I must admit I felt some trepidation about this at first, but it definitely paid off in the end -- my approach to begin the August In Bloom project (the piano album I plan to release in the near future) involved me just "going ahead" and rehearsing the ten verydifficult songs I plan to put on the album, and then figuring out the recording logistics "somewhere along the way". It's like the "shoot first, ask questions later" philosophy, except safer, and it has nothing to do with guns.
Now, to get really technical, I'm going to summarize a description of my recording equipment by listing two important devices that I have in my studio: 1) The ProTools computer software, and 2) That one recording multi-do-hickey thingamabobber.
If I wanted to bore you even more, I could get into more detail, like the fact that the ProTools system requires the use of that Interface gadget thing, which is an M-AUDIO something or another, and that I recently replaced that with a spiffier one that will make the recording sound way cooler (you can see a picture of this above). It's a really good thing I wasn't an engineer aboard the NASA space shuttle. I'd be telling people to "unhook the thingmajig and ignite that one funnel-looking thing with the small-ish hose, then clamp that attachment thingy to the belt or whatever," and then the mass explosion would be entirely my fault. But, believe it or not, this process of figuring out how to make a good sound on a CD has been on-going and brought my bank account down a few notches (okay, a LOT of notches), but the exciting thing is that I'm finally getting the make-a-CD-with-awesome-sound-quality thing to work!
This process took quite a few "baby steps" and it involved a lot of research. In the mean time I've been practicing the actual songs on the Yamaha N2 hybrid. Sometimes the "shoot first and ask questions later" (or, more accurately, "practice first and figure-out-the-recording-thing later") is a great strategy, because it's efficient time-wise. Now, for anyone out there who claims that the sound quality isn't really that important... "Sound quality doesn't matter"? I'm going to pretend I didn't hear that...
I like to think that I'm not an "eye-roller." When I think of people who roll their eyes, I mainly think of the ornery teenagers I sometimes see when I occasionally partake in my job as a substitute teacher. But there's one thing that will make my eyes roll back far enough to pretty much go full-circle, and that's when I find a piano that's out of tune and people tell me, "Oh, come on, no one will even notice."
As if a blog post is going to reach out to the population of people that induce this eye-rolling response in me, I'm going to set the record straight: You do notice the difference. You might not think you do, but you do. Yes, you, the you that's reading this, the you that's maybe not "trained" to hear music, the you that "doesn't know the difference" between a tuned piano and an untuned piano. When I play on an out-of-tune piano (i.e., most pianos), I often get this reaction from people: "Nice! Sounds like you need to practice a little bit, though". They don't realize that the constructive feedback in the second part of that response is often a result of the piano being crappy and not necessarily because of poor piano-playing. Interestingly, when I play the exact same piece, or the exact same melody, on a tuned piano, I get this reaction: "Wow! That sounded really good. Sounds like you've been practicing!"
Again, keep in mind that I've encountered these two reactions when playing the same thing on two different pianos, one out-of-tune one and another in-tune one. It's not always the skill level or ingenuity of the composition that people love so much about some piano music, but it's also just the fact that an expensive, quality piano that's maintained and is in tune just sounds amazing. So I generally make it a rule that I don't play on pianos that are out of tune; it doesn't do the music any justice. Would you listen to a guitarist if he were playing on a guitar that was obviously out of tune? And if so, don't you think the quality of the song would be significantly less than if it were in tune? The piano is no different.
My point in bringing this up is that the same is true for recording quality, when it comes to CD's, albums, mp3 files, etc. Many people will notice that I'm being quite patient about any amount of time I need to take before releasing August In Bloom, just to make sure I can get the most optimal sound quality possible. Oddly, I don't hear many people (or anyone, really) disagree with me when I say that sound quality is important when it comes to releasing a CD, but a bunch of people will tell me "no one will notice" if I play an out-of-tune piano at a concert.
Bottom line: you, yes you, do notice when a CD has poor sound quality. And you, yes you, do notice when a piano is out of tune. You might just think the pianist is playing poorly, when, again, it's often just the piano that sounds bad. Look up a famous piano song (like a famous classical piece) on YouTube, and you'll see that the performer using an in-tune piano, with good sound quality, will have tens of thousands of hits, whereas the "homemade quality" video of the kid playing on an out-of-tune piano will only have 20 or so hits. There's a reason.
The Plan
And now to the fun part: the plan for recording the album! There are ten songs, each played on the Yamaha AvantGrande N2 in my office/studio, and the songs will be recorded as WAV files using a TASCAM multi-track recorder. I may use some of the songs (or all of them) as one track, and copy the WAV files directly to a CD. I might also upload these tracks onto my ProTools editing software, if I want to edit the songs (or add other tracks, such as strings, percussion, etc.). Then I'll be recording these songs onto ProTools directly, using a Scarlet 2i2 interface device that I just recently ordered. The two recordings of the songs will be compared with each other, the best-sounding one obviously being selected, and the ten WAV files will be given to a sound engineer I plan to hire to clean up the tracks. Then the CD will be submitted to a company for manufacturing, and/or to CDBaby. End result: the CD will be available for purchase from my site, as well as from CDBaby, iTunes, Amazon, and from myself directly. The individual songs will also be for sale (99 cents each) from my site, just as I have done with the tracks from Heart of Storms. As one can imagine, this entire process keeps taking longer than I anticipate, which is why I've changed my "release date" from January 1st, 2017 to, you know, "January-ish". Maybe after my 3rd, 4th, 5th. etc. album I'll get a better idea of how long this stuff takes and be able to better estimate a date when these processes are completed.
Planting the Seeds for a Tour
Playing at Wine Time (restaurant in Chico, CA)
As some may already know, my intention is ultimately to travel to different areas and perform. This, of course, is every musician's dream, and a host of obstacles come up that prevents them from doing so (it costs too much money, they fall in love, they get married, they have kids, they get swallowed up by day jobs to pay their bills, or they simply convince themselves that it can't be done, etc.). The release of this coming album is intended to be a launch-pad into possible concerts and shows, even if they are simple, such as "house concerts" or small benefits and/or shows dedicated to various causes. My next step after the album's release, in addition to the release of additional albums as well as a host of other things that have mainly existed as only ideas so far (including the publication of a novella to be associated with a "trilogy album", which you can read about in a blog post from January of this year, called "Why Music Is Incomplete Without a Background Story") is to start scouting out venues for a possible tour. Traveling is fun, anyway, and I'm curious as to the kinds of experiences I may have and the people I may meet along the way. This is also why I'm putting in the kind of money that I have been putting in and being as careful as I am about the sound quality of August In Bloom. There's a lot of people populating this planet, and a lot of competition in this industry, so I have to be picky. That being said, it's back to work :D
Having had some success with a weekly broadcast that I do on Facebook Live ("Piano Thor'sdays") I've been able to stay busy with it and I was apparently persuasive enough to coerce a few followers to actually watch it. The Thursday music blogs will of course continue, although my busy schedule gives me that much more reason to only have the blogs every other Thursday (which is the routine I've ultimately established). As far as the blog posts themselves, one topic I've been wanting to cover (which I also talked about in one of my broadcasts) is having to correct false rumors that I'm in need of a psychiatrist, but that's only because I was hearing voices in my head. Okay, so let me rephrase that... what I really meant to say is, I was imagining the voices in my head. I blame it entirely, of course, on the Chico State Opera Workshop, which put on a benefit concert in September that inspired me. Because of those opera singers and their darn talents, I keep hearing the same voices in my head when I compose, so naturally I now have to compose an opera. Now, when I say "opera" I really mean just a 6-ish minute song with piano and operatic-style vocals, so it wouldn't actually be a full-blown "opera" per se (the full-fledged story divided into movements, transitions, a full orchestra with a plot within the story, and a woman in a viking helmet shrieking at the top of her lungs, that sort of thing) so it's actually just a single piece that resembles the length of, say, an aria. The fact that I'm doing this and not writing a full-length "traditional" opera is obviously related to the camping trips I take with my dad, especially when he brings a chisel and hammer during one of our hikes. But we'll get into that later. (And if you don't think I can relate the two, please see all of my previous blog posts. This will only take you about 12 hours or so).
Wait... you mean musical styles change over time?
Anyone who asks this question has either spent their life in a cave or was just expelled out of their mother's womb, like an hour ago. What I want to focus on a little more is some of the modern music, especially the styles that many millennials listen to. It may seem that I'm "favoring" one style of music versus another, especially when it comes to lyrics, but I'm not going to claim that one type of music is necessarily better. What I will say, however, is that many lyrics in today's music contain quite a few cliches (whether that's good or bad) and I am strictly stating this as an observation. There are exceptions to every rule, of course, so there are certainly modern-day songs that contain well-written, original and well thought-out lyrics (and there may very well be lyrics from the distant past that are contain cliches). Note that I have not stated whether or not cliches are "good" or "bad," just that some music has them and some music doesn't.
Below are part of the lyrics from Katy Perry's hit song, "Roar". I don't listen to this type of music very often, but I took a gander at these lyrics, and I've decided to share them because I found several examples of cliche lines. I also found, in the same song, lines that I thought were quite original and clever. I took the time, as you can see, to pick out lyrics that had both cliches and originality so that Katy Perry doesn't write me an angry letter. I have to say, though, that receiving an angry letter from Katy Perry would be pretty cool. In any case, here are the lyrics. I've underlined some of the cliches in the lyrics so that they're easy to spot.
"Roar"
Katy Perry
Katy Perry
I used to bite my tongue and hold my breath Scared to rock the boat and make a mess So I sat quietly, agreed politely I guess that I forgot I had a choice I let you push me past the breaking point I stood for nothing, so I fell for everything You held me down, but I got up (hey!) Already brushing off the dust You hear my voice, you hear that sound Like thunder, gonna shake your ground You held me down, but I got up Get ready 'cause I've had enough I see it all, I see it now I got the eye of the tiger,a fighter Dancing through the fire 'Cause I am the champion, and you're gonna hear me roar Louder, louder than a lion 'Cause I am a champion, and you're gonna hear me roar!
As I've shown above, "bite my tongue" and "hold my breath" are both expressions that are over-used, which makes them cliche (and therefore makes the expressions in the lyrics unoriginal). I also underlined "brushing off the dust" because it's too similar to "dusting yourself off" when you get back up, as it relates to the metaphor of "getting back on the horse," etc.
The phrase "I've had enough" is so cliche that it probably gets uttered millions of times a day by the English-speaking population.
Finally, the phrase "eye of the tiger" in the chorus of this song is not original at all. As many of us know, not only is it used in a famous song by Survivor, but it's also the actual title of their song! Admittedly, I'm too inexperienced in the music industry to know whether the lawyers from Survivor had lunch with Katy Perry and agreed not to sue her. I've wondered the same thing about Adele's recent hit, "Hello," and Lionel Richie, who wrote a song with that exact same title.
Part of my purpose for bringing this up is to also point out lines from the song that I thought were original and clever. Keep in mind that this is just my opinion, and for all I know I could be completely wrong about this. But I thought "stood for nothing, fell for everything" was okay, even though "falling for" something is not original. The full line is still clever because it involves two common phrases that have opposite meanings, yet they make sense in describing the "trapped" situation she's in. Okay, so I like that. "Scared to rock the boat" may be a tad cliche too, but I didn't underline it because I hear it rarely enough that I actually like the image. Again, people may have different opinions about this. "Dancing through the fire", while the image of "dancing" and using that as a metaphor is in itself overused, the combination of that and a "fiery" situation is neat. Oddly enough I also like it because it's literally the opposite of the line "Dancing through the snow" in Jingle Bells.
If we compare this song to an older song -- say, "Carry On Wayward Son" by Kansas, we get something a little different. Here are part of the lyrics to it:
"Carry On Wayward Son"
Kansas
Kansas
Once I rose above the noise and confusion Just to get a glimpse beyond the illusion I was soaring ever higher, but I flew too high Though my eyes could see, I still was a blind man Though my mind could think, I still was a mad man I hear the voices when I'm dreamin', I can hear them say Carry on my wayward son, For there'll be peace when you are done Lay your weary head to rest Now don't you cry no more
Masquerading as a man with a reason My charade is the event of the season And if I claim to be a wise man, it surely Means that I don't know On a stormy sea of moving emotion Tossed about I'm like a ship on the ocean I set a course for winds of fortune, but I hear the voices say Carry on, you will always remember Carry on, nothing equals the splendor Now your life's no longer empty Surely heaven waits for you
Carry on my wayward son, For there'll be peace when you are done Lay your weary head to rest Now don't you cry no more...
The difference between these two songs should be clear. The lyrics from the Kansas song above has pretty much no cliche lines, making the metaphors in the song far more original than those in "Roar". The only exception I can think of is the line "stormy sea of moving emotion". So, one somewhat of a cliche line in an entire song -- not too shabby. Not only that, but from a literary standpoint, I find the writing in this song fantastic, personally. There's even irony thrown into the mix (i.e., "Though my eyes could see, I still was a blind man," etc.).
Okay, so what's my point? My point is that I've seen many other examples of this. Time and time again I hear lyrics from modern-day songs that have one cliche after another. And often times, when I compare these to songs from the '70s and '80s, the older songs typically don't have this kind of cliche writing.
Want another example? Take Kelly Clarkson's pop hit, "Stronger". The transition from one of the versus to the chorus goes like this:
Baby you don't know me, cause you're dead wrong... What doesn't kill you makes you stronger!
Kelly Clarkson
Really? Yes, I know many people like this song, but as a matter of plain fact, the phrase "dead wrong" is very cliche and therefore took no time or imagination on her part when writing it. And the line, "What doesn't kill you makes you stronger" is an age-old expression that has been uttered by millions. It's not original. If Kelly Clarkson had been the first person to use this expression, and put it in her song, then I'd be a little more impressed. But she merely steals it from everyday speech and sticks it in her lyrics. I could just as easily write a song and stick in the phrase, "Birds of a feather flock together," and it would be just as imaginative.
Sounds harsh, I know -- but again, I'm merely making an observation. And again, when you compare modern songs like these to some of the older hits, you don't see nearly as many cliches in the older lyrics. Scroll through the lyrics of Peter Gabriel's song from the 1980's, "Sledgehammer". It's one creative metaphor after another, and almost none of them are cliche. And yes, I know most people say the lyrics in that song are probably a series of sexual innuendos. Either way, the metaphors in the song are brilliantly original. The first line of it ("You could have a steam train, if you just lay down your tracks,") is an expression that you don't hear everyday.
The broader point I want to bring up here is that musical styles change over time, in very many ways. Anything that's creative and artistic tends to change over time. Fashion, for example, is obviously different now than it was 50 years ago. People used to wear neck-ties that were thin. Then "wide" neck-ties became more popular, and I think are still the trend in formal settings. But now some of the younger folks are wearing "thin" ties again, in certain casual settings. This intrigues me, because it means that creative trends can revert back to a style that used to be "in" a few generations ago. I realized this when I was watching the vocalists at the opera workshop, as they were performing. For a few reasons, I generally prefer instrumental music over anything else, and when I do listen to anything vocal it will, often, be something like "Nessum Dorma" (an aria from a famous opera called Turandot). If you haven't been blown away by this incredible piece, you can click below to hear Paul Potts (a then-amateur opera singer) perform it at a national talent show.
Bring back the voice, but let's lose the helmet
My attempt, after all this rambling, is to connect this idea of changing trends (and, more importantly, reverting trends) to music. As an art form, music changes pretty rapidly over time. That's expected. One of my interests, which is somewhat incidental, is to make instrumental music more popular. There's a great quote by the popular instrumentalist Yanni, from his memoir entitled Yanni in Words, that goes like this:
"I don't need lyrics. Classical composers communicated across cultures and centuries beautifully without words. That's proof that it can be done. I prefer not to use words when I'm trying to move you emotionally, so you don't have to use logic to understand what you were just told. Also, my music gives you the ability to make up your own story as it plays; your mind is free to wander and create. You can use the music as a soundtrack to your emotions."
But in addition to this, I've wanted to make opera more popular. Let me be clear, however, in stating that there are only some kinds of opera that I like. If you hang out with people who go to operas, you will hear them raving about many of the same selections, i.e. certain arias from an entire opera production. The selections they mostly praise are usually a very small percentage of all the opera music that's out there. I happen to agree with these people, meaning that I find only a small percentage of opera to be absolutely gorgeous to listen to (to the point where it often brings me to tears) and the rest of it I don't care for at all. The stories behind the operas, as well as the drama and costumes associated with this art form (in case you didn't know, opera is a combination of music and theater) are also interesting, although some of it seems over-the-top to me. As an example, the woman wearing a viking helmet is a bit much. So I say, let's introduce the gorgeous melodies that I sometimes hear in a few of the arias, and just have regular songs, with operatic vocals, and lose the viking helmet.
I intend to do the same, by the way, with regard to popularizing only certain kinds of classical music. Many people don't seem to realize that classical music has may different styles and types, and that there are certain kinds of classical music that I don't like at all. The early baroque music, for example, I can only take in small doses. If I listen to too much of it I'll start to go crazy, and none of the music I've written so far has ever really emulated that style. However, the later stuff, i.e. classical music from the Romantic period (Tchaikovsky, Beethoven, Mussorgsky, to name a few composers from that era) I find incredibly exhilarating to listen to.
If neck ties can go thin again, I think we can include the awesome parts of some of the older music back into the music world -- and yes, I know that what I consider "awesome" is completely subjective. As far as leaving some parts out, like the shrieking viking lady, you can look at it this way: mullets are probably never going to be back in style, as far as haircuts go. At least I don't think so. And if they do, I am not growing one. My big scheme is that I want to introduce the style that echos the memorable, popular opera selections, and integrate it back into modern music. I want to do the same, by the way, with lyrics that aren't painfully cliche to read. Yeah, how did you guess? I think that stripping away a style of lyrics that is painfully cliche will be a gradual process, like chipping away the crappy parts of a rock in order to get to the gold nuggets, when you're digging for treasures. See, told ya I could do it! ;)
Collaboration Time
I haven't yet contacted the Chico State Opera Workshop, except when working with one of the vocalists who happens to own a piano gallery in Chico, but it's only a matter of time before I will. I'm already planning on writing arrangements to my own piano pieces (including "Lara in a Rain of Petals") that include operatic vocals.
Chico State Opera Workshop (September 2016)
The inspiring part of this is that the opera performance I went to in September was actually a benefit concert that used the proceeds towards introducing opera music to kids, at local schools. It's a start. I'm convinced that if these incredible voices can move me the way they do, they can move others to the same degree.
I think it would be best if we all started hearing more voices in our heads. I don't care what the psychiatrist says -- it's healthy :D
