Frank,
I've yet to post in a thread of your songs and I've been trying to avoid it. The reason is that I have things I've heard that I think I might be critical about. Mind you, I truely don't wish to be critical for the sake of saying negative things but that when I hear something that has quality elements but that the quality is subverted by other things, I think the negatives are worth mentioning. Please don't look at the following as being mean spirited as that is not my intent.
Before I start, I think it would have some worth to say what it is that makes me feel I might have insight. While I haven't played guitar seriously since '93 (I'm a noodler now), it was since then that I got in to other areas of the music business. Specific to this, I ran a decently distributed small label for a time. In that; I've heard thousands of demos (ugh) of great to mostly terrible stuff, executive produced, engineered, co-mixed and mastered a good few projects. Also, the label had a good number of artists that were once on a major but looking for a smaller label after the dust settled. Ilearned from them too. It went for a few years but like much in the business, money and getting paid is always a challenge. That said, it is this ear that I'm using to listen with. I'm listening to it as if I received a tape. Style never matter to me (although I'm otherwise a fan of good old school rock).
First, I think you have a decent sense of song (more later) and are obviously a very skilled player. I think your lead playing is on par with some great and well known players.
That said, I really think you want to listen to your song with a producers ear. I think anyone that produced their own stuff will think that they are being critical enough but in most cases, just aren't. The reason I start with the producer angle is that you have good songs but I haven't yet heard one that blew me back. Mind you, they are good. Who ever writes a song to just be 'good'?
I may be wrong but I get the sense from the volume of songs that you have an idea, create it and then move to the next song. The thing that leads me to this thought is evident in this song, a number of transitions between sections were definite splices. Not that splicing is bad but that they are evident seems to lead me to believe that once creation is over, the next song becomes the focus and not finessing and honing the one that already exists.
To the song(s) themselves:
Again, the songs are good songs. I want to be very clear on that. They have a number of elements of a good song. There's more though.
For instance with this song. The song hums along and is pleasant. My adrenaline didn't get going though despite a good riff. Two things happened. The riff repeats so much in the songs that by the middle of the song, it loses its punch. I good riff needs to exhale sometimes in order to maintain its punch. If the riff continues to cycle in the song, it becomes background versus being the part that comes ripping in just when you're dying for it. A part of the verse could well have been a less structured riff or a less driving variation of the same riff so that as the song leads to the bridge/chorus, the return of the main riff is a set up for the payoff of the chorus.
I read your bio so I know you have a vast understand of music and all I'm really suggesting it to spend more time building that tension that gets released in the chorus.
I think another element of song tension is tempo and groove. Like this song, it's a straight on the '4's' type of song. Most all the elements seem to stay there. Somewhere along the line, hearing an instrument (the Hammond, perhaps) being a rhythmic counterpoint possibly in a different signature or against the beat. For that matter, employing a riff turn around a la Keith Richards can be a really cool way play against a very simple tempo (Charlie was never flashy...). Sometimes having a riff that sits on top of the tempo before it resolves in to the groove can really pop a good riff.
As for the vocals. Good. I mean, we can't all be Ian Gillan, Robert Plant and David Coverdale (in my case...ever!). However, I don't hear dynamic in the singing. It (you) seems to find a spot and stick with it and doesn't often vary from tone or register. I assume if you've logged a few miles now, that belting out full throttle is not regularly in the cards but I think using lower (and more quiet) registers periodically will also give your mid-range rock voice more dynamic. If possible, a little 'voice stretcher' at the end of a chorus can make for a nifty statement.
As a summary, I think that once you've created the structure like you displayed to us here, you would want to be going back for a deconstruction to figure out where dynamic can be built. Great producers like Bob Rock, Mutt Lange, Glyn Johns etc are so because they are pretty brutal and hold nothing in a song dear and are willing to tear it apart even if that means only one part of the original remains. I think this is why I started with talking about a producers ear.
So, hopefully I haven't created ill feelings with this. The material is always good when I listen to your stuff. If it weren't then I'd be insane for type all this. However, my hope is to give some observations from someone who is not wholly inexperienced in the biz and has worked over some pretty good projects.
For the record:
I think a good example of a band that exploits what I'm thinking (and no one will ever hear on a wide scale) is the link below. It's from '93 and they were signed to a major but the re-do of this never got released. The band's name is Pod, this is stuff the drummer posted. Listen to Roger's Theme, All for Nothin', Freight Train and particularly Infomation.
Pod I hope any of this was helpful.
