JOEY STURGIS, JOEL WANASEK, EYAL LEVI: Fixing Weak Arrangements, Technical vs. Random Riffs, Serving The Song

Speaker 1 (00:00):

Welcome to the Unstoppable Recording Machine Podcast, brought to you by Joey Sturgis's tones, creating unique audio tools for musicians and producers everywhere. Unleash your creativity with Joey sturgiss tones. Visit joey sturgis tones.com for more info. And now your hosts, Joey Sturgis, Joel Wanasek, and Eyal Levi.

Speaker 2 (00:24):

Hey everyone. Welcome to the Joey Sturgis Forum podcast. Today is Song Crit Monday or maybe Song Crit Sunday, I don't know,

Speaker 3 (00:31):

Song Crit Tuesday.

Speaker 2 (00:33):

Actually, song crit Sunday, Saturday we're creating songs, but

Speaker 3 (00:37):

We're shooting on a Tuesday.

Speaker 2 (00:38):

We're critiquing your songs because this is songwriter's month and normally we do a mixed CRI Monday. This time we're going to be looking at your songs and seeing from a songwriter point of view what could be better, what could be improved, what's weak, what's strong, and we have some pretty cool in songs that we've got submitted. How would you describe the first one

Speaker 4 (01:00):

Almost there?

Speaker 2 (01:01):

Well, how would you describe it genre wise? I think to kind of just define what we're talking about here.

Speaker 3 (01:07):

It's like a pop punk rock kind of song.

Speaker 4 (01:10):

Radio, rock, pop, punk. Yeah. This song, gravity is by our subscriber Riley Jackson.

Speaker 5 (01:24):

Nothing ever changes and that everything is always going to stay the same. The season, nothing really matters and we have no options, options left for us to take. I'm moving forward with the Prime survey, editing others called The Empty Player, and no more before the always time for me to play. We see your mistakes across some lining. Now we are ready to take your stand. We see the sorrow. Time is over right now. We're ready to make the change. I never to be this corruption in Get. I always say there's something better out there, but you

Speaker 6 (03:52):

It's coming down on me. It's coming down.

Speaker 2 (04:46):

Alright, that was Gravity by Riley Jackson. Joel, I know you have a lot to say about this. We kind of talked about this briefly, so let's dig into it. What do you think?

Speaker 3 (04:55):

I like this song a lot actually. This is obviously my favorite song out of the bunch and very predictably so because what can I say? I'm a pop rock dude, so I generally get songs like this a lot more than I'm going to get, for example, some of the other songs that we're going to do today. So I like the song a lot. Overall, I think it's got a great intro, a great hook. It's very memorable. I like the lyrics a lot. I like how the song moves in terms of how it's arranged overall. It's almost there. There's just a few things that kind of piss me off that I'm like, eh, we really missed it. For example, right when we hit the bridge. What do you guys think about that?

Speaker 4 (05:33):

I think the bridge is okay, but the vocal sounds like it's not totally written yet. It sounds like maybe dude ran out of ideas at that point. So I'd really,

Speaker 2 (05:47):

Yeah, that whole section.

Speaker 4 (05:48):

Yeah. Well maybe with a really good vocal it would be fine, but I just want to hear something catchier. It's decent musically, but

Speaker 3 (05:55):

Well, how I look at it. Alright, so to me all good melodies are a function of chords and I think it was either Sahaj or Kane that touched on this earlier this month, but it's like you take a open guitar riff where you're just playing a lot of open and you try to solo over it and you can't, but then you throw a 4, 5, 6 progression up and you can grab literally one note on your guitar or you can do vocal melodies and just using rhythm and it can be really catchy. So to me, I feel like when that part hits, it feels like it's kind of random. I'm not sure if there's a modulation there or whatever, I'd have to transcribe it, but to me it feels like they have just completely the wrong chords progression wise, something doesn't add up and because the chord progression is kind of weird and it doesn't really fit with the feel of the rest of the song, it makes the whole thing feel forced and therefore as a derivative, all of the vocal melodies I feel like are going to be not quite up to par with the rest of the stuff.

(06:46):

Everything else is so catchy and memorable. Then you get to that part and you're just like, okay, well what's happening here? Where did this come from? Now when they go back into that lead in before the chorus, that part's great. I mean that is really good arrangement and transition, but it's just that one part I feel like should just be completely rewritten.

Speaker 4 (07:04):

Yeah, the wrong chord progression will definitely compromise your melodic options for sure. Yeah,

Speaker 2 (07:10):

It really sounds like an afterthought. They realized they needed a bridge and they just kind of plugged it in there.

Speaker 4 (07:17):

Well, I got to say that I felt like they were running out of ideas a little bit earlier, so I think the intro was great. I love the synths in the background. I like how when the intro builds up an intensity, they add more vocal layers. I like how the intro is the verse, it's verse one, chorus kicks in, great. It's got a great post chorus and that glitch effect is fine that first time and then it goes to verse two, chorus two, whatever. But then that glitch effect gets repeated, which I think is not cool.

Speaker 3 (07:54):

I hate it the first time. I think I like to get to the point, especially because this song to me screams radio, so when they come out of that second half, and I usually like to do things in twos and fours, but I feel like the second half when that arpeggiator synth comes in and we'll call it the post chorus or the more evolved chorus, to me it's like that part just drags on and I want it to end because it's like the intro and the first time. So where you could do that two times they have it on the second, third, et cetera. Chorus is in the song and the very intro, I feel like it actually drags the song down and then the fact that they go into that glitch, it's like, come on guys. Get to the point. It needs to move a little bit faster in the intro, but again, that's the radio program director speak. That's been forced into me speaking. So

Speaker 4 (08:39):

I definitely think that if they're going to have transitional effects like that to not use them twice

Speaker 2 (08:48):

Or just kind of do a variation of it so that it's still exciting and it's familiar but exciting because it's kind of a glitch effect but a little different or something. I do that all the time.

Speaker 4 (09:00):

Don't just copy paste it though.

Speaker 3 (09:01):

Yeah,

Speaker 2 (09:02):

Absolutely.

Speaker 3 (09:03):

That part I just feel like would be better used if he introduced it on the second time after that second course into that second verse. You

Speaker 2 (09:11):

Could have a normal one and then the second one be the glitch one. Yep.

Speaker 3 (09:15):

Yeah, just get to the point in the beginning of the song, get to that verse. Now let's talk about the verse for a second. What did you guys think about the verse melodies? To me, I feel like it needed a little bit of work where I feel like the chorus is right on point. It's a great, it's stuck in my head right now actually as we're going over this.

Speaker 4 (09:31):

It didn't bug me until it got to verse three because remember the intro is verse one because even though it's not the full band playing, it's still technically verse one,

Speaker 3 (09:42):

Let's call the part after that first chorus, 40 seconds into the song or whatever where the drums kind of, it backs down a dynamic. Let's call that the verse, so we're all on,

Speaker 4 (09:51):

I can't call that the verse because my next note is by the time it gets to the third time through that melody, which would be, you'd call it verse two. I would call it verse three. I'm sick of hearing it.

Speaker 3 (10:03):

Yeah, exactly my point.

Speaker 4 (10:04):

So yeah, because you heard it on the intro, he's singing that melody. Then it comes in with a full band after the chorus. So that's why I see it at verse two. So by the time, and by my definition it gets to verse three, I understand why that would be there, but something needs to happen to take it to the next level. So there's not just Sammy, but by that point I think they'll start losing listeners and then it goes from that to that bridge we don't like. So I feel like right around what Joel would consider verse two and what I would consider verse three, people ran out of ideas.

Speaker 3 (10:40):

The vocal just needs to melodically lead more. It's too much in the same three or four notes and rhythmically, it's not strong enough. It's not like Madonna or Michael Jackson where you can sit there and you can take a rhythm hook or Paula Abdul or some of those great classic eighties, early nineties pop songs where they have a two or three note range, but they have really sick rhythm and flow and the chords to back it up and they can make a great catchy hook on that and not get redundant. This I feel like needs more of a line that has a little bit more movement, or especially the third time, let's call it like the third stanza or whatever the technical term is for the third time the melody happens and the fourth time it just needs to go somewhere and flow a little bit better. And I feel like the song, it would give it more dynamic. Yeah,

Speaker 4 (11:23):

Absolutely. Maybe also an arrangement change would be good too.

Speaker 3 (11:27):

Okay. What do you guys think about the drumming on the, well you would call it verse three, Al, I call it verse two. I feel like the drumming is a little Jackie there. There's a lot of jamming and there's a lot of Tom fills and to me that's really distracting and a rock song like this, especially something that I feel like has the potential to be radio in top 40. I don't want to hear the drummer pissing all over the track. I prefer to hear drum fill at transitions for a dynamic buildup. I know this is going to

Speaker 2 (11:55):

Sound dumb, but I listened to Nickelback and if you pay attention to exactly where every single kick and snare is placed, somebody sat there and thought about that for a long time,

(12:08):

And I know a lot of younger guys coming up on this, they don't see that and they think Nickelback sucks and they want to talk about that all the time. But as far as the songwriting standpoint goes, they really are very clever with how they put together the beats, the kicks and the snares are happening at just the right times and they're still, they're doing it in a way that's also, I guess modern and fresh, but also classic and it's just there when it needs to be and it's not there when it doesn't need to be. And so I appreciate a drummer more if he knows how to do that and not necessarily can fill and do all these fast things. Like yeah, if you need to do a fast fill, I want you to be able to perform it so that it doesn't sound like shit, but I don't want you to be playing fast fills all the time. Sometimes you need to get the fuck out of the way so that the guitar can do something and so the vocalist can do something. Well,

Speaker 4 (13:04):

Think about a drummer who is in a super big band who plays fast stuff like Travis Barker or something from Blink 180 2. He's pretty busy when he wants to be and can do super fast fills, and he even tried out for Slayer. He's an awesome drummer, but he does it at the exact right point of the song and none of his stuff sounds herky jerky. Even if he's not playing a straightforward beat, it never sounds like it's too much or too little or jerky or not flowing. It's always the right part for the song.

Speaker 3 (13:41):

Yeah, definitely. And if there's one thing I personally hate as a producer is when I'm listening to a song that I think has radio potential and I hear over drumming, nothing makes me angrier than the drummer pissing all over a great vocal or a cool guitar hook or something like that.

(13:57):

Piss off play the right part and then you'll have your chance to shine, do really cool memorable fills and transitions, but it's all about that groove and that feel and the dynamic. And if the dude is jamming a little bit too hard on the drums and he thinks it's a drum solo, I want to kill him. So I wouldn't say there's too much of that on this song in that part in particular, but I feel like there it got a little bit distracting. It wasn't to the point where it was obnoxious for me, but I really was like, if I was producing this band, I'd walk in there and hit the drummer in the head a few times gently and we would then reattempt the

Speaker 4 (14:32):

Part. I have one final note on this song, which is also the final chorus I don't think should just be a copy paste job. They should do something to make it more intense, like the exclamation point on the end of the song.

Speaker 3 (14:46):

It's got to break out and open up.

Speaker 4 (14:48):

Absolutely. Muse and Maroon five do a great job of this building up each chorus through either arrangement methods or slight lyrical development or all kinds of different ways. But the point is that when the choruses come back in, they're always one step up on the intensity ladder than the last, and that's why you're not bored when you hear that last chorus. But if it's just a copy paste job, you are going to be sick of hearing it by the time three minutes rolls around or three minutes 30

Speaker 3 (15:23):

A trick I like to help do that is if the drummer's crashing on, let's just say the right crash and they have two crashes, it's to switch crashes on the second half and then bring in another instrument like an octave guitar, just whatever. But sometimes just switching to a different symbol on the drum and then throwing a little, take a part out of the verse or the bridge or something and throw in a little bit of extra vocal flare and maybe some ad libs that can generally go a really long way at making something sound fresh without actually doing too much or putting too much effort into it.

Speaker 4 (15:55):

I agree with everybody. Cool. So shall we move on to the next song?

Speaker 3 (15:59):

Yeah, just to recap, I think that's a really good song and with a few little tweaks, it could be a great song.

Speaker 2 (16:05):

Yeah, that was my favorite song so far. Next song is called Rain and this one is more of a death metal song, I guess you could say it's kind of a little bit more outside the box.

Speaker 4 (16:19):

Yeah, it's like Tech Death, MSU kind of stuff. And this is by our subscriber Paul Hanham.

Speaker 2 (20:11):

All right, that was Rain by subscriber Paul Hanna. Thanks for submitting that song. First of all, it's hard to critique songs like this, I feel like, because

Speaker 7 (20:21):

Yeah,

Speaker 2 (20:23):

The thing that immediately jumps to mind is, well, it's random.

Speaker 4 (20:27):

Yeah, it definitely, there's lots of parts just glued together with very little cohesion. It's less of a song and more than just a bunch of ideas that may or may not actually go together.

Speaker 2 (20:39):

That brings up an interesting point though. I think the definition of the word song, it kind of teeter totters here.

Speaker 4 (20:46):

Well, I think that the definition of the word song is more about getting that one central viewpoint across with the music and the lyrics, not so much the structure. There's structures that have been shown to work over time, but there's always been oddball examples when tool would get a number one hit with a six minute long song that has no repetitions or something or Stairway to Heaven. There's all kinds of examples over time of songs that don't fit the traditional structural mold. However, they do have that one central vision. You can definitely say that every piece fits with every other piece and they go somewhere. And I think that that's very important. That's a big distinction to make between songs like that. And this where it just seems like if there was an album of this stuff, you could take one of the riffs in this song and interchange it with one of the riffs on any other song and no one would know the difference. To me, that's not okay.

Speaker 2 (21:48):

This is where it gets weird because I have met people before who you can explain that concept to them. You can say exactly what you've just defined a song as, and then they show you something that they've written and it is just a collection of random bullshit. But when they listen to it, they're like, yeah, this riff goes with that riff and this 45 beats per minute tempo change makes sense. And it's like they get behind their own agenda and they can't really hear for what it really is.

Speaker 4 (22:21):

But then all you have to do is put on a masu track, for instance, and be like, what I do in those cases is I'll compare it to what the best bands in whatever genre it is are doing. If it's this kind of stuff, I'll put on a meshuga track or something

Speaker 2 (22:39):

Like

Speaker 4 (22:39):

That and point out that, yeah, they're doing crazy stuff. You probably could never play it in a million years, and it is crazy, but it all makes sense. You hear one of their songs, it may not be like your thing, but there's cohesion to it.

Speaker 2 (22:59):

It's a constructive crazy,

Speaker 4 (23:01):

Well, crazy is their artistic statement. That's the thing, but it's not random,

(23:08):

That's the thing. It's not just throwing paint at the wall and calling it a painting. So to get a little more specific, I can break some of this down. So I think the intro is fine, but it's not original at all. About 20 seconds in, that's a decent contrast rhythmically, that's second riff, but it goes on way too long. And especially when that creepy vocal comes in at 28, I mean, it's a good idea to bring the riff up in Octave, but you should probably write a new riff based on the old riff rather than just have that same riff playing over and over and over. And that drumbeat is just making it sound really kind of convoluted. And then it goes back to that same riff, just an octave lower at 42 seconds. So it's been going on with this vibe for over 30 seconds of the same riff with kind of a disjointed drum beat.

(24:05):

I don't see a crowd getting into it, and I see people getting bored, and then it goes back to that creepy part with the weird drum beat. So I think you got to simplify those drums some, or at least give them more of a forward motion. One thing I thought was okay was that there was a key change at the minute 20, and this should have happened way earlier and this part could have gone way longer. It goes down to a lower key and it's a lot heavier and a good transition. It should have definitely become earlier rather than just repeating stuff that is kind of whatever. So I've got the next three parts. My notes were delete this part, delete this part, delete this part, the riff at one 30, the one at 1 41 and the one at 1 51. I just felt like they were tacked on there. I get it if you want to go tech, but make it fit. And I realize that some bands have slow songs that then go super fast or songs that are super fast and then go slow. That's all fine, and contrast is great, but it still needs to fit. That's the thing. There has to be some artistic intent behind the contrast. It needs to basically get your statement across even harder. Don't just go slower because that's what you were writing and then you ran out of ideas. So try something really fast and it'd

Speaker 2 (25:34):

Be really crazy, dude, if we just did this.

Speaker 4 (25:36):

Yeah, exactly. That's just what it sounds like to me is they're out of ideas. What can we do? Let's do something crazy. Not it serves the song, but just because it would be cool.

Speaker 3 (25:47):

Yeah, the guitar player like, bro, this tapping thing is sick, or This is sick, or that kind of comment. I mean, that's the thing that really, I have a hard time with a song like this. I don't know what to say because I don't really listen to the genre so much. But for me, when I think of a good metal song, I want a riff that's catchy and identifiable. And I mean, it can be dark and heavy. Masu can be really catchy, even though they're not necessarily super melodic sometimes. And a song like this, I feel like doesn't really have any rifts where I'm like, oh man, that is a sick rift. I want to pick up my guitar and learn it. And that's where I really struggle with something like this.

Speaker 4 (26:21):

That's why I say with stuff like this, look to the top bands in the genre and compare it to that because

Speaker 7 (26:28):

That'll

Speaker 4 (26:29):

Inform you, I think. So moving on with this song at 1 55, that riff is totally different than anything that came before it, and it could work if it was actually led into properly, but it's not. So it's just kind of like, what is this? But the top note is just way too happy sounding different top note or series of notes would be essential 2 28, that sounds like an ending, but it doesn't end. But you could use that as an ending. And then at 2 53 stuff just goes on and on and on and on and on. So this sounds to me some parts ran out of ideas and other parts sound like two different or three different songs being smooshed into one.

Speaker 2 (27:15):

Yeah, absolutely. And that's the gist I get from the song is that it's random. And the thing that I struggle with calling this a song is that, and I think that you can listen to Between The Berry to me and as a musician, as an artist, you can say, well, aren't they just doing the same thing that I'm doing? What makes their song a song over mine? And it goes back to what Al was saying, which was you have to have a reason behind all of these choices that you're making. It's not like they just decided, let's do something really cool like this and then switch to this just because that would be really unexpected. The reason why they're doing that is because it serves a purpose to the actual meaning behind the intent of the song or the record or whatever they're trying to sort of convey. And I don't know if I always get that sense from music like this. I don't think that everyone knows how to do it properly. They try, but it doesn't always come across as the most effective way of doing it. Well,

Speaker 4 (28:28):

It is hard to do. It's really hard to do. Joey,

Speaker 3 (28:30):

That reminds me what you just said of the mentality I used to have when I was really, really into shred guitar. It's like I would write some part, it was really hard to play, and then I'd be showing the guys in my band, they'd be like, dude, that's so sick, that looks crazy. And we would just slap it in a song just because it was hard to play or it sounded like really crazy, and there really wasn't a rhyme or reason. And I look back at those songs and realize how terrible they were now after having way more experience. But at the time, I was just thinking totally from the prism of a greedy guitar player were like, look at me, look what I can do. Look at this cool lick.

Speaker 4 (29:04):

Well, on that topic, let me bring up the other band that is kind of the influencer and this style. I don't know if Paul Hanham listens to these bands, but since I've been around, I know that these bands are the reason that this style exists in the first place. I mean, Suga and neph put together basically. But the thing is, when neph phages, whether you like Tech Death Metal or not, the reason that they basically caused a revolution in Tech Death and got as big as they got was because not only was it technical as fuck, but those were well-written songs. So it didn't matter if it was technical, that was just kind of the wallpaper on the house or in the room. The songs themselves had catchy parts, parts that repeated, and it all made sense compositionally, and they just happened to be playing at 500 miles per hour and had super insane arrangements. So while it was crazy, it still had a very distinct point of view and really well structured pieces. And back to Shuga, it's the same sort of thing as crazy as it is or as jarring as it is, that's still written to be as a real piece of music.

Speaker 2 (30:24):

I think when you start out too early on as a songwriter, especially in extreme forms of music, you do have that approach. That's just the natural instinct of an early young songwriter at first is to just kind of be like, well, I'm really good at playing guitar and I want to sweep here, and I want to play 32nd notes here. And just because it sounds freaking cool, that's natural. I think it's the maturity level it takes to get from that to, okay, now what is something that somebody wants to listen to over and over again and isn't going to be ridiculous and monotonous and is going to serve a purpose and rise in emotion in somebody?

Speaker 3 (31:06):

Oh, that makes me think of a great quote. Somebody had told me once, I was jamming with a very, very amazing guitar player, and I was very young and I was a very fast player, but I wasn't very good at writing. And he said, man, technically you're amazing. He's like, but you know what? The next step is you? He's like, you've conquered the guitar. Technically what you need to learn how to do is you need to work on your style and work on little things like the intricacies in intimacy of your vibrato, your phrasing, learning how to write better riffs, things like that.

Speaker 2 (31:37):

Yeah, the artistic side of it, if you learn how to hold a paintbrush and how to maneuver it and to do all these different types of thickness of strokes and these shapes, and you can mix colors really well, and you know how to interact with the canvas, that's all the technical stuff that allows you to actually create the art. But yeah, you're perfectly right. That's exactly what, once you've conquered the guitar and you can play it, and you can perform it and do all these different techniques, now, how do you improve those techniques? And then also how do you utilize them to create interesting art? And I guess that's really kind of what we're talking about here, is that once you can play music and get together with your friends and your band and play music together, and it sounds good together technically, and it works, how do you now take that skillset and apply it towards creating these creative works of art, these songs that people will never be able to get out of their heads? And that's not just a structure thing, it's not just a melody thing. It's kind of everything all combined. But interestingly enough, our next song is an instrumental.

Speaker 4 (32:51):

I actually think there might be vocals in there, but we'll get to that. Okay.

Speaker 3 (32:56):

Yeah, that was a real curve ball for a song

Speaker 4 (32:58):

Group. Yeah, I'll explain what I think about that. I thought it was instrumental too, but okay, so this is Ad Finn by Robin Ion

Speaker 8 (33:20):

Expeditionary Force, the coast

Speaker 2 (37:23):

That was a, or phenom or however you want to say that, by fuck, I can't pronounce his name.

Speaker 3 (37:32):

Robin Je.

Speaker 2 (37:33):

Yeah, Robin Je.

Speaker 3 (37:35):

We love you, dude. Sorry.

Speaker 4 (37:37):

Yeah, he's Swedish though, so I don't know how you would say it.

Speaker 2 (37:41):

So yeah, thanks for the submission.

Speaker 4 (37:44):

So is there, there's vocals in there, they're just really quiet it and I don't know, sneaky

Speaker 2 (37:51):

Motherfucker,

Speaker 4 (37:53):

I don't know what they're supposed to be though. I don't know if they're supposed to be background stuff or if he just had them super quiet by accident. I couldn't tell in the intro. I figured maybe that's just background stuff, but then later on when the band thing comes in, I heard that sound again, and it was like, that sounds like where a melody would be. Is he trying to have a vocal melody? But I couldn't tell.

Speaker 2 (38:19):

Well, lemme just start with my first tangent here, which is, man, when it comes to a vocalist, if they sing a certain melody, I'm always going to consider the fact that, okay, they probably have some sort of limitations. There's the limitation of vocal range, there's the limitation of lungs, lung capacity and breath power. So those two things decide what you're capable of doing. Now you can cheat, you can get in the studio and punch in lines, and notoriously bring me the horizon has lines that are impossible to perform live because the words overlap every, he just punches in over top of himself over and over again, not so much nowadays, but in the early material. So now when I listen to that, I have the mindset that, okay, this vocals might be a little bit in a box, which is fine, but when it's an instrument, when it's a guitar, when it's a keyboard and you write a freaking melody and it's inside of a box, it makes no sense. The instrument is capable of moving octaves and can do all kinds of things that you might not necessarily be able to do with your own voice. So the leads in here are very constricted and very narrow. They're very sort of stuck to that box that I'm talking about, but that doesn't make sense for an instrument that has the ability to span three, four octaves when I'm talking about the guitar, for example. So I don't know, does that frustrate you guys? Because

Speaker 3 (39:58):

Oh my God, I really only have one note on this song because I couldn't get past it to get into the more micro type critiques. And I feel like the whole song just lacks movement, which is exactly what you described. There's no dynamic kind of to the way it moves. I mean, it gets bigger in some parts and less Now. I like the sounds and some of the tones and things like that, and there's some really cool elements, but I feel like the song kind of just like intros and then it just flattens off and then it just stays flat, and then it's just different variations of flat. No, I don't know. It just doesn't, I lost interest, I guess is what I'm saying. I got 45 seconds in and I was like, that's, it

Speaker 4 (40:37):

Kind of sounds like what happens when a guitarist with no real drum experience starts writing drum parts. The reason I say that is because

Speaker 2 (40:45):

I know what you mean. I know exactly what you mean.

Speaker 4 (40:47):

Yeah, the drums start matching the music. Exactly. And I don't mean in a breakdown where the kick matches the guitar. I mean,

Speaker 2 (40:55):

There's never any counter rhythms or counter melodies or guitars is hitting quarter notes, but the drums doing something interesting on dotted notes and stuff. Yeah, I didn't know exactly what you mean, and you hear some of that in this song for sure.

Speaker 4 (41:12):

Yeah, so well all over the song, and I just want to say that I also had a note here that said lead part is just the same thing over and over and over with very little variation gets super samey. So we're on the same page about that. And I guess I'll say that the synth slash guitar intro sounds kind of nice at first, but it goes on way, way, way, way too long. It goes,

Speaker 3 (41:38):

I guess it does

Speaker 4 (41:38):

55 seconds with no changes, no buildup, just like some weird noises come in and stuff like 55 seconds of that. And it's not even a chord progression really. It's just really not much. And when the drums come in, oh, yeah, drums come in during the intro, but they're way too busy for something like that. You got to space that shit out a little more.

Speaker 3 (42:05):

I felt like I was waiting for something to happen. The whole song, I'll give you an example. If we roll back to Gravity, it has that really cool intro and it builds tension. Then it comes in and it explodes, and then it hits with the hook, and it's really exciting. And then on this song, I'm waiting for something to come in. It started off, I'm like, okay, cool. And then I'm kept waiting and waiting and waiting, and then all of a sudden I was halfway through the song and I'm like, okay.

Speaker 4 (42:28):

I think the drums really, really help it not move, which is the opposite of what drums should do. Because for instance, when the metal part comes in at 55 seconds, well, first of all, I'm going to say I have no idea how that intro and the metal part goes together because there's no real transition and it doesn't build into it in any sort of way, and they don't sound cohesive as a direct contrast. It just sounds like it was stuck there. But also when the drums come in on the metal part, they're super clunky and busy, no groove, just lots of hits. So it's like, what the hell's going on here? And and then at one 17, same deal with the drums, except in the other direction. They're way too simple. That's the drum beat you may want to use at the intro, which just the kick drum playing the 1, 2, 3, 4, but it makes no sense where it comes in. And then at one 30, again, drumbeat is just super awkward. It just sounds like Dude is trying to match the melody too much with the drums rather than helping provide flow. And I think that at 2 47 is the first time that anything with any movement happens, that is a long time to wait. It's not even a lot of movement, but I'm just saying two minutes and 47 seconds for any movement at all is people aren't going to get that far into the song.

Speaker 2 (43:57):

There should always be an underlining amount of movement happening always in the song. I really feel like,

Speaker 3 (44:04):

Just for comparison, and I know it's a very apples to oranges kind of thing, but if this were a pop or a rock song and it was radio at 2 47, you'd be getting ready to go back into that third final chorus and get the song finished before you run out of radio time. So think about that. That's how long the average person's attention span is now, given people that are going to be listening to something like this are going to have a much longer, more diverse attention span. But it's just something to think about.

Speaker 4 (44:31):

But even with a longer attention span, people still react to things like movement and dynamics. If you're listening to OPEC who have 14 minute long songs, the only reason that people can pay attention for that long is because of the dynamics and because of the movement. Yeah,

Speaker 2 (44:49):

It's totally possible to make a five minute song feel like two minutes because you've kept it so interesting and moving the whole time. And there's a couple of songs on this asking record that I'm working on that really kind of are challenging in terms of, and the marketing side of it, because you listen to the song and you're like, that was a great song, but you don't realize that five minutes just went by. And then you approach the whole radio team and they're like, this is too long. And it's interesting problem because you can create a five minute song that sounds great and moves along and doesn't get boring and holds the attention of the listener, but still isn't good enough for mainstream marketing. So this song isn't necessarily aimed at mainstream marketing, so to take some of these things with a grain of salt, but also realized that even though you tried to write, and I'm not trying to pick on you or anything, but maybe it seems like you tried to do a four and a half minute epic ballad and some kind of musically sort of interesting story, but it fails because there's too many repetitive parts that aren't as catchy as you want them to be.

(46:10):

They don't really move anywhere, and they don't take you anywhere.

Speaker 4 (46:13):

Yeah, I don't know what story they're telling. At first, I thought it was going to tell a story from the way it starts, the way it starts. It's like, okay, this might go somewhere, but then it just doesn't.

Speaker 3 (46:24):

Yeah. Yeah, there it is.

Speaker 4 (46:25):

That's

Speaker 2 (46:26):

One of the biggest problems with the song and not necessarily not sure what your goals were, but hopefully that gives you some insights on that. Let us know if you guys like this song Crit episode. Maybe we can do more in the future. We always do the mixed crits, but it might be interesting to do more song crits or a combination of the two. So let us know what you think. Jump on Facebook Private Producers Club and subscribers lounge, email us, whatever it works for you. Yeah, I had fun with this. Me too.

Speaker 3 (46:56):

Yeah, it was a cool change. And we do have tons of mixed notes on those songs,

Speaker 4 (47:01):

But they would be unfair of us. I told them that the mix doesn't matter.

Speaker 2 (47:06):

Yeah, so keep it up. The good work, guys, thanks for listening and thanks for subscribing, and we'll talk to you soon. This

Speaker 1 (47:13):

Episode of the Unstoppable Recording Machine Podcast is brought to you by Joey Sturgis tones creating unique audio tools for musicians and producers everywhere. Unleash your creativity with Joey sturgiss tones. Visit joey sturgis tones.com for more info to ask us questions, make suggestions and interact. Visit urm Academy podcast and subscribe today.