Hey, I have some time for doing a set!
You (almost) all fail the "post your lyrics" challenge. Not a good omen, guys. As you read these reviews, I have a question for you... I tend to complain about certain fairly universal problems with vocals. Is that something you want to hear? Would you prefer more details? Less? Should I just ignore that aspect in my reviews?
Berkeley Social Scene: I almost love the synth. On its own it's a little extreme, but I guess I can cope. Decent vocals (what did you do to those in the mix... add a billion layers?). I hope that doesn't sound like I'm dismissing the effort you put into this performance, because I'm not trying to do that. Honestly, you couldn't do any better than that without serious progress in vocal technique, and that's hard. You know that, of course. It's a big part of what distinguishes us guys here from the big names. Drums are almost a bit low in the mix; surprising for a BSS project. I like the arrangement, though. And I can even stand the usual BSS tendency towards solos because they work very well here. Something about the writing bugs me; I think it's that you stay away from the key of the song most of the time. Well, personal taste and all that.
C:4 L:4 F:3 P:4 M:5 Total: 20/25
the British IBM: noise floor. IBM. Yeah, I get it. Are the stutters in the bass line by design? Ever heard of ADSR curves? Song is a bit repetitive overall and I'm missing something pad-style (chords! Given the chip-ness... arpeggios!). How about a bridge section or something? If one section in this was meant to be a chorus, it might help highlighting it a little by making the arrangement more heavy-hitting or denser or something. For some reason the overall timing seems shaky. Ah, there's a bridge of sorts. Alternative "drums" are fun. Well, that was a fairly short reprieve. All in all, this is a nice "I only just started out" kind of song. Time to experiment, steal cool stuff, and experiment with that, too. Looking forward to the results of that.
C:2 L:0 F:2 P:2 M:3 Total: 9/25
CD the Remix: ... and here are the arpeggios I asked for! Yay! They don't always fit together with the bass line (let alone the bassy pad), though. That's a major turn-off for me in electronic music. The arrangement is inventive, though, plus I like the synths you've chosen, so that's good. The development isn't so great, though. There's a tendency here to just repeat the same things over and over, add a track, take it away again, etc. Sure, many electronic tracks don't do more than that, but I still believe every track gets better if it can hold interest beyond the minimum requirements for background/dance music.
C:2 L:0 F:3 P:4 M:3 Total: 12/25
The Chocolate Chips: I'm struggling trying to figure out what effect you put on the vocals. Cheap pitch shifter? The one from REAPER, perhaps (Elastique)? Doesn't really work with the decent-sounding instrument tracks. Songwriting is nice... now please sing like you mean it! I haven't really got anything else to complain about. So... success?
C:3 L:2 F:3 P:3 M:3 Total: 14/25
Devil Devil: nice playing and writing, but the recording sounds like poo. Plus the written material doesn't sustain it all the way through. You can't just repeat the same things over and over forever, unless you're making cheap electronic music. It's fun playing something if you're getting "in the zone", I know. But make it fun for the listener, too – that's your job as a songwriter! You have to balance that with your job as a performer... at least if you want maximum impact. Good luck!
C:2 L:0 F:2 P:3 M:1 Total: 8/25
The HATE Noise: The mix is oddly uneven across the spectrum; the vocals in particular either stick out like a sore thumb or blend in like a sleep-deprived background actor. The combined aliasing/pitch locking effect on some tracks is
awesome. That's the only awesome thing about the song, though, and all in all I'm left feeling rather indifferent. Oh yeah, I guess I like the drum groove, too. But the spectrum still seems incomplete and so the stuff that
is there feels muddy and overcrowded. Finally, I'm – once again – not too happy that this song is mostly repetitions of repetitions. Nice experiment, meh song.
C:2 L:* F:2 P:2 M:2 Total: 11/25
Hip Hop Anonymous: playing with the playback speed like that is annoying. You've got some greating writing and flow... but your speaking voice needs work. You know how it's always easy to tell professional speakers from non-professionals, just from the way their voice sounds? Yeah, that's the thing I'm talking about. Also, as nice as the writing is, the backing track gets old about halfway through and I start getting distracted by the monotony. Variety hour, please (a little earlier than you did it)!
C:2 L:4 F:3 P:3 M:4 Total: 16/25
Klownhole: there's some serious energy going on in the guitar and drums. That part sounds pretty cool. The vocals, however, don't. Firstly, they sound like they were mixed in as an afterthought. Secondly, they sound like an afterthought, though to be honest, saying that is the easy way out. It's undeniable that the singer is getting into things. What's missing is the vocal balance, the thing that makes vocals cut through everything effortlessly. I keep going on about this because it really does make a huge difference, and perhaps you don't have the time or ambition to get into this, plus it's hard to figure out in the first place. The reversed reverb is kind of a cool effect that fits in here, but also it sort of underlines how the vocals are not "all there" and sort of worsens the effect. I think a lot of that could be fixed in the mix, in any case. Compositionally, I could imagine more happening in this, but not much more... that wouldn't work for the style, I guess. Bring out the high end of the bass a bit more, perhaps. Overall, nice work.
C:3 L:* F:3 P:4 M:2 Total: 15/25
Mime Cavity: intro immediately gives this a messy feeling. Mix and mastering are going to need some work. This all sounds very distant. Man, I hope his doesn't really go on for almost six minutes as my player claims it will. The messy playing sounds entirely avoidable. Pretty repetitive song. I can't get into this. Nope, I'm out. PS. Minus points for annoying lyrics.
C:2 L:1 F:1 P:2 M:2 Total: 8/25
Paco del Stinko: nice building up the stereo field in the intro. This is looking to be another trademark Paco favourite. Interesting progressions but not
too interesting, if you know what I mean. Nicely composed though not terribly hooky. One spontaneous thought I had that seems to apply to many of your songs is that your melodies often have this kind of rhythm: lalalalalaala (short break) lalalalalalaala (short break), and so on. In other words, a tendency to have many longish runs of pretty much entirely eighths or sixteenths. If you're feeling like experimenting, I'd be interested what'd happen if you tried to work against that in a future uptempo song. In fact, how about a song with a considerably lower lyric-to-measure ratio? Reverb on the lead vocals sounds nice but is a bit much compared to the rest of the mix, I think. Are the guitars deliberately out of tune? I don't have much to say about this, except that I like it and that you aren't exempt from my universal complaints about vocals.
C:4 L:4 F:5 P:4 M:5 Total: 22/25
Sober: wonderful guitar recording. Vocals sound a bit more unpolished and I think I'd actually prefer having the guitar recording be a little less polished, too, so it fits together better. Pretty good vocals, though IMO the higher notes (lead vox) are a bit of an unnecessary risk that didn't pay off completely. Refine your technique a bit and you can make this song absolutely perfect. Songwriting is very solid, too, of course, including the often neglected (especially in G&G songs) development. Liking the fake choir. Perhaps try giving it a bit more diversity by deliberately blending in a few somewhat flawed tracks.
C:5 L:4 F:4 P:4 M:5 Total: 22/25
PS. confused by cryptic characters? Read the signature line below this post.
