Embryo...

  • Thread starter Thread starter Llarion
  • Start date Start date
Llarion

Llarion

New member
This is my most recent composition, "Embryo". It features the wonderful Vicki Genfan, and was written specifically for her, to showcase her unique playing style. It's a complex sound field, and I fought a long time to get it where it is. There are five guitars in it, all in different tunings; and I wanted to make sure each had its own space. From left to right panning:

  • Vicki playing a percussive/tapping/harmonics acoustic part, in DADGAD tuning (about 75% Left)
  • Vicki doing a counterpoint harmonic line on acoustic (during the bridge only), DADEAD tuning (27% Left)
  • Me playing the primary rhythm part, acoustic, Open D tuning (5% Right)
  • Me playing the melody, on Strat, standard tuning (15% Right)
  • Vicki playing a high-string guitar part, acoustic, Drop D tuning (95% Right)

I'm playing the bass (down the middle) and drums (standard pan spread) and percussion as well. I wanted the sound to be very warm and organic, so there is less high end in the drums than I normally might have gone with, I didn't want them intruding on the guitars..

Does each part present itself clearly, or is there more I can do to give the parts clarity and definition?

Embryo - featuring Vicki Genfan

========================================

Bonus...

By the way, if you haven't heard of Vicki, you want to, she's really amazing. She walked into the Guitar Player Magazine "Guitar Superstar" contest in 2008 (a hardcore shredfest judged by the likes of Joe Satriani, Steve Vai, George Lynch, and more), with an acoustic guitar, and won the whole thing with the piece in the linked video:

 
I don't know, I kind of would like to hear more highs on the cymbals. At least the ride.

So, a comment about the arrangement... all parts played well, sounds good but I think it gets too repetitive. The same little riff from the lead guitar throughout the song and it kind of gets old. Also, the song runs at the same dynamic level, arrangement-wise. Not much of a change-up anywhere. I felt there was more coming from the bridge at the 2:45 mark, but it just kind of folded back into the main riff. I thought you could really build that part up more and then drop us from a tall height back into that main riff.

I'm probably being hyper-critical because the song is really good and I'm a tad jealous and I see little small changes could take this from 98% to 100%.

On a side note, I played a Luna this weekend for the first time at GC. Sounded pretty good for $350 guitar and I liked the moon-phase fret markers. :)

Thanks for sharing!!!
 
Chili said:
I don't know, I kind of would like to hear more highs on the cymbals. At least the ride.

So, a comment about the arrangement... all parts played well, sounds good but I think it gets too repetitive. The same little riff from the lead guitar throughout the song and it kind of gets old. Also, the song runs at the same dynamic level, arrangement-wise. Not much of a change-up anywhere. I felt there was more coming from the bridge at the 2:45 mark, but it just kind of folded back into the main riff. I thought you could really build that part up more and then drop us from a tall height back into that main riff.

I'm probably being hyper-critical because the song is really good and I'm a tad jealous and I see little small changes could take this from 98% to 100%.

On a side note, I played a Luna this weekend for the first time at GC. Sounded pretty good for $350 guitar and I liked the moon-phase fret markers. :)

Thanks for sharing!!!
Click to expand...
Thanks, man! Adding edge to the cymbals is a simple tweak, and I think I agree. I'll definitely try it... I want a little more out of the snare too. As for the dynamic range, I made a conscious choice to have a very fluid, meditative piece, with just the one dynamic bump in the bridge...

I love Luna guitars. My main acoustic is actually their Vicki Genfan signature model, it's whats on this recording, except the Nashville strung track, which is my Martin DXME. Best sounding $499 list guitar I've ever heard... Luna's a great company.
 
Last edited:
Llarion said:
Does each part present itself clearly, or is there more I can do to give the parts clarity and definition?
Click to expand...

Two impressions about that guitar sound:

* You're aiming for smooth and buttery so it needs lows for warmth, but maybe the sound is still a bit too dark.

* You were wondering about clarity and definition, but I'd be tempted to explore the possibility of blending the guitar into the mix better using some kind of reverb. I'd be playing with short verbs for blend or large, longer verbs for space.
 
dobro said:
Two impressions about that guitar sound:

* You're aiming for smooth and buttery so it needs lows for warmth, but maybe the sound is still a bit too dark.

* You were wondering about clarity and definition, but I'd be tempted to explore the possibility of blending the guitar into the mix better using some kind of reverb. I'd be playing with short verbs for blend or large, longer verbs for space.
Click to expand...

Oh, if you solo them out, each track has a fair amount of reverb. I tend to favor a reverb curve that features little to no pre-charge/early reflections, a long duration, and a low wet/dry balance. I like the attacks to sound clean but there to be a room patina finishing the sounds. With this cluttered a field it's a harder get; but with any more 'verb than it's got it washes out some detail. As far as darkness goes, I think this is an area where I overcompensated a little in trying to be organic, and I need to just trust myself more. :) I'm gonna try brightening some things. Thanks man!
 
I think it's pretty much bright enough; it's the lows that seem just a tad dark.
 
I like what the bass does.
Just a little more on the cymbals - about 1/2 a hair's width.
There were a couple of notes that jumped out from the main melody - at the nd of a aphrase and obviously intentional but they really jumped in my head phones.
Lovely stuff!
 
rayc said:
I like what the bass does.
Just a little more on the cymbals - about 1/2 a hair's width.
There were a couple of notes that jumped out from the main melody - at the end of a phrase and obviously intentional but they really jumped in my head phones.
Lovely stuff!
Click to expand...

Thanks man... I tried more compression on the lead line to smooth those things out, and was unsuccessful. I may hand envelope it, I dunno
 
Llarion said:
I think I need you to be more specific about what you mean here... :)
Click to expand...

Oh...so you want *me* to mix it? :) The guitar lead notes at about 0.53, 1.40, 1.53, 2.33, 2.37, 2.50 etc are the ones I was noticing. But listening a second time (and at 3.26) they don't seem so bad. In fact, the song sound better on the second listen overall. Anyway, I'm grateful.

And at 4.24. :)
 
dobro said:
Oh...so you want *me* to mix it? :) The guitar lead notes at about 0.53, 1.40, 1.53, 2.33, 2.37, 2.50 etc are the ones I was noticing. But listening a second time (and at 3.26) they don't seem so bad. In fact, the song sound better on the second listen overall. Anyway, I'm grateful.

And at 4.24. :)
Click to expand...

Heh heh... :) I meant this: " think it's pretty much bright enough; it's the lows that seem just a tad dark." You want more edge on the bass guitar or something?
 
No, we're completely miscommunicating. I meant the lowest notes on the lead guitar sounded a bit dark to me on the first listen. But now they're sounding much better on the second listen. Touch nothing! lol
 
dobro said:
No, we're completely miscommunicating. I meant the lowest notes on the lead guitar sounded a bit dark to me on the first listen. But now they're sounding much better on the second listen. Touch nothing! lol
Click to expand...
Ohhh, OK. I see . Well, thank you! :) I do think the line is a little peaky still, though. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top