(electronic freestyle) The Swinging Particles - They Stab It With Their Steely Knives... Album

[Auryn]

EDIT 15/4: added album artwork

finalcover3.jpg (817.35 KiB) Viewed 2795 times

We've been working on tracks for this album for a long time, now I've finally finished enough for a real preview. I still want to add 1-3 more tracks, so I guess this is version 0.7 of the finished product. The styles of the tracks are very different so I'm wondering how it hangs together as an album. I guess there's a thread of inspiration from the sample-happy 90ies, there are elements of video game music and also from 60ies/70ies style jam band music, which all get fused with more modern influences. Any feedback or comments are much appreciated!

Oh and the title is "They Stab It With Their Steely Knives But They Just Can't Kill The Beat" (a play on a line from Hotel California by The Eagles)




EDIT 6/4: Added a new track "Better Get Ready"


EDIT 10/4: Added a new track "OOBEron"


I suspect it might be done now! Glory! (edited the thread subject to reflect this)

[Auryn]

BUMP - I know it's a bit of a time-sink to listen to an entire album but I'm hoping at least someone will give it a spin...

[EdwardKiy]

Listened to all of it. I have a friend sound engineer who I think has the same problem as you guys - you get too carried away with the sound itself and it takes you away from the music. (I have the exact opposite problem).

All of your stuff sounds great technically, yet the first half is too random in terms of harmony to sustain prolonged interest. The actual music (to me) is in "Lazybones", "Schoolgirls" and "Token wings", of which I think the first two are stronger. All 3 need a vocal or some form of a leading voice to "rule them all and in the darkness bind them" - for other stuff to pause to, envelop and move around.

"SpaceJaxx" is a weird one. It's definitely music, but I can't think of a context where it would be most enjoyable - the sound is a bit too harsh to make it a chill listening experience, or lacking in melody, if you want it to be a focused listen. Think context. A decision has to be made as to where it should belong. If it can fit multiple - that would be even better, but to my ear it fits neither so far.

Example: Rachmaninov's C-sharp prelude - an absolutely incredible piece of music, but you won't hear it a lot, because it only has one setting to be enjoyed in - a grand solo piano concerto, even if it's happening in your bedroom. But it has one. I think you should also apply this concept to the album as a whole. Maybe make it two separate albums, or A-side/B-side and brush the tracks to better fit either.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wXQCPAR0EHo

My 5 cents.

[Auryn]

Listened to all of it. I have a friend sound engineer who I think has the same problem as you guys - you get too carried away with the sound itself and it takes you away from the music. (I have the exact opposite problem).

All of your stuff sounds great technically, yet the first half is too random in terms of harmony to sustain prolonged interest. The actual music (to me) is in "Lazybones", "Schoolgirls" and "Token wings", of which I think the first two are stronger. All 3 need a vocal or some form of a leading voice to "rule them all and in the darkness bind them" - for other stuff to pause to, envelop and move around.

"SpaceJaxx" is a weird one. It's definitely music, but I can't think of a context where it would be most enjoyable - the sound is a bit too harsh to make it a chill listening experience, or lacking in melody, if you want it to be a focused listen. Think context. A decision has to be made as to where it should belong. If it can fit multiple - that would be even better, but to my ear it fits neither so far.

Example: Rachmaninov's C-sharp prelude - an absolutely incredible piece of music, but you won't hear it a lot, because it only has one setting to be enjoyed in - a grand solo piano concerto, even if it's happening in your bedroom. But it has one. I think you should also apply this concept to the album as a whole. Maybe make it two separate albums, or A-side/B-side and brush the tracks to better fit either.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wXQCPAR0EHo

My 5 cents.

Thanks for listening and the detailed and constructive comments. I forwarded them to my musical partner in this project and he was also happy to read them. Even though not all of it is positive, it basically does confirm what we think our own weaknesses are (so at least we know ourselves well enough)

The " it's random/incoherent" problem is something we are quite aware of. Whenever we make music we tend to just jam out whatever comes to our minds and run with it. We tend to get bored fairly quickly so most tracks have several "phases" where we switch style or atmosphere. Sometimes it works well and the track doesn't feel disjointed (like the Aurora Nanomalis track you listened to previously) but other times it's more of a struggle to keep a cohesive whole.

I guess this also relates to your SpaceJaxx comment. One of my friends also often comments along the lines of "it's interesting but what is the purpose? where would you play this music?". I don't really have an answer other than the purpose is entertaining ourselves in the first place, and then let's see where it ends up. Both of us find it difficult to adhere strictly to a set of genre conventions, so it's mostly comes out as this weird sort of amalgamation of styles. That said I'll definitely think about ways in which we can get our stuff to be more focused without losing the fun factor.

It's telling how the tracks you picked out (Lazy Bone, Schoolgirls and Token Wings) are probably the most concise/poppy tracks with relatively clear hooks. Both of us can't really sing so I doubt we're ever going to do much vocal tracks, even though we would like to. We've mostly resorted to sampling/unapologetic copyright infringement to get there so far, but who knows how long that's going to last before the cease&desist hammer comes down... I just wish copyright laws weren't so draconian.

[EdwardKiy]

Even though not all of it is positive, it basically does confirm what we think our own weaknesses are (so at least we know ourselves well enough)

You're welcome. Positive feedback is not (as) useful. Adversity and conflict are the teachers, if you know how to listen.

I wanted to write a bunch of stuff here, but it all comes down to one word: ambition. Where do you and your friend want to get? This will define everything else. I'm new to music, but I'm confident about this because I've learned this through other things. It's all the same.

[TritoneAddiction]

I took a listen through as well.

I think the songs work well together as a cohesive whole. They all share that blend of sound designy feel and being sort of jammy/half improvised. The music sounds great. And there are a lot of interesting sounds going on.
But I agree with some of the things that has been mentioned already. Many songs can be a little bit all over the place with no real focus/core. There are some cool melodic elements for sure, but they are never really allowed to fully bloom, to be able to stand up and say "Here I am, I am what's important in this song". "The other sounds you hear around me are just there to support me".
I'm looking for parts that really grabs the listeners attention. It doesn't necessarily have to be melodic in the traditional sense, though that is probably the easiest way. Sometimes rhythms/patterns or even a very special sound can be just as catchy and memorable as note choices.
Perhaps experiment with writing one or two BIG main ideas that are really memorable for a track, rather than having many but "smaller" ideas. Build everything around those BIG ideas and let everything else play the support role.
I don't know if this makes sense but it's probably the best I can do to explain how I feel.

My suggestion is to try to write a couple of short chiptunes, just for practise and fun. Zero fancy stuff to hide behind. No effects. Just raw basic sounds like square, triangel, saw. Maybe, just maybe some smaller EQ adjustments but that's it.
When that's all you've got you will automatically shift the focus from sounds to tunes.

Of course this is all subjective. And we're all colored of what we listen for in music. So please don't change the way you make music just because some random people on a forum said so. Only change things if you actually agree with what's being said.

Btw: My personal favorite was "Sigmundsong". It had a really cool vibe and it also maintained that vibe throughout the song which I really liked.

[aeox]

My favorites were

Metric System Dub, Sigmundsong, and Break These Token Wings(awesome lead)

[Auryn]

You're welcome. Positive feedback is not (as) useful. Adversity and conflict are the teachers, if you know how to listen.

I wanted to write a bunch of stuff here, but it all comes down to one word: ambition. Where do you and your friend want to get? This will define everything else. I'm new to music, but I'm confident about this because I've learned this through other things. It's all the same.

I bet you're an insufferably pretentious twat sometimes, aren't you? I like that. (takes one to know one) I agree with your first line but I'm not quite sure about the second. Didn't I just see you say (in the thread about your track) that you wouldn't want an emotionally detached singer to perform it? If it all was just naked ambition for popularity, you wouldn't mind that, right? Or maybe you mean a more nuanced ambition, for something more intangible?

[Auryn]

I took a listen through as well.

I think the songs work well together as a cohesive whole. They all share that blend of sound designy feel and being sort of jammy/half improvised. The music sounds great. And there are a lot of interesting sounds going on.
But I agree with some of the things that has been mentioned already. Many songs can be a little bit all over the place with no real focus/core. There are some cool melodic elements for sure, but they are never really allowed to fully bloom, to be able to stand up and say "Here I am, I am what's important in this song". "The other sounds you hear around me are just there to support me".
I'm looking for parts that really grabs the listeners attention. It doesn't necessarily have to be melodic in the traditional sense, though that is probably the easiest way. Sometimes rhythms/patterns or even a very special sound can be just as catchy and memorable as note choices.
Perhaps experiment with writing one or two BIG main ideas that are really memorable for a track, rather than having many but "smaller" ideas. Build everything around those BIG ideas and let everything else play the support role.
I don't know if this makes sense but it's probably the best I can do to explain how I feel.

My suggestion is to try to write a couple of short chiptunes, just for practise and fun. Zero fancy stuff to hide behind. No effects. Just raw basic sounds like square, triangel, saw. Maybe, just maybe some smaller EQ adjustments but that's it.
When that's all you've got you will automatically shift the focus from sounds to tunes.

Of course this is all subjective. And we're all colored of what we listen for in music. So please don't change the way you make music just because some random people on a forum said so. Only change things if you actually agree with what's being said.

Btw: My personal favorite was "Sigmundsong". It had a really cool vibe and it also maintained that vibe throughout the song which I really liked.

I was really (happily) surprised that you found the album cohesive. I remember recommending you to make an album out of your tracks, and you telling me they wouldn't fit together. I always thought your music/style to be more cohesive than ours.

Although I do agree with most of your points (and have often thought I should just try to write songs with just some simple saw synths or sines) there is a delightful irony in the fact that the song you chose as your favourite is the song that is basically all samples and has very little midi outside of the (extremely simple) beat!

Back to your point though, I think that what you're looking for is a 'hook' in the track, which is something we're both aware that we struggle with. It's also something that you really excel at, which is why I sometimes harass you for a collab

I wouldn't say that music is 100% subjective, otherwise there wouldn't be more and less popular artists. And obviously I do care somewhat because even if the main thing is entertaining myself and my musical partner, we would also like to take other people along for the ride.

Thanks a lot for listening!

[Auryn]

My favorites were

Metric System Dub, Sigmundsong, and Break These Token Wings(awesome lead)

Hey Aeox! How have you been? I think I read in another thread somewhere that you were gonna go on your first trip abroad to Bali. Ultra bummer about this Corona business man, but if possible you should definitely go once the mess clears up! Indonesian food is the best.

Thanks for having a listen by the way! Fun fact: the overdriven lead (melody) for Broken Wings actually started out as the bassline.
BTW if you're bored, you're more than welcome to remix one of these tracks, I'd be interested to hear what you make of it.

[EdwardKiy]

I bet you're an insufferably pretentious twat sometimes, aren't you? I like that. (takes one to know one)

I thought I was just being sincere. It's anonymous anyway

I agree with your first line but I'm not quite sure about the second. Didn't I just see you say (in the thread about your track) that you wouldn't want an emotionally detached singer to perform it? If it all was just naked ambition for popularity, you wouldn't mind that, right? Or maybe you mean a more nuanced ambition, for something more intangible?

Your ambition is up to you to decide, I didn't suggest what it can or should be.
But now I will, since you asked for it.
If it's to entertain yourself, then it will stay in your bedroom.
If it's to entertain others, then you're getting close, but you have a low ceiling, like Beardyman, Marc Rebillet, Tesh Sultana, Brushy-one-string or whatever
If it's to produce good music, then your ceiling is a bit higher, but you have a longer way to go
if it's to produce something timeless, than oh buddy, you have yet to begin.
etc etc
There's a million shades of ambition, all worth pursuing. Which are more or less so is just personal preference.

In my book, if your sole ambition is popularity and selling whatever, than that to me is the lowest possible ambition, below bedroom self-entertainment, like Bieber, Tiesto or Van Buuren, or most eurovision contenders. I call it "foreskin ambition". But even that is better than no ambition.
NOW you can call me a pretentious twat.

As to the voice comment, I think that on a scale of importance in music from 1 to 10, expressiveness is 10, because that's the function of music - to express and impose an emotion, a groove, a state of mind. Which makes the quality of the voice a lowly 1.

Jefferson Airplane, Bowie, Jagger, Rick James, James Brown and pretty much any blues singer - basically weak synths with almost no body, all expressiveness. But they can fit it into more context.

And then there's Tina Turner or Adele. To me they are one-trick ponies, same emotion over and over. There's not that much context to be had with synths that powerful. We all can agree the voices are incredible and recognizable, but how often do you listen to their stuff? This to me is the same reason the opera is restricted to a single building. I love my opera once or twice a year maybe.

There are exceptions of course, where skill meets talent in the most delightful way possible, like Michael Jackson. But listen to where he himself places the actual singing and expressiveness in his songs. What stands out about them in your memory?

That's why I don't have a big problem singing even if my voice is weak. I'll just polish it to a workable condition. The only required ability is to hear when you miss the notes. Almost anyone can do that. And those who don't can still do hippity-hop.

Another important point is that for expressiveness to work, you've gotta have something to express. Applied to the Michael Jackson example, his early life was non-stop abuse by his father, both physical and mental. You don't need to know it to hear it.

That's what I believe anyway, based on my observations. I welcome you or anyone to debate.
Damn this took me 2 whole cups of tea to write.

[Auryn]

I thought I was just being sincere. It's anonymous anyway

They (being sincere and being pretentious) are not mutually exclusive I believe.
Anyway, you wanted to say more but weren't spilling the beans so I had to provoke you a bit

Your ambition is up to you to decide, I didn't suggest what it can or should be.
But now I will, since you asked for it.
If it's to entertain yourself, then it will stay in your bedroom.
If it's to entertain others, then you're getting close, but you have a low ceiling, like Beardyman, Marc Rebillet, Tesh Sultana, Brushy-one-string or whatever
If it's to produce good music, then your ceiling is a bit higher, but you have a longer way to go
if it's to produce something timeless, than oh buddy, you have yet to begin.
etc etc
There's a million shades of ambition, all worth pursuing. Which are more or less so is just personal preference.

I actually like Marc Rebillet so I'm grateful for the compliment. I think making good music will be my ambition for now. Producing something "timeless" is basically impossible if you set your sights far enough. Who knows where the human race will be in 200-300 years even? Will they even listen to music? Will it have notes like we know them? Or will we be back in the caves drumming on animal skins?

In my book, if your sole ambition is popularity and selling whatever, than that to me is the lowest possible ambition, below bedroom self-entertainment, like Bieber, Tiesto or Van Buuren, or most eurovision contenders. I call it "foreskin ambition". But even that is better than no ambition.
NOW you can call me a pretentious twat.

Now why on earth would I do a thing like that? Anyway we are agreed on this, but the "foreskin ambition" isn't a keeper for me.

As to the voice comment, I think that on a scale of importance in music from 1 to 10, expressiveness is 10, because that's the function of music - to express and impose an emotion, a groove, a state of mind. Which makes the quality of the voice a lowly 1.

Jefferson Airplane, Bowie, Jagger, Rick James, James Brown and pretty much any blues singer - basically weak synths with almost no body, all expressiveness. But they can fit it into more context.

I think you are using the term "quality" here as synonymous with "technical proficiency" which I would contest. Assigning a number/score to it is even worse though, now you've defined quality as a quantity! By my definition the quality of a voice would be that which makes it empirically distinct (from other voices). But these are semantics, really.

And then there's Tina Turner or Adele. To me they are one-trick ponies, same emotion over and over. There's not that much context to be had with synths that powerful. We all can agree the voices are incredible and recognizable, but how often do you listen to their stuff? This to me is the same reason the opera is restricted to a single building. I love my opera once or twice a year maybe.

I share the feeling that well-renowned highly skilled singers like Adele, Celine Dion or Mariah Carey (hmm these are all women... so let's throw in Tom Jones and Julio Iglesias) have terribly dull and/or overplayed repertoires. They often select songs that have a broad but shallow appeal; these are slightly pleasing to most people (provided they aren't overplayed to annoyance) but not extremely pleasing to anyone, and thus are destined to fade from history fairly quickly IMHO. But I'd put the forgettableness mostly down to the repertoire.

There are exceptions of course, where skill meets talent in the most delightful way possible, like Michael Jackson. But listen to where he himself places the actual singing and expressiveness in his songs. What stands out about them in your memory?

You know I have a day job in psychiatry, and I can honestly say you'd be surprised how many people actually have Michael Jackson-related delusions of grandiosity among a certain age bracket. The guy was so fantastically popular he temporarily ousted Jesus as a devotional figure to the psychotic. He was very complicit in it too, the recurring messianic tendencies in his videos, album art etc are very explicit at times. He really was a one-of-a-kind phenomenon. And obviously a very troubled and damaged individual.
I'm not sure what exactly you want to say about his singing though? I wouldn't call it unexpressive... maybe inonffensive?

Another important point is that for expressiveness to work, you've gotta have something to express. Applied to the Michael Jackson example, his early life was non-stop abuse by his father, both physical and mental. You don't need to know it to hear it.

You're saying you can hear a subtext of grief or pain, or at least inauthentic joy & enthusiasm in his voice? Or just an emptiness? Hmmm, I don't really get that... I mostly just find his music to be overplayed and over-familiar to the point of tedium. I think the familiarity gets in the way of deciphering any emotional subtext for me.

That's why I don't have a big problem singing even if my voice is weak. I'll just polish it to a workable condition. The only required ability is to hear when you miss the notes. Almost anyone can do that. And those who don't can still do hippity-hop.

One of the reasons I can't sing is that I have a kind of "autotune" in my head that pitch corrects everything if it isn't too far off. It works on both other people's voices and my own. So I can hear myself singing perfectly in tune although I barely produce a tune at all. If you can actually hear when you missed notes you're already a big step ahead of me. I hope you find your voice (very corny, but still sincere).

[aeox]

My favorites were

Metric System Dub, Sigmundsong, and Break These Token Wings(awesome lead)

Hey Aeox! How have you been? I think I read in another thread somewhere that you were gonna go on your first trip abroad to Bali. Ultra bummer about this Corona business man, but if possible you should definitely go once the mess clears up! Indonesian food is the best.

Thanks for having a listen by the way! Fun fact: the overdriven lead (melody) for Broken Wings actually started out as the bassline.
BTW if you're bored, you're more than welcome to remix one of these tracks, I'd be interested to hear what you make of it.

It's been good, thanks! You?

Yea, it is what it is. I still definitely want to visit one of these days!

I can message you regarding a remix, sounds fun.

[EdwardKiy]

I actually like Marc Rebillet so I'm grateful for the compliment.

I like Marc Rebillet too

Producing something "timeless" is basically impossible if you set your sights far enough. Who knows where the human race will be in 200-300 years even? Will they even listen to music? Will it have notes like we know them? Or will we be back in the caves drumming on animal skins?

It's been done. Have you ever heard music so good that it made you weep with joy? It's a matter of preference, but to me that's Saint-Saëns Camille. Like Shakespeare in literature, there are pieces by Chopin, Schubert, Schumann that just tear off the lid and let you stare out into space. I also enjoy aphex twin and jodey kendrick etc, but those former guys just take me higher. Maybe you have yet to find yours.

I think you are using the term "quality" here as synonymous with "technical proficiency" which I would contest. Assigning a number/score to it is even worse though, now you've defined quality as a quantity! By my definition the quality of a voice would be that which makes it empirically distinct (from other voices). But these are semantics, really.

It really is semantics, but I don't see a way around it if we were to quantify or set it into some sort of a system. By "quality" I meant the more anatomically defined aspects, like range and the ability to sustain a note without drifting that goes beyond what is considered "normal-trained". Like Tyson Fury in boxing. He is a great boxer, he has the ambition, but he is also a freak of nature. With enough training, you can hone your voice to sounds something like Robert Plant, but not Pavarotti.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=86_vnQc1oBE
A 1-10 scale is silly, I agree, a dynamic scale could be more apt. Maybe something like this (forgot the name for this type of scale, so here's a drawing):

Dunamic scale.png (34.53 KiB) Viewed 3097 times

I share the feeling that well-renowned highly skilled singers like Adele, Celine Dion or Mariah Carey (hmm these are all women... so let's throw in Tom Jones and Julio Iglesias) have terribly dull and/or overplayed repertoires.

Good examples! Which reminded me, listen to how Joplin just shreds Jones on his own show, just because her ambition is of another level. Better listen with eyes closed
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZmiefQ5y4U

You know I have a day job in psychiatry, and I can honestly say you'd be surprised how many people actually have Michael Jackson-related delusions of grandiosity among a certain age bracket. The guy was so fantastically popular he temporarily ousted Jesus as a devotional figure to the psychotic. He was very complicit in it too, the recurring messianic tendencies in his videos, album art etc are very explicit at times. He really was a one-of-a-kind phenomenon. And obviously a very troubled and damaged individual.
I'm not sure what exactly you want to say about his singing though? I wouldn't call it unexpressive... maybe inonffensive?

I think there is no such thing as a completely balanced psyche - we all have weaker sides to our machinery which are defined by our upbringing, personal experiences and, once again, ambition, and these will break down first if you stress them enough. This works for everyone, no exceptions. If you find these weak spots or push them too hard by sheer accident, you can break absolutely any person without applying force. Jackson worked with what he had left of his belief systems and luckily for us, his adaptation was still (barely) publicly acceptable in the exact context he aimed for. I think his singing emphasis was heavily towards expression. He could have made his voice shine more, but he only did it in a few songs.

You're saying you can hear a subtext of grief or pain, or at least inauthentic joy & enthusiasm in his voice? Or just an emptiness? Hmmm, I don't really get that... I mostly just find his music to be overplayed and over-familiar to the point of tedium. I think the familiarity gets in the way of deciphering any emotional subtext for me.

absolutely. Not of the exact quality of emotion, but of the "quantity" rather. And to get this "quantity", there are not that many things that can happen to a person, especially if you take age into account. The "poppy" music is more of a contrast to his singing than anything else, to sort of "compress and flatten" the overall experience for the listener, so it's not too heavy on any side of the emotional spectrum. I wish I could me more eloquent.

One of the reasons I can't sing is that I have a kind of "autotune" in my head that pitch corrects everything if it isn't too far off. It works on both other people's voices and my own. So I can hear myself singing perfectly in tune although I barely produce a tune at all.

Try recording your voice to music then listening to it without music - without reference you should hear how shit it is. Then re-record and listen a few more times. If it gets better = you got yourself a positive pattern. That's how I went about it at least. It's still shit, but I'm recording objective progress. A week ago I've also started with the Seth Riggs method on every other day which was recommended on this forum (this forum is a gold mine), and it's also a major booster.

[Auryn]

It's been good, thanks! You?

Yeah, work has been hectic and now it's gotten to be even more stressful due to this corona business (I work in psychiatry and most of my clients have pretty frail health so they should definitely not get infected) but other than that I'm good.

I can message you regarding a remix, sounds fun.

Awesome! Please PM and we'll set things up!

[Auryn]

It's been done. Have you ever heard music so good that it made you weep with joy? It's a matter of preference, but to me that's Saint-Saëns Camille. Like Shakespeare in literature, there are pieces by Chopin, Schubert, Schumann that just tear off the lid and let you stare out into space. I also enjoy aphex twin and jodey kendrick etc, but those former guys just take me higher. Maybe you have yet to find yours.

Oh dear, Saint-Saëns... I probably shouldn't post this 'cause I will run the risk of you wanting to murder me... but for a previous commercial refill I actually re-arranged "Danse Macabre" with synthesizers from the refill instead of violins etc (what puts me off classical music is exactly that there's nothing going on on the timbre front, it's all just the same instruments over and over). It's pretty loud and obnoxious and the middle sags a bit, but I still stand by it. It's probably one of craziest things I have done so far:

It really is semantics, but I don't see a way around it if we were to quantify or set it into some sort of a system. By "quality" I meant the more anatomically defined aspects, like range and the ability to sustain a note without drifting that goes beyond what is considered "normal-trained". Like Tyson Fury in boxing. He is a great boxer, he has the ambition, but he is also a freak of nature. With enough training, you can hone your voice to sounds something like Robert Plant, but not Pavarotti.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=86_vnQc1oBE
A 1-10 scale is silly, I agree, a dynamic scale could be more apt. Maybe something like this (forgot the name for this type of scale, so here's a drawing):

Hmmm interesting categorization but I'm not sure I agree, I mean why is rock between rhythm and timbre? Surely there are melodic elements... and I'd put classical squarely on the melody axis. To me classical music is rhythmically so simple it's barely worth mentioning, you really need the influence of African music to get to any kind of rhythmic nuance/complexity.

Good examples! Which reminded me, listen to how Joplin just shreds Jones on his own show, just because her ambition is of another level. Better listen with eyes closed
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZmiefQ5y4U

Wow, Janice kicks ass in that video (some next level 60ies dancing going on too btw) thanks for the link. My favourite youtube video of a vocal performance is probably this one, Al Green singing People Get Ready. You need to wait for Al to start singing obviously, but it's even fun just to watch him. (Oh and props to the drummer who's like Animal from the muppet show IRL)

I think there is no such thing as a completely balanced psyche - we all have weaker sides to our machinery which are defined by our upbringing, personal experiences and, once again, ambition, and these will break down first if you stress them enough. This works for everyone, no exceptions. If you find these weak spots or push them too hard by sheer accident, you can break absolutely any person without applying force. Jackson worked with what he had left of his belief systems and luckily for us, his adaptation was still (barely) publicly acceptable in the exact context he aimed for. I think his singing emphasis was heavily towards expression. He could have made his voice shine more, but he only did it in a few songs.

I don't know if I understand all of the points you made about Michael Jackson's psyche and singing. I'd be interested to continue the discussion, but maybe in a dedicated thread...

[EdwardKiy]

Oh dear, Saint-Saëns... I probably shouldn't post this 'cause I will run the risk of you wanting to murder me... but for a previous commercial refill I actually re-arranged "Danse Macabre" with synthesizers from the refill instead of violins etc (what puts me off classical music is exactly that there's nothing going on on the timbre front, it's all just the same instruments over and over). It's pretty loud and obnoxious and the middle sags a bit, but I still stand by it. It's probably one of craziest things I have done so far:

Ahaha nice one. I really wouldn't care. Yes, they were limited by the instruments in terms of tonal diversity (timbre), so they had to make up the expressiveness with a huge dynamic range. Which is probably why they almost completely bygone the rhythmics - they would steal too much dynamic range and muddy up the sound (maybe), as there was also no compression. It was a good trade-off, nonetheless. I couldn't care less about this particular Camille's piece (and most of them, for that matter), but you introduced tonal diversity at the cost of losing all dynamic range, "potato-potreason" If you'd do that AND keep the range, that would be an improvement.

Hmmm interesting categorization but I'm not sure I agree, I mean why is rock between rhythm and timbre? Surely there are melodic elements... and I'd put classical squarely on the melody axis.

Completely agree on the classical music, I've done that in a minute anyway to show you a "relative dynamic" scale that could be applied to vocals, but last second I went more "macro" with music as a whole. Rock is still in that sweet-spot circle, where the three unite, balanced just slightly off. Most of it, like the "trance" position is just trolling anyway(or is it)

Al Green singing People Get Ready. You need to wait for Al to start singing obviously, but it's even fun just to watch him. (Oh and props to the drummer who's like Animal from the muppet show IRL)

Al is the Boss.

I'd be interested to continue the discussion, but maybe in a dedicated thread...

Sure sure. Another day perhaps.

[strangers]

Hey Auryn,

As usual, the sound design is great. I'm really enjoying the songs. I like the jam-y feel these songs have. They keep my attention because I want to hear what's to come. The random element in some of these songs works nicely. I have way less of a tendency to skip ahead.

Keep doing what you're doing. There are so many cookie-cutter things out there. Why fall in the same category?

[Auryn]

Hey Auryn,

As usual, the sound design is great. I'm really enjoying the songs. I like the jam-y feel these songs have. They keep my attention because I want to hear what's to come. The random element in some of these songs works nicely. I have way less of a tendency to skip ahead.

Keep doing what you're doing. There are so many cookie-cutter things out there. Why fall in the same category?

Hey thanks man, that's nice to hear. You definitely seem to get what we're going for, which is the best kind of compliment to get.

[Auryn]

Added a new track to the Album, "Better Get Ready"

[EdwardKiy]

Beautiful. Thank you!

[Auryn]

Beautiful. Thank you!

Thanks man! Talking to you about Al Green reminded me of this track, so I polished it up and threw it in there.

Last track added today is "OOBEron", a track I made originally for the Orkestrial Obersounds refill, but it's also a pretty good showcase for my friend's keyboard skills and it's just a kind of easy going lead-into Broken Wings.

[EdwardKiy]

Last track added today is "OOBEron", a track I made originally for the Orkestrial Obersounds refill, but it's also a pretty good showcase for my friend's keyboard skills and it's just a kind of easy going lead-into Broken Wings.

A bit like infected mushrooms, but arguably more musical. Thumbs up!

[Auryn]

A bit like infected mushrooms, but arguably more musical. Thumbs up!

Wow thanks for the compliment. I have a bit of a love/hate relationship with Infected Mushroom. I still remember buying their first album when their "edgelord" brand of psy was still fresh and surprising. I actually liked some bits of their previous album, which had the memorable title "Head of NASA and the 2 Amish Boys" (suggests a lot and none of it is remotely wholesome) but the constant IN YOUR FACE POWARRRRGH aspect of the music inevitable leads to fatigue for me. Even so, I have a lot of respect for those guys and I would certainly not deem them unmusical.

I really enjoy this track for example

[Auryn]

Final bump with album artwork