[Nevergoback]

Rick's points made me want to point out something specific.

The worst production mistakes I hear are "too much." Too much reverb, too much distortion on the guitar, too much chorusing, too many layers. It's much rarer for a really raw recording to distract from the song itself. If it's clearly a single mic in the room while you strum and sing, as long as it's not distorted and I can hear everything, the intention is clear.

If there are walls of tracks that aren't quite synced up and harmonies that aren't quite on and sizzly guitars that come from left field and overpower the mix, it's worth mentioning.




Last of all I'd like to mention drum machines. They can be used well, but they can also kill the feel of a song. If they are low in the mix, it can add to the feel. But a loud monotonous mechanical beat is a huge turnoff for me.

[m24p]

Nevergoback, on 03 February 2012 - 08:20 AM, said:

Rick's points made me want to point out something specific.

The worst production mistakes I hear are "too much."

+1

And this type of mistake often is making it harder to evaluate the song than if they just did no effects.

[porcupine]

m24p, on 03 February 2012 - 09:47 AM, said:

Nevergoback, on 03 February 2012 - 08:20 AM, said:

Rick's points made me want to point out something specific.

The worst production mistakes I hear are "too much."

+1

And this type of mistake often is making it harder to evaluate the song than if they just did no effects.

+2
I heard this line that describes it best..."fx on songs are like a woman putting on makeup...the object is to make it look/sound like there are none"

Porcupine

[porcupine]

[quote name='RickDieffenbach' date='03 February 2012 - 07:17 AM' timestamp='1328271435' post='569737']

December Rock Star, on 02 February 2012 - 11:27 AM, said:

That is silly really, if u cant hear a song from a basic recording u dont have ears, and u dont know melody. Recording has nothing to do with songwriting.

The unfortunate part of this is more philosophical than practical for me. and this will keep evolving over time. Alot of the modern producers I met at conventions etc. come from a "new school" of recording. What used to take hours or patching 2" tape takes seconds with a "plug-in" fx emulator that makes a similar sound. It is a bit "unearned". taking note of the quality of the songwriter can be the same...

Just like listening to the greats of songwriting, there are greats in production/eq/mastering.mixing. Some of the people that place songs with an artist may not see the big picture (they hear a horrid recording-10 seconds in, its in the trash). Alot of them expect the best quality, they just don't have the time to try to figure out a bad mix/fx or worse, they only know what they like.

There are people with major labels that definately don't see the big picture by "hearing the song" through a bad recording with some great exceptions. Having a good to great recording makes it a little easier to be heard, most bigtime people don't have the time to sort through all the bad mixes etc.

Most of the people on here have that luxury of picking the song apart, however the genre that the poster is in may produce a crit limited to what each person critiquing knows. they disect the song apart, which is amazing help, but as an example...a person who's biggest influence was Van Halen, may not be able to best critique a John Hiatt-esc song.

If that doesnt cloud the picture enough, imagine covering it in a blanket of reverb and a 2nd coat of flange!

Porcupine

[Alistair S]

I'd definitely agree that what we should be about here, first and foremost, is critiqueing the song. That's kind of the essence of the site, in my opinion.

Having said that, people are undeniably affected by production quality. This shows up in some of the song contest scoring, though I do believe that, on the whole, the best songs win. Certainly, I've had some experience of doing OK with poor recordings from time to time and am grateful that people have looked past the quality failings.

The exceptions, to me, are in two areas.

The first is when someone asks for feedback on their recording (or we know they are interested in that kind of feedback). Many people are interested , after all. I know I am. I don't want it instead of feedback on the actual song, but it can be a welcome addition (especially if it comes in the form of a helpful tip!).

The second exception is on those (rare!) occasions when the recording is so bad that it is hard to hear what is being presented and therefore hard to give feedback. In those cases, if there is a simple way the person can present their song better, I think it's helpful to offer guidance. It doesn't have to become pristine or "pro", just "good enough to hear". If someone puts up something hissy and faint, I have little trouble turning it up and listening to what's good about the song. I have more dificulty when people do too much to their recording (out-of-sync echo, for example, can cloud the whole thing).

I also think that it an be helpful to suggest ways of improving timing if timing is a problem. A simple song, sung in time with the instrument, is enough to hear if it can work. Out of time, it can sound less good than it could be.

It's about giving us the best chance of hearing the actual song, without interference from the "production".

A good song should be recognisable when presented simply. A 1+1 is fine. if people can add more instrumentation and bring more out of the song, more power to them. However, if by adding more they detract from the song, that's worth knowing. We all want to hear the song we are critiqueing.

It's a balance. That's my t'upporth ($0.02) anyway.

[December Rock Star]

[quote name='porcupine' date='03 February 2012 - 11:16 AM' timestamp='1328285763' post='569760']

Quote

That is silly really, if u cant hear a song from a basic recording u dont have ears, and u dont know melody. Recording has nothing to do with songwriting.

The unfortunate part of this is more philosophical than practical for me. and this will keep evolving over time. Alot of the modern producers I met at conventions etc. come from a "new school" of recording. What used to take hours or patching 2" tape takes seconds with a "plug-in" fx emulator that makes a similar sound. It is a bit "unearned". taking note of the quality of the songwriter can be the same...

Just like listening to the greats of songwriting, there are greats in production/eq/mastering.mixing. Some of the people that place songs with an artist may not see the big picture (they hear a horrid recording-10 seconds in, its in the trash). Alot of them expect the best quality, they just don't have the time to try to figure out a bad mix/fx or worse, they only know what they like.

There are people with major labels that definately don't see the big picture by "hearing the song" through a bad recording with some great exceptions. Having a good to great recording makes it a little easier to be heard, most bigtime people don't have the time to sort through all the bad mixes etc.

Most of the people on here have that luxury of picking the song apart, however the genre that the poster is in may produce a crit limited to what each person critiquing knows. they disect the song apart, which is amazing help, but as an example...a person who's biggest influence was Van Halen, may not be able to best critique a John Hiatt-esc song.

If that doesnt cloud the picture enough, imagine covering it in a blanket of reverb and a 2nd coat of flange!

Porcupine

But Im not really understanding your point. You keep talking about producers, are you looking to get a record deal? Producers work with artists.

Producers dont come into play until a deal is signed. Ok maybe Joe engineer works with unsigned artists, but we are not talking about being the artist, we are talking about writing songs.

Songwriters write songs. If simple accompaniment and basic recordings didnt display a songs worth, then nobody would ever be able to play an acoustic set, there would be no MTV unplugged. There would be no little talk shows where guys go on, talk a bit, sing their song, and talk again.

The fact is a great song can be arranged, recorded and produced in numerous ways and in numerous styles, even numerous languages.

This new school of recording engineers is what killed music in general. At one time, every part of the production phase required skilled professionals,
great engineers, great producers, great arrangers, great musicians, not to mention great artists and performers.

And bands played live or semi live in the studio, much more natrual feel than playing to a click track.

Now, everybody wants to be everything all rolled into one. What happens is u have mediocrity in all phases of music, which is why most of todays music, espcially pop music sucks major moose. half ass recordings, half ass songs, half ass arrangements, half ass production, half ass musicianship.


It can take a lifetime to master ONE of the above aspects.

The question to you is this. What are you trying to accomplish? are you looking to pitch your song to a publisher for another artist to perform?
if you are, get your songs in top shape.

are you looking to get a record deal? Get your songs in shape, and get a great recording by somebody who knows what they are doing, and have people help you.

are you looking to have your own website and sell your songs on itunes? similar to right above here.

are you trying to get your songs on tv or a movie? MAYBE, and only maybe if u are competent enough in all phases of music production from song to mastering, u could do it all yourself in your home studio.

are you looking to improve your songs? Make a decent recording and post it here.

This is not your audience, these are people like u trying to do the same thing you are. Soundcloud and soundclick is not your audience.

youtube and itunes is your virtual audience, which is why most youtube videos from people on b oards like this are laregely ignored. They aint
good enough to garner attention from anybody.

Just because we can do everything ourselves, doesnt mean we should

[FunkDaddy]

December Rock Star, on 03 February 2012 - 11:59 AM, said:

Producers dont come into play until a deal is signed.

Wrong.

Quote

Songwriters write songs. If simple accompaniment and basic recordings didnt display a songs worth, then nobody would ever be able to play an acoustic set, there would be no MTV unplugged. There would be no little talk shows where guys go on, talk a bit, sing their song, and talk again.

I get where you're going with this but MTV unplugged is usually the full band + strings, just not plugged into amps or using electric guitars (even then, I've seen plenty of them where the bass is still electric). Again...nobody is ignoring the songwriting when they critique the production here. Unless stated otherwise (note the rule that was posted) all aspects are fair game. If somebody records their song on their webcam or laptop microphone and it sounds like crap with clipping galore, it ruins the listening experience.

Quote

The fact is a great song can be arranged, recorded and produced in numerous ways and in numerous styles, even numerous languages.

And? So can a crap song.

Quote

This new school of recording engineers is what killed music in general. At one time, every part of the production phase required skilled professionals,
great engineers, great producers, great arrangers, great musicians, not to mention great artists and performers.

Funny. Most people would say this "new school" has opened up the music business to more people than ever before. Recording a demo no longer needs to be a huge investment. Plenty of tools for songwriters to get their ideas down in any form they wany, from rough sketch to finished demo.

Quote

Now, everybody wants to be everything all rolled into one. What happens is u have mediocrity in all phases of music, which is why most of todays music, espcially pop music sucks major moose. half ass recordings, half ass songs, half ass arrangements, half ass production, half ass musicianship.

There's people on this board who prove all of that wrong. There's been crap music and crap recordings since the first tune was put on wax.

Quote

are you trying to get your songs on tv or a movie? MAYBE, and only maybe if u are competent enough in all phases of music production from song to mastering, u could do it all yourself in your home studio.

Again. TV and movie placement has become the realm of the independent musician.

Quote

This is not your audience, these are people like u trying to do the same thing you are. Soundcloud and soundclick is not your audience.

youtube and itunes is your virtual audience, which is why most youtube videos from people on b oards like this are laregely ignored. They aint
good enough to garner attention from anybody.

Youtube isn't good enough to garner attention from anybody? Maybe I'm misinterpreting, do you realize how many people have signed record deals from their amount of YouTube subscribers alone? YouTube is THE A&R proving ground these days.

Quote

Just because we can do everything ourselves, doesnt mean we should

Agreed. But you're getting off topic again. There's every level of songwriter here along with every level of producer. Some people don't care about their productions, other people want to make their home recordings as polished as possible. So really, it's up to you as the poster of the song to request that production be ignored. Tell people what you want in your critiques of your song. I post songs at all levels of completion, if I'm set on a lyric, I'll tell people. If I know an intro is long but I like it, I tell people, etc, etc. The last thing I want to do when somebody is nice enough to offer their thoughts is have them waste their time.

[porcupine]

December Rock Star, on 02 February 2012 - 11:27 AM, said:

If this is posted in the wrong spot, please move where it goes.

I just wondered the purpose of recording crits. I understand home recording is a booming industry, and people are very passionate about it.

Some folks would rather talk about how a song is mixed than how it is written etc.

No problems there. But I wondered why when people post a song for critique, they get recording and arrangement crits.

I was just answering the orginal question, which is hard to address without going into detail. What it comes down to is that if we throw a song out there for critique, you should be able to take ANY nad ALL critiques. They all help. I f you asked specifically on a certain thing (like I did on adding a sax part to a song) then expect every and all.

Porcupine

[m24p]

December Rock Star, on 03 February 2012 - 10:59 AM, said:

This new school of recording engineers is what killed music in general. At one time, every part of the production phase required skilled professionals,
great engineers, great producers, great arrangers, great musicians, not to mention great artists and performers.

And bands played live or semi live in the studio, much more natrual feel than playing to a click track.

Now, everybody wants to be everything all rolled into one. What happens is u have mediocrity in all phases of music, which is why most of todays music, espcially pop music sucks major moose. half ass recordings, half ass songs, half ass arrangements, half ass production, half ass musicianship.

The recordings and production sucked on a lot of old music, and it sucks on a lot of new music. Here's a really short piece entitled "Why Does All New Music Suck?" that you may find interesting.

Here's a song I like: Poet and the Pendulum by Nightwish
Here's another song I like: Wilderness by the O.C. Supertones
Here's another song I like: Generator 1st Floor by Freelance Whales
Here's another song I like: Heavyweight by Infected Mushroom
All of these songs are incredibly different. Metal, Ska, Pop, Electronic. Vocal Driven. Instrumental. The only thing they have in common really is they all came out in the 2000s. And they are all awesome, well done songs. And there's LOTS MORE where that came from.

December Rock Star, on 03 February 2012 - 10:59 AM, said:

Just because we can do everything ourselves, doesnt mean we should

I 100% agree. For example, just because you can soak a vocal in so much reverb the sibilants sounds like resonant cymbals, doesn't mean you should. You don't need to mix a song if you don't want to, but if you do choose to do some mixing, people will probably critique that aspect of your work as well. I almost guarantee you if you just post a clearly recorded video of you performing, people aren't going to suggest what compressor settings you should use. But if you present a mix, people will probably comment on it.

I'm considering offering my services to mix demos for songwriters and musicians for them because you're right, specialization is important. Not everyone wants to go through the effort to mix something well, and that's fine. They can pay me or someone like me to do it.

[December Rock Star]

FunkDaddy, on 03 February 2012 - 12:42 PM, said:

December Rock Star, on 03 February 2012 - 11:59 AM, said:

Producers dont come into play until a deal is signed.

Wrong.

Quote

Songwriters write songs. If simple accompaniment and basic recordings didnt display a songs worth, then nobody would ever be able to play an acoustic set, there would be no MTV unplugged. There would be no little talk shows where guys go on, talk a bit, sing their song, and talk again.

I get where you're going with this but MTV unplugged is usually the full band + strings, just not plugged into amps or using electric guitars (even then, I've seen plenty of them where the bass is still electric). Again...nobody is ignoring the songwriting when they critique the production here. Unless stated otherwise (note the rule that was posted) all aspects are fair game. If somebody records their song on their webcam or laptop microphone and it sounds like crap with clipping galore, it ruins the listening experience.

Quote

The fact is a great song can be arranged, recorded and produced in numerous ways and in numerous styles, even numerous languages.

And? So can a crap song.

This new school of recording engineers is what killed music in general. At one time, every part of the production phase required skilled professionals,
great engineers, great producers, great arrangers, great musicians, not to mention great artists and performers.

"Funny. Most people would say this "new school" has opened up the music business to more people than ever before. Recording a demo no longer needs to be a huge investment. Plenty of tools for songwriters to get their ideas down in any form they wany, from rough sketch to finished demo."

Quote

Now, everybody wants to be everything all rolled into one. What happens is u have mediocrity in all phases of music, which is why most of todays music, espcially pop music sucks major moose. half ass recordings, half ass songs, half ass arrangements, half ass production, half ass musicianship.

There's people on this board who prove all of that wrong. There's been crap music and crap recordings since the first tune was put on wax.

Quote

are you trying to get your songs on tv or a movie? MAYBE, and only maybe if u are competent enough in all phases of music production from song to mastering, u could do it all yourself in your home studio.

Again. TV and movie placement has become the realm of the independent musician.

Quote

This is not your audience, these are people like u trying to do the same thing you are. Soundcloud and soundclick is not your audience.

youtube and itunes is your virtual audience, which is why most youtube videos from people on b oards like this are laregely ignored. They aint
good enough to garner attention from anybody.

Youtube isn't good enough to garner attention from anybody? Maybe I'm misinterpreting, do you realize how many people have signed record deals from their amount of YouTube subscribers alone? YouTube is THE A&R proving ground these days.

Quote

Just because we can do everything ourselves, doesnt mean we should

Agreed. But you're getting off topic again. There's every level of songwriter here along with every level of producer. Some people don't care about their productions, other people want to make their home recordings as polished as possible. So really, it's up to you as the poster of the song to request that production be ignored. Tell people what you want in your critiques of your song. I post songs at all levels of completion, if I'm set on a lyric, I'll tell people. If I know an intro is long but I like it, I tell people, etc, etc. The last thing I want to do when somebody is nice enough to offer their thoughts is have them waste their time.

"Producers dont come into play until a deal is signed".[/quote]

"Wrong."

I dont mind being told im wrong but please explain

"I get where you're going with this but MTV unplugged is usually the full band + strings, just not plugged into amps or using electric guitars (even then, I've seen plenty of them where the bass is still electric). Again...nobody is ignoring the songwriting when they critique the production here. Unless stated otherwise (note the rule that was posted) all aspects are fair game. If somebody records their song on their webcam or laptop microphone and it sounds like crap with clipping galore, it ruins the listening experience."

people watch mtv unplugged on TV, and listen through a tv speaker.


The fact is a great song can be arranged, recorded and produced in numerous ways and in numerous styles, even numerous languages.[/quote]

"And? So can a crap song."

But the crap song is not what we a shooting for.

This new school of recording engineers is what killed music in general. At one time, every part of the production phase required skilled professionals,
great engineers, great producers, great arrangers, great musicians, not to mention great artists and performers.[/quote]

"Funny. Most people would say this "new school" has opened up the music business to more people than ever before. Recording a demo no longer needs to be a huge investment. Plenty of tools for songwriters to get their ideas down in any form they wany, from rough sketch to finished demo.

if you are capable of doing everything yourself professionally or close, it's a godsend.

Now, everybody wants to be everything all rolled into one. What happens is u have mediocrity in all phases of music, which is why most of todays music, espcially pop music sucks major moose. half ass recordings, half ass songs, half ass arrangements, half ass production, half ass musicianship.[/quote]

"There's people on this board who prove all of that wrong. There's been crap music and crap recordings since the first tune was put on wax."

who are these people. and which songs are remembered today?

youtube and itunes is your virtual audience, which is why most youtube videos from people on b oards like this are laregely ignored. They aint
good enough to garner attention from anybody.[/quote]

"Youtube isn't good enough to garner attention from anybody? Maybe I'm misinterpreting, do you realize how many people have signed record deals from their amount of YouTube subscribers alone? YouTube is THE A&R proving ground these days."

if you have a great song, great production and great video, u can. Rebecca Black became famous for being bad. I have nothing against her, I have heard worse, and I wish her all the success in the world, but I wouldnt want to be known for that. Maybe she can use it as a stepping stone to something else.

The fact is great independent music, where one guy plays songwriter, band, singer, engineer, producer, promoter doesnt find success very often.

My response was really towards porcupine, he was talking about the new producers and how they view music life.

U can be succesful being a music producer, but he is trying to do everything himself from pencil to master.

Thats why I said it important to know what your goals are, if its just to post your productions for fun here, no problems. But then the crits will be for fun too.

[December Rock Star]

m24p, on 03 February 2012 - 12:55 PM, said:

December Rock Star, on 03 February 2012 - 10:59 AM, said:

This new school of recording engineers is what killed music in general. At one time, every part of the production phase required skilled professionals,
great engineers, great producers, great arrangers, great musicians, not to mention great artists and performers.

And bands played live or semi live in the studio, much more natrual feel than playing to a click track.

Now, everybody wants to be everything all rolled into one. What happens is u have mediocrity in all phases of music, which is why most of todays music, espcially pop music sucks major moose. half ass recordings, half ass songs, half ass arrangements, half ass production, half ass musicianship.

The recordings and production sucked on a lot of old music, and it sucks on a lot of new music. Here's a really short piece entitled "Why Does All New Music Suck?" that you may find interesting.

Here's a song I like: Poet and the Pendulum by Nightwish
Here's another song I like: Wilderness by the O.C. Supertones
Here's another song I like: Generator 1st Floor by Freelance Whales
Here's another song I like: Heavyweight by Infected Mushroom
All of these songs are incredibly different. Metal, Ska, Pop, Electronic. Vocal Driven. Instrumental. The only thing they have in common really is they all came out in the 2000s. And they are all awesome, well done songs. And there's LOTS MORE where that came from.

December Rock Star, on 03 February 2012 - 10:59 AM, said:

Just because we can do everything ourselves, doesnt mean we should

I 100% agree. For example, just because you can soak a vocal in so much reverb the sibilants sounds like resonant cymbals, doesn't mean you should. You don't need to mix a song if you don't want to, but if you do choose to do some mixing, people will probably critique that aspect of your work as well. I almost guarantee you if you just post a clearly recorded video of you performing, people aren't going to suggest what compressor settings you should use. But if you present a mix, people will probably comment on it.

I'm considering offering my services to mix demos for songwriters and musicians for them because you're right, specialization is important. Not everyone wants to go through the effort to mix something well, and that's fine. They can pay me or someone like me to do it.

Here's some articles u might find frighteningly interesting.

http://www.yoursdail...ic_so_bad_today

http://www.techdirt....0/0046215.shtml

http://www.buzzfeed....out-popular-mus

[Nevergoback]

Listening to Infected Mushroom on Spotify as we speak... music in the internet age not so bad, methinks.

There has always been bubblegum and music artists which were just gloss entertainment packaging. So what?

It's easier to dig and find the good stuff now than it has ever been. Instead of pouring through friend's record collection (which was fun), I can cycle through thousands of songs on iTunes, Spotify, etc.

Through CDbaby, you can still buy my little album from 2005 that sold about 200 total copies on iTunes. (Don't, you can get the mp3s free off the site below.)

[Greg Ball]

What is songwriting? What is a song? Sound and (sometimes but not always) words? I'm not meaning to be rhetorical or anything. Its okay if you write songs a certain way with an emphasis on melody and words first, but I don't think that's necessarily the only way. As best I understand, the development of music has always been strongly affected by the available tools and techniques. Bach wrote "The Well-Tempered Clavicord" mostly to convince skeptics that the "new tuning" of the scale we use today would work. And in the process he invented the Fugue as a musical form.

I think -or at least I hope - that we live in the age of the "new composer". I don't HAVE to do anything, but if I think of mixing as a form of composing, of crafting emotions and artfully combing parts like a sonic painter, I think that it can be considered a legitimate part of writing for some people. I'm not saying that mic placement is the same as writing. But I am saying that in a certain sense composing is an ancient form of mixing. And what is "composing" anyway, but putting various bits together in an artistic way to accomplish a musical work? Would you say that music includes dynamics and balance?

[m24p]

December Rock Star, on 03 February 2012 - 12:44 PM, said:

Here's some articles u might find frighteningly interesting.

http://www.yoursdail...ic_so_bad_today

http://www.techdirt....0/0046215.shtml

http://www.buzzfeed....out-popular-mus

Cool! So I got the idea that "old people like to go to huge arena concerts more than young people". And "old people tend to not appreciate newer styles of music but young people can appreciate older styles of music".

[December Rock Star]

Nevergoback, on 03 February 2012 - 01:54 PM, said:

Listening to Infected Mushroom on Spotify as we speak... music in the internet age not so bad, methinks.

There has always been bubblegum and music artists which were just gloss entertainment packaging. So what?

It's easier to dig and find the good stuff now than it has ever been. Instead of pouring through friend's record collection (which was fun), I can cycle through thousands of songs on iTunes, Spotify, etc.

Through CDbaby, you can still buy my little album from 2005 that sold about 200 total copies on iTunes. (Don't, you can get the mp3s free off the site below.)

but how many albums on spotify and cdbaby have you bought? some of those artists are great artists, with great bands playing and great engineers recording and producers etc.

The fact is u have to be blown off you ass to buy music from somebody u have never heard before.

I bought ONE, countem ONE album off cdbaby.

It was from a guy named Willie Nile. I came across it by accident. I was frikon floored at how good of a songwriter and songs he had. And he had a great
band and production behind him. I later found out he was 57 years old, and virtually nobody had heard of him before.

He had influences of all years all over him, and I would rank him with some of the best rock songwriters around. He's that good.
Check out some of his work. He has a bunch of albums out "beautiful wreck of the world", Streets of New York, House of a thousand guitars.

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=3qKjUeGji78

some live ones

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=Tmea2cRRtio

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=iCGGhQzc-G0

But it;s rare really rare

[December Rock Star]

Greg Ball, on 03 February 2012 - 01:58 PM, said:

What is songwriting? What is a song? Sound and (sometimes but not always) words? I'm not meaning to be rhetorical or anything. Its okay if you write songs a certain way with an emphasis on melody and words first, but I don't think that's necessarily the only way. As best I understand, the development of music has always been strongly affected by the available tools and techniques. Bach wrote "The Well-Tempered Clavicord" mostly to convince skeptics that the "new tuning" of the scale we use today would work. And in the process he invented the Fugue as a musical form.

I think -or at least I hope - that we live in the age of the "new composer". I don't HAVE to do anything, but if I think of mixing as a form of composing, of crafting emotions and artfully combing parts like a sonic painter, I think that it can be considered a legitimate part of writing for some people. I'm not saying that mic placement is the same as writing. But I am saying that in a certain sense composing is an ancient form of mixing. And what is "composing" anyway, but putting various bits together in an artistic way to accomplish a musical work? Would you say that music includes dynamics and balance?

if your good, u could be a great asset, the songwriter, the artist, and u would all be integral parts of making the song what is becomes.

if you are all aspiring and looking to get there, thats a wonderful thing. Thats not what im really saying. Im saying that most folks are jacks of all trades and masters of nothing.

starts with the songs for people interested in that avenue, and u as an aspiring engineer,producer should be looking to work with great songs.

[December Rock Star]

m24p, on 03 February 2012 - 02:09 PM, said:

December Rock Star, on 03 February 2012 - 12:44 PM, said:

Here's some articles u might find frighteningly interesting.

http://www.yoursdail...ic_so_bad_today

http://www.techdirt....0/0046215.shtml

http://www.buzzfeed....out-popular-mus

Cool! So I got the idea that "old people like to go to huge arena concerts more than young people". And "old people tend to not appreciate newer styles of music but young people can appreciate older styles of music".

LOL when u posted your article, did i make excuses for it?

Fact is im a child of the 80's and to me by far the best music came in the 60's and it;s not close really,

But I will give u that people always think the music they grew up with is the best.

But really the Beatles set the bar so high as far as songwriters, performers and their engineers and producers were top notch, they made it
so anybody who followed couldnt live up to it.

Music has been going down hill ever since.

[m24p]

Meh, there's great stuff now. Try Pomplamoose maybe? http://www.youtube.c...omplamooseMusic

[porcupine]

[quote name='December Rock Star' date='03 February 2012 - 02:26 PM' timestamp='1328297203' post='569791']

Nevergoback, on 03 February 2012 - 01:54 PM, said:

It was from a guy named Willie Nile. I came across it by accident. I was frikon floored at how good of a songwriter and songs he had. And he had a great band and production behind him. I later found out he was 57 years old, and virtually nobody had heard of him before.

I did hear of him. If you know the NY scene or have been up here, his name pops up quite a bit. I've heard a few recordings and I'll be honest, had to look up the name of the song I liked...On the Road to Calvary. He is a great songwriter and he has a big Springsteen connection and praise.

The truth is, We all have value, the biggest of which is to contniue learning. The minute we allow opinions of others to make us defensive, is the first minute of losing our own credibility and losing the understanding of how we can improve or craft.

Porcupine

[Nevergoback]

December Rock Star, on 03 February 2012 - 01:26 PM, said:

but how many albums on spotify and cdbaby have you bought? some of those artists are great artists, with great bands playing and great engineers recording and producers etc.

I've bought alot of music, I listen to alot of music I don't pay for (Spotify). Music for a living and music for music are two different things. It's a very old issue. If you really love music, don't mix money with it. Put out the tip jar and if you break even you're doing well.

[Scotto]

Nevergoback, on 03 February 2012 - 02:40 PM, said:

December Rock Star, on 03 February 2012 - 01:26 PM, said:

but how many albums on spotify and cdbaby have you bought? some of those artists are great artists, with great bands playing and great engineers recording and producers etc.

I've bought alot of music, I listen to alot of music I don't pay for (Spotify). Music for a living and music for music are two different things. It's a very old issue. If you really love music, don't mix money with it. Put out the tip jar and if you break even you're doing well.

I've had the music pay for itself occasionally. That's all I really shoot for!

[vtoutlander]

I don't really mind it at all. I have no idea what I'm doing when it comes to recording and production. Any comments on that are absolutely welcome, even though my main goal is to get feedback on melody and lyric. If I'm reading a critique of someone else's song, and there are production suggestions, I usually try to listen again, to see if I can hear the same thing.

It's absolutely true that a good song can be spotted a mile away by someone with an open mind and ears. But the outside view of another person with regard to production can open you up to possibilities that you may have not considered for your own work.

[Alistair S]

I'm getting a little confused about what the thread is about, but that's OK. A couple of thoughts occurred to me as I was reading.

First, there are a hundred and one reasons why people may post here and even why they write. As far as I am concerned, they are all OK. If the site can be a useful resource, it's all good. Some people are starting out. Some perform. Some are hobbyists. Some are ex-pros. Some are trying to make it as artists. Some are looking to place stuff for film/advertising. Whatever. That's their concern.

Second, feedback is just that.. feedback. To my mind it is about someone doing me the favour of holding up a mirror to my work and saying "This is what I felt/thought". That's all useful, but especially useful if that person is either soneone from my potential audience or someone I feel I could learn from. Some feedback is interesting but less useful. That's OK. I'm just grateful they took the time.

Lastly, posting here won't (in itself) give anyone an "in". It's a resource to help us all to improve and will be as useful as we (the members) make it.

For most, if they want to make a career, that will be done outside this site - networking, building an audience, performing. The day of the solo songwriter making a living is dead in most genres. However, if they are building a following, they may want to make money from CDs sold at gigs (or may want to give them away). If they can get something "good enough" and we can help, great. This probably isn't the best forum for improving recording/mixing skills, but all help is good. Our main focus is the song (or should be) - but we can provide feedback on other stuff too.

[December Rock Star]

Well the way it all ties in is, if you know what your goals/ambitions are, you then know what type of crit you want, and then
you can ask for that type of crit.

[m24p]

December Rock Star, on 03 February 2012 - 03:51 PM, said:

Well the way it all ties in is, if you know what your goals/ambitions are, you then know what type of crit you want, and then
you can ask for that type of crit.

Woohoo! We're in agreement after all!

[porcupine]

WINNER!

[I Am Who I Am]

I read quite a few replies(wow! popular topic! lol)

I agree with someone who said something like, "when you post a song, let them know you don't want critiques on the recording, just the song" or "I'm no singer, so please, just critique the song itself, and not the performance".

Granted, you'll always get someone who's still going to not read the original post, and simply click on the song, and inadvertently critique the mix, but no biggie. Personally, if I had a post, where I specifically asked for just a SONG critique, and NOT a MIX/PERFORMANCE critique, and someone posted a critique on the mix or performance, I'd read it, use what I could to make my next one that much better(never hurts to take advice and try to be better), but overall, I prolly wouldn't reply to that person's post, or if I did, I'd say..."thanks for taking the time to listen, I appreciate it, but I was simply wanting a critique on the song itself, not the mix, since I don't have a million dollar set-up" or something to that effect.

[December Rock Star]

Vindication...

well I tried to articulate this but it was met with alot of resistance, perhaps Dave Grohl might convince you. I didnt know Dave felt this way, but
it's great to know.

Get away from the computers, learn your instrument and your craft...

Sheer bliss.

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=IYCW2uH2wx8

[December Rock Star]

wow youtube took it down already

heres a shorterned version, although it doesnt show where he says they decided instead of recording in the best studio there is, they would record in their garage, with a couple of mics and a tape deck

sheer bliss

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=SNfTXQ5BzI4

[RLD]

December Rock Star, on 13 February 2012 - 03:32 PM, said:

they would record in their garage, with a couple of mics and a tape deck

Ha ha...it was slightly more involved than that.
...2 Studer A827 24‑track recorders (48 tracks) and an API 1608 desk, with an extension board bringing it up to 32 channels.
Check out the vid "Back and Forth" if you want to get into the guts of it.

[FunkDaddy]

BUT IT WAS IN THE GARAGE!!!

p.s. "Back And Forth" is a great documentary. Probably more suited to fans of the band but might be interesting for others too, some pretty heavy stuff they get into.

[December Rock Star]

u guys, picking and choosing what part of his speech you'd like to listen to.

Dave and I try to educate, but some folks want to let their recordings be their song.

Ill be here for next debate, trying to knock some sense into you all

[FunkDaddy]

Your point is supposed to be recordings don't matter, only the song. Your point to prove this is a band who can write their own ticket utilizing thousands upon thousands of dollars worth of gear (watch the documentary or simply look at the photo above) in a purpose-built space (watch the documentary) with one of the best music producers in the world. Not exactly an example of roughing it and letting the songs shine through poor recordings.

If you think anybody is disagreeing with the speech Dave Grohl made about heart and soul, you are just creating arguments where there are none. You still are hung up on this idea that people here value production over songwriting. You're wrong. Plain and simple. Nothing can apparently change your mind about that. Your loss. Not ours.

[December Rock Star]

FunkDaddy, on 13 February 2012 - 09:41 PM, said:

Your point is supposed to be recordings don't matter, only the song. Your point to prove this is a band who can write their own ticket utilizing thousands upon thousands of dollars worth of gear (watch the documentary or simply look at the photo above) in a purpose-built space (watch the documentary) with one of the best music producers in the world. Not exactly an example of roughing it and letting the songs shine through poor recordings.

If you think anybody is disagreeing with the speech Dave Grohl made about heart and soul, you are just creating arguments where there are none. You still are hung up on this idea that people here value production over songwriting. You're wrong. Plain and simple. Nothing can apparently change your mind about that. Your loss. Not ours.

I was refering to him talking about not being perfect, it's not about what goes on in your computer, its about learning your craft.

too much emphasis is on people learning their recording chops. But hopefully that will change thanks to Dave and myself, mavericks on this idea.

[FunkDaddy]

Why would Dave Grohl worry about his recording chops when he's got Butch Vig on speed dial?

Recording skill doesn't have to come at the expense of songwriting. All it can do is make songwriting easier and more inspired.

[December Rock Star]

FunkDaddy, on 13 February 2012 - 10:07 PM, said:

Why would Dave Grohl worry about his recording chops when he's got Butch Vig on speed dial?

Recording skill doesn't have to come at the expense of songwriting. All it can do is make songwriting easier and more inspired.

He says here he only recorded in his garage for his "****ty" demos. Im sure when he played those ****ty demos, they didnt tell him his voice
sounded stressed, or he was in the wrong key, or he needed to eq his guitar, because professionals know that does not matter, a demo is
to hear the song, that is it. No it doest have to come at expense of songwriting, but it doesnt have to be at all. Its a SONG demo.
if people want to post their finished product thats fine, but dont ask for the same thing from everybody.


“I thought,” Grohl says, “rather than just record the album in the most expensive studio with the most state‑of‑the‑art equipment, what if Butch and I were to get back together after 20 years and dust off the tape machines and put them in my garage? We’ve recorded an album somewhere where no‑one has ever recorded before. We’ve not gone to the studio where Zeppelin made In Through The Out Door, we’ve gone into my garage. The only person that’s recorded in my garage before is me for ****ty demos that I’ve done for the last two records.”
For his part, Butch Vig took some convincing. “Well, the first day we sat down and talked about it,” the producer laughs, “he dropped one bombshell: ‘I wanna do it in my garage.’ I thought, Well, he’s probably got a pretty nice garage. So we went down to his house and opened it up — and it’s just a ****ty little rectangular room, about 18 feet by 20 feet or something. Hard, dry wall. It just sounded like a trashy garage. But we put up a drum kit and four mics and Dave started playing and it sounded good. Really intense, because the room is small and the sound pressure was just super‑crushing loud. Then he dropped the second bombshell: ‘I want to do it on tape.’ I was like, ‘OK...’ — in my head, thinking what we’ll do is we’ll probably record on tape and then dump it into Pro Tools.”
“Butch said,” Grohl remembers, “‘If we run into any real trouble we can always dump it into Pro Tools.’ I said, ‘No no no no, dude. No ****ing computers. Not one computer. None.’ Personally, I’ve always preferred using tape, because I like the sound of human performance. I don’t like the mechanical, perfectionist attitude to making music. He said, ‘Y’know, I’m gonna have to get out my razor blade for editing.’ I said, ‘I’ve seen you do it before, I know you can do it.’”
“So I thought about that a little bit,” Vig continues, “and said, ‘Well why can’t we do that? That’s how I learnt how to make records.’ I just tried to make my head go back in time a little bit. I said to him, ‘That means you guys have to be razor‑sharp tight. You’ve gotta be so well rehearsed, ’cause I can’t fix anything. I can’t paste drum fills and choruses around. This is gonna be a record about performance, about how you guys play.’”

[Desertrose]

I'm curious as to why this seems to be such an important issue to you?
Have people overly and unfairly criticized your songs as far as the mix/production goes?
I just see it this way.
If you're going to ask people to take the time (their time) to sit down and listen to YOUR songs, then the least you can do is try to make them as pleasing to the ear as you possibly can. It's kinda just courtesy, because you're actually asking them to LISTEN to something.
It's just what you do. Make it pleasingly listenable. Just like you wouldn't show someone a sketch you'd drawn if you'd done it on a paper napkin leftover from lunch.

Music is supposed to be an enjoyable auditory experience so if a mix is really horrible it really can influence the persons take on the song as a whole.
I don't think anyone here expects that everyone has the money or equipment to have full on mastered radio ready demo's, but there are many technically cluey people here who can (and do) help a lot of others with their advice on how to achieve a good recording mix wise. I think they are just trying to be helpful?

I'd like to add that more often than not - depending on the genre of course, a simple bare bones recording of vocals and guitar, or vocals and piano are the true indicators of whether or not the "song itself" really stands up on it's own merit.
But there again, sometimes you hear people doing that - say just acoustic guitar and vocals, but you can't hear a word sung because they haven't used a mic.
How can you NOT comment in those instances...on the 'mix' ?

[December Rock Star]

Desertrose, on 13 February 2012 - 11:07 PM, said:

I'm curious as to why this seems to be such an important issue to you?
Have people overly and unfairly criticized your songs as far as the mix/production goes?
I just see it this way.
If you're going to ask people to take the time (their time) to sit down and listen to YOUR songs, then the least you can do is try to make them as pleasing to the ear as you possibly can. It's kinda just courtesy, because you're actually asking them to LISTEN to something.
It's just what you do. Make it pleasingly listenable. Just like you wouldn't show someone a sketch you'd drawn if you'd done it on a paper napkin leftover from lunch.

Music is supposed to be an enjoyable auditory experience so if a mix is really horrible it really can influence the persons take on the song as a whole.
I don't think anyone here expects that everyone has the money or equipment to have full on mastered radio ready demo's, but there are many technically cluey people here who can (and do) help a lot of others with their advice on how to achieve a good recording mix wise. I think they are just trying to be helpful?

I'd like to add that more often than not - depending on the genre of course, a simple bare bones recording of vocals and guitar, or vocals and piano are the true indicators of whether or not the "song itself" really stands up on it's own merit.
But there again, sometimes you hear people doing that - say just acoustic guitar and vocals, but you can't hear a word sung because they haven't used a mic.
How can you NOT comment in those instances...on the 'mix' ?

its more me trying to show people what the important thing is. its not how your demo sounds. If your song manages to get picked up by a publisher,
it wont matter at all how you u missed a note or u didnt eq your guitar, and many publishers and producers still want a rough demo, so that they can envision the song for themselves without influence.

I say it because it comes up in just about every critique, in one way or another. and people let sound influence their perception of the song.

There are plenty of songwriters who cant sing, play, record at all, but they can write great songs, and they survived playing out of tune guitars into boom boxes.



"Music is supposed to be an enjoyable auditory experience so if a mix is really horrible it really can influence the persons take on the song as a whole."

music is, songwriting demos are not. Songwriters who understanbd melody and can recognize a good song dont need a good mix. A horrible sounding terrible bad mix where the kick drum is all u hear, then yes, but ive posted demos that were beyond what is neccessary, and I still get comments on it, when I dont want it.


"I don't think anyone here expects that everyone has the money or equipment to have full on mastered radio ready demo's, but there are many technically cluey people here who can (and do) help a lot of others with their advice on how to achieve a good recording mix wise."

it's not about the money, its about wanting to know how to song stands up by itself. A beautiful girl is only going to look more beautiful when shes has her dress clothes and makeup on.

"I think they are just trying to be helpful?"

yes, and it;s what they enjoy so they want to bring it up. but this is a songwriting forum. I think people do themselves a huge disservice thinking they
need to record their songs to get feedback, people can be mislead by a good recording, and make u believe u have a gem when it's a turd.

present company excluded of course.

[Desertrose]

"and many publishers and producers still want a rough demo, so that they can envision the song for themselves without influence"

Do they? I really have no idea, so I'm asking that seriously. It's been a long time since I have entertained any thoughts of seriously pitching anything to anyone.
But way back when I DID entertain such silly notions I asked the same question. (and received mixed responses)
I kind of thought to myself that if I were in THEIR shoes (in their ears) having to sit there all day listening to one after the another of really ****ty recordings of ****ty songs from millions of hopefuls would be torturous to say the least.
So I figured that I'd at least try to make my recordings the best I possibly could - you know, first impressions and all. It's like the reason why you dress presentably for an interview.

But, yeah, I totally agree with you - you simply cannot polish a turd. I don't think you can be misled into thinking a turd is a "gem" though just because it's mixed well. A turd is a turd even in the grandest of gowns.
I really do understand the place you are coming from as far as the basic 'song" goes, but hey...it really doesn't take a LOT of effort to make sure your guitar is in tune or that vocals are loud enough.
As people have said here, really all you have to say is "No nit picky mixing crits required thank you!" otherwise you might just get the mixing enthusiasts all chiming in at once.

Now go write a song! I promise from now on I will not comment on your mixes

[DannyDep]

Quote

...many publishers and producers still want a rough demo, so that they can envision the song for themselves without influence.

What is your definition of a "rough demo"?
Mine is a vocal and perhaps a guitar or piano. I agree if you're saying "garbage in" "garbage out".
But if you're tone deaf and don't have an idea about melody you might want to try poetry or prose writing instead.

Quote

... people let sound influence their perception of the song.

That's the most insidious remark I've heard on this forum in quite a while.
The last time I checked, the Muse's Muse is a SONGwriting website/forum.
If one doesn't have an innate or acquired knowledge of melody, prosody and the ability to create emotion with those musical principals than one can and will not be a songwriter.
Or have I mis-interpreted your statement.

Quote

...A beautiful girl is only going to look more beautiful when shes has her dress clothes and makeup on.

That's your opinion and you are certainly entitled to it.
Me? I like the casual natural look, you know, that rough (meaning no makeup) look.

Quote

...people can be mislead by a good recording, and make u believe u have a gem when it's a turd.

Yes, but everyone has their own definition of a turd.
I've heard my share of shinny and rough turds coming from the music industries contracted artists and from my observation, there are a lot of people buying a lot of turds these days.

I will admit that my bias is from a musical perspective and I just want to make sure that you're not saying that sound (not some grandiose 96 track arrangement) doesn't matter.
But the marriage of music (sound) and lyrics (story) does.

[Desertrose]

"there are a lot of people buying a lot of turds these days."

Here here! YESSSS!
And a lot of men in shiny suits selling them.

[December Rock Star]

DannyDep, on 14 February 2012 - 12:19 AM, said:

Quote

...many publishers and producers still want a rough demo, so that they can envision the song for themselves without influence.

What is your definition of a "rough demo"?
Mine is a vocal and perhaps a guitar or piano. I agree if you're saying "garbage in" "garbage out".
But if you're tone deaf and don't have an idea about melody you might want to try poetry or prose writing instead.

Quote

... people let sound influence their perception of the song.

That's the most insidious remark I've heard on this forum in quite a while.
The last time I checked, the Muse's Muse is a SONGwriting website/forum.
If one doesn't have an innate or acquired knowledge of melody, prosody and the ability to create emotion with those musical principals than one can and will not be a songwriter.
Or have I mis-interpreted your statement.

Quote

...A beautiful girl is only going to look more beautiful when shes has her dress clothes and makeup on.

That's your opinion and you are certainly entitled to it.
Me? I like the casual natural look, you know, that rough (meaning no makeup) look.

Quote

...people can be mislead by a good recording, and make u believe u have a gem when it's a turd.

Yes, but everyone has their own definition of a turd.
I've heard my share of shinny and rough turds coming from the music industries contracted artists and from my observation, there are a lot of people buying a lot of turds these days.

I will admit that my bias is from a musical perspective and I just want to make sure that you're not saying that sound (not some grandiose 96 track arrangement) doesn't matter.
But the marriage of music (sound) and lyrics (story) does.

"That's the most insidious remark I've heard on this forum in quite a while.
The last time I checked, the Muse's Muse is a SONGwriting website/forum.
If one doesn't have an innate or acquired knowledge of melody, prosody and the ability to create emotion with those musical principals than one can and will not be a songwriter.
Or have I mis-interpreted your statement"

You read it perfectly and you gave the perfect support to my argument. This is why u DONT need a good recording HERE, cause we are songwriters, not the general public.

"people can be mislead by a good recording, and make u believe u have a gem when it's a turd.[/quote] Yes, but everyone has their own definition of a turd.
I've heard my share of shinny and rough turds coming from the music industries contracted artists and from my observation, there are a lot of people buying a lot of turds these days. "

And so the purpose of the forum is to learn how to polish your turd into a hit?

"I like the casual natural look, you know, that rough (meaning no makeup) look. "

Well u have to make sure u have that without the makeup

"I will admit that my bias is from a musical perspective and I just want to make sure that you're not saying that sound (not some grandiose 96 track arrangement) doesn't matter.
But the marriage of music (sound) and lyrics (story) does."

Sound does not matter for a songwriting demo. Actually what u place here is not even a demo, a demo is something you do when u think u have the song down, a rough take is something u do to get your ideas down, and ask other songwriters what they think of the song. But if they are going to comment on how u panned your guitar and eqed your vocal, for the rough take, it serves no purpose.

[Bruce N]

The only thing I can surmise from all this, and the only reason DRS is so vehemently defending his rough demos, is because he couldn't mix a decent recording if his life depended on it, and he gets upset when people point that weakness out to him.

All his arguments that he uses, as to why his demo's are the way they are, what a load of horse malarkey.

Now come on DRS, pull that bottom lip up before you trip over it. We're here to help you, we can make you into that well rounded songwriter that you've always dreamed of being, and once we do you'll be bragging to everyone you meet, about the fine folks at the Muses Muse who helped you to reach your full potential.

[Alistair S]

December Rock Star, on 14 February 2012 - 07:07 AM, said:

This is why u DONT need a good recording HERE, cause we are songwriters, not the general public.

I doubt that anyone disagrees with this. You may be seeing disagreement that doesn't exist.

The song is the key here. The recording needs to be adequate to be able to hear it and a "decent" performance helps, too (let's face it, even great songs can be crucified sometimes!) - but it only has to be "good enough", not "good" and certainly not excellent or "pro". I've heard a couple of your songs and they are certainly good enough to comment on the song (actually, better than that).

Most people will look past recording deficiencies and comment on the song, in my experience. Goodness knows, my recording could use work but I won a 1+1 Song of the Year contest here with a poor, hissy recording (much to my amazement) and made the finals of another SOTY contest with a song I recorded quickly and live, with one mic as a YouTube video .. the recording hardly helped. If people prioritised recording quality, neither song would have got anywhere.

If you really just want the song to be commented on, I'd suggest a 1+1 version is a sure-fire way of achieving that. Once you add instruments, the arrangement becomes a part of he song and most people want feedback on that, too. It can be helpful to know that the drums aren't adding to the song or that the strings need more movement during the bridge, in my opinion. Once the arrangement develops, that is what people will comment on. It's a choice of how you present the song.

Some people do want feedback on the recording/production side of things, too. Personally, I don't want that instead of comments on the song (and the arrangement), but if comments can help me present my stuff better then it's all useful. Honestly, this isn't the best place for help on recording though. There are a few that can help, but most of us are songwriters and not engineers.

As has been said before, a request to ignore the quality of the recording will do the trick if you don't want comments. Those who still comment can easily be ignored if you prefer.

As it happens, I recorded something yesterday. I have had a cold for a month and can't sing a note .. my voice just gives out (it makes me laugh at times). I recorded it using my webcam and the inbuilt microphone in front of my computer so there is plenty of background noise. I also make various mistakes. It's pretty awful. It wasn't meant to be shared, but to give me an idea of whether the song could work if I arranged it properly. It's a bit of a dirge and (if it ever sees the light of day) it will probably need structural changes AND some turd-polishing.

However, I'll put it up. I won't reference this thread. Let's see what comments I get! My bet is that most will be about the song (not the recording).

[RLD]

Alistair S, on 14 February 2012 - 01:28 AM, said:

If you really just want the song to be commented on, I'd suggest a 1+1 version is a sure-fire way of achieving that. Once you add instruments, the arrangement becomes a part of he song and most people want feedback on that, too. It can be helpful to know that the drums aren't adding to the song or that the strings need more movement during the bridge, in my opinion. Once the arrangement develops, that is what people will comment on. It's a choice of how you present the song.

That's a good point and one we've discussed before.
If one believes production should not be part of a song critique, anything other than a 1+1 is unnecessary.
If one chooses to add more, expect some to comment on it.

[FunkDaddy]

Alistair S, on 14 February 2012 - 04:28 AM, said:

I doubt that anyone disagrees with this. You may be seeing disagreement that doesn't exist.

Most people will look past recording deficiencies and comment on the song, in my experience. Goodness knows, my recording could use work but I won a 1+1 Song of the Year contest here with a poor, hissy recording (much to my amazement) and made the finals of another SOTY contest with a song I recorded quickly and live, with one mic as a YouTube video .. the recording hardly helped. If people prioritised recording quality, neither song would have got anywhere.

If you really just want the song to be commented on, I'd suggest a 1+1 version is a sure-fire way of achieving that. Once you add instruments, the arrangement becomes a part of he song and most people want feedback on that, too. It can be helpful to know that the drums aren't adding to the song or that the strings need more movement during the bridge, in my opinion. Once the arrangement develops, that is what people will comment on. It's a choice of how you present the song.

Some people do want feedback on the recording/production side of things, too. Personally, I don't want that instead of comments on the song (and the arrangement), but if comments can help me present my stuff better then it's all useful. Honestly, this isn't the best place for help on recording though. There are a few that can help, but most of us are songwriters and not engineers.

As has been said before, a request to ignore the quality of the recording will do the trick if you don't want comments. Those who still comment can easily be ignored if you prefer.

RLD, on 14 February 2012 - 09:43 AM, said:

That's a good point and one we've discussed before.
If one believes production should not be part of a song critique, anything other than a 1+1 is unnecessary.
If one chooses to add more, expect some to comment on it.

I've made the exact same points to him weeks ago. He doesn't listen. He knows the Muse better than people who have been here years.

[DannyDep]

Desertrose, on 14 February 2012 - 12:24 AM, said:

"there are a lot of people buying a lot of turds these days."

Here here! YESSSS!
And a lot of men in shiny suits selling them.

Yep, you're an 80s girl.

[December Rock Star]

RLD, on 14 February 2012 - 09:43 AM, said:

Alistair S, on 14 February 2012 - 01:28 AM, said:

If you really just want the song to be commented on, I'd suggest a 1+1 version is a sure-fire way of achieving that. Once you add instruments, the arrangement becomes a part of he song and most people want feedback on that, too. It can be helpful to know that the drums aren't adding to the song or that the strings need more movement during the bridge, in my opinion. Once the arrangement develops, that is what people will comment on. It's a choice of how you present the song.

That's a good point and one we've discussed before.
If one believes production should not be part of a song critique, anything other than a 1+1 is unnecessary.
If one chooses to add more, expect some to comment on it.

Thats not neccessarily true, but your signup date is 03, allistairs 07, so not surprising u agree.

just because somebody has a drum track or a keyboard or any other accessory in their rough take, doesnt mean thats supposed to be critiqued.

Sometimes the drums might be a big part of the song such as "we will rock you" but if somebody was to play the drum part of we will rock you on a bunch of cradboard boxes, you could still get the feel and the vibe of what the goal was, somebody shouldnt say "those boxes need to be eqed and compressed.

You follow?

A dance song will need a demo dance track behind it to see if the song works, that doesnt mean u comment on the quality of keyboard that was being used.

DEMO DEMO DEMO

But, if somebody says, I dont want productions crits, people still want to talk about it.

[December Rock Star]

FunkDaddy, on 14 February 2012 - 12:49 PM, said:

Alistair S, on 14 February 2012 - 04:28 AM, said:

I doubt that anyone disagrees with this. You may be seeing disagreement that doesn't exist.

Most people will look past recording deficiencies and comment on the song, in my experience. Goodness knows, my recording could use work but I won a 1+1 Song of the Year contest here with a poor, hissy recording (much to my amazement) and made the finals of another SOTY contest with a song I recorded quickly and live, with one mic as a YouTube video .. the recording hardly helped. If people prioritised recording quality, neither song would have got anywhere.

If you really just want the song to be commented on, I'd suggest a 1+1 version is a sure-fire way of achieving that. Once you add instruments, the arrangement becomes a part of he song and most people want feedback on that, too. It can be helpful to know that the drums aren't adding to the song or that the strings need more movement during the bridge, in my opinion. Once the arrangement develops, that is what people will comment on. It's a choice of how you present the song.

Some people do want feedback on the recording/production side of things, too. Personally, I don't want that instead of comments on the song (and the arrangement), but if comments can help me present my stuff better then it's all useful. Honestly, this isn't the best place for help on recording though. There are a few that can help, but most of us are songwriters and not engineers.

As has been said before, a request to ignore the quality of the recording will do the trick if you don't want comments. Those who still comment can easily be ignored if you prefer.

RLD, on 14 February 2012 - 09:43 AM, said:

That's a good point and one we've discussed before.
If one believes production should not be part of a song critique, anything other than a 1+1 is unnecessary.
If one chooses to add more, expect some to comment on it.

I've made the exact same points to him weeks ago. He doesn't listen. He knows the Muse better than people who have been here years.

You have seen and responded to every comment on this subject that has been made, yet u still talk about a vocal track or mix, when it has nothing to do with the song.

U are the one who doesnt listen.

[FunkDaddy]

December Rock Star, on 14 February 2012 - 01:44 PM, said:

You have seen and responded to every comment on this subject that has been made, yet u still talk about a vocal track or mix, when it has nothing to do with the song.

U are the one who doesnt listen.

Wrong again

Why would I take your word as gospel? I'll comment on the production of a song all I want. Doesn't mean it's part of the song...why can't you grasp that very, VERY simple concept?