The Song Fight Bulletin Board

Billy's Little Trip wrote: I hope to get Den's awesome playing more in the future music, if she doesn't tell me to eff off before then.

You silly goose!

Hmm...no matter what I type, it says my first post looks too spammy, despite having 0 URLs in it.

sportswriters wrote:What would make your voice sound more like you?

The advice this question begets is essentially correct but, in many cases, not very useful.
I suppose an short explanation of how I've come to think that might be useful, though.

Go back in time roughly two-and-a-half years. That time's me has been working through a bunch of resources about singing technique, and has happened across the very same kind of advice several times. With all I know about my voice at that point, it has congealed into "I've got this fairly wimpy and also fairly high voice and if I try to be less wimpy it'll, instead, sound like someone is strangling me... and, coincidentally, also feel just like that". I've read lots of stuff about registers and breath support and done all sorts of outlandish exercises... with some benefits, such as more ability to get to higher notes at the cost of more wimpy (or more strangling). All of that can only lead me to conclude that my voice is actually "softer" or "lighter" than I might have believed.

Next stop: I get a year's worth of vocal training as a birthday gift. I kind of don't know what exactly that's going to do for me, but perhaps there are some nuances I've been doing incorrectly that we can fix. Easy-peasy, right?

During that year and the one that happens to be a birthday gift one year later, I experience a chaotic series of breakthroughs and setbacks and periods where nothing much happens... but it doesn't actually take very long for me to realise, with the help of my quite decent teacher, that my voice isn't at all what I had thought it to be. In fact, my teacher keeps telling me that I have the kind of voice that pays really well in opera... you know, the dramatic tenor kind, fairly "strong" or "heavy", not all that close to the centre of the Gaussian curve. An oddball voice, statistically speaking, and also one harder to work correctly than most others (oh bloody brilliant). That does mean that I discover somewhere along the way that my voice can actually sound good (though I'm still having a hard time getting that to happen consistently, let alone for more than twenty minutes at a time), but it also means that for a proper high notes, my body needs to do some actual hard work. That's not at all what I signed up for! (But whenever I get it right, it's so cool that I just have to keep working on it anyway...)

While all this is going on, I get to listen to a lot of other students, and it's really quite remarkable how they (or at least some of them) apparently go through similar breakthroughs. Most importantly, I begin to develop an ear for what might be going wrong and how much untapped potential a singer has. Not to the extent that I'd consider making vocal coaching my career, perhaps, but it still changes the way I listen to vocals. It also makes me go "wow, this singer would sound awesome with some half-decent training". And not just in rare cases, either! In fact, most of the time when I listen to mediocre or even outright bad singers, I just mentally insert the trained version of their voices (to the extent that I can tell) and that makes listening much more bearable.

I've already said this about quite a few Song Fighters in the past. However, and now we're getting back to the initial point of this post, my impression is that relatively few singers are suffering from trying to imitate someone else, and the vast majority are suffering from not knowing what they really sound like, because all they have is their not entirely perfect techniques that their lives handed them (if that makes any sense). I'd love to solve that problem, but I don't know how to do it without them getting training in person, and from a decent coach at that. So, my message is: I have no idea how you're going to get there, but I'm convinced that you could sound much more awesome. And if I ever figure out a way to help you do it, I'll let you know.

Sing a catchy melody and no one will GAF what your voice sounds like.

I agree with all of that. I'm not suggesting that people are trying to imitate others, but that they are often not listening to themselves.

At its simplest this just means they are going out of tune and not realizing it. This often doesn't manifest as a distinctly out of tune voice but just one which grates because the pitching is off on passing notes etc (this is me). The solution to this is just to get a copy of autotune or something similar and use it to look at your pitches and see where you're on and off (and NOT use it to correct them!).

Or it might be that they have a voice which is very sweet and distinctive when singing softly and close-miked, but gets a bit squawky when they're singing loud. Or it might be a voice (like Mark Knopfler or Bob Dylan) which is essentially a speaking voice.

I'm all for singing lessons but there's a mass you can do just with yourself and a tape recorder and an empty room. Grab a guitar or a keyboard and sing some stuff with a very basic accompaniment. A cou ple of hours, and record it all. Try singing soft vs. absolutely belting. (If you don't know how to belt you've only discovered half your voice, by the way). Try out different keys. Figure out where your transitions from chest to head are. I guarantee if you do this you will learn something about the way you sound.

Listen to your voice. What do you *hate* about it? How can you change that? What do you like about it? How can you emphasize that?

I have a friend who's a trained singer and my problem with the way he sings is -- he sounds trained.

PiGPEN wrote:Sing a catchy melody and no one will GAF what your voice sounds like.

By that logic, someone with a good voice could sing anything and get away with it. Not sure I agree with that. It's all ingredients in the soup. It's noticeable when one element of a song stands out as way better or worse than the others.

Jast, that was really interesting about your training. I've never been trained but can carry a tune and have only been called out for a troublesome vocal quality a couple times, but my wife has the coolest voice I've ever heard, and is completely untrained. she coukd definitely benefit from lessons, but I'm not sure that what I dig about it isn't that very untrained quality.

sportswriters wrote:If you don't know how to belt you've only discovered half your voice, by the way.

Yes, I feel I've only discovered a 10th of my voice. Belting isn't something I've ever gotten. I may growl loudly in places, but belting forces me to tighten up in the throat and I know that's a great way to either destroy your voice or sound tight, or both.

I can still remember the first time I actually belted. I almost fell over with surprise at the noise that came out of my mouth. It was a true HOLY SHIT moment. The nice thing is that you don't have to do it all the time but when you do my god you are going to wake them up in the peanut gallery. I don't think I've ever done it on a recording but live it really helps to hit the odd high note. I just think of it as yelling on a particular note really - that seems to keep my throat kind of relaxed.

I do think that 90% of singing is mental, not physical. With belting it's more like 99%. It takes a huge mental effort to get yourself into the zone where you can make that kind of noise without strangling yourself with self-consciousness.

The guys I really envy are folk like bgm who have such a natural sweetness and steady pitch. You can hear when bgm records harmonies that he absolutely doesn't waver... you get this awesome unison-like quality which I dream about. You hear the same thing on Matthew Sweet records.

blue wrote:what what?!

ps: need bassist.

You do know Glenn Case would probably do just about anything to be your virtual bass player...does he know you're in this fight?

sportswriters wrote:Buncha good stuff about EQ

Jon, learning some EQ will add SO MUCH to a recording, and will train your ears in wonderful ways. You'll never go back.

The thing to remember about EQ is that individually EQed tracks usually sound worse than before any EQ was done to them. They only sound better when part of a whole mix. If you have a synth with a lot of different sounds, as an experiment, lay down a whole bunch of tracks with different sounds of all different frequencies. Just a bar or two, then loop it while you play with the EQ sliders. Make sure you have enough stuff going on so that it sounds too thick and muddy at first. Put a separate equalizer on each track. If you have EQ with "sliders", some of them let you choose how many sliders you want. To start with try to find one with about 10 individual sliders. For this experiment, don't bother with "shelfs" or the "Q" value, you're just going to move sliders up and down.

Now pick one instrument in your mix and solo it. Listen to it soloed as it loops and open the track's equalizer. Slide each slider in the effect all the way up and all the way down and notice how the chracter of the sound changes. You will notice some sliders have little or no effect on the sound. Changing the leftmost slider on a tambourine, for example, will do nothing. Then there are some sliders that seem to be carrying the entire weight of the sound all on its own. (A high frequency slider for a tambourine, for example). As you play with each slider, notice what characters of the sound get more and less prominent. In between the irrelevant sliders and the carry-all-the-weight sliders are where all the useful work comes.

These other sldiers carry part of the sound, but perhaps not an "essential" part. For example, your tambourine has nothing in the low end, a whole lot of energy at the top, but in the middle frequencies there is some sound, perhaps a mid-range bonking when the skin is hit. Notice how when you get rid of that frequency, there is less total sound to the tambourine, but you have not eliminated or altered its essential "tambourine-ness".

That mid-range bonking from the tambourine doesn't really need to be there, but it adds to the total sound and will compete with any instrument that is in that same frequency. Your guitar, for example, might have a lot mof sound at that frequency, but it is having to compete with that tambourine bonking, which you don't need. Get rid of it byt lowering the frequencies containing it. You still have the best part of the tambourine, and now your guitar has less to compete with. One method of getting rid of muddiness in a recording might be to SUBTLY eliminate these non-essential sounds from all competing instruments. You won't have to touch a single volume knob, yet all of a sudden every instrument sounds much clearer and more distinct. It's cool.

Another important technique then is to boost the frequencies that carry the most energy, such as the high end in the tambourine. If you find yourself thinking "I want that tambourine to really pop out", rather than making the whole track louder, all you're really are asking for is that high frequency, so leave the volume knob alone and SUBTLY boost that high frequency. You'll be amazed at the results.

I sometimes think of it like this. You are taking someone's picture, and you want to be able to see all of them, so you have them stand in the middle of the frame and click. However, if you're taking a big group photo, and need to squeeze a bunch of people into the frame, some people will need to stand behind other people. You won't be able to see all of everyone's body, but if they're head is visible, that's enough for them to be "in" the picture. Same with EQ. You don't need the entire frequency spectrum of that tambourine, all you really have it there for is that high pitched jangle. Unless the tambourine is soloing, then you probably want to hear it in its full glory. Make sense?

A very common benefit of EQ is to aurally separate kick drums and bass. In most cases, panning is not a good idea, since those low frequencies usually want to be centered. The kick drum may be a little lower than the bass. Accentuate the difference by highlighting each instruments more powerful frequency and lowering the frequencies that the other instrument "owns".

In my newer orchestral recordings, I usually have a spearate equalizer on each and every instrument, and a big part of my mixing is going painstakingly through each track and doing EQ on it. I always solo it, and go through the process individually for each instrument. "What aspect of this sound so I want to be sure is heard, and what aspects do I not care about as much?" (Important note: be very conservative with this. Good rule of thumb is after you've decided your sliders are where they should be for an instrument, bring them halfway back to zero, or you will run the risk of over-EQ-ing)

One thing someone told me once that seems to makes a difference is that when you go through each track, completely bottom out every slider that seems to make no difference to the sound of that instrument. Don't know if it really does work, but I do it.

Also, for me anyway, my ears get tired fast when doing this, and I need to step away for an hour or more before listening again to my post-EQ mix. Usually there are one or two "what was I thinking?" moments.

Not done yet. When everything is all mixed and EQed and you're "done", you need to do one final EQ on the entire mixdown. this will usually be a subtle "V" pattern, but can add some punch to the whole thing. Like Sportswriters (I believe) said, listen on different speakers, especially lousy ones, to get a good feel for your mix.

You know Jon, if you'd like to send me your raw tracks sometime I could show you what I mean by doing EQ on all of them. I'm no professional, and this is 95% self-taught, but I think my mixes tend to sound ok.

Jim of Seattle wrote:

PiGPEN wrote:Sing a catchy melody and no one will GAF what your voice sounds like.

By that logic, someone with a good voice could sing anything and get away with it. Not sure I agree with that. It's all ingredients in the soup. It's noticeable when one element of a song stands out as way better or worse than the others.

Actually that's the exact opposite of what i said. Doesn't matter if you used to get beat up for sounding like a weirdo and animals suddenly attack you when you're just trying to order shit at a drivethru.... if you have a good melody and you can hit the notes (not all) people will like it.

On the flipside you can have a great voice but be singing mundane soft-pop melodies and everyone will hate you.

On the flipside you can have a great voice but be singing mundane soft-pop melodies and everyone will hate you.

Except the people who love mundane soft-pop melodies, I guess.

The two best resources I know for learning about mixing and engineering (short of sitting in a studio next to someone who knows what they're doing) are

1. The Gearslutz expert producer Q & As. Some of them are better than others but they are all worth reading. Butch Vig, Daniel Lanois, John Leckie, Alan Parsons, they're all in there.

Here's the archive:
http://www.gearslutz.com/board/expert-q ... new-posts/

There's also a huge treasure trove of interviews with producers and engineers over at Sound on Sound magazine. EG this one with Chris Lord-Alge:

http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/may07/articles/cla.htm

If you look at the links on the left and right hand side of the page you'll see there's an extraordinary collection there. Don't worry if your eyes glaze over when they're discussing the differences between the buss compressors on two flavors of vintage SSL consoles - just skim for the usable advice.

2. This book:

http://www.amazon.com/Mixing-Audio-Conc ... 0240520688

Thanks for all the reviews guys (Tony from Tony and Juan and Adam)

I realize we're a little out of place, as most of the people here seem to use it as a song writing exercise. We took it a lot less seriously.

We're just 3 friends that enjoy recording together, so we hop around in genres and whatnot, doing whatever makes us laugh. We were having an off night in the idea department, so we checked out songfight and liked the suggestion.

We, obviously, went straight to the Occupy Wall Street analogy and decided there was no better band to rip off than Rage Against the Machine. So to those calling us "Bro-rock" etc, we're just playing around. We're about and non-bro as can be. Well, Juan does like to match his hat and shoes.

Anyway, Thanks to those who got the joke. Thanks to those who did but still didn't like it. Sorry about the vocals, I'm no Zack de La Rocha, but I must say we were all surprised by my ability to write rap lyrics.

We really had fun doing it so thanks to the whole community and all the guys running it for having this around.

Tony Bullard
tonybullard com | @toekneebullard

Jim of Seattle wrote:Jast, that was really interesting about your training. I've never been trained but can carry a tune and have only been called out for a troublesome vocal quality a couple times, but my wife has the coolest voice I've ever heard, and is completely untrained. she coukd definitely benefit from lessons, but I'm not sure that what I dig about it isn't that very untrained quality.

There is no such thing as an "untrained quality". Training is for creating habits that let you use your voice the way it works best. Some people pick up those habits naturally as they go along... those are often (but not always) people who have voices that aren't particularly hard to master in the first place; voices with a lighter quality. Lighter voices are much more difficult to mess up. Now obviously I don't know your wife's voice, so I couldn't say whether she sounds great because she has an "easy" voice and can use it well naturally, or because somehow she lucked out and can naturally use a different kind of voice well.

What I'm talking about here isn't classical training, by the way. It just goes in roughly the same direction, but not nearly as far. It takes bad stuff out of the vocalizing without going so far as trying to achieve absolute perfection (= most efficient use of voice in terms of effort vs. perceived power). And I'm not talking about learning to keep pitches, either, because I've never really had serious difficulties with that... although the completely different vocal technique requires different ways to control intonation, and so sometimes my pitch is actually worse than before. I'm working on it.

sportswriters wrote:If you don't know how to belt you've only discovered half your voice, by the way

I think the idea of "belting" is based on a misleading perspective on singing.

Let's start out with a brief explanation of how the voice works. The vocal folds are two protrusions somewhere in the larynx, and sound is produced when they are approximated (closed against each other) and air flows through them to push them apart. Given an appropriate combination of air pressure and approximation, they will rapidly push apart and then get back together again, and repeat that many times per second... this oscillation creates a pitched sound.

First topic: registers. There is one very clear distinction that is easy to make, functionally: full voice vs. falsetto. Falsetto creates a weak/soft tone that comes from pushing more air through the vocal folds than normal, and only a small part of the vocal folds is actually participating in the oscillation. Here's an illustration: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... imated.gif

The other main functional register is the modal voice. This is, essentially, the normal speaking voice (if you speak properly, anyway), and what you'd call chest voice: it has a full sound with plenty of overtones. The difference is that a much larger part of the vocal folds "meets". Here's an illustration: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... imated.gif — compare that to the previous example. Quite a difference, isn't it? And even though it doesn't look like it would do that much, that difference is the difference between a soft, breathy voice and a strong, rich voice.

How are they produced differently? Well, the only muscles the vocal folds have themselves are those they use to tense up, used (among others) to regulate pitch. These are used for the modal voice, but not for the falsetto voice. In that, other muscles are used to pull the vocal folds taught (so they aren't really capable of doing the modal kind of oscillation anymore). In addition, only part of the vocal folds actually meets. In contrast to the previous pictures that showed a side view/cross-section of the vocal folds, look at this illustration that shows a view from the top: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... itions.png — the sail shapes are the vocal folds, and the inner edges are those that you saw meet up in the other view. As you can see, they can be made to have a different distance to each other, and falsetto means that they are positioned like something between C and D (where C is modal voice)... so some parts of the folds close together and the rest is open (except in folks who are extremely good at falsetto). This, of course, means that the sound is weaker.

In general, falsetto is much easier to do, because for the modal voice, as pitch increases, the way the vocal folds are controlled gradually shifts to involve more/different muscles. More importantly, breath must be controlled much better... because if there isn't enough air flow, the oscillation doesn't work (because the air pressure isn't strong enough to push the vocal folds apart), and if there is too much air flow, the pressure is so strong that the vocal folds break apart; this is what people usually call a "break". The solution is called breath support and involves controlling breath pressure with a bunch of muscles situated below the diaphragm. Roughly, those muscles are used to pull the diaphragm down (this expands the lungs and thus pulls breath into them), keep it down (this makes sure the breath isn't expelled in an uncontrolled fashion) and release it at just the right speed (which depends on the pitch you're singing) so that the vocal folds can do the modal voice correctly. There will also be a partial vacuum in the lungs that contributes to pulling the vocal folds back down each time after they have been pushed apart.

Now I've explained enough stuff to get back to the initial topic. If you do this stuff very well, you naturally get a powerful and natural sounding voice even towards the upper end of your range. If you don't, chances are that your vocal folds will do an oscillation style that's somewhere between falsetto and modal (though your vocal folds will be approximated on the complete length, i.e. position C)... that one is easier to maintain, but if you don't do proper breath control, the pressure has to be controlled elsewhere. This elsewhere will end up being your throat (mostly the root of your tongue, which is somewhere in your throat where you can't see it). And, guess what, the body isn't designed to control pressure in your throat, at least not during singing. The result is pain — and the "strained" sound we all know.

Some vocal teaching claims that the fix is to use a so-called "head voice". There is no such thing, functionally speaking. To the extent that people aren't simply referring to proper technique (as described above) when they speak of "head voice" (and in that case there is simply a natural-sounding gradual change of the sound of your voice across your vocal range), it usually means that you are supposed to do some tricks with your muscles that remove the strain at the cost of making the voice sound weaker/softer.

Now, there are different definitions of belting, and some of them presuppose that there is such a thing as head voice, so the whole issue is rather confusing. By my definitions, belting is simply proper technique at higher pitches. There are ways to make it sound somewhat more "aggressive", too... by default it just sounds "powerful" and "damn good".

Disclaimer: die-hard fans of "speech-level singing" and the like are going to disagree wildly. Well, whatever. SLS didn't work out all that well for me, but this stuff here is delivering. YMMV, but I kind of doubt it.

Occupy My Heart reviews
(Written in 5 sittings between Missouri, Illinois, Kentucky, Tennessee and Alabama. But mostly in Missouri and Alabama and back in Missouri.)

The Al Gore Band - I don't know what I expected from the band that invented the internet, but this wasn't it. Nice line about the cheese.

Berkeley Social Scene - The vox has a laid back, lazy delivery that just doesn't quite seem to work for me. But it's a decent entry.

Billy and the Psychotics - I like the keys and I like the vox. But somehow they don't really fit together until the guitar comes in on the chorus.

c.layne: I like the guitar break, that staccato feel works well. I think the vox sounds good and the small melody range works here.

Dealin Doug and Rocky's Autos - I kinda wanna see that movie. I like the guitar on the verse. The vox doesn't blow me over, but I liked the doubling when it kicks in. The horn sound in the background is kinda eh. This sounds like a scene out of the movie when the main character gets on stage to sing a song as a pseudo musical in a romantic comedy.

DJ Ranger Den - I'm not sure the tone of the vox really fits the music for me. That being said, I like the expression in them and the way they work with the lyric. It might just need a brighter or more clear keys track to make it work better for me.

Dirge and Sara - Verse vox were a hair down, I couldn't make them out very well in places. I liked the chorus guitars, simple and effective. The vox effect works well there. The solo almost sounded out of place to start, but I liked it for a change of pace. Yeah, I liked this song as well.

dont reply - I have no idea how to do this type of thing. But it sounds like someone was playing with stuff instead of building a track. It isn't bad for what it is. Am I missing something here and just not getting it?

Elephant Finger Et Le Casio Ensemble Contemporain de Paris - You need to work on your enunciation and diction. I didn't understand a single word of this. MUMBLER!!!

Jon Eric: Yeah... no. Inoffensive music but I detest political songs whether I agree with them or not. But especially when not. Was not enough here that grabbed me to overcome my stated bias.

King Arthur - I'm not a huge fan of hard panning on the guitar but I liked the playing and the tone worked.

Metaluna - Finally the guitars kicked in and I liked it. They sound good. The vox is especially bare without the distortion kicked in.

MC Charlie Oh - What the hell are you talking about? That piano thing over and over again makes ME want to spit fire. I welcomed the chorus at the end.. the tentative and off pitch vocals seem to work for me. Well, it was better than the part before it anyway.

Monkey Touchers - Finally a well thought out and produce song from you guys. The rhythm was sparse, but effective. I'm a little disappointed that the vocals were a little hard to make out. I think a re-mix is in order.

noah mclaughlin - Not my favorite of the fight, but I don't dislike it.

Paco Del Stinko - I love the simile in the first line and the guitar fills are cool. The bass sounds good. I like this one.

The Pannacotta Army - I'm a bit biased towards the good before I even listen for two reason. One is your stuff over at 50/90 and the second is the two reviews I read before I got around to listening to yours said it was real good. It's got a touch of pop to keep it light and the playing is truly good on all levels. Phrasing and rhythmically it's just very good. The only quibble is that the whole thing seems a bit less clear than some of the other entries. A touch of mud I guess. But it doesn't take away from the quality songwriting and performing.

Pigfarmer Jr - Not the strongest entry, but I'm fairly happy with it. The last word of the song, 'hear' doesn't come across as tender or emotional, just weak.

Pigpen - It's nice to hear a rap with real instruments being played underneath it. Not my favorite genre, but I like this more than most.
(I think using 'bitches' and 'fuckers' is so overused that it loses its effect. Using it less would mean more, imo. That being said, I wouldn't have commented on it at all if it weren't for the previous discussion.)

Ross Durand - I liked the guitar and the vocal performance. This is like a little piece of Americana . It just feels real.

Sep - The vox is almost like hearing myself trying to sing when I don't quite know the melody. The rhythm seems to be fighting itself. And at times I liked the guitars and at times it felt like they were just a hair out of tune with themselves. This song just feels uncomfortable.

sonofsupercar - I didn't think much of it on first impression but I listened again and enjoyed it.

Sportswriters - "Well I cleaned up the house cause the house needed cleaning" Huh?? I truly didn't like that line when I first heard it. So I listened again. And even though there are a few lines like that in there... you done convinced me on the second (and third) listens. I truly like this song. And the guitars especially.

State Shirt - I think I'm a bit too sleepy for this right now, but I do like the vocals. Some interesting bits in there.

Tony And Juan and Adam: I like those guitars right off. I actually like this quite a bit, but I wonder if the lyric will hold up after the occupy dumbshits are gone from the media.

Yyarrells Band: I want to dislike it because the vocals and keys and everything is just too.... nice. But I actually like it.

sportswriters wrote:(2) Sounds without reverb feel closer. Sounds with reverb feel further away. Reverb muddies your mix. Keep it to the minimum that works for your song.

And delay effects.

jack wrote:

blue wrote:what what?!

ps: need bassist.

You do know Glenn Case would probably do just about anything to be your virtual bass player...does he know you're in this fight?

I, for one, dream about Glenn Case being in sos.

Reviews, part 1 of 2.

DISCLAIMER: All reviews are written while listening to each track for the first time - on crappy headphones. I'm probably wrong about a lot of stuff.

Al Gore Band
I recognize that it's part of the joke, but that out-of-tune guitar is really distressing to listen to. Some of the lyrics are clever, but it's mostly filler.

Berkeley Social Scene
I don't think I recognize the lead singer this time around. Or maybe it's Sam or Ken singing near the very bottom of his range. Either way, it doesn't sit comfortably in the singer's voice. Oh, and then that surprise register shift in the second verse. It's too low for the singer and too high. Ouch. Maybe this would have been better as a duet. I also think that a more varied verse melody might have given this a little more sticking power. Still, that chorus is really strong, especially the repetitions building toward the end. Vote.

Billy & The Psychotics
I dig a strong piano melody holding down a rock setting. I think there needs to be a change in Denise's vocal inflection when the full band kicks in, though. The whole arrangement has changed, but her voice is the same, and that lack of acknowledgement is somewhat jarring. Then the chorus rolls around, with the sort of anthemic vocals and light harmonies, and that's sort of what I had in mind. I guess my main complaint is that it feels like various elements are making transitions at different times. I really like what's here. I wish it were a bit tighter, but I'm still voting for this.

C. Layne
Is there supposed to be all that tape distortion, or is it my headphones? I really like that bass pad. I'd like to hear the vocals get a touch more prominence, but they're not bad here. I like how this seems to switch from organic band jam to sample-based electonica a couple of times throughout the track. Electric pianos like the one in the third verse are kind of a shortcut to my heart. I'm thinking this is going to be the one to beat. Vote.

Dealin' Doug and the Rocky's Autos
Super serious sample undercut by a Don Knotts soundalike. Then we get the buzzy electric guitars and fake brass. If this singing were any better, I'd think it was JB. The obvious fake-ness of the horns was distracting at first, but by the time the second chorus rolls around, I'm more or less welcoming this song on its own terms. I do with you'd tuned up every instrument one or two steps so that the singer could better control his own dynamics without having to stress out his voice or get nearly-inaudible as the melody dips near the bottom of his range. I may need to listen again to determine whether it's worth a vote.

Dirge & Sara
This is a familiar sounding groove. I'm pretty sure the verse is just a long-lost Cocteau Twins track with lyrics translated from gibberish to English. Those major 7ths establish a pretty solid jazz vibe. The transition from the major 7ths to a minor mode with a more straightforward rhythm doesn't really work for me - it feels like the chorus snuck in from a different song. The solo is pretty successful at merging the two impulses that threaten this song, by using the hard-rock guitar voice over the jazzy verse progression. Then, when I thought the song was ending, it launches into a third verse... and then abruptly ends. Maybe you'd have been better suited introducing another new section, a coda to end on?

DJ Ranger Den
You ought to know better than to submit songs without tagging them. Your vocals sound very distant, probably a factor of being heavily reverbed and mixed too low. I'm having a hard time hearing all the words. The ones I do hear are a bit cheesey and hackneyed - in a way that I don't normally expect to hear from Denni.

Dont Reply
How can you have a drum beat that was so obviously programmed still feel "off?" The high hats sounds like they keep losing the rhythm. I guess you weren't used to programming in waltz time? Oh... this is going to be an instrumental, isn't it? Why?

Elephant Finger and the Casio Ensemble Contemporain de Paris
Tag fail. Hey, there's a familiar sample. This kind of reminds me of really old-school Johnny Cashpoint, like around 2004. "Brown Boxes" comes to mind. I speak a little bit of French, but I'd need to devote more of my attention over more listens to really get what you're trying to do there. I know enough to catch your mispronunciations, though...

Jon Eric
I wish I'd had the time to redo these instrument tracks. I recorded vocals last, and during the vocal recording, I realized a few things. Primarily that verse 2 (and probably verse 3 as well) is too long, that the interlude between the first chorus and second verse could be cut completely, and that the bridge needs to be rethought (to what, I don't know). I could easily have chopped off a full minute from this song's running time, which probably would have made it more palatable. As for the lyrics... well, I was really happy with the first verse, but by the time Monday night rolled around, they were all I had, so it was time to let the standards drop and just write write write. That resulted in some unusually blunt wordsmithery from me, which I really want to revise. On the flip side, I do feel like this is one of my strongest melodies ever, and I'm quite proud of the piano part, even though there's an audible flub here and there. I want to thank everyone for offering (as ever) feedback that is candid, frank, and useful.

King Arthur
I like the shuffle beat right off the bat. The lyrics are a bit on-the-nose (heh, pot calling the kettle). Musically, I've got no complaints, as per the usual with King Athur.

Charlie Oh
That attempt at a vocal run near the beginning nearly made me turn off the song right away. Then the joke about "when I come on her face" sealed the deal. But then I kept it running long enough to keep typing this... Ugh. This is awful.

Metaluna
Before Linkin Park had the backing of a major studio or a drummer... I think you could play and sing a lot softer in the verses to really emphasize the dynamic change. You've got some servicable guitar chops and can program some drums pretty well... now let's see if you can really tap into the tools at your disposal to make something that sounds a lot close to how I think it probably sounded in your head.

Monkey Touchers
What?

Noah McLaughlin
I wish I knew how to phrase this productively... but something about your vocal inflection really undersells the intent of this piece. It sounds like you're making fun of folk singing, rather than engaging in a real folk song of your own. I like the slide guitar and electric piano in the chorus. During those sections, this arrangement sounds really full and professional in a way that really emphasizes how amateurish the rest of the arrangement sounds. I might suggest trying to sound less like you're consciously singing and adopt a more conversational vocal style on this one - I know your speaking voice is quite a bit higher than your singing voice anyway, so see if you can pull that off.

sportswriters wrote:On the flipside you can have a great voice but be singing mundane soft-pop melodies and everyone will hate you.

Except the people who love mundane soft-pop melodies, I guess.

No one loves mundane soft-pop melodies.