Re: vocals

From: Jason Witherspoon (arzachel@speakeasy.org)
Date: Fri Feb 09 2001 - 23:50:09 CET

  • Next message: Brock Phillips: "los angeles only! FW: dublab party 2/17: Baby Brazillian Sofa Moss!"

    At 05:37 PM 2/9/01 -0500, adario wrote:
    >----- Original Message -----
    > >Also, why the heck does everyone consider instrumentals to not be "real
    > >songs"? If it's got

    >did i say that?

    I dunno, but a couple people have mentioned how they prefer "real" songs to
    instrumentals-- just throws my head for a loop, really--

    >i do think it's funny that you refer her voice as "vocals",
    >as if hefner chopped it up like tobin's regular chickens. her "voice" is
    >clearly a unifying melody, where "vocals" seems more like a producers'
    >concept of a sonic fragment.

    I can pull out a jazz album from the fifties & it'll say "Peggy Lee--
    vocals" on the back; so I really have no idea where you get that "vocals"
    just means chopped up voice fragments

    >also, it's kinda hard to slip actual lyrics
    >into an instrumental. especially words as eloquent as those of residue.

    Yes, but just because a song doesn't have words does not mean it isn't a
    song, which is really my only point-- I'll just drop it, as my notion of
    logic seems to be kind of alien to one & all in this particular instance, 'kay?



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Feb 10 2001 - 00:08:30 CET