Aerosmith "Same Old Song And Dance" Isolated Rhythm Guitar

When some people think of a basic rock band that has two guitars, bass and drums, many times the first impression is that the track elements are pretty simple since there are only 4 instruments. Live that may be true, but that's not the way records are made.

A really good example of how sophisticated a simple rhythm guitar part can become is Aerosmith's "Same Old Song And Dance" from their Get Your Wings album. It highlights the really excellent production skills of Jack Douglas.

Here's the isolated tracks of Brad Whitford's rhythm guitar. Listen for:

1. The simplicity of the parts. Everything is played as solidly and simply as possible, with no embellishments or ghost notes.

2. The change in guitar sounds. The sound changes considerably from the intro to the verse to the chorus to the bridge. This gives the song more interest.

3. The change in panning. As the sound changes, so does the panning, again heightening the interest.

4. The doubling of parts of the solo and last chorus to bring the song to its peak.

----------------------------------

Help support this blog. Any purchases made through our Amazon links help support this website with no cost to you.

You should follow me on Twitter and Facebook for daily news and updates on production and the music business.

Don't forget to check out my Music 3.0 blog for tips and tricks on navigating social media and the new music business.

Aerosmith On 60 Minutes

If you watched the 60 Minutes television show on Sunday 3/11/12, you saw the segment with Aerosmith. One of the interesting things about the various interviews was how much animosity there still is between lead singer Steven Tyler and the rest of the band. You're used to seeing this with young bands or bands just making it, but not from a band that's been doing it for 40 years. Usually they've matured and put aside their difference by now.

That said, the show is a case study of band dynamics. It doesn't matter how big or unknown the act, the politics are the same. They probably could've used these tips to resolving a conflict from The Music Producer's Handbook, but that's another story.

It's a great segment, but you have to wade through an ad at the beginning.

----------------------------------

Help support this blog. Any purchases made through our Amazon links help support this website with no cost to you.


You should follow me on Twitter for daily news and updates on production and the music business.


Don't forget to check out my Music 3.0 blog for tips and tricks on navigating social media and the new music business.

Aerosmith "Dream On" Song Analysis

Twitter follower Frick Franklin requested a song analysis via Twitter. This time it's Aerosmith's breakthrough hit "Dream On" from their first album appropriately entitled Aerosmith. As the story was told to me by the album's producer Adrian Barber, Aerosmith did almost nothing in sales the first year it was released except for a single station in Baltimore. Airplay on only one station wasn't enough to get their record label (Columbia Record) interested in spending any promotion dollars (they were pushing Bruce Springsteen at the time), until the song was named #1 Song of the Year by the station's fans. The rest, as they say, is history. As with all song analysis, we'll look at the song form, the arrangement, the sound, and the production.

The Song
Like so many hit records, "Dream On" is unique in its song form, which looks like this:

Intro (16 bars), Verse (12 Bars), B Section (4 Bars), Interlude (4 Bars), Verse (8 Bars), Chorus (6 Bars), Interlude 2 (7 Bars), Chorus (6 Bars), Bridge (14 Bars), Out Chorus (10 Bars)

Obviously this is not a song written by a formula, since the chorus takes so long before it's introduced (at about 2:05) and the bridge is the only section that actually contains the title of the song ("Dream On"). What's more, just about each section is a different length. The first verse has 12 bars while the 2nd verse has 8. The second interlude has the same motif as the intro, but is played in the major instead of a minor and is 7 bars long! Then we have the bridge (the high point in most songs) at 14 bars and the out chorus at 10. This is a highly unusual song form indeed.

The melody and lyrics of the song very strong, and these sell the song to the casual listener who doesn't take much notice to the music probably more than anything else.

The Arrangement
"Dream On" features a straight ahead 5 piece rock band, with almost no sweetening. About the only thing that changes during the song is the sound of the keyboard and the addition of the Mellotron in the intro and interludes.

The arrangement elements look like this:

  * The Foundation: Bass and drums

  * The Pad: The Mellotron in the intro, first verse and first interlude

  * The Rhythm: This is different from most songs in that it's provided by the picking guitars and keyboards in the intro, verse and interludes.

  * The Lead: Lead vocal


   * The Fills: Guitar fills

The Sound
"Dream On" was recorded on 16 track at Intermedia Sound in Boston, a studio that I worked at a lot during my days there. The song is recorded very basically, but that was the style of Adrian Barber, who cut his teeth on some big records by Cream, The Rascals and Velvet Underground during his time as a staff engineer at Atlantic Records.

All of the instruments are pretty dry and in your face except for the vocal, which has a very pronounced delayed plate reverb. This sounds like the approximately 120 millisecond predelay that comes when using a tape machine set to 7 1/2 ips in the send path to the reverb. There are also a couple of bad breath pops from the lead vocal during the verses at :54 and 1:44 that are left in.

One of the cooler aspects of this record is the wide stereo field, with the guitars panned pretty hard to both sides, the keyboard on the left and the Mellotron up the middle. Speaking of keyboards, I'm not sure what they used but it sounds like one of the very early all-purpose synths of the time, with the very cheap piano emulation that sounds like a harpsichord on the intro, the organ sound at the end, and the highly modulated synth sound on the right side during the fade out (you need headphones to hear it).

The Production
I studied under producer/engineer Adrian Barber for about 3 months in the late 70's and he was quite a character with very seat of the pants in his approach. To some degree you can hear that in "Dream On." None of the instrument entrances to the sections are clean, with certain instruments (mostly the guitars) jumping out ahead. The lead vocal falls out of the pocket for a second due to a late entrance at 1:58. All this was left in, yet it never hindered our enjoyment of the song, which goes to prove that production perfection doesn't exactly mean you'll have a hit.

There are a number of excellent production aspects though. The rhythm section of drummer Joey Kramer and bassist Tom Hamilton is particularly simple and strong. The drums are especially solid and disciplined, unusually so for a young player. The interplay between the guitars is also wonderful and well thought out. Joe Perry and Brad Whitford continue that exceptional interplay to this day. Make no mistake, that's not easy, and you'll find some great guitar players that can never get the hang of this.

As with most hits, "Dream On" is unique in so many ways and still holds up well today. It has a number of flaws, which makes you love it all the more.

Don't forget to send me you song requests for analysis.

----------------------------------

Help support this blog. Any purchases made through our Amazon links help support this website with no cost to you.

You should follow me on Twitter for daily news and updates on production and the music business.

Don't forget to check out my Music 3.0 blog for tips and tricks on navigating social media and the new music business.

Clear Channel Puts Another Nail In Radio's Coffin

As if radio couldn't get any lamer, radio conglomerate Clear Channel is about to implement national playlists for all its formats on all its stations. This means that there will be one playlist that every station of that particular format of music will use across the country.

Why is this so bad? Radio is a local medium. People listen for local news and weather, as well as announcements for social events. But musical tastes are local as well and through the years that's proven to be the force behind many of the musical trends that started locally and eventually grew nationally and internationally. With a single national playlist, local music is strangled at birth with no chance of even getting heard. In fact, a study last year found that 82% of the music played on radio was from major labels. Where's the diversity in that?

As an example of how music grows from a local scene, note the following:

• Elvis broke out of Memphis and the South before signing with RCA

• James Brown broke out of Atlanta and Cincinnati

• Al Green, Otis Redding, Sam & Dave and all the Stax/Volt artists broke out of Memphis

• The world-wide hits from The Romantics started in Ohio first

• Aerosmith broke out of Baltimore (although they were from Boston)

• REM and the B-52's broke out of Athens, Georgia

• Nirvana and the whole Grunge movement broke out of Seattle

New music needs local radio more than ever. Homogenized radio that conglomerates like Clear Channel offer has been the cause of radio falling further and further into irrelevance. Nationalizing the playlists only causes traditional, terrestrial radio to slip closer and closer to death.

Band Improvement Book Finally Released

I hate to be so self-serving 2 days in a row, but just thought I'd announce that my new book, How To Make Your Band Sound Great, has finally been released.

The book is about the many ways to improve your band, starting with your individual playing, to the interaction of the band itself. The book also includes a DVD where I take a band (The Bohunks, a ska band from LA) and demonstrate many of the techniques laid out in the book.

This book has been in my head for a long time. You learn a lot about what makes a band sound great when everything is under the microscope of the studio, and I wanted to translate the things we do in making records directly to bands that always wonder, "Why don't we sound like xxx (your favorite band here)".

As a matter of fact, that's the main reason for the book. I can remember when I was in my very first band in Minersville, PA and wondered "Why don't we sound like the best band in town?" No one could tell me.

Then when I began playing with the best band in town I wondered, "Why don't we sound like the best band in the region?" No one could tell me again.

Later when I was playing with The Other Side, the best band in that part of the state, I used to wonder, "We're really good, but we could be better. Why don't we sound like an Aerosmith record?" Again, no one had an answer to that simple question.

Well, this book does have the answers, and if a band just follows a single tip from Chapter 8, they'll get better seemingly overnight.

I'm really proud of How To Make Your Band Sound Great, and if any of you should buy or read it, I'd love your feedback.