You Don't Need Eyes [Alternative Progressive Math Pop]


PDA

View Full Version : You Don't Need Eyes [Alternative Progressive Math Pop]


asliamfalls
10-11-2010, 06:42 PM
Don't normally post my stuff on here but I'd really like some critique on this piece

Me and my band are going to start work on this next practise and I'd just like help in knowing if everything sounds alright and stuff.

C4C and all that

mishax92
10-11-2010, 06:53 PM
Overall a really nice piece, although there was one bit where just the one guitar did these pull offs to open strings that really sounded a bit off, but apart from that quite nice.

From a writing point of view you should have just kept those 5/4 - 7/4 bars as 4/4 due to the groupings not indicating the stated time sigs, but it doesn't really matter too much.

Just one question though, why class it as progressive or math in any way? Time sig changes that you used are relatively simple and often unnecessary or seemingly forced, but if you want to keep that in your supposed genre thats up to you. I just didnt really think it was prog or math whatsoever.

But other than that, I'd say top job, really nice piece of work :)

slayerfrk
10-11-2010, 07:37 PM
i cant say anything more then i loved it, there wasnt really anything wrong with this piece at all

huevos
10-12-2010, 01:34 AM
The beginning motif was a bit drawn out, but it does really set the tone for the following riffs.
And the leads that are interspersed in that section are quite nice (then again, this goes for the entire song as well).

I thought when you broke the 1st motif with 5/4, 7/4 riff, it worked quite well. Even if said riff was cut a bit short, the preceding riff eased me.
Bar 74 is what I'm talking about. Good stuff right there. Rhythm, lead work, and transitioning.
All done very masterfully.

92 is alright. I do realize it's about the set-up here again.

And I'm glad you deliver at bar 104. You have a tight tension-release scheme that clicks very well.

Bar 120 was pleasant, to say the least. A powerful chorus type of riff.
136 was a good play off the previous riff and the intro.

I'm glad to see the chorus again at 151.

167. I could go on and on again about your powers of reservation and knowing when to pull certain songwriting strings, but it would be just that. A repetition of what you should already know.

Last 2 sections were nice, but a bit confounding. 191 could have ended it perfectly, but the continuation does work.
The ending of the last section is abrupt, yet suitable. My perception was that the song would continue for another 8 or so bars. Then, SLAM!.
It's done.

I wouldn't edit this song however. It's good as it is, with all the pieces fitting quite snuggly.

What mishax92 said about the time sigs is correct, but sometimes I find it easier using time sigs in non-standard ways, at least for songwriting.
The genre placement thing is more a taste issue. I didn't see much math or prog in the piece either. However, it really doesn't matter, as good songwriting should be 1st and foremost above conforming to genre conventions.
Especially when you get songs like this.

C4C?
http://www.ultimate-guitar.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1367316