KVR Audio

harryupbabble · Post by **harryupbabble** » Thu Sep 15, 2016 9:56 pm

In the first video, is Joe Walsh right?

In the second video, the song Animal Nitrate by the band Suede made me think that Joe Walsh might be right and that a lot of the songs I wish I have the ability to make might not always be doable by one person. It most of the time probably takes/took a whole band to make something "better" exist. If you take away Bernard Butler's (the Suede guitarist) contribution(s) to Animal Nitrate, it seems the song would not have as much mojo (if that is the right word).

incubus · Post by **incubus** » Fri Sep 16, 2016 3:00 am

Now, you have to take things with a grain of salt.

For example, if you haven't seen it, watch "Sound City" which is a brilliant documentary. But there are many ridiculous comments in it (and after watching it so many times it's REALLY edited to hell

). So though I love it and watch it a lot, some of it is nauseatingly wrong.

Music is in the eye of the beholder. The reasons I absolutely deplore most rap might be the same reason someone whines about guitar solos.

harryupbabble · Post by **harryupbabble** » Fri Sep 16, 2016 5:48 am

Hey mang, speaking of eye of the beholder, eye really want to see that Sound City documentary just because Stevie Nicks is in it, she was so pretty and interesting in her 20's. Not as much now, just a little more than little.

You mentioned comments, I presume you are talking about the full documentary existing somewhere in YouTube. Can't seem to find it. Found only a bunch of mini-clips. Got a link? If no, thanks anyway. Maj ram.

incubus · Post by **incubus** » Fri Sep 16, 2016 6:16 am

I dunno, I have direct TV so have seen it on there. Maybe netflix? (not sure if)

Yeah, the "fleetwood mac" "Stevie Nicks" this is interesting. No doubt. But what I was referring to:

-Neil Young and his ridiculous claim that when compact discs were made, they got the "algorithms" wrong. (ridiculous)
-the concept that "digital" ruined "music" which is absurd.
-That "people who have no business being in bands/etc, have now become stars"

-"protools ruined the industry.

These are just some of the things I personally don't agree with. Sure, there are always "some" truths but overall, no. It was related to what you posted. Where it's "all or nothing" on these subjects. Sure, some parts are true, some are not.

masterhiggins · Post by **masterhiggins** » Fri Sep 16, 2016 6:23 am

Joe Walsh is a luddite dinosaur whose music I've never related to. He can eat a dick.

foosnark · Post by **foosnark** » Fri Sep 16, 2016 1:19 pm

There is definitely something special about live performers interacting with each other and the audience, adding their "mojo" if you want to call it that.

But across a thousand years or so of Western music, up until about the 19th century, we've had composers with 100% of the creative control and performers whose job is to play exactly what is on the page, adding nothing to the process. (And frankly a lot of that time, the composers themselves were working from formulas. Sometimes literally from mathematical alogrithms.)

I really don't see sequenced, or studio-recorded music, as being somehow less valid than that.

Playing music is a performing art; composing and producing are a different kind art (more like sculpture or writing); both have "mojo" but in different flavors.

Hink · Post by **Hink** » Fri Sep 16, 2016 5:22 pm

I respect and admire Joe Walsh immensely, I think he's far more intelligent than many give him credit for and I completely understand his point. But really his point sways a bit more toward the business side of music and that is the perspective he sees from where he is at, not all, even those similar to him, will see it this way. I say it often, expression does not have to equal communication and as an example I typically point to how even when we are alone and we see something funny we will laugh. There is no communicating if there is no other party to receive said communication but laughter is certainly expressing one's self. He uses the word testify which suggests to me his expression is meant for communication of some form which is his thing. I do totally agree with the fact that humans make mistakes and that does give the music it's own character, that's part of what I enjoy about playing. That's not to take away from totally programmed music as an art form but if I hadn't started playing guitar long before the age of computers (and really Joe Walsh was an influence on me) I'm not sure I would have the passion I have now for playing. However I do prefer to keep it personal and to myself, at least at this time.

foosnark wrote:Playing music is a performing art; composing and producing are a different kind art (more like sculpture or writing); both have "mojo" but in different flavors.

Well said, totally agree with this though I'm not sure performing always has to be to an audience

chaosWyrM · Post by **chaosWyrM** » Fri Sep 16, 2016 5:25 pm

joe walsh is only "right" if were talking about joe walshs perspective.

sure...from his point of view and concerning the kind of music he knows about....sure maybe he has a point.

but the opposite is true from another perspective. there are plenty of people who would say joe walsh and his antiquated way of making music has no mojo...that its stuck in the past...an anachronism that has lingered far past its relevancy.

ive been out in a forest in the middle of the night stomping my ass off in the pouring rain with a couple thousand other people...just in a whole other plane of existence...reveling to sounds made entirely on computers. i can assure you...there was plenty of "mojo".

i can also assure you...a human being, or a group of human beings would not be capable of playing those sounds.

im pretty confident i couldnt stay awake for half a joe walsh set.

its all a matter of perspective. "mojo" isnt real, its an attribute assigned by the observer...change the observer and you change the value of the attribute.

datroof · Post by **datroof** » Fri Sep 16, 2016 6:01 pm

One thing about Joe Walsh's perspective is that much of his career has been about adding mojo to a song. Look at what he added to all of those Eagles hits - they would not have been nearly the same without his contributions. The guy obviously has a very finely tuned mojo detector. I think his comments should certainly be taken seriously, but also with a grain of salt because most of us - and certainly most listeners - aren't nearly as "mojo-sensitive" as he is.

incubus · Post by **incubus** » Sat Sep 17, 2016 1:25 am

masterhiggins wrote:Joe Walsh is a luddite dinosaur whose music I've never related to. He can eat a dick.

Well, I wasn't trying to be that overly direct

GeckoYamori · Post by **GeckoYamori** » Sat Sep 17, 2016 1:43 am

I mean, you can just take his arguments to their logical conclusion and say that everything is fake and the mojo has been completely gone since the advent tape recording first allowed editing in the 50's.

Firebird · Post by **Firebird** » Sat Sep 17, 2016 7:07 am

harryupbabble wrote:In the first video, is Joe Walsh right?

Joe Walsh is always right.....except about this.

deastman · Post by **deastman** » Sat Sep 17, 2016 7:29 am

Mojo is easily replicated by a computer. Just select a groove template, dial up the swing a bit, tweak the per-step probability graph, and set up some clip follow actions. Boom.

Still no money in music. You can thank Napster for that. Well, Napster, and the fundamental struggle between good and evil within all of us.

harryupbabble · Post by **harryupbabble** » Sat Sep 17, 2016 4:59 pm

It's possible that Joe Walsh was not saying that music made with a DAW is total crap, it's possible that he was only saying that rather than uploading something that one made in a DAW one could play one's composition that was made in a DAW, play that composition LIVE with a bunch of capable musician rather than relying on the DAW's "humanize" function.

Furthermore I think he might have been saying that the "digital age" enabled people to work by themselves and that this is bad because when you are by yourself you can't get the "more possibilities" "more permutations" "more mojo" that you can get when you create/play tunes with a band. The humanize function that DAWs have can't really achieve what humans can, it's not as human as an actual human.

Get a very good programmer (of a DAW) to program a Beatles tune in any DAW, chances are the Beatles tune performed by the actual Beatles is better and more mojocal, more alive. And it shouldn't matter if you like the Beatles or not. Joe Walsh said "you can tell" if music is programmed. But who is "you"? My sister thought New Order's music, which I like, is programmed. She may be partially right. But as far as I can tell, New Order jammed.

Anyways, a tune like Greensleeves is going to remain Greensleeves as long as the note sequences or intervals are not changed no matter if the instruments used are all synthesizers or whether they are all classic rock instruments. But, again, maybe most of the time the Greensleeves performed live is going to sound better than the Greensleves that was left in DAW-form. On the other hand, yes music is subjective. It's possible some people might actually prefer the "programmed" version of Greensleves or whatever to the "played live" version.

But the thing is... isn't most "popular" music of today left in DAW-form? So, the choice of "programmed" versus "jammed" music is no longer 50/50. It's more like 95/5 favoring the "programmed" type of music? For example, Avicci programs his stuff on a DAW (does he?) then exports it and that's what you get when you listen to his stuff? Direct from the DAW. And I did read in Wikipedia or elsewhere that EDM is now the dominant music genre worldwide so my 95/5 ratio guess is probably correct?

But I guess there are some loner musicians that might not be "programming" their DAW, not penciling in the notes in the piano roll of a DAW. They might actually be using their DAW as a multi-track recorder and playing/recording all the virtual instruments live by way of a keyboard, or even plugging in their electric guitar. This is probably not as bad. Prince probably did that. But he probably had a full studio to do it and not just a DAW, but did he do it much? He still preferred playing with other humans, no? It's probably because he has done "Joe Walsh's" way and the "do it all yourself" way and he could tell the difference between the two methods and came to the conclusion that playing with other humans produced better results than "playing with yourself" and penciling in notes in a DAW's piano roll. Paul MacCartney, even in his Beatles days, could play so many instruments by himself but he didn't do that much, for probably the same reason that Prince and a bunch of others didn't: more mojo in playing live with others?

Okay, being human, my post probably is full of bias and general dung and classic rock slant. But hey, educate me further if I am wrong. Please.

Winstontaneous · Post by **Winstontaneous** » Sat Sep 17, 2016 7:32 pm

No Mojo In Programmed Music?