Let me know what you think of this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UOY2yigs ... y2IVVgGOM=

You should add vocals on it cause in my opinion, nothing really makes it a good & special instrumental..

Is that an Ibanez RG1570?

Music was annoyingly mallcorish. I hate those long pinch harmonics in the end of a bar, and the Meshuggah-esque rhythms were not cool. There was one Immortal-esque riff which I did like, but it didn't develop enough; it fell flat despite the good chords. The song would definitely benefit from vocals. My opinion would be higher-pitched screams in the black metal fashion with the occasional lows like on Bethlehem debut. Definitely no DiSalvo style crap or hardcore screams.

Pinch harmonics... yikes, it must have been pretty painful to sit through 4 pinch harmonics. You wouldn't want to be saturated by the terrible "Mallcore" music that "ruins" the music of today!

How is this song even related to hardcore? Yes, if you didn't realize it the reason why they put the suffix "core" at the end of a genre's name is because it is associated with hardcore. This sounds nothing like hardcore. You're an idiot.

Thank you for the actual review that followed the first "Im trying to look elitist by calling everything mallcore" stereotypical comment. I would have actually taken the following paragraph into consideration if your opinion wasn't already a waste of my time after hearing that.

Meshuggah-esque rhythms... Okay, so now if you don't palm mute notes on the lowest string your riff is "Meshuggah-esque"? It sounds nothing like Meshuggah. Im beginning to question whether or not you have actually heard a Meshuggah song before or if you just heard another "Elitist" faggot comment that on someone else's song and you figured it would boost your self esteem. Stop trying to make yourself feel better, if your going to use my post as leverage for your fetal attempt at fitting into the community then don't post at all.

Dude, you asked for an opinion. If you're too narcissistic to take criticism, refrain from asking for feedback altogether. I gave my opinion, which you asked for. You should thank me for even bothering to listen to your song, not call me an idiot for finding it repulsive for the most part and finding similarities with mallcore and Meshuggah.

Not every thing I pointed out was inherently related. Let's dig further in to the myriad of moronic fallacies in your post:

Pinch harmonics are an sich totally fine, but as I said, their usage here was not pleasant to my ears at all. This part of my critique was quite unrelated to my finding the song annoyingly mallcorish.

I made little reference to hardcore other than that I mentioned hardcore screams not suiting music as opposed to, for example, higher-pitched screams. Your asinine strawman argument is uncalled for. I have trouble understanding what degree of cognitive dissonance it takes to interpret my post in any other way in that regard.

As for what I referred to as Meshuggah-style rhythms was indeed not limited to palm-muting of low powerchords or individual notes; after all, what is the relation between rhythm and palm-mutes? Apparently you made the connection perfectly fine considering that you knew I was referring to the chiefly palm-muted part, so I doubt there is any problem other than your lack of ability to take criticism. I did not like the rhythm in that part, and while a good riff in that rhythm would've still sounded good, the one in this song didn't. The passage was, due to the lack of riffing substance, entirely driven by the rhythm, which I found annoying.

That leaves little other grounds for my being an elitist faggot than my not enjoying your song. Well, whatever. I don't care. My taste is my taste, and according to it, your song sucked apart from one riff which was halfway good (and with some more effort, it could've been great).

Relax dickwad. He was just telling you the aspects of the song that he didn't like.
I pretty much agree with everything he said but don't let that bother you. You're a talented guitarist.

Given the direction the conversation has taken, I no longer feel pressured to respond only with helpful, detailed feedback.

I don't like it. Mostly just because it's boring. Perhaps that will change if vocals are added. Some parts are genuinely cool, I think, and I can picture some nice vocal lines being put over them. The levels are a bit weird -- I find the drums too loud, and the lead guitar way too loud. Also, nothing about this really gives me a "self-destruction" vibe, but that's a minimal point. But yeah, I mean, it's perfectly fine, and you seem to be a perfectly fine guitarist. But with songs like this, I just can't find the artistic purpose!

[/quote]

Relax dickwad. He was just telling you the aspects of the song that he didn't like.
I pretty much agree with everything he said but don't let that bother you. You're a talented guitarist.[/quote]

Yeah, I'm just not used to posting here. I guess I have to accept that no matter what I post, it will probably get butchered (unless its black metal). I'm kidding about the black metal part, i love Immortal. But I wasn't really trying to sound ignorant. Just tired. I guess its better for someone to judge your music the harshest, right? Because then I will always be able to improve. Thanks for the feedback guys.

The song was made for vocals, so all your points make sense. Well they do either way, because feedback is feedback. And I just name the songs to name them, I don't give it a whole lot of thought. I would rather name it "Self Destruction", then "Song 1".

Way too much open string chugging for my taste. It may sound "heavy" but it's just monotone and boring. Slayer already did that with Raining Blood in 1986 with better result

The solo sounded both good and completely random/directionless at the same time.

Aside from the mentioned Immortal-like riffs it was all basically just E-string chugging all the time.
So my tip would be to make riffs that starts out on a different fret.
Move up like two frets and start riffing from there. You will most probably make something more interesting because you can not only play higher notes but also lower.
Also you need to think more about where you have your fingers, rather that just... well, play like you do now. It's very simple and I've heard it countless of times before.
Make something more interesting, basically.

Other than that, tight performance. Not my kind of genre.

I really enjoyed it,keep up the good work!

What about Pantera? Didn't they also do that 10 years later? Didn't they get different results?

I know what you mean, but I don't think I have to invent a new genre every time I write a song.

That being said, the song is fairly rhythm based. There is little melody. And it isn't technical whatsoever.

I just don't see how changing the key every riff or so will make it more original. And I don't see the point of working outside of my comfort zone as far as "boundaries" go with the whole chugging factor. I could revisit the song and add more layers, or changing up the key like you mentioned. But it will still involve palm muting (sadly). And riffs might still involve chugging.

turned it off at :24 seconds. not worth spending my time to listen. I'm ashamed I actually paused Selling New York to take a clear listen.

If its a waste of time then why did you take the time to comment?...

An analogy: A friend of mine wants to throw a party for all our pals so we can bond and have a good time. However, my friend is a dummy, and fails to get alcohol or food, etc. etc. It's a bad party. Seeing that it's not worth my time, I decide to leave. Nonetheless, I feel compelled to call my friend later that night (or perhaps even confront him before I leave) in order to tell him that the party was a waste of time, in order to communicate to him that he should do things differently in the future if he wants people to enjoy his parties.

Quite simply, some X's being a waste of time does not entail in any way that communicating X's time-wasting nature is also a waste of time. We may think that religious sermons are wastes of time, but that won't render us irrational or internally inconsistent for commenting on their being wastes of time.

Or this: People may coherently have a conversation or debate about what sorts of things are wastes of time. This conversation may be perfectly coherent and rational. Perhaps it helps them come to agreements about how to spend their time together in the future, or about what sorts of things to invite each other to do. The only way in which the conversation would become incoherent or irrational as such is if one of them earnestly claimed, and argued, that having such conversations was itself a waste of time: This speaker would, I think, be confused. The others need not be.

An analogy: A friend of mine wants to throw a party for all our pals so we can bond and have a good time. However, my friend is a dummy, and fails to get alcohol or food, etc. etc. It's a bad party. Seeing that it's not worth my time, I decide to leave. Nonetheless, I feel compelled to call my friend later that night (or perhaps even confront him before I leave) in order to tell him that the party was a waste of time, in order to communicate to him that he should do things differently in the future if he wants people to enjoy his parties.

Quite simply, some X's being a waste of time does not entail in any way that communicating X's time-wasting nature is also a waste of time. We may think that religious sermons are wastes of time, but that won't render us irrational or internally inconsistent for commenting on their being wastes of time.

Or this: People may coherently have a conversation or debate about what sorts of things are wastes of time. This conversation may be perfectly coherent and rational. Perhaps it helps them come to agreements about how to spend their time together in the future, or about what sorts of things to invite each other to do. The only way in which the conversation would become incoherent or irrational as such is if one of them earnestly claimed, and argued, that having such conversations was itself a waste of time: This speaker would, I think, be confused. The others need not be.[/quote]

An analogy:

A friend of mine throws a party so we can all bond and have a great time. But before the party has a chance to initiate, I decide to leave upon my own premature judgement. My self glorification has caused my mind to be preconditioned into automatically dismissing other things. It gives me a sense of gratification. If I can negate things early on, then I can thrive on the negative first impression that I create for myself. This allows me to build up self esteem that was stunted early on in my life. The more I do this, the more I can convince myself that I am smarter then others, and this will get me closer to defeating the problems planted in my mind at an early age.

But, a friend at the party is also looking for a way into this endorphin release. If he can attack from the sidelines, he may also be able to get the satisfaction that he feels he "rightfully deserves". He gets this feeling from projecting himself as higher on the pecking order. His brain has finally realized that intelligence is more powerful then physical power, and if he can portray his target as inferior because of this, he will also get a piece of the carcass. He does this by typing out long messages, using a thesaurus, and spending A LOT of time proof reading. This person is you.

But back to the first paragraph, that friend left early on. But he realized the next day that the party was great. I guess it sucks to be a prejudice bitch, right? Either that, or the friend will say that the party sucked either way. This way he doesn't look weak, and he can still trick himself into getting the alpha male position that his life was founded on in the first place.

The other friend, who used this as an opportunity to strike, will either attempt to establish his "intelligence" by throwing another party. Or he will resort to a simpler solution, like swearing or taking one part of the party and making it seem worse then it really was. I mean, this is what he has done his whole life, right?

But most likely he will act like he never went to the party. He will ignore it and find his carcass to feed off of on a different thread.

That chuggy riff was one I heard a million times therefore i judged there was nothing more to hear. the intro was mediocre the chuggy riff was uninspired and boring. That along with the other comments here saying they didn't enjoy it. I didn't want to listen to the rest.

how about this for an analogy for why it's a waste of time:

you get a gallon of bad milk... after the first sip you can smell and taste that it is quite rank... Do you drink the rest of the gallon to make sure you are right? Afterwards I would contact the store for a refund. I can't ask for a refund of my time from you, so the next best thing I can say is that you, in fact, wasted my time. Me telling you this wasn't a waste of my time but listening to the rest of that song would have been.


Stop taking shit to heart cause you are going to have a very hard time dealing with anyone who you come across that doesn't like what you do. Obviously from this thread... you will meet quite a lot of them.

Haha, ah, interesting. I admire the dragging out of the analogy, but it's getting a bit strained (which presumably was part of your goal in mocking me). Now, for the record, it's just silly to suggest that I am using a thesaurus or "spending A LOT of time proof reading" here. MA is not really where I get my argumentative fixes, although I am a generally argumentative person, in the sense that I value carefulness and accuracy regarding opinions on contentious topics. I don't really have anything against you except that (1) your song didn't interest me (which is fine -- mine wouldn't interest you), and (2) you're being needlessly and embarrassingly belligerent about the feedback you're receiving. It's totally coherent for someone to find your thing a waste of time, but to want to tell you that this is what they thought! That's all. So don't draw inferences where no such inferences are warranted. That's all.

And SLK may indeed be wrong, having formed an opinion perhaps prematurely -- perhaps the first part of your song was drastically different from the remaining parts in relevant ways. Or he could employ inductive reasoning to infer that it's a waste of time on the basis that, most often, things exhibiting qualities observable in that first fragment are, by and large, wastes of time -- or at least sufficiently often to make a cost/benefit analysis recommend not listening to the remainder.

Now, that aside. My poor little analogy has been contorted into an awful series of mixed metaphors and general confusions. But man, you can criticize me all you want for the way in which I present myself verbally, but you can't (rationally) deny the logic of my observations. It's just sad: You're frustrated about people being judgmental toward you, but you're being extremely judgmental toward me, although I've been a relatively tame conversant here, although the analogy probably came off as unduly pretentious. A stylistic faux pas. But I'm not some idiotic chump angrily sitting behind his computer struggling to find ~cool~ and ~fancy~ language with which to express his mediocre and confused ideas. As it turns out, that character probably much more closely resembles you. I'm just taking breaks from my work to check on the archives, and, being in a persistently analytic mood, partly due to the nature of my work, deciding to approach the discussions here in an occasionally analytic way. It's mostly just for fun, or mild amusement, a distraction, whatever -- so stop fucking embarrassing yourself.

The song doesn't have any melody, and it isn't technical. That leaves you with rhythm, harmony, and songwriting/structure to make it interesting. Let's dissect.

The song sections follow an ABAB pattern before going into a bridge. The bridge is variations on the themes in the A parts, with a solo that ends out over the B section. (Why did you record video for the rhythm during the solo... fucking boring and lame decision). After the bridge, you end the song with a new riff (very similar to the A section).

Structurally, this is completely ineffective. You introduce ideas, riff on them, and then end the song without returning to any of the original ideas to tie it up. There is no theme or motif that makes this a cohesive song.

The only part that has harmony is the B section, which is also the most interesting part of the song, as it is the only section that actually has musical movement and tension/resolution. The rest of the song is static harmonically, which isn't a problem if the riffs themselves are interesting...

Speaking of the riffs. They're boring. They aren't melodic, so the note choice isn't interesting. The rhythms are incredibly generic, which isn't necessarily a bad thing as long as you aren't riding the entire song on their ability to hold your interest. The riffs all (with the exception of the B part of the song) have the same basic pacing and rhythm. There is nothing interesting or worthwhile here.



Man, your song effectively has two parts. "Chuggy and boring" and "basic chord progression (with bonus bad solo)." You need to work outside of your comfort zone because your comfort zone isn't much bigger than your bedroom. The song is about as interesting as a painting that only has one color and texture.

Here is your assignment, to be completed promptly and turned in for credit:

1) Write a song that follows ABABCAB structure. You may use a separate introduction and exit, but you don't have to. 'A' will be a verse, 'B' a chorus, 'C' a bridge. This is important because you need to master the basics of songwriting before trying to be original. ABABCAB is a tried-and-true proven method to write great songs with, allowing you to focus your efforts on making the parts themselves good.

2) For each of the parts, you must use a chord progression. The chord progressions must be different. For part C, you must use a different key. If you do not know how to make a chord progression, then learn. The easy chord progressions to use are i-vi-vii and i-iv-v.

3) For each of the above parts, you must have a focal point that is interesting. This can either be a rhythm or melody. If the melody is interesting, the rhythm can be simple. If the rhythm is interesting, the melody can be simple.

This is songwriting 101 shit here. Doesn't have to be a great song, but you need to master basics like structure, harmony, and melody before writing 'songs'.

These long involved comments are getting hard to keep up with... but I will try, I think i would learn more from someone who is angry and critical like you, then someone who just says "good song". So for that, thank you.

This is my song structure:

ABCCDABCDC(A variation)EF(A variation of E with a solo)G(a variation of D with a lead) and then its E without the lead part.

so its goes like this: ABCCDABCDCEFG

With the last C being a variation, and F being a variation.

The only parts that don't repeat are: none. All of them repeat, either with a lead or with different drums. The only thing I didn't do is repeat the chorus at the end (because that will make my song much more original!).

So you want me to write a song that goes ABABCAB? You want me to take a few steps back? I don't get what your trying to do.

Damnit, enough with the "melody" comments. Just because this song isn't melodic doesn't mean I have an inability to write melodies. If I made this song melodic it would completely change the feeling of the song. Stop telling me to learn how to write melodies. The only thing I didn't do is change the key for "Part C" as you called it. In my particular instance this is riffs C, E, and F.

I can't tell if your trying to help me or if this was a joke. But you are genuinely trying to help me then I will stop responding with "embarrassing" replies. I only do it because everyone here seems to act "superior" for whatever reason. I haven't had one negative reply on every other site ive posted on. Its not bad though, Im just not used to it.

It was very contradictory, I get that. But I'm 15, and I don't usually get a chance to argue like this. And it is for fun, or mild amusement, a distraction, whatever. But if your going to comment on my thread like this then I at least would like to comeback with something. Or else its boring. I would rather see what happens if I reply like that rather then letting it go, right? Because its the internet and its O.K to take chances. That's why I don't care if I "fucking embarrass myself" while I struggle to find "cool" and "fancy" words or whatever you were trying to grasp at. Grasp (is that cool and fancy enough? How high does that value on the cool and fancy scale? (Value. How about that one? (One. Is that up there?))) Haha, don't take that part seriously. All I'm trying to say is that there must have been some point in your life that you were just learning.

But anyways, this is a music thread... So yeah. But I don't mind talking like this, it gives me something to do. At least now I have a reason to procrastinate my homework, right?

I'm actually thinking about hanging out on these forums. I feel like I could learn a lot more. I would also like to hear your music.

Now your comment didn't come across as smart, or even pretentious. Just displaying your ignorance once more:(

Im sorry dude:

http://www.reddit.com/r/Metal/comments/ ... ove_metal/

http://www.ultimate-guitar.com/forum/sh ... ?t=1531139

You can also checkout the youtube comments.

That being said, obviously the milk wasn't too sour to begin with. I guess your tastebuds didn't react well to it. (and thats ok, they don't have too. They don't seem to with anyone else on this forum either)

So maybe you should think before you continue to draw conclusions.

I'm not taking it to heart, I'm simply responding. Now if you guys have any musical worth (which I'm not saying you don't) then maybe instead I could learn from this. But as of now I'm simply responding to your posts. Thank you.

it doesn't show my ignorance. it shows my displeasure for it. you didn't understand the analogy and clearly can't comprehend much. I'm not going to check out a bunch of comments at places I don't frequent about your derpy song. I don't care. If you weren't taking it to heart you wouldn't have put that much effort into responding. It's just sad. I'll probably go on and put you on ignore now cause though it's hilarious... you are very butthurt and quite incapable of taking any criticism.

Sure, or you could just ignore this post. Im not going to respond if you stop commenting on my thread.

No, I'm sorry, that is not the structure of your song. A different riff does not a new segment make. Your song is grouped into the structure I noted because those parts have homogeneous sound and feel. They aren't the same exact part, but they aren't distinct rhythmically, melodically, or harmonically and are therefore the same 'segment'.



Perhaps not more original, but certainly better. Hey, you know what else is super effective but also really common? End the song with 2 repetition of the chorus, the latter of which has a keychange one whole step higher than original.



Yes, I do. I want you to take a few steps forward, because your current song structure sucks, and you also didn't do any of the other things I recommended.



If you can't write a melody that maintains the feel you're going for, then yes, you do need to learn how to write melodies.



It's mostly trying to help, thus the criticism and the suggestions rather than the simple "Shitty" appraisal that I'd have given it otherwise.

FWIW, the posters that have been criticizing you are indeed superior in terms of musical ability and output. You're 15. Swallow your ego and expect that there will be a lot of people that are more talented than you are. Do not act like you know your shit and are above criticism, because you aren't. Which is fine, because no one is, and a humble attitude towards your own work is the only way to truly improve.

Listen to Kreator's song Enemy of God. Very heavily rhythmic guitar playing that incorporates a chord progression and interesting rhythms and pacings that makes the whole song great. The structure is pretty generic, but its very effective because the structure is just a means to deliver the excellent and interesting riffs. There's even a good bit of melody, without altering the feel of the song.

Listen to Lamb of God's song As the Palaces Burn. While I don't like the band that much, the song is an excellent example of how to use heavily rhythmic guitars without being boring, by varying the pacing, rhythms, etc...

I love Kreator.

But now I see what you mean by structure.

What does FWIW mean?

I kind of have the feeling im going for, Im just not sure how to make this song more melodic. (i dont even care about this song at this point, im not going to reupload it)

If I had started with a humble attitude then we wouldn't have had to waste our time with those long in depth messages.

I think that added vocals could certainly give it a little bit more feeling and melody, also it could breakup some of the riffs a little bit and take away repetition (I don't know a single vocalist though).

The only comments that make me butt hurt are the ones that are like: THIS SONG SUCKS... ITS SO BAD THAT I HAD TO TURN IT OFF AND SHOOT MYSELF IN THE FOOT... YOUR A TERRIBLE PERSON AND I HOPE YOU GET BEATEN TO DEATH WITH A HAMMER...

Because that certainly isn't intended to do anything but make me angry.

I dont know why im hitting the enter key after everything I say.

This thread reads like YouTube comments, cease the immature arguments or you will be fired into the sun.

Refine your posting like your music. If you come up with a bad riff, you can either forget about it, or you can work on it until it's something you would be proud to share. If you write a bad post, you can either delete it, or make it better before you share it with others. If an album has ten bad songs and one good one, the bad ones will be remembered. You can figure out how to judge the quality of your own posts. This doesn't mean that you can't tell someone you don't like something.

Matt, your advice is great and well-directed as always, thanks.

This is something important to learn as a musician: you are going to get negative responses. You aren't going to convince anyone of the quality of your music by arguing about it, your critics have mostly made up their minds and you can figure out that most of them aren't going to be constructive. You're not going to please everyone. Consider the general population, then the small subset who like heavy music, then the subset of those who like metal, those who like the style you're doing. Of that very small target audience, not all of them are going to like your music. The majority of people aren't going to like your music, some people are nice and will say something nice, some will say it's awful. Figure out who you are hearing back from, judge the quality of their comment (i.e. mattp's feedback vs. everyone else's feedback here), then consider the validity of it, and what it can do for you. Your words to defend your music does not make your music better.

I would say a keychange LOWER because that is quite uncommon. Iron Maiden did it really well with The Clairovant!

Yes! See, this is a great example of taking a very common convention "Final chorus + keychange up" and altering it slightly to great effect.

Thanks.



I will try this as well.



Thanks for the tips!

I think I will eliminate the the last riff and outro, and instead just repeat the chorus twice, the second time with a key change (I will try higher and lower, to see which has the best effect for this song).

I will still probably not like the song even after these "song writing 101" stuff but I will give it another listen.
But that is because the bland riffs