Comments on: Song-A-Week 3: Worlds Unknown

By: matty

matty — Sat, 20 Jan 2007 05:39:51 +0000

Holy crap paranormal is over 7 minutes long. Half of it is instrumental. haha. Anyway their stuff is pretty good. I might borrow some of the effects chains they use or something. I’m kinda a good bit more depressed than them it seems, so I’m also referencing Aimee Mann’s “Lost in Space” for a little bit of direction when I need it. Thanks for the tip, chase.
In Soviet Russia, Space rocks YOU!!!

By: Katelin

Katelin — Sat, 20 Jan 2007 05:23:34 +0000

I like this a lot. I like the laid-back rock-y style..and the melody is catchy. This line is really cool: “And crowded worlds don’t help
As much as worlds unknown”..I think “Eliminate all the messy complications
Float away from the careless implications” is kinda too vague and repetitive..just my opinion. I like the lyrics that are painting a picture more..anyway. good job!!

By: Chase

Chase — Fri, 19 Jan 2007 23:19:39 +0000

Man, this song is great.
You should listen to Cave In’s Antenna record, or a couple songs from Perfect Pitch Black. This song screams Cave In, and would sound great with drums. There’s many creative ways to build this song and it has the potential to reach epic proportions. I think the guitars sound fantastic, and their needs to be more! More I say! Three suggested changes with the melody:
- The second “Hold on” should go up rather than repeating the same two notes from before. (Maybe on the second time doing it, who knows.)
- “sticky situations//We’re surrounded by dark” should connect. There’s a note or two that could connect those two lines, it’d be nice.
- When you enter the chorus from the verse, I don’t think the first “Hold on” should be nixed.
Drums like Airbag would be cool.
Go to Cave In’s myspace, and listen to Tension in the Ranks, and Paranormal. That’ll give you an idea, but not exactly the extent of their space-rock-ness

By: Dan Costalis

Dan Costalis — Fri, 19 Jan 2007 17:36:19 +0000

Short comment: I like this song a lot, and is just my style the dynamic volume of the geetars sends a chill down my spine. The way you start harmonizing towards the end and it just cuts leaves me anticipating the next track on the CD, which i could only assume would be a slightly heavier, fast paced starting song. (if this were on an actual record). The fact that it leaves me anticipating is a very very positive thing for me.
I won’t mention the vocal levels because a) i’m sure you know they need work and b) i’m sure you didn’t care, after all you had a week to do the whole thing.
I just hit play on the song for the third time now, and I think that unless you’re going for a radiohead feel, drums would be out of place. I think that there might be a bit too much going on with the guitars, though, maybe simplify the second one. That would also leave room for some harmonics during the “climax” (or whatever term is used there.. you know… when you’re going ‘ohhhh’). My point is I like the suggestions of building the song, but i don’t think drums is the way to do it.
Hope that helps! LOVE the track! Best of the three

By: Jay-oh-double-en-why?

Jay-oh-double-en-why? — Thu, 18 Jan 2007 00:28:04 +0000

By the way, Matt, I really like this song. I was actually humming it later on the day I first listened to it. I would love it if you sent me the tracks and let me remix it. It would be lots of fun and you could maybe include it in that long list of various remixes that they always package with singles nowadays. That would be hot!
Seriously, though, you’ve got my email. Hook me up. I won’t sell it without asking you I promise.

By: Jay-oh-double-en-why?

Jay-oh-double-en-why? — Thu, 18 Jan 2007 00:25:15 +0000

Oh, man. What a question. What makes a song? I just finished reading a book called Here, There, and Everywhere by Geoff Emerick, who was the primary engineer for the Beatles (maybe you’ve heard of them?) After hearing some of the things that he did in the studio to get the sounds that he did really make you question how much of a song is actually contained in the production. I would say that you can’t count anything more than the words and the melody as the “song”. The chords can be changed to create a completely different feel without touching the melody or lyrics. I submit a couple of examples: Eleanor Rigby and Yellow Submarine. I would say that Eleanor Rigby is a good song, with any instrumentation. Truth be told, McCartney initially hated the idea of adding strings at all to the song. I think that it would have been a classic, maybe even as big a hit as it was even if the band had played it with their normal instrumentation. Now on to “Yellow Submarine”. Yellow Submarine was a sort of throw away track that was meant to be the token “Ringo” song on the album. It is not a good song. The lyrics are nothing more than silly and the melody is repetitive and pretty unimaginative. Certainly not an example of what Paul or John (who wrote the song) were capable of. But I like it, and I think it works as a “song” because of the production. This seems to be an example of a song that isn’t really much of a song, but becomes more than the sum of it’s parts when they are all put together.
I don’t know exactly what I just said, or who’s point I proved, but that’s what I’ve been thinking the last few days.
Oh, and one other thing, for a good example of a song working (or not working, depending who you ask) check out Shawn Colvin’s cover of “Crazy” by Gnarls Barkley.

By: mallio

mallio — Wed, 17 Jan 2007 16:33:40 +0000

Since you record songs, and know the whole process, you have a better understanding than a lot of layman like myself who rarely listen to anything but a finished product. But i think you are right. When a band does an acoustic version of a song or another band covers it, it’s usually still the same song, it’s just performed or recorded differently. But the recording of the song can really make or break it. For example, i personally feel the hendrix cover of dylan’s “all along the watchtower” is a lot better than the original.

By: matty!

matty! — Wed, 17 Jan 2007 09:34:21 +0000

AAAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA1!!!!!!
I seriously started laughing out loud. Kristin had to ask me what the heck was so friggen hilarious. Chameleon. Premix 1. That’s what. Dan do you have a copy of that anymore? I’m not sure I do. I wanna put it on my NAS if you do. I had forgotten about that song. That wasn’t THAT bad. The track definitely needs some build. If I actually end up recording it, I’ll take all the suggestions into account and figure out the arrangement later.
Which brings up an interesting point. What is a song to you? I consider a song the simplest form it is recognizable… As in, a couple of basic chords, not even specifying specifics like inversion or extensions, lyrics, and a melody. Anything else is production to me. So as far as an essential nature for a song goes, that’s mine. Things like building a song, guitar tone, and variations in chord voicings, counter melodies, etc, are ancillary to the song itself. For me, they come after. They are not the song, they are the recording. From talking to various people about this one, I’ve gathered that they listen to songs differently. Agree? Disagree??? Please let me know.

By: dk

dk — Wed, 17 Jan 2007 07:47:10 +0000

Hmm.. a theremin might make it sound too much like Matt Good’s Chameleon (premix 1 of course, my fave mix).

By: Kristina

Kristina — Wed, 17 Jan 2007 05:51:07 +0000

I think the guitars are good as they are, and I think the song needs some drums too. I really liked this one, Matt.