Posts
Monday, August 20, 2007
Preview of comming attractions
While I am trying my best to hold my opinions on the upcoming "meeting" in Louisville, I thought I'd refer readers to a little preview from David Bruce Murray....
The "unofficial, non-NQC-santioned," NQC Bloggers Roundtable
Apparently, with word of the NQC Bloggers Roundtable Extravaganza (or whatever they're calling it), the NQC board is VERY quick to announce that this is NOT an official NQC-sanctioned event. Perhaps this is to avoid having people say, "Well, why can't I go?!?!" Or maybe some people within the industry (who also serve as board members at the NQC) do not like the idea of the Convention endorsing (or at least inviting) bloggers who have a tendancy to rub artists the wrong way. Below is a press release regarding the event:
I guess I can understand this to an extent. There are some artists who have openly expressed their dislike for internet bloggers, and to have the largest SG event hold an official meeting including these people could only upset some of the very artists that make the Convention such a huge success (and after the loss of Gaither & Co. in the last few years, I would think that Beasley and the Gang would wanna make the rest of the artists as happy as possible!!).
No bother. I was always under the impression that this was a rather informal meeting, anyway. It will just be interesting to see what happens when so many (apparently open) minds assemble in one area....
I can only guess if Averyfineline.com is wondering if Libby Stuffle is on the NQC board.....
"NQC is not coordinating this event and is not making the rules for this event. We are simply facilitating the meeting space and credentialing the participants so that the event can take
place at NQC. It's no different from the level of support and assistance that we provide for the various industry associations that convene at the NQC."
I guess I can understand this to an extent. There are some artists who have openly expressed their dislike for internet bloggers, and to have the largest SG event hold an official meeting including these people could only upset some of the very artists that make the Convention such a huge success (and after the loss of Gaither & Co. in the last few years, I would think that Beasley and the Gang would wanna make the rest of the artists as happy as possible!!).
No bother. I was always under the impression that this was a rather informal meeting, anyway. It will just be interesting to see what happens when so many (apparently open) minds assemble in one area....
I can only guess if Averyfineline.com is wondering if Libby Stuffle is on the NQC board.....
Friday, August 17, 2007
Antares, or "Shall we play a game?"
Am I the only one who notices the blatant digitizing of vocals in recent recordings??
In the early 90's, a device known as Antares Auto-Tuner was introduced to the market. This wonderful new marvel was capable of taking "near-perfect" vocal performances and tweaking the slightly-flat or slightly-sharp notes enough to keep them right on pitch. When turned on low sensitivity, it is virtually undetectable in recordings.
Not too long after it's debut, however, pop artists started experimenting with the new tool. They discovered that if you crank the sensitivity all the way to the end, the result is pretty much a voice that resembles Joshua from "WarGames." This was used by quite a few artists throughout the late 90's to create a "new" sound.
Maybe our ears have grown accustomed to the sound.....
Upon listening to several recent CD's, I have been noticing a LOT of overuse of Antares (which, last I heard, was up to version 4.0, FYI). It almost sounds like artists are recording vocals in one, maybe two takes, and just letting the tuner do the rest of the work. This maybe a great time-saving process, but it also results in inferior products. Instead of putting their time into recording the best possible vocals on a song, they fly through it, and if they're flat, sharp, whatever, "we'll just tweak that later."
By design, an auto-tuner should do nothing more than simply augment a singer's performance. You should be able to remove the tuner from the vocals and still have a near-flawless track. Over the years, however, people have started using it as a crutch to the point that they feel they "have" to have it to stay on pitch.
Now, I know that many smaller, part-time groups may actually have members that NEED an auto-tuner to stay on pitch (to which I say, if you can't do it yourself, then you shouldn't use a plugin to do it for you!), but I have heard records from long-time professional artists that are saturated with Antares. In my opinion, there is just no excuse for this. It comes across as being lazy.
Having worked with Antares myself over the years, I have become very accustomed to listening for "unnatural" vocals. Examples of the over-use of this tool are not hard to detect. If a singer has a lot of natural vibrato in their voice, the auto-tuner will cause their voice to sound very "wavy." If they are sliding around notes, the result sounds almost like a tape is dragging (urrrEEEErrrrrEEEErrrr).
For those unfamiliar with how Antares works, in a nutshell, you tell it what key(s) the song is in, adjust the sensitivity, and the rate of correction (how fast it is at correcting the pitch), and you're set. Yes, there are more details to it than that, but overall, that's pretty much it. The trouble you can run into is if a song has what's known to music theorists as "accidental" notes (pitches that are not part of the regular key, but added for variety). You can set the tuner to include these notes in the key you're in, but apparently some people forget to do so. The result is an awkward electronic sliding sound on the vocals because the tuner can't really tell whether to adjust the note up or down (you're hitting between two set notes in that key). If they remember to include that sharp or flat note in the tuning key, then you have to NAIL that note to avoid the tuner from slipping it up or down to the next closest half-step.
For example, in "He Touched Me," the second line ("'Neath a load of guilt and shame") traditionally includes a sharp 2 (or a flat 3, depending on how you notate it) on the word "and" in the melody. I recently heard a record where that extra note was NOT added to the tuner programming, and the result was a very sloppy electronic slide, almost as if they were singing "a-und shuh-ay-uh-ayme." This was a national release by a fairly well-known singer (with years of experience); why would they let this slide (no pun intended!)??
In defense of the auto-tuning, I will say that it makes harmony vocals MUCH easier to listen to. No more sliding into parts. The vocals are RIGHT ON (which might also be a defense for using stacked vocals on stage). But, as with lead vocals, harmony parts should not sound manufactured. One of my favorite Gold City songs is "One Scarred Hand," and the beginning of the song sounds like Mike LeFevre was a bit off pitch for "He is...", but I'll take that over "He-uh-ee I-uh-is" any day!
I have heard arguments for and against the use of an auto-tuner on vocals, and I am not here to start up that debate again. I am merely asking people that if they're gonna use it, use it for what it's designed for. Instead of recording a song in one, maybe two takes, and letting the tuner do the rest of the work, take some time and give a song your best performance. The tuner will take the split second drop-offs that you just can't seem to get right and pull them up to where they need to be, but the rest should be all you.
In the early 90's, a device known as Antares Auto-Tuner was introduced to the market. This wonderful new marvel was capable of taking "near-perfect" vocal performances and tweaking the slightly-flat or slightly-sharp notes enough to keep them right on pitch. When turned on low sensitivity, it is virtually undetectable in recordings.
Not too long after it's debut, however, pop artists started experimenting with the new tool. They discovered that if you crank the sensitivity all the way to the end, the result is pretty much a voice that resembles Joshua from "WarGames." This was used by quite a few artists throughout the late 90's to create a "new" sound.
Maybe our ears have grown accustomed to the sound.....
Upon listening to several recent CD's, I have been noticing a LOT of overuse of Antares (which, last I heard, was up to version 4.0, FYI). It almost sounds like artists are recording vocals in one, maybe two takes, and just letting the tuner do the rest of the work. This maybe a great time-saving process, but it also results in inferior products. Instead of putting their time into recording the best possible vocals on a song, they fly through it, and if they're flat, sharp, whatever, "we'll just tweak that later."
By design, an auto-tuner should do nothing more than simply augment a singer's performance. You should be able to remove the tuner from the vocals and still have a near-flawless track. Over the years, however, people have started using it as a crutch to the point that they feel they "have" to have it to stay on pitch.
Now, I know that many smaller, part-time groups may actually have members that NEED an auto-tuner to stay on pitch (to which I say, if you can't do it yourself, then you shouldn't use a plugin to do it for you!), but I have heard records from long-time professional artists that are saturated with Antares. In my opinion, there is just no excuse for this. It comes across as being lazy.
Having worked with Antares myself over the years, I have become very accustomed to listening for "unnatural" vocals. Examples of the over-use of this tool are not hard to detect. If a singer has a lot of natural vibrato in their voice, the auto-tuner will cause their voice to sound very "wavy." If they are sliding around notes, the result sounds almost like a tape is dragging (urrrEEEErrrrrEEEErrrr).
For those unfamiliar with how Antares works, in a nutshell, you tell it what key(s) the song is in, adjust the sensitivity, and the rate of correction (how fast it is at correcting the pitch), and you're set. Yes, there are more details to it than that, but overall, that's pretty much it. The trouble you can run into is if a song has what's known to music theorists as "accidental" notes (pitches that are not part of the regular key, but added for variety). You can set the tuner to include these notes in the key you're in, but apparently some people forget to do so. The result is an awkward electronic sliding sound on the vocals because the tuner can't really tell whether to adjust the note up or down (you're hitting between two set notes in that key). If they remember to include that sharp or flat note in the tuning key, then you have to NAIL that note to avoid the tuner from slipping it up or down to the next closest half-step.
For example, in "He Touched Me," the second line ("'Neath a load of guilt and shame") traditionally includes a sharp 2 (or a flat 3, depending on how you notate it) on the word "and" in the melody. I recently heard a record where that extra note was NOT added to the tuner programming, and the result was a very sloppy electronic slide, almost as if they were singing "a-und shuh-ay-uh-ayme." This was a national release by a fairly well-known singer (with years of experience); why would they let this slide (no pun intended!)??
In defense of the auto-tuning, I will say that it makes harmony vocals MUCH easier to listen to. No more sliding into parts. The vocals are RIGHT ON (which might also be a defense for using stacked vocals on stage). But, as with lead vocals, harmony parts should not sound manufactured. One of my favorite Gold City songs is "One Scarred Hand," and the beginning of the song sounds like Mike LeFevre was a bit off pitch for "He is...", but I'll take that over "He-uh-ee I-uh-is" any day!
I have heard arguments for and against the use of an auto-tuner on vocals, and I am not here to start up that debate again. I am merely asking people that if they're gonna use it, use it for what it's designed for. Instead of recording a song in one, maybe two takes, and letting the tuner do the rest of the work, take some time and give a song your best performance. The tuner will take the split second drop-offs that you just can't seem to get right and pull them up to where they need to be, but the rest should be all you.
Wednesday, August 15, 2007
Selling puzzles one piece at a time
Two of the top headlines on my Google "Music" feed state that "Such-and-Such Group Complete Vocals On Upcoming Album." While I applaud singers' abilities to do their job, why is the doing PART of the job newsworthy?? You don't see a big press conference when a new building's floors are finished, so why should completing vocals be any more important?
The usual studio process involves many aspects. Songs are selected and charted long before anyone plays a note. Then the singers will go into the studio with (hopefully) experienced musicians, engineers, and producers, and will "track" the album (record the music for the CD), usually with one or two vocalists singing along as reference for the musicians. After all of the tracks are recorded, the singers will then begin work on their final vocal performances at a later date. (This is so you don't waste money on musicians sitting around while you try to figure your way around a song vocally.) Eventually, everyone in the group is happy with their performance and their vocals are "complete."
>>In this case, this is the point where a short press release is shipped saying, "We're done singing!!"
After the vocals are done, there will usually be some instrument overdubs done (such as an extra fiddle or steel guitar lick here and there), then the whole project is sent to be "mixed," where an engineer will spend hours making sure that every instrument and vocal level is properly adjusted and set. This particular step is often overlooked by smaller groups simply because they figure "we'll just mix it while we record it!", but in reality, something ALWAYS needs adjusted. Even the great live albums of the 70's were tweaked in a studio before being released.
The final step is mastering, where (usually) a second engineer will listen to the final mixes of each song and balance the levels, EQ, and overall sound of the "complete" CD. Think of it as a musical quilt, where each song is a finely-crafted square, and the mastering engineer is putting them together into one large piece.
This is GREATLY over-simplifying the process, but in a nutshell, this is what happens when an artist records their "latest project." I didn't even go into photo shoots and art direction for the covers, marketing, etc.; I just tackled the recording process. Even so, you can see at just what point the "completing the vocals" falls into the equation. It's only one piece of the overall puzzle.
On an interesting side note, there have been many instances where a group has "finished" their vocals, only to have a member leave before the album is finished. The new member has to come in and resign the parts that the other person already completed. If an overanxious group sent a press release out the day their producer says it's in the can, they will be rendering their news null and void pending the hiring (and recording) of a new member!
As far as I'm concerned, I don't care when Ford completes the frame on the new Mustang (which could very easily change when the body doesn't fit properly)....show me the finished car, and I'll get excited. Same thing with vocals. When I hear the final product, I'll show some interest. Until then, don't waste time sending out press releases....spend that time FINISHING THE ALBUM!!!
The usual studio process involves many aspects. Songs are selected and charted long before anyone plays a note. Then the singers will go into the studio with (hopefully) experienced musicians, engineers, and producers, and will "track" the album (record the music for the CD), usually with one or two vocalists singing along as reference for the musicians. After all of the tracks are recorded, the singers will then begin work on their final vocal performances at a later date. (This is so you don't waste money on musicians sitting around while you try to figure your way around a song vocally.) Eventually, everyone in the group is happy with their performance and their vocals are "complete."
>>In this case, this is the point where a short press release is shipped saying, "We're done singing!!"
After the vocals are done, there will usually be some instrument overdubs done (such as an extra fiddle or steel guitar lick here and there), then the whole project is sent to be "mixed," where an engineer will spend hours making sure that every instrument and vocal level is properly adjusted and set. This particular step is often overlooked by smaller groups simply because they figure "we'll just mix it while we record it!", but in reality, something ALWAYS needs adjusted. Even the great live albums of the 70's were tweaked in a studio before being released.
The final step is mastering, where (usually) a second engineer will listen to the final mixes of each song and balance the levels, EQ, and overall sound of the "complete" CD. Think of it as a musical quilt, where each song is a finely-crafted square, and the mastering engineer is putting them together into one large piece.
This is GREATLY over-simplifying the process, but in a nutshell, this is what happens when an artist records their "latest project." I didn't even go into photo shoots and art direction for the covers, marketing, etc.; I just tackled the recording process. Even so, you can see at just what point the "completing the vocals" falls into the equation. It's only one piece of the overall puzzle.
On an interesting side note, there have been many instances where a group has "finished" their vocals, only to have a member leave before the album is finished. The new member has to come in and resign the parts that the other person already completed. If an overanxious group sent a press release out the day their producer says it's in the can, they will be rendering their news null and void pending the hiring (and recording) of a new member!
As far as I'm concerned, I don't care when Ford completes the frame on the new Mustang (which could very easily change when the body doesn't fit properly)....show me the finished car, and I'll get excited. Same thing with vocals. When I hear the final product, I'll show some interest. Until then, don't waste time sending out press releases....spend that time FINISHING THE ALBUM!!!
NQC
By now, anyone reading this is probably aware of the NQC Bloggers' Roundtable meeting taking place Thursday during the quartet convention. Being relatively new to the SG blogging world (although I have been lurking among the other blogs for quite some time), I am excited to be among those invited to take part in this event.
As for my input on the event, I am pretty much keeping tight-lipped on what I plan on bringing to the round (or square, or whatever shape the table may be) table. The biggest reason for this is to avoid premeditated discussion and leaving as much open for spontaneous response as possible. The best part about these events is the way conversations take various detours and off-ramps from the main highway.
I am curious as to how formality (or informality) the meeting will have. Will it literally be an open forum for discussion, or will the NQC board take a "press conference" approach, where the invitees ask questions of them one-at-a-time?? I am (as I'm sure many other bloggers are) hoping that it is the former. My impression is that the whole point of this meeting is to give us "outspoken" typers a chance to put our mouth where our keyboard is in a live format, as opposed to sitting comfortably behind a desk, clicking away.
As for the passes and (rumored) meal, that's up to Beasley and the gang. I really don't care either way, as I'll be leaving early enough to get lunch at the Perkins down the road. A sub sandwhich wouldn't be a bad idea, though!
(I just wanna see if Doug really does wear that bag over his head!!!)
As for my input on the event, I am pretty much keeping tight-lipped on what I plan on bringing to the round (or square, or whatever shape the table may be) table. The biggest reason for this is to avoid premeditated discussion and leaving as much open for spontaneous response as possible. The best part about these events is the way conversations take various detours and off-ramps from the main highway.
I am curious as to how formality (or informality) the meeting will have. Will it literally be an open forum for discussion, or will the NQC board take a "press conference" approach, where the invitees ask questions of them one-at-a-time?? I am (as I'm sure many other bloggers are) hoping that it is the former. My impression is that the whole point of this meeting is to give us "outspoken" typers a chance to put our mouth where our keyboard is in a live format, as opposed to sitting comfortably behind a desk, clicking away.
As for the passes and (rumored) meal, that's up to Beasley and the gang. I really don't care either way, as I'll be leaving early enough to get lunch at the Perkins down the road. A sub sandwhich wouldn't be a bad idea, though!
(I just wanna see if Doug really does wear that bag over his head!!!)
Monday, August 13, 2007
With or Without BGV's????
Alright, we all know that since tracks became commonplace within SG, groups have realized that it is much easier to "cheat" vocals by adding another voice to the track mix. This is most common on the older-style songs where a solo will be sung over background "boom-booms" or "doo-wops," where the lead vocalist's harmony part will stay on the track to mix with the live group.
But this can backfire in many ways, and as of late, seems to be doing so at the most inopportune times.
First off, the sheer logistics of mixing a pre-recorded voice with live voices can be a nightmare, especially when the group is mixing from the stage. Unless you have rehearsed the exact distance needed to match the volume of the voice(s) on the track, as well as set your vocals to a similar EQ, your "fifth part" will stick out like a sore thumb.
Then there are groups who completely supplement their live vocals with tracks. In the studio, this is known as "stacking." On stage, it's just plain lazy. It's bad enough that we don't get a live band, now we don't even get live singers?? I paid to see LIVE GOSPEL MUSIC, not Britney Spears.
Yes, I know the problems with touring and the need to be able to give your voices a rest every now and then (just imagine if the Kingsmen could've done this back in the 70's!), but the way I see it, you have three options: learn endurance, book fewer dates, or go back to the studio. The whole point of a LIVE performance is that I wanna hear you LIVE.
This all recently came to light while I was watching the Gaither Vocal Band progress over the years (God bless YouTube!!). In 1993, Michael English, Mark Lowry, and Terry Franklin sang "Home" for the first time live. Bill was thumbing out the piano, and Michael was still feeding Mark the words. This is one of my favorite performances because it is LIVE, RAW, and UNEDITED. It wasn't polished by any means because the musicians (yes, Gaither actually used LIVE musicians) were still trying to find the rhythm halfway through the song, but it was REAL.
Fast forward 13 years....Guy Penrod, Marsh Hall, and Wes Hampton (and, of course, ol' Bill) are singing "Home" on Signature Sound's DVD. Of course, such a big "event" warrants rehearsal. But in this case, it seems somewhat unnecessary since Gaither apparently decided to use the store-bought track with the BGV's already in the mix (I have the same one on tape at home!). What makes me assume this, you ask? Well, the live singers have a tendancy to hold notes longer than the original recording, and when they do so, you can hear the prerecorded vocals cut out earlier. I also am pretty sure that Jonathan Pierce was not present to help sing the last chorus, even though his voice is pretty dominant!!
I am (sadly) not as surprised as I should be. I first noticed this BGV issue in 2002 when Gaither released his Carnegie Hall set. The Vocal Band opened with "I'm Gonna Sing," and the ending vocals not only didn't match what was on the record, but they got noticably weaker after the prerecorded track cut out.
I have included the two clips of "Home" for your own analysis.....
Gaither Vocal Band - "Home" (1993)
Featuring Michael English, Mark Lowry, and Terry Franklin
Gaither Vocal Band - "Home" (2006)
Featuring Guy Penrod, Marsh Hall, and Wes Hampton
But this can backfire in many ways, and as of late, seems to be doing so at the most inopportune times.
First off, the sheer logistics of mixing a pre-recorded voice with live voices can be a nightmare, especially when the group is mixing from the stage. Unless you have rehearsed the exact distance needed to match the volume of the voice(s) on the track, as well as set your vocals to a similar EQ, your "fifth part" will stick out like a sore thumb.
Then there are groups who completely supplement their live vocals with tracks. In the studio, this is known as "stacking." On stage, it's just plain lazy. It's bad enough that we don't get a live band, now we don't even get live singers?? I paid to see LIVE GOSPEL MUSIC, not Britney Spears.
Yes, I know the problems with touring and the need to be able to give your voices a rest every now and then (just imagine if the Kingsmen could've done this back in the 70's!), but the way I see it, you have three options: learn endurance, book fewer dates, or go back to the studio. The whole point of a LIVE performance is that I wanna hear you LIVE.
This all recently came to light while I was watching the Gaither Vocal Band progress over the years (God bless YouTube!!). In 1993, Michael English, Mark Lowry, and Terry Franklin sang "Home" for the first time live. Bill was thumbing out the piano, and Michael was still feeding Mark the words. This is one of my favorite performances because it is LIVE, RAW, and UNEDITED. It wasn't polished by any means because the musicians (yes, Gaither actually used LIVE musicians) were still trying to find the rhythm halfway through the song, but it was REAL.
Fast forward 13 years....Guy Penrod, Marsh Hall, and Wes Hampton (and, of course, ol' Bill) are singing "Home" on Signature Sound's DVD. Of course, such a big "event" warrants rehearsal. But in this case, it seems somewhat unnecessary since Gaither apparently decided to use the store-bought track with the BGV's already in the mix (I have the same one on tape at home!). What makes me assume this, you ask? Well, the live singers have a tendancy to hold notes longer than the original recording, and when they do so, you can hear the prerecorded vocals cut out earlier. I also am pretty sure that Jonathan Pierce was not present to help sing the last chorus, even though his voice is pretty dominant!!
I am (sadly) not as surprised as I should be. I first noticed this BGV issue in 2002 when Gaither released his Carnegie Hall set. The Vocal Band opened with "I'm Gonna Sing," and the ending vocals not only didn't match what was on the record, but they got noticably weaker after the prerecorded track cut out.
I have included the two clips of "Home" for your own analysis.....
Gaither Vocal Band - "Home" (1993)
Featuring Michael English, Mark Lowry, and Terry Franklin
Gaither Vocal Band - "Home" (2006)
Featuring Guy Penrod, Marsh Hall, and Wes Hampton
Thursday, August 9, 2007
Gold City vs The Cathedrals
I just got back from a road trip from Ohio to Tennesse (and back), and while on the journey, I put my iPod on "Gold City shuffle," playing a variety of their music from over the years. One of the CD's on the list was "Pillars of Faith."
As I listened to this project more and more, I began to see some similarities between it and the Cathedrals' "Symphony of Praise" LP from 1987. Now, granted, it seems that throughout the 80's, Gold City and the Cats went back and forth for the top spots on the charts (check out the Singing News 30th Anniversary collection, and you'll notice that, for the most part, they alternate every two or three tracks). But the more I listened, the more it became apparent that "Pillars of Faith" shared quite a few common traits.
#1. Acapella opening - Yes, half of SOP was acapella, but it opened with an acapella chorus of an old hymn ("Revive Us Again"). POF only had one acapella song, but it opened the record (and it WAS a little longer, maybe to make up the difference!).
#2. Uptempo, heavily orchestrated second track - Listen to "This Old House" and "If God Be For Us" back to back. The arrangements sound eerily similar....heavy banjo in the mix, lots of symphony, and the abrupt cutoff at the end.
#3. Epic power ballad - This one kinda sealed it for me. SOP had "Champion of Love," a huge "gospel monster ballad," as I like to call it, designed to get people on their feet. Same thing with "There Rose A Lamb" on POF. Huge arrangement, lots of orchestra, and lots of high, screaming vocals that are hard to duplicate on a regular basis (you might also notice that when each group came out with their respective songs, it also signaled the much more frequent use of tracks in their live shows).
#4. Same arranger!! - Lari Goss played a part in both albums (which might account for quite a bit of the similarities right there).
Now, both albums are considered landmarks for each group (and both were re-released on CD within the last three years!!). EVEN MORE things in common!!
I might also question why another "landmark" album by the Cathedrals, "High and Lifted Up" (a personal favorite) came out one year after "Pillars of Faith" did (and produced by....yep, you guessed it....Lari Goss).
As I listened to this project more and more, I began to see some similarities between it and the Cathedrals' "Symphony of Praise" LP from 1987. Now, granted, it seems that throughout the 80's, Gold City and the Cats went back and forth for the top spots on the charts (check out the Singing News 30th Anniversary collection, and you'll notice that, for the most part, they alternate every two or three tracks). But the more I listened, the more it became apparent that "Pillars of Faith" shared quite a few common traits.
#1. Acapella opening - Yes, half of SOP was acapella, but it opened with an acapella chorus of an old hymn ("Revive Us Again"). POF only had one acapella song, but it opened the record (and it WAS a little longer, maybe to make up the difference!).
#2. Uptempo, heavily orchestrated second track - Listen to "This Old House" and "If God Be For Us" back to back. The arrangements sound eerily similar....heavy banjo in the mix, lots of symphony, and the abrupt cutoff at the end.
#3. Epic power ballad - This one kinda sealed it for me. SOP had "Champion of Love," a huge "gospel monster ballad," as I like to call it, designed to get people on their feet. Same thing with "There Rose A Lamb" on POF. Huge arrangement, lots of orchestra, and lots of high, screaming vocals that are hard to duplicate on a regular basis (you might also notice that when each group came out with their respective songs, it also signaled the much more frequent use of tracks in their live shows).
#4. Same arranger!! - Lari Goss played a part in both albums (which might account for quite a bit of the similarities right there).
Now, both albums are considered landmarks for each group (and both were re-released on CD within the last three years!!). EVEN MORE things in common!!
I might also question why another "landmark" album by the Cathedrals, "High and Lifted Up" (a personal favorite) came out one year after "Pillars of Faith" did (and produced by....yep, you guessed it....Lari Goss).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)