What Is SP's most technically complex/elaborate song/production?

[Playback]

Originally Posted by Playback

You obviously haven't used Pro-Tools, Cubase, etc. I think YOU would be amazed at what a regular Joe can do on his PC.

A while back Jimmy was selling drum loops so anyone can have Jimmy freakin' Chamberlin playin' drums on a CD they made in their bedroom! And it sounds freakin' awesome!

[smashingjj]

Originally Posted by Playback

People like this is why Britney Spears sells music.

what

[exactlythesame]

Originally Posted by Playback

You obviously haven't used Pro-Tools, Cubase, etc. I think YOU would be amazed at what a regular Joe can do on his PC.

Yes, but my point still stands -- it would be difficult to replicate all of those effects accurately with just a PC based program. There's no denying the depth of those tracks.

[aldango]

Porcelina. It's obvious that an incredible amount of effort was put into making that song sound right.

[Spaceboy88]

It has to be Soma. I remember reading they have like 70 separate guitar overdubs on that song.

[suncrashesdown]

I'm going to say the bulk of Adore contains SP's most impressive production work. Adore is its own universe of sound entirely, and getting all those elements of electronic, rock, folk, to blend together seamlessly is a pretty amazing feat. There are a lot of 'rock albums' that are produced as layered as Siamese Dream or MCIS, but very few albums out there stand out as making you take notice and say "wow, this is really its own point-of-reference, and I can't think of another album that sounds similar to this"

[redbreegull]

Originally Posted by Spaceboy88

It has to be Soma. I remember reading they have like 70 separate guitar overdubs on that song.

It is definitely Soma if we are talking about complexity of guitar arrangements and overdubs. If we are just talking overall elaborate-ness of production, it could be something off Adore. There are all sorts of crazy sounds and completely unidentifiable things all over Adore in the back of the mix that you can't even hear without good headphones.

[areyougaffney?]

i'd say overall adore has the most interesting production choices but in a one off song it most definately is soma.
as a guitarist and someone who records musically (on a basic level) thissong would definately be the hardest for me to replicate.

[Shinobi]

The pumpkins cover of blondies "dreaming" on the TAFH box set was a technical nightmare according to James, and it took them ages to get it sorted..

[Playback]

Originally Posted by Chuck=Zero

I would think that the process of producing Tonight, Tonight would've been pretty complex, what with implementing all the string instruments with the guitars and drums.

M-Audio keystation + mellotron plug-in, ($99 each from Sweetwater) and a laptop will get you all the strings in Tonight, Tonight. I'm not denying Billy's musical genius, but the process isn't really all that hard.

[redbull]

Originally Posted by Playback

M-Audio keystation + mellotron plug-in, ($99 each from Sweetwater) and a laptop will get you all the strings in Tonight, Tonight. I'm not denying Billy's musical genius, but the process isn't really all that hard.

yeah, and if you don't want them to sound like shit...

[Kayfabe]

plug-ins suck ass

[sneakyflutes]

Originally Posted by Playback

M-Audio keystation + mellotron plug-in, ($99 each from Sweetwater) and a laptop will get you all the strings in Tonight, Tonight. I'm not denying Billy's musical genius, but the process isn't really all that hard.

it's been a while since i've listened to the song, but i'm pretty fucking sure those are real strings, not a mellotron. besides, most mellotron plug-ins suck ass. the only decent one i've found is the one that comes bundled with abbey road keyboards.

technically complex: geek usa
best production: probably soma or porcelina

[sneakyflutes]

Originally Posted by Kayfabe

plug-ins suck ass

not entirely true, but generally the only decent ones take up at least 5 gigs, and cost over $500. well, assuming you are a sucker and actually choose to pay for them that is.

[IWishIWasBlank]

You can do anything you want on your computer. It'll just never sound real.

People who make comments about how easy it is to play a Pumpkins song are correct. Those who disagree, apparently don't play enough music on something other than a CD player or IPod. They're not technically difficult. The only difficult thing to replicate in Zero, for example, is the guitar solo. That, and the overall distortion sounds (and of course, Jimmy on drums, but I'm not a drummer, so I couldn't tell you how difficult that truly is.) What you can't get, is all the noises. The blurps, beeps, squeaks, strings, everything added after four band members record four parts in a studio.

To make a more intriguing question, you should have asked:
"What song has the most complex/technical/elaborate post-production."

Where post production would be anything added after two guitars, bass and drums.

Edit: I knew one bass/guitar player who would record into cool edit pro, then ad distortion from there, instead of recording it through a pedal. Oof-da. "That's craptastic, Homer."

[smashingjj]

Originally Posted by IWishIWasBlank

everything added after four band members record four parts in a studio.

the pumpkins didn't do this either

i agree with your post though

[teh b0lly!!1]

1979 has some pretty complex production.
lots of different sounds, looping and manipulation of sounds, cool guitar sounds, etc.
the production made that song what it is imho.

soma (and all of siamese dream) is way up there pumpkins wise, its extremely layered, eq'd, and processed. just listen to billy's vocals, they're so smoothened out, compressed, a bit phased, etc.

some of the stuff on adore is kinda producer-y but its not extremely complex.
the pumpkins were never about complexity, they rarely did anything technical or complex, if at all really (comparing to some of the bands that are out there).
it was all pretty simple but its great music.

then again, every album production for the pumpkins must have been a complex hell because they weren't a tight band. billy could barely sing, he could never recreate the same solo twice, james and darcy barely play their instruments. only jimmy had it easy, really.

[BlissedandGone2]

Originally Posted by Playback

M-Audio keystation + mellotron plug-in, ($99 each from Sweetwater) and a laptop will get you all the strings in Tonight, Tonight. I'm not denying Billy's musical genius, but the process isn't really all that hard.

they recorded tonight tonight with a 30 piece orchestra. if you think you can record anything even close to the pumpkins on your own with an m-audio station and some plugins then you: a. don't listen to the pumpkins very often with much thought and b. overestimate yourself and midi recording.

[BlissedandGone2]

Originally Posted by IWishIWasBlank

You can do anything you want on your computer. It'll just never sound real.

People who make comments about how easy it is to play a Pumpkins song are correct. Those who disagree, apparently don't play enough music on something other than a CD player or IPod. They're not technically difficult. The only difficult thing to replicate in Zero, for example, is the guitar solo. That, and the overall distortion sounds (and of course, Jimmy on drums, but I'm not a drummer, so I couldn't tell you how difficult that truly is.) What you can't get, is all the noises. The blurps, beeps, squeaks, strings, everything added after four band members record four parts in a studio.

To make a more intriguing question, you should have asked:
"What song has the most complex/technical/elaborate post-production."

Where post production would be anything added after two guitars, bass and drums.

Edit: I knew one bass/guitar player who would record into cool edit pro, then ad distortion from there, instead of recording it through a pedal. Oof-da. "That's craptastic, Homer."

zero =
billy 20 guitar tracks and probably the bass track
james 1 guitar track
jimmy drum track
darcy ?

[Gish08]

Originally Posted by smashingjj

when it comes to live playing, except for what jimmy did, nothing about the pumpkins stands out as really hard to play to me. it's mostly just a few chords to a 4/4 beat. there's a few more progressive songs but they're technically not very difficult. they did make it harder sometimes by playing a lot of the songs almost twice as fast.

my band mate says it's pretty embarrassing they sometimes stopped and had to begin over with songs like tonight tonight if billy made a mistake in a live show. he has kind of a point, cause there's bands doing far more technical stuff live time and time again, completely flawless. he's a real pumpkins hater though.

when it comes to recording cd's and production, that's a whole different story. but that's difficulty on another level.

Eh songs like Heavy Metal Machine (latest version) kinda prove your friend's point wrong. SP's songs have weird tunings and they transition into different things very fast during a show. SP's approach to live playing is pretty spontaneous. Especially with songs like Drown, HMM (as I just said), anything they jam or add something on to is what makes their live show special. The setlists are prolific.

[greedo]

The definitive answer is 'Farewell and Goodnight'.

They had to keep Jimmy sober and had to record each sylable of Darcy's singing separately as it was the only way to keep her in tune. Since James co-wrote the song they had to work extra hard to stop it from being crap.

My serious vote would be for Ruby or Porcelina because they are long songs with lots of sound effects and stuff. But I heard that most of SD has tons of guitar overdubs and Mike Mills. Mike Mills is cool.

Off topic, Queen's Good Company was very complex to record - Brian May recorded a full 'orchestra' with his guitar by recording each 'instrument' with different processing on the guitar.

[dzhezus]

"Glass and the Ghost Children" may have been as difficult as TTEOR or Soma. Three separate sections, lots of overdubs with all sorts of pedals, then even more effects. Then intentional static to fuck it up. Plus the middle section was all "artfully" speed-manipulated, and THEN all that compression in the mastering process.

[wilch]

quit all this technical jibba-jabba fools

[Playback]

Originally Posted by BlissedandGone2

they recorded tonight tonight with a 30 piece orchestra. if you think you can record anything even close to the pumpkins on your own with an m-audio station and some plugins then you: a. don't listen to the pumpkins very often with much thought and b. overestimate yourself and midi recording.

Is that a challenge?

[redbull]

Originally Posted by Gish08

Eh songs like Heavy Metal Machine (latest version) kinda prove your friend's point wrong. SP's songs have weird tunings and they transition into different things very fast during a show. SP's approach to live playing is pretty spontaneous. Especially with songs like Drown, HMM (as I just said), anything they jam or add something on to is what makes their live show special. The setlists are prolific.

uh theres no actual jamming going on in 95% of sp shows. the changes and new bit are all clearly worked out in advance.

[redbreegull]

Originally Posted by Playback

Is that a challenge?

I guarantee you cannot create something that sounds as good as a real orchestra on your own. And yes, that is a challenge.

[IWishIWasBlank]

Originally Posted by BlissedandGone2

zero =
billy 20 guitar tracks and probably the bass track
james 1 guitar track
jimmy drum track
darcy ?

20 guitar dubs is one guitar track plus 19 overdubs added in post-production. I doubt Bill recorded 20 guitar parts, then Jim, James and (optionally) D'arcy came in later. You have to lay a foundation before you layer on top of it.

[wilch]

its like baking a cake, but not really

[IWishIWasBlank]

Exactly.