Isn't Siouxsie supposed to have sung back-up on this song? I don't hear her at all ???
Quote from: crowbi_wan on January 08, 2008, 20:33:58
I don't hear her at all ???
you're either deaf or you have crappy speakers. ;)
maybe use headphones, it should help. just listen to the "chorus", around 1:08 (
i'm me, i'm cold...) and you can clearly hear her howling on the background. the same can be heard from 2:07 onwards.
anyway, she's clearly there.
(by the way, isn't she who howls "ouuuuuu!" in the very beginning of the song? at least she can clearly be heard at the very end of the song, her voice lingers there for a while when other instruments have faded out.)
by the way part2:
although i was bashing deluxe demos the other day, i really like the studio demo on the TIB bonus disc.
but it's almost more like a different studio version of this song, than "just" a demo anyway.
I'm neither deaf, nor do I have crappy speaker. :smth019 Actually, I listened to the song through my Sennheiser HD 280 Pros (which are terrific cans)before I posted here. Of course I do hear what you described as "howling", though figured that was a guitar overdub :oops: So, that's actually her. Weird.
1000th post
from memory that cry/howl at the end is the one that's the most audible..
Quote from: japanesebaby on January 08, 2008, 21:56:17
i really like the studio demo on the TIB bonus disc.
but it's almost more like a different studio version of this song, than "just" a demo anyway.
i was listening to these versions back to back today and it suddenly occured to me that the instrumental track (apart from the lead guitar) of the studio version is actually slowed down - not just played in slower tempo but played in normal speed but the tape was then slowed down. then lead guitar + vocals were added to that.
that speed change creates the peculiar psychedelic atmosphere here.
and indeed, 'ten imaginary years' says:
it was an old song from when porl was in the group, so we reocrded it normally and then slowed it down to half speed (page 27)
surely i had read that at some point earlier but i never really thought about it while i was listening to the song.
On Join The Dots is I'm Cold with her vocals ;)
Quote from: japanesebaby on June 15, 2008, 18:53:48and indeed, 'ten imaginary years' says:
it was an old song from when porl was in the group, so we reocrded it normally and then slowed it down to half speed
(page 27)
surely i had read that at some point earlier but i never really thought about it while i was listening to the song.
I understood that they played it back this way so Robert could play the lead guitar at half speed, and then it would sound really fast when it was sped up.
BUT...
I figured out the lead guitar part to this song a long time ago (at normal playback speed and at standard tuning), and it extends down to the low F# on a guitar (one step from the lowest note on a guitar, which is E).
So in order for this story to be true, wouldn't these notes have to be yet another octave lower for them to be in the standard range of a guitar when sped back up?
I mean, you would have to play this on a baritone guitar at half speed to achieve what Robert described there.
Maybe he did, but I don't really think he used baritones until around 1981.
:smth017
P.S. There's some funky open tuning for the rhythm guitar on this song, which has always puzzled me.
Quote from: lostflower4 on June 15, 2008, 23:57:54
Quote from: japanesebaby on June 15, 2008, 18:53:48and indeed, 'ten imaginary years' says:
it was an old song from when porl was in the group, so we reocrded it normally and then slowed it down to half speed
(page 27)
surely i had read that at some point earlier but i never really thought about it while i was listening to the song.
I understood that they played it back this way so Robert could play the lead guitar at half speed, and then it would sound really fast when it was sped up.
well, i don't know a thing about playing a guitar but as the description goes, i'm rather confused about what you're talking about. the way i understood it was that they played the instrumental backing track normally, then slowed that down and robert played the lead guitar on it, yet that leading part was never either speeded up/slowed down.
in the complete quote it says:
it was an old song from when porl was in the group, so we reocrded it normally and then slowed it down to half speed, just so i could put some psychedelic guitar on it.
(page 27)
so i'm not sure what part in it points to the sdeep change of the lead guitar part? or am i missing something one can hear on the recording that unquestionably points into that(?).
anyway, the possibility that he played the lead guitar even one octave lower than it is heard now sounds just too weird. i suspect the playing would sound like it sounds now, had it been done like that: i think one could spot it since different instruments that utilize different registers do have certain charasteristics typical to them (but then again, nobody says they had to transpose it an octave - it could be some other interval too. in that case they just had to play the parts in different keys... again, sounds way too complicated to me. i can't believe they were sitting in the studio and pondering "ok, now i'm going to play in D and then we'll slow that down to half speed after which you're going to play in G and then we'll speed your part to match mine... etc." - that's just too complicated.)
so i'm really left to think the lead guitar part was never transposed/speeded up in the studio, only the backing track was(?).
(about the low f#: since it's only half a step, it shouldn't be not difficult to lower the tuning that much if one wanted to utilize that note. just tune the lower string half a step lower than usually. that's a pretty common trick with some other string instruments in some other musical contexts, like cello or double-bass or classical guitar. i'm not saying they did that on this song, just something in theory.)
Well, to put my case simply: Go into a sound editing program and slow the song down to half speed.
Listen to the lead guitar, and assume that's the original way it's played. This is simply not possible on a guitar - the notes are far too low. And no, you can't tune a guitar this low without the strings going flop-flop-flop. 8)
Also, it's so ridiculously slow this way, I just really don't think anyone would have played it like that in the first place.
Quote from: japanesebaby on June 16, 2008, 00:15:35so i'm really left to think the lead guitar part was never transposed/speeded up in the studio, only the backing track was(?).
Again, just listen to the song at half speed and you'll hear notes far lower that a guitar simply can produce.
The only way Robert's story is true is if he used a bass or baritone guitar, which I really doubt.
Quote from: lostflower4 on June 16, 2008, 01:29:05
Well, to put my case simply: Go into a sound editing program and slow the song down to half speed.
Listen to the lead guitar, and assume that's the original way it's played. This is simply not possible on a guitar - the notes are far too low. And no, you can't tune a guitar this low without the strings going flop-flop-flop. 8)
Also, it's so ridiculously slow this way, I just really don't think anyone would have played it like that in the first place.
that was not what i meant. i simply meant it's possible to tune your guitar so that you can play f# as the lowest note. i didn't say he retuned the guitar and then played the part octave lower - because i don't think he even did that. i think he played in perfectly normal register.
and of course it sounds too slow when one slows the track down. i think that only proves that it was not done like that, recorded in very low register and then speeded up. like said, i don't really fully get why you say the lead guitar part was slowed down to half speed, as the quote on 'ten imaginary years' only says the backing track was(?).
(and if it was transposed (by using a speeed change), i'm still wondering why we should assume that it was transposed exactly an octave (be it up or down)? because you can transpose stuff any interval you want.)
anyway, i'm actually starting to believe it could have been like this:
they recorded the backing track normally, then slowed the speed down
> robert then added lead guitar on that (playing in perfectly normal register, with perfectly normal guitar)
> the whole composite track (both backing track & the lead guitar) was then re-speeded down a bit more.
now you ask: why the second re-speeding? i don't know. perhaps simply by an accident! it's been known to happen... or maybe they were experimenting just for fun and realized it sounded even more psychedelic that way. who knows?
anyway, that would perfectly well explain those overly low notes. and it would also mean that robert's story was correct after all (only he didn't mention the last re-speeding - like said, maybe because it was an accident?).
to me this is the most plausible explanation. i can't believe the guitar part was played with baritone guitar or something. all i have to prove that are my ears but to me it just doesn't sound like that. it sounds "too normal" to me, really.
ps. about accidental speed changes: 'friday....' is a well-known example. and i've never heard any explanation why 'bananfishbones' was in wrong speed on the original album version. the speed was changed on the deluxe edition which to me seems to indicate the original speed-change was an accidental one. why would have they changed it back otherwise?
Quote from: crowbi_wan on January 08, 2008, 20:33:58
Isn't Siouxsie supposed to have sung back-up on this song? I don't hear her at all ???
This is so true...
The point is that you can't really tell that it's Siouxsie unless you KNOW she's suppose to be there!
So it it's a bit of a scam...
:smth023
My favourite version is definately the Join the Dots version. In my opinion it's far better than the TIB deluxe edition version.
Quote from: japanesebaby on June 16, 2008, 15:08:33and of course it sounds too slow when one slows the track down. i think that only proves that it was not done like that, recorded in very low register and then speeded up. like said, i don't really fully get why you say the lead guitar part was slowed down to half speed, as the quote on 'ten imaginary years' only says the backing track was(?).
Ok, maybe you're right. Maybe the speed change was a lot smaller than I had originally thought.
I could swear I'm remembering a different interview than the one you're referencing. I thought Robert specifically said something about how he couldn't play as fast as Porl, so he had to slow the track down to half speed to keep up with it.
Maybe I'm just imagining it all/remembering wrong. Would be pretty hard to prove now, considering I have no idea where I read this (if in fact I did). :?
i remember reading something similar - i think it was in A Visual Documentary or Ten Imaginary Years. Maybe Robert didn't mean 1/2 speed, but just a bit slower?? or maybe he just made the whole thing up as he was well known for doing at some times!!!
Well, I'm really glad this topic came up, because I finally figured it out. This has something that's been puzzling me ever since I bought the Standing on a Beach cassette 15 years ago. :smth017
The live version was really the key to the mystery here. Notice it's much faster and in a different key than the studio version.
Well, just speed the studio version up 5 semitones (2 1/2 steps) and what do you hear? Exactly the same chords (and almost the same tempo) as the live versions!
The chords heard on the studio version are actually too low to be played on a guitar, so that's why I could never make sense of it.
So that's it: The rhythm section on the studio version was recorded 5 semitones higher than than what we hear. That is, the rhythm guitar, bass, and drums were originally a lot faster.
Then just like Robert said, the song was slowed down 5 semitones, and the lead guitar and vocals were added this way.
In other words, if you play it at the original speed (5 semitones fast), the rhythm guitar, bass, and drums will sound completely normal - but the vocals and lead guitar will be crazy fast.
I'm 100% sure of it. Check it out for yourself. :rocker
Quote from: lostflower4 on June 18, 2008, 08:51:56
So that's it: The rhythm section on the studio version was recorded 5 semitones higher than than what we hear. That is, the rhythm guitar, bass, and drums were originally a lot faster.
Then just like Robert said, the song was slowed down 5 semitones, and the lead guitar and vocals were added this way.
well that's what i was originally thinking all the time: the backing instrumental track was slowed down, then lead guitar and vocals added.
when you said there are notes that too low to be played with guitar, i thought you meant that the lead guitar part has such notes (i was too lazy to checkl myself, i confess...). but you meant the rhythm guitar, not the rhythm guitar i suppose?
anyway, what you are describing there is exactly what i meant all the time, in my original post... ;)
Quote from: japanesebaby on June 18, 2008, 18:22:27when you said there are notes that too low to be played with guitar, i thought you meant that the lead guitar part has such notes (i was too lazy to checkl myself, i confess...). but you meant the rhythm guitar, not the rhythm guitar i suppose?
Well, I was initially saying the lead guitar would have been impossible, because I thought I read somewhere that the song was slowed down to exactly half.
If the rhythm tracks were slowed down by 8 semitones or more (it was only 5 in actuality), the current lead guitar as it is would have been impossible to do without detuning some strings or using a baritone guitar.
But yes, the rhythm guitar as heard on the final studio mix is outside of the normal register of a guitar by a few steps.
And just to sum things up, everything was played in normal tuning for this song. The rhythm was played in the key of B minor (natural, to be precise), and the lead was done in F# minor - all on a standardly tuned guitar.
Quote from: japanesebaby on June 18, 2008, 18:22:27anyway, what you are describing there is exactly what i meant all the time, in my original post... ;)
Yes, you were right. However, without any specific evidence, I was hesitant to believe it.
But now I have proof - so thanks to both of us, I guess. 8)
i always thought that vocals only were sung in the "right" speed, after all instrumental parts had been slowed down --- now i understand how this song sounds so peculiar.
always a favorite of mine, both studio & live.
not 100% sure about this, but i remember some interview when RS said siouxsie & co. (severin i guess) thought i'm cold was one of their best song so far, and how the cure should follow that musical path.
it was before 17 seconds, and after SATB released the scream, and maybe join hands.
oh, and listen to these 2 albums, then you will definitely hear siouxsie's voice in i'm cold. although i have to say it took me some time to hear her too.