Was it Roger Scruton PSB sued?..

For general discussion of Pet Shop Boys topics.
Message
Author
Acelera

#31 Post by Acelera »

Good point, DM lost their sound when Alan left as it was always down to him to do all the programming.

User avatar
Jack
Posts: 587
Joined: Fri 25 Feb 2005, 2:12 pm
Contact:

#32 Post by Jack »

Acelera wrote:Good point, DM lost their sound when Alan left as it was always down to him to do all the programming.
Think that was partly why he left in the end. He felt under appreciated. Understandible if you're spending hour upon hour in the studio on the smallest detail.

User avatar
StevePSB
Site Admin
Posts: 4785
Joined: Wed 08 Jan 2003, 3:01 am
Contact:

#33 Post by StevePSB »

Zeus On The Loose wrote: And if Pete Gleadall is as good as some silly PSB fans with no muso knowledge claim he is, what are his non-PSB hits? He's just an average programmer on Neil's and Chris's pay roll. The probably have him salaried.
Who cares about 'muso knowledge'? I'm not debating ability or talent. It's what I can hear that matters to me. Like I said, it's all based on personal opinion, and clearly yours differs to mine and I see no reason why my opinion would be of any less worth than that of anyone else.


StevePSB

Acelera

#34 Post by Acelera »

Incidentally, with all due respect Steve, what you hear is mostly the result of PSB's own abilities. By his own admission in interviews, Pete just keeps the studio running mostly.

User avatar
glennjridge
Posts: 7987
Joined: Sat 01 Nov 2003, 10:28 pm
Contact:

#35 Post by glennjridge »

what is this idea that pete should suddenly be more "original"
the same people who complain he doesnt do anything orginal with presets are probably the same people who would complain if a arrangement was too avante garde.

and some people think that a good programmer has only 2 paths. total chart success or total chart failure. there is a middle ground.just putting out CD's with great production.

I am amazed at some of this talk about PSB arrangements or programming being lacking. this seems like I new gripe. I dont recall this being an issue when we dicuss a new release. ie, oh shame about the programming,or 'that synth pad isnt up to snuff this time around".

User avatar
glennjridge
Posts: 7987
Joined: Sat 01 Nov 2003, 10:28 pm
Contact:

#36 Post by glennjridge »

Acelera wrote:Incidentally, with all due respect Steve, what you hear is mostly the result of PSB's own abilities. By his own admission in interviews, Pete just keeps the studio running mostly.
I dont know I think its pretty much accepted that he does play on their songs. I guess how much is up for debate .t would appear he admits to doing some playing and finding sounds for them in the "sound on sound magazine demoing bilingual article I used to have,but the site appears to be down right now.

User avatar
Zeus On The Loose
Posts: 3480
Joined: Wed 29 Oct 2003, 8:27 pm

#37 Post by Zeus On The Loose »

StevePSB wrote:
Zeus On The Loose wrote: And if Pete Gleadall is as good as some silly PSB fans with no muso knowledge claim he is, what are his non-PSB hits? He's just an average programmer on Neil's and Chris's pay roll. The probably have him salaried.
Who cares about 'muso knowledge'? I'm not debating ability or talent. It's what I can hear that matters to me. Like I said, it's all based on personal opinion, and clearly yours differs to mine and I see no reason why my opinion would be of any less worth than that of anyone else.


StevePSB
You are of course, entitled to like what you hear but you can't say Pete Gleadall is a genius of sorts because as anyone into production/programming, such as myself or Acelera would tell you, he heavily uses synth presets and straight samples/loops from sample disks, hence PSB's music has mostly sounded lazy and generic, minus a few examples, for the last 10 years or so.

If he was really good technically, as you claimed, he would have had tons of non-PSB hits and would have been sought after, which he isn't considering he always seems to be available to do PSB gigs, one-offs and slave away in the studio whenever they need him. That suggests he's salaried by PSB Partnership.
Does cameos only.

Acelera

#38 Post by Acelera »

glennjridge wrote:what is this idea that pete should suddenly be more "original"
the same people who complain he doesnt do anything orginal with presets are probably the same people who would complain if a arrangement was too avante garde.
When people talk about programming are they really talking about sequencing or sound design? Both seem to have melted into one these days but it's not always been the case.

The 'gripe' - terrible word but oh well - with Pete Gleadall is about lack of effort in the sound design department rather than whether he sequences the tracks right enough (it would be pretty pedantic to say 'the high hats on A red letter day were off by a couple of ticks' wouldn't it then? :lol: )

Having said that, the whole concept of programming normally indicates that you indeed program sounds on electronic instruments. I am not sure if pushing 'A24' on a rack constitutes programming.

There, I said it.

User avatar
Kandu
Posts: 546
Joined: Fri 31 Oct 2003, 2:42 pm
Contact:

#39 Post by Kandu »

Eeehhmmm... the name of the programmer used by Hague and PSB in the CTH record?

I haven't got the booklet here right now with me.

J.

User avatar
AlfonsoPSB
Posts: 2211
Joined: Sun 12 Jun 2005, 11:47 pm
Contact:

#40 Post by AlfonsoPSB »

JLGY wrote:Eeehhmmm... the name of the programmer used by Hague and PSB in the CTH record?
Programming: Chuck Norman and Chris Nightingale. Original programming: Pete Gleadall.

¡Ese cine, Jose! :D

User avatar
jamie1978
Posts: 1460
Joined: Sun 14 Dec 2003, 10:23 am
Contact:

#41 Post by jamie1978 »

Acelera wrote:
glennjridge wrote:what is this idea that pete should suddenly be more "original"
the same people who complain he doesnt do anything orginal with presets are probably the same people who would complain if a arrangement was too avante garde.
When people talk about programming are they really talking about sequencing or sound design? Both seem to have melted into one these days but it's not always been the case.

The 'gripe' - terrible word but oh well - with Pete Gleadall is about lack of effort in the sound design department rather than whether he sequences the tracks right enough (it would be pretty pedantic to say 'the high hats on A red letter day were off by a couple of ticks' wouldn't it then? :lol: )

Having said that, the whole concept of programming normally indicates that you indeed program sounds on electronic instruments. I am not sure if pushing 'A24' on a rack constitutes programming.

There, I said it.
Please correct me if I am wrong, but didnt 'programming' in the classic sense basically die out with the Fairlight?

User avatar
Zeus On The Loose
Posts: 3480
Joined: Wed 29 Oct 2003, 8:27 pm

#42 Post by Zeus On The Loose »

Of course not. Tweaking *any* synthesizer is programming.
Does cameos only.

Acelera

#43 Post by Acelera »

jamie1978 wrote:what is this
Please correct me if I am wrong, but didnt 'programming' in the classic sense basically die out with the Fairlight?
Operating a sequencer, editing a sampled waveform or changing a few parameters on a synth all constitute forms of musical programming.
This hasn't changed - it's the tools of the trade that are different as dedicated sequencers have mostly fallen out of favour - except in hiphop - for personal computers running a software one. Likewise, many producers incorporate virtual plugins to the process as well, let it be effects processors, instruments or both. So, in essence, where sound design starts and sequencing finishes is a bit blurred now as it can all take place within the same environment.

What used to be done on page 'R' on the Fairlight now gets done in Logic in PSB's case. Even so, you could argue that the Fairlight was the first 'software sequencer' as it was built on a general purpose computer platform - albeit a terribly expensive one. :)

User avatar
jamie1978
Posts: 1460
Joined: Sun 14 Dec 2003, 10:23 am
Contact:

#44 Post by jamie1978 »

Acelera wrote:
jamie1978 wrote:what is this
Please correct me if I am wrong, but didnt 'programming' in the classic sense basically die out with the Fairlight?
Operating a sequencer, editing a sampled waveform or changing a few parameters on a synth all constitute forms of musical programming.
This hasn't changed - it's the tools of the trade that are different as dedicated sequencers have mostly fallen out of favour - except in hiphop - for personal computers running a software one. Likewise, many producers incorporate virtual plugins to the process as well, let it be effects processors, instruments or both. So, in essence, where sound design starts and sequencing finishes is a bit blurred now as it can all take place within the same environment.

What used to be done on page 'R' on the Fairlight now gets done in Logic in PSB's case. Even so, you could argue that the Fairlight was the first 'software sequencer' as it was built on a general purpose computer platform - albeit a terribly expensive one. :)
ah, ok, thanks for the explination

I have always considered 'programming' more complex than just tweaking a few bits on a sythesiser (ie attack, decay etc) - I understood that the fairlight basically incorporated a form of programming language which was quite difficult to master

This is how I personally have considered 'programming' - ie, literally coding in a computer language specific to a sythesiser/sampler etc. I imagine that this is less of a requirement than it used to be?

User avatar
Kandu
Posts: 546
Joined: Fri 31 Oct 2003, 2:42 pm
Contact:

#45 Post by Kandu »

Hello.

I think both Chuck N. and Chris N. did a far better job in the CTH record than Pete G.

It sounds much more original, clearer and cleaner than usual. When I mean usual, in the last 12 years or something. Since "Behaviour", actually.

Jose.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 13 guests