"Techno" Song from 1986: Under Glass
in [Cakewalk]
|
Prev: Guitar piece
Next: Drum Kit question
From: Sue Morton on 12 Jan 2008 17:13 OK what kind of tomfoolery is going on here? "UnderGlass_5" tags show it's mix 7? Hmmm sandbagging again Russ? :-) I like UnderGlass_8 better. For one thing, I can make out the atrocious lyrics, I couldn't really understand much in the mix 5/7 version. Mix 8 also sounds much more techo and less Manheim Steamrollerish than mix 5/7 :-) OK I'm done throwing the tomatoes you were waiting for!!! LOL Seriously, I did enjoy this tune! Did you guys play anything together, "live", at your reunion? -- Sue Morton Elmer Tiberius Fudd wrote: > <originally posted in the coffeehouse. Posting here as the comments > were surprisingly positive. Now watching for hurled rotten garbage. > =;) > > > Alright, I have another blast from my past. Recently, I was in NC > for a 25 year "reunion" of a band I was in back then and one of my > old friends asked about my proto-techno song "Under Glass". I had > dubbed my 1986 4- track recording of the song to the PC some time > ago, so I dropped the tracks into SONAR 7 and started remixing it. > Other than a Roland TR-606 bass drum loop that I made with a real > TR-606, everything is from the original 4-track. Pro-One for the > bass synth/sequence, JX3P for the strings, Mirage for guitar > crunches, TR-606 drums and JX3P and CZ-101 "bells" and solo (which > will prove beyond a doubt, I never was or will be polymod). Used > Sound Forge for the reverse reverb bits. > > http://www.aloha.net/~rbenson/UnderGlass_5.mp3 > > **Warning**: this is from the days with TR-606 triggering the > Pro-One and the JX3P with gates! Very repetitive. MIDI only used > for layering sounds. Also, the lyrics are particularly atrocious. > Let the tomatoes fly! > > <update> I have since made a version without the strings by looping > the bass sequence where the strings weren't. That version is at > http://www.aloha.net/~rbenson/UnderGlass_8.mp3 This fades as the solo > starts, so it's not too big. I like the emptiness without the > strings and the reverse bits stand out better. > > Russ > > PS BIG hat tip to Harry for his suggestions. Ben too.
From: Ben Goldman on 13 Jan 2008 01:58 Elmer Tiberius Fudd wrote: > <originally posted in the coffeehouse. Posting here as the comments were > surprisingly positive. Now watching for hurled rotten garbage. =;) > > > Alright, I have another blast from my past. Recently, I was in NC for a > 25 year "reunion" of a band I was in back then and one of my old friends > asked about my proto-techno song "Under Glass". I had dubbed my 1986 4- > track recording of the song to the PC some time ago, so I dropped the > tracks into SONAR 7 and started remixing it. Other than a Roland TR-606 > bass drum loop that I made with a real TR-606, everything is from the > original 4-track. Pro-One for the bass synth/sequence, JX3P for the > strings, Mirage for guitar crunches, TR-606 drums and JX3P and CZ-101 > "bells" and solo (which will prove beyond a doubt, I never was or will be > polymod). Used Sound Forge for the reverse reverb bits. > > http://www.aloha.net/~rbenson/UnderGlass_5.mp3 > > **Warning**: this is from the days with TR-606 triggering the Pro-One and > the JX3P with gates! Very repetitive. MIDI only used for layering > sounds. Also, the lyrics are particularly atrocious. Let the tomatoes > fly! > > <update> I have since made a version without the strings by looping the > bass sequence where the strings weren't. That version is at > http://www.aloha.net/~rbenson/UnderGlass_8.mp3 This fades as the solo > starts, so it's not too big. I like the emptiness without the strings and > the reverse bits stand out better. > > Russ > > PS BIG hat tip to Harry for his suggestions. Ben too. > De nada. Version 7 is the best IMO. -- Cheers, Ben
From: Max Arwood on 13 Jan 2008 04:07 Well I liked it. Just starting the new version. I like it even more than the first one. Like Sue, I did not even understand the words in the other version. Max Arwood "Elmer Tiberius Fudd" <ElmertSTUPIDITYfudd(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:Xns9A237AB732096notverybrightguy(a)198.186.192.200... > <originally posted in the coffeehouse. Posting here as the comments were > surprisingly positive. Now watching for hurled rotten garbage. =;) > > > Alright, I have another blast from my past. Recently, I was in NC for a > 25 year "reunion" of a band I was in back then and one of my old friends > asked about my proto-techno song "Under Glass". I had dubbed my 1986 4- > track recording of the song to the PC some time ago, so I dropped the > tracks into SONAR 7 and started remixing it. Other than a Roland TR-606 > bass drum loop that I made with a real TR-606, everything is from the > original 4-track. Pro-One for the bass synth/sequence, JX3P for the > strings, Mirage for guitar crunches, TR-606 drums and JX3P and CZ-101 > "bells" and solo (which will prove beyond a doubt, I never was or will be > polymod). Used Sound Forge for the reverse reverb bits. > > http://www.aloha.net/~rbenson/UnderGlass_5.mp3 > > **Warning**: this is from the days with TR-606 triggering the Pro-One and > the JX3P with gates! Very repetitive. MIDI only used for layering > sounds. Also, the lyrics are particularly atrocious. Let the tomatoes > fly! > > <update> I have since made a version without the strings by looping the > bass sequence where the strings weren't. That version is at > http://www.aloha.net/~rbenson/UnderGlass_8.mp3 This fades as the solo > starts, so it's not too big. I like the emptiness without the strings and > the reverse bits stand out better. > > Russ > > PS BIG hat tip to Harry for his suggestions. Ben too. > > -- > ___ __ __ __ __ ___ ___ > ( \ ( )( \/ ) ___ ( )( _)( \ > ) ) ) )( ) ( (___) __)( ) _) ) ) ) > (___/ (__)(_/\/\_) (___/ (___)(___/ > > Elmer Tiberius Fudd <--He's dim, Jed...PhD of SUYMF! > remove STUPIDITY to reply, however, STUPIDITY was engaged when send button > was pressed
From: Sue Morton on 13 Jan 2008 10:07 You're right, mix 8 can be a bit 'empty' or 'thin' in places, I like your idea to adapt the strings approach to fill the void but not cover up those atrocious lyrics. :-) Let's hear mix 9. -- Sue Morton Elmer Tiberius Fudd wrote: > I did put "techno" in quotes for a reason. =;) I think the strings > need to be a lot thinner to leave some room for the vocals-as > atrocious as the lyrics are-and other bits, but it feels a bit empty > to me-I usually love to fill up space. Maybe bring them in and out > as needed. Mix 7 is really a recreation, with some extras, of the > old mixdown of the 4-track, while mix 8 is the first of re-thinking > the whole thing with modern tech-Audio Snap and looping make it a lot > easier.
From: Max Arwood on 13 Jan 2008 15:55
Well, that 's the line I liked! I thought it was title oriented. Max Arwood "Elmer Tiberius Fudd" <ElmertSTUPIDITYfudd(a)yahoo.com> wrote in message news:Xns9A2460F287D70notverybrightguy(a)198.186.192.200... > "Max Arwood" <marwoodNOSPAM(a)hnb.com> set phasers on Delicious Ranch > Dressing > and tossed news:Nxkij.14010$6%.5614(a)nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com: > >> Well I liked it. Just starting the new version. I like it even more >> than >> the first one. Like Sue, I did not even understand the words in the >> other >> version. > > Then you were lucky! =;) One of the lines is "the pheasant is served, > under glass..." which is actually kinda clever. I think that was where > the > name came from and the rest was improvised from there. In any event, I > doubt > lyricist will never be on my resume. > > -- > ___ __ __ __ __ ___ ___ > ( \ ( )( \/ ) ___ ( )( _)( \ > ) ) ) )( ) ( (___) __)( ) _) ) ) ) > (___/ (__)(_/\/\_) (___/ (___)(___/ > > Elmer Tiberius Fudd <--He's dim, Jed...Lyricist of SUYMF! > remove STUPIDITY to reply, however, STUPIDITY was engaged when send button > was pressed |