Dad3353

Unknown to me, and not my usual 'cup of tea', but kudos for the splendid performance and uber-clean recording. Good Stuff; thanks for sharing. An extra 'Clap-clap' for the drums; very tight.

Good afternoon, Alan, and ... Plenty to read and amuse you here, and lots to learn and share. Would that be a v12 Caterpillar, by any chance..?

You're in good company here, along with Beethoven. I, too, am 'hard of hearing', what with being old'n'all, and it does, indeed, pose extra difficulties when recording and mixing. A tip, that you may find useful..? I find it helps considerably, when mixing, to have a few reference tracks; that's to say, songs that I listen to, and know well, preferably in the same or similar genre to the track I'm mixing. This gives me confidence that, if I can hear it in my mix as being somewhat like my reference track, I'm not too far out. I'll admit to not being of uber precision; I don't do 'tweaks' of 1 or 2 db (I can't hear them...). My audio scalpel is calibrated at 3 db; that's the amount I raise or lower stuff when balancing out the instruments and vocals. Top engineers will have a different approach, but they have ears like bats, and I don't, so I do with what works for me. Just a thought; hope you find it useful. Getting a good 'take' of a drum kit is not an easy affair (I'm a drummer...). The first, and perhaps the most important, step is having the drums themselves tuned properly, with good drum heads (Evans is your friend...). It often helps to use a touch of dampening, to reduce overtones and ringing (again, depending on the genre of music...). The favourite, classic, snare technique is to lay one's wallet on the snare head; a little piece of duct tape from the rim to the head of the toms helps, too. Mic positioning is important, and needs experimenting for optimum. It's a luxury to have each piece of the kit individually mic'ed; a good kit will sound right when recorded with just the overhead (one is enough; two can be better, but has its own issues, too...). The individual toms would be used only as a complement, really. It makes mixing the drums far easier, using the overhead as principal source, and adding bass drum and snare to reinforce the tone. Leakage is far less of an issue with this set-up. That's enough for now; hope some of this helps. Good luck with the project; you're doing fine.

Just on that one point, things are not so simple. There are 'automatic' bids in place (they can be made visible...), which show the bidder 'upping' his bid until the auto-bid is defeated. There are more than 7 bids (at time of your post...). Just sayin'.

OK for the few seconds, well merited. Once they're passed, however, one has to say that the guys are right; it's not what you want to pass around as a show-piece. Please take these criticisms in the spirit they're intended (as friendly as possible...). The playing is fine, as is the singing (in fact, very good indeed...). The mix, however, cannot stand. The guitar is too far back, and the bass absolutely inaudible. The bass has to come up to the level of the bass drum, at least (a matter of taste and style after that, but it must be as present as the low end of the drums...). The guitar, being alone, has to come up a bit, and a bit more still when soloing. On listening, the voice should be a bit above the guitar, but not too much. Taking the voice, then, as the 'reference, I'd suggest bringing the guitar up 3 to 6 db, and 3 db more for soloing. When filming, the singer should have the lyrics on a big paper-board in front, but behind the camera. It's 'not on' to hold the A4 paper in one hand. In studio, or rehearsal, fine, but not for a demo clip. It would be better if the singer was less fuzzy, too, but that's not as important as the A4 crib-sheet. There's much that could be said for the treatment (or lack of...) of the vocals and drums, but it would not be appropriate to go too far down that rabbit hole, and is arguable, in any case. Suffice it to say: both could be improved with a touch of 'magic dust' here and there. OK, that's enough; I don't wish to spoil your evening. A fine effort, and I'm sure you've learned a lot already. It's not easy, not easy at all, to bring all the elements together, especially with one's first attempts. Be rightly pleased, then, with the result, and think about how to improve yet further. Well,done, all involved, and kudos for having the courage to share the clip. You did well.

Their site works for me... Sfxsound ... Can't have been 'cached'; first visit ever for me. Hope this helps; they have a 'Contacts' link in there.

Good evening, Steve, and ... Welcome back... Plenty to read and amuse you still, and lots to learn and share.

(... But still, the very thought..! ...)

No, sorry; that was cruel. I offer my apologies.

Yes, I get that, too, when I can reach the buckles. ...

Imagine someone in the centre of your auditorium, listening to your concert. The stereo image would be that created by the placing of the backline, so that's what the panning of each track should be aiming for. Presumably the singer would be through the PA, with equal voice from each FOH column. The bass would be (typically...) beside the drums; as bass frequencies tend to be non-directional, one could consider it to be heard as being central, with the drums (I would tend to have the bass drum a couple of clicks to one side, the bass the same amount the other, but that's optional, and only me being picky...). The sole guitar would be panned an appropriate amount to reflect its position on the stage, either to left or right. I'm again assuming that it's not being mic'd through the PA, but even if it is, the PA would probably be panned to give this same spatial notion, so that the sound 'appears' to be coming from the guitar rig. It cab be helpful to pan the singer to an equal amount the other side from the guitar, again giving better sonic space between the two, but, again, that's optional. Hope this helps; good luck with your project.

That's a warning that not all drugs are good for creativity.

Respect; you have your reasons for posting this, and that's fine. All I see is the 'evidence' I see. My 'knowledge' and meager experience leads me to believe, possibly falsely, that the bloke's playing nothing of any value, excepting, if I'm being generous, to himself. He may be a quiet genius, but he's not showing any sign of that to me. He doesn't have to, naturally; he does (as I do...) exactly what he wants, and needs no permission, from me nor anyone else. What I've seen and heard doesn't incite me to look further, or deeper. I've some affinity with 'free' stuff , and enjoyed Ron Gleeson concerts, or Pete Brown in his day, but until and unless I see something different, my opinion of this fellow remains. If others enjoy his work, that's fine. I'll need a lot more convincing, and I've not that many decades left for that to happen. Sorry, but it's not for me. Kudos for defending his work; and, I repeat: respect.

Maybe, but that's still rubbish (although the 'dancing' seems to be inspired by something...). Anyone can plonk away like that, even a racing pigeon or a toy robot. That's not 'music'; that's taking the Mickey, taking the money, and taking over a stage under false pretentiousness.

In practical terms, it helps to know how wind players do things. The more bass the wind instrument, the more time it takes to get the note out, so they will anticipate the beat, and start puffing away ahead of time, so that the note comes out right. For a bass player, the notion (if not the reason' is similar. Anticipating the beat (not speeding up, just letting it start to sound ahead of the metronomic 'click' is playing 'ahead' of the beat (and of course, the opposite is true...). It suits certain styles of music, playing ahead or behind, and can sometimes become a bit 'robot' if everything is spot on the beat. Playing to a metronome is a good practise (for many reasons...), and will enable experimenting to see what works and what doesn't. A Good Question; hope this helps.

Running downstairs..?

Shirley not..? I thought that's what they were all about. I concur with my learned friend, Lenny (and he knows all about Groove..!).

Good afternoon, Frank... There's quite a few on the French second-hand site, 'LeBonCoin', which is usually 'reputable' enough. I use it a lot. From a Teisco Thinline Deluxe at 580€, up to a US Tele Deluxe at 3000€, there's quite a spread. Here's a link to my 'Search'; worth a look..? LeBonCoin Tele Deluxe Search ... Personally, I'm a Deluxe fan, with a preference for all things Thinline. My Xavière guitar comes into this category, and it splendid (and cost me little...). Hope this helps.

What, Keef..?

So secretly, even I am unaware of it..!

I'm in the same category as NickD, above ^^, and have been posting stuff on Soundcloud for several years now. Mostly BC Challenge entries, but occasional other stuff, none of which has any commercial value whatever. During this time I have built up a huge following of eager persons and enterprises, all keen to develop my potential, and launch this 70-year-old retiree onto the international fame-and-fortune ladder. My flattered ego would have been tempted by these illustrious offers but for my innate modesty and unwillingness to jet around the world dressed in sparkly garments. I can drink little champagne without serious plumbing issues, so that advantage means nothing to me, either. No, I've not disbursed my meager pension on these solicitations; maybe I'm making the wrong choices. If (when..?) they offer me a Bentley, I may be tempted, however. Are Radio xxx ready for me..?

Hmm... I sometimes watch films, on'telly, but who is playing whom in any of 'em, I couldn't say. On top of that, they are dressed up and made up to resemble their roles ..! The TV companies don't 'roll' the credits at the end, as they're in a pressing hurry to get back to the adverts (and anyway, I've fallen asleep by then ...) There are many (most..?) films that I get to see several times over, and still see entire sequences I've nodded off through. It also means that I can see a film and enjoy a 'surprise ending' many times over (Mulholland Drive..? Usual Suspects..? etc...), as I've forgotten what happens. (Yes, I had to search for the 'Mulholland' part. I knew it had 'Drive' in there somewhere, though ...). No, I don't have 'social media', nor even know what 'twittering' is all about. I don't think I'm as unusual as all that, on a planetary scale.

Just given it a listen; it's a worthy piece, certainly. Just a bit over-produced for me (swirling everywhere, voice buried in the reverb...), but this is just niggling. I'll listen now to the 'live', symphonic, and see what I think of that. Dense, though; very dense. (not impressed by the harp, but, whatever...). Edit : A very creditable 'live' rendering. Rich, like a Christmas pudding with brandy butter, jelly, ice cream and trifle, and fudge sauce. So: rich. I'll take a moment to digest. The pudding was nice; maybe a bit too much jelly, though. It's all a matter of taste, innit..?

Ah, but Schubert's 9th..! Sublime..!