My Mom says last week's blog was too squirty, to which Cosmic Wifey quickly agreed. Then we had a long conversation about maturity and how it relates to intelligence. Or rather, they had the conversation, I sat there quietly plotting my revenge in this week's blog. However, after some rumination on it, it occurred to me potential clients might not want to record anywhere near an engineer who might soil himself, ..um, ...frontally speaking, upon completion of a good take. So this week I figure more studio talk, less splooge. But I gotta say, once that road has been trodden it's hard to get back on the more promotional path to enlightenment. And another thing I gotta say, to whoever invented the word "splooge": Bravo sir, bravo. Rarely has a more descriptive term been coined. Anyways. There's are things in recording and performance called muse and mojo. They're terms used to describe connection through art or music. Some say in any art there's a stream of inspiration that artists occasionally tap into, often called the muse. The original definition of the muse was something that visited you during creation, you were merely the vessel. Lately it's become something inside you that gets tapped into. Pop culture in it's endless quest to dumb down concepts for stupid people defines the muse as a good looking person inspiring an artist to paint or write about how good looking they are. There's an absolutely must see TED talk by Elizabeth Gilbert on the subject of muse; http://www.ted.com/talks/elizabeth_gilbert_on_genius?language=en I think of muse as inspiration, or the idea, and mojo is something that happens during the execution, or playing, of an inspiration. Closely related aspects of the same thing. Music and dance are arts where mojo is witnessed, where the crowd becomes part of it. An audience can participate in it and even be a full part of it. It's not easy to capture that mojo in a recording, and even harder to pull out of the mix. I of course refer to mojo that can be heard. There's no image in music, so squinchy faces and scissor kicks need to be played and felt. Maybe that's what mojo is, hearing the squinchy face. Mojo, muse, inspiration, or whatever it is, is not something requiring huge amounts of skill. The only skill required really is enough of the mechanics involved to express it. Many relatively unskilled musicians have tapped into it, and many with great skill haven't. Just flip around the radio dial for ten minutes to hear what music completely bereft of mojo sounds like. In fact, I would venture that it's the act of wrestling with it that is a part of the magic. Sometimes it's the fight with inadequate skill that creates the mojo. I think that fight with the edge was part of Amy Winehouse's huge talent. In the blues guitar world I felt it more with Albert Collins than Gary Moore. Keep in mind here, I think mojo is just one facet of music, not the whole picture. Skill is another side, but skill is obvious and easily heard. Easily heard means easily reproduced and exploited. Image is also marketable and obvious, yet it's proven time and time again that skill and image don't really matter much to the success of a song. I'd venture that the not so easily heard mojo is much underrated in the quest to write and record songs people like. Many players and audio engineers will get all winky noddy when talking about the muse and mojo, but I suspect most don't really get it, and in fact I'm not sure if I get it either. For sure there are times when the depth below the surface can be seen. I've had moments playing guitar when the mojo is definitely there, and I've had moments where it's way not there. Most definitely very way not there holy crap go home and practice or something not there. Buut anyways... trying to capture and mix mojo in the studio can be a tough one, but there are ways. The most assumed is by tracking everybody at once. As bloggled over previously, that doesn't work. Often there's some level of mojo in any given track. This is where focus in a mix becomes more critical. In a set of tracks there are support instruments and focal. Usually voice is focal, but often there's something going on in the background that really supports or shines in harmony with the focus. Good engineers can pull out the mojo while keeping that focus. Not so good engineers often bury the mojo in an effort to keep that focus. This is kinda what separates the ears from the gear. The technician from the talented. I've seen kids whizzing around in profools at 90 miles an hour while talking about the weather. It's truly impressive to behold, but not often impressive to the ears. The tech is there for the music, not the the other way around. All those new to engineering suck at first, as I did for many years. The reason noobs suck for a few years is good instincts and the tech are hard to get working together. It's all about ear training, not gear profficiency. Whizzing around in the software comes much quicker than educated ears. But I've lamented woefully about gear in past pointlessnesses. The best way to get the mojo working is in preproduction, a stress free environment, and having some inspiring bed tracks to work from. Preproduction is where you arrange the song and the instruments so there's a nice little spot for the player to milk the mojo. Stress free environment means no time constraints, enjoyable company and a good musical vibe. A place where a player can drop the ball without feeling like an idiot, and let go when the mojo hits. Inspiring beds mean the tracks are already mostly mixed and sounding great. The great thing about 25$ per hour is you have the freedom to chase down the mojo. Or perhaps I'm completely wrong about everything and wouldn't know a mojo if it punched me in the face. I suspect mojo is only heard in the genre you like. I don't like rap particularly, and while I respect the genre, I don't think I would hear the difference between an inspired performance and a flat one. For shits and giggles check this out. Go to Len's reverbnation site and listen to "Would You Mind". https://www.reverbnation.com/leftturnright If you like the somewhat 70's MOR genre, or a somewhat folkish perspective, this might work. I recorded Len quite a few years back on the learning and gear curve. He was a guitar student of mine. Most everybody involved except bass (I think) were all amateur players just learning. I was just learning the ins and outs of mixing, so the mix ain't awesome, and it was before I got into the computer with it's editing capabilities, so the meter is off in places. Yet for all that it's a great song and I think it's full of the ever elusive mojo. It's also possible I just like the song. The mix and playing are sorta so so, the song isn't particularly well arranged, the lyrics need work, (sorry Len) and the meter goes wonky in places. It was the first time the three singers sang in front of a recording mic and you can hear the nervousness and a lot of timing issues. It should suck I would imagine, but to me it's sincerely heart felt performances. One could play and record it better, but I don't think it would have any more heart, or mojo than it does now. I know a good song can transcend a bad mix and many other weak spots. so I'm wondering if I'm pulling in more than is actually there beyond a good song. Email me and let me know what you think. I'm pretty sure Len was tapped into the muse when he wrote it, because I get a good feel of place and time from the lyrics and music, but whether it has performance mojo is the question. Keep in mind I'm not asking where the problems are, just whether it has mojo or nothing at all. I'll be sure to post the results in the next blog. Or more likely, I'll let you know what my Mom figures.
Email me here: cosmictunes@hotmail.com