Comments on: Flowing with the waves…now with thunder http://seastars2007.wordpress.com/2007/11/04/flowing-with-the-wavesnow-with-thunder/ A collaborative music album. By two Singaporeans who discovered GarageBand. Wed, 02 Dec 2009 15:13:38 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 By: lekowala http://seastars2007.wordpress.com/2007/11/04/flowing-with-the-wavesnow-with-thunder/#comment-210 lekowala Sun, 04 Nov 2007 14:32:45 +0000 http://seastars2007.wordpress.com/2007/11/04/flowing-with-the-wavesnow-with-thunder/#comment-210 Alrighty!!! Thanks for the point by point analysis. It took me awhile to do the acoustic leads. I used the looping thing in GarageBand and did about 20 overtakes and finally settled on one that I liked the most cos there was some gliding guitar fingering that came about by accident. The sound was smooth so decided to put that in. Gee, time to work on the other song/s. We are about there for the number of songs. Alrighty!!! Thanks for the point by point analysis. It took me awhile to do the acoustic leads. I used the looping thing in GarageBand and did about 20 overtakes and finally settled on one that I liked the most cos there was some gliding guitar fingering that came about by accident. The sound was smooth so decided to put that in. Gee, time to work on the other song/s. We are about there for the number of songs.

]]> By: Ivan Chew http://seastars2007.wordpress.com/2007/11/04/flowing-with-the-wavesnow-with-thunder/#comment-209 Ivan Chew Sun, 04 Nov 2007 12:39:50 +0000 http://seastars2007.wordpress.com/2007/11/04/flowing-with-the-wavesnow-with-thunder/#comment-209 Hi Adrian, I listened to both versions. Comments & suggestions (final call is yours!): 1) Both version worked for me! As if they told the same story but approached it in a different way. This acoustic lead version builds to a crescendo. The original version starts with a deep thoughtful sense of power. Final verdict (after listening to both versions) -- I'd choose this version (v1.2) over the first. 2) Good idea with the Thunder effect. But seemed overused and dilutes its impact. It should come in later, and used sparingly. How about coming in only around the 45 sec mark. Then louder, at the 1"40 min mark. Then final one at around 2"10 min, when the lead fades out. 3) I'd try raising the volume of the lead, just a tad. 4) Heard some synth effect at the beginning. Nice touch! Keep that!!! 5) I like the ending with the acoustic guitar. Less abrupt than the original. But notice the acoustic lead stopped abruptly at the 3"00 min mark. Do a fade out instead. 7) Also do fade out with the waves & crickets (from 3"00 min to 3" 07 min, there's plenty of time to do a nice gradual fade). OVERALL VERDICT: I like!!! Hi Adrian, I listened to both versions. Comments & suggestions (final call is yours!):

1) Both version worked for me! As if they told the same story but approached it in a different way. This acoustic lead version builds to a crescendo. The original version starts with a deep thoughtful sense of power. Final verdict (after listening to both versions) — I’d choose this version (v1.2) over the first.

2) Good idea with the Thunder effect. But seemed overused and dilutes its impact. It should come in later, and used sparingly. How about coming in only around the 45 sec mark. Then louder, at the 1″40 min mark. Then final one at around 2″10 min, when the lead fades out.

3) I’d try raising the volume of the lead, just a tad.

4) Heard some synth effect at the beginning. Nice touch! Keep that!!!

5) I like the ending with the acoustic guitar. Less abrupt than the original. But notice the acoustic lead stopped abruptly at the 3″00 min mark. Do a fade out instead.

7) Also do fade out with the waves & crickets (from 3″00 min to 3″ 07 min, there’s plenty of time to do a nice gradual fade).

OVERALL VERDICT: I like!!!

]]>