Virgin Post

  • Thread starter Thread starter bpoco
  • Start date Start date
I thought the song was cool too. Nice guitar riff and nice harmonies.

The doubled vocals worked very well. I heard sync problems at 1:01 on "but you keep" and at 1:11 on "just". These happen at the exact same spot in the second chorus, leading me to believe you cut and pasted them... You cheater!!! :)

There is a slight lack of a low end. Not enough bass there. The vocals are covered up a bit by the guitars. Not real bad, it's just a sylllable or two hear and there are inaudible (I have a big problem with that too).

I'm focusing quite a bit on the negatives because it seems like that's what you wanted to hear. But it makes it sound as if I didn't like it much. But I did. Good song.

Trip...
 
TripleM ... your good .... your verrrry good.

That "sync" problem is just the singer's crappy sense of timing !! But .... guilty as charged ..... I cut and paste. My schedule doesn't allow me the luxury anymore of "working late" to get things perfect. In this case, I missed a more drastic vocal error in the 2nd chorus when we recorded the vocal and I didn't want to wait to bring the singer back in.

I can't argue with you about missing some low end. I purposely did a hard cut around 50Hz on the final mix (thanks for the tip Chrisharris). It does seem to "get the mud" out - especially when you play it on a number of different audio systems. In the past, more often than not, my mixes would sound muddy on many systems. Chris' tip seems to resolve that and give me better overall performance across different systems - but, I have to admit, it can sound thin on some systems. I was actually surprised by Kramer's comment about "getting it out of the box".

Appreciate the critique.

Thanks - BPOCO
 
You have better EQ capabilities than I do...lol. I listened again after reading Trip's comments, and I'm gonna' have to agree with him. You somehow cut just about everything from 50Hz down. I TRY to do that, lol, but I always end up with some in the final mix, which is obviously desireable. You pretty much got it all out, and it could probably use some of those low lows (not much,) back in the mix. I wouldn't be surprised if it softens the cymbals up even. Don't ask me how or why, it just does.

Sorry for the wrong-way advice there. I think the IDEA is okay, you just executed it TOO successfully...lol

Still listening, btw. Good tune.
 
I didn't think the tune suffered from being muddy personally. But I'll throw this out anyway... There is a lot of mud in the 250hz-300hz range. You can try making "surgical" cuts in that range as opposed to "rolling off everything below "x"". There's a place for rolling things off, but it's not generally for the purposes of removing a muddy sound.
 
Nice mix-everything is right up front and clean--a few nit-picks; the guitars are too chorused for my taste and maybe a bit loud-The snare could come up-I think the rhythm section should drive the song-with the guitar adding color...at least for this song(seems more of a piano based song to me). But those are just personal preferences-sounds like you know what you wanted and pretty much got it. Well written/arranged/mixed tune.
 
This tune sounds great on my $10 puter Speaks! It's when I put on the heaphones that the lil flaws everyone is talkin bout come to the forefront.

A couple that I didn't see mentioned. The tune starts too abruptly. Ya need a couple of secs of leader in there. Then there is some serious buzz through the breaks between :57-1:08 and then again between the breaks at 2:08-2:19. It's prolly your J-Station. You can prolly edit this out with your recording program by highlighting, cutting, and saving the space.

Overall, great tune with a definate 70's vibe! I know, I'm the original relic from the 70's. LOL Love it Bro! There is nothing that can't be fixed on this tune.

Keep up the great work!!!

CR ><>
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top