Home -> Magazines -> Issues -> Articles in this issue -> View
Getting The Holy Ghost Across | |
Bill NelsonArticle from Sound On Sound, July 1986 |
Contractual hassles have kept musician/producer Bill Nelson hopping from one record label to another since the demise of Be-Bop Deluxe, yet he has still managed to record some exemplary albums using the facility of his 16-track home studio. Ian Gilby finds out how he put his new album together.
Fact: Bill Nelson has talent - his latest album confirms that. But for some ridiculous reason, just when it looks like commercial success is on its way, record industry politics throw another spanner in the works! Holdups, delays, and record company changes are so much an accepted part of life for Bill Nelson it seems. Frustrated, yet undaunted, he still manages to produce stimulating, quality music that deserves a wider audience than it currently receives. So how does he do it? To find out, I asked Bill how the new album Getting The Holy Ghost Across was put together.
Hardly that! You're doing yourself a terrible injustice there Bill.
"...I dabble with things, really. For me, the interest with keyboards has always been on the textural side, having access to sounds that go beyond the rock guitar thing which I briefly got bored with after Be-Bop Deluxe."
Do you ever feel tempted to return to a more orthodox song-oriented style of music?
"No. I don't feel any personal push to actually become a Paul McCartney type of songwriter. As I said earlier, one of the reasons why I don't really consider myself a musician now is that I am less interested in what I do from the point of view purely of music. I like to think of it more as a means of expression that happens to kind of hang itself generally on music but flows into other areas as well. I'm all for knocking down the boundaries of what music can and can't be...
There was a period in time recently, when it looked as if the contemporary music field was opening up to more influences. Indeed it has opened up and absorbed certain things from non-popular areas - non-rock and roll areas if you like. And yet, it absorbs them and makes them dogmatic within the structure that it creates from that absorption.
What happens is that you have this dogmatic popular music structure which says that a single has to be three minutes long, that it has to be danceable, that it has to appeal to 14-17 year-olds, that it has to be able to be remembered after one listen and that it has to have an intro that a DJ can talk over. So there are all these strictures which say 'this is a pop song', and then within that framework you have to create something which is interesting and perhaps stands out against other pop songs.
Inevitably, you get a few musicians who've been through art school usually, though I did that myself, who 'discover' people like Schoenberg or Stockhausen, and they'll add these bits to their music. And for a few minutes in pop's eternity, you get this idea that suddenly there's this brave new world where you can mix and match, and blend and synthesize different kinds of musical idioms into pop music.
But such people take only the very superficial elements of that music, often without understanding the root or reason why these esoteric and more exotic forms of music exist. They are attracted by the surface glamour and the fact that such music is foreign (and therefore different) but they haven't researched its history or played enough in that area of music to really get the soul of it. So they end up taking this hollow kind of element and graft it rather ungainly onto this popular music idiom to create a new structure which is itself still intrinsically pop, but has these quirky bits added.
That is then absorbed into the system, but as it is, it's dogmatized and becomes very structured and rigid. So that in the end, this so-called 'new music' becomes as formularized and as blinkered as the music they had been trying to develop and take further in the first place!
Bit by bit, it does progress in form, but you find usually that the content of pop music hasn't progressed much at all over the last thirty years. All that's happened is that it's dressed up in different clothes."
Isn't the technology of today's instruments partly to blame for that? By making things more instant, doesn't it promote a trivial attitude to the content of the music?
"No. Surely, all these kinds of things like computers, sequencers and sampling keyboards are only like having extra colours added to a painter's palette or more tools for a sculptor?
The fault lies in that the emphasis is placed heavily on the equipment being the means to the end, if you like, rather than the person operating it. And I'm sure that there are a lot of people who really believe that if they have a sequencer and a sampling keyboard that they really don't need to have much to say. That simply by pushing a few buttons and linking up some MIDI cables, they can cobble together something that they are going to be on 'Top Of The Pops' with next week.
Of course, sometimes it does happen like that, but I don't think that you can justifiably blame the equipment for that. What you have to blame is the attitude that is fostered by the record industry who don't encourage a young person setting out in music to dig into himself before he ever starts digging into his keyboards.
And even the way that those instruments are sold doesn't help either. Often, at the lower end of the keyboard market, there is great emphasis placed on making things easier for people to play - one-finger chords and auto-accompaniment devices, you know the sort of thing I mean. In themselves, those things can be used interestingly, but that element of the technology does tend to encourage a lazy attitude.
At the end of the day, it's not really a technological problem, or even a musical problem - it's a social one. The average person in Britain today is not really encouraged to develop to the best of their potential, either in music or in any other form. The whole idea of the craftsman who takes pride in what he's doing is unfortunately on the decline, and that is reflected throughout the whole of society, not just in the music business."
Yes, but surely there are still craftsmen among the present generation of musicians?
"Yes, there are people like David Sylvian who I've been working with recently. He does take the craftsman's approach in that he cares very deeply about the quality of his work. Not just in the technical sense, ie. that it's recorded well or played in time, but that he cares about what he is saying. You can get away with shoddy technical performances and a rough recording provided something is being said and communicated through the music. And for me, David's example of the dedication he puts into the meaning of his work - the content side of it - shines more than anything he might do on a technical level with studio techniques or expensive keyboards. In fact, I'm sure that if David sat down with just an acoustic guitar and recorded his songs on a simple cassette recorder, he'd still communicate more than bands like Sigue Sigue Sputnik could in a million years!"
So how does your album fit in with all this? Is there any particular concept tying it all together?
"If there is an overall concept, then it's a reflection of some events that I went through when I first started work on the album, which brought me to some of the conclusions that I've been talking about in terms of content. Working on the technology of self before the technology of the music, if you like. But I related the album to very basic things because I didn't want to get too esoteric and too abstract. I wanted to capture the essence of things. And so I used analogies of the male/female relationship, which is the most common and often used subject within pop music, yet tried to explore it from a spiritual point of view..."
Hence the album's title - Getting The Holy Ghost Across?
"Precisely. Though I must admit that with the music, I did go further than I had intended. I wanted to keep it very sparse initially and yet kept hearing parts that I felt needed to be there."
How did you structure the songs? Did you begin with lyrics?
"The lyrics for songs were written after the basic backing tracks were recorded. Each track wasn't just like me sitting down and saying I'll doodle and see what comes out - which is how I work for purely instrumental pieces, to maintain spontaneity. There were elements of that in the process, obviously, but those elements were hung on a framework I had conceived - or at least sat down and thought about - before I started playing anything, and that was to do with 'moods'. And the moods were to do with particular feelings of an esoteric nature, but related to the world, not removed from it.
The songs all had working titles at the start and odd lyric lines that related to what I felt the picture in my head was musically. So that when I actually sat down then with the basic song structures, once they'd been fleshed out, and had to write finished lyrics, I knew what I was looking for.
The hardest part was trimming the lyrics to fit the mood precisely. There was only one way that the lyrics could have gone per song and adding those lyrics to it didn't change the musical structure but completed it, as it were. When I came to do further overdubs, I didn't really find I had to change the mood of the song dramatically away from what it already was at that stage, it was more a matter of underlining and emphasising things musically."
Did there ever come a point where you couldn't obtain the sound you heard in your head from the instruments you had at your disposal?
"Well, I suppose we all tend to work within the restrictions of the tone colours that are available to us at any point in time, but yes, there were certain things that I could hear or imagine that I couldn't quite get out of the Yamaha DX7 and CS70M I have at home. I did hire an Emulator II briefly during the Rockfield sessions to give me a more realistic cello sound, because I conceived the songs with orchestral textures in mind originally but couldn't afford an orchestra. The Emulator sample was simply an easy way of achieving that."
Is that why you used a violin player on several tracks?
"There's only real violin on one track actually - 'Wildest Dreams'; the rest is my Yamaha CS70M violin patch. I'm quite proud of that one!"
You are best known for your skilful guitar playing with Be-Bop Deluxe and, refreshingly, there is far more guitar on this record than on previous Bill Nelson albums. Did this come about through a dissatisfaction with keyboards?
"Partly, but it had more to do with the fact that the guitar is still the most emotive and spontaneous instrument for me to play, and since many of the songs were dealing with inner emotive qualities, it seemed logical for me to use the guitar to express those feelings."
Does this mean we'll be hearing more of your guitar playing on future albums?
"Probably. I've found myself being drawn back recently towards the guitar because my ideas as a person are becoming more emotive and spontaneous again, after having gone through a lengthy period of musical self-analysis and being in love with the mechanical textures of synths. And like anything I suppose, you can only sustain interest in things for so long before you feel the need to move on."
Bill Nelson (Bill Nelson) |
Bill Nelson (Bill Nelson) |
Bill Nelson (Bill Nelson) |
A Full Nelson (Bill Nelson) |
Peak Aid (Bill Nelson) |
Bill Nelson - A Musical Luminary (Bill Nelson) |
Interview by Ian Gilby
Previous article in this issue:
Next article in this issue:
mu:zines is the result of thousands of hours of effort, and will require many thousands more going forward to reach our goals of getting all this content online.
If you value this resource, you can support this project - it really helps!
New issues that have been donated or scanned for us this month.
All donations and support are gratefully appreciated - thank you.
Do you have any of these magazine issues?
If so, and you can donate, lend or scan them to help complete our archive, please get in touch via the Contribute page - thanks!