I will take the word of an expert, sir.
I have never tried to play any any wind instrument, though I think I could get some sort of music out of any stringed instrument with a few minutes of experiment…?
Then there was Rahsaan Roland Kirk! At his peak, could apparently play 3 instruments at once.
I saw him once at Ronnie Scotts in London… by then he had suffered a stroke and was not what he used to be… but still very impressive!
You’re ahead of me - I never got to see him live!
First time I saw this, I was blown away!!! Rahsaan Roland Kirk - The Inflated Tear [Live in Prague, 1967] - YouTube
Hey Doug, I like it. Comments seem to be disabled on YouTube so I’ll say here… nice production.
There’s something about it which has a feel reminiscent of “It’s so easy to fall in love”, but the chords aren’t the same so nobody can do a ‘My Sweet Lord’ strike on you, ha ha!
What’s your writing and production process? I’m assuming the drums are sequenced and you play most of the other stuff yourself?
There are all kinds of weird techniques to produce multiphonics
on clarinet, saxophone, flute, etc.
And are sometimes used on polyphonic instruments too… I occasionally use harmonics on guitar and bass.
Jaco Pastorius (RIP) was a master of this on bass.
Many thanks - I really appreciate that you took the time to listen!
I had forgotten about the other YouTube music channel - I’ll have to head over there and see if I can tweak some stuff around. My regular channel, the one I actually look after and pay attention to, is here - https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC-mafdHmawmiXpS0wWJE7BA
Here’s the credits, tweaked for this particular song.
Personnel -
Doug MacNaughton – lead and backing vocals, guitars, bass
Jessica Stuart – backing vocals, guitars, bass, percussion
Ryan Granville-Martin – backing vocals, drums, percussion
John Sheard – keyboards
(Guitar solo - Jessica Stuart)
Music and lyrics – Doug MacNaughton
Producer – Jessica Stuart
Recorded at the NUCULAR LIBARY in Toronto
Recording and mixing engineer – Ryan Granville-Martin
Mastering – Fedge
We started with the bed tracks on guitar, followed by scratch vocals, followed by drums/percussion. I wanted Ryan to respond to what he heard, rather than just being a metronome/bed track. For all of the songs, there’s one particular guitar that’s the focus throughout the track, but other guitar get to comment and double at various points.
I’m pretty sure that I’m the bass player on this track, but that’s based on the harmonics in the choruses. I went over my planned bass parts with Jessica (producer) on Friday, March 13th, in preparation for Monday, when I was going to record all four of the remaining bass tracks. Then, I got Covid and couldn’t move, so she’s the only bass player on those tracks. It’s okay, she’s a better player than I am anyway…
This is a rare track for me, as I wrote this song in a single day - Usually, it takes a couple of weeks! That opening riff came later, but the basic chord progression was that day.
There was much tweaking of keys before we finished with it in E. It’s also in a raised ‘C’ tuning, on a guitar tuned down a minor third; bottom to top, that’s C# - F# - B - E - A - C#. If you capoed at the third fret, you’d get E-A-D-G-C-E, which is a really useful tuning.
I barely use any electronics - I used to have a Pod XT thingie, but I sold it when my dog got sick and the vet bills were coming in. I use a looper in the studio (Boss RC-202 - when I finally get to move to the US, I’ll trade it in for the 505), but it’s strictly to lay down the guitar part and ‘find’ the rest of the arrangements. I envy you people who can operate a home studio, as it would have been waaaay cheaper to record the album that way. But - it was great to work with other professional musicians and get their take on the song. For instance, Jessica was who heard the B3 in this song, and Ryan who connected me with John Sheard.
Ah, so it’s a real studio recording.
I do miss working with live musicians.
I moved back to the UK from the US just as covid set in and haven’t been playing out since then.
The old ‘British pub rock’ scene is a thing of the past, alas.
Operating a home studio isn’t really difficult at all, once you learn your DAW. Doesn’t cost that much either; an individual Reaper license is only $60 and you can get a decent audio interface for $150 or so.
And you have total control; don’t have to argue with anyone… 
On the other hand you miss the interaction, especially the magic that happens when a new idea comes out that you wouldn’t have thought of yourself.
Your optimism and faith in me are utterly charming, but entirely misplaced. I have long discovered that it will never be peace between technology and me…
The home studio is essentially Kludgeland, and is strictly there for creating the songs, and putting the first demos together. Other than that, some other fucker who knows what they’re doing can set up the mics and record/edit. I have enough on my hands because I always seem to write arrangements that I can barely play…
Well, I like to wear the engineer hat as well as the musician one, but that’s just me.
I would certainly recommend Reaper as a DAW if you want to just play around a bit: at $60 for an individual license, it’s a bargain for a very good tool. (No association, just a satisfied user)!
Hey, I have ideas for stuff I can’t play myself. But that’s why we need collaborators. Well, OK, we can fake it up with sequencers & virtual instruments, but it’s not quite the same!
I guess you have seen my YouTube channel… I’m a rather quirky writer… but if you have any interest in bouncing a few ideas, I’m all for it. I have ‘bits’ in the bottom drawer that might make songs with input from another writer…?
Hey, just to let everyone know - the lyric video to my third single, “Nous”, premieres on YouTube tomorrow (Friday, July 28) at 12 noon EDT. You can find it at this link - "Nous" - Lyric Video - YouTube .
Actually, I’m curious to hear what you think - this is the third lyric video that I’ve done where I’ve include the chords as well as the words. It doesn’t really take a great deal more effort, but I don’t know if anyone is actually interested in playing along or not.
And the official video to “Follow your Silence” is now a full week behind schedule, but I had a useful session with the guy doing the editing today, and I think we have a few things straightened out.
Side conversation about solfege - I had a fascinating conversation in French with my colleagues yesterday evening. (I’m doing Don Pasquale in “Don Pasquale” for ItalFestMtl on Sunday - we had our first rehearsal Tuesday, we staged it in two days - first orchestra rehearsal yesterday, dress rehearsal this afternoon, performance tonight. It’s “Instant Opera” - just add wine, shake well, and serve…)
Anyway - in French, like in Italian, the names of the notes are the solfege names - C is Do, D is Re, E is Mi, and so on. The word for flat is ‘bemol’, the word for sharp is ‘diese’, so Eb is ‘Mi bemol’, F# is ‘Fa diese’ and so on.
Because the notes are named for the solfege degrees of the scale, you HAVE to use fixed Do - if you’re in the key of Eb and you ask for Do, they’ll play a C.
Louis-Charles explained it to me this way - “Imagine we’re in the key of Eb and I asked you to play a C, meaning the root of the scale - your head would explode!”. Okay, point taken…
Hugo then tells me that they use numbers instead - if you’re in Eb and you say ‘Play 1-3-5-4-2-1’, everyone knows to play Eb-G-Bb-Ab-F-Eb.
So a major drag of their system is that the names of the notes are not all one syllable - all flats are three syllables, all sharps are two syllables - but the good news is, the numbers from 1 - 13 are only one syllable. (There is some speculation on why that makes French the natural language of ballet, even in Russia…)
When I started describing modes and hybrid modes, it was pretty painful. At least for classically trained singers, they really weren’t sure what they’d do if they had to describe the notes of a mode to someone else. When I started describing hybrid modes like the Dorian #4, the best they could come up with was to use the note names. Imagine having to outline that scale with A as the root by saying ‘La, Si, Do, Re diese, Mi, Fa diese, So, La’.
I didn’t have the heart to take them any further into ragas or maqamat…
And no, I don’t have any idea how you describe double flats, double sharps, or quarter tones in French. I’m still struggling with
Whole note = ronde
Half note = blanche
Quarter note = noire
Eighth note = croche
Sixteenth note = double-croche
Thirty-second note = triple-croche
Dotted = pointée
And we don’t have to get into anything more complicated than that, the Dear be praised! Still pretty amazing to be working on the same written music, but speaking about it in a different language.
Oh, yeah - Carole-Anne asked me if I’d ever had to work with the British system of breve, quavers, and crotchets, which I haven’t. I’m not sure if that’s because the British conductors I’ve worked with just automatically shift for North American musicians, or whether that system is falling out of use - I’m hoping some of my UK based Dopers can comment!
How about the rest of you? What are your preferences? Solfege with fixed Do, Solfege with moveable Do, note names, Nashville numbers, just plain numbers? I’m now intrigued!
Best,
Doug
Wow. “Do” not being relative to the key seems so very weird. I use Nashville numbers when it can be applied easily, note names where that’s easier to get the idea across.
I agree, though according to wikipedia “fixed do” is very much a thing in Romance language countries, much to my surprise.
Seems a bit silly to me when we already have the alphabetic note names (though of course there’s ‘h’ in the German tradition, so that’s not quite universal)…
Personally if I’m trying to convey something to another musician I use alphabetic note names for individual notes, and Nashville numbering for chords (if they are familiar with that system).
Oh, and don’t get me started on transposing instruments… who on earth came up with THAT?
Presumably there was some historical reason for it?
Some reasons here main one being that different instruments in the same family have the same mapping from notes to fingerings so an alto saxophone player doesn’t have to make as much of an adjustment if they pick up a baritone sax.
Does create a lot of problems down the line, though, especially for a novice like me.
Have you clicked on my link? https://vmirror.imslp.org/files/imglnks/usimg/e/e6/IMSLP199446-PMLP339588-rsl01004464966.pdf
C = Ut, or at least it is in that book.
I think “movable Do” solmisation is quite classical (and predates the modern French language), and is still taught.
There have been various proposals to sing modified syllables to represent sharp or flat notes (e.g. La → Lo, Le) if necessary.
I believe Indian music also has the concept of movable-do solfege, but of course they use their own syllables.
I think what is better strongly depends on the context.
New guitar day!
I made a deal with myself a while back that if I practiced, properly, every day for a month, I’d reward myself with a new guitar for my birthday (Mrs Snowman generously contributed as my birthday present).
It’s amazing what a bit of self bribery can do! 
An Epiphone ES 335 in vintage sunburst. I played many guitars in the shop, including a megabucks Gibson 335, and this is the one that grabbed me. I actually liked this better than the Gibbo.
I thought that I wanted a PRS SE Hollowbody, but when I played one, I didn’t like it as much as the Epi. The guy in the shop actually said he knew I’d go for this one from the way I was playing it.
Dang…she’s a beaut! I bet it plays a lot better than my old Harmony Rocket hollowbody. Enjoy it!
I find the neck profile on Epi’s to be chunkier than Gibby’s of the “same” model, maybe that’s what attracted you.