Ravenhurst Road Phase 3 Phil? Everyone?

[Lee Knight]

 

https://soundcloud.com/albert-s-j-le...ricchngedit-eq

 

So, this illness prevents me from changing any lyric/vocal parts as of yet. Believe me, I'm chomping at the bit. Still, there were lots of things I wanted to do and will. But I did get in a bridge before my health went south. Then...

 

...remixed with a girthiness. Added basses. Electric guitars. Perc. FX. Solo. Supplemental kick and snare in choruses. Drum fills. And the like. While trying to retain its sparseness. But no, it isn't sparse. For better or worse? And why?

 

Bear in mind, all... I'm working in an overdub capacity so the basic track, for now in this mode of work, is locked. I just printed and opened a new session to OD over. Will import later and fix the basic as well. All input is encouraged however. I may or not be aware of some it, is all. There are bits I want to change but printed the basic for now to open workspace for the overdub phase. So, things like the banjo fill into the bridge pop out weird and I do hear it and lots of other things. Like vocal balance, etc.

 

And I really do want, while still keeping what I like about the odd pan arrangement of the vocals, to get the vocals to command more attention in the chorus through some stacking. All while making the lyric fixes. Soon. But for now... with this post pneumonia gack, stuck here as we are, I'd love input as to where this is at so far.

 

https://soundcloud.com/albert-s-j-le...ricchngedit-eq

[oldgitplayer]

There may be technical stuff that others may pick up, but I've got simple ears. I think it's all very cool.

The various instruments behind the verse sound great. I especially like the descending motif that comes in behind the mando riff.

I'm a bit uncertain about introducing the banjo riff together with the mando riff. To my ear it's one voice too many. However, I like how the banjo falls in as basic accompaniment thereafter.

I really feel the big positive change musically when you get to, "Now the school has gone", and how you take it into the Outro.

 

I agree that the vocals need to come forward - especially in the verses. I look forward to you getting rid of your rocking pneumonia blues.

 

I'm sending you a PM on lyric possibilities.

[Lee Knight]

I don't care about tech so your input is perfect. First, is that a sign off on the bridge melody? I'm pleased if it is. Re: the banjo/ mando point. Are we talking in the intro et al. The doubled simple melody theme? Interesting if so. I can entertain that. Go simple simple there? Hmmm... Yeah, that's good. Is that where you mean?

[oldgitplayer]

Definitely a sign off on the Bridge melody. It's a good musical change for the transformation it expresses.

I know that some weeks ago, you talked about getting some more anger into it, but I don't think Lee Knight does anger. What you've got in your voice and instruments is passion - and that sounds like the place this song comes from.

 

About the banjo riff. I've listened again and it sounds like it doubles with the mando riff before breaking into its own riff at 1.40 and 2.58.

The identical double is fine, but it's these independent banjo riffs that feel surplus to needs to me, and they mask the pure simplicity of the mando riff backed by that descending motif behind it.

 

Anyway - see what the others say.

[Lee Knight]

Definitely a sign off on the Bridge melody. It's a good musical change for the transformation it expresses.

I know that some weeks ago, you talked about getting some more anger into it, but I don't think Lee Knight does anger. What you've got in your voice and instruments is passion - and that sounds like the place this song comes from.

 

About the banjo riff. I've listened again and it sounds like it doubles with the mando riff before breaking into its own riff at 1.40 and 2.58.

The identical double is fine, but it's these independent banjo riffs that feel surplus to needs to me, and they mask the pure simplicity of the mando riff backed by that descending motif behind it.

 

Anyway - see what the others say.

 

Ah! Got it about the riff and errant fills. I know exactly what you mean. Agreed. Will fix.

 

I think you're right about the passion vs. anger. I can feel anger plenty good, but you're right, not my forte in song. Call it a bubbling cauldron of studied concern

[stickboymusic]

Ideas/passion/production masterclass.

 

Love this - I'm struggling on changes as im just enjoying it on this listen

 

Will report back if anything comes to me.

 

Hope you get fully better soon

[bee3]

Really awesome Lee. Yeah, some if the levels could be adjusted and the mando/banjo could sit better, but DAMN. You need one of these:

[Lee Knight]

Ideas/passion/production masterclass.

 

Love this - I'm struggling on changes as im just enjoying it on this listen

 

Will report back if anything comes to me.

 

Hope you get fully better soon

 

I look forward to any input you might have when time permits. Thanks dookie.

 

[Lee Knight]

Really awesome Lee. Yeah, some if the levels could be adjusted and the mando/banjo could sit better, but DAMN. You need one of these:

 

Hey! Thanks... and I DO need one of those. It'll become part of my stage persona. I'll wear flip flops, lame' tux and tails and a Viking helmet! And always play the Eastman Handy Dandy Mandy Double Neck! Pretty cool.

[LCK]

Amazing...

[Oswlek]

Yeah, that's great. I don't know if you changed the perc in the post-C1 interlude but it doesn't bother me in any way now. Even the vocal feels more intense simply by being in a more on-target mix.

 

One thing I really don't like is the vocal at 2:55. For me, everything about the ending to C2 transferred power to the music, so when the vocal appears in such a dominant position I'm thrown for a loop. I'm not sure it is necessary, but if you like it, I'd push it way the hell back along with scads of reverb and make it sound like a delayed echo.

 

I'm unsure about the major chord at 3:08. It might be a first listen surprise that will grow on me, but it breaks the mood for me. I'm assuming the transition back to the solo off of the bridge is going to be smoothed, as right now it has a clear cut/paste insertion feel about it.

 

Really good stuff, Lee.

 

[Lee Knight]

 

About the banjo riff. I've listened again and it sounds like it doubles with the mando riff before breaking into its own riff at 1.40 and 2.58.

The identical double is fine, but it's these independent banjo riffs that feel surplus to needs to me, and they mask the pure simplicity of the mando riff backed by that descending motif behind it.

 

Anyway - see what the others say.

 

So, Phil has homed in on those banjo sections that play alone. 1.40 and 2.58 Right now they are far out front and I most certainly was intending to tame them way back as mentioned in the OP but... I could nix them altogether. Note at 1:40 the banjo plays a little one or two note ostinato riff on the tonic. In that re-intro section. I think he's spot on but would love other input. The mando/banjo section becomes a thing and then.. whose that other banjo player over there? Right? Two banjos? I think he's right. Note however once the verse starts, conga comes in and that banjo part plays on melding into the conga. Same riff as the re-intro. THAT WORKS to me. There is no other banjo then so really, it's that same deliverance guy just joining in for the V2. Right? Nice teeth.

 

Now for 2:58. The same thing. Two banjos again?!?! But I really like that little banjo riff there. Both of them. They serve a transition purpose in addition to be a selfish happy surprise. (Did I do that? COOL!) But that doesn't mean anything. The two banjo issue is what it is. One hillbilly too many. So...

 

Use the riff ideas and put them on electric guitar. What do you think?

[Oswlek]

I love the one at 2:58, it's been one of my favorites since the beginning and I like the earlier one. I hope neither leaves, nor do I think they need to be replaced with a different instrument.

[Lee Knight]

Yeah, that's great. I don't know if you changed the perc in the post-C1 interlude but it doesn't bother me in any way now. Even the vocal feels more intense simply by being in a more on-target mix.

 

One thing I really don't like is the vocal at 2:55. For me, everything about the ending to C2 transferred power to the music, so when the vocal appears in such a dominant position I'm thrown for a loop. I'm not sure it is necessary, but if you like it, I'd push it way the hell back along with scads of reverb and make it sound like a delayed echo.

 

I'm unsure about the major chord at 3:08. It might be a first listen surprise that will grow on me, but it breaks the mood for me. I'm assuming the transition back to the solo off of the bridge is going to be smoothed, as right now it has a clear cut/paste insertion feel about it.

 

Really good stuff, Lee.

 

Hey! New stuff...

 

OK. The perc, post C1. Yeah, it's just the mix. I figured once I got that tom drum part compressed/eq'ed just right to blend with my other elements it would be less of an anomaly and more integral to the track as an ensemble performance.

 

You don't like the vocal at 2:55: I can see that. It's probably clear that that was just a way of artificially creating variation. I just edited the phrase in half from C1 and did a faux change up . It's those things that don't sound real, even when they work sort of, that betray the listener and he says, "HEY!!! WAIT-A-SEC-HERE-BUB! THAT'S JUS' NOT NATURAL!" You're right. However, the idea works; variation. Thanks. I'll re-track something that is real that fulfills that need. Something that makes... (seriously, the most amazing girl just walked past my office. I kid you not) Some thing that makes that girl go ooo. What serendipity! Thanks hot chick! Anyway, great catch. And your idea of just pushing it into a well is a good one too. Things to try. Nice.

 

That major chord at the end of the bridge. Yeah. Well... a couple of things. I was going to get my wife to say... "sometimes open doors". Instead of singing there. So the big hole and the big major chord, it was designed for that. And then I think I wisely chose that I didn't like that. Cheesy. She's the GPS at the head. The documentary announcer. That's it. "Turn off the village high street". And then she's gone. So we have a big gap and a major chord. And somehow I liked it. Sort of. BUT... you don't. And I had doubts. Which brings me to...

 

...Phil shared some new lyrics last night in a PM. Great stuff. And in that draft the bridge is maybe twice as long. And it occurred to me that if I play it right, I might be able to create a real development, not just a repeat, of the bridge. To let it expand asymmetrically. A real development. So this may be a great opportunity to refine that bridge and the transition to solo. Thanks Justin O!!!

 

Now the school has gone

Its ghost haunts me no more

The turning tide of innocence

Has brought me to this shore

You can keep your dogma

You can keep your hymns

And also thank you very much

I’ll die for my own sins

[Lee Knight]

Maybe a slight change for the last 2 lines...

 

Now the school has gone

Its ghost haunts me no more

The turning tide of innocence

Has brought me to this shore

You can keep your dogma

You can keep your hymns

And thank you very much

But I’ll die for my own sins

[Lee Knight]

Amazing...

 

Wow, thanks!

[Oswlek]

Ha! I was going to make that exact suggestion for those last two lines.

[Lee Knight]

Ha! I was going to make that exact suggestion for those last two lines.

 

Yeah, I think that flows off the tongue a little easier. I can't help but hear "You can't have any pudding if you don't eat your meat!" when I see the line "you can keep your dogma." I'm going to have to watch that. "HOW CAN YOU HAVE ANY FOOTBALL IF YOU DON'T EAT YOU DOGMA!"

[oldgitplayer]

Maybe a slight change for the last 2 lines...

You can keep your dogma

You can keep your hymns

And thank you very much

But I’ll die for my own sins

]

 

I can imagine how you might sing this - it just places different expression on different words.

 

[Lee Knight]

I love what you've written. Word for word... And totally get what you're doing in those last 2 lines. I love the turn of sarcasm you use so subtly there. Fantastic. As I read, I sometimes see small changes that while no doubt do change the flavor... and granted, not for the better in this context, I find might be necessary. What I try to do is make, with my personal bag of phrasing idiosyncrasies, Each line impactful. In a visceral sense as well as a literary sense So my changes suggested are really truly compromises to an extent, in the hope that the line will pop with what's in my head musically. Unfortunately, by default my head is not audible here. Or fortunately? so I'm not saying, hey this is BETTER, but more, does this hose the intent too much? I may need to reroute to make a musical idea fly. Speaking of which, Phil, there is the occasional word dropped from some of your lyrics in the song version currently posted. I'd like to take some time tomorrow and detail each and everyone of those to get approval. I love your lyric you posted above, farther up up I mean (or was that your PM), and intend to make that work. However there is the occasional word that I feel would really be best omitted, etc. To make the phrasing work in the context of the track. I really do want to go through with a fine tooth comb making sure each of those is exceptable and does not neuter the intent here. But at the same time I'm a real stickler for making sure that the sound of the vocal pops in a very interesting and intriguing way. So instead of me steamrollering through, I'd like to work those nuances out with you bit by bit. If I can find time tomorrow I will detail exactly what I'm talking about here. Word for word.

[oldgitplayer]

I get what you want to do, and am totally OK with it. The lyric that I PM'd you is in the original cadence and not intended to be used exactly as it is with your cadence. We've moved on from that. You have already tweaked it a few weeks back in an acceptable manner. The main thing is that the meaning has been retained.

 

One of the things I am finding that I am doing as I write more and more lyrics, is write for vocal expression rather than melodic movement. I didn't realise I was doing this at first, but I can see it is rooted in my inability to sing very well. People say that I speak expressively, so I have built on those strengths rather than my singing weaknesses.

 

I'm confident in what you are doing because I know how you care about your craft and think things through. So by all means, tweak the lyric to achieve the expressive passion, because passion is high on the list of songwriting success.

 

There are different ways of expressing the same thing and in the instance of the final 2 lines, it may even be a transatlantic difference.

I sing them:

 

You can keep your dogma

You can keep your hymns

And also - "thank you very much" ​……….. this line is sung as a facetious afterthought

I’ll die for my own sins ………………………this line is sung with the emphatic word on the beat - I'll die ……………………………………………….rather than expecting it to be done for me.

 

But that's just my way - you do it your way.

[LCK]

It's very unlike me to suggest this, but I believe this has become one of those songs where focusing on the minutiea of the lyric becomes a fun but mostly unnecessary exercise.

 

I'll shut up now...

[Lee Knight]

It's very unlike me to suggest this, but I believe this has become one of those songs where focusing on the minutiea of the lyric becomes a fun but mostly unnecessary exercise.

 

I'll shut up now...

 

Hey, Lee! ^^^ Someone hacked your account!

[Marshal]

So much to love here. Quite wonderful. Mostly I love the earthy banjo stuff. it gives it a real earthy quality. (Did i say that already ? ? ? )

 

My critique comments would be these:

The vocal is great. But it's too low in the mix I'm hearing in my cheap head phones. The vocal is sweet, rich, and lovely. But I'd want it to be more earthy. (Crunchy? Up front? Grabby? i don't know?) maybe its just the vocal volume. I'm losing the lyrics. It's probably partly because there's so much other entertaining stuff to grab the attention of my ear. Really, the melody and instrumentation supports the song wonderfully. It just seems like the instrumentation overpowers the vocal line (lyrics) a bit.

 

But WOW.

[Lee Knight]

Thank you, Marshall! I totally agree about the vocal level. And I love your point about grabbiness. And grittiness perhaps. That vocal will be extensively reworked to update some lyrics and then to mixed accordingly. Great points and totally agreed. Thank you.