Showing posts with label U2. Show all posts
Showing posts with label U2. Show all posts

Friday, 15 April 2016

Ticket 55: Two Become One



Got lots of song fragments lying around? Join two (or more) separate incomplete song together to make one whole song. Good for co-writing (A Day In The Life) or using up your own random ideas (I Am The Walrus).

Try to make sure there is some musical, lyrical or thematic common ground between the fragments eg lots of time changes (Happiness Is A Warm Gun), multiple characters – (Pam, Mr Mustard, Sun King, Her Majesty - The Abbey Road Medley), similar chord progressions (I Got A Feeling).

The Abbey Road Medley (obviously) also

A Day In The Life
Baby You're A Rich Man
Carry That Weight
Dig A Pony
Happiness Is A Warm Gun
I Am The Walrus
I've Got A Feeling
You Never Give Me Your Money

also


Believe It When I See It (Ron Sexsmith)
Fairytale Of New York (The Pogues feat. Kirsty MacColl)
Fall At Your Feet (Crowded House)
Give Me Something (James Morrison)
God (John Lennon)
Layla (Derek & The Dominos)
Live And Let Die (Wings)
Paranoid Android (Radiohead)
Scenes From An Italian Restaurant (Billy Joel)
Uncle Albert/Admiral Halsey (Paul McCartney)
Victim of Changes (Judas Priest)
Without You (Badfinger/Harry Nilsson)
Zooropa (U2)

Monday, 21 June 2010

Blessed Are The Single-Taskers



On 15th Aug 1969, while the Woodstock festival was kicking off in Bethel, New York, George Martin & The Beatles were in London laying down the orchestral overdubs for five of the songs on Abbey Road . For once the Beatles weren’t at the centre of the musical universe. But more remarkable from a songwriter’s perspective this was one of the few times they worked on several songs at once.


Saving the world, one song at a time



Like every other songwriter on the planet Lennon & McCartney always had numerous ideas on the back burner but one thing they habitually did (in terms of recording) was work on every song to completion. They very rarely focused on more than one song at a time.

Just let that sink in for a moment.

Picture just about every band you know. They go into the studio to record an album. First they lay down all the drum tracks. With b-sides involved this may be up to 25 songs. And 25 bass tracks. And so on. Weeks may elapse between laying down each instrument. Once the initial scratch tracks are done the rest of the band may not even be present. And even at the point that the songs are tracked the vocal lines and lyrics may still be unwritten. That’s certainly the case with Aerosmith, Led Zeppelin, U2 and Metallica.

The Beatles however went in and hammered away at a song till it was finished and only when it was in the can did they move on to the next one. The only modern artist I know of with a similar way of working is Prince.

Ever wondered how the Beatles (and Prince) were able to handle such a wide range of styles convincingly?

Because this way of working allows you to totally submerge yourself in the song. It’s just too hard to switch gears between being children’s entertainers one minute (Yellow Submarine) and drug-fuelled visionaries (A Day In The Life) the next.

Rather than getting stuck in a “rhythm guitar overdub” frame of mind this approach allows you to get into a “song XYZ” frame of mind. After all, how unified do an album’s worth of bass lines need to be? Not as unified as all the elements of a song do.

Doing a complete song in a short space of time also gives you a much clearer sense of the song’s merits. How many rhythm tracks have been laboriously polished only to discover that, when the vocal track arrives at the 11th hour, the song sucks?

False Economy


So why don’t more people do it the Abbey Road way? Well, when it takes a whole day to mic up a drum kit, it makes financial sense to record as many drum tracks as you can in one go.

Here’s a bunch of observations on that.

This way of saving money leads to poorer songs. Poorer songs = lower sales. Lower sales = less money. So the strategy is “hey, if we spend less money, we’ll make less money!” Not a great idea!

Creating a perfect drum sound has become a quest for the holy grail requiring a mic for every piece of the kit, a channel for every mic & e.q. & outboard effects for every channel. No wonder it takes so long. Is the amount of time and money spent worth it?


There’s a stunning lack of unified drum sounds even on individual Beatles tracks. But be honest. Have you ever noticed the change in drum sounds on She Loves You  (1:23) and Strawberry Fields Forever (1:00) or the accidental phasing on From Me To You  (0:06)? Or is your focus on the song?

Maybe we would be less anal about drum sounds if we were trying to capture more of the bigger picture all at once. Is the kit fetish a symptom of engineers always having to work with vocal-less tracks. Who knows?

What’s best?


What’s best for the band and the song should never be overruled by what’s most convenient for the studio and the producer.What a band needs most is a large room with some separation, which is most like their normal playing environment.

In the 60’s Abbey Road was a combination of outdated gear and huge rooms that was pretty much at the Beatles’ disposal 24/7. By comparison many modern studios are overstocked broom closets too claustrophobic for any band bigger than the White Stripes.

Space matters more than equipment. Really.


Some Application



If your Abbey Road is a laptop and a few mics there’s little advantage doing any instrument wholesale anyway. So immerse yourself in the song, finish it and move on.

In a ‘real’ studio keep the time from the first count in to the final overdub as short as possible. Even if you go back later and remix or rerecord (as they did with Strawberry Fields, Ob-La-Di & Hold Me Tight) you’ve still wasted less time and focus. If one song at a time sounds too radical, try thinking of your album as a collection of 3 track EPs. Finish each EP totally before moving on.

Try to write something out of your genre. A kid’s song, a thrash metal song, a hymn, a comedy number, an R&B jam. Give yourself to it for a few days. Complete it, mix it and move on. Devoting yourself to a single (left field) project for a few days could produce amazing results and even refresh you as a songwriter.


More Be-atletudes


Blessed are the Co-writers 

Friday, 26 March 2010

Hugh MacLeod And Paul McGuinness On Limiting Yourself



The Beatles were incredibly prolific because they were severely limited by the technological options at their disposal. Here are two more witnesses on the advantages of limiting yourself

Hugh MacLeod (Artist)

The more talented somebody is, the less they need the props. There's no correlation between creativity and equipment ownership. None. Zilch. Nada.

Actually, as the artist gets more into his thing, and as he gets more successful, his number of tools tends to go down. He knows what works for him. Expending mental energy on stuff wastes time. He's a man on a mission. He's got a deadline. He's got some rich client breathing down his neck. The last thing he wants is to spend 3 weeks learning how to use a router drill if he doesn't need to.

How To Be CREATIVE (Free eBook Download)



Paul McGuinness (U2 Manager)

[The ‘Pop’ album] was the first time I started to think that the technology was getting out of control. When people are trying to choose between mix 26 and mix 27…the sheer range of possibilities [creates] a form of paralysis.

(U2 by U2 p.270)




Monday, 22 March 2010

Blessed Are The Limited



This post comes hot on the heels of watching It Might Get Loud. An 'OK' film rather than a great one, it’s chief effect was to make me realise what a great band Led Zeppelin were. So I dug out a load of Zep to listen to, the chief effect of which was to make me realise what a great band The Beatles were.

Back to the film.

Seeing Jack White make an electric guitar out of a few bits of wood and a coke bottle threw into sharper relief the Edge’s struggle to find the right setting for ‘Pride’ on a pedal board with more effects than the entire Abbey Road studio (circa 1970) and more processing power than Mission Control, Houston (circa 2010).


Right there I got an insight into why the Beatles were able to produce so much, so quickly, and so consistently whereas U2 (and most of their contemporaries) produce so little.

Don’t underestimate the power of limiting your choices.


When you have only 4 tracks, a few instruments, and some reverb you quickly exhaust all the possibilities and you are faced with doing yet another take or just saying ‘let’s move onto the next song.’ Even at their most technically advanced the Beatles had less to play with than I do on the garage band-equipped Mac I’m typing this post on.

I’m convinced that one of the (many) reasons for the Beatles greatness was that they wrote and recorded so many songs. The more you do something, the better you become. Duh!

But here's my point -

The Beatles productivity was inversely proportionate to the number of gadgets they had to dick around with. Spending 2 hours deciding how much decay to put on the guitar echo and 2 days soundchecking a drum kit might mean you take 2 years to record an album. And 2 years in the studio will often need 3 or 4 years on the road to recoup the advance.

Comparisons can be misleading, I know. Bono takes time out to save the world whereas The Beatles practically lived in the studio.

Nevertheless -

In 7 years...

The Beatles recorded over 12 albums worth of material.
U2 recorded 5 albums. (And in the last 7 years they've only recorded 2).

I think there's a lesson to learn.

Do you need to limit your options?

Scratch that. Why don't you try limiting yourself, whether you think you need to or not?

Take a hard look at the following areas.

Time (both recording and mixing).
Number of tracks.
Places to record.
Number of people involved.
Instruments/gadgets/hardware used.