New song
- Thread starter jpw23
- Start date
fendersk8911
New member
Hey man, sounds great! The only thing I would recommend is micing the acoustic...perhaps you did, but it sounds a bit..bright, the kind of bright that I usually associate with acoustic electrics. I LOVE the organ sound, and the harmonies are freaking nice! VERY nice song!
Track Rat
Just Your Average Sized Member
Very cool tune. I like it. The organ IS a nice touch. I agree with the comment on the acoustic. I've just never been a fan of on board electronics in acoustics. I don't like that "plinky" sound it imparts. Small quibble. The string pad is a little loud. It kind of swamps the vocal on the bridge. Still, all in all a very nice tune.
robgreen
no face
I like this a lot, there's some great stuff on here at the moment. You've got a great voice and the arrangement is excellent. I'm not normally a fan of lined-in guitars either, but I think it works here - to me it gives the guitar a bit of a mandolin flavour which complements the rootsy feel of the song.
Think you really need a bassline just to finish it off. Never keen on fade out endings either, but that might just be me. Really good work man!
Think you really need a bassline just to finish it off. Never keen on fade out endings either, but that might just be me. Really good work man!
ido1957
9K Gold Member
The left acoustic sounds a bit thin, and when the solo parts come in the mix sort of washes out. Now I'm pretty sure a lot of it is the crappy MP3 conversion, the file is pretty small. I've heard better resolution on Soundclick but even that's low grade.
That being said, I thought "JPW has a new tune!" and really enjoyed the story and performance which has been top shelf since I first heard you 5 or so years ago. This would fit quite nicely on the radio right now - or anytime really....
That being said, I thought "JPW has a new tune!" and really enjoyed the story and performance which has been top shelf since I first heard you 5 or so years ago. This would fit quite nicely on the radio right now - or anytime really....
kcearl
I see deaf people
I dont know much about this genre but I listened all the way through so I feel I should comment...
I thought the mix sounded great..I thought arrangement wise the intro sounded a little busy, but i thought the acoustic sounded fine even though gerry thought it sounded thin (tweaked maybe?) i thought the bongo (?) a little harsh but overall i wanted to ride a horse
great voice btw
I thought the mix sounded great..I thought arrangement wise the intro sounded a little busy, but i thought the acoustic sounded fine even though gerry thought it sounded thin (tweaked maybe?) i thought the bongo (?) a little harsh but overall i wanted to ride a horse
great voice btw
cobaltaudio
New member
Like the remix 
This MP3 is playing at a paltry 86 kb/s. It's not doing you any favors. It sounds okay, but let's hear it in better quality.
6
60's guy
Guest
This MP3 is playing at a paltry 86 kb/s. It's not doing you any favors. It sounds okay, but let's hear it in better quality.
Greg_L, you are wise beyond your years, and your advice is always spot on. However, in this case let's go easy on the lad....
It's a good tune and it should suffice that Jay shared it even if 86 is the limit of his mp3 conversion rate.
Last edited by a moderator:
rayc
retroreprobate
I think it's reasonable to request/suggest better quality. I done the experiments & research any anything under 192 will be filled with artifacts, this drops off as one approaches 320. That said it also depends on the process used - there are as many as an 1/2 dozen processes to make an MP3 - then there's the package the prog comes in too.
JPW, another nice piece from you. Being acoustic it's without your trade mark electric guitar effects combo.
The bass isn't clear at all when you're singing.
the guitar is a little thin but fits the mix well.
JPW, another nice piece from you. Being acoustic it's without your trade mark electric guitar effects combo.
The bass isn't clear at all when you're singing.
the guitar is a little thin but fits the mix well.
I know that you're more than okay with living with bad sound quality because you simply can't tell the difference. I can. Jay's song is fine. I'd like to hear it for all it's worth.
heatmiser
mr. green christmas
I only listened to the 3rd version.
I'm hearing a slight overall swirly, phasey-ness to it that may be due to the low bit rate, or may just be me?
Personally, I would go for more bass and less bongos level-wise. Vocals sound great as usual...deep and rich and well suited to the genre. Well done.
I'm hearing a slight overall swirly, phasey-ness to it that may be due to the low bit rate, or may just be me?
Personally, I would go for more bass and less bongos level-wise. Vocals sound great as usual...deep and rich and well suited to the genre. Well done.
maximusbs
Brad Smith Music
I listened to all three versions because I'm a 'tard and didn't read ahead. No worries though, each listen was worth it! Good Song. I didn't hear the bass-line in version three though 
. I'm just missing some low end, whether it's from a soft bass or a more natural sounding acoustic. Other than that, it's pretty darn good, great natural voice, inspirational lyrics, and great performances.
. I'm just missing some low end, whether it's from a soft bass or a more natural sounding acoustic. Other than that, it's pretty darn good, great natural voice, inspirational lyrics, and great performances. 
jpw23
New member
Honestly....I did not know I could change bit rates.....and I really can't hear the difference, to many years with a big amp roasting my ears!!!! LOL!!!This MP3 is playing at a paltry 86 kb/s. It's not doing you any favors. It sounds okay, but let's hear it in better quality.
Thanks man!
Thanks Randy but, if a better mp3 helps, I'm more than happy to provide it.
As always Ray.....you have a fair and unbiased opinion that I value. Thanks man
Here's another version at 320 bits