jeffmaher
New member
I'm traditional in that I like a song...taken in its entirety...that works: that' is interesting, evoking feelings, tweaking shared human sentiment. And traditional structure of songage, based on trial and error over thousands of years to arrive at the contours it now has, is my preferred starting point. I don't want to re-invent a great wheel. And it's always been my personal observation that deviation from that general area is best done with a view toward those conventions: that is, I think it's important to know where I am before I go off the road.....and actually take a listener with me...and have them enjoy the trip.
It's not, I think, that you buck tradition....your structure is pretty locked-in to the 'norm'. And I did note the Ray Davies/Kinks cover...and the stamp of Ray's work on your own sound and delivery.
And, to be sure, much of your music is reasonably enjoyable.....for about 30 seconds. [Some, more.] Then fatigue sets in. The work doesn't generally morph pleasingly...enough to retain my interest...after that. It's like a first course of beef. And a second course of...beef. Dessert: beef.
The blends of instruments tend to mash, with fewer times where moving harmony or unision or wicked cool invention sparks interest.
But you have real good lyrical flair, the vocal melodies are strong, and the guitaring good.....as I noted. But the chaos in the instruments that often accompany that solid core tend to detract from it. That is, they obfuscate and demand attention, rather than support the solid spine that you build with the guitar and vocal...the good lyric and basic structure.
I do hear use of dynamics...thinning of parts. but the depth of the pruning is short, and too insufficient to allow the work to breathe, I think.
I'm mainly referring to the posted piece.....but much of the other work is similar.
It's not that I don't like the songs. It's strictly the way you arrange the support for full production.
All my opinion. For what it is worth.
You may not want to be associated in the same breath with Morrison, but I tell you there is a lot to be learned from the produced records he has cut....regarding good support for strong core tunes. The kid kicks ass. And his professional producers have framed him beautifully. Technical jewelry...arrangers' art... to be appreciated in them.
Anyway, Keep going.
And a link to some of my crapp: I'm not a really good recordist....half-deaf...and saddled with shitty equipment and lousy samples. Money thing...as you can attest of. But I have a lot more experience arranging...that predates my recent dive into a DAW...by near a few decades. If I have anything good in me, that's where it might be.
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/default.cfm?bandID=825703&content=music
And my one piece of advice to you, is to appreciate, and employ, restraint in the orchestration of you work.
Here's a link to Danny's MySpace page. I gave this recent sub raves; and it is a great illustration of 'less-is-more' restraint in arrangement. This cat is talented, and has ears out the wazoo; but he didn't kill the host with parasitic, superfluous trackage. He is capable of a lot of great overlay stuff, I'm certain; but he restrained the filler artistically.
http://www.myspace.com/dannybyrnemusic
That's what I'm talkin' bout!
It's not, I think, that you buck tradition....your structure is pretty locked-in to the 'norm'. And I did note the Ray Davies/Kinks cover...and the stamp of Ray's work on your own sound and delivery.
And, to be sure, much of your music is reasonably enjoyable.....for about 30 seconds. [Some, more.] Then fatigue sets in. The work doesn't generally morph pleasingly...enough to retain my interest...after that. It's like a first course of beef. And a second course of...beef. Dessert: beef.
The blends of instruments tend to mash, with fewer times where moving harmony or unision or wicked cool invention sparks interest.
But you have real good lyrical flair, the vocal melodies are strong, and the guitaring good.....as I noted. But the chaos in the instruments that often accompany that solid core tend to detract from it. That is, they obfuscate and demand attention, rather than support the solid spine that you build with the guitar and vocal...the good lyric and basic structure.
I do hear use of dynamics...thinning of parts. but the depth of the pruning is short, and too insufficient to allow the work to breathe, I think.
I'm mainly referring to the posted piece.....but much of the other work is similar.
It's not that I don't like the songs. It's strictly the way you arrange the support for full production.
All my opinion. For what it is worth.
You may not want to be associated in the same breath with Morrison, but I tell you there is a lot to be learned from the produced records he has cut....regarding good support for strong core tunes. The kid kicks ass. And his professional producers have framed him beautifully. Technical jewelry...arrangers' art... to be appreciated in them.
Anyway, Keep going.
And a link to some of my crapp: I'm not a really good recordist....half-deaf...and saddled with shitty equipment and lousy samples. Money thing...as you can attest of. But I have a lot more experience arranging...that predates my recent dive into a DAW...by near a few decades. If I have anything good in me, that's where it might be.
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/default.cfm?bandID=825703&content=music
And my one piece of advice to you, is to appreciate, and employ, restraint in the orchestration of you work.
Here's a link to Danny's MySpace page. I gave this recent sub raves; and it is a great illustration of 'less-is-more' restraint in arrangement. This cat is talented, and has ears out the wazoo; but he didn't kill the host with parasitic, superfluous trackage. He is capable of a lot of great overlay stuff, I'm certain; but he restrained the filler artistically.
http://www.myspace.com/dannybyrnemusic
That's what I'm talkin' bout!
Last edited:
