental
  • "The Waltz" - a bizarre instrumental, the completed master remains unreleased
Spencer
  • "Someday" - a faster pop song written by our new bassist Spencer

Thursday, June 29, 2006

"Is rock dead or something?"

----Rock is something, and Lucy tricked us into it.

Tuesday, June 27, 2006

"We haven't heard any news for weeks. Can you give me an update?"

----Sure, you may download the latest Windows service pack here.

"No, I mean, any news from the band?"----Yeah, they just released a new box set. From Bacon Fat to Judgement Day is the name of an 8-CD retrospective of the band Levon and the Hawks, the group that morphed into The Band in 1968. It was released in 2006 by Canadian Other Peoples Music label. It includes previously unheard historic studio and archival live recordings, rare singles, extensive liner notes, interviews, and photos.

Monday, June 26, 2006

"Is there any truth to the rumor that the Tonics are throwing in the towel?"

----What kind of an idiotic inquiry is that? The Tonics do not feel it necessary to disclose their bathing/drying/beach-going habits. Talk about invasion of privacy when you're in the show business.

"Show business? Are you guys planning to write a musical, or an opera?"----Yes. It's called Il Paparazzi Intrusivo Dovrebbe Appendersi, or The Meddling Paparazzi Should Hang.

"Really? In how many acts?"----Two. The first act is to fit a noose around your neck, and the second is to release the trapdoor.

Sunday, June 25, 2006

Friday, June 23, 2006

"Hare Krishna, Sandinista? What does that mean?"

----Why do I always have to do the Wiki research for you?

The Hare Krishna mantra, also referred to as the Maha Mantra ("Great Mantra"), is a sixteen-word Vaishnava mantra, outside of India notably popularized by the International Society for Krishna Consciousness (popularly known as 'the Hare Krishnas').

The Sandinista National Liberation Front (Spanish: Frente Sandinista de Liberación Nacional) is a Nicaraguan leftist political party that was swept to power in 1979 in a popular revolution that overthrew the Somoza dictatorship. Following their seizure of power the Sandinistas ruled Nicaragua for roughly 12 years from 1979 to 1990. Their organization is generally referred to by the initials FSLN and its members are called, in both English and Spanish, Sandinistas. The Opposition to the Somoza government began with the anti-imperialist imperatives of Augusto C. Sandino, decades prior to the Nicaraguan Revolution.

I think the connection is rather obvious.

Thursday, June 22, 2006

"There's a rumor going around..."

---- No, it's the flu that's going around.

Monday, June 19, 2006

"Is it true that the Tonics are back in the studio?"

----Partially true. Only Alek is in the studio, drawing an office building on his drafting table.

"Did you know that tonic water contains quinine, which is flourescent? I read it on Wikipedia."----That's why I am Neon Phosphor.

Saturday, June 17, 2006

"Are you making a new album?"

----No, I'm writing a new blog post.

"Readers have complained of a marked decline in the quality of this blog since Get Things Done was released. Can you respond to that?"----Let's not blame it on Mark. I'd say it's a neoned decline in quality.

"Any chance the web site will be updated?"----Yes. The chance is slim to nil. Or fat.

Friday, June 16, 2006

Unsolicited mail of the day

We are always proud of the fact that we get customized spam---that is, instead of generic shit like Cialis or home mortgages, we get music shit like "join our mp3 site" or "enter this talent contest." Today, we have someone offering photography services:
Hi there it's Lux. If your band is looking to shoot a MUSIC VIDEO, I'm your man. I have a very professional and award winning portfolio. I work with all budgets, let's talk about it.

Also, I shoot band photos for posters and album cover.

you can check out my website http://www.bbns.biz

and Stills at http://www.modelmayhem.com/pics.php?id=67411

Thanks

--
LUX
director-cinematographer-photographe
310.990.5138
Lux?

Tuesday, June 13, 2006

"I heard this extraordinary rumour..."

----What are you, British or something?

"Let me finish. I heard a rumour that the Tonics are supporting Radiohead on their North American tour."----Correct. They have our moral support. And we want everyone to know that our moral support is much more interesting than Deerhoof, who are opening for Radiohead at their California shows.

"That doesn't even make sense."----It makes more sense than ∂∑∑®høøƒ lø√∑∫ M∑! I would call for their heads on a stick for their abuse of Unicode, if they weren't already signed to Kill Rock Stars.

"That almost makes sense, but it doesn't when you think about it."----Go read some Pitchfork if you want to think. Fucker.

Monday, June 12, 2006

"Can we get back to classic Neon Phosphor?"

----No. That would be pastiche.

"But you're doing it now."----Doing what now?

"The snappy answers to stupid questions bit."----Yeah, I guess they were pretty biting.

Friday, June 09, 2006

The Wall-of-Sound Explained: Part 11

Below is a challenge to musicians everywhere to produce a pure wall-of-sound record based on the following rules:

1. Recording shall take place in a kind of environment familiar to listeners and musicians. For instance, houses, offices, markets, gyms and malls. An effort should be made not to record in sonically-treated spaces such as echo chambers and studios with foam-padded walls.

2. Upon public release, the recording shall include documentation to show where the recording was made and where all the musicians sat or stood.

3. Only one mic shall be used to record the master. Additional mics are permitted only for the purpose of monitoring.

4. Monitor speakers are not allowed. Musicians being recorded may only use headphones for the purpose of hearing themselves and the other musicians clearly.

5. No instrument shall be amplified, except for instruments that require amplification, such as the electric guitar and keyboard. These instruments must be connected to their own amps (one amp per instrument) and must not be connected directly into the sound board. The volume on the amps will be set to the minimum required to obtain the desired tone.

6. No singer shall be individually mic'd, except for monitoring reasons. All singers (along with everything else) will be recorded through the one master mic. No pitch correction or special effect will be added to the vocals.

7. Any equalization adjustments shall be done on the actual instruments and amplifiers, not on the soundboard. Unamplified musicians can move around the room to achieve a desired EQ in the final mix.

8. The use of screens to reduce volume is discouraged. Volume reduction should be done by moving the musicians farther from the master mic.

9. If a singer is playing an unamplified instrument such as the piano or acoustic guitar, and the master mic cannot be placed in a way that properly balances the vocals and instrument, it is up to the singer to maintain a proper volume of the instrument by playing technique alone.

10. If a singer is playing an amplified instrument, the amplifier will be moved away from the singer as appropriate.

In researching this section, I discovered that Scottish pop band Aberfeldy has already done this. (http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/sep04/articles/aberfeldy.htm). But I'm still interested to see if it can be done on a massive scale in order to maximize the depth of the record.

Thursday, June 08, 2006

The Wall-of-Sound Explained: Part 10

Arta responds to Part 8:
See, I totally agree with you here, when you say that "The Tonics are all producers." I think that's the approach you should have taken all along, but last time it really did seem that you were demarcating a division of labor between "musician" and "producer." If we realize that "musician" and "producer" are really just two hats worn by "artists," then we can go somewhere. But my problem with Spector is that I really don't think he saw it that way. He employed legions of session musicians and used a really rigid formula for his arrangements, making them pretty boring, upon repeated listening, to my ears. His whole approach is antithetical to the making of a flexible creative process between equals. You should really give more credence to the negative accounts of artists who actually worked with the guy -- a lot of people seem to think he was an anti-social, egotistical dictator.

If he was just composing music, that would be fine. As you note, a composer lives a solitary existence and has a lot of freedom to create his individual world. But a conductor, or a musician, or a producer, needs to be a social creature that understands consensus, flexibility, revision, and criticism. And I am convinced that Spector did not. He worked fine with artists who were willing to completely defer to him, like the girl groups composed of naive 18 year olds, but older artists (who actually composed their own music) and had a sense of pride in their work tended to hate Spector's egotism and arrogance. Anyway, I don't doubt that he was a smart guy. But I reject him as an object of adulation, and I think you could be a bit more critical in your analysis of him too. This all reminds me a bit too much of the "Clapton is God" stuff of the Cream era.

I think studying wall of sound or any other production technique is valuable to an artist, but only if we approach it with open eyes and an objective stance. Saying the wall of sound is the "best" way for a band to realize its musical potential seems like an obviously false statement to me, just like it would be silly for me to say that "impressionism" is the best way for a painter to realize her best artistic potential. Phil Spector and the wall of sound don't need apologists, in other words, the body of work can defend itself. A good analysis shouldn't be a defense, and it should take criticism into account.

And dude, be honest with me, don't you think the paragraph below sounds a bit authoritarian?

"You are in control of your musicians. If your musicians want to go and create their own records so that they would individually sound the way they want, they can do so. But right now they are working for the collective good, the wall-of-sound, and you are the organizer of this project."

That's what kind of pissed me off, because if anyone in our band had ever acted like that, the rest of us would have whooped him upside the head. And it really didn't seem like you were talking about a metaphorical "spirit of production" guiding the band, it seemed like a pretty literal endorsement of the Spector approach: one man, the Producer, is in charge of the Collective Good (the Wall of Sound) and makes decisions for the whole, free from criticism. If the people in the band aren't cool with that, they can get lost. Doesn't that sound a little USSR?
Phil Spector's nasty business practices, which included depriving many of his musicians a fair share of the royalties, are acknowledged and condemned by this writer. It is a challenge to this writer to study and recommend a production method invented by a man seen by many people as unethical.

Perhaps the next version of this essay should focus less on the production methods and more on the finished product, i.e. the wall-of-sound.

As far as I know, there has not previously been an attempt to describe the wall-of-sound in a way that would be useful to today's musicians who are trying to emulate the sound. This essay, however, has not been exactly neutral, and has been crafted hastily and sometimes recklessly.

It was important for me to get the words out there, in order to get feedback and identify the parts that need revision. There will be a much-improved second draft.

In Part 11, I will conclude this essay by proposing a recording setup that should produce the wall-of-sound.

The Wall-of-Sound Explained: Part 9

Last time, I promised that we would examine some post-1960s records. Well, I lied. This chapter will be dedicated to a wall-of-sound producer we have not yet introduced: Andrew Loog Oldham.

Oldham is best known for being the Rolling Stones' producer in the mid-1960s. It was he that insisted on the Stones taking a bad-boy image, as a counterpoint to the clean-cut Beatles. And it was Oldham who produced most of the early Rolling Stones' songs with the wall-of-sound.

Why has this essay ignored his important work until now? I don't know, and I think I need to correct this in the next revision.

Anyway, Oldham was a big fan of Phil Spector. So much, in fact, that he once took out an ad in the British music paper Melody Maker that read:
This advert is not for commercial gain, it is taken as something that must be said about the great new PHIL SPECTOR record, THE RIGHTEOUS BROTHERS singing 'YOU'VE LOST THAT LOVIN' FEELIN''. Already in the American top ten, this is Spector's greatest production, the last word in tomorrow's sound, today, exposing the overall mediocrity of the music industry.
From 1964 to 1966, most, if not all, of the Rolling Stones records featured all the necessary elements of the wall-of-sound. Everything in mono. Guitars and drums mixed with a bit of reverb. Mick Jagger mixed up front. Harmonies further back. And tambourine, handclaps and other percussion.

These songs include "(I Can't Get No) Satisfaction," "The Last Time," "As Tears Go By," "Time Is On My Side," "19th Nervous Breakdown," and "Get Off My Cloud." The compilation album, Big Hits (High Tide and Green Grass), is a good place to find many of these songs.

People don't usually consider these songs to be wall-of-sound, because there's no layering of instruments. But they have that depth that is so reminiscent of the Ronettes and the Beach Boys, and is lacking in the productions of the Beatles. It's all in the mixing.

Incidentally, "(I Can't Get No) Satisfaction" was #2 in a Rolling Stone magazine's top 500 greatest songs list. It should be noted that two other wall-of-sound productions ("Imagine" and "Good Vibrations") also made the top 6.

Is the wall-of-sound a reason why the Rolling Stones had such an enormous effect in America, on par with the Beatles, despite having little sex appeal?

Wednesday, June 07, 2006

The Wall-of-Sound Explained: Part 8

At this point, Arta raises an worthy objection to Part 7. It is reproduced below.
I disagree with your fundamental assumption that music production has to be a hierarchical and authoritarian project. The "conductor" of an orchestra provides a beat and helps each of the hundred instrumentalists stay in sync with the whole -- he doesn't "ignore" anyone's will or act as a veto. Does a string quartet have a conductor? Why does the producer have to "ignore" the wishes of the bandmembers -- why create that kind of dichotomy in the first place, a rigid binary between "band member" and "producer"? That might be the way Phil Spector operated, (the man was also fond of pointing guns at his musicians) but plenty of bands have been able to have a cooperative, egalitarian artistic process. You might think that Radiohead started to sound shit when their producer started to let them have free rein, but I think they actually started to suck when Thom Yorke essentially became the band leader and yeah, producer - the one who was free to ignore the rest of the band, make final decisions, and be unaccountable.

In other words, why should people run their bands in a way that you and I find repugnant when applied to the organization of larger institutions (such as the state)?
When I said conductor, maybe I should have said composer. In classical music, all the parts are written out and all the instruments pre-assigned. The individual members of an orchestra cannot do much else but to play their assigned parts, with very limited space for interpretation. But this is quite acceptable to many musicians, and their work is rewarded by creating a beautiful, massive sound with the rest of the hundred-odd instrumentalists. There are those whose art is simply to play their own instruments at a high level, and they possess neither the inclination nor the ability to create music from scratch. For the record, a conductor does more than just provide the beat; he or she is there to direct the volume changes and provide a visual cue of the level of energy required at any given point in the music.

This essay seeks to recognize the rock producer as an artist, and to empower the producer with the privileges of the classical composer and conductor.

A producer should not ignore all the comments from his musicians. In the last section, I was only giving specific types of suggestions (mostly regarding the mixing) that are likely to be rejected for the sake of the wall-of-sound. If it came across as something else, then I shall revise my wording.

Like some medicines, the wall-of-sound is not for everybody. I would hate for producers to work with musicians who are adamantly opposed to the wall-of-sound even after the philosophy is explained to them. But admirers of the wall-of-sound have included the likes of John Lennon and Brian Wilson. Clearly, it is something worth studying, worth applying.

Let's continue with Arta's comment.
We've always been a completely egalitarian institution. We do all our own recording, producing, mixing, mastering. It's not a perfect process, we revise and redo things a ton of times until everyone's happy, but isn't that sort of consensus-driven system a hell of a lot better than having some outside producer who dictates to us?
As Arta correctly notes, The Tonics are an egalitarian institution, and it works because each of them understands where they should fit in the mix. In fact, they don't always agree with where they should fit in the mix, but they all recognize that it's an important enough question to consider. None of the Tonics are extraordinary players of their musical instruments, but they play the instrument of production that is rarely played by other bands. They are all producers.

I am writing this essay in the hope that entire bands will get behind a production philosophy and work towards it without having to use an outside producer. I want to show that production is just as important to a record as songwriting. I want to show that pages upon pages can be written about production from an artistic viewpoint. It doesn't have to be wall-of-sound, even though this author believes it to be a most effective production method. You have to figure out which philosophy right for yourself. Alas, many bands don't even take this first step. Many bands walk into a studio, perform, and walk out and leave the engineers to mix. The Tonics don't do this. They would rather spend weeks in postproduction.

But enough about us. In the next section, we will continue reinforcing the wall-of-sound concept by considering if/how some post-1960s records measure up to our definition of the wall-of-sound.

Tuesday, June 06, 2006

The Wall-of-Sound Explained: Part 7

When you're a producer, you hear a lot of demands from your various musicians. They sound something like this:

Drummer: "I want every piece of my drumset to be distinguishable in the mix, so people don't miss the cool patterns I'm doing."
Electric guitarist: "I didn't buy my $2200 Les Paul Standard for nothing. The world needs to hear my awesome tone."
Acoustic guitarist: "Can I get the vintage Martin sound on this record? I did spend $2400 on this guitar."
Bass guitarist: "Don't make me sound muddy, especially on the part where I'm soloing"
Vocalist: "I hate my voice. Let's put double-tracking, delay and reverb on it."
Arta: "Where's my pick?"

A good wall-of-sound producer will ignore all of these comments. You cannot make everyone sound the way they want, if you expect to create the kind of depth required by the wall-of-sound.

Think of yourself as the conductor of an orchestra. You are in control of your musicians. If your musicians want to go and create their own records so that they would individually sound the way they want, they can do so. But right now they are working for the collective good, the wall-of-sound, and you are the organizer of this project.

I make these points because musicians who do not appreciate the wall-of-sound will certainly not appreciate having his or her instrument buried under layers of echo and reverb, and also because the most common kind of the wall-of-sound has multiple instruments playing the same melody to create a new, bigger sound. This is a trick employed by both Phil Spector and Brian Wilson to create the most monumental hits.

The more instruments you hear playing a melody, the more powerful the melody sounds. Having more instruments also creates more depth to the song, because following the rule in Part 5, you would have to move the instruments farther away from the listener in order to hear the lead singer.

Here are some examples of this technique:

Bass with piano: The Ronettes - "Sleigh Ride"
Lead vocals with oboe: The Beach Boys - "I'm Waiting For The Day"
Electric guitar with piano: The Beach Boys - "California Girls"
Glockenspiel with flute: The Beach Boys - "Sloop John B"
Piano and piano an octave up: The Ronettes - "Baby, I Love You"
Electric guitar and electric guitar an octave up: The Crystals - "Then He Kissed Me"

Remember, even if you have a room full of instruments, it is not wall-of-sound unless you apply the appropriate amount of echo and reverb to all the instruments, as described in Part 5. And remember, too, you don't always need to have a room full of instruments for the song to be wall-of-sound. Think about the sparse instrumentation on "Instant Karma." Or the opening bars of "Imagine," where the piano echoes are sufficient to create a deep sound.

Saturday, May 27, 2006

The Wall-of-Sound Explained: Appendix to Part 6

This section addresses Arta's comment on Part Six:

"Be careful of formulas, dude. The best art tends to violate, rather than adhere to, any kind of rigid formula -- that's why the exceptions you note (like '1979') are some of the best songs."

I think he is right. But let me try to reconcile his comment with the seemingly contradictory formula of wall-of-sound.

Yes, the wall-of-sound is more or less a formula, but it is a formula against the establishment method of producing music. It is not meant to constrain; it is meant to open up new possibilities for music production. For instance, to allow for the idea that maybe muddiness is not a bad thing, that clarity is not always the right thing.

Part Six makes some recommendations for songwriters but it would be a mistake for songwriters to follow them blindly. In making the points above, I am only trying to remind producers about the little details that matter. Maybe you will disagree with them, but I will feel better that you disagree with me than if you had never considered those points, one way or another.

So many pop producers take for granted that their artists know what they are doing. They do not ask questions. They do not think about what they are doing, beyond making phone calls and getting the right engineers at the session. I want producers to take more responsibility in the art that they are producing. Before they put electronic beats into a song, I want them to ask themselves, why am I using electronic beats? Is there no better way? Am I being considerate to my listeners?

Wall-of-sound is a Dogme 95 for music. Follow it or not, but recognize it as a statement against the idea that popular music can only come from the modern ways of production, from the big labels' studios. It is to realize that people do not always care for stereo trickery, that people don't just want to dance to synthesized beats. That people miss the vintage sounds.

I have a friend who has heard both versions of Smile, and she says that the remake is lacking something from the original. Is it the voice, I ask? No, she replies. There is something wrong with the mix. It is not as warm, or something. She can't put her finger on it.

I think I know why she didn't like the new Smile. It is too clean. Everything sounds so deliberate. The stereo mixing overwhelms you with sound. But it seems like I am only describing the way most, if not all, records are produced today. I tell you, people (young people!) are still listening to Pet Sounds, the Rolling Stones, the Velvet Underground, the Beatles... why? I don't think it's just because of the songwriting. There is something about the production that is missing in contemporary records.

Friday, May 26, 2006

The Wall-of-Sound Explained: Part 6

As a producer, maybe you don't plan to write songs. But you still need songwriting skills. When do you bring in certain instruments? What if you need to write a tiny melody to link two sections, or to fill unused space? These are all artistic decisions every bit as important as the composition of words and melodies. Both Phil Spector and Brian Wilson were songwriters and multi-instrumentalists.

What makes a good song? Lots of self-help books for songwriters have tried to answer that question. They talk about following A-B-A structures and keeping scrapbooks of ideas. Some even draw the notes out on a musical staff. My opinion is, those books waste your money.

The best way to improve your songwriting is to expand your musical vocabulary by listening to a lot of good music, and listening to them over and over again. There is no getting around this. It is the same as learning a language. You have to get to a point where you are so comfortable with melodies and chords that you can pull them out of the air. A snippet of melody from this song, a verse resolution inspired by another song... that's what the best songwriters have on their musical palettes.

I can't tell you what specific records to buy, but I will advise you to pay more attention to the music of the past. Don't take them for granted just because you heard them during your childhood in your parent's car radio. Listen to the records again, take them off your parents shelves if you have to, and I think you might be pleasantly surprised.

As for modern music, do not be too influenced by what's happening today, because you don't want to participate in a fad or a trend. Don't worry about getting on the radio. Renoir didn't try to make his paintings look good next to Monet's and Cezanne's. Making it in the music industry is a concern only for people whose music is borderline acceptable to the masses, and then they make a lot of noise about why the mainstream music industry ignores real musicians. The truth is, if you make a good, big song worthy of the world, people will hear it.

Now we have talked about some general ideas about songwriting. What about some specifics? Let's begin with some characteristics of good and bad pop songs.

The good pop song is fun for the listener. Unlike a bad pop song, it is never boring. It is not obnoxious. It does not waste the listener's time. Melodies are not slow and drawn out, like some Radiohead songs. A pop recording is not supposed to showcase a singer's voice. It is supposed to make people dance, make people sing along.

For instance, "Help Me Rhonda" is a great song to sing along to, because there are so many vocal parts. If you don't want to sing the lead vocals, there's a great harmony line with the equally-fun-to-sing "bow-wow-wow" part during the chorus. In contrast, "Exit Music (For A Film)" is not fun to sing along to. Too many whole notes. Too many empty spaces. Too slow. That's why it's not a hit single, despite being an otherwise well-written and melodic song.

At this point, I would like to say that I am not accusing bands like Radiohead of being bad musicians. Remember, this is an essay about pop music. There are many other styles of music out there, and I generally have nothing against them, even experimental music, as long as the artist is making a serious and sincere effort to be creative, considerate and meaningful. We should realize, too, that listeners do not always want to hear pop music. If you are in a bad mood, you might rather listen to Kid A than "Da Doo Ron Ron."

I am however against music that is unexciting either because it is formulaic or because it is overindulgent by the artist. A lot of classic rock and 70s pop falls into this category. Here is a list of things that waste a listener's time:
  • A line of melody repeated more than 3 times. This can take the form of a very repetitive chorus, or a verse that keeps using the same melody, such as the Raconteurs' "Steady As She Goes."
  • A melody of only one or two pitches that lasts more than one measure.
  • A guitar solo that lasts for more than 20 seconds, unless there are vocal harmonies during the interval, or if the guitar is playing a singable melody
  • Chords being played by a distorted guitar with nothing else happening except bass and drums. Contrary to popular belief, a distorted guitar does not necessarily project strength. The best way to project strength at any volume is to have multiple instruments playing the same thing. A hundred violins playing in unison is more powerful than Jimi Hendrix. Keep in mind that most people listen to music at a quiet volume, and the distorted guitar sounds pathetic when quiet.
  • The instrumental arrangement does not change throughout the song (a common flaw on Smiths songs)
  • Anything that could be described as "jamming," unless you are Bob Marley
  • Anything that could be described by the words "ethereal," "atmospheric," "hypnotic," or "deep." The point is to make people dance, not to make them contemplate life and fall asleep.
  • You plan to impress your audience by a "shock and awe" technique of producing chaos and cacophony, even if it's melodic.
  • The rhythm section is repetitive (e.g. the Postal Service, Death Cab for Cutie, Broken Social Scene). However, in certain rare occasions it is okay to have a repetitive backing track (Smashing Pumpkins' "1979").
  • Song length is more than 3 min 30 seconds. (but really, you should aim for 2 min 30 seconds.)
Regarding the last point, it is usually okay to create an epic song if it is under six minutes and contains more than three very distinct movements. A good example is "Bohemian Rhapsody." It is not okay to create an epic song of the same length that follows a predictable buildup to a climax. This is why it is a truth universally known and accepted that "Stairway To Heaven" sucks.

Does your song suck? A good way to find out is to listen to your song with a (sober) friend who's never heard it before. You will immediately be much more self-conscious about your work, and it will be easy for you to sense where the boring, even embarrassing, sections are. Of course, there is also the benefit of receiving much valuable feedback from your friend.

A good sign that you have a hit song is if your friend can remember the hook a few minutes after listening to it. Always strive to make an impression the first time. Here is a list of more things that make a song exciting for the listener:
  • The song changes about 3/4 of the way through (something to look forward to)
  • A single, unrepeated hook (for example, the link segments on Weezer's "Buddy Holly" and the Beach Boys' "God Only Knows"). It makes people go back to the beginning of the song when they are disappointed not to hear the hook again.
  • Drums that drop out and come back in
  • An exotic instrument (such as the theremin on "Good Vibrations" and the synthesizer on Del Shannon's "Runaway", but be careful about using faddish ethnic instruments such as the sitar)
  • A melody that spans more than one octave
Over the course of your career, you will discover more things that are exciting to people.

So now you have a good idea of what makes a good song. How do you put it all together? In the next section, we will talk about the best instrumental arrangements for the wall-of-sound.

Thursday, May 25, 2006

An exclusive interview with Mark Williams

NP: I AM NEON PHOSPHOR.

MW: hello

NP: FIRST OF ALL, CONGRATULATIONS ON YOUR GRADUATION.

MW: yeah, thanks

NP: WHAT CAN WE EXPECT FROM THE BAND THIS SUMMER? I HEAR MAYBE THERE WILL BE NEW SONGS AND EVEN LIVE SHOWS.

MW: probably neither, since we'll be in different counties and countries. a few songs may slip through, though

NP: IS ROCK DEAD?

MW: i hope not, but it's not running around like a bandit these days

NP: RADIOHEAD ARE PLAYING IN CALIFORNIA SOON. ARE YOU GOING TO SEE THEM?

MW: no way. they're still around?

NP: A NEW ALBUM COMING OUT SOON. YOU USED TO BE A BIG FAN, WERE YOU NOT?

MW: yeah, i did use to like them. i'd rather see al green these days, though. any idea what these guys new album sounds like? robots shitting into tin cans or something?

NP: IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE DIFFERENT BECAUSE THEY SPLIT FROM THEIR LONGTIME PRODUCER SINCE THE BENDS.

MW: you mean nigel?

NP: YES.

MW: that's rough. why'd they do that?

NP: THEY SAID NIGEL BECAME TOO MUCH OF A FRIEND WITH THE BAND, AND THAT THEY WANTED SOMEONE WHO WOULDN'T JUST LET THEM FOOL AROUND AND GET AWAY WITH IT.

MW: hmm, that's pretty admirable

NP: NIGEL PRODUCED THOM YORKE'S NEW SOLO ALBUM, THOUGH.

MW: that guy's doing solo albums? man, did he not have enough leeway with the band?

NP: APPARENTLY NOT. BUT GETTING BACK TO THE INTERVIEW, IF YOU COULD HAVE YOUR NEXT ALBUM PRODUCED BY ANYBODY, WHO WOULD IT BE?

MW: steven chow

NP: I MEAN, NOT IN THE BAND

MW: probably spector. though i've been guiltily enjoying "telstar," so maybe joe meek

NP: IS IT TRUE THAT PHIL SPECTOR OWNS A VIDEOTAPE OF YOU PLAYING GUITAR?

MW: i like to think so. there're facts to back that up, but who knows these days