Revisiting old songs - Fools

[VomitHatSteve]

About a decade ago I really started focusing on home recording.
Needless to say, My early results were terrible, and I hate them.

So I'm starting on a project to rescue as many of those old tracks as I can find. There will also be much shenanigans with procedurally-generated beats and synths and the other weird stuff I've gotten into since then. Tho I will try to re-track as little as possible.

So here's the first song: Fools Redux | Regdar and the Fighters

I've included the old mix for comparison.

I re-sequenced the drums and midi vox and retracked the bass and rhythm guitars, but kept the vocals and lead guitars.

What do you think? Am I ending up with something semi-coherent? Am I just polishing a turd? Would I be better off throwing it all out and starting from scratch?

 

[Nola]

Hm, mix 1 sounds "lo-fi" and has character, but it's spazzy and sounds like audio ADHD (no offense to anyone) so I only made it like a 3rd the way through.
The Flac of the new mix is more pleasing, but it lacks the character.

The spazzy stuff makes it hard for me to listen to, so I'm probably not the best judge. Mix 2 is technically much better, so it's just a matter of how much of that character you want. If you do go with mix 2, it can use a little more bass.

 

[andrushkiwt]

The song itself sounds rushed...I'd consider lowering the tempo several bpm's. It will probably feel more coherent then. As a mix, clearly the newer one is a major improvement. The vocals are much more intelligible and clear, for example.

 

[Robus]

You've got the karaoke thing going on big time. The backing tracks sound muted and distant, while the vocals are up front and dry. You should invite the vocalists to join the band.

 

[VomitHatSteve]

Hm, mix 1 sounds "lo-fi" and has character, but it's spazzy and sounds like audio ADHD (no offense to anyone) so I only made it like a 3rd the way through.
The Flac of the new mix is more pleasing, but it lacks the character.

The spazzy stuff makes it hard for me to listen to, so I'm probably not the best judge. Mix 2 is technically much better, so it's just a matter of how much of that character you want. If you do go with mix 2, it can use a little more bass.

Eclectic and weird is what I go for. I'll definitely revisit that bass. The old mix had a ton of body, but also feels very muddy to me. Probably over-compensated on trimming the low-end on this one.

The song itself sounds rushed...I'd consider lowering the tempo several bpm's. It will probably feel more coherent then. As a mix, clearly the newer one is a major improvement. The vocals are much more intelligible and clear, for example.

Aw! I just raised that tempo!
Do you think feeling rushed a matter of arrangement? or delivery? The vocals are literally just the old ones tempo shifted up, so they might be dealing with some artifacts and other weirdness.

You've got the karaoke thing going on big time. The backing tracks sound muted and distant, while the vocals are up front and dry. You should invite the vocalists to join the band.

Hmmm... I probably have less reverb than my last few mixes. I only have semi-mixed stems of the original vox, which already have some delay, so I scaled back the 'verb I normally use. I'll look into that.

 

[Robus]

So you've got the accompanying parts mixed in with your lead vocal track? Inconvenient. If you can get the backing tracks sound bigger and more lively, the vocal should slot in.

 

[andrushkiwt]

Do you think feeling rushed a matter of arrangement? or delivery? The vocals are literally just the old ones tempo shifted up, so they might be dealing with some artifacts and other weirdness.

I would look at 124-126. I think the whole song would work better there. I doubt you would like it, but I think it'd resonant with a larger audience in that range. It's a solid melody, but it's all so rushed that it comes across as a comedy routine although there's a good song in there.

 

[VomitHatSteve]

So you've got the accompanying parts mixed in with your lead vocal track? Inconvenient. If you can get the backing tracks sound bigger and more lively, the vocal should slot in.

The "female" (synthesized) voice isn't mixed in with the lead, but the lead itself is a stereo mix (with FX) of a double-tracked vocal.

I would look at 124-126. I think the whole song would work better there. I doubt you would like it, but I think it'd resonant with a larger audience in that range. It's a solid melody, but it's all so rushed that it comes across as a comedy routine although there's a good song in there.

I think that's slower than the original tempo was!
I bumped it up to 157 when I re-arranged it for live performance (without the leads, synth voices, etc. it's a pretty boring song live at the slow tempo). I'll probably keep the new tempo for this one, but I'll think about showing more restraint speed wise as I rework other old ones.

 

[andrushkiwt]

I think that's slower than the original tempo was!

Yeah, that's what I mean. I used one of those "tap-any-key" websites to find the tempo I could imagine the song at. It's catchy. I sang it all morning. Just...slower.

 

[VomitHatSteve]

Ok. New mix up: same link: Fools Redux | Regdar and the Fighters

Much more bass. Also adjusted balance between the different channels of the bass.
Less side-chain compression on rhythm guitars.
More 'verb on lead vocals.
Some subtle panning on vocaloids.

Thanks for all the feedback! Keep it coming!

Edit:
Mix 3 is available on the same link with rebalanced drums.

 

[Stratomaster]

I listened to the original and mix 3 and i prefer the original. When i listened to the original i was impressed in the enunciation of the vocal and was thinking you can't sing much faster than that...then i listened to the mix 3 and it just sounds unnaturally fast. The drum track also i prefer the original-those claps-just remind me of old roland drum machines. The original drum track sounds lo-fi enough that i can't tell if they're real or programmed-no mystery with those clap sounds. I like the song and the feel-you say there's no female singing on the original? If so how are you getting that sound? If you're going to re-do this why not start from scratch? This could be really cool in a number of styles, from a indie kind of sound like you have to something heavier or anything in between-You say your results were terrible and you hate them yet you are building from them?

 

[TripleM]

I compared the 2008 mix with mix #3 (the current latest).

There was obviously a great advancement in clarity. Mix #3 is much better in that respect. I'll just focus on mix #3.

The tempo is very fast. At this speed it's very difficult to make out all the lyrics. The lead vocal is a little buried in the chorus.

The high harmony is a bit out of the singer's range. You can tell there was a struggle - at least in the part near the end. If you were to create a bunch of layers (4 - 8) it might sound better.

The kick/snare are a bit forward.

I like distorted guitar tone. I like the bass sound too.

Mostly, if you slowed down the tempo I think it would be a good mix. The tempo of the 2008 mix seems about right.

 

[SteveAlton]

I don't even play the song the same way 10 minutes later let alone ten years later....Heck I cannot even remember how to PLAY half the songs I wrote 10 years ago.....

I am sure you are a much different musician than you were 10 years ago, plus technology has changed....I listened to both tracks and while a fun project and concept, you may be better served simply retracking....

But................I am also sure this project is nostalgic, enlightening, & encouraging at the same time...Must be fun!!!

 

[grn]

I listened to the third mix. Upon first listen I think the vocals and rhythm guitars can be brought up in volume or maybe doubled if they're not and hard panned left and right. I also think the rhythm guitars could do with less distortion and they'd still have just as much impact. I like the distorted drums. The song itself is catchy, but I think for some of the female vocal parts (like on the chorus) you could add a lot of reverb and it'd sound huge. You could even cut some instruments on the first part of the "fools rush in" part on the chorus and bring them back in to make it sound bigger on the second half. Overall I'd like to hear a little less low end on the vocals and guitars and a slight boost on the high end.

 

[VomitHatSteve]

Dagnabbit! For some reason, HR didn't show me those last three posts until just now as I'm uploading the latest mix. (Same link as before)

I didn't change much - just tweaked the bass tone a little and bumped the glitch drums down a touch.

The harmonies are all vocaloid, so it's definitely not out of her range, and also, she's not really a her. (Enunciation is very much a problem for the software tho, which doesn't help with clarity of the vocals)
One of the issues with the project is that I'm not super impressed with the lyrics on this song so I'm pretty OK with them not being entirely intelligible...

A lot of votes for slowing it back down... We're gonna have to agree to disagree on that one tho!

I'll look into some of the other feedback for the next mix tho. Thanks all!

 

[Robus]

Steve, I didn't notice that you have posted a remix.

Listening to Mix 4, I'm not hearing what I described as the karaoke effect (I hope you understand what I meant and are not put off by that). The vocal seems in proportion to the backing tracks. There's a muffled sound to the mix overall, which I'm assuming goes back to your source tracks and the limitations of working with stems from long ago. I'm hearing some strange crackling sound around the snare. Comparing this to the two previous mixes, there are things I like about each one. In terms of vocals being in scale with the band, definitely Mix 4. But 2 and 3 have better vocal clarity--2 at the cost of that karaoke effect. It's going to be tradeoffs and compromises, given the source material. If this were mine, I would retrack significant parts of it.

I want to hear a Best of Vomit Hat compilation. You've got a distinctive style--reminds me in a way of Devo, the B-52s, or They Might Be Giants. Upbeat, wacky, tongue-in-cheek lyrics, but good songwriting, good playing. Excellent hooks.

 

[ibleedburgundy]

This one sounds like you had arrangement issues - like most of the instruments are competing for the same sonic space.

 

[Bulls Hit]

Yeah it's tough trying to polish up the old stuff. You're always constrained by the original recording. I'm not keen on the higher backing vocals, they're too loud. I like the songs energy. Actually I think I've heard this one. It's got a lofi sheen on headphones

 

[VomitHatSteve]

Steve, I didn't notice that you have posted a remix.

Sorry. Should have included the link

Listening to Mix 4, I'm not hearing what I described as the karaoke effect (I hope you understand what I meant and are not put off by that). The vocal seems in proportion to the backing tracks. There's a muffled sound to the mix overall, which I'm assuming goes back to your source tracks and the limitations of working with stems from long ago. I'm hearing some strange crackling sound around the snare. Comparing this to the two previous mixes, there are things I like about each one. In terms of vocals being in scale with the band, definitely Mix 4. But 2 and 3 have better vocal clarity--2 at the cost of that karaoke effect. It's going to be tradeoffs and compromises, given the source material. If this were mine, I would retrack significant parts of it.

This one sounds like you had arrangement issues - like most of the instruments are competing for the same sonic space.

Yeah, this was back in 07-08, which was a very useful year for me artistically, but - as you may be able to tell - I'm not excited by a lot of my output in retrospect.

I want to hear a Best of Vomit Hat compilation.

I actually do have several completed projects, which I've hosted for Pay what you want (i.e. free) or fairly cheap on my site. I'd recommend To Slay Zombie Newton as the best free one and Spoiler Alert as the best one overall.

Yeah it's tough trying to polish up the old stuff. You're always constrained by the original recording. I'm not keen on the higher backing vocals, they're too loud. I like the songs energy. Actually I think I've heard this one. It's got a lofi sheen on headphones

Thanks, BH. Those bgvox are weirdly hard to mix. The dynamics of the generated files just don't make any sense!

 

[RedStone]

VMS - I think you've got a pretty clean mix on#4.

Some of the issues I'm noticing are that the lead vocals are pushed way back, the guitars are mostly just in the side channels (which is leading to some mono compatibility issues). There's also a scratchy sounding thing in the chorus that might be a bit too loud.

Anyway, I did some fiddling to get a ballpark idea of where you could go ...

View attachment fools_mix4_adj1.mp3

EQ Screenshot


Sides: just HP filter at 100hz and little cuts in 200hz and 3k, plus a heafty overall 6db boost.
Then I used a multiband to tame some of the highs, while (hopefully) keeping the balance in check.