Better faster or slower?

rfrey · Post by **rfrey** » Sat Dec 20, 2008 5:15 am

Hi Cam,I'll chime in here. I like the original version the best. Of course, like some others here, I listened to that first so it probably created a bit of a bias towards that one. I've found that my ears are sensitive to change in recordings. For example, when I go to iTunes to get some of my old favorites, I can tell when an artist has re-recorded the song and even though it may be very similar to the original recording I can tell and its not the same experience for me. Great tune!

cameron · Post by **cameron** » Sat Dec 20, 2008 5:54 am

Dec 20, 2008, 7:00am, matthoggard wrote:Cam,The 5% faster is definately the better sounding and feeling version.BUT (im glad your a 1000 miles from me now so you cant throw something at me)I think I understand now what your reviews were saying about phrasing. In the middle verseThere is alot of space between lines and it feels like the singer is stumbling into the chorus.Towards the end of the song it starts to gel and really has some flow.I dont think the demo singer pulled this one off very well. He actually sounds uninterested in the tune. I dont feel any real emotion from his delivery. The production itself seems to be lacking some spice or something. I dont know if this is a pitch ready tune just yet. As usual your lyric and story are excellent. (again, it sounds like a Cam Earnshaw tune) Youve got yourself a bona fide style my friend. I dont feel that the demo performance all around was as good as it couldve been. After your other tunes "Same Shirt" and "Am I wrong" this one just isnt up to your own personal high bar. Not songwriting wise, just in production. The singer just doesnt sound like hes haveing fun and this is a fun song.Ill expect a shoe or glass being thrown my way some time. Just My opinion.M~Matt,Thanks for the input and for your kind words. I know just what you mean about the demo though. I've felt that it's missing a little something but I haven't been able to figure out exactly what. I thought it was chorus lift, and I asked them to raise the bg vocals and bring up some of the fills, what you hear now is the "after" version.The singer was sick the day before this was recorded, so maybe he was not feeling 100% when he sang this. Then again, maybe he just thought the song sucked?? I think he's perfect for the song ( I asked for a young Merle Haggard-type voice) but I also hear that there is some emotion missing in places. In his defense though, my phrasing at the end of each verse and beginning of the chorus was awkward to start with-- I sent them several lyric changes at the last minute trying to fix this-- and I thought he did a damn good job here considering what I gave him to work with.I kind of like the song, but to me it needs a little spice.Cam

cameron · Post by **cameron** » Sat Dec 20, 2008 6:05 am

Jamie, Vince, Bill and Rich - Thanks for the feedback guys. So far we're about evenly split 4 to 3 in favor of the original (slower) version. Being the chicken that I am I'll probably go with the middle version. It gets the length down by 5 or 6 seconds too.Cam

jeep · Post by **jeep** » Sat Dec 20, 2008 6:22 am

I like the faster version ...One of my cowriters did the same thing on our last song sounds so much better...Dave

teleblaster · Post by **teleblaster** » Sat Dec 20, 2008 8:12 am

I listended to the slow then fast 1st and preferred the slower version. Agreed that the singer didn't 'nail' this track, but that said I I think the guy has great pipes; wish I could sing like that. To my ears the vox pop a little too much on the track, they could come back a db or 2, and maybe just a touch more of something smeary ('verb, delay, body eq) to get them to sit back in the mix a bit more -- could just be me listening on my laptop speaks though...Overall this is a killer track IMO. Some great country lyrics...'we were off like a prom dress', that one had me stop, think and grin...cheers!

heinsite · Post by **heinsite** » Sat Dec 20, 2008 9:20 am

hey cam--i could't tell that you just literally "sped" it up...and though the differences are subtle, damn you man, throwing the 3.5 in there--THAT IS THE ONE i like the most, and do believe it is because the first versioin drags a bit, but in the last one, it brings up the lyrics/vocal just enough to have an effect--personally, since this is gunna be SOLD to somebody else, i think with the 3.5 "you're done" accomplished yes the length thing a bit, and adds to the tempo/and the elusive hard to describe "feel" IMHO...all the best,now send the damn thing in

cameron · Post by **cameron** » Sat Dec 20, 2008 11:03 am

Thanks Warren, yeah I thought the 3.5 was about right too. Just enough to where it doesn't feel like it's dragging without losing the groove.I just wonder if any of us will be able to sell songs with the major labels tanking. Pretty soon there will be twenty guys on your street each making their own indie album, and none of them will sell more than fifty copies.Cam

aldicicco · Post by **aldicicco** » Sat Dec 20, 2008 1:33 pm

Hi Cameron,I listened to both and have to vote for the 5% version.Given that this tune is from the perspective of a young guy, I think the extra energy helps the overall song and message.I noticed the difference. Slight, but a difference nonetheless.Best wishes,Al

kitz · Post by **kitz** » Sat Dec 20, 2008 3:37 pm

Cam, I like the 5.0% tempo but I do not like what it does to the sound. frown. You probably noticed the transient noise in the intro guitar, keys and dobro. Doesn't seem to effect the vocal but the guitar is definitely impacted. IMO the quality of the original is far better than what this program does to the sound. Are you planning on having it rercorded at the new tempo? The song is great and fun to listen to, I love the vox, I think he did a great job, but I'd stick to the original 'til you can figure out how to get the noise out of the faster versions. Maybe a setting in the software will ease out the noise.Kitz

heinsite · Post by **heinsite** » Sat Dec 20, 2008 6:53 pm

hey cam, yeah, the 3.5 might be it, i didn't hear the noise kitz mentioned, and usually i hear everything on these cans....so make sure to check it out....and yeah, i hear you on the label things, but believe more that the formula of the day/week/month or 6 will rule from here on out....and as far as the 50 copies on the street corner, hell, isn't that kinda happening already? my actual fear (well, maybe not a "fear..." LOL) but concern, is that what the hell will i be listening to in 10/20 years if i'm lucky to be around? everything's so transcient and "fast" and hell, maybe that's why i'm writing really--so i can LIKE something when i get old--even if it's me, you guys and classical!! take care,all the best,warren

Better faster or slower?

Re: Better faster or slower?

Re: Better faster or slower?

Re: Better faster or slower?

Re: Better faster or slower?

Re: Better faster or slower?

Re: Better faster or slower?

Re: Better faster or slower?

Re: Better faster or slower?

Re: Better faster or slower?

Re: Better faster or slower?

Who is online