The Wagtunes Corner

[experimental.crow]

i applaud your new efforts ...
i finally have a sense of listening to an artist attempting to ply their craft ...

listening to donks will bear fruit , down the road ...
jon's comments are spot on ; particularly the ' too many ideas for one track ' comment ...
simplicity ...

is there room for improvement ?.. no doubt ...
are your efforts more interesting ?.. yes , definitely ...

[wagtunes]

i applaud your new efforts ...
i finally have a sense of listening to an artist attempting to ply their craft ...

listening to donks will bear fruit , down the road ...
jon's comments are spot on ; particularly the ' too many ideas for one track ' comment ...
simplicity ...

is there room for improvement ?.. no doubt ...
are your efforts more interesting ?.. yes , definitely ...

Thanks. I'll get there. It'll take time.

[Dunbar]

You've really hit upon something here. The vocal style you've adopted works well; it has a touch of Little Richard and a hint of Lemmy, while retaining a fragile quality reminiscent of Neil Young - all together makes for compelling listening.

I suggest you continue the experiment with "complex" arrangements. The song held my interest until the end.

There is a contemporary music genre that, I believe, conforms to your approach to music production; it's referred to as "Hypnagogic pop". I usually resist categorizations, but, on this occasion it feels apt.

[wagtunes]

You've really hit upon something here. The vocal style you've adopted works well; it has a touch of Little Richard and a hint of Lemmy, while retaining a fragile quality reminiscent of Neil Young - all together makes for compelling listening.

I suggest you continue the experiment with "complex" arrangements. The song held my interest until the end.

There is a contemporary music genre that, I believe, conforms to your approach to music production; it's referred to as "Hypnagogic pop". I usually resist categorizations, but, on this occasion it feels apt.

Thanks for the listen and the critique. I was not aware of this "Hypnagogic Pop" but I will definitely look it up and see if I can find some examples to listen to.

In the mean time, I'm going to try to reign things in a little bit so that I'm not so all over the place and disjointed, which I'm sure it probably is a bit at the very least.

[Dunbar]

Personally, I wouldn't describe the song as "disjointed". There's a long tradition of fusing disparate elements within a "pop" format which I feel you've done successfully in that last song. It sounds good to my ears.

As for "Hypnagogic Pop", the chin-strokers monthly music magazine, "The Wire", describes the Hypnagogic genre as "pop music refracted through the memory of a memory." For me, this means our recollection of music is often partial, as are our cultural reference points, which become confused with the passage of time. We remember maybe a song's bass line from from 35, 40 years ago, as clear as day, but, the lyrics are jumbled indistinct until the chorus arrives then we remember everything, for a moment, then it's muddied again; maybe to merge with an entirely different song or news item of the era, maybe the passage from a book or the touch of a loved one.

A song which fits the Hypnogogic mood - a melange of '80s synth pop, half forgotten lyrics, and a memory of an old future - is distilled eloquently by John Maus:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B22EVG7wsMQ

[wagtunes]

Personally, I wouldn't describe the song as "disjointed". There's a long tradition of fusing disparate elements within a "pop" format which I feel you've done successfully in that last song. It sounds good to my ears.

As for "Hypnagogic Pop", the chin-strokers monthly music magazine, "The Wire", describes the Hypnagogic genre as "pop music refracted through the memory of a memory." For me, this means our recollection of music is often partial, as are our cultural reference points, which become confused with the passage of time. We remember maybe a song's bass line from from 35, 40 years ago, as clear as day, but, the lyrics are jumbled indistinct until the chorus arrives then we remember everything, for a moment, then it's muddied again; maybe to merge with an entirely different song or news item of the era, maybe the passage from a book or the touch of a loved one.

A song which fits the Hypnogogic mood - a melange of '80s synth pop, half forgotten lyrics, and a memory of an old future - is distilled eloquently by John Maus:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B22EVG7wsMQ

Very interesting song. See, now my gut tells me that if I did something like this (which I could absolutely do) it would be torn to shreds here. For starters, the vocals are drenched in reverb and you can't understand 90% of the lyrics. The arrangement, outside of the bass line, is kind of all over the place.

Personally, I love it. But I've always loved this kind of stuff. I just never spent the time analyzing it. Now that I am listening to music differently, I hear what you're talking about.

[vurt]

torn to shreds, or questions raised about intent...

either way, if someone did say "too much reverb" you can reply "yes, probably true for (insert track) but i was going for this style"

being able to stand by your artistic choices.

[wagtunes]

torn to shreds, or questions raised about intent...

either way, if someone did say "too much reverb" you can reply "yes, probably true for (insert track) but i was going for this style"

being able to stand by your artistic choices.

The problem is (and you know this is true) many members comment on songs without questioning intent. "Too much reverb", "Too much compression", "Not enough EQ in the mids" and on and on. These are stated as absolutes.

While that used to drive me crazy, now I try to adhere to the "rules" set by others. Otherwise, I would have never made the arrangement changes to my songs suggested by thejonsolo. He said my songs were like driving down a road with no changes in scenery at all. Everything was the same. So, I set out to make things not the same.

I now believe the only way to "improve" is to listen to what others have to say. Otherwise, you just keep doing the same thing over and over and never really get any better.

It's like the guy doing the same job for 25 years. He doesn't really have 25 years of experience. He has 1 year of experience 25 times.

After showing very little improvement after 42 years of songwriting, I'm actually starting to believe that.

So I'm more looking forward to the criticisms than the compliments.

That is the only way I'm going to improve.

[JonSolo]

Ok just to be clear, I did not necessary mean that your song was disjointed. I was commenting more to the fact that many listeners may feel jarred by a change, and that CAN MAKE our songs seem disjointed.

Here is a good litmus test to help describe what I was talking about:

Load a song and click in various places. Hop around the song. With the above John Maus example, when you hop around the song, clicking at various points along the timeline, you know that you are still listening to the same song, even if someone else did it with you blindfolded. The tonal center remains fairly consistent even if there are instrument changes.

I think you basically achieved the same result as above. One difference with yours was a dynamic introduction to a new section (as described in my style breakdown) which felt jarring several times. Honestly I went a little extreme, just to get the (desired) result in your conclusion. Again, a tremendous effort on your part. I know what your musical goals are, and the steps you are making are definitely drawing your closer to them.

Footnote: of course there is the reverse effect where you could skip around all the songs you write, and no matter which song you are on, it sounds the same. That is a FAR WORSE outcome than what you have achieved with your variety in one song alone. So kudos, heh.

[wagtunes]

Ok just to be clear, I did not necessary mean that your song was disjointed. I was commenting more to the fact that many listeners may feel jarred by a change, and that CAN MAKE our songs seem disjointed.

Here is a good litmus test to help describe what I was talking about:

Load a song and click in various places. Hop around the song. With the above John Maus example, when you hop around the song, clicking at various points along the timeline, you know that you are still listening to the same song, even if someone else did it with you blindfolded. The tonal center remains fairly consistent even if there are instrument changes.

I think you basically achieved the same result as above. One difference with yours was a dynamic introduction to a new section (as described in my style breakdown) which felt jarring several times. Honestly I went a little extreme, just to get the (desired) result in your conclusion. Again, a tremendous effort on your part. I know what your musical goals are, and the steps you are making are definitely drawing your closer to them.

Footnote: of course there is the reverse effect where you could skip around all the songs you write, and no matter which song you are on, it sounds the same. That is a FAR WORSE outcome than what you have achieved with your variety in one song alone. So kudos, heh.

I understand Jon. The whole process is a balancing act. And the more moving parts there are to a song, the harder that balancing act becomes.

I just watched Rick Beato's "What Makes This Song Great" on Kansas' "Carry On Wayward Son." When he broke that whole song down, I never realized how much was going on it it. And yet, everything fits together so well. That is real talent and, at least for now, something I can only dream of attaining, if ever.

If I tried doing something in that style, I can't even imagine how bad it would sound. And that's not even counting the gymnastics with some of the played parts. Of course Kansas was one of my favorite bands growing up. Hell, I was already in my early 20s by the time they hit the scene. But I'd only been making music myself for about a year, if that.

The good news is, I now understand what I'm shooting for. I'm hearing arrangements a lot clearer than ever before. In short, I get it. How well I pull this off from here on in will depend on two things. How hard I work and how much talent I actually have to tap into.

Hopefully, an abundance of one will overcome a lack of the other.

[JonSolo]

Yes, what a great video, I was literally just watching it too. He never says what makes it great...he just has to play out each part and it becomes obvious, ha!

[wagtunes]

Yes, what a great video, I was literally just watching it too. He never says what makes it great...he just has to play out each part and it becomes obvious, ha!

I think if I were to deconstruct songs like that, it would help me a lot with arranging. Certainly worth a shot.

[Dunbar]

The problem is (and you know this is true) many members comment on songs without questioning intent.

The advice you've received, generally, is intended to help you reach the aim you expressed in your first post. A lot of the advice is sound, it's well worth heeding; but...

Maybe you need a side project, "Wagnoise" or something, where you can cut loose; create sonic mayhem. De-construct your own songs until they're barely recognisable, then stitch them together again; create new forms, new idioms. The resulting mess doesn't have to be ugly, necessarily.

As for reverb drenched unintelligible lyrics, I still can't understand a word from this song after 30 years of listening, and it's a lovely noise.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mbgWjujwvwo

[wagtunes]

The problem is (and you know this is true) many members comment on songs without questioning intent.

The advice you've received, generally, is intended to help you reach the aim you expressed in your first post. A lot of the advice is sound, it's well worth heeding; but...

Maybe you need a side project, "Wagnoise" or something, where you can cut loose; create sonic mayhem. De-construct your own songs until they're barely recognisable, then stitch them together again; create new forms, new idioms. The resulting mess doesn't have to be ugly, necessarily.

As for reverb drenched unintelligible lyrics, I still can't understand a word from this song after 30 years of listening, and it's a lovely noise.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mbgWjujwvwo

Well, you can barely tell there are vocals in it at all. I got 3 words. Shine, at a few parts. But I think the vocals are used more as another instrument than a traditional vocal.

The song is amazing. The arrangement, the stereo imaging, the whole thing. The way it moves and shifts and stuff, well, what can I say? That was unlike anything I've heard before. I take it sometime in the 80s. It has a bit of a shoegazing feel but even beyond that.

[Frantz]

I love the title "I Only Smile When it Hurts." Great observation that smiling and wincing in pain are such similar expressions.

Very memorable song. I am enjoying the extra effort you are putting into your music. Your passion and commitment shines right through. The arrangement was very varied but it still hung together for me. Exciting times in Wagworld!