Bells on Who's Joe

My main interest is not in precisely how the sound was produced but rather whether it was intended to sound like a bell.

well, you can tweak the settings on rhodes pianos to sound bell-like.

listen to this sample. it's not exactly like the sound on "who's joe?" but it's similar in ways:

http://www.platinumloops.co.uk/demos/keyboard_samples/rhodesriffseven140b.wav

Patrick wrote: My main interest is not in precisely how the sound was produced but rather whether it was intended to sound like a bell.

Well now that you've clarified the question is this way, I feel able to cast my vote. The intention is certainly to sound bell-like, although I doubt that they really want anyone to believe that it is actually a bell (even electro-pioneers would use a bell for that).

What a relief, this has been troubling me all day.

Has the bell a symbolic meaning? It rings at the start of the album. A call to prayer? A warning of sorts?

BIGINOIL wrote:

Patrick wrote: My main interest is not in precisely how the sound was produced but rather whether it was intended to sound like a bell.

Well now that you've clarified the question is this way, I feel able to cast my vote. The intention is certainly to sound bell-like, although I doubt that they really want anyone to believe that it is actually a bell (even electro-pioneers would use a bell for that).

What a relief, this has been troubling me all day.

Has the bell a symbolic meaning? It rings at the start of the album. A call to prayer? A warning of sorts?

My personal view, BIGINOIL, is that the intended effect is funeral bells.

Patrick wrote:

BIGINOIL wrote:

Patrick wrote: My main interest is not in precisely how the sound was produced but rather whether it was intended to sound like a bell.

Well now that you've clarified the question is this way, I feel able to cast my vote. The intention is certainly to sound bell-like, although I doubt that they really want anyone to believe that it is actually a bell (even electro-pioneers would use a bell for that).

What a relief, this has been troubling me all day.

Has the bell a symbolic meaning? It rings at the start of the album. A call to prayer? A warning of sorts?

My personal view, BIGINOIL, is that the intended effect is funeral bells.

Is that an expandable view, or one of those little view-ettes?

BIGINOIL wrote:

Patrick wrote:

BIGINOIL wrote:

Patrick wrote: My main interest is not in precisely how the sound was produced but rather whether it was intended to sound like a bell.

Well now that you've clarified the question is this way, I feel able to cast my vote. The intention is certainly to sound bell-like, although I doubt that they really want anyone to believe that it is actually a bell (even electro-pioneers would use a bell for that).

What a relief, this has been troubling me all day.

Has the bell a symbolic meaning? It rings at the start of the album. A call to prayer? A warning of sorts?

My personal view, BIGINOIL, is that the intended effect is funeral bells.

Is that an expandable view, or one of those little view-ettes?

It's part of my view that WFTSC is a concept album. It starts with funeral bells, in Who's Joe, then basically the rest of the album is a flashback of the life of the person whose funeral the bells announce, and climaxes in Turn with the death of that person. Track 11 is the wake. Or perhaps track 11 is the afterlife (hell, maybe).

That's my theory.

Another theory is that WFTSC is based on The Odyssey. These theories are not mututally exclusive.

Patrick wrote: It's part of my view that WFTSC is a concept album.

Didn't you post this theory in full elsewhere?

I remember reading something along those lines.

BIGINOIL wrote:

Patrick wrote: It's part of my view that WFTSC is a concept album.

Didn't you post this theory in full elsewhere?

I remember reading something along those lines.

I've referred to it in various places. I don't know that there has ever been a very lengthy discussion.

I have a theory that it's an adaptation of Joyce's Ulysses, but transposed to modern day Manchester. I'll sleep on this and expound upon it sometime soon. I know at least Patsy will look forward to seeing it.

:\pimp3:

depthcharge wrote: I have a theory that it's an adaptation of Joyce's Ulysses, but transposed to modern day Manchester. I'll sleep on this and expound upon it sometime soon. I know at least Patsy will look forward to seeing it.

:\pimp3:

I look forward to that as well.

Patrick wrote: I've referred to it in various places. I don't know that there has ever been a very lengthy discussion.

Someone posted a long description a while ago, about the time that the abum was first being circulated. I'll have a look for it.

depthcharge wrote: I have a theory that it's an adaptation of Joyce's Ulysses, but transposed to modern day Manchester. I'll sleep on this and expound upon it sometime soon. I know at least Patsy will look forward to seeing it.

:\pimp3:

I assure you I will, DC.

I think we should have less bells and more money for public schools!

This issue will be part of my upcoming campaign platform. VOTE POPE in 2005.

Ally3000 wrote: It would appear nobody else thinks it might be a guitar

Ally.

There is also guitar playing alongside it.

At this point I shall declare that I am using a high end naim-audio set up.

If the vinyl ever fucking turns up I will play it on the Linn Sondek and give you a definitive answer.

Kevin Smith wrote:

Ally3000 wrote: It would appear nobody else thinks it might be a guitar

Ally.

There is also guitar playing alongside it.

At this point I shall declare that I am using a high end naim-audio set up.

If the vinyl ever fucking turns up I will play it on the Linn Sondek and give you a definitive answer.

I look forward to that. And I'm sure you do too.

It's a synth playing a bell type sound with a bit of delay added. No guitars until after the drums come in. Could be layered, could be one synth. The only one who knows for certain would be whomever did the programming. More than likely the bells have no symbolic meaning other than the fact they add to the slow, almost suspensful, buildup for the first song. If you think about it, Who's Joe would sound kind of lame if it just startd out of the blue to kick everything off. The intro is quite nice and adds production value as well as a sensory delight for the ears.

Bentley wrote: More than likely the bells have no symbolic meaning other than the fact they add to the slow, almost suspensful, buildup for the first song.

Do you have any specific reasons for believing this to be the case?

...I indeedly dislike 'bells' on NEW order recordings... (except on 'The Perfect Kiss') ...and I have to vote for it, 'cause there's something click or similar audible...

The Saviour wrote: ...I indeedly dislike 'bells' on NEW order recordings... ...and I have to vote for it, 'cause there's something click or similar audible....

I think you may have voted yes for the wrong reason; I'm not asking about the "click" that's discussed in another thread.

... now I'm completely confused, please could somebody bring my a Whiskey ?...

The Saviour wrote: ... now I'm completely confused, please could somebody bring my a Whiskey ?...

If I had one, I'd be glad to give it to you.

Patrick wrote:

Kevin Smith wrote: It's a keyboard programmed in the range that we associate with the sound of a bell. It also continues under the vocals for some of the first verse and reappears at 2.30 to 2.45. And at 5.02 to the end of the song.

Should we count that as a "yes"?

*No, Patrick, this way it's even more confusing... the sound Kevin means here is actually the keyboard playing the tune we can all hear, and of course it doesn't sound like bells at all, more like a jazz electric guitar maybe... The sound we're talking about, I think you'll agree wether it's bells or not, it's the sound he later described as sounding like a big piece of metal being hit... Furthermore, only with headphones, I can actually hear the clangy sound I think Steve's referring to, and it sounds more like Japanese bells sampled, remixed, looped, filtered and reduced to a distant echo not slow enough to be a funeral...

Mick Aneworderfan wrote:

Patrick wrote:

Kevin Smith wrote: It's a keyboard programmed in the range that we associate with the sound of a bell. It also continues under the vocals for some of the first verse and reappears at 2.30 to 2.45. And at 5.02 to the end of the song.

Should we count that as a "yes"?

*No, Patrick, this way it's even more confusing... the sound Kevin means here is actually the keyboard playing the tune we can all hear, and of course it doesn't sound like bells at all, more like a jazz electric guitar maybe... The sound we're talking about, I think you'll agree wether it's bells or not, it's the sound he later described as sounding like a big piece of metal being hit... Furthermore, only with headphones, I can actually hear the clangy sound I think Steve's referring to, and it sounds more like Japanese bells sampled, remixed, looped, filtered and reduced to a distant echo not slow enough to be a funeral...

Did you vote no twice, Mick? the last time I checked there were only two no votes and now there are four.

Well it sounds slow enough to be a funeral to ME.....

The more I listen to Joe the more I'm convinced it's a guitar only it sounds pretty much like the bells but it's definitely not the keyboard sound.

NObabe wrote: The more I listen to Joe the more I'm convinced it's a guitar only it sounds pretty much like the bells but it's definitely not the keyboard sound.

Whatever it is I feel sure it's what SM means when he refers to a "clangy" sound.

Patrick wrote:

Bentley wrote: More than likely the bells have no symbolic meaning other than the fact they add to the slow, almost suspensful, buildup for the first song.

Do you have any specific reasons for believing this to be the case?

Because the song would sound naked without an intro. It's production. For the bells to have meaning, the strings, and other synths during the intro would have to have meaning as well. Let's look at it from a mix perspective... you want to provide the listener with a build up into the first song so that it just doesn't start out of nowhere. Adding an intro to set tone of the first song and to add a touch of suspense is nothing new. Here, they've simply used a common sound(synth bell sound)during the intro that's present throughout the entire mix so that the intro doesn't sound out of place with the rest of the song. Why did they use this particular sound? Because the person who programmed it insisted it go on the record? Because they were forced at gunpoint? Because Barney's chirping bird sound just didn't fit the mood? It's all about the art of orchestrating and mixing a song. Could there be deeper meaning? Certainly, but that's up to the listener to decide or the band to explain it. Me... I think it's just a sound they used as part of the production because it lends itself nicely to the arrangement and mood. That's just my opinion though... to each his own :)

Bentley wrote:

Patrick wrote:

Bentley wrote: More than likely the bells have no symbolic meaning other than the fact they add to the slow, almost suspensful, buildup for the first song.

Do you have any specific reasons for believing this to be the case?

Because the song would sound naked without an intro. It's production. For the bells to have meaning, the strings, and other synths during the intro would have to have meaning as well. Let's look at it from a mix perspective... you want to provide the listener with a build up into the first song so that it just doesn't start out of nowhere. Adding an intro to set tone of the first song and to add a touch of suspense is nothing new. Here, they've simply used a common sound(synth bell sound)during the intro that's present throughout the entire mix so that the intro doesn't sound out of place with the rest of the song. Why did they use this particular sound? Because the person who programmed it insisted it go on the record? Because they were forced at gunpoint? Because Barney's chirping bird sound just didn't fit the mood? It's all about the art of orchestrating and mixing a song. Could there be deeper meaning? Certainly, but that's up to the listener to decide or the band to explain it. Me... I think it's just a sound they used as part of the production because it lends itself nicely to the arrangement and mood. That's just my opinion though... to each his own :)

Yes, of course, as I've said already today, everyone is certainly entitled to his or her own opinion. I think they're funeral bells and you don't. That's fine.

Patrick wrote: Yes, of course, as I've said already today, everyone is certainly entitled to his or her own opinion. I think they're funeral bells and you don't. That's fine.

Right... you also asked for specifics on my part so... there they were. ;) Cheers!

I'm not saying that any of you are wrong, but now the bells have been pointed out to me, I have become convinced that it is symbolic of a ships bell.

I have no idea whether ships have bells, and if so what they are used for.

Wouldn't they just clack about as soon as the ship hit the water and keep everyone awake at night?

A bell on a ship? What a stupid idea.

And why would New Order put one at the start of their new album..?

i'm still confused about the question...

i asked earlier if Patrick was referring to the melody being played in the intro, and he said "yes."

why's everyone going on about background noise and clanging?