=== This is an NGADM Round 3 Review ===
So, of course, your response to everyone saying "omg, Skye, we loved every aspect of your last song, except the melodies, which were just okay," was to double down on the ONE thing that everyone didn't like? I mean, that's a great thing to do outside of the contest as a learning experience, but, uh...
Are you SURE you want to do that in the NGADM?
Yes?
...Okay.
I guess that's why you're SkyeWint who does really insane experimental stuff that people seem to like rather than a typical musician who does really tepid stuff that people seem to yawn about. Your desire to go in the complete opposite direction of what everyone's telling you to do might not win you the NGADM, but it will make you a better musician, and which one is really more important?
I do have to compliment this song at least a little bit, even though I get this suspicious feeling that you're going to skim right over my compliments in search of the negative stuff so that you can write a 5000 page rebuttal or something. Alas, the life of a NGADM judge is so hard, Skye. ;_; Anyways. I like the flamenco guitar section. I especially like the subtle strings that fade in around this point, that was a really nice touch.
I do also generally enjoy the SkyeWint Drums (TM). I'm not exactly sure where you learned how to do drums so well - it seems like you were just born with that ability or something. I think the cymbal crash can get a little harsh at times, but the rest is fine.
Your transitions are also pretty darn good. I mean, not only do you hit all the technical boxes of just making the listener aware that change is coming, but you also do a good job of cleverly coming up with unique ways to do buildup/breakdowns. One of my favorite moments is :58 when we had that cool buildup on the "guitar" which already signified a change pretty well, and then there's a beat of silence before the next section comes in. This is nicely done.
I do consider it to be a shame that you weren't able to dump copious amounts of awesome sound design all over this piece, like you normally do. The really cool transitions, the weird sound effects, the crazy effects - they're all gone, which is kind of a disappointment. (You still have pretty good transitions, though I miss how that used to be an opportunity for you to do crazy sound design stuff.) I get that you were rushed and all, and I understand how that could happen. But I think you should realize that in terms of your strongest abilities, that kind of stuff was always my biggest draw to your music. In their place, we get melodies. So let's talk about melodies.
Long story short, you bet very heavily that your melodies were really good, and I don't think that they are actually good enough to be the focal point of your song. But, knowing you, if I just say that I didn't like your melodies and moved on, you would complain that my reviewing was too subjective. Music judging *is* subjective, though. If you don't like subjectivity, go into formal logic or something. :P
Writing about exactly why a melody is working or not is impossible after a certain point. It's like writing why you think a girl's (or guy's) face is pretty. You could say something like hair color or eye color or symmetry but after I ask "why" in response to what you said 3 times in a row suddenly there's nothing left but subjective appeal.
Since you provided me the MIDI stems to your project, I started reconstructing it in my DAW. This was a fun exercise. In fact, since I was able to assign new instruments, I noticed two things right away:
1. You added grace notes to the notes. I couldn't hear this at all in your song, but it made it sound better when I could hear them. I also understood a lot more of what the melodies were trying to express.
2. Your instrument choice could have been better. The sound design on your leads to me sounded fairly rushed and not particularly expressive. The melodies immediately started sounding better when I chose other instruments for them. Same thing with the chords. I couldn't make out which chords you were using with your choice of chord sound, but when I changed it to something clearer, the chords sounded way better as well, and I could understand why you liked them so much.
I took the first bit of your melody and put some annotations on it to make it easier to talk about. Follow along at home: http://imgur.com/RAt5Zcv
1. Starting off the phrase with a trill makes the whole thing sound a bit awkward and off-kilter. If you listen to good musicians using trills, they almost never use them to start a phrase - for good reason. (Yasunori Mitsuda is one guy who uses trills EVERYWHERE - but see if you can find him ever starting a phrase with a trill.)
I'm not the biggest fan of your main phrase. You know how in most music people will use ABAC patterns, where A is the normal phrase, B is the altered phrase, and C is another altered phrase that leads into the next section? (I'm sure you know what I'm talking about, even if you don't use the same terminology.) The problem with your main phrase is it sounds more like a B section than an A section. That high F that you play sounds like it's trying to contrast to an A phrase that was never introduced.
This is a really common mistake I hear from musicians who are so tired of hearing their own A phrase after looping their song 500 times that they switch it to a B phrase, not realizing that not only is no one else is tired of it, they won't understand what the new phrase is even contrasting to since there all the A phrases have been removed. I'm not sure if that's what happened here, though I could understand if it was.
I hope this makes sense. If it doesn't, just listen to your favorite songs and see if you can spot any ABAC patterns. If you still can't, then ask me on Skype or something, lol.
2. This little descent section is nice. However...
3. Here's where it stops being nice. The callback to the first phrase is unnecessary and sounds awkward. You could probably just not have anything here and just leave the nice descent part all by itself.
5. Not too convinced by this section. It doesn't set up anything. It might have worked by itself, if you had just ended it and made a standalone idea, but...
6. instead you just lead it right into the next section with these little triplets. By this point, the melody has gone on far too long (I consider this bit to start at 4 or perhaps one note later) without expressing anything of interest and starts to sound directionless. Like a run-on sentence.
7. Alright, here's our phrase again. This is fine.
8. This sounds very awkward. The idea of going upward to finish this melody just doesn't work for me.
Here's the next section: http://imgur.com/FR1S3fK
1. There's our theme again, neat.
2. I have no idea what this note is about, and in general I think that section 3 is unnecessary.
4. Aw yeah, this section I actually like. The lead into the next section with almost-but-not-quite triples that quickly go back into normal time is really well done. I also like the little gap before the next section hits.
Next section: http://imgur.com/EpOARpm
1. Again, sounding like a B section contrasting to an A section I never heard.
2. The upward ascent thing here is okay, but I'm not a huge fan.
3. But what I am a big fan of are these descending harmonized little phrases. These are great!
4. (But why didn't you harmonize this one???)
5. A little showy, but fine.
The next section is basically a copy paste of your initial section, except you extended it a little bit and added a minor harmonization with a second channel.
I'm a fan of the section starting around 1:34. This was the one section that caught my attention even in your original song without the instrument switchup I did in my DAW.
Guitar interlude: http://imgur.com/uwAfTsK
1. I like this section.
But after #1, you start a bunch of descents that melodically make no sense. To me it sounds like you had an initial descending melody which did make sense, and then you started adding additional notes to it in order to make it more ornate. Keep in mind: You usually can't make a melody better by adding more notes. It makes it more complicated, but it generally won't make it more interesting. It's like a book using big words instead of small words.
And yes, btw, I did hear the (many) references back to the original theme in this section. I do hear that you put a lot of work into developing your theme and referencing back to it multiple times. That's fine, but in a song development should be the icing on top, not the main meal. I can't make a meal out of icing. :P
All in all, this is a pretty good song. Perhaps it would have been better with your traditional Skye Awesome Stuff (TM), but maybe you're not the kind of musician to keep doing the same thing over and over again, and that's fine.
Score: 8.00