D
david42
New member
My version of Cry Baby Cry originally by the Beatles.
How does it sound to you guys?
How does it sound to you guys?
fat_fleet
Swollen Member
Wow....just, wow. You are in serious mustache-on-the-Mona-Lisa territory.
First off it's pretty brave, doing something like this to this song. Irreverent and all that. Especially that last 3 minutes- sheesh, you're gonna send a lot of folks running. But I think, rather than sending them running, you'd rather push your own agenda (wouldn't we all). Maybe not, but if so here's some suggestions- the timing is really off, like enough to be distracting in places. Especially those first few bars. There are a lot of what sounds like soft synths and heavily processed guitar stacked up that are not really attack focused sounds, so they drift and pull at each other. Some of the ambient noises are mixed too loud and jump out too much. And the vocals- you should either completely change the melody or try to get closer to the original. It's only, what, 3 or 4 half-tones up? If it's too high, transpose the rest of the song down. With such an iconic tune, singing it like that just sounds like a mistake. So anyways, yeah, mostly performance issues here. And maybe some with instrument selection. If it was cleaned up and presented a little better you could even get away with that 3 minute noise jam at the end (at least I'd listen to it).
First off it's pretty brave, doing something like this to this song. Irreverent and all that. Especially that last 3 minutes- sheesh, you're gonna send a lot of folks running. But I think, rather than sending them running, you'd rather push your own agenda (wouldn't we all). Maybe not, but if so here's some suggestions- the timing is really off, like enough to be distracting in places. Especially those first few bars. There are a lot of what sounds like soft synths and heavily processed guitar stacked up that are not really attack focused sounds, so they drift and pull at each other. Some of the ambient noises are mixed too loud and jump out too much. And the vocals- you should either completely change the melody or try to get closer to the original. It's only, what, 3 or 4 half-tones up? If it's too high, transpose the rest of the song down. With such an iconic tune, singing it like that just sounds like a mistake. So anyways, yeah, mostly performance issues here. And maybe some with instrument selection. If it was cleaned up and presented a little better you could even get away with that 3 minute noise jam at the end (at least I'd listen to it).
fat_fleet
Swollen Member
Love the "can you take me back where I came from" part.
D
david42
New member
Well I don't mess round when it comes to "making a cover [my] own." I definitely change it, unmistakably.
But I wouldn't call it irreverance--the fact that I'd record a cover at all is a nod of the hat. I'm surely not going to try to sound like the Beatles. I looked at a dozen covers on you tube and it seems to me a bunch of people trying to sound like the Beatles and failing--no-one is going to do Beatles better than the Beatles. It's entirely the point to take it somewhere else--whether or not someone who expects me to try to do it like the Beatles did is gonna be sent running. I know you don't mean sheer length--you indulge in that area as well.
"Love the "can you take me back where I came from" part."
Yeah did that different too--it doesn't belong in the part of the song it's in--but I have a version where the "take me back" outro is there--but I don't like it yet and chopped it off. It wasn't there originally, and I didn't want to entirely leave it out, so I made it work where it didn't belong.
Now for more practical matters--I have heard some of your stuff and liked it. You opinion matters to me. Let me respond to your suggestions one at a time.
"the timing is really off, like enough to be distracting in places. Especially those first few bars."
There's a piano fill that I am aware is off for timing early on but I like some off-timing to some degree and hear it in widely accepted professional work. I've gotten into too perfect too polished timing that didn't sound human anymore, too. But beyond this, and even though I did this to a click, (for instance I know for a fact every drum beat matches from analysis on the screen. And I know the backbone of the piano part does too, because I made it that way to match with editing when it was a little out of time before--these both match the click. The rest I admit to not caring so much. I also admit to being prone to error, so what would really help is if you could be more specific, pick a particular point in time and then tell me the guitar seems to not match the drums or whatever part is out. We all know how one can get to liking something from sheer repetition.
"There are a lot of what sounds like soft synths and heavily processed guitar stacked up that are not really attack focused sounds, so they drift and pull at each other."
Not sure completely what you mean--there's surely a string synth. In places there is also a Moogish synth too. I usually dropped the strings when the Moog sound was present. "heavily processed guitar" throws me for a loop since there's not much processing at all. What I used for the leads was an Epi Les Paul with a seymour duncan in the bridge, into a Vox Tonelab and then DI into the Tascam 2488 Neo. None of the effects settings on the tonelab were on, not even reverb. I used the same with my Gretsch 12 string electric for the rhythm guitar part, and the only difference is the amount of gain and some EQ. (A little of the leads on the three minute opus are 12 string, too) I tracked this totally dry. Amp sim, gain, and EQ was all there was. So I'm all at sea for "overprocessed."
So string synth definitely has little to the attack, but guitars do. Multiple instruments "stacked" got different panning level of reverb, and EQ treatment in mixing.
The total instrumentation here is: Drums (center) Bass guitar (center) Digi Piano, (center) Vocals, (center.) Also produced from the keyboard are the string synth and the Moogish synth, as well as sitar synth sound. Strings are mildly panned and dropped when there's moog. 12 string guitar is panned mildly; lead guitar is panned all the way right and left, bouncing back and forth. I used a slide of course.
Perhaps that will help you be more specific in pointing out an example of what you mean. Perhaps it is because the guitar lead part starts off with little volume and gradually becomes more distinct, but at first its hard to distinguish it. On purpose. I like sometimes how two instruments, if you fail to clarify them, sometimes start sounding like something different altogether. I've gotten some weird sounds that I like that go away when you make each instrument more distinct. I think sometimes musicians put too much emphasis on distinction of instruments when the casual listener might not be interested in what makes the sound, or in turn might be fascinated when they can't figure out how you got that sound. And of course I know how almost anything sounds horrible if it's not distinct enough. I'm just saying that here and there not being distinct can be our friend, too.
Again, I'd appreciate your being more specific.
"Some of the ambient noises are mixed too loud and jump out too much."
Well, I made sure the slide guitar work sure stands out in a couple of places; that's the only thing other than vocals I might have thought was too loud. Listen for a few seconds after 1:45, the seance verse. I absolutely love the slide guitar there--sort of what I might call ambient if I had to call anything ambient here. the slide up builds tension that is released at that little (I don't even know what to call it) but that seems so horrifically suitable to a seance--ghostly, perhaps. At least it does that to me. I tried that bit at several volume levels and it doesn't give me the spine-chilling feeling if it's not pronounced. Otherwise, without being more specific, I'm again lost by what you mean by "ambient" sounds. I'd much appreciate a time reference.
"And the vocals- you should either completely change the melody or try to get closer to the original. It's only, what, 3 or 4 half-tones up? If it's too high, transpose the rest of the song down. With such an iconic tune, singing it like that just sounds like a mistake."
Well they're not out-of-key very certainly because the vocals were vetted by the computer and the Melodyne program, which identifies each pitch. Not checked against John's and I am aware I have a slightly different melody. I could try stepping them up. But my point is NOT sounding like the Beatles, as you note, to an extreme. And I think not choosing either "completely chang[ing]" the melody or sticking to the original is unwarranted since somewhere in between might be viable too, so I think it's a matter of taste.
I respect your opinion, so I am going to try stepping the vocals up a bit and see what happens. That said, this song is going to go on the radio on a local station after the program director and one of the disc jockeys had those same questions put to them and are asking me why I'm delaying. They like it, and the 30 or so people I've let hear it like it too, but I admit some of them aren't exactly the best ears. And I'm not so sure most people consider this an Iconic Beatles song--maybe they like it precisely because they are not familiar with the original.
Iconic to musicians, yes--to the public, no way. It's forgotten by the public. Too many are surprised when I tell them it is a Beatles song.
Thanks for the critique, and many more thanks if you can help me zero in on what you mean.
Please don't take any disagreement for not appreciating the feedback! I do!
But I wouldn't call it irreverance--the fact that I'd record a cover at all is a nod of the hat. I'm surely not going to try to sound like the Beatles. I looked at a dozen covers on you tube and it seems to me a bunch of people trying to sound like the Beatles and failing--no-one is going to do Beatles better than the Beatles. It's entirely the point to take it somewhere else--whether or not someone who expects me to try to do it like the Beatles did is gonna be sent running. I know you don't mean sheer length--you indulge in that area as well.
"Love the "can you take me back where I came from" part."
Yeah did that different too--it doesn't belong in the part of the song it's in--but I have a version where the "take me back" outro is there--but I don't like it yet and chopped it off. It wasn't there originally, and I didn't want to entirely leave it out, so I made it work where it didn't belong.
Now for more practical matters--I have heard some of your stuff and liked it. You opinion matters to me. Let me respond to your suggestions one at a time.
"the timing is really off, like enough to be distracting in places. Especially those first few bars."
There's a piano fill that I am aware is off for timing early on but I like some off-timing to some degree and hear it in widely accepted professional work. I've gotten into too perfect too polished timing that didn't sound human anymore, too. But beyond this, and even though I did this to a click, (for instance I know for a fact every drum beat matches from analysis on the screen. And I know the backbone of the piano part does too, because I made it that way to match with editing when it was a little out of time before--these both match the click. The rest I admit to not caring so much. I also admit to being prone to error, so what would really help is if you could be more specific, pick a particular point in time and then tell me the guitar seems to not match the drums or whatever part is out. We all know how one can get to liking something from sheer repetition.
"There are a lot of what sounds like soft synths and heavily processed guitar stacked up that are not really attack focused sounds, so they drift and pull at each other."
Not sure completely what you mean--there's surely a string synth. In places there is also a Moogish synth too. I usually dropped the strings when the Moog sound was present. "heavily processed guitar" throws me for a loop since there's not much processing at all. What I used for the leads was an Epi Les Paul with a seymour duncan in the bridge, into a Vox Tonelab and then DI into the Tascam 2488 Neo. None of the effects settings on the tonelab were on, not even reverb. I used the same with my Gretsch 12 string electric for the rhythm guitar part, and the only difference is the amount of gain and some EQ. (A little of the leads on the three minute opus are 12 string, too) I tracked this totally dry. Amp sim, gain, and EQ was all there was. So I'm all at sea for "overprocessed."
So string synth definitely has little to the attack, but guitars do. Multiple instruments "stacked" got different panning level of reverb, and EQ treatment in mixing.
The total instrumentation here is: Drums (center) Bass guitar (center) Digi Piano, (center) Vocals, (center.) Also produced from the keyboard are the string synth and the Moogish synth, as well as sitar synth sound. Strings are mildly panned and dropped when there's moog. 12 string guitar is panned mildly; lead guitar is panned all the way right and left, bouncing back and forth. I used a slide of course.
Perhaps that will help you be more specific in pointing out an example of what you mean. Perhaps it is because the guitar lead part starts off with little volume and gradually becomes more distinct, but at first its hard to distinguish it. On purpose. I like sometimes how two instruments, if you fail to clarify them, sometimes start sounding like something different altogether. I've gotten some weird sounds that I like that go away when you make each instrument more distinct. I think sometimes musicians put too much emphasis on distinction of instruments when the casual listener might not be interested in what makes the sound, or in turn might be fascinated when they can't figure out how you got that sound. And of course I know how almost anything sounds horrible if it's not distinct enough. I'm just saying that here and there not being distinct can be our friend, too.
Again, I'd appreciate your being more specific.
"Some of the ambient noises are mixed too loud and jump out too much."
Well, I made sure the slide guitar work sure stands out in a couple of places; that's the only thing other than vocals I might have thought was too loud. Listen for a few seconds after 1:45, the seance verse. I absolutely love the slide guitar there--sort of what I might call ambient if I had to call anything ambient here. the slide up builds tension that is released at that little (I don't even know what to call it) but that seems so horrifically suitable to a seance--ghostly, perhaps. At least it does that to me. I tried that bit at several volume levels and it doesn't give me the spine-chilling feeling if it's not pronounced. Otherwise, without being more specific, I'm again lost by what you mean by "ambient" sounds. I'd much appreciate a time reference.
"And the vocals- you should either completely change the melody or try to get closer to the original. It's only, what, 3 or 4 half-tones up? If it's too high, transpose the rest of the song down. With such an iconic tune, singing it like that just sounds like a mistake."
Well they're not out-of-key very certainly because the vocals were vetted by the computer and the Melodyne program, which identifies each pitch. Not checked against John's and I am aware I have a slightly different melody. I could try stepping them up. But my point is NOT sounding like the Beatles, as you note, to an extreme. And I think not choosing either "completely chang[ing]" the melody or sticking to the original is unwarranted since somewhere in between might be viable too, so I think it's a matter of taste.
I respect your opinion, so I am going to try stepping the vocals up a bit and see what happens. That said, this song is going to go on the radio on a local station after the program director and one of the disc jockeys had those same questions put to them and are asking me why I'm delaying. They like it, and the 30 or so people I've let hear it like it too, but I admit some of them aren't exactly the best ears. And I'm not so sure most people consider this an Iconic Beatles song--maybe they like it precisely because they are not familiar with the original.
Iconic to musicians, yes--to the public, no way. It's forgotten by the public. Too many are surprised when I tell them it is a Beatles song.
Thanks for the critique, and many more thanks if you can help me zero in on what you mean.
Please don't take any disagreement for not appreciating the feedback! I do!
atulisrockin
New member
I had a listen to this on my Denon M39 speakers and also my headphones direct through the PC. This sounds like a Sgt Peppers/Revolver style production and feel. It's deep eeriness and ambience reminded me of some of the Revolver stuff actually. I don't know much about mixes being a newbie myself, but from what I could hear, at times the drums feel like they have been pasted on or even out of place, but in a weird way it also seems in place because of the nature of the whole production and seems intentional?. Given the number of instruments going on, the mix sounds reasonably clear. Perhaps it could me made clearer still, I don't know how that would work in practice though. The outro is cool, it reminds me of the outro for Weezer's Come Undone for some reason. It's definitely a fresh and somewhat trippy take on the original.
T
TripleM
Well-known member
One thing that struck me was that were lots of parts that seemed to be competing for listener attention. It kind of made for a hap-hazard mix.
Lots of timing and vocal cadence issues.
The drum samples sounded fairly bad.
Some of the "crazy guitar" stuff on the left side was cool. I liked that.
Lots of timing and vocal cadence issues.
The drum samples sounded fairly bad.
Some of the "crazy guitar" stuff on the left side was cool. I liked that.