Feedback on a collaboration idea required...

I just want to say I think it's a FABULOUS idea, and I want nothing to do with it. :lol: :wink:

Seriously, I think that would be so cool. The hardest part will be the logistics and keeping everyone straight with what they are supposed to do with which track.

The only part I question is if perhaps having NO part be consistent throughout might make for jerky transitions at, say the 45-second points, or wherever it is that the switch is made. Even if they are in the same key and tempo, having the drums suddenly change to a different rhythm might be jolting. A live drummer can switch to different rhythms within a song, but the transitions are smooth, not just cut off one and begin the next.

Wonder if it might be good to have the drum track all one track, as the one thread of continuity through the piece, even if the drum rhythm changes within.

Margaret

I think you could do the drum bit kind of like they do in techno I believe. I don't listen to much of it but the few times I have they would play on for hours and it would be tied together by the same bass drum. That could be your click track per se. Then each player could still do a drum rhythm of their choosing as long as they laid it over the bass drum correctly.

I almost think it would be more interesting if it were staggered. By that I mean say I would create the drums to section1, the rhythm to section 2, the bass to section 3 and the lead to section 4. You, in this example, would do the rhythm section 1, bass section 2, lead section 3, and drums section 4; and so forth. But then again... Just typing that gave me a headache.

Ya know, easiest way to find out if it is a worthy ideal is doing it. Post a thread, I'll hop on. I think it sounds fun.

Edited: Better yet, start a thread and give me a spot. I know how quick you people can be sometimes :)

Jim

I almost think it would be more interesting if it were staggered. By that I mean say I would create the drums to section1, the rhythm to section 2, the bass to section 3 and the lead to section 4. You, in this example, would do the rhythm section 1, bass section 2, lead section 3, and drums section 4; and so forth. But then again... Just typing that gave me a headache.

Jim
I think that is exactly what Misanthrope is proposing, the way I read it. Each time you add a track, you then pass it on down the line. So if you had four segments, four players, and four tracks (drum, bass, rhythm guitar and lead guitar) each player would have a hand in each segment of the piece.

I may be wrong, but that's the way I understand it.

Or maybe I'm misunderstanding what it is you are saying?

Margaret

I think that is exactly what Misanthrope is proposing, the way I read it. Each time you add a track, you then pass it on down the line. So if you had four segments, four players, and four tracks (drum, bass, rhythm guitar and lead guitar) each player would have a hand in each segment of the piece.

I may be wrong, but that's the way I understand it.

Or maybe I'm misunderstanding what it is you are saying?

Margaret

Well, in my example it is staggered. I am not playing the guitar, lead, bass, and drums in the same section or time segment throughout the piece. I think C&S is proposing that whever section you are working on, you would play all the instruments for that section.

Either way, I think what I said is way to complicated. But I love the whole ideal.

Margaret.. YOU been a busy person!! I have been watching all your work on the other threads in the online jams forum here. Cool deal. Lots of new people getting in on it?

Jim

Well, this seems kinda interesting, not sure I understand it all nor do I have the abileties to do either drums or bass (I could use loops though) but it sure sound intriguing.

I have no idea what I'm getting myself into but I'm in anyways and I'll adjust as we go along.

Go ahead, drag me into this mess! :D

The whole idea of it is that each player has done one drum track, one rhythm, one bass and one lead, and every player has contributed to each of the pieces that make up the whole,
Mis said he is gone for the rest of the day, so we'll have to wait for him to clarify, I guess.

And yes, Geoo, lots of folks have jumped on the bandwagon for the Jam Incubator. Can't wait until we have a completed one to post, and then the rest like dominos. We're cultivating jammers by the dozens. :lol:

Margaret

I just re-read the whole thing and I think I understand now (earlier I was at work :roll: )

So it would be like:

Player1 -> Drum1 + Bass4 + Rhthym3 + Lead2

Player2 -> Drum2 + Bass1 + Rhthym4 + Lead3

Player3 -> Drum3 + Bass2 + Rhthym1 + Lead4

Player4 -> Drum4 + Bass3 + Rhthym2 + Lead1

Whew! Not an easy task to tackle.
As Margaret pointed out, probably the drum tracks will be the most difficult to merge together.
The Master Host will have quite a job to make all those fit.

But it should yeild an interesting result.

I'm still in if you wanna have me.

Yves

The only part I question is if perhaps having NO part be consistent throughout might make for jerky transitions at, say the 45-second points, or wherever it is that the switch is made. Even if they are in the same key and tempo, having the drums suddenly change to a different rhythm might be jolting. A live drummer can switch to different rhythms within a song, but the transitions are smooth, not just cut off one and begin the next.

Good point. I'd been thinking about the beginning and end, and I think if we designate them at the start, then the person doing the first section can make the drums appropriate, ie, make a suitable starting fill for the first one and a suitable end for the last one. If we extend that to the transitions, ie, all the parts except the last one should end in a drum fill, then that should make the change smooth (smoother at least). Rhythm, bass and lead could be extended past the end for the person doing the first mixing to fade as required, like is often done with the leads in regular jams. Worst case scenario, it'll lean towards sounding like a medley a little more than sounding like I imagine it :wink:
Wonder if it might be good to have the drum track all one track, as the one thread of continuity through the piece, even if the drum rhythm changes within.
I think you could do the drum bit kind of like they do in techno I believe. I don't listen to much of it but the few times I have they would play on for hours and it would be tied together by the same bass drum. That could be your click track per se. Then each player could still do a drum rhythm of their choosing as long as they laid it over the bass drum correctly.

To be honest, I'm not too keen on having one common drum track as I think if the transitions can be sorted out, it'll be a much more interesting song at the end due to the variation. That'd be a good backup plan though, if drum fills don't cut it...

What do you reckon?
I almost think it would be more interesting if it were staggered. By that I mean say I would create the drums to section1, the rhythm to section 2, the bass to section 3 and the lead to section 4. You, in this example, would do the rhythm section 1, bass section 2, lead section 3, and drums section 4; and so forth. But then again... Just typing that gave me a headache.

That's how it would work, because you pass each part on to the next player and recieve a replacement from the previous player before you record each stage. You've outlined the same as me, just numbering it in the opposite direction.
Ya know, easiest way to find out if it is a worthy ideal is doing it. Post a thread, I'll hop on. I think it sounds fun.

Edited: Better yet, start a thread and give me a spot. I know how quick you people can be sometimes

Yeah, my impatient side concurs wholeheartedly :wink: I'll sort out an idea, run through it all a couple of times in my head, and put the post up sometime tomorrow evening (that's UK evening, don't forget!). I can use real names for an example now too, probably definately worth doing that for at least the first time around. Flowcharts ahoy!

What spot do you want? You asked first, so you get first choice... or do you want wait to see what kind of style I inflict?
Well, this seems kinda interesting, not sure I understand it all nor do I have the abileties to do either drums or bass (I could use loops though) but it sure sound intriguing.

I have no idea what I'm getting myself into but I'm in anyways and I'll adjust as we go along.

Go ahead, drag me into this mess!

Fantastic!, you've earned second choice of spot - same applies about waiting on a choice of parameters though, no need to rush :)

As for drums, loops and even MIDIs are going to be fine I think, certainly they will be for our beta test. I'll probably mix one from a few styles on my Zoom :)

I'll take a spot too, and do the 'master host' bit - not really fair to inflict all that on someone else :)

Fancy the last, Margaret? You know you want to really!
I just re-read the whole thing and I think I understand now (earlier I was at work )

So it would be like:

Player1 -> Drum1 + Bass4 + Rhthym3 + Lead2

Player2 -> Drum2 + Bass1 + Rhthym4 + Lead3

Player3 -> Drum3 + Bass2 + Rhthym1 + Lead4

Player4 -> Drum4 + Bass3 + Rhthym2 + Lead1

Whew! Not an easy task to tackle.
As Margaret pointed out, probably the drum tracks will be the most difficult to merge together.
The Master Host will have quite a job to make all those fit.

Yep, that's it exactly. Everyone does one of each part, and everyone has a part in each section. I'll diagram it out with names in the proper post tomorrow, and also the who sends what to who and when stuff. It'll be a doddle then :)
But it should yeild an interesting result.

I'm still in if you wanna have me.
But of course! :)

Fancy the last, Margaret? You know you want to really!
Thanks, but no thanks. I'm just being a backseat driver, that's all. :lol:

I'll shut up now and wait for the end result which is sure to be really cool.

Think I've got my hands full with my own brilliant idea, the Jam Incubator, for now. :D

Margaret

I'll take ANYTHING but number 1... for obvious reasons. I am so excited.

Jim

I don't understand crap of it but I'm in. :D

Haha! I had a feeling this might appeal to you :wink:

Gotta work late tonight, but I'll kick things off as soon as I get home and fed...

I've been putting some thoughts into this, thinking the drums transitions might a problem.

How 'bout doing it staggered but sequentially?

P1 does D1 and sends it to P2 who does D2 but with the help of D1 with him, (the transition between the 2 D parts might be smoother then) and send D2 only to P3 and keeps D1 and does his B1 part, and on and on.

Does this makes any sense?

We could do this with just the D parts or do it with all the parts.
While it might, and surely will, influence the next player to hear the previous part, the transitions might be a lot smoother that way. But still, no one hears completely what the others before have done.

I've been putting some thoughts into this, thinking the drums transitions might a problem.

How 'bout doing it staggered but sequentially?

P1 does D1 and sends it to P2 who does D2 but with the help of D1 with him, (the transition between the 2 D parts might be smoother then) and send D2 only to P3 and keeps D1 and does his B1 part, and on and on.

Does this makes any sense?

We could do this with just the D parts or do it with all the parts.
While it might, and surely will, influence the next player to hear the previous part, the transitions might be a lot smoother that way. But still, no one hears completely what the others before have done.
I agree with TTO. The best experiences I've had jamming required musicians feeding off each other, that is influencing each other. Isn't that really the essence of jamming? Of course it's much more easliy done live, but I think you all may be on to something here. It will be interesting to hear what you come up with. Although I must say, even when jamming live there is usually a certain amount of continuity, which I'm not yet convinced you're going to achieve. But it will certainly be interesting.