|
Log in to post
|
Print Thread |
|
|
|
|
|
User Showcase
|
Joined: May 2012
Posts: 2,936
Veteran
|
OP
Veteran
Joined: May 2012
Posts: 2,936 |
Nothing to Lose (psychedelic rock version) Nothing to Lose (Folk version) I posted the folk version of this song about a week ago and Floyd commented that he could hear a psychedelic rock version in there somewhere. I tried and failed to make anything besides a dogs breakfast. So I asked Floyd if he could help with the transformation. He said that since he got me into this "mess" in the first place he would help me out. I sent him the BIAB file and all the vocals I had recorded and he put together this version, quick stix, in usual Floyd style. Comments Welcome Edited to add link to folk version for those who missed it.
Last edited by JosieC; 11/26/14 08:39 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
User Showcase
|
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 8,979
Veteran
|
|
Veteran
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 8,979 |
I really liked the first version, but I LOVE this version! You have completely captured the sound and vibe here - great work guys!
Bob
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
User Showcase
|
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 7,052
Veteran
|
|
Veteran
Joined: Dec 2013
Posts: 7,052 |
Floyd certainly has the golden ears!! This song works great in this style-I agree with Bob that it's even better. B3 is a perfect compliment to retroize it! This is great-a real treat!! Good work both of you. Take care. Greg
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
User Showcase
|
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 5,139
Veteran
|
|
Veteran
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 5,139 |
I like both versions. Well done. That fj is a regular George Martin.  Regards, Bob
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
User Showcase
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 4,497
Veteran
|
|
Veteran
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 4,497 |
Hi, Jo !:))
This is just superb !!!!....
must be one of your absolutely
best if not the one !!!!
I love this !!!!great !!!
Cheers
Dani
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
User Showcase
|
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 8,109
Veteran
|
|
Veteran
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 8,109 |
Wow!
Y'all NAILED it! Fillmore West, here we come!
I already liked the original song, and I was very intrigued by Floyd's observation that it would work as a west coast rock adaptation. In fact, I volunteered to participate by contributing a guitar track. Unfortunately, as soon as the opportunity to participate happened, so did a bunch of other things, and I'm afraid my contribution fell through the cracks. On one hand, I apologize to Floyd and JoAnne for writing a check I couldn't cash.
HOWEVER... I believe things tend to work out for the better, and I am absolutely sure in retrospect that what Floyd did with this song is so much better than any contribution I could have made! Floyd has a supernatural omniscience about how to make music that appeals to the musical sensibilities of listeners, and it is no small thing when Floyd offers to collaborate.
You had me right from the get-go with that intro! And the steady bass-drums groove really sealed the deal for me! Others have mentioned the organ, and I'd have to agree that it plugs the song directly into the music scene of that period... but it's not necessarily a Jefferson Airplane sound. In my mind it evoked images of 3 dog Night, especially the song's ending. Regardless of the inference, it's a very good association indeed!
One thing about JoAnne's delivery in this version that really stood out to me is that the backing track really encouraged and inspired a whole new energy in her presentation. The original version was much more tentative and emotive. I must admit to being a real sucker for strings and beautiful harmonies in the same song. (I've got to ask... did you record new vocals for this version? Or were the original vocals sped up to match the new tempo? Because it seems to me that there's more enthusiasm in this version. So, if you DIDN'T re-do the vocals, it is the energy of the arrangement spilling over into how I hear your singing. Conversely, if you DID re-do the vocals, it's interesting to hear how the arrangement influenced the energy in your voice.)
In the final analysis, I REALLY like both versions.. but interestingly , for completely different reasons! This serves as an example of how a song can succeed with different audiences by approaching the topic in a new way. If I had to articulate what I like about each version, the obvious observation is that Joanne's version sings from her soul. It is her natural presentation, and so it naturally works.
Floyd's version draws a whole bevy of new considerations into the equation, which adds interest and complexity in ways we would probably not expect to hear from JoAnne alone. Which is one of the most compelling aspects of collaboration: it forces us out of the comfort zone and introduces us to new ways of looking at our music.
I bow to you both! What an audio feast for this Thanksgiving day! I am thankful to call you my friends.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
User Showcase
|
Joined: Apr 2013
Posts: 8,867
Veteran
|
|
Veteran
Joined: Apr 2013
Posts: 8,867 |
Good job Floyd and Josie. I agree this really captures the 60's vibe. Maybe the Wee Five sound. Two things come to mind. First, another 60's vibe this captures is that many songs were re-arranged from one genre to another by 60's groups. Second is to not overlook it takes a well written, quality song to accomplish such a feat.
Charlie
BIAB 2026:RB 2026, Latest builds: Dell Optiplex 7040 Desktop; Windows-10-64 bit, Intel Core i7-6700 3.4GHz CPU and 16 GB Ram Memory.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
User Showcase
|
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 5,086
Veteran
|
|
Veteran
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 5,086 |
Joanne, This is cool. I like the harmonies, the doubled vocals and the B3. And I'm relieved actually because I had the notion with him saying psychedelic and Grace Slick that FJ wanted you to emulate White Rabbit and scream feed your head feed your head with your lyrics. Both versions sound good. Personally, I like the lyrics to this song a lot which is why I still prefer the original version best. This is fun to listen to and well done all around. Josie
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
User Showcase
|
Joined: Jun 2012
Posts: 2,888
Veteran
|
|
Veteran
Joined: Jun 2012
Posts: 2,888 |
Hi Joanne,
I liked the original but I like the new version better.
Great job by Floyd.
I wonder how the harmonies are done and like Pat I'd like to know if the vocals are just sped up. If so it's astounding how good they sound.
I really enjoyed this adventure.
Guenter
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
User Showcase
|
Joined: Aug 2012
Posts: 12,921
Veteran
|
|
Veteran
Joined: Aug 2012
Posts: 12,921 |
Hi Y'all...
A quick note before I have to go get the turkey out...
A little about how this was done... Joanne sent me the SGU and all of her vocals - 3 takes of the main and 5 harmonies - a high, 2 lows, and 2 generated.
It makes you realize how cool an SGU file actually is... Joanne had done the hard part - setting up the chords properly with part markers in the right places... (and recorded all the vocals). I swapped out all of the instruments from the original. I liked the original - Joanne did a tremendous job on the folk version. I merely had an idea that the same song could be done in this other fashion as well - the lyric and its phonetic cadence suggested something to me...
I listened to various things from the era to pick instruments - 12 string electrics, a busy bass (those guys always wanted to be heard), a busy drum, an organ a tambourine loop... with the intent that everyone would be playing by the end - they were bands, first and foremost...
Joanne's lead vocals were all VERY close to each other. So I chose one and hit it with A Nectar patch - "Rock - 1969". Hit one of the others with a different patch and panned them L & R by 10%... They made a great doubled vocal - a lot of "space". I spread out ALL the harmonies and hit them with "group" patches from Nectar - and made them loud enough to "be evident". It all came together quickly. The vocal sound fit the band sound nicely.
The original song was 85 bpm. The new version worked at that speed, but I decided to see if I could increase it without "losing the vocal" - and I figured that any artifacts would actually "work"... I settled on 100 bpm - the instruments remained stable and the vocal had a tiny bit of effect added - that, again, works for the style...
Joanne deserves a ton of credit for what a cool write this is - and all the up-front work she did...
BIAB (PGMusic) deserves a bunch, too, for making something like this possible (an fairly simple)...
RealTracks in song: 1009:Bass, Electric, HardRockThrash Ev 085
RealTracks in song: ~1029:Guitar, 12-String Electric, Fingerpicking Ev 085
RealTracks in song: ~1032:Guitar, 12-String Electric, Strumming Ev 085
RealTracks in song: ~689:Organ, B3, Background Pop Ev 085
RealDrums in Song: PopAmericanEv^6-a:SdStkBB4, b:SnrBB
Tambourine Loop 132bpm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
User Showcase
|
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 8,109
Veteran
|
|
Veteran
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 8,109 |
Floyd, Thanks for the detailed description of how your magic works! VERY interesting!
In light of my previous comments about the energy in JoAnne's vocals, it is especially interesting to hear that you used the original vocal tracks. Wow. I totally didn't expect that to be the case.. I hear the two presentations very differently... and now I know that the difference comes from your arrangement, NOT because her part was sung with more enthusiasm. Cool stuff! (Something for all of us to plug into our thinking as we go forward with our projects! )
Still, the magician's technique is part of what makes magic what it is. You can describe what you do all day long, but the patented Floyd Jane alchemy can NEVER be cloned! You're one of those guys who is often imitated but never duplicated!
And we like it that way
;-)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
User Showcase
|
Joined: May 2012
Posts: 2,936
Veteran
|
|
OP
Veteran
Joined: May 2012
Posts: 2,936 |
Hi All
Happy thanks giving to all my American friends. I hope you didn’t all eat too much turkey.
This certainly was an interesting exercise.
I think for me the biggest lesson was one that Pat as alluded to. That it is that the arrangement more than the vocal delivery can affect the result. Floyd told me this on another project that we collaborated on. He said me that the way to get intensity in a recording was through the instrumentation rather than through the vocal. This is why he records the vocal against a very basic backing of bass, rhythm and drums and then add the “sweetners” to intensify the emotion. I have been using this technique ever since.
Floyd is right. BIAB is the most wonderful tool for collaborations.
THANK YOU, Floyd, for taking me on this journey and thank you Peter Gannon for such a wonderful product that I use everyday of my life. I cannot wait for 2015 to be released. Thank you Pat, Greg, Charlie, Josie, Guenter, Dani and Bob (times two) for taking the time to listen and to comment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
User Showcase
|
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 3,079
Veteran
|
|
Veteran
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 3,079 |
Josie,
I liked the 1st version and now I like the 2nd version equally.
Thank you floyd for your break down, I have many "2 version songs" and will try this method myself.
BIAB is such a wonderful program, I too look forward to 2015 because at each new version I update some of my old songs in this method, but with not so much success!!
excellent
Alyn
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
User Showcase
|
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 8,109
Veteran
|
|
Veteran
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 8,109 |
and thank YOU Josie, for adding your own follow-up thoughts and observations to the thread!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
User Showcase
|
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 4,335
Veteran
|
|
Veteran
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 4,335 |
Joanne and floyd, When I first heard the song I didn't think floyd's notion of psychedelic would work. Now I stand corrected. floyd, your idea of easy may seem a little more complicated for the rest of us. Great job putting this all together. Now having said all that and realizing that floyd can certainly make his vision a reality, I still like version #1. Thanks to you both for posting this interesting project. Tom
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
User Showcase
|
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,067
Veteran
|
|
Veteran
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 4,067 |
Hi Josie,
Although we liked the first version very much, we must admit this really adds something.
Great version! Compliments for Floyd too!
Rob and Anne-Marie
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
User Showcase
|
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 8,330
Veteran
|
|
Veteran
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 8,330 |
This is an excellent version of the song. I think I like both songs equally as well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
User Showcase
|
Joined: May 2012
Posts: 2,936
Veteran
|
|
OP
Veteran
Joined: May 2012
Posts: 2,936 |
Hi Alyn – Thanks so much for giving the new version a listen. I am waiting (not so patiently) for my 2015 to arrive. It would seem that the South African leg of the courier service is via donkey cart. I want to get going on mixing my Dylan and Denver album. There are so many new features I would like to use.
Pat – thanks so much. I am glad it has been an informative exercise.
Tommy – I agree that Floyd makes things like this seem easy. I tried to do exactly what he described but all I created was a dog’s breakfast.
Rob, Ann Marie and Scott – Thanks for giving the new version a listen and for commenting.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
User Showcase
|
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 10,869
Veteran
|
|
Veteran
Joined: Apr 2009
Posts: 10,869 |
I listened to the folk version...and the rock version.
I like them both.
I don't think I would call the rock version "psychedelic" however. It does have a strong 60's west coast vibe to it.
Groovy.....yes.... but not psychedelic.
Strawberry Alarm Clock..... that's psychedelic. I equate that style with the guitar playing..... and overall sound.
None of that style mislabeling takes a single thing away from the song in either version..... nice work from both of you on this.
You can find my music at: www.herbhartley.comAdd nothing that adds nothing to the music. You can make excuses or you can make progress but not both. The magic you are looking for is in the work you are avoiding.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
User Showcase
|
Joined: Nov 2014
Posts: 313
Journeyman
|
|
Journeyman
Joined: Nov 2014
Posts: 313 |
Hello Josie,
I like both versions
Brite folk version, nice drive in the PR version.
Your voice is great. I believe everything you sing.
@Floyd
Thanks for sharing your production tricks, now I know what you mean with "give them some space"
I feel quite humbled in your company
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ask sales and support questions about Band-in-a-Box using natural language.
ChatPG's knowledge base includes the full Band-in-a-Box User Manual and sales information from the website.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
XPro & Xtra Styles PAK Sets On Sale Now - Until May 15, 2026!
All of our XPro Styles PAKs and Xtra Styles PAKs are on sale until May 15th, 2026!
It's the perfect time to expand your Band-in-a-Box® style library with XPro and Xtra Styles PAKs. These additional styles for Band-in-a-Box® offer a wide range of genres designed to fit seamlessly into your projects. Each style is professionally arranged and mixed, helping enhance your songs while saving you time.
What are XPro Styles and Xtra Styles PAKs?
XPro Styles PAKs are styles that work with any version (Pro, MegaPAK, UltraPAK, UltraPAK+, or Audiophile Edition) of Band-in-a-Box® 2025 (or higher). XPro Styles PAKS 1-10 includes 1,000 styles!
Xtra Styles PAKs are styles that work with the UltraPAK, UltraPAK+, or Audiophile Edition of Band-in-a-Box® 2025 (or higher). Xtra Styles PAKs 1-21 includes 3,700 styles (and 35 MIDI styles)!
The XPro & Xtra Styles PAKs are not included in any Band-in-a-Box® package.
The XPro Styles PAKs 1-10 are available for only $29 ea (reg. $49 ea), or get them all in the XPro Styles PAK Bundle for only $149 (reg. $299)! Listen to demos and order now! For Mac or for Windows.
The Xtra Styles PAKs 1-21 are available for only $29 ea (reg. $49 ea), or get them all in the Xtra Styles PAK Bundle for only $199 (reg. $349)! Listen to demos and order now! For Mac or for Windows.
Note: XPro Styles PAKs require Band-in-a-Box® 2025 or higher and are compatible with ANY package, including the Pro, MegaPAK, UltraPAK, UltraPAK+, and Audiophile Edition.
The Xtra Styles require the UltraPAK, UltraPAK+, or Audiophile Edition of Band-in-a-Box®. (Xtra Styles PAK 19 requires the 2025 or higher UltraPAK, UltraPAK+, or Audiophile Edition. They will not work with the Pro or MegaPAK version as they require the RealTracks included in the UltraPAK, UltraPAK+, or Audiophile Edition.
Supercharge your Band-in-a-Box today with XPro Styles PAKs and Xtra Styles PAK Sets!
Band-in-a-Box 2026 for Mac Videos
With the release of Band-in-a-Box® 2026 for Mac, we’re rolling out a collection of brand-new videos on our YouTube channel. We’ll keep this forum post updated so you can easily find all the latest videos in one convenient spot.
Whether you're exploring new features, checking out the latest RealTracks or Style PAKs, this is your go-to guide for Band-in-a-Box® 2026.
Check out this forum post for "One Stop Shopping" of our Band-in-a-Box® 2026 Mac Videos!
Band-in-a-Box 2026 for Mac is Here!
Band-in-a-Box® 2026 for Mac is here and it is packed with major new features! There’s a new modern look, a GUI redesign to all areas of the program including toolbars, windows, workflow and more. There’s a Multi-view layout for organizing multiple windows. A standout addition is the powerful AI-Notes feature, which uses AI neural-net technology to transcribe polyphonic audio into MIDI—entire mixes or individual instruments—making it easy to study, view, and play parts from any song. And that’s just the beginning—there are over 100 new features in this exciting release.
Along with version 2026, we've released an incredible lineup of new content! There's 202 new RealTracks, brand-new RealStyles, MIDI SuperTracks, Instrumental Studies, “Songs with Vocals” Artist Performance Sets, Playable RealTracks Set 5, two new RealDrums Stems sets, XPro Styles PAK 10, Xtra Styles PAK 21, and much more!
Special Offers
Upgrade to Band-in-a-Box® 2026 for Mac and save up to 50% on most upgrade packages during our special offer—available until May 15, 2026. Visit our Band-in-a-Box® packages page to explore all available upgrade options.
2026 Free Bonus PAK & 49-PAK Add-ons
Our Free Bonus PAK and 49-PAK are loaded with amazing add-ons! The Free Bonus PAK is included with most Band-in-a-Box® 2026 for Mac packages, but you can unlock even more—including 20 unreleased RealTracks—by upgrading to the 2026 49-PAK for just $49.
Holiday Weekend Hours
As we hop into the Easter weekend, here are our holiday hours:
April 3 (Good Friday): 8:00 AM – 4:00 PM PDT
April 4 (Saturday): Closed
April 5 (Easter Sunday): Closed
April 6 (Easter Monday): Open regular hours
Wishing you an egg-cellent weekend!
— Team PG
Update to Build 10 of RealBand® 2026 for Windows®!
If you're already using RealBand 2026 for Windows, download build 10 to get all the latest additions and enhancements.
Band-in-a-Box® 2025 for Mac® users: Build 904 now available!
If you're already using Band-in-a-Box® 2025 for Mac®, make sure to grab the latest update! Build 904 is now available for download and includes the newest additions and enhancements from our team.
Band-in-a-Box® 2026 for Windows® users: Build 1237 is now available!
Already a Band-in-a-Box 2026 for Windows user? Stay up to date and download the build 1237 to get all the latest additions and enhancements.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forums57
Topics86,221
Posts802,040
Members40,070
| |
Most Online64,515
Apr 8th, 2026
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dansk
Deutsch - Windows
Español
Français - Windows
Italiano - Windows
Nederlands
Polski
Português
Svenskt
русский
Japanese
Simplified Chinese
Traditional Chinese
Korean