"I'm not into genre," she says. "I'm a singer who tries to communicate through song. I write songs because I need to write them. It's almost like cheap therapy."
Katie Noonan.
Blessed with a beautiful voice, her new album Skin is a great album with loads of class and silky smooth grooves. I personally think it's a bit of a step away from her previous George days, as this album is more pop than not, but I really dig it. After all, how could you not love a voice as heavenly as hers?
Standout tracks:
#3. Time To Begin "Time to begin / Let the sun shine back in..." This is the first single off the album, and as such it has a nice little music video to go with it. I think it sets the tone of the album well - you can sit back and relax, unwind with these silver tunes washing over your body, or you can chat with friends at a cruising party or bar on a Friday night. The rockin' bass line gets me in that Friday night mood - in fact there's a taste of House (dance music) & Jamiroquai to the song, it's great - and the (jazz?) flute IS NUTS! Makes me wish I'd kept up with my silver woodwind.
#4. Love's My Song For You "As we lay here in the darkness, chatting away the hours, I wonder / If I could, lie here forever..." One of my boy's faves actually. She's more breathy in this song, and it's really nice and easygoing, something for a sunny day outside, or when you're indoors and the sunshine's so bright it's lighting up the whole house.
#5. Little Boy Man "You're the greatest gift / You're the sweetest kiss.." I personally find the title rather catchy. Possibly because it does and doesn't make sense, both at once, and they're the first words she sings. The groovy-sounding keyboard and the drumbeat that feature throughout most of the song, get my head nodding and my feet tapping. Every time.
#6. Sunshine "I look up, and I see that smile again / I look up, and I see sunshine again / I look up, and I see your face again..." Again, the keyboard and drums get this song going. They definitely bring the groove to this album, and complement Noonan's voice very well.
If you manage to get a hold of the special edition of this album, which includes an additional CD with b-sides, you'll find that she does a fantastic cover of the song "Crazy" (of Gnarls Barkley fame). Can't rave about it enough!
Katie Noonan. Haunting. Heavenly. Magical. Must-listen.
A repsonse to the article "Katie Noonan hits the road"
Wednesday, September 12, 2007
and you. the big guy.
Sure, I'll write you an email when you want me to.
Sure, I'll try and keep in touch.
Sure, I'll share music.
WHAT
ABOUT
YOU
Sure, I'll try and keep in touch.
Sure, I'll share music.
WHAT
ABOUT
YOU
Sunday, September 9, 2007
initial thoughts on evolution
Questions:
I thought I'd write up my initial responses to the following questions, before I read the lecture material.
1&2. Have humans evolved from vastly simpler organisms? Have other animals and plants evolved from simpler organisms?
How much simpler are we talking here? As in, from a single cell or amoeba, to some kind of amphibious being, to a simian being of sorts, then to neanderthals and finally to the modern homo sapiens we know and (sometimes) love today?
Perhaps.
I guess we all have to start from somewhere, right? I'm not much of a science buff, and I haven't really thought a great deal about where we all 'began'. My mind mainly thinks as far back as primitive humans, and anything beyond that, I've not contemplated. To me, this then implies that I've believed in God to an extent, in that I assumed that we started out as a simple form of human, and developed from there.
3&4. Does a belief in evolution lead to dire theological, moral and social consequences? Can a Christian believe in evolution and still be a "good Christian"?
"Dire" is a bit of an extreme word, wouldn't you think? I can see how a belief in the theory of evolution could affect a Christian's morals, and cause a inner conflict- I'm sure it would be fairly difficult to reconcile the notion of our beginning from a Big Bang, and the creation of Adam & Eve.. unless you were a bit of a religious scientist, and accepted the Genesis book in the Bible as more of a poetic description of God's Creation process, rather than believing that Eve was really created from one of Adam's ribs (I think that's how the story goes). I suppose that answers Q4 as well - I don't see why a Christian can't believe in God and Evolution at the same time, unless there's a passage in the Bible that specifically denies the concept of Evolution, and writes it off as a sinful belief.
Perhaps something more solid than a belief, i.e. an undeniable proof of Evolution, would stir a crisis in the theological world, and therefore have a social impact on the actively religious. Maybe you'd find a lot of people losing their minds, upon realising that there isn't a God. Or maybe they would not believe the proof, choosing instead to believe that the scientists had faked the evidence.
5. Does it matter whether we regard evolution as a "fact " or merely a "Theory"?
Of course. Accepting evolution as a fact, in my opinion, is to virtually write off the concept of God - unless you believe that God created the Big Bang. Then it wouldn't really matter. But if we consider evolution as a theory, no more and no less, then it allows us to keep our minds open to other possibilities of how we came to be, or how the world/universe began, et cetera.
Ok, now to read the lecture material.
I'm not sure whether I like this discussion on probability- that is to say, it feels as though our very existence is being dulled down to statistics and chance and complex mathematical equations that calculate the probability of things such as the chance of coin-flipping 100 heads in a row.
Continuing along this line of thought, based on chance and probability it is quite possible that human beings share a common ancestry with primordial slime, as William Provine suggests. Jumping back to Michael Denton's words that "to suggest that hundreds, thousands or possibly even millions of transitional species... were all unsuccessful... is verging on the incredible" - well yes, it is incredible. But I think it's possible too. We as humans like to think that we know everything, or we're on our way to knowing everything, but realistically we're nowhere near. For example, scientists and animal/insect experts (I've forgotten what kind of "-ologist" they are) are constantly discovering new species in the Amazon, just take a look at the news posted on the National Geographic website. And I'm sure that they've also missed a heap of flora and fauna too, what with all the incessant logging that's going on over there.
I think I have to eat some of my earlier words above, where I've said that I don't like the probability discussion - I've just read the review of the Theory of Evolution, and the concept of "survival of the fittest" is essentially boils down to probabilities. You have to be lucky enough to have the right genes or characteristics, or be able to adapt to your surroundings in such a way that you continue your lineage from generation to generation, and that's got a lot to do with chance.
The Selkirk and Burrows diagram reminds me of an article I read earlier this year (or possibly last year), about a new discovery that horses and bats are closely related. If scientists continue to find new links between different animal species, and perhaps even plant and insect species, maybe it's possible that scientists will reshape the concept of evolution as we know it today?
I thought I'd write up my initial responses to the following questions, before I read the lecture material.
1&2. Have humans evolved from vastly simpler organisms? Have other animals and plants evolved from simpler organisms?
How much simpler are we talking here? As in, from a single cell or amoeba, to some kind of amphibious being, to a simian being of sorts, then to neanderthals and finally to the modern homo sapiens we know and (sometimes) love today?
Perhaps.
I guess we all have to start from somewhere, right? I'm not much of a science buff, and I haven't really thought a great deal about where we all 'began'. My mind mainly thinks as far back as primitive humans, and anything beyond that, I've not contemplated. To me, this then implies that I've believed in God to an extent, in that I assumed that we started out as a simple form of human, and developed from there.
3&4. Does a belief in evolution lead to dire theological, moral and social consequences? Can a Christian believe in evolution and still be a "good Christian"?
"Dire" is a bit of an extreme word, wouldn't you think? I can see how a belief in the theory of evolution could affect a Christian's morals, and cause a inner conflict- I'm sure it would be fairly difficult to reconcile the notion of our beginning from a Big Bang, and the creation of Adam & Eve.. unless you were a bit of a religious scientist, and accepted the Genesis book in the Bible as more of a poetic description of God's Creation process, rather than believing that Eve was really created from one of Adam's ribs (I think that's how the story goes). I suppose that answers Q4 as well - I don't see why a Christian can't believe in God and Evolution at the same time, unless there's a passage in the Bible that specifically denies the concept of Evolution, and writes it off as a sinful belief.
Perhaps something more solid than a belief, i.e. an undeniable proof of Evolution, would stir a crisis in the theological world, and therefore have a social impact on the actively religious. Maybe you'd find a lot of people losing their minds, upon realising that there isn't a God. Or maybe they would not believe the proof, choosing instead to believe that the scientists had faked the evidence.
5. Does it matter whether we regard evolution as a "fact " or merely a "Theory"?
Of course. Accepting evolution as a fact, in my opinion, is to virtually write off the concept of God - unless you believe that God created the Big Bang. Then it wouldn't really matter. But if we consider evolution as a theory, no more and no less, then it allows us to keep our minds open to other possibilities of how we came to be, or how the world/universe began, et cetera.
Ok, now to read the lecture material.
I'm not sure whether I like this discussion on probability- that is to say, it feels as though our very existence is being dulled down to statistics and chance and complex mathematical equations that calculate the probability of things such as the chance of coin-flipping 100 heads in a row.
Continuing along this line of thought, based on chance and probability it is quite possible that human beings share a common ancestry with primordial slime, as William Provine suggests. Jumping back to Michael Denton's words that "to suggest that hundreds, thousands or possibly even millions of transitional species... were all unsuccessful... is verging on the incredible" - well yes, it is incredible. But I think it's possible too. We as humans like to think that we know everything, or we're on our way to knowing everything, but realistically we're nowhere near. For example, scientists and animal/insect experts (I've forgotten what kind of "-ologist" they are) are constantly discovering new species in the Amazon, just take a look at the news posted on the National Geographic website. And I'm sure that they've also missed a heap of flora and fauna too, what with all the incessant logging that's going on over there.
I think I have to eat some of my earlier words above, where I've said that I don't like the probability discussion - I've just read the review of the Theory of Evolution, and the concept of "survival of the fittest" is essentially boils down to probabilities. You have to be lucky enough to have the right genes or characteristics, or be able to adapt to your surroundings in such a way that you continue your lineage from generation to generation, and that's got a lot to do with chance.
The Selkirk and Burrows diagram reminds me of an article I read earlier this year (or possibly last year), about a new discovery that horses and bats are closely related. If scientists continue to find new links between different animal species, and perhaps even plant and insect species, maybe it's possible that scientists will reshape the concept of evolution as we know it today?
Saturday, September 8, 2007
strength.
I've been hosting my own little experiment lately - I've asked my friends to choose a song for me. Perhaps it reminds them of something we did together, or they think the song represents me in some way, or they think that I would like a particular song. It doesn't matter why they choose it, but telling me the reason for their choice is a bonus to me.
And today I received a not from a friend, who quoted 4 songs for me. I knew the artists but I didn't know the songs (except for one, who I didn't know at all), so I visited YouTube to see and hear the songs.
I felt a bit brighter afterwards. Jen reminded me of the person who I think I used to be. Perhaps I'm still the same, but my circumstances have brought out another side of me that my previous environment, i.e. high school, didn't really call for.
This is probably the second time that a feeling of reconnection has built up inside of me - I mean, a reconnection to the 'old' me. The feeling that I used to be stronger, and more vibrant, and the belief that I can still be that person again, if only I let myself.
I don't really understand why I cling to old memories so much. Like how I've just been reunited (via Facebook) with primary school friends whom I haven't seen since Year 1 or 2, and how I have a habit of searching through high school photos for a good display picture of me, when really, those days are at least 2 years old and not reflective of who I am now.
And now, time for a mini rant, because I've just been reminded of it:
I don't like prissy people. People who are constantly very showy, posting blogs about how they only spent $300 on clothes this weekend, or how they haven't been out on a Friday night for the last two weeks, ohmygoodness what a tragedy. Get over yourself. Do something better with your time and money.
I'm sick of seeing your pouted lips, the left side of your face, your oversized designer sunglasses, the deliberately widened eyes to try and beautify yourself that little bit more. Why don't you take some more relaxed photos, I've seen your jawline and your collarbone and your slimmed waist enough times. I'd love to see you take some more friendly photos, casual snaps - stop being such a poser. I liked you better when you weren't such a priss.
Maybe I'm just bitter.
I'm pretty stubborn, and don't like change most of the time. That's something I'm trying to fix though - I want to embrace change, take them as challenges, tackle them head-on, instead of moping and moaning about them.
I'm sick of being a pessimist.
I'm trying for no more tears, no more fears.
And today I received a not from a friend, who quoted 4 songs for me. I knew the artists but I didn't know the songs (except for one, who I didn't know at all), so I visited YouTube to see and hear the songs.
I felt a bit brighter afterwards. Jen reminded me of the person who I think I used to be. Perhaps I'm still the same, but my circumstances have brought out another side of me that my previous environment, i.e. high school, didn't really call for.
This is probably the second time that a feeling of reconnection has built up inside of me - I mean, a reconnection to the 'old' me. The feeling that I used to be stronger, and more vibrant, and the belief that I can still be that person again, if only I let myself.
I don't really understand why I cling to old memories so much. Like how I've just been reunited (via Facebook) with primary school friends whom I haven't seen since Year 1 or 2, and how I have a habit of searching through high school photos for a good display picture of me, when really, those days are at least 2 years old and not reflective of who I am now.
And now, time for a mini rant, because I've just been reminded of it:
I don't like prissy people. People who are constantly very showy, posting blogs about how they only spent $300 on clothes this weekend, or how they haven't been out on a Friday night for the last two weeks, ohmygoodness what a tragedy. Get over yourself. Do something better with your time and money.
I'm sick of seeing your pouted lips, the left side of your face, your oversized designer sunglasses, the deliberately widened eyes to try and beautify yourself that little bit more. Why don't you take some more relaxed photos, I've seen your jawline and your collarbone and your slimmed waist enough times. I'd love to see you take some more friendly photos, casual snaps - stop being such a poser. I liked you better when you weren't such a priss.
Maybe I'm just bitter.
I'm pretty stubborn, and don't like change most of the time. That's something I'm trying to fix though - I want to embrace change, take them as challenges, tackle them head-on, instead of moping and moaning about them.
I'm sick of being a pessimist.
I'm trying for no more tears, no more fears.
Sunday, September 2, 2007
week 6 discussion posts #1-3
On the topic of Chaos and God acting in the World
Discussion posts below altered slightly for the purposes of this blog
Ariella posted up on the discussion board, a link about the Red Sea and the contemporary findings via physics - I find it fascinating how people have the ability to create such mathematical equations and formulae to describe or explain something which people previously believed at face value. And to me this is an example of somebody choosing to believe in the miraculous event, then realising they don't have a logic proof that can be presented to the non-believers, so they go about creating the mathematical proofs that say yes, Moses really did part the Red Sea... albeit with the aid of some freak weather conditions.
---
Alex wrote:
"Firstly, everyone knows about the ark of the covenant. Well, the temple of God had three progressively more holy sections, separated by curtains, and if the wrong person were to enter the wrong section, he or she would die."
Firstly, I don't know anything about the Ark of the Covenant, and I think he's being a bit presumptuous in assuming that everybody in this tutorial will have a basic knowledge of the Bible and/or Biblical stories - after all, not everybody is Christian.
Anyways, I did a quick search on Wikipedia* and noted that the Ark was in effect, a big treasure chest of sorts which contained the original 10 Commandments, plus a few other historical mementos - didn't find any further information on the temple and the 3 holy sections within that temple, but will try to keep looking when I have more time :)
*disclaimer: I have difficulty in fully relying on the authority of Wikipedia (I mean, really - random people collaborating facts on a website? ...Well then again, it's not like I know the people who write Britannica or Encarta etc) so whatever I say is quite possibly inaccurate.
---
Priyanka for posting these great YouTube links about quantum physics (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfPeprQ7oGc / http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWyTxCsIXE4) - although unlike Genevieve, I think I've been totally spun out by that double slit video - it left my mind reeling, and I loved it!
In further response, I think Priyanka makes a valid point when she writes:
"It is only through the existence of free will that man can be held responsible for his actions, which compliments most religious teachings."
After all, if God was completely in control of the us and the universe, well - where's the purpose in life? I think there's more purpose to life when there is an element of chaos and free will, in comparison to when we have a God who we must follow perfectly and undoubtedly, because then we just become robots - we live a mechanised existence. Trying to push through all the chaos, or making the best use of chaos to make life as vibrant and unexpected as you need it to be, I think that's where the fun and purpose lies. And if you want to believe in God, that's fine too, that's your way of tackling the chaos we live in.
Take for example, Dr. Frankenstein and his creation. Sure, Frankenstein created a (quasi-)human being, but he didn't have complete control over the creature- he had to let it do what it wanted. I think our relation to God is similar; perhaps He doesn't want us to run a-muck (amok?), but if we want to follow Him and praise his Son and His teachings, well, He's not going to stop you.
And the concept of a "caring, loving God", and Ariella's "there are many things which I wonder why He allows" - perhaps He isn't caring or loving in the sense that He strives to protect us from harm. Just to put a different spin on things, maybe He lets us experience war, and terror, and sadness, in order for us to wake up to ourselves, and make us realise how precious life is; for example, who really cares if you're wearing odd socks or if you're having a bad hair day; what's more important is the question- have you done something nice for your family lately?
Rhetorical question of course. What I'm trying to get at, is that maybe He lets us experience the bad times so that we can better appreciate the good times. And to cherish better, the people we grow up with, and learn from, and share joy with. In such a materialistic society/developed world, it's easy to lose focus of what's actually important.
Discussion posts below altered slightly for the purposes of this blog
Ariella posted up on the discussion board, a link about the Red Sea and the contemporary findings via physics - I find it fascinating how people have the ability to create such mathematical equations and formulae to describe or explain something which people previously believed at face value. And to me this is an example of somebody choosing to believe in the miraculous event, then realising they don't have a logic proof that can be presented to the non-believers, so they go about creating the mathematical proofs that say yes, Moses really did part the Red Sea... albeit with the aid of some freak weather conditions.
---
Alex wrote:
"Firstly, everyone knows about the ark of the covenant. Well, the temple of God had three progressively more holy sections, separated by curtains, and if the wrong person were to enter the wrong section, he or she would die."
Firstly, I don't know anything about the Ark of the Covenant, and I think he's being a bit presumptuous in assuming that everybody in this tutorial will have a basic knowledge of the Bible and/or Biblical stories - after all, not everybody is Christian.
Anyways, I did a quick search on Wikipedia* and noted that the Ark was in effect, a big treasure chest of sorts which contained the original 10 Commandments, plus a few other historical mementos - didn't find any further information on the temple and the 3 holy sections within that temple, but will try to keep looking when I have more time :)
*disclaimer: I have difficulty in fully relying on the authority of Wikipedia (I mean, really - random people collaborating facts on a website? ...Well then again, it's not like I know the people who write Britannica or Encarta etc) so whatever I say is quite possibly inaccurate.
---
Priyanka for posting these great YouTube links about quantum physics (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfPeprQ7oGc / http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWyTxCsIXE4) - although unlike Genevieve, I think I've been totally spun out by that double slit video - it left my mind reeling, and I loved it!
In further response, I think Priyanka makes a valid point when she writes:
"It is only through the existence of free will that man can be held responsible for his actions, which compliments most religious teachings."
After all, if God was completely in control of the us and the universe, well - where's the purpose in life? I think there's more purpose to life when there is an element of chaos and free will, in comparison to when we have a God who we must follow perfectly and undoubtedly, because then we just become robots - we live a mechanised existence. Trying to push through all the chaos, or making the best use of chaos to make life as vibrant and unexpected as you need it to be, I think that's where the fun and purpose lies. And if you want to believe in God, that's fine too, that's your way of tackling the chaos we live in.
Take for example, Dr. Frankenstein and his creation. Sure, Frankenstein created a (quasi-)human being, but he didn't have complete control over the creature- he had to let it do what it wanted. I think our relation to God is similar; perhaps He doesn't want us to run a-muck (amok?), but if we want to follow Him and praise his Son and His teachings, well, He's not going to stop you.
And the concept of a "caring, loving God", and Ariella's "there are many things which I wonder why He allows" - perhaps He isn't caring or loving in the sense that He strives to protect us from harm. Just to put a different spin on things, maybe He lets us experience war, and terror, and sadness, in order for us to wake up to ourselves, and make us realise how precious life is; for example, who really cares if you're wearing odd socks or if you're having a bad hair day; what's more important is the question- have you done something nice for your family lately?
Rhetorical question of course. What I'm trying to get at, is that maybe He lets us experience the bad times so that we can better appreciate the good times. And to cherish better, the people we grow up with, and learn from, and share joy with. In such a materialistic society/developed world, it's easy to lose focus of what's actually important.
holes in the universe / week 5 discussion post #6
A response to the article "Cosmic Blank Spot Puzzles Astronomers"
While surfing the web for news articles that could relate to my studies, I came across a really interesting article. Here's the first paragraph or two:
"Aug. 24, 2007 — Astronomers have stumbled upon a tremendous hole in the universe. That's got them scratching their heads about what's just not there.
The cosmic blank spot has no stray stars, no galaxies, no sucking black holes, not even mysterious dark matter. It is 1 billion light years across of nothing. That's an expanse of nearly 6 billion trillion miles of emptiness, a University of Minnesota team announced Thursday."
Continuing on the topic of that article, I find it really difficult to comprehend that there is something out there which is actually *nothing*. Because, for example, you have a empty jar, but when you say there's nothing in it, technically that's not true because when you closed the lid on that jar you effectively captured the air, or some carbon dioxide or whatever other gas(es) is floating around in your midst.
But to respond to Nerissa's post:
"If the voids are nothingness, I am assuming that there is no time as well. So ... if the voids are without time, and God is without time, perhaps God exists within the voids?"
Thinking along these lines, and how it's possible that there are these gaps in the universe where time does not exist - does that mean we have the ability to exist in a timeless nothingness, if we can somehow enter these voids without killing ourselves (or whatever it is that happens in space)? And if God exists within the voids as well, then we can literally 'live' with God?
This is probably totally off topic but thought I'd ask the question anyway :)
While surfing the web for news articles that could relate to my studies, I came across a really interesting article. Here's the first paragraph or two:
"Aug. 24, 2007 — Astronomers have stumbled upon a tremendous hole in the universe. That's got them scratching their heads about what's just not there.
The cosmic blank spot has no stray stars, no galaxies, no sucking black holes, not even mysterious dark matter. It is 1 billion light years across of nothing. That's an expanse of nearly 6 billion trillion miles of emptiness, a University of Minnesota team announced Thursday."
Continuing on the topic of that article, I find it really difficult to comprehend that there is something out there which is actually *nothing*. Because, for example, you have a empty jar, but when you say there's nothing in it, technically that's not true because when you closed the lid on that jar you effectively captured the air, or some carbon dioxide or whatever other gas(es) is floating around in your midst.
But to respond to Nerissa's post:
"If the voids are nothingness, I am assuming that there is no time as well. So ... if the voids are without time, and God is without time, perhaps God exists within the voids?"
Thinking along these lines, and how it's possible that there are these gaps in the universe where time does not exist - does that mean we have the ability to exist in a timeless nothingness, if we can somehow enter these voids without killing ourselves (or whatever it is that happens in space)? And if God exists within the voids as well, then we can literally 'live' with God?
This is probably totally off topic but thought I'd ask the question anyway :)
Saturday, September 1, 2007
refreshing conversation
Today I caught up with a mate who lives in Melbourne, and is in Sydney for the weekend - hadn't seen him for about 2 years, so it was really good to catch up and just be able to chat in person. Chocolate overload at Lindt Cafe, a study break in between, and then dinner with him and a few other friends at Pepper Lunch.
Over and after dinner, we had this great conversation about music, and the music industry, and what music used to be and what it has become today. And it was seriously like a breath of fresh air to me.
Some of the things we discussed were:
B4MD
No, this isn't the name of some weird underground band that only 'musos' know and appreciate. However, it IS a DVD that I don't think many people know about. To cut a long story short, it's about the American music industry, and the filmmakers' quest to understand why music has become so commercial now, and the impact that the major record labels and corporations have, the demise of radio, etc etc... the interviews are what makes the film great. My description doesn't do the film any justice whatsoever, I would recommend (especially to all those who consider themselves musicians) that you check out their website - www.b4md.com
Music then and music now
Fitzy and I had a good rant about how music is so produced nowadays. Doesn't matter if you sing off-key, or if you're tone-deaf, the technology available in this day and age can make you sound as good as you want - and you could probably sound like whoever you want as well. If you've got the money, you've got the capabilities to make some really great sounding music. The problem I have with this, is that its so manufactured. Sure, there's nothing wrong with a perfect-sounding album - but you're not gaining much respect from me if you can't deliver the goods live.
Take one, take two, take three, take etc. Compare that to the musicians of yesteryear, e.g the 50s and 60s and even earlier, where they only had the means to perform a single take. So the whole group, the percussionists, the vocalists, the instrumentalists, had to be on the ball. In some cases I'm sure that they only had one recording session as well, so they would have to get all their songs right, in one sitting.
And so what if the track didn't work out to be perfect. So what if you can hear the drummer dropping his drumsticks at 3 mins 35 seconds in the song, or a back-up singer forgets a word in a chorus. It's the little imperfections that make the song and the recording unique! You don't have to get rid of stuff like that.
Fitzy was telling me about a friend of his, who had managed to acquire a copy of Marvin Gaye's recording of "Ain't No Mountain High Enough" in its 8-track original - as in, the drums recording, and the vocals recording etc in different 'files', so to speak (I'm pretty poor on the musical terminology). So they were able to muck around with all the different levels and what-not, making the different instruments louder or softer etc.. and at one point his friend pulled down all the tracks except the vocals - and Marvin Gaye is missing lyrics here and there, there's sounds where there shouldn't be any.. what I'm trying to get at here, is that we all know and love Marvin Gaye's music (or at least you should do), and yet here is an example of music that hasn't been produced to the shit. It's a 'raw' recording, in comparison to the polished tunes that we hear today.. and it's great!
That's not all we talked about, but it's what I remember the most. I was learning from these conversations, and slowly taking up a different attitude to music and my own performance habits. Who cares if you make the odd mistake. Don't stress about it, just enjoy the ride, make your next solo even better than the one before. The passion and energy you exude is what makes the audience disregard those mistakes.
Imperfection, improvisation, spontaneity - the beauty and awesomeness of live music.
On a tangent. I also brought up the topic of the Dave Matthews Band (DMB) and their music. If you have a listen to their albums, you'll find that they write some pretty awesome songs. And if you listen to them over and over, sometimes through speakers, sometimes through a good pair of stereo headphones, you'll discover sounds that you hadn't heard in previous listenings. It's because they have so many intricate melodies intertwined throughout their tracks, and it makes for a really interesting and fun set of songs. But how do you write/transpose that kind of stuff to paper? And how do you rehearse the kind of 'extended jam sessions' they have during their live performances? It's absolutely nuts. But DMB has been together for about 15 years now, if not longer.. I guess you fall into a smooth groove, and you know each other so well that the music and its performance becomes second nature.
To digress once again. I discovered this great YouTube video, of the amazing bassist Victor Wooten, performing his own rendition of Amazing Grace (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mx2vuK5pGTg). This guy is as musically insane as Carter Beauford is with his drums.
Over and after dinner, we had this great conversation about music, and the music industry, and what music used to be and what it has become today. And it was seriously like a breath of fresh air to me.
Some of the things we discussed were:
B4MD
No, this isn't the name of some weird underground band that only 'musos' know and appreciate. However, it IS a DVD that I don't think many people know about. To cut a long story short, it's about the American music industry, and the filmmakers' quest to understand why music has become so commercial now, and the impact that the major record labels and corporations have, the demise of radio, etc etc... the interviews are what makes the film great. My description doesn't do the film any justice whatsoever, I would recommend (especially to all those who consider themselves musicians) that you check out their website - www.b4md.com
Music then and music now
Fitzy and I had a good rant about how music is so produced nowadays. Doesn't matter if you sing off-key, or if you're tone-deaf, the technology available in this day and age can make you sound as good as you want - and you could probably sound like whoever you want as well. If you've got the money, you've got the capabilities to make some really great sounding music. The problem I have with this, is that its so manufactured. Sure, there's nothing wrong with a perfect-sounding album - but you're not gaining much respect from me if you can't deliver the goods live.
Take one, take two, take three, take etc. Compare that to the musicians of yesteryear, e.g the 50s and 60s and even earlier, where they only had the means to perform a single take. So the whole group, the percussionists, the vocalists, the instrumentalists, had to be on the ball. In some cases I'm sure that they only had one recording session as well, so they would have to get all their songs right, in one sitting.
And so what if the track didn't work out to be perfect. So what if you can hear the drummer dropping his drumsticks at 3 mins 35 seconds in the song, or a back-up singer forgets a word in a chorus. It's the little imperfections that make the song and the recording unique! You don't have to get rid of stuff like that.
Fitzy was telling me about a friend of his, who had managed to acquire a copy of Marvin Gaye's recording of "Ain't No Mountain High Enough" in its 8-track original - as in, the drums recording, and the vocals recording etc in different 'files', so to speak (I'm pretty poor on the musical terminology). So they were able to muck around with all the different levels and what-not, making the different instruments louder or softer etc.. and at one point his friend pulled down all the tracks except the vocals - and Marvin Gaye is missing lyrics here and there, there's sounds where there shouldn't be any.. what I'm trying to get at here, is that we all know and love Marvin Gaye's music (or at least you should do), and yet here is an example of music that hasn't been produced to the shit. It's a 'raw' recording, in comparison to the polished tunes that we hear today.. and it's great!
That's not all we talked about, but it's what I remember the most. I was learning from these conversations, and slowly taking up a different attitude to music and my own performance habits. Who cares if you make the odd mistake. Don't stress about it, just enjoy the ride, make your next solo even better than the one before. The passion and energy you exude is what makes the audience disregard those mistakes.
Imperfection, improvisation, spontaneity - the beauty and awesomeness of live music.
On a tangent. I also brought up the topic of the Dave Matthews Band (DMB) and their music. If you have a listen to their albums, you'll find that they write some pretty awesome songs. And if you listen to them over and over, sometimes through speakers, sometimes through a good pair of stereo headphones, you'll discover sounds that you hadn't heard in previous listenings. It's because they have so many intricate melodies intertwined throughout their tracks, and it makes for a really interesting and fun set of songs. But how do you write/transpose that kind of stuff to paper? And how do you rehearse the kind of 'extended jam sessions' they have during their live performances? It's absolutely nuts. But DMB has been together for about 15 years now, if not longer.. I guess you fall into a smooth groove, and you know each other so well that the music and its performance becomes second nature.
To digress once again. I discovered this great YouTube video, of the amazing bassist Victor Wooten, performing his own rendition of Amazing Grace (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mx2vuK5pGTg). This guy is as musically insane as Carter Beauford is with his drums.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)