|
let me reiterate i'm loving the new song. also i agree with and/or already knew everything you said. most of it shouldn't have had to have been repeated. but the one thing i really want to comment on is the thing i've been trying to ask you about.
>-the roots are more than the actual members you see on stage
>
>kelo, chaos, scott, tahir have all been making beats for us
>since the start. we may suppliment their beats if need be,
>we may re do whole jawn over---but at the end of the day.
>shit has to bang.
>
>-since most of ya'll care about the live experience
>anyway---does it really matter HOW the music gets made?
ok first off, i think it's fresh that the roots are unafraid to collaborate and that you have a stable of folks who write and perform with you regularly. cool. most great artists have great collaborators.
HOWEVER.
r.e.m. doesn't write songs for u2's albums. radiohead don't pinch hit for coldplay. frank black doesn't record with all of the members of the red hot chili peppers (or a single dude like doc (res, esthero)) and try to call it a new pixies song.
ridiculous examples, yep! but i'm saying, while i understand and can sympathize somewhat with "the roots are more than..." (after all, credits don't lie), i also have a right to think about and ask legitimate questions (http://www.okayplayer.com/dcforum/general1/35239.html#13). i've observed more outside producers being involved with each album and unlike before, when they shared writing and producing credits with the band, now it's just written by ____ and trotter and produced by ___ (not produced by the roots/grand neggaz/grand wizzards (kkk?!?!?), co-produced by ____). this is why i've been trying to understand how it worked on phrenology but you never answered. "we may suppliment their beats if need be" -- MAY? as opposed to putting black thought over someone else's beat (as in an actual recording made by 9th wonder or the neptunes) and call it a roots track? that's what i'm trying to understand. it just seems like a double standard. radiohead do exactly what you're saying--they will record live and they will record separately and use loops, programing, samples, etc. but you don't see them hiring another band (or electronic musician) to write and perform music for thom to sing over. the roots can and have done a lot more than replaying music someone wrote for them, no matter how dope it is (and this new song is DOPE). just adding a few overdubs or tweaking a peer's demo is baffling to me and not doing anything to it at all (the "may" qualifier) is not at all reassuring. "reintroduce yourself" indeed!
it's not even that i object to it in principle, it's just that phrenology was at least half written and produced by people outside of the roots (proper)--which i chalked up to bt's solo being canned--and the trend seems to be continuing on this album. i'll hold off further suppositions till i've heard it because who knows who made the cut and who didn't? the scott storch song sounds like something he could've made without any of the musicians in the roots but you said you slaved over it. unless you want to reveal the history, i'll just have to assume the roots (not just you) played on it, as there are parts where i could see that (keys, guitar, drums, programming).
all i've ever wanted to know about this is what the writing and recording process is. how much of the melodic and rhythmic parts are written by the "producers"? if there's no writing credit for anyone in the roots other than the emcee(s), did y'all really not write anything? and when it's "produced by ____" what do you mean? like, they created a demo (songwriter and musician role) and you replayed it with their guidance (phil spector style producer) or this is a song that they played on and their parts are either still here or you redid it, but since they made the original they "produced" (rza style producer with or without redo).
"does it really matter HOW the music gets made?" and "if shit's fly..." doesn't REALLY sit well with me and of all people you should know that line of reasoning is a poor defense. you're the music dude who wants to know every single thing about the recording process of good albums. if the roots are my sly stone, can't i think critically about work i really enjoy and appreciate? i'm not angry or disappointed at all, just intrigued and slightly puzzled. i'm going to keep playing the roots on the radio, keep buying albums, keep going to concerts, keep posting here. also going to keep asking long but important questions and hope for answers. peace.
|
Printer-friendly copy 
Email this topic to a friend
Okayplayer News Discussion 
I LUV U 2!!! 
