|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
posted May 01, 2020 07:08 PM |
|
|
1- No, it is not just the lyrics, I already linked the details, they modified the 12-bar structure but a modification is not a composition. I directly hear this anyway, it’s just a matter of training your ear. And the sources validate what I hear. Dont call it a cover but a rework if you will, whicn was how I defined it anyway. I usually used the term version rather than cover and said they modified the piece. but as I said in the beginning, the ORIGINAL When The Levee Breaks is not the LZ one. That’s a rework of the tune not just lyrics. You're not hearing it.
2- I’m not playing semantics at all and you know it. You comment like you are deaf, I linked examples of both acoustic harmonica and electric harmonica, are you seriously claiming the only difference between them is that one is louder? The Little Walter harmonica is not just louder, the sound is electrified. The difference is not less than the difference between acoustic violin and electric violin. Sure, in guitar you pick the strings so the difference between acoustic and electric is even more significant. But electric harp sound is electrified too. And the “heavy” effect you talk about is indeed the result of that, you cant get that if you play plain acoustic harp to a mic. It would sound more like Sonny Boy Williamson.
3- Pretensiousness is one of your filler words. Easy Listening blues is stuff like Gary Moore. (Not that I dont like him, but it’s popcorn) Acoustic blues such as this is the opposite of easy listening, only people who dig in listen to them.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 01, 2020 07:26 PM |
|
|
You don't understand the difference between electric and acoustic.
There is acoustic. This is playing a regular instrument without the involvement of power.
Then there is the option to mic the sound and put it through an AMP (and boxes). This is ELECTRIC, because the signal is recorded by the mic and sent through the amp. How it SOUNDS, though, is defined by the setting of the amp (and the quality of the mic and a couple of other things). Amps can have a zillion settings and when the setting is CLEAN, it sounds like the original, but you need the tech to fill a hall, for example, otherwise you can't here the acoustic instrument. (This IS electric, but doesn't count as electric).
However, once the signal is picked up electronically/magnetically it can be changed - every amp has settings to allow that and there is plethora of effects. This will change things again.
Then there are instruments that can be plugged in directly, but the tech is the same - the "mic(s)" are just built-in: the pick-ups are essentially mics.
Quote:
Acoustic blues such as this is the opposite of easy listening only people who dig in listen to them.
Yes, thanks, for explaining pretentiousness.
And, yes, it's just the lyrics. The music is completely different.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted May 01, 2020 11:37 PM |
|
|
How can you insist on the song being completely different, when I tell you I can directly hear the part they extracted? Just because your ears arent able to detect something, doesnt mean it does not exist:
Here, from the link you didn't read:
Page and John Paul Jones based their guitar and bass lines on the original song. However, they did not follow its twelve-bar blues I–IV–V–I structure, but instead used a one-chord or modal approach to give it a droning sound.
Quote:
You don't understand the difference between electric and acoustic.
That's the other way around. And since there is a distinction between acoustic and electric harmonica sounds, and since there is a thing called "electric blues" and LZ version fits to that category (it is not even electric blues but blues rock) and since the electrified harmonica in the song is a standard characteristic of that electric blues setting, calling it acoustic is wrong no matter how you try to twist it. LZ's version of the song is not acoustic, neither is its harmonica.
Quote:
Yes, thanks, for explaining pretentiousness.
Anything in life, you'll have people who dig deeper and then, therefore perceive deeper in regarding subject. Music genres, literature, history, chess, mountain climbing, anything really... If you define this as pretentiousness you have a serious problem.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 02, 2020 11:38 AM |
|
|
You just don't understand the rules. There are two songs, because they were written by different people. One was written (supposedly) by two, the other was written by 5, one of those two plus 4 others. It cannot be the same songs therefore, and that's it, end of discussion.
Whether there ARE inspirations and similarities is not only irrelevant, it's also a matter of course. EVERYone is inspired by something. Those people did all listen to all kinds of stuff. The borders are fluent. Is My Sweet Lord really ripped from He's so Fine? Is Come as You Are ripped from Eighties?
Most songs are similar to a song, no matter what.
Ask yourself this question: If Robert Plant hasn't been the lazy sod he was and actually written different lyrics and called the song differently, would ANYONE EVER had thought about this being a "remake"?
I doubt that very much.
Also, with regular Blues there isn't that much structural variation; songs in a certain style will always sound similar.
The bottom line is, the whole point is rather moot for the ACTUAL discussion. For all intents and purposes this are two songs, and the guys you linked to, quite obviously "cover" the second one. End of story.
Secondly, end of story again, the harmonica as an instrument, is used like the VOICE. Someone playing harmonica can't sing and vice versa, one or the other, but not both at the same time. You need air, but instead using it to fuel the vocal chords you press it through the instrument. It has been "electrified" the same way than a voice, period. How people have called that over the course of time, doesn't matter.
You are just opening all kinds of irrelevant and unconnected "discussions" when there IS nothing to discuss. You linked to 4 guys playing a rather well-known and famous-for-some-things song. They are playing in a small room, but are plugged in separately (instead of recording everything with just a mic) to be able to record every part, even the bongo with a separate channel to be able to mix it for - at least - best sound. It's a professional setup with at least 4 channels and an unknown amount of additional effects, and the thing isn't really that interesting that I'd start trying to analyze what exactly has been used. (Remember, they COULD have just played completely unplugged and record with one mic and one channel, as it would sound when you play completely acoustic.)
NOW comes the analysis of the song they cover - structure, instrumentalization, arrangement, sound, impression.
THEN comes the analysis of their cover - structure, instrumentalization, arrangement, sound impression.
I gave you mine - in short: they keep to the original, but omit the two stand-out things of the song: 1) The drums and their sound (which is largely the effect on an ECHO used; 2) The harmonica.
Now. If you were right, and this were something of an unplugged version, toned down and so on - what would have kept them to use either a harmonica (played and recorded over the voice mic) or another instrument to do it? The answer here is, that they probably couldn't, because noone of them can play harmonica (and the singer can't play something either). The other option is, they could have done it, but decided not to and simply leave a blank here.
The second question concerns the drum sound. This is more difficult. They decided to do a stripped down version to "sketch" the drum pattern - basically an impression of what Mr. Bonham does, going simple here.
The third is the guitar sound, not the acoustic or electric, but how it's tuned and how the chords and riffs sound (if you ever wanted to play guitar and sound like the Rolling Stones with many songs you won't succeed until you change the tuning, for example). The tuning used is in the original is responsible for most of how the rhythm guitar parts sound. Playing slide and rhythm with an acoustic guitar over a mic and an amp doesn't sound that much different than an electric guitar played clean. Mr. Harper here is playing a 12-string acoustic. Additionally you can fatten up the sound, by increasing the gain of the amp it's plugged into. But you need the tuning for the chords to sound that way. The tuning dismisses the lowest string and uses only 5 (it's a banjo tuning). In the original it's an open G tuning - G D G H D which is slowed down, so that it's actually open F. No idea what your cover band does. The thing with this tuning is (apart from allowing perfect slide chords) is that it allows easy power-chording. Strumming only the 3 deepest strings - GDG (which is what is done in the basic riffing, with 3 and 5 steps higher) sounds full, and when you play all 5 strings and simply press the H-string to a D, so that you play GDGDD it's yet more powerful.
Doing this is essential for the sound (not whether it's an electric or acoustic guitar), and as far as I can tell, they do that - it's not difficult, but massively effective.
The result is that it sounds good - mainly a result of using professional equipment and setup - but don't forget that it's a legendary song that doesn't sound "good" but more like "awesome" in it's massiveness. They do a good job to show that it's a good song, but that's it. They don't do anything Led Zep did not do. They strive to recreate the Zep sound, omitting the harmonica and reducing the drum effect, trying to copy everything else.
And that's why I think it's pointless as a serious cover. It's fine as having fun and playing a song with 4 people, but it's like the school band playing at the prom night and covering the songs that have accompanied the class through the years. If it's a good band, the songs will sound ok, and everyone will have fun. Period.
Proclaiming that this is a great cover, just because you have listened to the original so often you can't stand it anymore and are thankful to have someone play it somewhat differently, so that the experience of hearing the song differs, is just a subjective abberation. In truth, some songs are actually rather difficult to reasonably cover in a meaningful way since the way they are done in the original is just so special and memorable. When the Levee Breaks is one of those. Another one that easily comes to mind is Come Together, done by the Beatles on Abbey Road. That Ringo drumming, that Lennon voice, that smooth, silky and yet so bluesy sound ... chances are, a cover will either fail or be pointless. It will take some imagining to do a cover.
At least in my opinion.
That's what this amounts to for me. If you want to debate over the semantics of what is called electric and acoustic and which amount of electric can still be considered plugged-in and why your linked version is an unplugged version and therefore must not have an "electric" harmonica or whether Led Zeppelin's version is a cover song or not, you can do that - but not with me, because it has actually nothing to do with why I find it as a cover pointless to listen to over the original this house band strongly leaned to.
And for me it IS pointless because they strip the song of some of its defining elements, but don't fill the holes. And that's a fact.
What you say is, that, YES, they do, but it's a good thing, because it's more rootsy that way. "Unplugged"? Nonsense. They could have tried anything, a Jew's Harp, say, which would be unplugged as it gets, whatever they liked, and yet they don't. They just stripped it down - sadly they dropped a big part of what makes the song not just good, but great. As I said, it's like covering Hendrix' Watchtower version, but simply leaving out the lead guitar, just playing rhythm with an acoustic. Unplugged Hendric version of Watchtower withaout any lead work? Pointless.
Still. You don't find it pointless? Fine. Just don't try to convince people it is not, because it's rootsy and rootsy is the real deal. You like it, fine. I find it listenable, pro-recording and all, but when I want to hear the song that way I turn to Led Zeppelin. It's not that there is a shortage of good songs either.
Lastly: Quote:
Anything in life, you'll have people who dig deeper and then, therefore perceive deeper in regarding subject. Music genres, literature, history, chess, mountain climbing, anything really... If you define this as pretentiousness you have a serious problem.
What is pretentious is to actually imply that digging deeper would actually somehow "refine" and "justify" one's tastes. I mean, exactly KNOWING what they did when they taped Tomorrow Never Knows - does it make the song more or less interesting? I don't think so. You may hear it "differently" in the sense that you know what actually is a specific sound, but that doesn't change the song as a SONG. You may find it mind-blowing or boring or whatever, but the actual knowledge of how and what doesn't make it better or worse.
Everyone likes and dislikes things and if you dig deep enough you may find the reasons for it, but with music things always amount to how they subjectively sound for a specific listener. And knowledge doesn't help. If you look at the work of Steve Vai, for example, many people will say that a lot of his stuff sounds like pretentious crap, while others marvel over guitar soundscapes and complex song, beat and melody structures and whatnot. Arguing about it? Why? Understanding the technical part won't change your opinion that it sounds like pretentious crap - all that technical virtuosity may seem wasted in unmemorable wall of guitar sounds. If you listen to Hendrix Woodstock version of Star Spangled Banner and you find that it's just a lot of pointless random noise, do you really think it helps when someone explains to you that it's not random and the right feedback is very difficult to create and control and that the random noise is emulating falling bombs and explosions and machine guns and war? You may INTELLECTUALLY change your opinion to, ok, it's not random noise, the guy knows what he's doing and maybe it's even pretty original and all - but on the non-intellectual level it wil STILL be noise for you that you are not really keen to listen to and, well, dislike to hear.
"It's probably good, but I still don't like it." The part that says, it's probably good (art, technically brilliant in a quantifiable way of some quality), is pointless.
Which has nothing to do with THIS discussion.
In this discussion, I simply say that the song is LESS than LZ's version and that I really like the parts that are NOT in the cover with nothing else to show, and therefore it's pointless for me.
.
You say, being less is actually more, more of the actual song and less of, well, overproduction or overpower or whatever, and therefore you really like it.
Which means, the bottom line is that I dislike it for the same reasons you like it, more or less.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted May 02, 2020 02:56 PM |
|
|
1- Oh, I do understand the rules. Unlike you, I can hear how they modified the song and what remained from the original. (Not just the lyrics.) And putting aside what I can personally hear, the encyclopaedia itself calls the LZ version, well… the LZ version. The simple truth is, when you called the LZ version “the original,” you had no idea the 1929 version existed. But knowing you, you will never ever admit to this and try to outsmart reality instead.
Had Robert Plant changed the lyrics and named it another song, it would have been called another song, yes, but that’s true for like zillions of blues interpretations. If Jim Morrison had written new words to his Backdoor Man, I couldnt have recognized that as Howling’ Wolf’s Backdoor Man either. The compositional elements in the blues are traditional anyway. Muddy Waters wrote new words to Bo Diddley’s “I’m a Man” and the song became “Mannish Boy.” The difference between Kind Hearted Woman Blues and Ramblin’ On My Mind isn’t like the difference between Moonlight Sonata and Appassionata. You just don’t understand how blues works, the compositions are very conventional and pretty much a variation of a bunch of pentatonic templates, everybody revolves around the same scales anyway. The LZ remake is as flexible as things can get but it is a remake nevertheless.
2- There is no “if.” The homemade version is certainly an unplugged version of the LZ modification. The question *why haven’t they used the harp then” is absurd, as if there is a rule to always use the harp when covering the LZ version. My personal guess is, they haven’t because that Chicago style electric harp rattle doesn’t fit in well with acoustic slide guitar, they are both continuous rhythmic elements and had they used both the harp rattle (even with an acoustic harp) and the slide guitar, the background would have been too crowded. You must choose one, and homemade version being an acoustic version, slide guitar is the better choice. In the Ben Harper version, you have Charlie Musselwhite on electric harp accompanying Harper on electric slide but Musselwhite doesn’t do the rattle and Harper doesn’t use the slide for repeating the same riff like the other guy.
And not every cover has to be great. Sometimes refreshing and interesting is enough. I like the Joe Cocker cover of Come Together for instance and it is not significantly imaginative or anything, he just sings it well and I wouldn’t call that pointless either. You know what would have been pointless, to repeat the LZ version. (The W.A.S.P. version comes to mind.)
3- This desperate clinging to deny the existence of electric harmonica is so silly, I’m starting to feel embarrassed instead of you. Many instruments (strings, horns, keyboards) are electrified with different methods, how you electrify a guitar and a piano is not the same either, you don’t have piano amps. Here, are you going to claim since you need to breath to play THIS,it is acoustic as well. Just like you have acoustic guitar and electric guitar and they sound different, you have acoustic harp and electric harp and they sound different. Once again, you had no idea the distinction existed and now, instead of learning it, you are trying to deny its existence.
4- Yes, JJ, digging deeper does exactly that: It refines your tastes. That’s why your taste in music isn’t the same as when you were 15, (Or is it? Heh). Experience and knowledge mature and refine your taste, tastes develop, they are not static. Of course, I am talking about knowledge here, not information. It is not an analytical process but rather more like growing into a relationship.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 02, 2020 04:15 PM |
|
|
Just for your information, an Electronic wind instrument is played like a regular one - but doesn't actually create a sound mechanically. Instead there are sensors in the instrument that sample the airstream. Then a digital sound is created based on the information garnered. It's no instrument in the strict sense, but an electronic device, a synthesizer.
The rest is the same pretentious nonsense. There is no song credited to Memphis Minnie and the 4 members of LZ prior to 1971, so that's the original. There is a song with the same title written in 1929 from which most of text has been nicked, that's why Minnie is in the song credits. End of.
And it completely doesn't matter WHY they didn't use a harmonica. They DIDN'T use one, and as it happens the harp and the drum sound are what makes this song not good, but special FOR ME. So it's obvious that FOR ME something is MISSING, and my impression is that I like the song better WITH harmonica and WITH heavy drum sound instead without. That you try to sell me the idea that it's "better" without because it's unplugged and rootsy and whatnot is pretentious. As is your attempt to lecture people about what is "fitting" or "unfitting" , what is right, how taste works and which is better and so on and so forth.
A load of horse manure.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted May 02, 2020 05:07 PM |
|
|
Ahah, because that's what counts, the credits, since Led Zeppelin is known to be so flawless about that! I guess, you will also claim How Many More Times has nothing to do with How Many More Years either, since they claimed the credits for that one, too. But there isn't even a modification on that one, so maybe you can at least hear it is the same song. (The band members themselves don't deny this, although they officially took credit.) Original means "belonging or pertaining to the origin or beginning of something" and that is beyond any reasonable doubt, the 1929 version.
I got nothing against the drum and the harp making the song special for you, but needless to say, that doesn't turn covers without them into pointless attempts, since the world doesn't revolve around you. The rest was common sense rather than a lecture but I can understand how it can sound like one to you: Since you are such a manchild about admitting to being wrong, the idea of learning something new must seem quite pretentious to you. 
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 02, 2020 07:01 PM |
|
|
No. I said, for me the cover is pointless because it's a cover of an LZ song in which a big part of what makes the song special instead just good is missing, and I'd prefer the original.
What you say is this:
Once upon a time you liked the LZ song as well, for whatever reasons, maybe for the same reasons as me, maybe for others, but since then you've delved deep into the Blues and music in general and give way more credit to the old blues masters, and you have seen now the light and that LZ are just clever thieves, stealing credits for them where none are due, and that a version going steps into the right direction back from those thieves to the original and the roots with natural and sparse instrumentation cannot be pointless and everyone saying so has just an unrefined taste and no idea about things.
I resent this.
The version is pointless for me. It's not pointless for you. Fine. Tastes differ.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted May 02, 2020 07:55 PM |
|
|
No, what I’m saying isnt that at all. And that should be obvious.
First of all, I mentioned like three times or so, and from the beginning, that the homemade version is an unplugged cover of the LZ modification, with the signature riff and all. I havent called LZ thieves, I basically said they made a very creative rework, it’s a classic already but not the original version. I also havent said I dont like the LZ version anymore, what I said was, I heard it a million times already and this one was fresh. I’d probably prefer the LZ version over the homemade one, too, if I was hearing both of them for the first time. But songs grow old, just like you cant watch a movie with the same enthusiasm 100 times, you cant listen to a song with the same enthusiasm 10000 times. Maybe things like Beethoven’s 7th are exceptions since they are so layered with more to discover each time but not 5 minute rock songs.
“Back to roots” doesnt refer to the 1929 original, it refers to the slide guitar and acoustic setting. And yes, I like that acoustic setting and most people who dig blues deep enough end up in favoring acoustic settings over electric ones in general. But this is not just about the blues, when you start to listen to more jazz, classical than, say rock or pop, you start to notice that acoustic music usually has deeper nuance. There are many many exceptions of course and I guess it also has something to do with not being 21 yo anymore, but it is what it is.
Lastly, calling a musical piece pointless and adding they are only having fun by themselves doesnt exactly ring “my subjective preference” if you know what I mean.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 02, 2020 10:13 PM |
|
|
Hmm.
Well. MY point is pretty clear. It's a good semi-professional rendition of a song that in what I consider the original as in the version that they come from isn't diffcult to play (in the instruments I know a bit about). The overall effect is, for a a couple of reasons, utterly amazing.
Now, in MY experience, if you strip down a song to "acoustic", it's not the quality of the band or renditions that stands out (provided the artists are halfway capable; they are), it's the SONG.
Hendrix isn't this god-like figure because he was such a great guitar player; Hendrix has this status because the songs he wrote were superb (and the perfect vehicle for his musical and showmanship abilities).
So that renditions - for me - doesn't offer anything new: I already know that it's a great song (when you strip it down to the bare bones).
What is your point? That you have heard it 10.000 times and are sick of it and are thankful for a different take?
That's not the song's fault, though - it's yours.
As I said: I dig the fun they have doing it - but I wouldn't buy the record.
So - what IS your point?
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted May 03, 2020 01:20 AM |
|
|
It’s nobody’s fault (but mine  ). There is no fault. It is just a situation and I also wouldnt define it as “getting sick of it” but rather “getting used to it” which I already did. A good cover is a good cover, it doesnt have to teach me anything new. Besides, once again. as I already said, that harmonica rattle is a pretty common thing for me, not some genius idea and it wouldnt fit the acoustic slide like it fits in in the LZ version, so I dont miss it when I hear this one. Pointless to me, would have been to do an imitative version like W.A.S.P.
So I guess, my point is that it is not pointless. I rarely buy records anymore, I use Apple Music but it was a cover worth my time.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 03, 2020 08:52 AM |
|
|
artu said:
A good cover is a good cover, it doesnt have to teach me anything new.
If it doesn't teach you anything "new" - why would you listen to it? I mean, if you get used to something (to the point of feeling the need to get some change), why turn to something that doesn't offer that (or in name only)?
Anyway, de gustibus non disputandum est.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted May 12, 2020 02:36 PM |
|
|
1956
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 13, 2020 09:18 AM |
|
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 20, 2020 04:44 PM |
|
|
|
bloodsucker
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted May 22, 2020 08:56 PM |
|
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 23, 2020 05:40 PM |
|
|
|
Galaad
Hero of Order
Li mort as morz, li vif as vis
|
|
posted May 23, 2020 07:03 PM |
|
|
|
Oddball13579
Supreme Hero
Grandmaster of the Hunt
|
|
posted May 23, 2020 09:08 PM |
|
|
|
CountBezuhoff
Supreme Hero
Nihil sub sole novum
|
|
posted May 26, 2020 01:03 AM |
|
|
| |
|
|
This Popular Thread is pages long: 
