TRY THIS NEW LINK PLEASE

^ that space before the last letter gave my browser some trouble, but eliminating it worked just fine.

Still need some time to get into it, but I love that bass sound- real deep raw synth wave. Between that and the main drum pattern it reminds me a little of some Eno, or Aphex Twin; it's timbral rather than melodic. The guitar seems to be doing its own thing- nice guitar tone, BTW, ringing but not harsh at all. Production quality is nice and clean too- all those effects could have easily cluttered up the mix, but I can hear lots of detail.

The only negative thing that I could say would be about the drums...I'm not sure whether it's the sounds, the programming, or just the sheer number of percussive elements going on, but there's something about the drums that I'm having trouble with. Maybe that'll change after a few more listens, though. I know personally that drums are the trickiest parts to get right.

Are the vocals low in the mix on purpose, or are you just a little insecure about them?

the link should work if you just type it in with no spaces....that first character after the = is a zero not an o, the character after the 9 IS an o however

Edited by hopelevre

hopelevre:

I think it's great.  Sure, it needs to be "polished up."  But it has really great potential.

I agree with James: the thing it most reminded me of was Eno's early work, on Here Come the Warm Jets and Another Green World.

I'm also not so sure you need question its "progginess": realized to its potential, I'm guessing the final product would definitely qualify.  After all, prog is not simply using non-standard time signatures - nor is that even an absolute requirement.  Rather, your approach is quite "proggy," as is the way you arrange the elements.

If you find your "voice" (i.e., "style") through this - i.e., "get" what type of "refinement" it needs - and are able to compose an album's worth of material with this "voice," I would definitely buy it...and probably give it a darn good review.

Keep up the good work!

Peace.

I dont write many reviews, maybe I find it difficult to express my feelings about music! I listened to your track twice , second time was better..its almost hypnotic. Cant compare it to Eno cuz I never did buy any of his albums. For all that I liked it, but its not the stuff I normally listen to. That could change though I like "getting in to "new stuff!  I think with more listenings I'll like it more. Sorry for the poor review, but

The first thing that i thought was...Bowie, in Buddha of Suburbia.  Now i'm going to listen to it over and over as i type so that i can make a more precise critique. America has been a dead horse and an easy target for a long time now and it takes a lot more than this to be compelling.  I know that the second male vocal "expression" is intended to be overbearingly devious and swaddled in corruption and mania, like the greedy American corporate archetype, however it falls flat and ends up sounding like an overeager trick-or-treater through the reverberant mufflings of a Chucky mask...and I think that the female voice would make a good computerized handprint authorizor/decoder on the starship enterprise.  I kind of liked the first male voice for its numb complacency and convenient atonality...which i thought was effective.  And on a lighter, but more serious note, he continues to impress with striking transitions and unique tonal and timbral harmonies.  Song structure exhibits intentional complexities with a general feeling of dynamic and progressive balance, as well as purpose.  Listeners should strongly consider his other work, as this particular song, in this critics opinion, seems to exhibit his talents, significant improvements, and, dare i say, his real "voice", only in the background, behind a bunch of nauseating effects and insipid noises.   

Edited by mwb498

Uggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!

I've just swallowed a fly,sorry.

Hmm-interesting,in a wtf's going on kind of way.Not my cup of tea,but there is definitely a spark of something original. But not "musical" enough for my tastes.

Overall this track reminds me of Radiohead's work on "Kid A", but with almost Frank Zappa flavoured vocals - especially with the satirical edge to the lyrics. I think the vocal "positioning" in the mix is about right - similar to some of Thom Yorke's textural positioning rather than dominant vox. I think this approach works well.

I liked the tempo changes at first, but found the third iteration too predictable. I would have liked you to have used the material you used in the "burn-out" as a kind of bridge - at the risk of falling into a similarly predictable song format - but I think this would create a better shape.

I particularly liked the textures you created in this "burn-out" section - but not so much the "cheesey" keyboard sounds at the beginning - I felt you could have been more adventurous with the tonal quality - although I didn't study the lyrics in any depth, so this could have been intentional. I kind of see where it was going, but I think a light filter applied to (what sounds like) the electric piano sound would provide a nice warp. I'd also like that electric piano sound to be a little more "authentic" and edgy - but that's my taste!

Since your lyric-writing seems strong, it might make sense to colour various phrases with subtle ambience, or even adjust the bass-line slightly for a little "challenge-response" dialog.

The "chorus" is good - a stark contrast with very interesting textures. I liked the vocal harmonies - and overall, the colouration seems to work with the lyrics and the musical textures.

Taking the piece as a whole, the textures themselves seem a little half-hearted in places - again, could be intentional, or could simply be the mix - but I'd like to hear more "colour" in the parts to avoid the feeling of flatness in a dynamic sense rather than the overall tone of the piece.

More generally, I like it - but if you released it as a single, I probably wouldn't buy it. If it was part of an album, though, I would hardly consider it filler!

 

Here's a link to a couple of old tunes I wrote, so you can get your own back... They're about 3-4 years old now, and I gave that style up after about 7 tracks... Listen to "Nebula" first, as it's the stronger track (IMO) - one day I'll actually finish it...

http://www.soundclick.com/bands/writePage.cfm?myType=music&a mp;a mp;bandid=281021&bandnamesave=itl

 

Keep 'em coming!

Edited by Certif1ed

...and anyone can play guitar or keyboards...

Not everyone has the ability to put the sounds together in an imaginative or creative manner - and that's what you need to try to hear.

Sometimes it's not so much that anyone could, but more that someone did. Someone invented the wheel...

If you think that the ability to wank up and down the fretboard is the be all and end all, then you know nothing about music.

Practically all music is assembled on a computer these days - all electronic music passes through one at some point.

 

oliverstoned wrote: "Practically all music is assembled on a computer these days - all electronic music passes through one at some point." that's why i can't stand most of today "mainstream" music! You miss the point: Music is created in the mind of a human being (except lazy muppets that only use samples). To record the music, it is processed through an electronic circuit (a computer, if you will, since it breaks the music into numbers that can be digitally processed). This could be an IC amplifier, effects pedal or processor, mixing desk or even a full-blown computer used to mix or sequence. You then mix the music to get the right balance across all the instruments and layers - this is artificial processing, but an important part of creating a recording of a piece of music. whereas i love today jazz,world, etc... Maybe a computer can be a good tool, but it's not sufficient to have a tool. You need inspiration (i don't know if it's the same word in english), and that, no computer or software can make it instead of you! Absolutely not - and no computer currently can create a satisfying piece of music. Interesting, maybe, but a computer doesn't and cannot have the ability to actually "hear" music the way we do. Inspiration is exactly the right word - a computer can only follow rules. One of the first projects I wrote at college was a simple rules-based program that enabled the computer to fill out harmonies to a given melody in the style of J. S. Bach, following many rules from the Oxford harmony books. It saved me a load of time calulating chords and avoiding parallel 5ths and octaves - and I could use that time to introduce some nice suspensions and contrapuntal passages - because I wasn't wasting time on the basics. Of course a computer is a good tool - it's fantastic if you can't afford a full-blown recording studio. The temptation is always there to rig up a few loops and over-utilise copy and paste - but it's still a human being doing the copying and pasting then listening to the results. IMO, a good procedure is to use copy and paste to get an idea of where repeated passages could go, then jam along to the loops, knocking out the copies as you go along - thus ending up with a piece with a high improvisational quality, and consistent structure. This saves time - and you can always alter the structure later; it's amazing how much potential a 5-minute loop can generate. As you rightly say though - it's a tool to do a job - just like a guitar or an electronic keyboard (a computer with music keys!). I reckon that if Beethoven had access to a computer, he'd have written more than 9 symphonies - and his manuscripts wouldn't have had so many crossings out