so as some of you know I'm a musician. I've recently starting working on acoustic stuff, and I wanted to share a bit of it. so, like, click here if you want.

I followed your advice.

Song is okay. Music is a bit simple, but not in a Byrds kind of way.

yeah part of getting a bachelors of music is getting bored of overly wanky compositions, so I tend to stay away from that. it's got some harmonically interesting stuff going on at points (the chorus has a tritone sub which sets up a distant modulation in the bridge, for instance) but it's not really supposed to be particularly complex.

I like hate how most of Karlheinz Stockhausen's stuff sounds like literal cats in heat eating baby flesh out of garbage cans.

I like the sort of clunky acoustic that's later broken up by the power chords or whatever.

Not a big fan of the singing tbh.

Now invent a time machine to send this back to your parents.

(I'm talking about the lyrics and singing, the music was fine)

I dig your composition. Simpler songs rule.

Vocals are mixed a bit high though. If I were at the helm I'd mix them lower and add a bit of reverb.

the theorist in me is insisting that I point out that they're not power chords, they're triads, but the composer in me says thanks.


yeah, the mixing was done by a friend of mine who's also a vocalist, so between the two of us it's not surprising they came out a bit hot. thanks though. we might be redoing it at some point (he'd like to get a double on the bridge, and I kinda want to redo the bridge anyway, I think I can do it better.) so while we're poking around at it again we might tweak that. you're also not the first person to suggest a bit more reverb.

no you unfriended me a while back

Ko said it was because of Terrence Bone

Sounded good overall, despite the lyrics making me want to brutally bludgeon non-children human beings . There were a few jarring parts where it seemed the lyrics unintentionally...collided?...or disassociated?...with the instrumentals?...

I don't know from poetry...I just hear things ok...

art!

I listened to it three times to see if there was any hidden meaning...so either I'm dense or your boast above is thoroughly accurate . I was tempted to link this thread into the Hugo awards discussion sucka!

as I mentioned in that thread, I tend to feel that any individual's interpretation of art is equally valid, so what you hear is totally a fair thing to hear. I also tend to feel that art is about emotional reaction, and if you had one then the art worked, whether it was a good one or a bad one.

sorry it was a bad one though.

It wasn't necessarily a bad reaction. It was just a feeling. Things seem to even out. The song may inspire some to kill children, and inspire others to kill those who kill children. While I feel one may be wrong (and I so hate saying this)...that may not be the case.

Feel so dirty even entertaining the idea....blah...anyways...sounds good, hate the words...art achieved ...but is it the art you want out there?

yeah I don't see that as a real concern. while there is scholarly evidence of a causation between violent media and violent behavior (see, for instance, this meta-analysis) the results are, to quote that study, "modest". (to be perfectly clear, they said "modest but significant", but in a scientific context "significant" doesn't mean what it means in colloquial speech. it just means "above baseline random noise".) and for adults, the effects are largely short-term: they have their mental patterns and such in place and you can't disrupt them with a simple poke like that. also, generally, violent imagery is more powerful than violent words, because your brain dedicates more of its processing power to vision. further, the song isn't actually, as far as I can tell, all that violent. there's no real explicitly described violent acts beyond the title. it's not like, say, Cake and Sodomy by Marilyn Manson, which I was gonna quote for examples but holy **** you do not want me to quote that song. look up the lyrics (or better yet, listen to it) if you want a point of comparison.

anyway, it's certainly possible that the song is inappropriate for children. children are most susceptible to programming, after all. but the world is already full of material that's inappropriate for children, so I'm willing to put that filtration responsibility on parents. it's not like it's making any attempt to hide the theme.

also, no, we can disagree about the value and interpretation of art but I'm pretty sure no one here is going to argue against the claim that actually for real killing children is utterly immoral and deplorable. you don't have to hedge on that stance, everyone agrees.

Pretty good.

I'm glad I listened to it, but I don't think I'd want to listen to it repeatedly and recreationally, if you get what I mean.

thanks

I found it entertaining.
I liked both the vocals, and the acoustic, parts but they seem to conflict when they are put together. The way it was sung sounds like it should be in a metal song; not acoustic.

Nothing was wrong with it, but I think some tweaks could be made to one part or the other in order to make it better.