Please Check out this Band

Dufman

Golden Member
Dec 29, 2002
1,949
0
0
This is a very new and young band from indiana pa. They have only been together for 5 months and they already have a few tracks on cd. They have a look that is very important for starting out. Their music is together and the lead singer has a good voice. I think the have a TON of potential. That is why i am decided to be their manager and PR person. I am getting them plugged into the local and regional scene here, and go from there. This is the first band any of them have ever been, so they have a lot of work to do, I am going to help them out a lot.


So, with out any further delay, the release of Lucas Blue.

Track 1
Track 4

Let me know what you think of this band
CONSTRICTIVE CRITISM WELCOME

thank you
 
Mar 22, 2002
10,484
20
81
Everything was fantastic and I was surprised, until the guy started singing. The music kinda jumbled up in the first track, and his voice is not one of a singer. If any of the others can sing - see how they do, because I don't believe that guy is a singer...
 

amcdonald

Diamond Member
Feb 4, 2003
4,012
0
0
The singer is annoying... he should be more concerned with pitch and tone... the voice is just plain weird sometimes.
The music is really immature. in general its too busy or too boring.
This sounds like a band that is 5-months-old.
The singer could be good with voice lessons and more practice/experience writing melodies.
The band needs to get better at writing songs that are fluent and catchy.
 

loup garou

Lifer
Feb 17, 2000
35,132
1
81
I don't think that guy's voice is that bad, but in the first track, it sounds like he's singing to a different song than the band is playing. Just totally off from the music. I didn't subject myself to the other track.
 

murphy55d

Lifer
Dec 26, 2000
11,542
5
81
The vocals are horrible. I don't know how constructive that is, but they just sound awful. :confused:
 

Dufman

Golden Member
Dec 29, 2002
1,949
0
0
i know the vocals are off, it is just the way the tracks were laid. its not a great recording, but they sound much better live
 

nan0bug

Banned
Apr 22, 2003
3,142
0
0
Ok, you asked for constructive criticism, so I'm going to give it to you. Much of it is bad. At 5 months, most of it is going to be, but they need to hear this stuff and work on it BEFORE they put their name out there and start handing out CDs to people. First impressions are EVERYTHING in the music industry, and this isn't a very good first impression at all.



The first song:

The buildup is crap. The tone of the bass, or piano, or whatever that instrument is doesn't mix at all with the distorted lead guitar. It's too slow for the changeup. Moving further into the buildup, the two guitars muddy each other up too much. They're both distorted about the same and its like listening to two people talking at the same tone at the same time, but both trying to say something different. They're both playing lead, when one should be playing rhythm guitar.

The drummer sounds like he cant hold the same beat for more than 4 or 5 repetitions. Too much switching, and hes trying too hard. He needs to learn how to hold a beat and do a switchover. The switchover from the end of the intro into the verse part of the song is seriously BAD.

I agree with the general consensus that the singer isn't good. He's not horrible, but he needs to practice working on his vocal range. He sounds like he wants to stretch his vocal arms out but he's purposely holding himself into a range which simply doesn't sound good at all. He could be a lot better with more practice, possibly a vocal coach. When he DOES go out of his range, you can tell WHY he holds himself back. I don't want to slam the guy, but the higher vocal parts are simply horrible. They're hard to listen to.

He needs to be more consistant with his delivery, he goes from singing loudly to screaming to softly far too often and not in a meaninful way. Tell him to practice doing the 'do re me...." scale in different octaves, and at different levels of volume and duration. He should do this every single day no matter how annoying it is. A good time to practice is in the bathroom during his daily shower/shave/etc routine.



Basic song structure does not exist in this song at all. It's a jumbled mess of just... stuff..

Look, an example of a song goes like this :

Intro > Verse > Pre-Chorus> Chorus > Verse > Pre-Chorus > * Breakdown > * Chorus > Maybe another verse, chorus if you lose the chorus after the breakdown > Outro > end

* interchangable depending on how the song ends. You can lose the prechorus before breakdown or altogether depending on the style of music as well. These are interchangable, but pretty much every song written follows this form or something very similar.

This is what I'm hearing (in this case > notes transition, -- notes bad transition) :

Intro -- Verse > Pre-chorus > Verse -- Prechorus -- can't tell -- can't tell -- Breakdown which sounds like the song should be ending -- outro -- (pre)chorus? -- another outro? > end of song

That might not be accurate, but thats because the song as it stands is just way too hard to follow. A listener should be able to pick these parts apart fairly easily. Even deathmetal has this stuff. The transitions are wierd and sound like they were just thrown in. The outro should be a definate end, short and sweet. Its dragged out way too long. If you want to drag out the song, do it during the breakdown. The chorus should be repeated with only minor variations if any, this song sounds like everything changes throughout the whole song, making it hard to follow.

Basically, a song is supposed to tell a story with music. This story reads like a poorly written x86 assembler language manual.



Second song:

This one starts out a lot better than the first one. The singers voice is still bad, which was expected, but it goes along a lot better with the music at least.

The song structure is much improved from the first. The drop for the breakdown should have come sooner, without that "okay blah blah blah" end to the chorus. If you listen to this song's structure compared to the first ones, you will understand what I am saying about the first.

They have a REALLY BAD HABIT of dragging out the fvcking outro. The outro should stop when the guitars end. What does that part at the end of the song add to what has already been done? absolutely nothing.

Overall I have far fewer complaints about the second song, since it sounds like a lot more went into it. The music sounds much better. The song structure again definately needs work, but it isn't horrible like the first, both things are easy fixes.




Definately work on shortening the songs. They need to tell the story and end it, songs for most bands should be short 'stories', not war and peace sized epics. Leave the epic songs to when they have either a producer with a profound understanding of music theory or someone in the band with a college degree in music.

If you don't mind me asking, who did the actual production and mixing? If they hired someone, they shouldn't hire them again because the producer should have flagged pretty much everything I told you. If they did the production themselves, they should try to find someone getting a degree in production to work on it, they should be able to find someone who will gladly take them on just for the experience.
 

Gyrene

Banned
Jun 6, 2002
2,841
0
0
It sounds like a bunch of two-year olds trying to put together a band. There's no structure to it at all, no talent in the voice, basic musical talent...not a good band.
 

NL5

Diamond Member
Apr 28, 2003
3,287
12
81
Originally posted by: Dufman
i know the vocals are off, it is just the way the tracks were laid. its not a great recording, but they sound much better live


Wow, I sure hope so. I am not one to be negative normally, but, wow! That was pretty terrible.........
 

Dufman

Golden Member
Dec 29, 2002
1,949
0
0
Originally posted by: nan0bug
Ok, you asked for constructive criticism, so I'm going to give it to you. Much of it is bad. At 5 months, most of it is going to be, but they need to hear this stuff and work on it BEFORE they put their name out there and start handing out CDs to people. First impressions are EVERYTHING in the music industry, and this isn't a very good first impression at all.



The first song:

The buildup is crap. The tone of the bass, or piano, or whatever that instrument is doesn't mix at all with the distorted lead guitar. It's too slow for the changeup. Moving further into the buildup, the two guitars muddy each other up too much. They're both distorted about the same and its like listening to two people talking at the same tone at the same time, but both trying to say something different. They're both playing lead, when one should be playing rhythm guitar.

The drummer sounds like he cant hold the same beat for more than 4 or 5 repetitions. Too much switching, and hes trying too hard. He needs to learn how to hold a beat and do a switchover. The switchover from the end of the intro into the verse part of the song is seriously BAD.

I agree with the general consensus that the singer isn't good. He's not horrible, but he needs to practice working on his vocal range. He sounds like he wants to stretch his vocal arms out but he's purposely holding himself into a range which simply doesn't sound good at all. He could be a lot better with more practice, possibly a vocal coach. When he DOES go out of his range, you can tell WHY he holds himself back. I don't want to slam the guy, but the higher vocal parts are simply horrible. They're hard to listen to.

He needs to be more consistant with his delivery, he goes from singing loudly to screaming to softly far too often and not in a meaninful way. Tell him to practice doing the 'do re me...." scale in different octaves, and at different levels of volume and duration. He should do this every single day no matter how annoying it is. A good time to practice is in the bathroom during his daily shower/shave/etc routine.



Basic song structure does not exist in this song at all. It's a jumbled mess of just... stuff..

Look, an example of a song goes like this :

Intro > Verse > Pre-Chorus> Chorus > Verse > Pre-Chorus > * Breakdown > * Chorus > Maybe another verse, chorus if you lose the chorus after the breakdown > Outro > end

* interchangable depending on how the song ends. You can lose the prechorus before breakdown or altogether depending on the style of music as well. These are interchangable, but pretty much every song written follows this form or something very similar.

This is what I'm hearing (in this case > notes transition, -- notes bad transition) :

Intro -- Verse > Pre-chorus > Verse -- Prechorus -- can't tell -- can't tell -- Breakdown which sounds like the song should be ending -- outro -- (pre)chorus? -- another outro? > end of song

That might not be accurate, but thats because the song as it stands is just way too hard to follow. A listener should be able to pick these parts apart fairly easily. Even deathmetal has this stuff. The transitions are wierd and sound like they were just thrown in. The outro should be a definate end, short and sweet. Its dragged out way too long. If you want to drag out the song, do it during the breakdown. The chorus should be repeated with only minor variations if any, this song sounds like everything changes throughout the whole song, making it hard to follow.

Basically, a song is supposed to tell a story with music. This story reads like a poorly written x86 assembler language manual.



Second song:

This one starts out a lot better than the first one. The singers voice is still bad, which was expected, but it goes along a lot better with the music at least.

The song structure is much improved from the first. The drop for the breakdown should have come sooner, without that "okay blah blah blah" end to the chorus. If you listen to this song's structure compared to the first ones, you will understand what I am saying about the first.

They have a REALLY BAD HABIT of dragging out the fvcking outro. The outro should stop when the guitars end. What does that part at the end of the song add to what has already been done? absolutely nothing.

Overall I have far fewer complaints about the second song, since it sounds like a lot more went into it. The music sounds much better. The song structure again definately needs work, but it isn't horrible like the first, both things are easy fixes.




Definately work on shortening the songs. They need to tell the story and end it, songs for most bands should be short 'stories', not war and peace sized epics. Leave the epic songs to when they have either a producer with a profound understanding of music theory or someone in the band with a college degree in music.

If you don't mind me asking, who did the actual production and mixing? If they hired someone, they shouldn't hire them again because the producer should have flagged pretty much everything I told you. If they did the production themselves, they should try to find someone getting a degree in production to work on it, they should be able to find someone who will gladly take them on just for the experience.
thanks for the input...
this was just done in a home recordring studio. that is why it doesnt sound together. they just put this demo so i could hear more of thier stuff. i know they need a lot of work.
 

nan0bug

Banned
Apr 22, 2003
3,142
0
0
Originally posted by: Dufman

thanks for the input...
this was just done in a home recordring studio. that is why it doesnt sound together. they just put this demo so i could hear more of thier stuff. i know they need a lot of work.

The equipent used for recording it has nothing to do with why it doesnt sound 'together', although it may have some effect on why the singers voice sounds off. The first song sounds bad because the songwriting is seriously bad.
 

thomsbrain

Lifer
Dec 4, 2001
18,148
1
0
ok. i read the replies first and thought, "they can't be this bad, why are people being so mean to them?" but i listened, and sure enough, they are that bad. nan0bug was too nice to them. unless this is some kind of andy kaufman-style joke, i seriously suggest you find someone else to manage.

let's put it this way. my band (see sig) played a show last saturday, headlining after 3 other bands. all 3 bands sucked. i hate to be mean, but they just sucked. but the worst of those bands was 100x as good as Lucas Blue. i've heard junior high school bands who sounded better than these guys.

i wish i could single out one element that needs to be changed to fix things, but unfortunately there's nothing that doesn't need to be changed. the drummer must be the whitest mutha on the planet because his rhythm sounds like someone TRYING to sound bad. the guitarist's rhythm is just as bad, although there's a chance he could tighten up with a better drummer. but that wouldn't fix his choice of notes. there's a big difference between a melody and some random notes strung together. the overdubs are not complimentary, nor is their juxtapostion artistically interesting. i couldn't hear if there's a bassist because i was listening on my laptop, but the singer sounds like a retard with duct tape over his mouth, to put it nicely. and again, there's a big difference between a melody and random notes strung together. the production is poor and so is the mix.

my band cut our first EP in our practice space after playing for 3 months, with no recording experience, using borrowed equipment, and a limited time-frame. There's a couple unmastered mp3's on our website that ought to make it clear just how much better lucas blue should be sounding after playing for as long as they have. these kids have a LOT to learn about making music before they're ready to be heard.
 

amcdonald

Diamond Member
Feb 4, 2003
4,012
0
0
hey thomsbrain.. how long has it been since you recorded that new melody song?
I just listened to it, and its not bad. One thing though, the singer is trying to sing to low in the beginning. It sounds like crap. His upper register sounds nice, but the low stuff is nasal and pitchy. Other than that its good.
 

nan0bug

Banned
Apr 22, 2003
3,142
0
0
Originally posted by: thomsbrain
ok. i read the replies first and thought, "they can't be this bad, why are people being so mean to them?" but i listened, and sure enough, they are that bad. nan0bug was too nice to them. unless this is some kind of andy kaufman-style joke, i seriously suggest you find someone else to manage.

let's put it this way. my band (see sig) played a show last saturday, headlining after 3 other bands. all 3 bands sucked. i hate to be mean, but they just sucked. but the worst of those bands was 100x as good as Lucas Blue. i've heard junior high school bands who sounded better than these guys.

i wish i could single out one element that needs to be changed to fix things, but unfortunately there's nothing that doesn't need to be changed. the drummer must be the whitest mutha on the planet because his rhythm sounds like someone TRYING to sound bad. the guitarist's rhythm is just as bad, although there's a chance he could tighten up with a better drummer. but that wouldn't fix his choice of notes. there's a big difference between a melody and some random notes strung together. the overdubs are not complimentary, nor is their juxtapostion artistically interesting. i couldn't hear if there's a bassist because i was listening on my laptop, but the singer sounds like a retard with duct tape over his mouth, to put it nicely. and again, there's a big difference between a melody and random notes strung together. the production is poor and so is the mix.

my band cut our first EP in our practice space after playing for 3 months, with no recording experience, using borrowed equipment, and a limited time-frame. There's a couple unmastered mp3's on our website that ought to make it clear just how much better lucas blue should be sounding after playing for as long as they have. these kids have a LOT to learn about making music before they're ready to be heard.

Your band has good tunes. I like 'A New Melody' a lot.

I guess I did go pretty easy on them, as theres a lot more I could say, but he asked for constructive. They're 'young' he said, so I have faith in them that they could be better. However, I think they should spend a whole lot less time looking for publicity and a whole lot more time practicing, and working on their god-awful songwriting. They would do well to have someone who is in a more well developed band sit down with them during the songwriting process and give them some direction.

I think whoever is writing the songs, at least the riffs, should write them on an acoustic guitar. Good songs are written minimally, then built upon. A good song should be able to stand up on its own two feet acoustically, in some form or another, at least with the style of music they're playing. Hell, even Pantera's 'Walk' sounds good on my acoustic guitar, and that song is all distortion and heavy sh!t. I'm not saying songs shouldn't ever be written on elecrtric guitars with the distortion cranked, but with the level of ability I'm seeing here, the distortion and effects sound like they're being used as a crutch to cover up the sloppy songwriting.

Their drummer could definately use a lot more work. He can hold a beat, but just when he starts holding a good beat, he tries to make it more complex and just screws it all up. Why mess up a good thing? Save the adding-on for practice, preferrably solo practice so he doesn't screw up the rest of the band's ability to play along.

Keeping it simple would go a long way towards making these guys better. And *cough* replacing the singer.
 

drum

Diamond Member
Feb 1, 2003
6,810
4
81
thanks for saving me having to type all of that nan0bug... exactly what i was thinking
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY