It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Subscribe to our Patreon, and get image uploads with no ads on the site!
Base theme by DesignModo & ported to Powered by Vanilla by Chris Ireland, modified by the "theFB" team.
Comments
My YouTube Channel
My YouTube Channel
Bandcamp
Spotify, Apple et al
My YouTube Channel
Bandcamp
Spotify, Apple et al
OK, it's for pub demos and if I were looking at it I would be judging you as a band, not of the strength of the mix or recording. None of my negative views really relate to you guys but the general mix is uninspiring and the vocal mix itself is pretty shoddy considering you paid someone (so a professional) to do it. The mix of the vocal is not great. The application of pitch correction is ham-fisted, whilst not actually correcting some timing issues either. The cut and paste of vocal snippets robs it's of any dynamics and give the impression that the singer was really struggling. Most of all the comping is pretty awful. The worst example being the chorus of TALPOMH. The cuts between the lines make it sound incredibly fake. It's sounds like a back and forth between too identical singers rather than a coherent vocal line.
Like I say these don't neccesarily relate to your band and if they did I wouldn't be so blunt, but as you paid someone that's slightly different territory. Your are almost always going to listen to other people's mixes and think "Hmmmm, I might have done that differently." . That isn't what I'm talking about though, I'm talking about basic editing mainly. You can judge it based on what you paid, how long you and he had, how well you played, how good the singer was on the day and what he had to work with etc. IF this was an originals project I would say a re-record was needed because I don't think it showcases you guys in the best light but like I say depending on price and purpose (i.e. Pub covers demo) then there's less of a worry.
Sorry if any of that sounded harsh, just genuinely trying to give a view on it that will enable you guys to make decisions in the future.
My YouTube Channel
My YouTube Channel
OK, to break it down.
I completely agree with JP that the guitar playing is the best bit by far, but of course that is interpretable in a few ways isn't it? The way I would mean it is that to be blunt is that musically it is better than everything else, sharper and tighter, but also superior to the recording it's set into. The only thing that does let the guitar down is too much reverb pushing it back too far in the solos, which you have pointed out yourself.
When I am talking about vocals I mean ALL vocals, including backing vocals. There is (to a degree IMO) nothing wrong with the application of pitch correction but I find it confusing when the singer lead vocal is a bit off timing wise that if you were correcting pitch you wouldn't shift them timing wise as by and large experience has taught be the a tight, out of tune vocal will have more impact that an in-tune but 'loose' vocal, unless that is a intention and repeated throughout. I haven't got time to break everything down phrase by phrase and quite frankly if you are happy then my opinion matters not a jot.
I don't understand the 'It was only two takes' response to comments on the comping and editing. If it were 'genuinely' one then you could say 'no editing' but whether it was two takes or one hundred then there was a reason for that. The 'Come on' are either cut and pasted or you have found yourself a mechanic singer (which in it's way is quite cool) but she or they have failed to grasp how the section builds and have magically repeated the same phrasing and dynamics at least 6 times. It's not impossible I suppose.
What program was used to apply pitch correction and how was it applied? The question is if the pitch correction is unobtrusive how did I even know you had used it? Lucky guess? The thing is when you have spent a long time in studios and baring in mind I was fortunate (or not) to work through the whole post Believe era where it became a formality rather than a choice your ears undoubtedly become attuned to pitched correction devices. How noticeable the are comes down to how they were applied and how much correction was needed. In many respects a correction of a few notes is even more noticeable than a light application throughout. Listen to Oasis' The Importance Of Being Idle for a great example of this. If you can't hear it on that then yes, you may be blind to it. A retake is always preferable for the odd notes (providing you're confident your singer can hit it) but as I said in my original response you have to judge it based on the time and chances you had, which you didn't mention.
So do you have two female singers with very similar voices who share lead vocal duties? If so then I'm sure it comes over better live but on the recording (the chorus of TALPOMH particularly) it translates as bad editing. IF it is two separate singers then the problem comes down more to bad separation of the voices in the mix. Personally I'm sat here with a vocal coach who is also listened to it and is also of the opinion it sounds like one singer with bad cuts but who knows, I've only had one coffee today. In reality though when listening to any recording it is the impression that counts over the back story.
None of it was meant to have a dig. If you guys had been awful I wouldn't have bothered commenting full stop because I am only too aware that when people usually ask for feedback they are actually looking for people to blow smoke up their arse rather than genuine constructive critique. My honest belief is that but for either time (which only you know) or the mixing process you guys could have been framed better.
Again if you had mixed it yourself I would probably have said nothing for similar reasons. However you paid a professional and IMO, which I will stand by and in my experience of working in the studios of publishing houses that reason dozens of demos a day, that is not a truly professional recording. Again though judging it fairly comes back to info I don't have, mainly what it cost which is your business, I don't need to know but like anything it is relevant to the product you receive.
My YouTube Channel
My YouTube Channel
Feedback
But listening to You Shook Me... in a few places the vocalists sound like they're singing from the throat too much and don't sound like they're using diaphragmatic control very well - listen to 0:52 with the words "already there..." the way she kinda gives up on the vowel at the end of there... not nice to listen to. People would probably dance to it and not even catch it in a live set, but recorded.. that kind of thing sticks out like a sore thumb in my honest opinion.
0:57 - the word 'mind' ... sounds strained.
Whoever is singing the 2nd portions of the verses doesn't sound as good as the one singing the first half of the verses to me. She could do with some professional help. It's not that she's sounding nasal... nasality is very often a good thing. But she's sounding strained quite a lot of the time, like she's struggling to hit the notes. I know when I experience that, it's nearly always down to my breathing technique.
Overall... I think the vocals are too clean, and it all sounds very karaoke... sorry, don't mean to be a dick about it! Just can't really soften it any more than that.
Drums didn't really bother me all that much... a bit bog standard, but then again this music is bog standard, so it's to be expected I think.
My YouTube Channel
My YouTube Channel