Changing Roles of Music: Live vs. Sound Track
June 16, 2008
Welcome, new visitor! My name is Ari, the man behind Aries9. Here I share my thoughts on music and life, so you can get to know me and my music. Thanks for visiting!
I’ve noticed that now that it’s gotten warmer, I’m listening to a lot more of mellower music.
Not as much metal. More of folkier music and “sunny day rock.”
One of the way I think of music is that it’s a sound track to the movie that is your life.
It expresses the mood, tempo, energy, feelings, and so on. You can use it to reflect how you’re doing at the time, or you can use it affect/change your state of being.
For example, in the morning I like to listen to uplifting music. Something that gets me going. It doesn’t necessarily mean something up-tempo or energetic.
Like U2’s “Where the Streets Have No Name.” That song has possibly one of the greatest intros in the history of rock music. It gives me goosebumps every time. It inspires me and makes me want to do something — something good.
One thing about “sound track” music, though, is that for me, the production value has to be somewhat high and polished.
There are two approaches to recording. One is to capture the moment. Like live recordings, or live-in-studio performance. You want to preserve the immediacy, spontaneity, interaction of the musicians. You want to capture the feeling present “in the room.” This can produce a raw and possible more emotional/direct recording. When it works, it can cut you straight to heart with unadulterated feeling.
Then the other approach is to make a “studio” recording. You actually take away the liveness or rawness of the sound so that it doesn’t sound like it’s a capture of a particular time and space. It is more neutral, and can fit into different contexts. It’s usually slick and more perfect-sounding than sometimes possible in live situations. But you aren’t distracted by having to pay attention to the humanity or physicality behind the performances. You just appreciate the composition, arrangement and production.
Obviously all recordings fall somewhere within the two extremes, but most studio recordings nowadays are constructed in a way closer to the latter philosophy.
And the approach definitely affects the “sound-trackability” of the recording. If it’s live and raw sounding, it pulls me too much into their setting, instead of it being an accompaniment to my “scene.” Pearl Jam doesn’t make a good sound track to my life (though I love them) because of this. My own recording, for that matter, is a bit on the raw/under-produced side, even. I like raw bands, but since I am interested in high production value and “sound-track” value of my music, I’m hoping to up the production value of my future recordings.
Don’t get me wrong, I am also a fan of raw recordings, and raw rock. Nirvana’s In Utero is a great, raw rock. I can’t listen to it casually, though, because it’s so intense. I like my blues, folk/acoustic and classical music served this way.
But most prog rock guys lean toward the studio side, because their forte is in the composition and arrangements. And I feel like that’s true also for Aries9. It’s in the construction of the parts that evoke the feelings I’m trying to communicate — that’s a different thing from playing live, where you’re trying to remove as much filtering as possible to emit direct, pure emotions.
Back to where I started, with changing of seasons, I need a different sound track to my life. It only makes sense — a bright scene and a dark scene require different kinds of music. When it was cold, dark and harsh outside, I needed the propelling and heroic energy of my favorite heavy rockers to go brave into my days. When it’s warm and comfy, I don’t need quite as much pep talk.
So — what am I listening these days? Midnight Oil’s Capricornia, Blackfield II, Renee Stahl’s Hopeful.Romantic, (she’s recent discovery — too bad she seems inactive right now), and Kalli’s While the City Sleeps.
What are you listening to, this summer?
Filed under: Reflections |