Hopefully Better

Posted: Mon Oct 06, 2008 8:44 pm

Ladies and Gentlemen, prepare your mute buttons.
The latest failure has arrived.

This is "Here I Am To Worship".
Processing:
EQ, and a multiband compressor on the high/low end. No wideband compression.
The recording went over as well,

Personally I think the vocals are too quiet, and the drums could use more bottom end. The drummer doesn't play with sticks so the tone is naturally different.

Mainly how are the drums (balance of the kit) sounding, and the lead guitar?

Ignore the backing guitar (somewhere to the left). It sounds terrible and the tone control on the guitar doesn't work - on top of that the signal/noise ratio is poor.

Cheers.

Posted: Mon Oct 06, 2008 9:53 pm

Here I am to critique.
This owns your last recording that you posted.
Sounds like a real band. Smile

Buy a metronome and tape it to the guitarists head. He seems to be leading, even though the drums are mostly on it.

This sounds so much better than before, you're doing something right. Smile

Rock on.

Posted: Tue Oct 07, 2008 4:34 am

This is a nice improvement in your other post. Smile

Dropping the loud guitar in the middle/left may work instead of raising the vocals. The drums are also lost in the mix. What I can hear of the drums sounds better than the last mix you posted.

Harmony, and correct pitches would have been nice. The flute could be doing something different than playing the melody.

Keep on trucking.

FYI: Online posting doesn't fall under the CCLI license.

Posted: Tue Oct 07, 2008 7:13 am

"FYI: Online posting doesn't fall under the CCLI license."
Does it not? **** (looking into this whole licensing aspect now)
Cursed paperwork being 20 years behind the Internet revolution...this could be the last from me then.

The flautist is normally more 'harmonic', but we usually run through songs more than once, which lets people work on things. That night was just flowing too well to fart around Laughing

Great to know it's tightened up though, thanks for your time guys.

Posted: Tue Oct 07, 2008 10:34 am

In may be different if you aren't in the US, but 1.2.b of the CCLI license agreement.

Quote:

b. The quantity of copies duplicated per worship service pursuant to 1.1.e may not exceed 15% of the Church Size, and the Church may recover up to $4.00 (US), $5.00 (CAN) per audio tape or CD and $12.00 (US), $15.00 (CAN), per video tape or DVD for copies duplicated up to the 15% limitation without additional payment to CCLI.

So you can make copies for up to 15% of your church body if it is recorded during the service. If you want to make more copies, then you need to pay mechanical royalties to the copyright holder. It's $0.091 per song if it is less than 5 minutes.

(Can you tell I've had to deal with this Smile

)

Posted: Tue Oct 07, 2008 10:00 pm

Reading up on this makes me want to shoot something.
I hate copyright. Sure, gotta make a buck, but this licensing is a load of nonsense.

What's worse is, while I think we have a PRS license from CCLi, we do more than 6 gigs a year, as of recently.
Means we become a concert venue and thus I think we have to get a license from PRS directly.

I'm going on dodgy info though, PRS has a rotten website.

This topic sponsored by: