Synth rock created with Virus C
 

Hello!

Check out these tracks!

https://soundcloud.com/llest/sets/demod

Every sound except drums, bass guitar and wind chimes (in the beginning and end of Rabbits) are created with Access Virus C. All tracks could be performed on just one Virus. Additional mixing plugins (like eq's, comps, limiters) and reverbs were used.

What you think?

Thanks!

Lauri

I dig your overall sense of melody and choice of sounds. I do think you have a bit of the tendency I have to create overly complex melodic progressions though. I've found that I do this so I don't get bored with my own music...but the impact on a new listener is different. Most people respond more favorably to more simple melodies, something that will stick in their head and they can maybe hum or whistle. Maybe that seems more pop-oriented, but my ear at least likes to be able to quickly recognize patterns in each part of the track if that makes sense. Think recurring melodies but at the same time avoiding over-repetitiveness.

Love the acoustic drum sounds, I'm determined to use more of these going forward in my music making, as my background was originally a drummer.

My humble advice - if you want to write complex melodies - fucking go for it. Don't change what you want to write for someone else. Write what you want to hear, and keep working at it til it comes together and you express yourself as an individual. Pat Metheny utilises beautiful and complex melodies that are catchy as all fuck.

"What the world heard in Nirvana's music was three human beings, three distinct personalities ... proudly on display -- three people that had been left to their own devices their entire lives to find their voices," Grohl said. "It was honest, it was pure, and it was real. And up until that point no one had ever told me how to play or what to play, and now no one ever would again."


For the melodic passages and changes in sections, you could consider trying to tie the transitions together a little more smoothly to connect the piece a bit more - if thats your intention at all.

On the mix side of things, my opinion is you could definitely bring the snares forward more and also back off the HPF roll off, back off the reverb a bit on it all and maybe also bring some of the hats a little more center. Also have a play with subharmonics on the kick drum to give it a little more oomph even at low levels.

I agree that nobody should change their musical style to cater to someone else's opinion. At the same time though, it makes sense to expect suggestions for change whenever you decide to solicit opinions from others. I always say, if you're gonna go cowboy, go-all-out cowboy and unapologetically publish your music to be judged as-is, using your own measure of success to gauge same. If you want to make money making music, judge that success by sales numbers. If success is measured by how many other people like your music, then take the attitude that you need to reach the masses. If success is purely an internal measure, where your music is designed only to please yourself, then I say don't even bother publishing to soundcloud or worrying about others hearing it.

Hell, that's what I do. I make music for my own pleasure only. I make a living via other methods. I tend to not share my music because I don't care what others think. Most of what I create sucks, by my own standard, but every now and then I come up with a track that I actually like to put on the iPod and listen to over and over at the gym, patting myself on the back :) Nothing wrong with that.

Not to derail the OP, I fundamentally disagree with what you are saying, and the quote above illustrates the flawed logic of being a copy cat or bowing to others (often uninformed, conservative) opinions. Work on innovating, your expression and craft.

I appreciate your opinion and respect your choice to disagree with me, but just so you know, I wasn't suggesting the OP copy anyone. I was saying that I see a tendancy in his tracks that I suffer from myself, because he was asking what we thought. Had he not asked, I wouldn't have offered the opinion.

Personally I don't consider Dave Grohl the musical standard from which all musicians should learn. My point was about musical success, and how do you judge it? Is it based on sales or instrinsic satisfaction? If the latter, no need for opinions from others. Cobain blew his own head-off, largely from being unable to deal with musical success, so they are kind of an odd example to bring into this discussion, IMO. Nirvana was just in the right place at the right time, anyway. Had they not released Nevermind, and "Smells Like Teen Spirit" hadn't become a top 40 pop hit, someone else (probably another band like Pearl Jam) would have gotten credit for introducing JoeMainstream to the Seattle grunge sound. I think you're putting too much faith in that quote considering the source. Dave Grohl is where he is largely because of the association with Nirvana. He hit the lottery, was in the right place at the right time. I don't think his quote, which is just his own personal experience, proves or disproves any wider logical theories, it's just what happened in his case. If anyone is sitting around waiting for another Nirvana-like fluke to repeat because it happened to Grohl, they're probably going to be disappointed.

Thank you guys for your advice and for that interesting conversation! You both have a really good point in your posts.

Actually, I agree that the melodic side of my music is too complex. My friends have also told me that my music is a bit "too progressive" and hard to follow.

I think Grohl is a good example to me because he expresses himself in a very simple but ingenious way. I am not a big fan of him, but should learn from him.

What i wanto to achive with my music, is that i want to see that there is some kind of "catch" in it. So that if people hear it, they want to come back to it again. Like a GOOD magic trick - after seeing it once, you want to see it again, because there is something special and magical in it. I want to write music for the others, not just for myself. But i don't want to go pop. I would like to stay kind of alternative, a bit dark, but positive and hopeful in the core. And i would like to go live with a band asap (therefore the acoustic drum sounds).

The reason i turn to people and ask for their opinion, is that i don't feel i have that simplicity and catch in my music now. So all the feedback is welcome!

Will try that.. What do you mean by "back off the HPF roll off"?

Dave Grohl has some of the most ridiculous recording credits and true musical talent of any session musician going around. Just take a look at the amount and variety of projects he has worked on... if you think he is a one trick pony, you are mistaken. I didnt say Grohl was a musical standard. The quote was an appropriate one for the topic.

Anyway.

Being reflective and analytical of your music is always a good thing, and it sounds like you know what you want. And there is a very fine art to making someone want to listen to your piece over and over again, certainly an art I am yet to crack! I'm sure your musical desires will change as you develop and you find what is important to you in your music - my main point was if you want to write something with a complex melody, then do it. Keep trying until its working out the way you envision. Try not to settle for something you arent happy with because its too difficult, it will result in an unsatisfactory piece of music. Know that feeling firsthand.

I mean your snare is lacking a bit of presence in the top end - if you have an eq cutting out some of that info, ease off it and let the snare come through. It could possibly just be a balance thing though. I think it would pay for you to reference music thats similar to this, or at the least, the drum sound, and pay attention to the stereo image and what makes a kit sound like its in a room. I've just started to engineer drum sessions, its a very steep curve but getting the image sitting right is a huge part of it, and has me thinking more about my drum arrangements for 'acoustic' style pieces.

Foo Fighters have had a few decent tunes, and I'm not saying Dave Grohl is talentless at all, I'm just saying that had Nirvana not been in the right place at the right time, you would have never heard his name because there are hundreds of thousands of other equally talented artists out there that never (or haven't yet) gotten their break simply because they haven't had "the fluke" that gave them the spotlight. He is extremely fortunate to have gotten his name in lights as a result of his involvement with Nirvana, and he's even more fortunate that Kurt Cobain killed himself, because that is the real kiss of success that ensures a band goes down in history and achieves legendary status. There was a lot of good stuff coming out of Seattle right around the same time. Bands that had WAY more talent than Nirvana's simplistic playing and mumbly lyrics. The mainstream pop audience was getting tired of the existing sounds and their ears needed something different; Nirvana just got lucky in the sense that they were the first of many to reach the ears.

I remember watching the news around the time of Cobain's death, and Grohl and Novoselic being interviewed were talking about how one of the reasons Cobain was so bummed is because he knew they were never going to able to feel the rush they did with Nevermind again and that repeating the success would be impossible.

No shit! hehe..

Anyway my point was not whether Grohl was a good musician or not. My point is that using Nirvana's path to success as some sort of music career roadmap would be foolish, because it's not their refusal to conform that put them on the map. That's all I was really saying.

Back to the OP, it sounds like, as I suspected he does want to reach more ears and make it easier to follow his melody. Sometimes that can be harder than it sounds but there is definitely a sense of accomplishment that comes with knowing others enjoy your craft.