Mon, 12 Sep 2011 11:23:12 am
Greetings. I have been a huge fan of your analysis videos since I stumbled upon them this past winter. I like the website as it makes it easier to find all of the vids in one place. My only issue is that I can't seem to watch them in full screen mode from the site like I can when I see them on YouTube.
I have a quick question for you. In your very first analysis Lamb video you talk about studying the waveforms to give you clues as to where the edits and flown in bit were. Can you explain that further as to how you were able to recognize those altered wave forms?
Thanks, and as a long time Genesis you have breathed new life into these old favorites of mine. I really enjoyed all of your great work.
Tue, 13 Sep 2011 6:42:25 pm
Hi, Jc ~
First, thank you so very much for being one of my original followers (since last winter, shortly after I started this series most serendipitously!)
It truly has become a work of passion - thanks to all the great feedback I receive via the YouTube videos.
So sorry that I haven't quite figured out how to marry the "large" format that both you and I prefer. But, as of yet - YouTube only offers my website host - Weebly.com - the embedded video window.
They do ask you (if you move your mouse around the lower right hand corner of the window) if you want to transfer to YouTube to watch the video in all their different forms (HD, non-HD, small, large, etc)...
My website is mainly to offer a all-in-One "Home" paired with a "Backgrounder/Insight" menu to all of my different "Analysis" videos for Genesis.
YouTube offers "Playlists" that viewers can follow a series...but, to me, it seems somewhat haphazard.
And, if you did like several other of my subscribers mention they did - tracking down all of what I had to offer via my Channel page - then it seems better (more elegant) to offer this specialized website by which you can follow a menu (offering both explanation & video window), which I designed, in order to provide better viewing continuity!
Sorry to be so verbose...but, I hope my impetus for creating this site is more clear.
Now, as for the other query you posted...I must say you ask an excellent question - which, I am honestly can say I'm surprised has not been asked before - in all these many months - Bravo! *huge grin*
You ready for the WHOLE story? (grab your glass of wine..or cup of tea..and I will regale you, Sir!) hehehe
Initially, I only "heard" a distinct difference in the original "Live" recording of the Shrine concert - which a co-worker alerted me to, via the WolfgangsVault.com site (which features the same stuff recorded for the King Biscuit Flower Hour broadcast, that same night).
I had heard the "slightly restored" Archive recording many years previous..but, did not own it.
In listening to the Wolfgang's recording - I was struck by how many times Peter "reached" for his lower (softer) register in songs like "Carpet Crawlers" and it just. simply. was. not. there.
(Truthfully, I ended up memorizing the Live version - thanks to sitting in a hospital waiting room for a week, after my mother suffered a stroke. It was the only thing I had been able to download on my new iPod, prior to catching a plane back East). :-(
Having coached (spoken) vocals, professionally, for many years...I caught on quite quickly that he was obviously suffering from partial laryngitis, that singular evening/performance.
So, I got ahold of a copy of "Archive 1"..and started listening with rapt attention.
Where was it that Peter had a "full vocal tone"? Where was it that he relied on his "goat note end phrasing" vocal crutch?
Where did he meander off key...or off mic ?
Where was a "breathy" or "smoky" or more "mercenary" sounding?
Where did he beautifully "finish off" his phrasing with his now-famous "up-note, whip-like" closing of a phrase ?
All these aural observations really lighted the fires of intense curiosity for me, as an audio engineer, editor and director.
So, I printed off all the lyrics of the 2-album set...sat (on yet another 6-hour airplane ride) with two sets of headsets/earbuds on my head (Wolfgangs on the earbuds, Archive piped into my Bose noise-canceling headset)...and alternated listening to one partial-phrase, then comparing its "twin" on the next.
Many times, I had to "rewind" and listen several times to the only 3 or 4 words he sang, in succession - because Peter (and all his production team at Real World) had gotten it SO close!
They really did a masterful job in laying-in just what was needed to "sew" the live performance together - where the live vocals actually needed it.
Now, I know there are a lot of people who would disagree with me. But, being a producer/director myself..and knowing of Peter's so-called "perfectionism"...I could see why he would NOT let something that technically/artistically-flawed go out on the market (and sell for that kind of $$) to his fans without there being some major reconstruction done on it.
Ok, I admit it..I digress (my apologies)...back to your very salient question:
In my old analog studio (which is featured in nearly all my videos...and now, sadly, has been dismantled (to make way for its replacement Grass Valley & Avid automation) - you will see behind me an old Enco product - called a D.A.D unit. (Digital Audio)
It has no artistic relation to the elegant waveforms which are rendered out of a ProTools or Logic editing system. But, it worked for my investigatory needs, at the time.
The D.A.D. offered a fairly straight-forward non-linear visual waveform offering of anything I transferred into the system. And, I could put the two waveforms windows up on my monitor where they were able to almost overlap....
An easy visual tool to see where the waveforms differed (even slightly)...for someone in my business.
I did not do this for the entire Archive 1 Lamb concert. I only did this in a few places where I suspected, but my ears could not absolutely ensure, was the "mature" vs. the "young" Peter, singing.
Nick Davis is one of the best in the world at doing this kind of "reconstructionist" audio engineering (since he's a musician, as well).
And, between Peter's team at Real World..and Nick & his team at The Farm - even WITH the back-to-back, nearly overlapping waveform displays - I had a tough time making certain calls as to which was which.
To be fair to myself...there was always the 3rd option of that Nick took Peter's old, original vocals..and both cleaned & beefed them up so much (utilizing all the dynamics processors, equalization filters, and delays he had at The Farm) or manipulated Peter's more mature vocals to match his younger tones (and peaks) - that even the most adept engineer would be impressed!
So, it is within several of these areas - where I hold up both pics of Peter (25 & 47 years old, respectively). *nod of head*
Does all this answer your question, my friend? *kindly smile*
I hope so...but, if not...or if you'd like to actually see what I am talking about - I am noodling around with the idea of actually filming a "talking" blog vid, in which I could demonstrate (utilizing my home version of ProTools) dual waveforms analyses. ;-)
All my best (and sincere thanks for all your enthusiastic support!),