Review: Sting My Songs

I don't often do reviews, but there are interestings questions being asked by Sting's latest album release, and as an artist whose purpose in life, maybe, is to leave behind a recorded history of my songs, I think those questions are relevant.

Simply, Sting My Songs, is an album of his well-known songs redone... but not re-imagined in the sense that he approaches them differently; there are no heavy metal versions or classical versions. The songs sound remarkably familiar with much of the same orchestration. The differences lay chiefly in the tone, occasionally beat--he seems forever trying to find the right groove for If You Love Somebody Set Them Free--and most notably, production.

The song list is made up of his most popular, stretching from the Police to the present. All in all, it's a nice set of songs Sting fans know and love, fine tuned but not too much, so the opportunity for disgruntlement is low.

The first question is why do this?

As is pointed out here, mostly to appeal to a younger audience more attuned to streaming and that hip pop sound that is too loud and overcompressed. That leads to the question of why bother since anyone, regardless of age, if interested, will want to hear the original rather than a rehash. And imagine the sonic landscape if every artist decided to reimagine and re-record the popular songs from their catalogue.

THE big change in the songs is in their production. The arrangements stick, for the most part, to the original, but add more "modern" sounds that weren't available when the songs were first recorded. I don't have a problem with that: do what you like. But the production values are what are most jarring when listening and having the originals bouncing around in your head. Personally, I don't care for the mixes and the compression. One of the things that Sting is known for is leaving room in his recordings so all the instruments are heard, and there are moments of quiet, which I think is important to songs like Fragile and Shape of My Heart.

There is also, I suppose, the notion that some songs, I'm thinking Police songs, were recorded in ways that rankled Sting, and now he can have a version more in line with what he wanted. Fair enough, but again, if you're interested in the Police, wouldn't you want to hear them as they did them. They were a band after all.

As for me, turning inward, would I re-record some of my old stuff? I have, but that was due to an inferior recording. The only problem with re-recording what was originally recorded on the 244 Portastudio is it would merely be a latter day reproduction and I don't know that I could add anything emotionally that isn't already there. And since they're good recording, given their inherent limitations, I see no reason to redo them.

Plus, unlike with Sting, there's no market for them.

On the whole, it's a good album-how can it not be with these songs-and once you attune your ear to the production changes, quite enjoyable. I won't replace the original copies I have-I'm quirky that way-but that's just me.

©2019 David William Pearce

Time and Tide-Chicago

There are, for all of us, iconic bands or groups that, for whatever reason, stick with us for the rest of our lives. For me Chicago is one of those bands.
Why?
Because they had a trombone player. Because, at the time, I was learning to play the trombone, silly as that sounds. Here was a band playing socially conscious rock with a swing/jazz feel to it.
It's been 50 years since the first Chicago album came out, as yes, I know that dates me, but we all grow old.
I started thinking about all of this after watching their biopic on Netflix. There was the usual about the road travelled, the changes in personnel, from the death of Terry Kath, to Peter Cetera leaving, and the subsequent squabbles, which to me seemed childish, but I wasn't there, etc.
And, most importantly, there's all that music. If nothing else, the band Chicago was prolific. This isn't old dudes reminiscing about the 5 albums they did in the 60's and 70's. And while I don't mind the ballad period of the mid-70's, or the 80's for that matter, I am a child of their early records, Chicago Transit Authority, and Chicago II and III. That is the period that I like the most because it was the most inventive and the most expansive.
They were riding the first wave of their popularity, when they could do what they wanted because other bands were and the records were selling. I don't think any other band put out their first 3 albums as double-albums. The albums had straight ahead rock, jazz rock, pop, classical, and some stuff that was just there, like Terry Kath burning up 7 minutes in Free Form Guitar; a compendium of distortion, fuzz, and whammy bar channeled through an amp. Weirdly, it's not terrible.
Most of all, there was the horn section, including the trombone, which was not an afterthought, or a little background filler. They played and played and man, I dug it.
Perhaps, more interestingly, it still sounds tight, hip, and fun. Sure, some of it wears it age like love beads and those leather vests with fringe and embroidery, but musically it has retained its authenticity as music even if it didn't change the world.
But then, nobody does...
©2019 David William Pearce

How to be a Hitmaker in Three Easy Steps... Maybe...

When Seeking advice at confabs like the ASCAP Expo which concluded recently, the conversations inevitably cover seemingly straight forward advice such as "be yourself", "don't write to the market", "have your own sound", etc. And the articles generated, usually covering those who have made it in the biz, expound on what it takes to write a hit, and the hard work, and the hope that perseverance will win out the day, at some point, and you'll be all the wiser, and so on...

And while there is interesting stuff here, some of it celebrity based, and some of it industry related. what is almost never stated out loud is how important it is to have a big-assed label pushing your song, which means being heard above all the other voices out there.

That's a big deal, if you're dreaming of being, or writing for, the star.

Often, some of this is happenstance- you meet the right person, talent, at the right time, and you have the time to develop a relationship that will get you in the door, on the lips of the people looking for talent, and doing enough work to be heard by enough of the right, i.e. connected people to give you a chance to be successful, which can mean anything from that's my song on the radio, streaming platform, to I'm on so-and-so's writing team.

Assuming so-and-so is known and has the power of a big label to get the word out, to grab the ears of the managers programing the playlists, and on and on.

Yes, you've made it!

But then... you have to be productive. One song ain't going to do it. The machine needs more and more and you have to produce.

Now you may assume that I'm rather jaded when it comes to these things, but that's not true. I would never tell someone not to try, or go for it, or anything like that, but everyone who's made it or hasn't, knows this song and dance. It's how the business works. There's no easy way in, and yes, I'm including the people who explode out of YouTube, or some social media outlet. Instant fame can also instantly flame out. Finding yourself on TMZ doesn't mean you'll be anything tomorrow.

Here's all the advice you'll ever need:
Keep your eyes and ears open, make as many connections as you can, and never sign anything before you consult an attorney who knows the music business!

That's all it takes.
©2019 David William Pearce