The Stephen Desper Thread
Stephen W. Desper:
Quote from: Toby on December 26, 2005, 07:33:33 AM
Mr Desper wrote:
"((PS don't remember the song and the track was wiped.))"
Can you elaborate on the reasons for wiping not-to-be-used songs? I assume one was economical in that the Beach Boys wanted to record over older tapes instead of buying new tapes.
The author(s) of the songs did not want to move forward with their creation and wanted to remove any evidence of same. Sort of like writing it down on paper, handing it to a musician to play, then upon hearing it played if you did not like what you heard you would rip up the paper along with the song. It's one thing to write a song and hear it in your head or hear it as you play it, but the song takes on a different perspective if you hear it without playing it. Sometimes this seperation of the player to the listener in playback (even if the same person) gives a point of view that is different and allows for a more critical judgement to be made.
Ever compose a photo with your digital camera, but after you take it and view it on the screen, decide to erase the attempt and move on?
The recording studio can be used for production but also for experimentation (if you can afford it). Indeed, if you do use it for experimentation, those things you try out and wish to discard must be destroyed or else the whole idea of author's security and control over their creation, is lost. Good Grief! If I could not erase or go over (edit) everything I write on this computer -- and somehow there was a record of everything I wrote that may someday come back to haunt me, I'd go back to a pencil and paper. ~swd
the captain:
Quote from: Stephen W. Desper on December 26, 2005, 10:44:31 AM
Quote from: Toby on December 26, 2005, 07:33:33 AM
Mr Desper wrote:
"((PS don't remember the song and the track was wiped.))"
Can you elaborate on the reasons for wiping not-to-be-used songs? I assume one was economical in that the Beach Boys wanted to record over older tapes instead of buying new tapes.
The author(s) of the songs did not want to move forward with their creation and wanted to remove any evidence of same. Sort of like writing it down on paper, handing it to a musician to play, then upon hearing it played if you did not like what you heard you would rip up the paper along with the song. It's one thing to write a song and hear it in your head or hear it as you play it, but the song takes on a different perspective if you hear it without playing it. Sometimes this seperation of the player to the listener in playback (even if the same person) gives a point of view that is different and allows for a more critical judgement to be made.
Ever compose a photo with your digital camera, but after you take it and view it on the screen, decide to erase the attempt and move on?
The recording studio can be used for production but also for experimentation (if you can afford it). Indeed, if you do use it for experimentation, those things you try out and wish to discard must be destroyed or else the whole idea of author's security and control over their creation, is lost. Good Grief! If I could not erase or go over (edit) everything I write on this computer -- and somehow there was a record of everything I wrote that may someday come back to haunt me, I'd go back to a pencil and paper. ~swd
FYI, this is why I have some serious issues with bootlegs. I am certainly no angel, and have my share of unauthorized recordings, outtakes, etc., but it isn't really fair of us as an audience to use unreleased items to judge an artist, be they for good or bad. Nobody dug through Picasso's trash bins to find scribbles on napkins (that I know of, anyway!), but we do the same thing all the time to say what a musician should or shouldn't have done, etc. A good example--we see the Battle Hymn or the recently posted "Can't Stop Talking About American Girls" to mock Mike Love (more than usual, anyway). The fact is, even if they were intentionally recorded with serious intentions, they weren't released. They are no different than a musician hitting a bad note in rehearsal. Thus we have no business with them, really.
I know that is hypocritical of me to say. I guess I'm as greedy as anyone, and want everything I can get my hands on-- even if I have no right to it.
Toby:
Quote
The author(s) of the songs did not want to move forward with their creation and wanted to remove any evidence of same. Sort of like writing it down on paper, handing it to a musician to play, then upon hearing it played if you did not like what you heard you would rip up the paper along with the song. It's one thing to write a song and hear it in your head or hear it as you play it, but the song takes on a different perspective if you hear it without playing it. Sometimes this seperation of the player to the listener in playback (even if the same person) gives a point of view that is different and allows for a more critical judgement to be made.
That's an interesting answer, thanks. I've recorded music for ten years now and I've never deleted a recording that I didn't like. I have everything stored away. Sometimes, I remember a song I did years ago but can't remember how it went, so I can go back and listen to it, "Yeah, this song did have its merits." What's obvious in Brian's career is that sometimes a song doesn't feel right when it was first recorded, so it's discarded for years and years until the moment's right.
Stephen W. Desper:
Quote from: Luther on December 26, 2005, 10:54:02 AM
FYI, this is why I have some serious issues with bootlegs.
I agree with you. My problem with bootlegs is that the artist is misrepresented, either musically or financially.
As to test recordings, in this case the recordings would not have had the chance to be bootlegs. We used one tape and just back it up over and over. Record -- listen -- record again -- listen again -- then move on. Sometimes only a verse or a bridge, or even a fade was recorded and reviewed. These were little work snippits or maybe the entire song, but no big production values here. Maybe some vocal parts demo-ed or work out on tape -- just to see if it worked.
In a word, a rehearsal on tape. ~swd
Stephen W. Desper:
Quote from: Toby on December 26, 2005, 02:18:10 PM
That's an interesting answer. I've recorded music for ten years now and I've never deleted a recording that I didn't like.
Well some of us are "pack rats" and never discard anything, then others are "minimalists " and never keep anything they don't use for more than a week.
All the guys had a sense of their place in history. In fact, they guarded their individual and collective output, wanting only the finsihed product to represent the work of the group. Having a private studio was like having a lockable treasure room. In fact with respect to the house studio, I had the only keys. No one got into the studio unless I was there. And I kept all tapes under my own lock in a closet. That way, the trust was not with any one Beach Boy, but with someone in whom they all had a common connection.
Otherwise, tapes from outside studio gigs were controlled by Diane Rovell or Steve Korthof or the engineer in charge. A Beach Boy never took a tape home with them.
See previous post too. ~swd
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page