Have a little listen, tell me what you think!?

[Cup]

Well, I've hung around here for ages, and finally my band have some music on the web. I'd really apprecite your imput on how I'm doing.

 

Go here

 

www.worldofthecusp.com/redemption.mp3

 

or

 

www.worldofthecusp.com/runfromtoward.mp3

 

Cheers.

 

Cup

[Mr. Phil]

Not too shabby cup...

 

Not really my favorite type of music. But I like it!

 

It makes me wanna go back to the 50s with that drum beat in the 1st song.

 

Oh yea, BTW the second song isnt working...

[dcr]

Hey, I like that!!

[Cup]

Thanks Phil and DCR, I'll try and sort out the other track, I don't know what's gone wrong.

 

Cheers!

 

Cup

[dohhhhh6]

I don't quite like the intro to the 1st song (listening to it now), but I think it pulls through very well once it runs into the "real" song.

 

I think the bass playing it pretty good though!

 

Keep up the good work, and get some more good songs out!

[dcr]

I thought the intro was fine, but I do notice that it's taken me several listens through before I stop feeling lost about what's going on when the drums & then the guitar come in with the groove. Once the guitar is locking the riff in with the drums, everything's fine; but it seems like the lock is happening later than it should have. I don't know if this makes any sense.

 

That Ric really rocks, btw!

[Dm711]

I listened to the first tune. Nice catchy chorus. I really like that part. Not sure I like the intro or the ending though. Have you considered swapping them. Start right on it, and then sort of hold out the ending. (My over-comericalized ear wants to hear a fade out on the ending.) BTW, the bass has a really great tone. I have found that can be hard to retain when you mix a tune down to an MP3. Nice engineering!

 

What did you record this with?

 

Thanks for sharing! Cool!

 

Dm7

[Cup]

Cheers for taking the time to listen folks!

 

I love the sound of a Ric dcr, maybe you should dig yours out and have a little refresher course

 

 

Here's the other tune working, I hope...

 

www.worldofthecusp.com/RunFromToward.mp3

 

I made a bit of a mess on that one.

[Cup]

Whoops, mess up, I just wiped half my post.

 

Dm7#11...The recording technique, for the 1st track, everything barr the vocals were recorded live in our rehearsal space. Some guy we met, just fresh from music college heard us live and wanted to record us. Unfortunately I'm no tech head, all I know is it was recorded on a digital 8 track, and mixed really bassy so it would sound full on any stereo (like a car, computer etc) On c.d and a decent hi-fi it sounds almost too bassy.

 

As for turning the track around, we didn't plan recording it, the session was going terribly, so we knocked out an song. It sounded the best of the lot, I think the extended intro refects the mood in the room. Ragged!

 

Cheers.

 

Cup

[dcr]

Ragged is cool. The Beatles, the story goes, recorded their first album in one day, & deliberately left "Twist and Shout" for the end of the session, since they knew they'd be good & ragged by then. Point is, you made it work for you.

 

Yeah, the Ric does sound good, but really I think it's all down to the player! Nice work.

[Dm711]

Originally posted by CupMcMali:

the session was going terribly, so we knocked out an song. It sounded the best of the lot, I think the extended intro refects the mood in the room. Ragged!

Jeez man! if that is ragged, I have to wonder what you cats sound like when you are tight!

 

Thanks for the recording info!

 

Dm7

[SteveC]

I like them. I like the 2nd song better.

Switch the intro and outro of the 1st song - if it were me. Not my fav style, but I think it sounds good. Certailny people would listen to it in a club. I would if I were there.

[Mr. Phil]

Originally posted by CupMcMali:

On a decent hi-fi it sounds almost too bassy.

Just a little bit. It needs some more high-low mids. but just a little. If you have a wave-editor on your computer with an EQ, you can fix that. or if you would like, I can fix it and then email it to you. Just give me the word.

 

EDIT: HAHA I was listening to the 2nd song just now, and I didnt realize that the other cd I was previously listening to was playing also. I was thinking "wow that is really off beat" but then I realized what was going on.

 

I do like the 2nd song better. It doesnt sound too bassy like the first one does. Its just right

[Cup]

Thanks for the kind words. I appreciate your imput so much.

 

The 2nd song is from a different session (about 2 years ago). We went to a recording studio, I went D.I and was playing my old Yamaha BB.

 

Cheers again folks

 

Cup

[...]

Good job, Cup! Come and play Seattle, I'll show up.

[Cup]

Cheers Bump! Unfortunately a Seattle gig would have to pay (flights for example)

 

I was really nervous about posting our music here, all imput is welcome.

 

Thanks

[shannyn9696]

Both tunes sound great

[ondray]

I like the song. The intro didn't sound so catchy, but maybe that's what you wanted it to sound like. From the verse onwards, it really sounds nice, especially the catchy chorus. And nice vocals too. Nice bass playing and it was generous of the guitarist to not play too loud.

 

cheers

[Cup]

Thanks alot for all the opinions folks, I bring any critique up at the next rehearsal.

 

Cheers all round

 

Cup

[uber]

yeah man ! like the track , like they said if that is loose , ?? if you ever get over to england i might come along for a look

[Cup]

Thanks Uber, a gig in England is a real possibilty, London would be the most likely, but if we're ever up north, I'll pm you before hand.

 

Cheers.

 

Cup

[uber]

coool , i will look forward to your metoric rise to stardom !

[MattC]

Yeah, what's with the rather common practice of mixing the "bass" to high? Of course, in reality, it's not the bass but rather the lower fundamentals of the guitar that are too prominent- they clash with the appropriately mixed bass and drums. Once again, it seems, the guitar is the problem. Want to hear a prime example of this? Listen to my last CD. If we want to get into recording screwups, however, I could discuss my last band's CD for hours. But I disgess...

I've learned a few things in the last few years, one of the most imporant being that one cannot perform critical listening tests with *.mp3 files through small-driver headphones in a university's student center, so I'll point out what I can. (in reference to "redemption") As was mentioned previously, and it bears repeating, the seems to be mixed relatively well and the instantly identifiable Ric tone is very obvious. (good choice for the style, IMHO). The song seems to be a good song although it takes a while to get going. The begining lo-fi guitar is a favorite trick of mine, but I would have approached it a different way. I'd have gone for faux lo-fi as opposed to real lo-fi. I'm thinking about recording the intro guitar with just a SM57 and then processing it with a little reverb, compression, and Izotopes' "Vinyl" plugin (search SSS for threads in reference to it- probably one of the most popular free DX plugs on that forum). Of course, I'm getting dangerously close to critical listening here, so please take my comments in stride. The coment I made about the guitar muddying-up the drums is apparent in the song's b-section. A slight change in the position of the mic or in the EQ for the guitar would clear up that problem and the B section would have an easily-identifiable groove. From there on out, I have no real complaints after the first listening. It's a good song with appropriate, tasteful bass performance that'll probably stay on my hard drive.

[Cup]

First off matt, thanks a lot for (a) taking the time to listen, and (b) giving your thoughts. As I've mentioned before, EVERYTHING will be taken and discussed by the band. Many of the comments so far have been looked at.

 

I would appreciate if you could clear something up for me. What does "faux" mean?

 

The begining lo-fi guitar is a favorite trick of mine, but I would have approached it a different way. I'd have gone for faux lo-fi as opposed to real lo-fi."

 

Once again, thanks for your interest, and thanks for the comments on my playing

 

Cup

[dcr]

'Faux' is French for "false," in the sense of fake, mock, or phony, as opposed to real or proper. "Faux lo-fi" would be, I assume, using more sophisticated technology to simulate the sound of something done with less sophisticated technology. (Like people who spend lots of money on their clothes in order to look "ragged.")

[Cup]

Thanks for clearing that up dcr! After hearing the description, I prefer real lo-fi, simply because it's...real.

 

Thanks

[MattC]

OK, I should clarify: By "faux" lo-fi, I'm ot really referring to the expensive-ragged clothes example (although it is a quite valid point in many situations.) When I hear a recording, especially a non-commercial one, the perfectionist, anal-retentive engineer in me first looks for reasons why I should not like the recording. When the first notes I hear are very lo-fi, I question the recording. A prime example would be on a local comp. disc I just received. One one of the songs, it starts out with what sounds like a radio shack mic-into parta-studio guitar but then abruptly erupts into a nicely polished, actually quite good mix. Too much of a contrast, IMHO. I like to tend towards polished, hi-fi sounds, even for lo-fi effects. I'm getting, once again, dangerously close to critical-listening and injecting personal opinion to engineering processes, neither of which is appropriate to my end here. I should also note, in the author's defense, that mp3 encoding can make nice lo-fi sound terrible (a fault of the encoding and nothing else). So, in .wav or .cda, that intro might actually sound quite pleasing.

[dcr]

Yeah, in re-reading my post I see that I put a fairly pejorative spin on "faux lo-fi," without intending to. I think Matt's on to something. You want people to listen and think, "Great recording! I really like how you gave it that 'lo-fi' vibe in the intro." You don't want them to think, "That's pretty lo-fi; what kind of recording is this, anyway?" Lo-fi is cool, but it needs to sound intentional, without sounding contrived, & that's a delicate balancing act.

 

For some reason, I'm thinking of "Sick Again" (last song, 2nd side of 2nd disc of "Physical Graffiti"). It starts out with a ragged guitar riff, then drops right into the recognizable Zep groove. These guys were able to make ragged sound tight, & it ain't easy.

 

I see now that this is actually going back to my first response. I like the raggedy intro, but what's going to sell it is the tightness of the transition from that into the groove, & that transition still feels unsteady to me, a bit hesitant.

 

I hope all this criticism is constructive & helpful, because I really do like the song. If I didn't, I wouldn't bother criticizing it.

[Cup]

Thanks for clarifying Matt and dcr, I was unsure of what you meant. For the record, if the lo-fi sounds natural, that's exactly what it is. We were recorded by a 19 yr old (I know age has no bearing on talent) fresh from music college. The recording equipment was fresh in his hands, at the beginning of the session he stated that the whole endeavour was to be a learning curve for both the band and himself.

 

We recorded 4 songs, all live and he only charged us £100.

 

I now understand your point Matt about the "faux" style, you (and all others) have every right to question methods, sound on mp3 and whatever else comes into your heads.

 

All in all, we as a band are happy with how most of the tracks sound. We also feel the start of the first song works well, we do get a great reception when we start it that way live.

 

Most of all thanks for everyones input.

 

Most gratefully,

 

Cup

[MattC]

DCR, you get my point exactly. (I also like the use of the word "perjorative"; I'm going to see how often I can use it today).

CMM- Picking apart songs like this will really help you tune your ear, especially if you are going to record more than once in your career (which I assume you will). Once I get a few (newer) tracks down, I'll send them by and we'l chat.