We Want Like The Devil To Believe

groucho

Member
Well, once in awhile a man's gotta hitch himself up, sing in a higher octave and do some shamelessly goopy love song, so...

Of course, I played it for my lady, saying "here's that song I was writing about you" and she listened and said "I love it, but where was I in there?".

Um...

Anyway, what leaps out at you as being truly annoying about this? I need help.

I need a shave.

Chris

"Want Like The Devil"
 
Also, be careful about recording old songs that weren't about her. That can get pretty tricky too.

I listened twice. I liked the song a lot. I don't want to give away the little production surprise since I'm the first to respond, but I liked. You might get some differing opinions about it, but I thought it did good things.

Nice harp.

Caught some of the lyrics second time around...good writing.



Tom
 
A little production secret.......hmmmmmmmmmm........

What little production secret? :)

I like it. Sounds good in my ears. Nice harp, indeed.
 
Nice low voice !

Passionate.

Good tune .

I hear a few bad peaks and places where you may not be completely in key.

The lead vox seems to be a little to bright/harsh.

Over all pretty good.


Sean
 
Good song-Nice melody-cool change to the "dry" section. Interesting acoustic sound--tremolo effect?? Not sure if I like the electric...it seems to be kinda doodling---I think its me--I like the first few breaks when you accent that (7th??)-as a kind of counter melody-Hmmm I dont know how to explain it really theres something I wanna hear in there but don't hehe. Its like an unresolved tension thing....I'm rambling, sorry. Vocals sound good, and the usual good performance-though where is this high voice promised??? I was expecting journey or something ;) . Well there was a few seconds of Aaaahs anyway. Overall I liked it-havent heard anything by you I don't like--(I only have time for my sure bets this evening and you is one). Take it easy.
 
kbps rate - what is appropriate

I noticed you convert to MP3 at the 320kbps rate.

Dialup users will find this prohibitive. 80% or more of us are dialups.

HOWEVER, I want to hear your thoughts on what bit rate is appropriate for what situation.

Let's think ecommerce and buisness application.

Like ... an artist on their website might be offering at 56kbps, I think that is HUGE mistake, better to offer a snippet of a tune at 128kpbs, otherwise you just have a really wretched example of your music floating around ...

Are you thinking this way also ?
 
Where was I ?

----------------------
Of course, I played it for my lady, saying "here's that song I was writing about you" and she listened and said "I love it, but where was I in there?".
----------------------

I think that sometimes we love people for their weaknesses as we accept them unconditionally, and feel good about ourselves for doing this.

Others who we may depict in our art, and in creating the images of love we feel for them, are unable to see their own weaknesses ... or sometimes even the strengths and our attempts to explain that to them screw things up big time.

Picasso had a great idea about all of this. He would love a woman and put her in a painting, she of course would ask something like "Where the hell am I in all of this" and he would reply by embracing her and ravishing her for the rest of the night ... I think that's a good answer !

Heh , heh :D
 
Thanks for the listen, all.

Yeah, Strat, I too have this feeling that something's off on this one. And I'm thinking it has something to do with the guitar as well. I may redo that part, but I have this idea that an instrument other than guitar might be better. I dunno. Any ideas anyone?

Studioviols: I don't think dial-upers make up 80% of the folks here (although I could be wrong). But I wrestled with the whole kbps issue and finally decided that I'd rather people not hear the song at all, than hear it at as an ultra-compressed shadow of what it actually is. Especially on a critique board like this. If I'm seeking comments on the sound quality I'd like to know that folks are actually hearing what I recorded, rather than some crappy-sounding 128 mp3.

As far as business/e-commerce strategies, I'm afraid I don't have much interest in that area. I'm just trying to learn how to mix and record (with y'all's help).

Chris
 
Critical Listen

Ok, I'm rolling for the first time now.

Opening guitar is unique sonically, hooks me, tickles the listener.

I'd open up that intial guitar sound with a touch more volume and a little more delay, but only in the beginning, becoming more focused when supporting the vocal.

Maybe 'sidechain' compress the guitar so when the vocal comes in, the guitar level goes down automatically. It's a complicated technique, I'm studying that. It's an outboard hardware solution.

Vox is great, you are zappish but sing better. Great pronunciation, I really appreciate that.

Keyboard is stepping on the vocal a little, instrumental levels are a touch to much. Decide to let either the keyboard or guitar be the primary instrument during the fill, allow your listener to listen to just one instrument, so their ear can get back to the vocal quickly. Don't force the listener to break away from the more complex listening to two instruments, back to the vocal.

I'm at the break ... into the next 'song ???' ... I'm going to rewind.

Second listening from the beginning:

pull back on the chorus on that initial guitar, more delay, it's already very crisp ...

then less delay, more chorus to support the vocal, let the guitar flower around and under the vocal, volumes coming down in the guitar.

Vox is great in the beginning, perfect.

Keyboard level is great when it comes in.

Gotta bring the keys down a touch later, the guitar fill level is fine.

The vamping keyboard second fill IMHO should be very distant ... delay, let the guitar shine here and let the keyboard support the guitar fill ...

Maybe a tiny bit too much high mids on your voice ... but that's a good pro mix, that's expected for radio because you lose so much mid and high on radio. Hot is better, because you can master some of that out, lot harder to put in what you don't have.

Harmonica is very sweet ... well-mixed, very well-mixed and well played, never overblown.

More bottom end on the guitar.

Keyboards coming back in now.

Too much delay on this vox re-entry.

Bring the instruments down a little, your voice is very good, very unique, it's a hook unto itself.

Bring that background vocal up some, it's nice, slather it in delay, peak the volume in the middle, it's a fill really.

This next hook is stepped on by the instruments a little bit. Bring the instruments DOWN around the vocal when trying to bring the vocal up out of the mix, don't be tempted to bring the vocal levels UP. What the instruments are DOING is already very aggressive, doesn't need to be loud also.

Starting for a third time:

Yes, less chorus on the guitar in the beginning, let the chorus effect flower the guitar out around the vox when it comes in.

The vox level on the first lyric hook is PERFECT. Duplicate that throughout the song, your listener will expect it then, and they will be listening for that.

I need more bass overall in this song, and not keyboard bass, real bass or bass samples, just a little bit, so we are fed some bass bandwidth at some point in the song.

Cello would work. Just some long, low pedal cello notes, no vibrato, fading in and out. Half notes in the cello to accompany the hook.

Double those low bass notes in the keys with cello samples ???

As we stagger to the jukebox, I'd make this vamping guitar a little more crisp, that could be playing style rather than mix, to match the light energy of the harmonica, just a touch more crisp.

So I'm pretty nitpicky, overall it's a great song, your vox is a hooker. Just the natural sound of your vocal is great.

Bring up the background vocal a little and slather it in delay, it's pretty, and you need a little pretty to counter the rawness of your bluesy semi-gravel vox.

See now, I'm on the third listening, and I know the lyrics, so the lyrics are starting to sound better, cuz' I know them ...

the instruments need to let the vocal jump out some more please.

Fourth listening, my brain will force me to hear it the way I want to now.

Piano's still a little heavy in my mind, make it distant, an afterthought, just a little volume, it's a fill, not a solo instrument.

Check your meter levels, it should come nowhere close to the vocal levels, otherwise ... it's louder ya know. Meters are your friends, ears are your ... ears.
 
Cool, I think the piano should be at the beginning with the guitar, or at least earlier. I was really enjoying the tune after it came in. The 2:10 change is killer, good stuff.
 
Damn, studioviols, now THAT'S some feedback.:) Seriously, I really appreciate your taking the time to give such a detailed take. Thanks much!

Sluice: I can definitely hear a significant degredation with 192 kbps. But I'm perfectly willing to admit that's most likely a problem in MY mixing and recording. After all, a pro mix will still sound pro whether it's 128 or 320. But my mixes are precarious enough as it is, and they tend not to survive the transition to lower kbps levels.

I've been using a recorder all this time that compresses the audio though, so maybe things will get better when I'm actually getting pure uncompressed 16/44.1 from the getgo.

Thanks for the ears, lynx. And everyone else too. I'm still not happy with this song (I tend not to post them here if I *am* happy with them:)), and I'm not sure what the hell to do about it. Maybe I'll just leave it for awhile.

Chris
 
All I can say is I like it. I like all your stuff. I don't hear anything I can criticize here, and I'm trying. I'm tired though - hard day at work. Maybe I'll try again later.

Good sound, good song, no glitches - nice piece of work!
 
groucho said:

Sluice: I can definitely hear a significant degredation with 192 kbps. But I'm perfectly willing to admit that's most likely a problem in MY mixing and recording. After all, a pro mix will still sound pro whether it's 128 or 320. But my mixes are precarious enough as it is, and they tend not to survive the transition to lower kbps levels.
Chris

I've got a very fast net connection and if anything I wish more people were offering the highest bit rates they can upload. :D
I'd download .wav files if people posted them. 192 is about the lowest I care to listen to stuff.

BTW, I dig that tune man. That break at 2:02 is good and how you go into the break with that little piano roll is great!
 
Mix degredation

groucho said:
a pro mix will still sound pro whether it's 128 or 320. But my mixes are precarious enough as it is, and they tend not to survive the transition to lower kbps levels.

We need to discuss this topic more here in the MP3 clinic. I wonder, what is done to a mix to make it 'survive' the trip to 128kbps.

I'm thinking that starting out with the most pristine and clean tracks, sacrificing levels if need be is one of the most important keys in this effort.

Bandwidth seperation is also something I'm studying up on, that is, EQing the mix so that there are definite bandwidth strata that can be heard, like layers, but I could be whistling dixie with dentures here, I dunno.
 
Well, I was just gonna bail on this tune (and I'm *not* just trying to bump this thread, honest), but I went through and read the remarks again and decided I agreed with you guys on a few things. Funny how often that happens - it takes me a few days to realize you guys were right about something.

Anyway, I also wanted to say thanks to fprod and therage for the nice words. And to let anyone who cares (um, mom, are you out there?) know that the final version of this tune is up there in the same place:


I softened the vocal by a hair at 3700k (my voice's dominant frequency in almost every song). Amazing what half a decibal can do sometimes. And I did some more manual gain-riding on the guitar and piano. Interesting that I'm adjusting level fluctuations more manually these days and relying on compression more as an effect than a "leveler".

So thanks again for great help, folks.

Chris
 
Ya know chris... I had the first version all d'led... but then you update, dammit :D

Here goes:

You're getting better w/your reverb use IMO. Nice trem FX on the acoustic. You're seriously the second coming of Daniel Ash :D (You'll get tired of that and kill me yet :p)

I like the pno, but it may be loud in your mix... the muffled effect on it's working. "Hot Summer nights"... right at the beginning of that phrase, there's a crackle in the vocal track.

Really neat so far... now, a change up... mouth harp :) Would like some verb on that to bring it into your room... just sounds strange all by itself over there.

You know who should get his ears on this? "powderfinger"

Needs more BGV's... "ahhhhhs!!!" and the like, in the second legato part.... "and what we can't save..." RIGHT there... AAAAAAH... can hear it now... should also add a higher harmony "Want like the devil to believe"... kinda female, Annie-Lennox style "waaahaant now!!! Believe noww!! Devil noww! Huhhh now!!!" ... oh ya that's sweet ;)

Nice octaved parts there in the outro!!

Really cool, chris. You're developing into one of my fav musicians here (if only you could add some variety to those vox man ... j/k!!! :D)

One star my ass, again :)


C
 
Back
Top