Regrets of Tomorrow (NOT METAL!) C4C [gp5/midi]
View Full Version : Regrets of Tomorrow (NOT METAL!) C4C [gp5/midi]
07-18-2009, 08:37 PM
Hey guys. I've been sitting on this song for a while and finally decided to put it up on UG for crits. Anything at all is helpful. I'll C4C, by the way (if you missed it in the title).
EDIT: uploaded gp4 version.
07-18-2009, 11:59 PM
It's a refreshing break to hear a song without any distorted guitars.
Intro is nice, if not a little generic sounding.
The lead guitar is a nice touch that brings in a new feel
Intro B is good and flows into the verse nicely
The dissonance between the lead and rhythm guitars in the chorus bothered me. The lead really didn't fit very well IMO
The solo had some good ideas, but some of the rhythmic patterns in the lead could use a little more variation.
Overall, the song is pretty generic sounding...the chord progression, for example is very common and you used it for basically the entire song. The bass was also done with no creativity, just root notes all the way through.
I think the best way to fix this song would be to have a chorus that is totally different from the verses in terms of chord changes. It has a nice feel to it and I like that, but it never really went anywhere. It was a very stagnant piece of music.
Anyways, that's my crit. Would you mind taking a look at one of my songs? http://www.ultimate-guitar.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1162976
Edit: You can't just write "really pretty sounding" and expect a crit back. Detailed crits or gtfo
07-19-2009, 12:30 AM
I see what ^ means about generic sounding..
sounds like a blink 182 song..
but still really pretty sounding :)
07-19-2009, 12:40 AM
would also appreciate some Critic on this
07-19-2009, 01:00 PM
I think StewieSwan pretty much nailed everything dead on.
A couple things though anyway.
First, I don't think calling a song generic qualifies as negative criticism. Yes, it is generic, but generic songs are the ones "non musicians" will like and remember, they're the songs that end up on the radio and what not. The real question is, were you aiming for listener friendly pop rock? If you were, then you've got a pretty good song. However, if that's not what you were going for then you've got a good deal of work ahead of you.
The chorus was the biggest thing that needs work. As Stewie said, it's best not to use the exact same progression you've got for your verses. The lead guitar was also hitting a lot of off notes. Some of them actually sounded cool, but for the most part it sounded a little out of place.
The solo also needs work. It started off well enough, but then it kind of went from solo, to melody. The phrasing at times is a little iffy, and you make almost no use of the techniques found in almost all solos like bends, slides, vibrato, legato.
As for the bass, well it wasn't creative, but it was appropriate to the style of music. I wouldn't alter it a ton, but just slight touches like walking it up or down to the next chord can really make a big difference. Throwing in a riff just before a section change can really add a lot too, but for the most part I would keep it hammering on that root.
07-19-2009, 01:15 PM
It sound very pretty and I think you did a good work, but I have to agree with icronic and StewieSwan.
Work some more on the solo and the chorus, other than that I have nothing else to add.
Please C4C my song if you can
07-19-2009, 01:55 PM
Intro was a bit boring, but fine. Lead was pretty cool. The drums were annoying. Intro B was way better. Chorus was pretty nice. Solo was ok, not too special, but the rhythm was nice. The lead guitar is way too low in the solo. On the whole nice, but not too special.
My songs are in my sig, crit please?
07-20-2009, 11:54 PM
you can be the next Blink 182 with this, eventhough the solo didnt fit that much and didnt liked how you changed the rythmic pattterns inside the verse
vBulletin v3.0.9, Copyright ©2000-2016, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.