Laurie Anderson - Big Science - C or D

Vocoder is an instrument more than an effect. I mean, I'm not arguing with your opinion here (that's fine), but you should be clear on what a vocoder does: it's taking the envelope of her voice and using it to shape chords played on a keyboard. There's no separate voice/keyboard tracks here -- just one "instrument" playing. Do it without the vocoder, and all the melodic/harmonic stuff pretty much disappears from the bulk of the song: it'd just be "ha ha ha ha" and Laurie Anderson, like, talking! So it's not some kind of vocal "effect" in an otherwise complete song; the whole thing is built on one "instrument," the vocoder line.

ok, thanks for clarification.

i think this is the problem, really -- that the whole thing is built on the one instrument. seems cheap.

i guess maybe that was her point, which i get, but i would have appreciated a bit more variation in the implementation.

o_O

*_O

i rly wouldn't mind laurie anderson just talking. obv, not for the whole thing, but in contrast with the layered vocoder sound, it would have been kind of refreshing to have just her speaking voice interjected.

"layered" being, one hopes, a METAPHOR

hmm wha? i just mean you know, the vocoder bit sounds textural and layered, which is great but i need some contrast.

i like the sparseness OK, but i could have done with a little more texture.

-- Surmounter, Wednesday, December 26, 2007 5:37 PM (1 hour ago) Bookmark Link

haha you're takin it to me huh?

i could have done with more texture in the backdrop -- the ha ha ha's -- only does she thicken those up near the end. amirite?

but the vox, they sound too samey and layered throughout.

Ha, dude, don't worry about it, I'm just being picky. Your opinion itself makes sense, I guess -- sounds like you just think it's too static, and want more variation.

I don't recall the repeating syllable "thickening" anywhere (though there are a couple moments where it gets put on a short on-beat delay, so that the rhythm skips forward a bit) -- what happens at the end is that a big dark synth line starts playing counterpoint on bass! During the "your ____ arms" part. That's kind of the "payoff," I suppose.

If you ever get sucked into real close listening to this, you may (or may not) find that the minor embellishments throughout wind up providing the variation you're looking for -- or anyway, for me, it's stuff like that moment of delay, or the dollop or birdsong, or the weird asymmetry of the little synth arpeggio that comes ... those are the things that provide constant change and interest, to me.

yes that's what i meant - the synth at the end thickens up the syllable.

and i completely agree, i think in a slightly more meditative listen, i would totally be enraptured with the minor variations. i mean even now they're interesting. guess i'm being kinda picky too!

although actually i think there are some parts where the repeated syllable is layered with some harmony no? ha's of different notes? i might be wrong.

right yes -- sometimes the vocoder comes in over the syllable, doing it as well. around :30

this album is hilarious

i love her little high voice

Example #22!!

given what I know of your tastes you should also check out Mr. Heartbreak.

merci

you'd like that more (at least at first).

iiinteresting

i rly have a lot to learn from this woman. this album is very good... and i'm into the meditative quality about it a lot.

wait till you hear Strange Angels.

no, that album sucks.

yes that album is terrible

http://www.oddjokes.com/images/Deaf%20Child.jpg

why is it so terrible??

i'm sorry you have lost your hearing.

but really, I don't know what it is about that album that anyone likes. it's a pop move by her, and a really hamfisted one at that. the subtleties that made big science compelling (and which surmounter is responding to) are absent. and as a pop move, the songs should be better. but laurie can't really "sing", and the tunes aren't very good. the best thing about the whole record is the very opening of the title track, and it goes downhill from there. when this record was released i was very excited to hear it, and it was maybe the most disappointing album experience I've ever had.

i suspected that's what you meant. that is disappointing, b/c i hear slight pop moves on this album that could potentially become something bigger.

intrigued to hear it. maybe i'll get that next and get it out of the way.

context is key -- I bought it the day it came out and expectations were too high, first studio album of all new songs in four years (Home of the Brave only half counts). dozens of guest musicians on almost every track, really ornate 80's production, and she'd been taking voice lessons to tackle some more traditional approaches to singing. some beautiful melodies & lyrics but its pop aim is very wide & all my favorite moments on the record are the few seconds where she lets herself fall back into her speaking tone, that voice. I like the title track & "Ramon", so I shouldn't say terrible as much as 'not my favorite' which would be Mister Heartbreak

"Blue" Gene Tyranny plays on a few tracks of Strange Angels though, can't be all bad

I don't know what it is about that album that anyone likes.

Dear sir,

You are a dick, and your ear is of tin.

Sincerely,

Bakithi Kumalo

Also, there is "Ramon".

and "Babydoll"! and "My Eyes," which is the most gorgeous song she's ever written and talk-sung!

Milton Parker comes closest to nailing the circumstances under which the album was recorded; but where he's closest to the non-pop moments I find its movements towards a wider word at once thrilling and fragile. I'm possibly tainted by having heard Strange Angels before the others, so that Big Science and even Mister Heartbreak seemed stilted and arch. The title track and "The Dream Before" encapsulate everything worth preserving about her after "O Superman" -- intelligent, buoyant, and moving.

*a wider world

I'm still in the

Laurie Anderson songs < Laurie Anderson spoken word performance

camp.

But as far as Strange Angels go, "The Dream Before" is pretty nice.

Alfred, I'd heard Big Science and Mister Heartbreak prior and I love Strange Angels. I don't know who these crazy people are!

For a grander Big Science-era fix, you should really get United States Live next (Strange Angels is also great, but entirely different). Avoid Mr. Heartbreak unless you're a devoted Gabriel/Bush nut.

i do feel the possibility of Bush here. and of course, i am a Bush not. As for GAbriel, not so much yet.

i don't know, it doesn't register with me at all. i'd say go for Bright Red before that, it works better on the whole. not that I listen to it that much either (I do like the duet with Lou Reed)

oops *Bush nut =)

I wish I had been here for more Laurie Talk. Did anyone mention Bright Red? I stick by Big Science, but that's got some great bits on it. "Did she fall or was she pushed"

dicks don't have ears

although I suppose you could hook a little tin one on there

Why do people always get so abusive on this board. It's not fox hunting y'know. That's right nabisco, turn the other cheek!

i don't even know what just happened

I never know what just happened. How're you doin' on the album now?

this album? it's very good! i'm totally into it. i think my fav song is Ex. 22, not necessarily b/c it's the poppiest, just cuz it's nice and cohesive.

Mine is Let X=X. This always reminds me of the room I lived in in first year in College, I listened to this and Matmos every time I was going out. Seems a bit weird now.

love this album. i've been listening to it for like a year now and still am not sick of it, which is pretty rare for me