i made a loop

[antp]

i like to make little loops of sound with my guitar in sonar 6. i would assume anyone who listens to this one entitled "drowning" would say that it needs something to go on top of it and i agree...either just a long solo over the entire thing or a couple verses and a chorus. i would appreciate an ear or two and mabey some advice as to whether there is enough bass in the mix. i ask because i was listening to it in my moms car stereo on a cd that i burned and the bass was overwhelming on the previous mix.

 

http://www.reverbnation.com/festivesweater

 

once again, the loop is called "drowning"

[blue2blue]

Well, we try not to get too caught up in production and arrangement issues here in the songwriting forum, but, yeah, I'd say the bass and lead guitars need to be louder, drumsm too... or more to the point, the rhythm probably needs to come down, relative to them.

 

Not sure why you call this a 'loop' exactly, though I can see you looped some of your guitar to create it. I was afraid it was going to be four minutes plus of the same 4 bars over and over...

 

Happily, this sounds more like a complete, if not necessarily commercially focused instrumental. Could it stand more foreground -- or, perhaps, better focused foreground? Yes, probably so. And maybe a little sooner than the foreground you have (the lead guitar noodling, which is pleasant but maybe lacks real cohesion). It doesn't take most listeners very long to absorb the repeating sections, so getting something up over them sooner rather than later is probably a good idea.

 

In the 90s, I had an early live, improv echo loop act so I'm pretty tuned in to the limited ability of the non-drug-addled to put up with too much repetition, when there's no overt promise of a change-up... for most folks, repetition ratchets up tension, so it needs both the promise of release, as well as the reality. I always used to like to sneak in little hints that something would soon change... a little splash or two hear outside the loop.

 

If you don't want to try putting a vocal on it, you might consider trying to come up with a motif, a repeating (or evolving) guitar figure (or related figures, since you have a few sections here) that will help hold the song together and help give it a 'takeaway identity' -- that walk-away-humming-the-tune feeling that a good song or instrumental can give you.

 

One of the biggest problems in getting instrumentals over is developing an identity for them...

[antp]

thank you for your in-depth critique blue. i've been creepin' around these forums for a couple years reading and listening and you always seem to have a genuine interest in peoples' creations.

 

i just recently bought my bass and i'm still learning how to balance the frequency range with my simple headphones. also, i can understand how repetition can get old from a listener's perspective...i guess as the artist i have a biased opinion on how much is too much. i only call this a "loop" cause i don't consider it finished yet (i have a problem with finishing stuff lol). i have usually tried to construct songs in a way where i continually add a new element to the loop every measure; building it up gradually like steps and then cutting out certain parts and inserting new, different parts to change it up while maintaining a simple loop of sound from the previous section.

 

the solo was just me improvising as best as i could without hitting a wrong note so ya...when the "record" button is pressed, i'm not totally seeing the big picture of cohesion and direction as much as i am focusing on staying in key...i did notice i used the same phrasing a couple times more than i'd have liked to.

 

thank you again for your ear. it is always appreciated.

[blue2blue]

"...i did notice i used the same phrasing a couple times more than i'd have liked to."

 

 

That's what we like to call cohesion. And if you do it obsessively -- we call it hypnotic.

 

Actually, I thought the guitar soloing had some nice moves and showed a good ear, overall. But I think your self-analysis is pretty good: there almost seems a sense of not wanting to commit to the song. And, you know, that may be a good approach when you're learning how to live in your songwriter's body -- but I suspect you may feel like it's time to challenge yourself to get a little more serious -- and I suspect that would be a good move, too. It looks like you've got a good grasp on a lot of the bits and pieces and it looks like you're doing pretty good at putting a lot of it together but that you just need to get a little more serious.

 

Also, don't be afraid to 'finish' a project when you feel like you've learned all you can or refined it all you can... Frank Lloyd Wright's first designs probably showed a lot of promise, but he became good by designing a lot of buildings. Songwriters often need to take a similar approach. I've known more than a couple folks who felt they had to have their first songs be masterpieces... they kept working, reworking, building up, tearing down. And, you know, for first songs, they were pretty amazing. Years later. But... years later... they'd only written like, three songs and were often reluctant to start new songs because they felt like each song was such an ordeal.

 

I'm not one of those guys who knocks out three songs a day (I have, but not day after day, for sure) but I definitely think most writers serve themselves best by writing a lot when they first start out.

 

Still, the important thing, whatever your approach is, keep writing.

 

Think of the shark who must keep swimming forward in order to fill his gills with oxygen (or however that works). Swim or die.