Musical Demo Submission thread

[Guestowel]

I pretty much only made these songs because I was tired of not having any say in the crappy band I was in, and wanted to play some music that I would enjoy listening to. (I have a pretty eccentric taste in music) If I had to describe the idea I was shooting for, I would say a mix between Depeche Mode and The Dead Milkmen. I am very much aware of the sound issue on Ronald Reagan's Zombie Corpse, and I apologize. I lost the original file, and I do not care enough to re-record it. I have no intentions on being a professional musician, I am just curious what a pro would think of it. I have gotten invited to open for Gwar and KMFDM, but I don't have it in me to play live. So here is my link, with no stupid flashy background to load, I hope if you don't like the music, you at least get a smile from the humor http://www.myspace.com/brokenspork42

Tracks are great, I really like them. (I'll ignore the first track which obviously has technical issues, sounds like it was recorded on a tape with too much built-up magnetism or dirt.) Vocals are a different story. You sound like you're having trouble hitting the right notes, so you're wavering around, timidly guesstimating the pitches. Nothing a bit of auto-tune can't fix, I guess - or the other option is to go "screw the pitch" and be content with half-rapping it in Frank Zappa style (which would suit what you're aiming for, actually), and give the vocal delivery more character. However, some of your vocals in "Costner Stalker" are actually out of time with the beats - you're rushing the vocal delivery and going faster than the beat dictates in places. The bass guitar also rushes and de-synchronizes with the beat in the Zombie song during that fancy fill section. That is not a "fix in the mix" proposition - pitch can be altered but you MUST get timing right, always, because time-stretching after the fact sounds horrid. Aside from that there's also technical issues - the voice needs compression, a little distortion wouldn't hurt either (it's what a lot of people in this music style do to compensate for weak delivery) but compression is the main thing. It just sounds like some guy mumbling at the moment, kind of indistinct. If you're going to have "funny" lyrics, they need to be clearly audible, and not muddy or indistinct in any way. Don't sing so close to the microphone. It's a shame because the tracks really are great, atmospheric even. It's the live elements you're putting over the basic tracks that are the deal-breaker at this stage.

I know you don't care, but if I were a label I wouldn't sign you for one and one reason only, completely unrelated to everything I've just told you. You were invited to open for a big international act and you didn't say "yes I'll do it" immediately. That's not cool from a label's point of view. Artists who won't play live are truly a pain in the ass to work with, as it's almost impossible for them to make money, or for us to make money by having them on our roster. I know people in my town who would have killed for an opportunity like that.

Thank you so much! I really appreciate your feedback, and I will keep your advice in mind for when I decide to write some more songs. I am a firm believer that a person will never improve if no one tells them what they are doing wrong. I must say though that I did use some compression and distortion in my voice, so you could just about imagine what it sounded like before I mixed it. I have a very low voice that is very harsh and not much range, and believe it or not I spent 4 10 hour days recording the vocals for "Costner Stalker" at which point I just said, "Fuck it, it's good enough for the girls I go out with". I am glad that you enjoyed some elements of my songs, I am very proud of them.

I totally understand what you are saying about not signing me because I turned down opening for those bands. If I actually had aspirations to be a musician it would have been a different story all together, but I couldn't handle the lifestyle of a working musician. So no surprise there. I much prefer my current career as a cook. I do not like to leave my home for more than a day, let alone be gone for weeks or months.

Once again, thank you. Your analysis was way more positive than I assumed, and your criticism was fair and helpful.

 

[MiracleOfSound]

Here you go:

http://www.myspace.com/lotuslullaby

Currently in Limbo at the moment as my record label has to work with thier other band.

Thinkin about the future at the mo so some advice would be nice.

I wanna get into selling my songs to other artists.

Music biz sucks

 

[Buffoon]

Here's my contribution:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fga3ML4pjFM

I... um... maybe you could market it as... nope, I dunno. Someone said it'd make a good ringtone. I think he was trying to be encouraging. Still, I guess Crazy Frog made some money for someone...

I was trying to get people to use it instead of RickRolling. Didn't work.

 

[BonsaiK]

Here you go:

http://www.myspace.com/lotuslullaby

Currently in Limbo at the moment as my record label has to work with thier other band.

Thinkin about the future at the mo so some advice would be nice.

I wanna get into selling my songs to other artists.

Music biz sucks

Thanks for the PM.

Songs sound great. Not my taste personally and yes I would no doubt like the 'rockier' songs more but that's irrelevant because label approval isn't your problem as you're over that hurdle. Your problem is that your label won't prioritise you, for whatever reason (probably because you're not as "trendy" as something else on their label that they figure they can milk for more money), so they're doing something oh-so-typical in the music business - instead of saying to you on the phone "go away" they're saying "we're too busy right now, get back to us later". All a label has to do to ruin your career is not return your calls. And they will.

Do you have a lawyer? If not, get one immediately. Make sure you get a lawyer who specialises in the music industry - a regular lawyer is worthless for this and will misinterpret contract clauses as music industry contracts contain specific music industry jargon that it can be dangerous to miss. Get them to look over whatever you signed with your label. What you need to know is:

* What are the terms of the contract? ("Terms" = length of contract in either album releases or time period that you are under contract to the label)
* Is the label committed to do anything with your music within these terms?
* Have you signed over the rights to your songs to the label? Not just the recordings, but the actual songs themselves? Also do they "own" the rockier mixes too?
* Do the label have exclusive rights to any other work that you produce for any set period of time? If you write a song outside of the band moniker, does that also belong to the label, or does the agreement only cover the "band" as an entity?

A label can completely put you in limbo depending on what you sign. Not only can they halt your career by NOT releasing your stuff, but in extreme cases they can prevent you doing anything else. Anyway, a music industry lawyer will be able to go through your contract and then you can find out the legalities of:

* Making them release your tracks to the public within a set time period
* Making them release your tracks back to you so you can do something else with it
* Making them release you from your agreement so you can do other things

Frankly, if you didn't do the original signing with a lawyer present, there are good odds that you might even be able to get the whole contract wiped out as null and void in a courtroom. A professional label will know this and therefore will insist that a lawyer representing you be present for all contractual negotiations. On the other hand if you already have legal representation (although I figure you don't or you wouldn't be asking me this stuff) then give them your paperwork and get them to tell you what is possible.

As for selling songs to other artists... to be honest that's an area which is outside of my realm of experience. The main demand in this field right now is definitely in country music, it may pay to make some inquiries into some Nashville labels as they're always looking for songwriters. Once again, be careful with the paperwork. And remember the label probably does own rights to your existing songs (so you can't really shop those - however you COULD use your existing band's MySpace as a resume and say to another label "hey I can write stuff like this"), however it would be a pretty extreme contract if they also claimed rights on new material that you wrote outside of the band context, let's hope that isn't the case.

Good luck. Frankly I think the odds are on your side given that the label is spinning its wheels, but tread cautiously.

 

[BonsaiK]

Here's my contribution:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fga3ML4pjFM

I... um... maybe you could market it as... nope, I dunno. Someone said it'd make a good ringtone. I think he was trying to be encouraging. Still, I guess Crazy Frog made some money for someone...

I was trying to get people to use it instead of RickRolling. Didn't work.

Er, no. I wouldn't touch this because it's kind of dance music and I don't really work within that scene. It means that to market it, I'd have to talk to dance scene guys. No thanks. Dance scene guys are almost as annoying as rap scene guys.

If you want to improve this song I'd say shorten the build-up. It takes too long to get to the point, halve every "stage" of buildup so it gets to the beat quicker, so people know that they're listening to a dance song. Also, it's just kind of... well, a bit... annoying. All the different layers of keyboard have the same (or a very similar) sound. The "ping" sound for the very high melody is excellent but maybe have smoother sounds for the rest so it doesn't all blend into one big mush. Yes, "annoying" can sometimes translate into "catchy" (i.e Crazy Frog) but the difference between this song and Crazy Frog is that Crazy Frog has a FROG. Don't underestimate the importance of the human voice (or frog voice) - releasing a song without any vocals on it is always putting yourself at a massive handicap. Ask yourself how many hit songs have no human voice on them at all. The answer is... almost none. Even techno dance club stuff made by bedroom nerds with an old Amiga or Atari ST (kickass machines for making music BTW especially the latter) usually has a vocal sample or two in there somewhere, even if it's just some little looped bit of speech or whatever. Throw in a few (legal! and not cliched!) vocal samples, have a punchier arrangement (the beat itself is nice and bassy, you want that to be in the majority of the song) and maybe replace some of the more annoying keyboard patches with something a little smoother and this will sound better. Then send it to a dance label.

 

[Doitpow]

http://www.myspace.com/greyvisionrock

actually my friends band. I'm their unofficial manager. Don't think they have much potential commercially, but what do you reckon?

 

[Buffoon]

Er, no. I wouldn't touch this etc

Ha, wow, thanks for taking the time to comment! That's about fifty times more attention than the music deserved Must admit I personally like the 'mush' sound. Fair point about the vocals, but I really have a personal aversion to them for whatever reason. If I was ever going to include them I'd definitely go the nonsensical route.

Anyway, thanks again.

 

[BonsaiK]

http://www.myspace.com/greyvisionrock

actually my friends band. I'm their unofficial manager. Don't think they have much potential commercially, but what do you reckon?

No comment. See OP.

Also if you don't think they have commercial potential why are you their unofficial manager?

 

[MiracleOfSound]

Here you go:

http://www.myspace.com/lotuslullaby

Currently in Limbo at the moment as my record label has to work with thier other band.

Thinkin about the future at the mo so some advice would be nice.

I wanna get into selling my songs to other artists.

Music biz sucks

Thanks for the PM.

Songs sound great. Not my taste personally and yes I would no doubt like the 'rockier' songs more but that's irrelevant because label approval isn't your problem as you're over that hurdle. Your problem is that your label won't prioritise you, for whatever reason (probably because you're not as "trendy" as something else on their label that they figure they can milk for more money), so they're doing something oh-so-typical in the music business - instead of saying to you on the phone "go away" they're saying "we're too busy right now, get back to us later". All a label has to do to ruin your career is not return your calls. And they will.

Do you have a lawyer? If not, get one immediately. Make sure you get a lawyer who specialises in the music industry - a regular lawyer is worthless for this and will misinterpret contract clauses as music industry contracts contain specific music industry jargon that it can be dangerous to miss. Get them to look over whatever you signed with your label. What you need to know is:

* What are the terms of the contract? ("Terms" = length of contract in either album releases or time period that you are under contract to the label)
* Is the label committed to do anything with your music within these terms?
* Have you signed over the rights to your songs to the label? Not just the recordings, but the actual songs themselves? Also do they "own" the rockier mixes too?
* Do the label have exclusive rights to any other work that you produce for any set period of time? If you write a song outside of the band moniker, does that also belong to the label, or does the agreement only cover the "band" as an entity?

A label can completely put you in limbo depending on what you sign. Not only can they halt your career by NOT releasing your stuff, but in extreme cases they can prevent you doing anything else. Anyway, a music industry lawyer will be able to go through your contract and then you can find out the legalities of:

* Making them release your tracks to the public within a set time period
* Making them release your tracks back to you so you can do something else with it
* Making them release you from your agreement so you can do other things

Frankly, if you didn't do the original signing with a lawyer present, there are good odds that you might even be able to get the whole contract wiped out as null and void in a courtroom. A professional label will know this and therefore will insist that a lawyer representing you be present for all contractual negotiations. On the other hand if you already have legal representation (although I figure you don't or you wouldn't be asking me this stuff) then give them your paperwork and get them to tell you what is possible.

As for selling songs to other artists... to be honest that's an area which is outside of my realm of experience. The main demand in this field right now is definitely in country music, it may pay to make some inquiries into some Nashville labels as they're always looking for songwriters. Once again, be careful with the paperwork. And remember the label probably does own rights to your existing songs (so you can't really shop those - however you COULD use your existing band's MySpace as a resume and say to another label "hey I can write stuff like this"), however it would be a pretty extreme contract if they also claimed rights on new material that you wrote outside of the band context, let's hope that isn't the case.

Good luck. Frankly I think the odds are on your side given that the label is spinning its wheels, but tread cautiously.

Thanks for all the advice man, that was a great read, and pretty encouraging.

The good news is that yes, I am free legally to do what I like with my songs and was very careful about that side of things, I'm not stuck in anything if I want to get out.

My dilemma at the moment is whether or not to stay with them or start again from scratch by myself.

And hey... guess what kind of music the 'priority' band on the label does...?

Yep, you guessed it... mid 90s grunge.

 

[BonsaiK]

Here you go:

http://www.myspace.com/lotuslullaby

Currently in Limbo at the moment as my record label has to work with thier other band.

Thinkin about the future at the mo so some advice would be nice.

I wanna get into selling my songs to other artists.

Music biz sucks

Thanks for the PM.

Songs sound great. Not my taste personally and yes I would no doubt like the 'rockier' songs more but that's irrelevant because label approval isn't your problem as you're over that hurdle. Your problem is that your label won't prioritise you, for whatever reason (probably because you're not as "trendy" as something else on their label that they figure they can milk for more money), so they're doing something oh-so-typical in the music business - instead of saying to you on the phone "go away" they're saying "we're too busy right now, get back to us later". All a label has to do to ruin your career is not return your calls. And they will.

Do you have a lawyer? If not, get one immediately. Make sure you get a lawyer who specialises in the music industry - a regular lawyer is worthless for this and will misinterpret contract clauses as music industry contracts contain specific music industry jargon that it can be dangerous to miss. Get them to look over whatever you signed with your label. What you need to know is:

* What are the terms of the contract? ("Terms" = length of contract in either album releases or time period that you are under contract to the label)
* Is the label committed to do anything with your music within these terms?
* Have you signed over the rights to your songs to the label? Not just the recordings, but the actual songs themselves? Also do they "own" the rockier mixes too?
* Do the label have exclusive rights to any other work that you produce for any set period of time? If you write a song outside of the band moniker, does that also belong to the label, or does the agreement only cover the "band" as an entity?

A label can completely put you in limbo depending on what you sign. Not only can they halt your career by NOT releasing your stuff, but in extreme cases they can prevent you doing anything else. Anyway, a music industry lawyer will be able to go through your contract and then you can find out the legalities of:

* Making them release your tracks to the public within a set time period
* Making them release your tracks back to you so you can do something else with it
* Making them release you from your agreement so you can do other things

Frankly, if you didn't do the original signing with a lawyer present, there are good odds that you might even be able to get the whole contract wiped out as null and void in a courtroom. A professional label will know this and therefore will insist that a lawyer representing you be present for all contractual negotiations. On the other hand if you already have legal representation (although I figure you don't or you wouldn't be asking me this stuff) then give them your paperwork and get them to tell you what is possible.

As for selling songs to other artists... to be honest that's an area which is outside of my realm of experience. The main demand in this field right now is definitely in country music, it may pay to make some inquiries into some Nashville labels as they're always looking for songwriters. Once again, be careful with the paperwork. And remember the label probably does own rights to your existing songs (so you can't really shop those - however you COULD use your existing band's MySpace as a resume and say to another label "hey I can write stuff like this"), however it would be a pretty extreme contract if they also claimed rights on new material that you wrote outside of the band context, let's hope that isn't the case.

Good luck. Frankly I think the odds are on your side given that the label is spinning its wheels, but tread cautiously.

Thanks for all the advice man, that was a great read, and pretty encouraging.

The good news is that yes, I am free legally to do what I like with my songs and was very careful about that side of things, I'm not stuck in anything if I want to get out.

My dilemma at the moment is whether or not to stay with them or start again from scratch by myself.

And hey... guess what kind of music the 'priority' band on the label does...?

Yep, you guessed it... mid 90s grunge.

They will have a short career. Don't be envious. Be grateful your label isn't picking up the ball, they are clearly not industry-savvy enough to be handling it.

Good news about your songs - your options are open. As for the band, stay with them if they're good people. Being a person who is easy to get along with is the most valuable thing in a band member, more so than technical skill.

 

[MiracleOfSound]

[q
They will have a short career. Don't be envious. Be grateful your label isn't picking up the ball, they are clearly not industry-savvy enough to be handling it.

Good news about your songs - your options are open. As for the band, stay with them if they're good people. Being a person who is easy to get along with is the most valuable thing in a band member, more so than technical skill.

My band walked out on me actually. they were pissed that the label only wanted to sign me (I write and produce all the songs alone, see) and they were also fed up of waiting around.

They wanted me to write the bulk of the songs, then come up with the drum beats and one or two riffs and get a writing credit, and i said fuck that, if you want writing credits write songs.

I don't blame them to be honest. I'd rather work with session musicians for live and do studio stuff alone.

As for the label, I shall take your post advice as 'it might be an idea to investigate other options'?

 

[BonsaiK]

[q
They will have a short career. Don't be envious. Be grateful your label isn't picking up the ball, they are clearly not industry-savvy enough to be handling it.

Good news about your songs - your options are open. As for the band, stay with them if they're good people. Being a person who is easy to get along with is the most valuable thing in a band member, more so than technical skill.

My band walked out on me actually. they were pissed that the label only wanted to sign me (I write and produce all the songs alone, see) and they were also fed up of waiting around.

They wanted me to write the bulk of the songs, then come up with the drum beats and one or two riffs and get a writing credit, and i said fuck that, if you want writing credits write songs.

I don't blame them to be honest. I'd rather work with session musicians for live and do studio stuff alone.

As for the label, I shall take your post advice as 'it might be an idea to investigate other options'?

Yeah, I would. I don't think much of your label. The less they have to do with your career in the long term, the better for you. Personally, I'd chalk them up as "something to add to the resume" and move on, start shopping your songs and talents around to other interested parties etc.

 

[MiracleOfSound]

[q
They will have a short career. Don't be envious. Be grateful your label isn't picking up the ball, they are clearly not industry-savvy enough to be handling it.

Good news about your songs - your options are open. As for the band, stay with them if they're good people. Being a person who is easy to get along with is the most valuable thing in a band member, more so than technical skill.

My band walked out on me actually. they were pissed that the label only wanted to sign me (I write and produce all the songs alone, see) and they were also fed up of waiting around.

They wanted me to write the bulk of the songs, then come up with the drum beats and one or two riffs and get a writing credit, and i said fuck that, if you want writing credits write songs.

I don't blame them to be honest. I'd rather work with session musicians for live and do studio stuff alone.

As for the label, I shall take your post advice as 'it might be an idea to investigate other options'?

Yeah, I would. I don't think much of your label. The less they have to do with your career in the long term, the better for you. Personally, I'd chalk them up as "something to add to the resume" and move on, start shopping your songs and talents around to other interested parties etc.

Yeah, you're right.

And thanks, for the first time in over a year I feel kinda positive about the future

 

[Klepa]

http://www.myspace.com/feetofthecolossus

Some very old tracks there. I'm not really happy with any them myself, but I thought I'd waste your time anyway!

If you've only got time for one song, I'd say Feet of The Colossus. It's probably the one I dislike the least.

I'm in no illusion that the band, nor the genre, is going to make it on a commercial label, so I won't mind if you stomp them to the ground. That being said, it's of course not perfection incarnate, so I'm not set on blowing your comments off with a "Fuck you I won't do what you tell me" routine.

 

[BonsaiK]

http://www.myspace.com/feetofthecolossus

Some very old tracks there. I'm not really happy with any them myself, but I thought I'd waste your time anyway!

If you've only got time for one song, I'd say Feet of The Colossus. It's probably the one I dislike the least.

I'm in no illusion that the band, nor the genre, is going to make it on a commercial label, so I won't mind if you stomp them to the ground. That being said, it's of course not perfection incarnate, so I'm not set on blowing your comments off with a "Fuck you I won't do what you tell me" routine.

It's funny, I work with stoner rock bands quite a bit. This sort of style is completely viable on a small scale, because like a lot of metal styles it has a fairly consistent cult following that considers it a moral duty to fork out money for product and go to see shows. The better bands do okay for themselves, none of them make millions but they can eat.

I was in the studio with a band not dissimilar to this yesterday. I was working with an engineer who has fantastic equipment and years of experience... in pop music. Because of this he pulled a great pop mix, but it was all wrong for the style. The main mistake pop guys make with a band like this is that the vocals are always too prominent. Now that he's pulled good basic sounds I'm going to go back in the studio with him and tell him to rip at least 6db out of the vocals and bring the guitars up. Fucking pop guys wasting my studio time... (sigh)... anyway your mix is better than the one he did yesterday but those vocals still do need to come down a touch. Nobody who listens to this music gives two shits about vocals really as long as they are there, somewhere - it's all about the riffs.

Stoner rock is a deliberately regressive style. So if you want to stay in it, try and stop influences from modern metal etc creeping in. I'm so happy your vocalist isn't a "screamer", I hate that shit in this genre, but also be aware that he should not sing over the complex riffs like a modern metal singer would - instead, sing over the simple ones. Take the slow song "Names On The Stone"... that first part which is just three chords and a bunch of sustain? THAT is where vocals go - in the places where nothing interesting is happening with the guitar. Instead the vocals at the moment are tracking unison with the riff after that... which is not needed, because unison harmony doesn't add anything extra anyway. Also if he's not singing there, you can rewrite that riff and make it more interesting because you'll no longer have to accommodate for a singer's quirks. Riffs are so important, yours are reasonable but need something extra to be really good. Listen to your favourite riffs from bands who sound like you and try to work out what they're doing that you're not. You'll probably find that the answer is more syncopation. If you hear one of your own riffs in your head and you couldn't visualise Ozzy singing over it on a Sabbath record, you need to rewrite it. (And look to Sabbath's "War Pigs" for a brilliant guide on where to insert vocals in a riff-heavy song, notice how all the singing happens in the places where the guitar does very little.) And don't worry so much about adhering to traditional song structures, particularly in the slow material. There's no need to go back to the opening riff at the end of the song after the audience has already heard four minutes of it, if you're writing a progressive arrangement, going back to the start is kind of a meh way to end it when you have the opportunity do something unexpected instead. For faster songs strict structural conventions are fine though. So yeah... overall I'd say you guys are on the right track, instrumental performances are great across the board, vocalist is fine (he doesn't have to brilliant for this style, most of the best bands have very poor singers) but your weakness is in riff-writing and arrangement. Work on that.

 

[Klepa]

Spoiler: big post

http://www.myspace.com/feetofthecolossus

Some very old tracks there. I'm not really happy with any them myself, but I thought I'd waste your time anyway!

If you've only got time for one song, I'd say Feet of The Colossus. It's probably the one I dislike the least.

I'm in no illusion that the band, nor the genre, is going to make it on a commercial label, so I won't mind if you stomp them to the ground. That being said, it's of course not perfection incarnate, so I'm not set on blowing your comments off with a "Fuck you I won't do what you tell me" routine.

It's funny, I work with stoner rock bands quite a bit. This sort of style is completely viable on a small scale, because like a lot of metal styles it has a fairly consistent cult following that considers it a moral duty to fork out money for product and go to see shows. The better bands do okay for themselves, none of them make millions but they can eat.

I was in the studio with a band not dissimilar to this yesterday. I was working with an engineer who has fantastic equipment and years of experience... in pop music. Because of this he pulled a great pop mix, but it was all wrong for the style. The main mistake pop guys make with a band like this is that the vocals are always too prominent. Now that he's pulled good basic sounds I'm going to go back in the studio with him and tell him to rip at least 6db out of the vocals and bring the guitars up. Fucking pop guys wasting my studio time... (sigh)... anyway your mix is better than the one he did yesterday but those vocals still do need to come down a touch. Nobody who listens to this music gives two shits about vocals really as long as they are there, somewhere - it's all about the riffs.

Stoner rock is a deliberately regressive style. So if you want to stay in it, try and stop influences from modern metal etc creeping in. I'm so happy your vocalist isn't a "screamer", I hate that shit in this genre, but also be aware that he should not sing over the complex riffs like a modern metal singer would - instead, sing over the simple ones. Take the slow song "Names On The Stone"... that first part which is just three chords and a bunch of sustain? THAT is where vocals go - in the places where nothing interesting is happening with the guitar. Instead the vocals at the moment are tracking unison with the riff after that... which is not needed, because unison harmony doesn't add anything extra anyway. Also if he's not singing there, you can rewrite that riff and make it more interesting because you'll no longer have to accommodate for a singer's quirks. Riffs are so important, yours are reasonable but need something extra to be really good. Listen to your favourite riffs from bands who sound like you and try to work out what they're doing that you're not. You'll probably find that the answer is more syncopation. If you hear one of your own riffs in your head and you couldn't visualise Ozzy singing over it on a Sabbath record, you need to rewrite it. (And look to Sabbath's "War Pigs" for a brilliant guide on where to insert vocals in a riff-heavy song, notice how all the singing happens in the places where the guitar does very little.) And don't worry so much about adhering to traditional song structures, particularly in the slow material. There's no need to go back to the opening riff at the end of the song after the audience has already heard four minutes of it, if you're writing a progressive arrangement, going back to the start is kind of a meh way to end it when you have the opportunity do something unexpected instead. For faster songs strict structural conventions are fine though. So yeah... overall I'd say you guys are on the right track, instrumental performances are great across the board, vocalist is fine (he doesn't have to brilliant for this style, most of the best bands have very poor singers) but your weakness is in riff-writing and arrangement. Work on that.

Couldn't agree with you more, to be honest.
I find it funny that you managed to mention the two things where I didn't get my way, namely vocals being too loud (although still not pop loud), and the vocals being in the wrong place in Names on The Stone. When I wrote that riff, it was blatantly obvious to me that they'd go to the sustain bit, but our singer disagreed, and I let him have it his way.

Song structure is terrible, and it remains terrible to this day. Riffs, most of which I write, have gotten better, atleast in my opinion. The only riffs I somewhat like, are the faster ones in Names on the Stone.

I had a few doubts about your opinion on the singing and drumming, but you didn't seem to mind too much, so it's all good! I'm happy with my technical performance on the guitars, but also relieved that you didn't give it any flak!

All in all, thanks for taking the time to checking it out, I really appreciate your opinion. Will you murder me with an axe, if I ever bother you with another demo we might be recording sometime before summer?

 

[ProfessorLayton]

Alright well I've been contemplating whether or not to post it but screw it I want to hear what you have to say.

http://www.myspace.com/rivalshardcore is our page. We only have one song down and it sounds like a demo mainly because it is. We started this band last month and our bass guitarist has only shown up for 2 practices and one of them was to record the only song on the page. I think that it could be much better, due to not only Audacity screwing up the timing but I messed up with the guitars a lot... So yeah personally I think it could be way better than it is but we're just a bunch of kids messing around. I want to hear your professional opinion on this.

 

[BonsaiK]

Spoiler: big post

http://www.myspace.com/feetofthecolossus

Some very old tracks there. I'm not really happy with any them myself, but I thought I'd waste your time anyway!

If you've only got time for one song, I'd say Feet of The Colossus. It's probably the one I dislike the least.

I'm in no illusion that the band, nor the genre, is going to make it on a commercial label, so I won't mind if you stomp them to the ground. That being said, it's of course not perfection incarnate, so I'm not set on blowing your comments off with a "Fuck you I won't do what you tell me" routine.

It's funny, I work with stoner rock bands quite a bit. This sort of style is completely viable on a small scale, because like a lot of metal styles it has a fairly consistent cult following that considers it a moral duty to fork out money for product and go to see shows. The better bands do okay for themselves, none of them make millions but they can eat.

I was in the studio with a band not dissimilar to this yesterday. I was working with an engineer who has fantastic equipment and years of experience... in pop music. Because of this he pulled a great pop mix, but it was all wrong for the style. The main mistake pop guys make with a band like this is that the vocals are always too prominent. Now that he's pulled good basic sounds I'm going to go back in the studio with him and tell him to rip at least 6db out of the vocals and bring the guitars up. Fucking pop guys wasting my studio time... (sigh)... anyway your mix is better than the one he did yesterday but those vocals still do need to come down a touch. Nobody who listens to this music gives two shits about vocals really as long as they are there, somewhere - it's all about the riffs.

Stoner rock is a deliberately regressive style. So if you want to stay in it, try and stop influences from modern metal etc creeping in. I'm so happy your vocalist isn't a "screamer", I hate that shit in this genre, but also be aware that he should not sing over the complex riffs like a modern metal singer would - instead, sing over the simple ones. Take the slow song "Names On The Stone"... that first part which is just three chords and a bunch of sustain? THAT is where vocals go - in the places where nothing interesting is happening with the guitar. Instead the vocals at the moment are tracking unison with the riff after that... which is not needed, because unison harmony doesn't add anything extra anyway. Also if he's not singing there, you can rewrite that riff and make it more interesting because you'll no longer have to accommodate for a singer's quirks. Riffs are so important, yours are reasonable but need something extra to be really good. Listen to your favourite riffs from bands who sound like you and try to work out what they're doing that you're not. You'll probably find that the answer is more syncopation. If you hear one of your own riffs in your head and you couldn't visualise Ozzy singing over it on a Sabbath record, you need to rewrite it. (And look to Sabbath's "War Pigs" for a brilliant guide on where to insert vocals in a riff-heavy song, notice how all the singing happens in the places where the guitar does very little.) And don't worry so much about adhering to traditional song structures, particularly in the slow material. There's no need to go back to the opening riff at the end of the song after the audience has already heard four minutes of it, if you're writing a progressive arrangement, going back to the start is kind of a meh way to end it when you have the opportunity do something unexpected instead. For faster songs strict structural conventions are fine though. So yeah... overall I'd say you guys are on the right track, instrumental performances are great across the board, vocalist is fine (he doesn't have to brilliant for this style, most of the best bands have very poor singers) but your weakness is in riff-writing and arrangement. Work on that.

Couldn't agree with you more, to be honest.
I find it funny that you managed to mention the two things where I didn't get my way, namely vocals being too loud (although still not pop loud), and the vocals being in the wrong place in Names on The Stone. When I wrote that riff, it was blatantly obvious to me that they'd go to the sustain bit, but our singer disagreed, and I let him have it his way.

Song structure is terrible, and it remains terrible to this day. Riffs, most of which I write, have gotten better, atleast in my opinion. The only riffs I somewhat like, are the faster ones in Names on the Stone.

I had a few doubts about your opinion on the singing and drumming, but you didn't seem to mind too much, so it's all good! I'm happy with my technical performance on the guitars, but also relieved that you didn't give it any flak!

All in all, thanks for taking the time to checking it out, I really appreciate your opinion. Will you murder me with an axe, if I ever bother you with another demo we might be recording sometime before summer?

Your singer disagreed because he is either lazy, too scared to sing without backing, has no idea about song arrangement, or a combination of these three. By singing over your riff and copying the riff melody it means he doesn't have to write a vocal melody of his own or stand out all that much. It's a cop-out. Whatever the reason, he's arranging the songs based on his own personal vested interest, not what's good for the song itself. That's a habit you want to get him out of, or find another singer.

You can post me more stuff when you're ready, that's fine.

 

[Raven's Nest]

This is a great thread your running here Bonsaik! I'll be sure to pop back tommorrow and leave some tracks for ya... Bookmarked...

 

[BonsaiK]

Alright well I've been contemplating whether or not to post it but screw it I want to hear what you have to say.

http://www.myspace.com/rivalshardcore is our page. We only have one song down and it sounds like a demo mainly because it is. We started this band last month and our bass guitarist has only shown up for 2 practices and one of them was to record the only song on the page. I think that it could be much better, due to not only Audacity screwing up the timing but I messed up with the guitars a lot... So yeah personally I think it could be way better than it is but we're just a bunch of kids messing around. I want to hear your professional opinion on this.

Combining screamo and death metal may seem logical but in fact most death metal guys despise screamo/hardcore with a passion, so it's a fairly new thing. Stylistically it's worth pursuing although be aware that screamo, like death metal, will eventually be superceded. If you're going to work in this style get moving fast, bands like Brokencyde spell the start of screamo's appropriation into pop music and the beginning of the end as far as screamed vocals as a viable option for heavy bands is concerned.

The weakness with both styles is obviously a lack of melody in the vocals - so you need really melodic content somewhere (i.e the guitars) to compensate and make this song interesting. Right now you don't really have that. Maybe overdub some lead guitar lines - not solos, just melodic harmony parts or something, anything so it's not just riffs, beats and "rrarararrgggh". This would have been okay in 1998 when screamo was new to most ears but not now.

As for production issues, obviously it's a home recording and that's cool, but Audacity is an amazing program and if you're willing to put in some serious time getting good sounds and tweaking everything your result can sound as good as anything from a multitrack ProTools-equipped studio. However, as you've probably discovered, playback and recording de-sync just a little with Audacity, more on fixing that below.

Timing must be 100% on the button for this sort of music. Even accounting for Audacity de-sync, the drums are a bit sloppy. If need be, simplify the drum parts - better to do it simple and perfect than complex and sloppy. Whatever it takes to get them in time. Those bits where the bass lags behind, that's not acceptable even for a demo. Two practices - I'd believe it. Either re-record that track, or just cut and paste the silence around the bassnotes to "manually quantise" it and get that bass to land where it should. Also, that bass sounds like it's peaking out the inputs - don't allow that to happen. Use Audacity's envelope tool to bring stray peaks below digital zero if you must, but better to just not record at peak levels anyway. That bass is just too damn loud, it needs to be not just quieter, but compressed. It's easy enough to boost up a low signal as long as it's not so low that white noise intrudes, but taming a too-hot signal won't get rid of the digital distortion if there's a sustained area where it goes into square-wave mode. Guitars sound fine though, technically speaking. A bit of sloppiness with the guitars is acceptable, you're not a rhythm instrument.

(non-technical readers may wish to skip over this next few paragraphs)

I'd re-record the bass completely, personally. You don't even need an amp, just DI it straight into the desk and make sure you don't go over digital zero, try and record with peaks between -6 and -3 dB, then compress the hell out of it at -12 dB with at least a 10:1 ratio and 0.1 second clampdown time using Audacity's compression utility (found in the Effect drop-down menu), then squash any stray peaks with the envelope tool. Easy.

As for Audacity remember that 1.2.6 is the most stable version of Audacity, don't use the beta 1.3.x ones they are wonky as shit as the website rightly warns. If you've been recording with the new version you'll have to stick with it just for this song as new files won't convert to the old format but record all future songs with 1.2.6, you'll thank me later when you don't lose the perfect take due to a bug.

Desync on Audacity happens for two reasons:

1. The program has changed the sample rate from 44.1kHz to 48kHz without telling you (check the box in the bottom left corner). You'll know if it's wrong, things will desync wildly, up to a second worth of desync will gradually appear over the course of a few minutes. If this happens just change the sample rate and record the track again.

2. Because of the delay between recording and playback isn't sufficiently corrected, the program misaligns new tracks after recording. It will do this every time, I guess the people who wrote it were on drugs. Mind you it's free so you get what you pay for. Get into this habit to fix the problem: after you record a new track, always press ctrl+2 (to go to the default zoom level) and then ctrl+1 once (to go in one level of zoom) and highlight the smallest possible piece of silence that the program will let you grab at the start of the track with the selection tool and delete it.

Another thing to watch for: there's some feedback that creeps into the recording at about 400Hz and then later at 440Hz at around the 1:35-1:50 mark. Sounds like it's from a microphone, but might want to edit that out, whatever it is.

Anyway good luck with it. Get that drummer and bass player in time is your first step, then try and spice up your songs somehow so it's more than what it is currently. Then record more music and try and get gigs with it.