What a sap -- new song

[gmiller1122]

Hey all,

Thanks for checking this out.

I know the mix is rough. I guess I'm more curious about your thoughts on the lyrics/song structure.

Nobody's perfect -- how boring would that be?

http://www.geocities.com/gmiller1122/

[chrisharris]

Hello...I wasn't sure which tune you were asking for feedback on, but I saw the word "Perfect" in your post, and saw that "Perfect" was a Valentine's Day tune, so I went with that.

Okay, positive points first. I like the singer's voice after the first verse, I liked the harmonies in that short section, and I thought it was a really good bass tone. I also liked the acoustic tone on the lead, and the harmonica was a nice touch.

Negatives - The tune's too long if it's not gonna' have any more changes, and this is especially apparent with a song in 3/4 time...it just starts hammering you to sleep after awhile. I didn't like the doubling/chorus (or whatever) on the vocal. It's mixed kinda' like a pop record from the 60's in terms of placement...the kit is WAAAAAY buried, with mostly the overheads carrying the rhythm section. This may be intentional, but it kinda' bugged me. There's a lot of noise in the track (hiss), and the pno is pretty muddy.

Again, I really liked the harmony section...you should do more of that. And while I know it's sometimes very hard to complete a thought in 3.5 minutes, you should really try. If it means hacking out a verse and cutting one of the leads...give it a shot, lol.

If this seems more negative than positive, it shouldn't...I just tend to use more words explaining the negatives, lol. See, watch.

Pros
1. Voice
2. Harmonies
3. Bass Tone
4. Acoutic Tone
5. Harmonica

Cons
1. Vocal Effect
2. Buried Drums
3. Song Length
4. Track Hiss
5. PNO mud

[The Ghost of FM]

gmiller,

I think Chris pretty much covered most of the issues with the tune.

It kind of sounds like this was mixed on headphones. Is this the case?

The song has potential if a second melodic line or bridge can be written into the track.

I do like the early 60's melody and feel of the piece.

Cheers!

[gmiller1122]

Thanks a lot, guys.

I was beginning to feel 'buried' myself w/no replies, and refused to bounce myself to the top of the list!

It's interesting you noted the 60s sound -- I was shooting for a kind of loose, big Van Morrison / Waterboys sound, but didn't want it to sound muddy. If that makes sense?

Anyhow, I see your points, Chris, about the vocals. I originally sang it softly, and it was awful. Then I reminded myself to sing it with passion, and I just found myself yelling. I don't know why, but it was a cool moment. I agree the first verse needs redoing. My fav. part is the lead acoustic -- actually I was very surprised with how it turned out.

The hiss -- well, that's a problem. You'd laugh at my setup, but let's just say it will get better tomorrow (please, Mr. UPS man). It has taken me awhile to convince myself to spend more money on this hobby (it's a Catholic thing).

Question: What's PNO?

Also,

It's mixed kinda' like a pop record from the 60's in terms of placement

Did you mean the vocal or overall? I'm still getting used to using the whole pan thing. BTW, FM, it was mostly done on headphones.

Again, thanks. I really appreciate the time.

G

[chrisharris]

Originally posted by gmiller1122


Question: What's PNO?

PNO = Piano. I guess the 2 extra vowels were just too much for me, lol.

Also, about the placement...I wasn't talking panning so much as depth (back to front via faders). In short, the drums are really far back, with the high end of the kit doing most of the work.

But actually, if you were going for a Van vibe, they're right where they should be.

[gmiller1122]

Ah, "PIANO" -- got it. Yeah, I learned four chords just for this song -- boy, I must love her ; ) I'll work on the sound.

As for the drums, when I bring 'em forward, they sound just what they are -- programmed. So, I keep 'em in the back. How's that for avoidance?

Thanks again,

G