Beatles 2.0 in Danger of Forming?

[Ike Savage]

this would be a project of paul's son. lineup would be:

james mccartney
jason or zak starr
dhani harrison
sean or julian lennon





maybe the biggest kick i'm getting is just identifying the fathers from the pics of the sons. most likely the group would be a disaster waiting to happen, although a similar project like wilson-phillips did seem to do okay.

full article:
http://music.yahoo.com/blogs/stop-th...211511971.html

[sleepy]

But...but...

Where will they get the sound and the songs from?
Or are they looking to "be indies"?

The wish was, Paul and Ringo with Dhani and Julian or Sean.

There was a visitor from Japan in line in front of me for the McCartney ceremony who resembled Harrison and channeled his singing and rhythm guitar perfectly (or better!).
Maybe they should find him?

[ruby651]

This dog just won't hunt. First off, from the pictures I've seen, I'm pretty sure that Paul's kid is retarded. Although I'm sure what he lacks in musicality he more than makes up for in hugging too hard. Second, if they can't get Zack Starkey to do it, they should just throw the towel in. That dude was a helluva drummer on a Who PPV special I saw back in the '90s. Of course, if it's Beatles related, sucky drumming could be allowed. And third, these guys are just too damn old! They'll be recording at the same age their fathers were at on their downhill solo-album slide. People will be expecting Beatles and instead will get the Plastic Ono Wings Band.

[sleepy]

Shit.

...should I do it instead?

How about you?

[sleepy]

You know, Sean Lennon can be pretty damn good.
Take "Dead Meat" for instance.

"Dead Meat"

Dead meat,
Don't you know you're dead meat?
You just messed with the wrong team
Better not try and fall asleep now.

You better run out of here
I'll close my eyes and count to ten
and then I'll come find you.

You're gonna get what you deserve
Gonna get what you deserve
In the end you're gonna learn
Oh, you'll get what you deserve.

Too much now you know too much
Only one choice you leave for us
Do you think they'll believe us, or you?

Hope you realise this isn't a game
You know the price, okay?
Oh, your life could be chaos.

You're gonna get what you deserve
Gonna get what you deserve
In the end you're gonna learn
Oh, you'll get what you deserve.

[sleepy]

I would check it out on youtube.

Sean Lennon -"Dead Meat" - YouTube

[ruby651]

I don't know arne... it's not that it was a bad song, but, within 30 seconds of listening to it, I thought "It's an Elliot Smith rip-off". See if you can hear the similarities.

waltz #2 - YouTube
Ironic, since a lot of Elliot's work was very Beatle-esque. I guess if Sean's gonna copy someone, it may as well be an artist once-removed from daddy's group.

[sleepy]

Dang, I thought it was a partial "God Only Knows" rip.

But an artful rip it was.

[sleepy]

Elliott Smith now, I'm not well-versed in his catalog, but songs like "Coming Up Roses" he was very much a 60's "McCartney style", though I think overall he, or that song, reminds me more of Simon and Garfunkel, Faking It or other S&G album tracks.

[ruby651]

Yeah, I could hear a little S&G in Elliott's work, especially his older stuff. Now that you bring it up, I wouldn't rule out a little Pet Sounds influence... but, come to think of it, I doubt he was ever influenced by the Beatles.

American Beauty, Soundtrack - Elliott Smith - Because - YouTube
BTW, I should say that, despite its Smithian similarities, I was pretty surprised at how good that Sean Lennon song was... don't think I've ever actually listened to any of his stuff before.

[Ike Savage]

i must confess unfamiliarity with the afore-mentioned mister smith. sounds like a guy who belongs firmly astride a penny-farthing.

actually, no... scratch that. i've heard waltz #2 somewhere before. very nice song. when i shut my eyes, i remember ben franklin and i singing that on the boston wharves over rounds of shandys, summer of 67. before he got all caught up in that revolution thing.

[sleepy]

Should mention Smith's passing. Very shocking, and with suspicions of being murdered by or over his girlfriend(?), but it was ruled a suicide.

[Shockman]

They are obviously musicians, but has anyone heard any of them other than the Lennon kids sing or play?

They certainly look the part, don't they.

[ruby651]

Originally Posted by Ike Savage

i must confess unfamiliarity with the afore-mentioned mister smith. sounds like a guy who belongs firmly astride a penny-farthing.

actually, no... scratch that. i've heard waltz #2 somewhere before. very nice song. when i shut my eyes, i remember ben franklin and i singing that on the boston wharves over rounds of shandys, summer of 67. before he got all caught up in that revolution thing.

LOL! Well, you got the Boston part right... I think Waltz #2 was in Good Will Hunting... I know one of Smith's songs was, 'cause he was nominated for an Oscar for it. You like apples, Nic?

@Shocky: I heard Zac Starkey drum for the Who... a much better fill-in for Keith Moon than Kenny Jones ever was. But as for Dhani and that poor pasty moon-faced McCartney kid... not so much.

[Shockman]

Starkey. What is up with that? A stage name for a big name? And his mothers middle name? What is up with that.

[sleepy]

I heard one of the song's from James EP, but it definitely wouldn't be a Beatle, or even a Wings tune. It was waay too easy. Very bland.
Maybe it was meant Not to sound like his Father?

But then, Julian's latest song is exactly in the same boat, unusually safe and totally lacking any edge and iconicism. That release is only available as an import from Japan.
So apparently, two of them are already emphasizing that they are Not The Beatles or their Fathers, including Julian years later after Vallotte.

[Ike Savage]

Originally Posted by ruby651

LOL! Well, you got the Boston part right... I think Waltz #2 was in Good Will Hunting... I know one of Smith's songs was, 'cause he was nominated for an Oscar for it. You like apples, Nic?

hehe, i think i was unconsciously riffing on some little story you told in a frank sinatra thread. a story liberally recounted, yes.

"well, how you like them apples?"-- that was the line my main buddy in philly liked to throw down. my pinball-playing buddy who i used to play doubles (team) pinball with. it will be two years this month that i moved away. wish i could have moved back this month, but i'm just not organised enough right now, so i had to extend my lease another year.

on that note, i just started hanging out a little bit with this young jazz guitarist guy who moved out here from philly. he says the musical opportunities out here are better because of the decrease in competition.

oh, and the main thing i have against james maccartney is that stupid-ass wannabe anime-style haircut. andy warhol on life support was doing that look better than you were in 1968, dude. maybe you're making phil spector look a shade more silly, not that he cares. phil spector!

[Ike Savage]

tonight while i was sort of DJ'ing some music for my TT buddies, i was reminded of this nice little george harrison tune, "here comes the moon":
Here comes the moon - YouTube

not the classic that the first one was IMO, but pleasant enough. not to mention, just neat that he did a song sequel that not too many people will have heard.

[sleepy]

Okay, I got tired of waiting around, so I decided to kick this off with a 'pass-it-around song', and maaybe, just maybe it will finally get done, but Heaven Knows, I was betrayed by my Cakewalk and it short-sheeted the recording after refusing to mix tracks containing the accompaniment arrangement and I really did have a nice ending to it, but I'm beat.

[Ike Savage]

pretty nice, although kind of overly-mannered for the beatles. more like 80's TV theme show music for a show about paramedics or something. i'd be interested in hearing that with some kind of woodwind instead of piano as the main voice. also with some note slides and altering of various note lengths to add a bit of hipness.

[sleepy]

But I had syncopation in the second part,
before I was betrayed by my Cakewalk,
but for amusement purposes only...

[Ike Savage]

is cakewalk not a cake walk to use?

at one point i was thinking about getting one of those synth-button pads (for lack of a better term), like people such as HS (dan) use for their sampling / mixing. there are several, only around $150, that integrate in to cakewalk or some other bundled program. big glowing buttons in a darkened room, yea!

i should probably just bite the bullet as a birthday present to myself (46 as of yesterday, shit), just that i have no idea if such is very practical for me. i mean, i still have a decent little wacom tablet that i barely use because i'm not crazy about performance on the thing. i should just get an android tablet to do sketching, instead. and for all i know, there's an excellent synth-button mixer app for the tablet that integrates in to the PC, killing both birds.

technology is so cheap these days but moving about 5x faster than i can comprehend. or have energy to comprehend, anyway.

[sleepy]

The Cakewalk is serviceable, but for some reason it is not cooperating on a fresh install to my current system. And it is an older version of Cakewalk (ver. 8 ), so that might be it.

Happy Birthday Nic?

As for WACOM, I would opt to sketch in pen and paper, watercolor, felt pen or oil pastels and scan it with...a scanner bed.
Then tweak it in a paint or photo editor.
Now, if I could try out the high end WACOM that offers an interactive monitor as a canvas for drawing directly to the screen instead of "drawing it here while looking there...", that interests me.

I wonder what happened to "two point perspective drawing for 3D"?
Is that available in certain drawing programs?

[Ike Savage]

the reason i got in to the digital sketching approach is because i could integrate it into my general PC use. for example, while watching shows on hulu or off my HD i would have a simple MS paint window open beside it. since i'm reclining my achy body a lot, that works a lot better than the traditional art materials. i do still have a cabinet full of my old art supplies, but rarely use them these days. some time when i'm feeling better, maybe.

re: high-end wacom,
yea, that's why the tablet interests me. all purpose PC-device plus a killer interactive sketching surface.

not sure what you mean by 2-point perspective drawing in 3D. i've intentionally aimed for a childlike approach to art as opposed to the art education that i should have gotten, in retrospect.

btw, re: art,
here's a recent discovery through that silly izismile site. a guy named dain fagerholm doing a stereoscope thing:
http://izismile.com/2012/04/25/anima...s_14_gifs.html

[sleepy]

yeah two point perspective drawing I learned in art class over a thousand years ago, so I don't quite remember exactly how to use it, but it uses two dots spaced horizontally and *I think* you align a ruler to the dots to restrict your drawing action to the "sight line" represented by the dots.

Maybe Wikipedia has the correct answer?

[sleepy]

yeah two point perspective drawing I learned in art class over a thousand years ago, so I don't quite remember exactly how to use it, but it uses two dots spaced horizontally and *I think* you align a ruler to the dots to restrict your drawing action to the "sight line" represented by the dots.

Maybe Wikipedia has the correct answer?

Is there an echo in here??

[sleepy]

Yay! Last time I checked, they didn't have an article, but now...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perspec...nt_perspective

Wow, those animated 3D gifs are using "the flicky box effect" from the 1980's...

http://news.slashdot.org/story/04/05...d-movies-in-3d

Some years ago, there was an episode of "That's Incredible" on which was displayed a system that showed 3D on regular TVs, without glasses, and the crazy thing was that you could close one eye, and still see the 3D effect! It was a box, that sat between the camera and the recording/broadcast equipment, and the resulting image was interesting, but it worked!

The image shown would "vibrate", it moved wonky, but there definitely was depth to the image. You could record the image, and play it back, and it was still there - a form of 3D that required no changes in broadcast or recording equipment, no glasses needed to view, and no special viewing system to watch - in short, it allowed 3D to be created by anyone, to be viewed by anyone (as long as they had one working eyeball!), on any standard video equipment. I have never seen this technology demonstrated anywhere else, nor did the company which presented its work (along with video clips that were fun to watch) go on to produce these boxes for sale - the technology and the company just seemed to "vanish" (is it any wonder?).

The closest I have been able to find about how this technology works can be seen here [well.com]. Please note that the site has "not safe for work" imagery on it...

This site's images, along with another poster's (below) comments about "temporal 3D" via running two movies out of sync, basically gives me a clue as to what they were originally doing:

I believe (now) that the box was somehow delaying the signal, every other frame, then interpolating those frames in/among the regular video frames and sending them down the wire. This isn't a very good explanation - basically, they were doing a combination of the temporal viewing with the "flicker GIF" of two stereo views (but without stereo, just time between the two frames) to generate the image. At the time, it must have been really expensive (for the RAM to buffer the image, etc) - although I wonder if they could have been de-interlacing frames and sending/reconstituting the frames by double-lacing the de-interlaced frames to make up the lost pixels, then showing each one (because each field of the frame would be out of sync by 1/15 second - maybe enough time to do the temporal 3D? - and it wouldn't require more than simple electronics rather than RAM buffering).

Aside from the flicker 3D images on the web (ie, those two different angle 3D animated GIF's like I noted above) - does anybody else remember seeing that episode of "That's Incredible", or anything else about the device? The episode was on in the mid-1980's or so...

Well he almost got it right. The box alternated the left and right frames of a 3d video for a 2D output, just like the animated gifs do, though the gifs appear aligned so that they also take advantage of the Pulfrich Effect. At least that's what I told them to try back then, just about the same time I suggested something called "3D shutter glasses"...some longhair professors were given the credit for "the flicky box effect". It wasn't my name, that's all I know...

I was talking about this fact just the other day, how the 3D movies are shot with two cameras to produce the stereo interoccular spacing needed for a 3D effect...but they are not aligned to intersect what should be a window frame common to both left and right views. The 3D movies' window view is not scaled by a common "window" lens.

You can see the common intersect value at work with those animations...how they rotate around a common axis.

And The Pulfrich Effect for 3D is a misnomer. In his time there was No Way that the Effect on video would be known by him.
Video did not exist then, and movies, well The Pulfrich Effect doesn't work with the slower, less dynamic contrasts and frame rates of movies. I know because when I discovered the effect in 1983 while watching the t.v. one day with my dark sunglasses covering only one eye (while being bored), I immediately tried it at the cinema while watching "The Road Warrior", I was so exited.

It didn't work! It only works when watching t.v.!
So my folks took that too!
They ought to call it "The sleepy Effect".

Here's an example of Pulfrich, though I'm not seeing great depth-of-field in this example. All you need is a dark pair of sunglasses, or a piece of clear, dark plastic or glass over your right eye. Don't cover your left eye as this example moves from left-to-right.

There have been much better working examples of "The sleepy Effect" on t.v.
Third Rock From the Sun used it for a special 3D broadcast.
You can use it on any t.v. show or movie on t.v.
When the motion moves left-to-right, cover your right eye with the dark see-through glass, lens, sunglasses, etc.,
and when the motion moves from right-to-left, then cover your left eye with it. Amber shades might not work as well as blue or dark gray shades.

Demonstration of the Pulfrich 3D Effect - YouTube

[sleepy]

The animated gifs also increase depth *slightly* with a dark lens over one eye, though here it can be either eye since the motion is back and forth.

[Ike Savage]

wow, that's a lot of homework. i'm starting with the whole perspective article, and realising how much i still have a certain learning problem- i.e., understanding a concept in practice vs. understanding a technical description of that process. sometimes such just doesn't matter, but sometimes such is necessary to get to the next level of a concept. this stuff always gave me a lot of trouble in school.

as bilbo famously squeaked: "time! ...time!"

and more caffeine.

[sleepy]

You mean having trouble understanding the technical descriptions,
so you just go and do it instead of trying to read the book?