Last Nights Performance on Canal +

BIGINOIL wrote: Well, I don’t expect you to believe me, Patrick, but I’ll tell you anyway.

Barney continues to sing the verse as normal, and a heavily produced recording of his voice, which sounds like it’s lifted straight from the Album master tape, commences the chorus. It’s at this point that the listener notices how different the live voice sounds, and so does Barney, by the sound of it. He sort of karaokes his way through the chorus, rather obviously reading from his Autocue, then the recorded element seems to stop.

It’s all very confusing, and the speakers on my laptop are really not up to the job of analysing properly. That certainly is what it sounds like, unlikely as it sounds.

Incidentally, during the chorus the ‘real’ Barney quite clearly enunciates words that are different to those which our Japanese friend assures us are printed on the lyric sheet in her copy of the cd. I have posted comment on this in the correct thread.

Thank you for that explanation, Big. I would never have predicted that approach, either. It sounds like it would be quite an unsettling experience for the listener.

The only real experience I have of NO live is the 511 DVD, and I would say it seemed to me the use of obviously pre-recorded bits from the studio versions was not one of their happier choices.

I decided not to focus very much on lyrics today, but I will turn my attention back to that subject at some point.

Patrick wrote: It sounds like it would be quite an unsettling experience for the listener.

Your use of the word "unsettling" makes me confident that I have explained that part of the performance very well. I am Unsettled of Aberdeen.

Of course you must take regular breaks from your lyric duties. Your brain is a muscle too, and needs rest just as much as it needs regular exercise.

I have been quite active today. Indeed, I have just posted an interpretation of the bridge from the title track that is so silly that I fully expect to attract censure from the moderators of this forum. An outright ban would be appropriate, but as I am a regular donor to the site, I may escape with a lengthy suspension and fine.

I notice that you have not permitted your email address to be shown on the forum. If you would oblige me with an email from an address which I can reply to, I would be most grateful.

BIGINOIL wrote:

Patrick wrote: It sounds like it would be quite an unsettling experience for the listener.

Your use of the word "unsettling" makes me confident that I have explained that part of the performance very well. I am Unsettled of Aberdeen.

Of course you must take regular breaks from your lyric duties. Your brain is a muscle too, and needs rest just as much as it needs regular exercise.

I have been quite active today. Indeed, I have just posted an interpretation of the bridge from the title track that is so silly that I fully expect to attract censure from the moderators of this forum. An outright ban would be appropriate, but as I am a regular donor to the site, I may escape with a lengthy suspension and fine.

I notice that you have not permitted your email address to be shown on the forum. If you would oblige me with an email from an address which I can reply to, I would be most grateful.

I've just come back from a little work break, that is a break in which I was doing a little bit of the work I get paid for.

I have sent an e-mail to the address that appears both in your posts and in your profile. Is that an appropriate address to use?

I am eager to read the interpretation you refer to above. It sounds delightful.

Carry on.

Patrick wrote: I am eager to read the interpretation you refer to above. It sounds delightful.

Carry on.

It's there now - on the Bells on Who's Joe thread.

God, it's shocking. I may have to remove it.

BIGINOIL wrote:

Patrick wrote: I am eager to read the interpretation you refer to above. It sounds delightful.

Carry on.

It's there now - on the Bells on Who's Joe thread.

God, it's shocking. I may have to remove it.

I've read it and responded. It's not shocking at all. On second thought it is shocking. Shockingly correct.

Patrick wrote:

BIGINOIL wrote:

Patrick wrote: I am eager to read the interpretation you refer to above. It sounds delightful.

Carry on.

It's there now - on the Bells on Who's Joe thread.

God, it's shocking. I may have to remove it.

I've read it and responded. It's not shocking at all. On second thought it is shocking. Shockingly correct.

Ooh, I feel a lot better about it now.