Read on for Round 4 reviews from Jim of Seattle:
“Water Fox” was one of the pieces of Madi’s painted around the time I started believing my admiration for her work was more than just Dad Bias. The textures, composition, narrative, rendering and attention to detail all worked together to make me think “How in the world did we create a person capable of this?”. Allow me to take a moment here to “review” it.
First off, her ability at lines is really on display here. Check out all those elegant curves – on the fish, the water droplets, the fur. I also love the composition; where the fox sits in the frame, a little left of center, giving it a tension and movement it wouldn’t have if he were right in the middle, which marries to his active posture in an exciting way. The fish jumping over the head is an inspired idea that provides a balance of humor and hope among the otherwise grim image, and the third fish in the lower left is easy to dismiss but adds a ton to the narrative. I like the difference between the fox’s eyes and the fish’s -- the fox has an inner spirit, but the fish are rendered without any. That keeps it from feeling a little too grisly. Lastly, Madi does lots and lots and lots of animals, but this is the only one she’s ever done where the fur is wet.
It was a real honor to be able to listen to this collection of songs written about a favorite painting by my own daughter. Not many people ever get this particular joy, and I really want to say a most very sincere thank you to everyone who helped me have this experience. This is a big deal, and I’ll never forget it. Thank you again.
THE BLUE RIBBONS OF COOLNESS
These were my top favorite individual tiny moments of the round. They have nothing to do with my rankings at all. I’m calling them out specifically because I think they deserve attention on their own. These were little moments I rewound to and either hummed in admiration, or maybe just turned my head a bit, made an O between my thumb and middle finger and raised it near my head. You know the moments I’m talking about. The “shut up, I love this part” moments.
In this round, they were, in no particular order:
Vehicles of Beware – the entire last 25 seconds of the song.
Sober – the last few bars of the short solo between the chorus and the next verse (0:51)
This Big Old Endless Sky – The vocal harmonies from 1:42-1:55. Good god that’s great. Also the wicked break from 0:42-0:55.
CELESTIAL DRIFT
This is one of those where I have to actively set aside genre bias and try and meet it on its own terms. I’ll get the aesthetics out of the way first. I’ve never really gone in for this style of rock, the kind of driving one note one chord sound, I’m more wired for chords and tunes. This kind of song just makes me tired.
The lyrics are so much fun here. I especially love the verse about the snout routing out trout. And I think the chorus lyrics are just so cool. “Fox is going fishing in a psychedelic sea” is fun to sing. The verse about the ripples in his fur is less successful, I see a lot of good images there, just the actual words chosen could use some tightening.
I found the vocal performance lacking in groove a bit. All the lyrics are hit on the beat, and I kept expecting (hoping) to hear a little syncopation in there, most noticeably in the verse. As a random example, “fish in his mouth” I might have tried hitting ‘mouth’ an 8th earlier, so ‘his’ is only an eighth not a quarter.
Everything is really well-produced and played. Can’t say I quote-unquote ‘enjoy’ this one, but if I were into this style I’d think it was great.
VEHICLES OF BEWARE
Like your other entries, the production on this is release-ready. So skilled. I like the super dry non-auto-tuned double tracked lead vocal. Rings like a bell. Those little off-pitch rubs between the takes actually sound really nice. Madi loves loves loves this one, btw.
The transition into the bridge (Will you take my soul river spirit) is really slick, and I love how you changed up the arrangement there. The cymbal crashes don’t work for me, they seem a little on the nose, and it also sounds like the vocals just had the gain turned up to compete with the them. I get the instinct to up the energy there, but it doesn’t seem like it was the right solution. I don’t know what I would have done instead, but that sticks out a bit. (I just tried it with that whole loud part cut entirely, so it goes from the end of the verse at ‘singularity’ straight into the ooh ooh before the rocking-out break. I like that better, fwiw.)
That rocking out part works so well, and the whispering is effective. That could have gone on a lot longer. “We didn’t see it coming” is an exciting playout, and I wanted it to repeat over and over. I was reminded of an obscure favorite of mine, if you wanna look it up, check out “Free Huey” by the Boo Radleys, where the rocking playout is cool enough to repeat forever. And of course “There There” by Radiohead, another favorite that uses the same effect.
This is the kind of song that makes me want to be a producer. I’d buy a CD by this band.
KITSUNE
This is great. All the elements are done well, and I especially like the attention to detail in the arrangement and production. Bringing in the reverb-y BG vocals on “down by the river” is magical. I like the koto, and it is certainly appropriate given the song’s reference to the Japanese fox spirit and all, I wish it had been spelled out without being explained in the notes, and that there was a little more Japanese-ness to it. Changing woodcutter to something more Kurosawa might be enough, as one example.
The interesting melodic choice with that tritone in there is really interesting and makes the verse memorable, but sorry to say, the vocalist doesn’t hit it well enough, and misses enough other moments to affect the song. The voice is left to struggle all alone and could use some sort of doubling, whether vocal or instrumental. Kind of a shame, as it pulls the otherwise wonderful song down a bit. Your gift for melody is apparent in all the entries, but I wish you would own the vocal limitation and either write around it, supply some musical support, or auto-tune, something. The songs are too good to not.
This is a really cool interpretation of the painting, and actually sounds like the song came first and the painting was based on it rather than the other way around. It feels like all those shades of blue made it into the song, and the fox does kind of look like a spirit.
I also really like how it tells a clear story. I would have written something different musically for the verse which starts “lure of curiosity”. This is the big moment in the story, but musically is treated like everything else, just kind of comes and goes over the course of yet another verse. He frickin’ lost her forever to the river spirit for Pete sake! Musically, I would make a much bigger deal out of that. The chops are clearly there. That climactic tragic moment needs to be scored.
Anyway, great entry! Good luck in the final tally, gonna be a close one.
(P.S. Simple syllabic fix: “followed” instead of “traced”, adds that needed syllable, and “traced” isn’t a pretty sound anyway.)
GOVERNING DYNAMICS
The production and arrangement here are consistently fresh and interesting. The snare syncopation is fun, and the fuzz guitar coming in when it does is a good idea.
Where this song suffers for me is that the song itself seems to ramble melodically in places, and the verse, chorus and bridge all have similar energy. The chorus kind of continues in the same vein of what came before, and I can barely tell it’s a chorus.
Combined with this, the lyrics don’t make much sense to me, so all in all the song kind of comes across as a basic indie rock vibe but nothing stands out to me. From right at the beginning, those first four lines don’t convey anything. “Sunlight shot through the shadows”, ok, but then “Hidden lives on a ledge”, and I can’t marry that to the sunlight line, but still, ok. Then we’re suddenly in first person “I’m like ink in the ocean”, now I’m getting really confused, and “a blur at the edges” doesn’t help. So right away I’m lost lyrically, and my ears go elsewhere, but then there’s not much going on melodically or harmonically to engage me. I guess I just sort of “don’t get it”. Reading through the rest of the lyrics doesn’t clarify anything, just kind of a string of phrases to my ears.
JOY SITLER
Ha! What fun. I love how literally the painting was interpreted. That’s pretty much just the kind of lyric I would have written too.
I hear that an attempt was made, but I don’t think the fox and fish voices sound different enough. I was confused at first till I got it. A different singer entirely perhaps, or a key change that would put the vocal in a lower register, or something. (With two singers it could turn into a duet kind of thing with counterpoint and all if you wanted to go there.)
All your vocal performances have that flat, pushing-too-hard sound that I don’t like, but that’s your sound I realize. Hard for me to get past it. I do appreciate that the delivery is “acted” rather than just sung, but honestly, the sound of the actual vocal chords, flat and open, anticipating the beat and often sharp, rubs me the wrong way. In this instance, the shouting at the line “trying to survive” works great, but that one just squeaks by because it’s the right lyric for that technique.
Anyway, so I’m trying to hear this apart from that particular dislike, and what stands out is how I could understand that the song is about some animal hunting in a river and a fish meeting his fate, even without looking at the painting, love that.
Like with Gravel Road, I think attention could be paid to details in the lyrics.
“A little fish in a big pond” - That’s a well-known phrase which means something other than an actual fish in an actual pond. By using that phrase, a listener will automatically conjure up the typical metaphoric meaning, and since it’s right at the beginning, we don’t yet know it’s about a real fish in a real pond. The size of the fish and the size of the pond don’t contribute to the story anyway, so I’d change that to something that most people aren’t going to misinterpret right off the bat.
Don’t mean to rewrite, apologies, but how about making the line “Your red eyes gaze at my soul as you clench your jaw”? “I don’t even know what you are” is a kind of cool line, but doesn’t have anything to do with the jaw, so not as powerful. Putting eyes and jaw together is much more visceral and better organized. Also the fox’s eyes can’t gaze at his soul once the fish is in his mouth. Nitpick of course, but that’s what I mean about details.
“That’s just the climate” - I don’t understand that line. Our attention has been captured by the narrative, and tossing in obscure lines like that threaten to break the spell. Better to keep it visual.
Not any real issues with the fox part, but I wish it had some of the gruesome specifics that the fish verse has.
Since you came clean about the melody and chords, I’m reluctant to comment, but I thought recognized that chromatically rising bass line from Throwing a Party so was surprised to learn V of B wrote it.
Anyway, nice one. I’m a sucker for that back beat snare too.
JEALOUS BROTHER
There’s nothing objectionable about this one, it’s performed to a tee like all the JB songs are. Such a professional smooth sound, sounds pretty perfect, and played so great.
Unfortunately the song itself is pretty forgettable for me. I don’t really understand the lyrics, and neither the tune or chords is particularly interesting. There’s too little to grab onto, so the band sounds like it’s on auto-pilot with not a lot to do.
A 3-chord song is fine if there’s a really catchy tune or story or whatever, and an abstract lyric is fine if it’s just a placeholder for interesting music, but have them both in the same song, a 3-chorder with a pedestrian tune and abstract lyrics, and there’s nothing to make me go “ooh”, it just kind of walks along.
HOT PINK HALO
I could hear Chrissy Hynde selling this song really well. This is nice and catchy and I enjoyed it every time it came up. A little detail I really dig is in the chorus is the note on the word ‘look’, the A on the G chord. The line ending in ‘different view’ goes on an extra few beats and that kind of takes the air out of it for me though. I find myself wanting to hear the catchy tune under those first two lines a second time, and I think you’re leaving some goodness on the table by not treating us to that again until the next chorus.
I also wish the instrumentation was different between the verse/bridge and the chorus. I want something new to come in there, a new instrument or vocal harmonies, something different from before.
But nice job. After hearing “Mark, Run” I think your talents are artier than this one, but you do you.
SOBER
Well, this is my first time judging Spintunes, so I’m wondering if it’s legal to put this as a write-in vote. I think this song is almost perfect. It lands exactly where it seems you've been aiming all along. All your entries sounded like they were trying to be this one.
I’m not going to go into detail about anything because it’s just right as it is. I do want to call out that little moment in a solo right at 0:51, where the soloist repeatedly hits that leading tone just before “If I were a bird”. That made me chuckle every time.
I like the long lines and the attention to syllables and all that. The only bit I have trouble with is the last two lines, I’m not sure I understand them, and it kind of loses the coming-back-as-an-animal theme, I wanted to hear what it was about a swift and cunning animal that you wanted to be.
I like the “life springs from this clay” bit, because the song makes perfect musical sense without that at all, just going straight from “that’s ok” into “Please send me”, but that line stuck in there makes it specialer.
I like how the chorus and verse are completely different in note length and vocal register. It makes it so much easier to follow, and the lyrics mirror it. That’s a bugaboo I have with so many songs, and here’s an example of why that’s a good technique.
Good job. One of the best I’ve heard from you in a long time.
THIS BIG OLD ENDLESS SKY
Oh man, this is really fantastic. Big fan of this song. When I (usually) hate this kind of sound, it’s because the songs don’t do what this one does. It’s got a cool idea that the lyrics carry through. I don’t get all of them but they’re just atmospheric, so I don’t care.
I especially love the instrumental break from 0:42-0:54. Damn, that’s some exciting stuff right there. There’s that screamy syncopated guitar riff over the top, and the drums going double time….
I love how the groove changes subtly from the beginning, as it gets a little bigger and more upbeat. If it started at that level it couldn’t sustain it, and if it stayed where it started, it wouldn’t be as much fun.
And then we get this new bridge thing at “I can get what I want”, not really necessary, but takes it into yet newer territory, works great, and the way that bridge slides back into the chorus is nice.
Man, those harmonies on “rain” at 1:40 are really effective. Like I said, it built us up to that moment. Anyone reading this, go listen at 0:20 for a few seconds, then jump to about 1:22, and then to 1:45, and each bit is subtly, intentionally just different enough to keep it interesting. I have a new appreciation for this sound. Thanks. Really love it.
On a personal note, I should say that listening to the TBOES offerings has really changed my mind about that angry loud noisy sound some bands have. “Electioneering” and “2+2=5” are two of my favorite Radiohead songs after all, and with these last two Endless Sky entries, I now have a good understand of when and why that sound can really work (and when it doesn’t). Thanks for opening my ears!
I’ve learned a ton as a judge for ST24.
I always struggle with my own music making, and truth be told, I’m more than a little envious of those who don’t seem to be as crippled by it as I am. Late in the game I have come to have a little epiphany about Spintunes, and Song Fight and the like as well, which I’d like to share.
I’ve come to realize I hold music to unusually high standards, both for myself and everyone else. I think I’ve been so seduced by the highs I have experienced as a listener of music (and composer too) that I find it very hard to relax when any music is happening. I can’t just sway and clap and get into it like seemingly everyone else. It’s like my finger is in a light socket when I hear music I like and I sort of short circuit.
With that realization in mind, I just want to say that I’m truly regretful if I hurt feelings over the course of this competition. I was mostly in the wrong, and I’m really sorry. In my short circuited state I get irrational. Hearing music I’m not liking almost enrages me in a way I think most others don’t experience. Combine that with the illusion of anonymity the internet provides, and, well…
I hold myself to these high standards with my own work too, which makes it so torturous to produce anything. I truly envy those who can be in a place where halfway decent music comes so easily. I’ve never been that way. Once I’m in the mindset I can write very quickly, but I usually have this stupid high bar set for myself. And I never remember that everyone else isn’t this way. Which is of course ridiculous.
A few days ago I suddenly had this vision of a dinner party where instead of playing Pictionary, the people play Spintunes. I think that’s the vibe I never really got. I’m being way too serious about this. But hey, I never play live either, the very idea terrifies me. I think I just can’t relax around music for whatever reason. It’s weird. It sounds like a lot of fun for everyone.
I’ve submitted a modest little cover which kills several birds. It’s the first piece of music I’ve written in about six months (omg), it’s the first piece written with my shiny new digital piano, and most importantly, I tried to write it with a new mindset, to catch myself when I could hear that strict inner voice insisting I do more. Lastly, it’s an olive branch.
With regard to my assertion that music is for the audience, I’ve gotten some pushback on that, and I think it’s because there is a misunderstanding of my meaning. I wrote a Substack article a while back which speaks of my feelings about what I think music is. Below is the upshot. I use the word ‘art’ here because I think the concept applies to all arts, but I’m primarily talking about music:
The piece itself is not the art. If it were, no one would have a problem with AI doing it for us. It’s the transaction between artist and audience that is the art; the exchange of an awareness of some ineffable aspects of life, often more accurately expressed through indirect means. A piece of art that moves us does so in a more profound way than the even real experiences can. The feelings evoked are not the same, but run in parallel to the real thing.
“I saw a movie about a murder. It was beautiful.” (How nice!) vs
“I saw a murder. It was beautiful.” (You what?)
The physical or audio artifact is merely a means by which this transaction is accomplished. Certainly, the quality of that transaction depends in part on the artist’s mastery of craft, but it is also in an awareness and respect for both sides of the exchange — their own and their audience’s. And in turn, the audience is gifting their time and attention to the artist in hopes for their expression to resonate with them in some way, to communicate some of those ineffable, parallel feelings.
If someone does not respond to a piece of music, it’s not that the music is bad, it’s that the music is ineffective. It is ineffective at producing this transaction. No ineffable aspects of life are being transferred. The audience held up to its end of the bargain but was not compensated with that hoped-for exchange. While it is the audience’s responsibility to attempt to meet the artist where they are coming from, it is also the responsibility of the artist to attempt to anticipate how their audience will react - how this exchange can best take place.
Screaming “I love you” at the top of the lungs is not effective, for example, if the goal is to endear oneself to the beloved. They might love the other person so much they feel like screaming it, but they consider the audience and decide it would be better to say it softly so that the message is more appropriately received.
Anyway, there’s more in the article, but that’s the gist.
No comments:
Post a Comment