Check out Jon's new remix of "Boy Next Door" on his myspace. It's great.

http://www.myspace.com/jonpeterlewis

Can anyone explain why the song would need to be remixed like this? The earlier version sounds great to me on the album. I can't see any advantage this new version would have. I get the point of dance remixes, but I'm rather in the dark on why this remix was necessary. Do radio stations have certain technical requirements for the songs they play that maybe the earlier version did not meet?

For myself, I liked his voice better on the earlier version since I really like Jon's deep, full, low voice. In addition, the early version seemed to have more edge in the voice, and that is what this song needs. The dramatic and musical crescendo section on either side of and including the "holler, holler" part especially seems to need a bit of peevishness in it, but the new version, though it does seem smoother, seems to have homogenized the emotion right out of the song.

I prefer the manlier, edgier older version. Guess I'm done hollering for now.

Thats hott. IDK which is better though...

I actually really like this version a lot! I'm not sure which version I like better. I like the instruments more on this one, but I liked Jon's voice more on the other one.

Ah, I really like it. And I'm not usually a fan of "remixes".

But I think it has an even more dance-able beat, and what my strongest compliments go to is the purity. You can hear a few more strains in his voice, a couple natural notes, making it sound like it does when performed live.

Dare I say, it is very sexy. I like it.

I like it. I like the old version too. As far as which one I like better.. I don't know. I like them both.

I listened to it... And for the most part, I echo everyone else... I like the newer version, but I also like the original... I like the artistic flow of the newer version, but I LOVE Jon's lower register.. So for me.. The original is better...

I like both. This version isn't "better" than the album, but it's more fun. For some reason it sounds more cohesive to me, too... maybe it's just the speed. I do miss the vocal depth tho.

Why is it necessary? Cuz it's awesome.

I think both versions are great since this is one of my favorites of Jons.

I really love the beginning of the remix, I like how his voice sounds alot... The faster speed is good, I personally didn't feel anything was taken away by it.

Then again it's always exciting to hear anything new from Jon...

I'm really liking this version. This should be on the radio.

And will.

I’ve listened to the remix some more, and as several of you have pointed out, the instruments are more complex and effective. In particular, this new version has added some really grand guitar running through the song, often reechoing the song’s opening strains. I have two computers side by side, so I simultaneously played a different version on each one. They seem to have the same speed, but the increased fullness of the instruments probably makes the new version seem faster.

Although the instruments are new and improved, I tend to pay more attention to Jon’s voice than the instruments. I do prefer his lower range. I by no means have perfect pitch, so I am wildly guessing, but I think the original version starts somewhere around the D flat below middle C. The remix seems to be a whole octave higher, starting on about the D flat slightly above middle C. That is more the range little boys sing in. Can anyone tell for sure if his voice has been electronically altered at all on the remix?

Since the song is the first one on the album, it does have the feel of a manifesto of sorts: “I’m not the boy next door, so don’t think I’m a perfectly sweet and innocent kid .” So I’ve been puzzling, “Why would Jon ratchet up the pitch of this particular song? Why would he sing a song about NOT being a boy in the higher pitched voice boys typically use? Doesn’t that sort of undercut the meaning of the song?” After much thought, I’ve decided that what Jon REALLY intends with this higher pitched remix is to suggest very subtly that he is, after all, as a matter of fact, the boy next door.



If you think I believe that interpretation, then pay my way to Scotland plus a stipend, and I’ll show you the Loch Ness Monster up close and personal. Though I wouldn't entirely blame you for thinking I could believe such a thing. It’s the kind of convoluted, fantasy-world analysis you expect from me, isn’t it? My honest guess about why he would sing it higher is that he thought it sounded cool. Certainly some people will like the high voice just as well or better than the low voice. Jon is all about variety. And I have also found that some things in Jon’s music that kind of shake me at first become less problematic to me with repeated listens, for instance the backup singers on “Turn To Grey” and his altered voice on “Burnin’ In Hello.” But although I realize the remix has certain strengths, I’ll stick with the original version since it is strong in the artistic areas I care most about.

Both versions do have that splendidly iridescent closing note.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: artslvr,

Very interesting analysis Arts! lol.. you crack me up!

You know, I can fly to Scottland for practically nothing with my airline benefits .. so, can I go with you?

I think he was just remixing it for fun because he's an artist.

Hey, I want in on this trip to Scotland!

Oh Orange the baby is so cute!!!!!! I like the new pic!

quote:

Originally posted by artslvr:
Although the instruments are new and improved, I tend to pay more attention to Jon’s voice than the instruments. I do prefer his lower range. I by no means have perfect pitch, so I am wildly guessing, but I think the original version starts somewhere around the D flat below middle C. The remix seems to be a whole octave higher, starting on about the D flat slightly above middle C. That is more the range little boys sing in. Can anyone tell for sure if his voice has been electronically altered at all on the remix?

Since the song is the first one on the album, it does have the feel of a manifesto of sorts: “I’m not the boy next door, so don’t think I’m a perfectly sweet and innocent kid .” So I’ve been puzzling, “Why would Jon ratchet up the pitch of this particular song? Why would he sing a song about NOT being a boy in the higher pitched voice boys typically use? Doesn’t that sort of undercut the meaning of the song?” After much thought, I’ve decided that what Jon REALLY intends with this higher pitched remix is to suggest very subtly that he is, after all, as a matter of fact, the boy next door.

Heh... clearly, Jon is the metaphor king. Or would that make him a literalist? Hmm...

It sounds more like D major to me. (I'm also a "relative pitch" type, but I'm working off a piano.)

What do you mean by "electronically altered"?

Every time I sign in this site and the new Boy Next Door plays .. I like it more and more each time I hear it.

You are more skilled in vocal music music than I am, iris. I know this since I have heard you sing.

I too was trying to verify the pitch on my piano, but the opening note was very slippery for me. My piano may be a bit out of tune, so that might explain why I had such trouble with the opening note. I had also listened to the closing note, and decided it was a regular D. That would make the key of the song D. It was clearly not written in a minor key. I had played piano for years before I finally learned that whatever note a piece ends in is usually the key of the piece. Such a revelation that was! But a piece written in the key of D major could begin with a variety of notes.

I wasn't focused too much on the closing note, however, since I wasn't interested in what key it was in. I wanted to know just where the opening note was because by the end, it seems he goes back down to his lower range, as in the original version. Correct me if I am wrong, since I am certainly the weak link in the church choir, but isn't the chorus at the same octave in both versions, and doesn't he go back to his lower register for good in the new version after the words "I'm just a human being. The good thing is that I'm able to tell you for sure, 'I'm not the boy next door'"?

The verses also seemed to have some kind of extra mixing effect on them that make them sound somehow different from his natural voice, even his natural voice at a higher pitch. But I don't know enough about what mixing can do to tell for sure.

I do like the added echoes on the words "jaded" and "here for." Hmmmmm. Putting an echo on "jaded" gives it added emphasis. Jaded. As in the jaded journalist from AI. That's interesting, wouldn't you agree iris?

*doh* Sorry, I meant I thought the song opened on D, and happens to be in D major. I didn't think there were any flats in there. Then again, my piano hasn't been tuned in a while. Where's peeps when you need her?!

I dunno... lol...all the talk about the registers is confusing me. I think what you meay be hearing are differences in the way Jon is projecting at various parts of the song. And I think that's different from changing registers...? Or maybe not? Stupid jargon!

I think perhaps something's different about the volume of Jon's voice... sometimes he's competeing with the instruments (and maybe he's louder), and sometimes he's not. Jon's voice is out front and you can hear more of the overtones and undertones at the bridge and at the very end.

Here's a teensy java piano. Play along and see what you think, maybe?

Gee, you think there's special ephasis on "jaded"?? I can't imagine why that'd interest me.

(lol... I had to retype "jaded" 3 times because I kept capitalizing it)

LOL Iris you're so jaded

Um ok I have not joined in on this topic yet so...
I heard it and like dance music A LOT but this version is not for me. I like the orginal better, but again I think that is just for me.