Nur Ein III Round Two "Unnatural Disaster"

[jb]

I repeat my encouragement: Do not assume you are able to fully comprehend how someone addressed the challenge, based on the limited amount of time you're going to be devoting to listening to that song. In Glenn's case, you missed a bunch of interesting things that merge seamlessly with the recording.

I agree, but like if you totally are not hearing the backwardsness (especially as a judge) what should you do? Sure, you don't just put on your bigboy boots and stomp around and be all "ICAN'THEARTHE CHALLENGEFAILFAIL", but... I dunno. Something. How does the non-optional challenge info get where it needs to get? Because if everyone just starts giving everyone the benefit of the doubt, then I don't really have to do the challenge. (You all still have to, because you're upstanding citizens.)

Well, I was really just promoting, uninvited, my version of humility, and was thinking more that the response to Glenn's song might better have been "Hmm, all I hear of the challenge is that the drums are backwards. Is there more in there that I'm just not hearing? I guess there must be, but based on what I hear I wish it were a little more apparent-- what's the fun in backwards if you can't tell it's backwards? I guess I like this other song, where I can definitely hear it and it's awesome, better."

But then again, it's Nur Ein, not Love Ein. Glenn, you suck! Way to fuck up the challenge, loser!

I think a good non-optional challenge restricts you in a way that is very precise-- "use only three chords" or "must be under 2:00" or "include three-part harmony" or "no traditional instruments" or something. A challenge that's pretty damn hard to achieve, so if you do it and have something great to show for it you've done something obviously pretty rad. That or it should be optional. And prescribing something subjective like "prominent" seems destined to create havoc amongst the judging and annoyance amongst the participants.

But that's just my opinion, and I will continue to strive to meet the challenge in a creative way even if it's not quite up to the level others are looking for, and I will try not to be too annoyed when people just don't get it (or refuse to try to, and ack, I really don't mean to imply that's anybody here!) since that's the status quo in life for most of us. Oh lawd, pleez don' let me be mis... understood.

JB

[Spud]

I am going to make my use of the challenge more prominant, like Gleen and JB, by posting it here for all to see:

First and most obviously, the aliens in the bridge, which continue through the rest of the song are SpudNut reading the lyrics, sped up, reversed, and layered like a round. Additionally, the sound of backward speech was the impetus for the subject matter of the song - an alien landing.

Second, in the spirit of backwardness, the repeated run is PLAYED backwards the on the fourth line of each chorus.

Finally, again in the spirit of reversability, and at a smaller scale than the big run in the chorus, the little figures in the keyboard are all 1-2-3-2-1 in form.

SPUD

[jb]

This particular challenge asked specifically for "Prominant use of backwards recording" not just to use it. If a judge has to listen for it, then it seems to me it would not be "prominant" and should not receive the benefit of the doubt. Personally, I felt all songs met this challenge.

But does it have to sound backwards to be backwards recording? What if all my instrumentation was played backwards, but done in a way that you couldn't tell it was backwards-- but if played forwards would sound completely different? I know that we expect that "backwards sound" but we could probably come up with a challenge that could be addressed in a way that you just couldn't tell even though the whole composition was based around it. Maybe something like what happened to Adam when he listened to ADD's "Sleepwalking"? Kind of seemed that way, although it's hard not to generalize and it's a complex issue I think.

I don't mean to argue, only discuss and debate some. It's a valid point-- if you're going to have the challenges you have to be able to tell they were addressed, otherwise Erik's right and you can just make up something "no i totally did the challenge see here's x,y,z things i did" and lie like a dog in the hot Tampa sun in August.

JB

[Spud]

But does it have to sound backwards to be backwards recording?

I pretty much agreed with you up to there, JB. I think you're pushing it, now. I mean, how prominent is it if you can't recognize it?

...the hot Tampa sun in August.

Nice plug!

SPUD

[adamadamant]

[While writing there were a load of replies, but this was my initial response.]

Ok well sorry to offend.

I enjoyed listening to the songs this week and I especially enjoyed the way people took the challenge to heart. Listening to G&R's song I initially couldn't tell anything was backwards but then realised the drums were. This was all that was *apparent* to me. In fact they did a very good job of recording a whole bunch of stuff backwards and making it sound a lot like it wasn't being played backwards. Whether that's the right approach to the challenge or not is not something I'd comment on, but I personally enjoyed the songs which used the challenge as an obvious and integral part of the song. Perhaps calling it a cop-out was a bit strong and I'm sorry if that's what was felt.

If I was claiming a position of objectivity or reliability, like this magazine that reviewed Suede, then it would be unfair of me to make such comments without closely studying each song. As it is I listened to each song several times and gave my opinion of them, I don't assume that I can fully comprehend how someone has addressed the challenge, I never claimed to and I didn't think anyone would think I was trying to.

Anyway I liked all the songs this week, including JB's and G&R's and I would never try to put anyone down, it's just an opinion.

[edit: So I realise that you weren't talking about a magazine called Ranch that revewied a song by the band Suede, so that point is kind of redundant.]

[Billy's Little Trip]

I'm just trying to incorporate the challenge smoothly without making it sound detached from the song. Personally I felt that's how Glenn and Rach's song came out. They met the challenge and if you heard it on the radio, you wouldn't ask yourself, "what the hell is that weird part in the song", because it all flows. Frankie did his very detached, but it was obvious sarcasm which makes it work perfectly.
I subtly met the challenge on the intro and outro, but pushed it harder on the bridge, as most here did. I just tried to transition as smooth as I could, but trying to end it smoothly was driving me crazy, so I said fuck it and did a hard short break with a fast return to the verse. It worked in my opinion without sounding too hard to grasp.

All in all, I think everyone met the challenge pretty damn good without sounding too out there. The only song this week that rubbed me wrong with the challenge is Bryan Kandel, but only for the first couple seconds, then you can clearly hear that he's trying to add reverse chords with his normal chords. But for the first couple seconds it sound out of key/time until my brain catches up. But still a good song Bryan.

[Jefff]

Random observations, and a mostly non-random ordering of my preferences.

15-16 - I'm a little jealous that you can actually sell this. Nice use of your backwards sound.
BLT - Excellent riff. Your song is good and I like what you're going for, but you're trying to make your voice do things it just won't.
Frank - I think the joke works.
Glenn - Love the stereo placement of the vox, and that dwarf voice is fab. (FWIW, I think this is best use of the challenge.)
Ken - Great riff. Great sounds.
King Arthur - I like what you did with the challenge.
Starfinger - Love the violin solo
Tex - "The devil made me do it" - Catchy!
Bryan Kandel - You are last because of my genre bias. Sorry.

1. G+R, Frank
3. Adam Adamant, Ken
5. The WSA
6. JBB
7. 15-16 Puzzle, BLT
9. Starfinger, King Arthur, Paco Del Stinko
12. Reist, Cock, Tex
14. Ross Durand
15. Octothorpe
17. Jim Tyrrell
18. Bryan Kandel

[jb]

Ok well sorry to offend.

Naw man, I wasn't offended, I just disagreed a little. Sorry if it seemed like I'm really mad or something; I'm not. I appreciate the time you took to listen and comment, and I hope my disagreement didn't put you off future discussions of same. I'll certainly disagree with somebody else in the future, and I hope we can have a nice discussion then as we did over the last few posts today.

JB

[erik]

Nur Love!

[Billy's Little Trip]

BLT - Excellent riff. Your song is good and I like what you're going for, but you're trying to make your voice do things it just won't.

I guess I have two choices, more practice before recording, or change my direction. I know what you mean, but I really feel it and I feel I have no choice but to give it all I've got. If I tried it any other way, it would be a cop out to myself and the song. But I do appreciate the honesty, otherwise I wouldn't push myself to improve.

[furrypedro]

The Worldly Self-Assurance - Another stonker. It's nice to have WSA last as I know the list will always end well.

Agreed. I think the same thing every week!

Aww, you guys.
Melvin did a remix too which he should post a link to here cos it's "definitive".

[adamadamant]

Ok well sorry to offend.

Naw man, I wasn't offended, I just disagreed a little. Sorry if it seemed like I'm really mad or something; I'm not. I appreciate the time you took to listen and comment, and I hope my disagreement didn't put you off future discussions of same. I'll certainly disagree with somebody else in the future, and I hope we can have a nice discussion then as we did over the last few posts today.

JB

No it's fine. It's fun to have a little jive talk now and again.

[melvin]

Melvin did a remix too which he should post a link to here cos it's "definitive".

Indeed, I should. We were REALLY cramming for the deadline, and unfortunately our entry is missing a sweet intro section, a whole guitar part by Pedro, and a number of nuances to the mix.

Please enjoy this version of our track.

And thanks for kind the comments, Ken and Adamadamant. I've been very impressed with your entries as well--especially Ken's tune for this round. Wicked mix of melody, crunchy guitars and synth!

[Billy's Little Trip]

Billy's Little Trip - I like the lyrics, a cool approach to the title. Generally good, the chorus is really sound and I like the double vocals.

Cool, thanks, Adam.

[frankie big face]

Frank - I think the joke works.

1. G+R, Frank

Well, it works once anyway (probably not with repeat listens, but that's why I made an edit!). I figure the judges are either going to think it's funny and prominent enough or think it's a cop-out on the challenge. But either way, I'm happy with it.

Wow, you put me at the top. That is nice. My first two tracks were not so great, but I like this one and it's nice to get positive feedback.

[frankie big face]

Finally, again in the spirit of reversability, and at a smaller scale than the big run in the chorus, the little figures in the keyboard are all 1-2-3-2-1 in form.

I did a similar thing with my song. The main riff (E-G-E-Bb) is played in retrograde inversion (Bb-G-Bb-E) during the intro and after each chorus. I almostmade a palindrome out of the chorus (Am-C-G-Am-C-G-Am, then F ), but it didn't quite work and I wasn't going to fuck up the chord progression to make it happen.

But of course, while these are fun little touches, they don't have anything to do with "backwards recording" so I don't expect any extra points for either of us.

[frankie big face]

Frankie Big Face - Boom! Here we go! Nice rock vibe going on here, good stuff. I think the lyrics could be a bit less reverby, it would make them easier to make out, but it does bring a good style. The pan-pipe breakdown is also a bit of a gamble.

Three stars! Three stars! How dare you! Nah, I'm just kidding. You're nice. Anyway, I knew I would receive some criticism about the vox in the verse, but it's almost exactly what I wanted for this tune. If you could just barely understand the lyrics, then it was just right. I even kind of mumbled through them to be honest.

Pan-pipe! Pan-pipe! That's a solid silver Gemeinhardt--oh, whatever.

[Billy's Little Trip]

Frankie, I like the big rock reverb on your lyrics, but I would have liked them slightly in front of the music instead of behind. I think the reverb that you used worked fine for mildly blurring the enunciation.

[frankie big face]

Frankie, I like the big rock reverb on your lyrics, but I would have liked them slightly in front of the music instead of behind. I think the reverb that you used worked fine for mildly blurring the enunciation.

Yeah, I don't think the mix is perfect, but I got close to the effect I was going for. There's probably some EQ trick I could have done (well, not me, but Adam!) to keep the blurriness but improve the overall quality. It is true that I purposely mixed the vocals further back than I usually do.

[Billy's Little Trip]

Yeah, when we have one week to make a song that can stand up to this group, some things are prioritized. I on the other hand put my vocals way to out front in the loud parts to give an almost peaking the meter effect. But it just made them annoying, lol. A remix on mine is much needed.

[Reist]

Andrew - what about spending a couple hundred on a squire P-bass?

Yes.

What are you guys getting at?

EDIT: I'd try some different vocal processing before I bought a new mic, if I were you. Experimenting with the compressors/eqs you already have is free; a new mic is not.

I do experiment with compressors/eqs, but I just can't seem to get a great sound out of it. Maybe I'm using the mic wrong.

Andrew, are you doing all the basic stuff? Using a pop screen/wind filter, keeping ~6" from the mic, making sure not to have too huge a volume range when you sing, boosting the gain on the input enough but not too much, normalizing the vocal track, applying a high pass EQ to it to cut the very low frequencies, compressing it, making sure the vocals aren't crowded in terms of how things are panned, making sure the vocals aren't being crowded in their frequency range, adding a touch of reverb, etc.? None of these things are "rules" by any stretch of the imagination, and I'm definitely not an expert, so your mileage may vary with them.

I don't have a pop screen filter (though I'm sure it'd be easy to make). I normally keep about 6" from the mic, but I'm not sure what you mean by normalizing. What's high pass EQ? Just EQ in the high range? I compress the track, and try to pan it (though I'm panning them closer than I used to, as I was getting sick of the sound of two voices hard panned in each direction ... it sounds cheap to me (although I'm sure my current technique sounds cheap as well). On this week's song, I added quite a bit of reverb - I'm surprised most of you thought I didn't use it.

Hmm. I guess I have a load to learn when it comes to vocals and proper micing techniques.

[Lunkhead]

I've replied here:

http://www.songfight.net/forums/viewtop ... f=6&t=5461