John (Don't know his last name) at OK Cupid said I could put lyrics up here in case someone wanted to try to come up with music to go with them.
I guess this is being offered as an Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives license. I don't want my lyrics altered, unless I am consulted and agree to any changes.
I had an idea for a tune that I could share if someone wanted to play with that as well, but the tune would need a bit of work to be interesting.
Best Wishes,
Sheryl
<b>Online Dating</b>
Seeking a suitor at your computer,
One girl is smarter, another is cuter.
One guy is kinder, another is wiser;
One's a big spender, another's a miser.
One is a thinker, another's a looker.
One girl's so sleazy you'd think she's a hooker.
Chorus:
It’s online dating,
The newest form of mating.
The easy way to find a spouse.
Don’t even need to leave your house.
Just type a bit and click your mouse
To find the perfect match.
So many choices and so many faces.
So many people in so many places,
(Yet) John's too persistent, Bob's inconsistent,
Dave doesn't shave, and Danny's too distant.
(And) then there is Eric who's way too generic.
(Still), anyone's better than Daniel or Derek.
Chorus
So you dissect, reduce and compare them,
Rip them to shreds, torment them and scare them,
Rank them and rate them, tease them and bait them,
Drag them through hell, then don't even date them.
(From) Gary to Larry, from Barbara to Alice,
So many people, you start to grow callous.
Chorus
Some people like you, some people hate you
Some are just happy if they can debate you.
Some will affect you; some will reject you;
Misplace a comma and some will correct you.
(So) when they're annoying, coy, or flirtatious,
Just bite your tongue and try to be gracious.
Chorus--Twice
©2007 Sheryl Zettner
Not sure this is what you had in mind with the pic. I had a tough time splitting the screen, so that the text was all visible and yet the screens would be similar in size, so I improvised by overlapping them some. I gather the point was that the left pic shows the response to the right one? But obviously it doesn't work if you can't read it, which is why I made the right one slightly larger.
Something tells me this is not quite the affect you were going for though. Would it be easier if I just took a snapshot of my desktop without any open windows?
Anyway, here are some options for what I did do. I'll be happy to redo them if they aren't right.
http://www.mailbigfile.com/d293a9b1e271bd442945cc07e1340476/download/2292693/boredA.jpg
http://www.mailbigfile.com/fe5fb9518be938772e7588304d829353/download/2292696/boredB.jpg
http://www.mailbigfile.com/f20caa7f242b98c9ed3060243fded80f/download/2292697/boredC.jpg
http://www.mailbigfile.com/a5dff57c0aceac803745c7098fdcaeca/download/2292698/boredD.jpg
http://www.mailbigfile.com/f424e1f5c971f0aa51bade5e8c5bd829/download/2292699/boredE.jpg
In terms of your expression, I like version "E" the best with "B" the runner up. In terms of "blurb" on-screen, first, it doesn't have to be big enough to see all the words - as long as you can make out the first 7 lines, that's enough. Second, why is there so much gray space around it?
Not sure why it was putting a gray box around it. This stupid picture viewer is kind of annoying. I had to hide the toolbar on it as well. :-/
My guess would be that Apple watered it down so that they can sell decent picture viewers separately from the OS. That seems to be what they did with Quicktime and Itunes anyway. The newer versions do less than the older versions and are clunkier. sigh
PS I'll try doing another version today with a smaller box then. Couldn't sleep last night, so I just got up though. Yawn.
OK, here are a few more pics of me looking perplexed at direction of dating conversation:
http://free.mailbigfile.com/2a9b956bd0dd2bf530908894fcabf6bf/download/2063701/ohbrother1.jpg
http://free.mailbigfile.com/4f09bebd9527db3aeeb5bbb80a73de98/download/2063703/ohgod1.jpg
http://free.mailbigfile.com/abe727fb72f96a99f0d020cefcbb69be/download/2063705/ohjeez.jpg
Here's another option. Have my picture looking over at the other picture:
http://www.mailbigfile.com/d98e48a4fa014f9a2bada19c67d171a0/download/2295644/lookingover.jpg
To be fair, I mentioned the various versions in one of my journals, and when this guy said he was curious, I emailed him the link to all three versions (including the May version.) Here's what he said:
---------------------------------------------------
Here are my impressions of the mixes, in order:
Original:
This mix is the loudest of the three. The bass is too loud, in my opinion, but that's why it sounds fuller. There is a stereo effect on the vocal that is really making it sound full. However, the effects are mixed to the left instead of to the center. This, combined with the overall loudness of all the parts, actually makes it harder to listen to. The stereo image leans way too far to the left on this one.
Second mix:
This one has more reverb on the drums and far less effect on the vocal. The vocal is panned to the center. The vocals are far easier to understand on this mix. The stereo image is now too small. We've gone from one extreme (too wide) to the other. The vocal is good in the center, but now the guitar needs to fill out the edges. Spread the guitar out and then bring it up in the mix. It's too quiet in this mix. The bass guitar is EQed better in this mix, but now it's too quiet. Bring up the backing parts and spread out the guitar and I think that will be the best mix.
Third mix:
This is very similar to the second mix but there is more effect on the vocal. I'm not a fan of that particular effect. It sounds "cool", if that's what you're going for, but it makes it harder to understand the vocals. I prefer the second mix with very little effects on the vocals.
So, that's what I think. The second mix is close to being good. It just needs more volume on the backing tracks and move some parts around to fill out the stereo image. It's a bit too small as it is, but I like it the most of the three. I know you like the first one, but it has all sorts of problems from a mixing standpoint.
Thanks for sharing with me! I hope my opinion helps somewhat. If it doesn't, just ignore me. :-)
Pics: I like lookingover. Mind if I run with that one?
Mixes: Interesting comments, worth going back for a re-listen with them in mind. But which one was "second" and which one was "third"?
Yes, run with it!
The second one that he preferred was the one that I actually liked the least. Not the EQ one, but the other new one.
I only included his feedback to have another opinion on the board. I didn't actually agree with him, except the part that you had gone from one extreme to the other.
I'm not sure if he was referring to the bass though, but I still think the newer versions need more bass. And stronger vocals, assuming we want people to pay attention to the lyrics at all. And yes, I am biased in that direction. No point having words no one pays any attention to.
Agree with you on the bass. The jury is still out on where the vocal level belongs.
Oh good. As long as it's being deliberated, that's cool! :-)
Haven't had much time lately, but I did check out the mixes a bit... I think the vocals are important, but the mix sounds about right, except when the voice pitch drops; the line "To find the perfect match" sounds muddy and indistinct.
I don't think this means the volume should be raised. Instead, maybe the instruments could be panned to either side and the vocals could be placed in the center? Also, Zed, I believe you mentioned once a trick of cutting a hole in the right frequency range, so that the vocals and the instruments don't occupy the same frequencies. You may have done this already, but then altered the pitch on that line, putting it in conflict with the instruments.
Something can and will be done about "to find the perfect match." But when you say the mix sounds about right, which one are you talking about - "COMP" or "EQ"?
To weigh in on the vocal volume issue, on my playback environments the vocals seem to be quite present. If anything sometimes the instruments sounded a bit lost. (Not just guitar :) ).
From experience I can say that mixing is really difficult to do well, and I think MZed really puts in the effort. There are times where you have to roll with what you have before you over engineer the life out of the song. (My own experience here, not being critical of MZ's work). Overall I think it sounds really good.
Thanks for the input (and kind words), but again, can you distinguish "COMP" from "EQ"? Do they sound different to you? Does one sound better than the other?
Zed and Charlie,
I get the impression that Charlie is implying (however diplomatically and indirectly) that I am being unreasonable to question things at this late stage after you have put a ton of work into this. And I have no doubts that you have put a ton of work in, and I thank you a million times over for that.
However, I am also getting the feeling from various things that have been said that he had considerably more influence in how this mix turned out. For several of the changes, you have stated (paraphrasing), "Charlie thought it should be this way."
So let me just be blunt and ask--who was consulted more in the mixing of this song that is based on my original melody and lyrics?
As long as we are discussing stakes, I do realize that you both have put a large amount of time and energy in this, and I swear I am grateful for that. However, I also don't think it is unreasonable that I have some sway in what is only the SECOND batch of sound files that have been shared with me.
I haven't had an opportunity to weigh in since the May demo because I didn't have access to the changes being made till this second batch. I was not consulted. I don't see how I have waited too late to express my opinions if I wasn't being given anything to express opinions on.
I mean, that seems to be the argument--that a ton of time has already been put in on this, and I'm too late to have any say in how my song turns out because a lot of work was put in before I was allowed to express an opinion. I don't see how I could have expressed any of this any sooner if I was not being emailed sound files along the way.
Apologies, ?!Charlie - you did answer >>217 in >>194.
And Sheryl - if I didn't want your opinion, I wouldn't have asked for it. Earlier, I had sent ?!Charlie a test print to get his opinion about how the guitars were sounding because I did some "major" transformation to the sound he had created. (Recall all the back and forth you and I had over the vocal treatment.) At that time, he opined about the turnaround, and while I hadn't been looking for that kind of input, it was a good idea, so I made the change.
I think ?!Charlie's comment was actually a response to talysman's suggestions, or maybe it was directed to me and my infinitely fussy approach to mixing, basically saying "It's good enough Zed, let it go!" I've been burned in the past by reviewers at Acid Planet, Gods of Music, and the c0nsensus, however, complaining about my mixes, so I strive now to get them as professional sounding as I can.
Thanks for clarifying that. I apologize then.
Anyway, I want to make sure that we are talking about the same thing when you refer to the "turnaround," so I just made short clips of each to be precise about what I meant:
This
http://free.mailbigfile.com/71aa1367e864208ed6046468e7c4c30a/download/2073189/transitionA.mp3
Versus This:
http://free.mailbigfile.com/1265b618ed3560c25566d048b6f3a3c9/download/2073196/transitionB.mp3
What I liked about the original one is the powerful contrast of the two notes (or maybe it's the timing on them) gave it some energy and magic which I don't feel in the second version.
I just want to make sure we are talking about the same thing.
I saw your art blog. Sure you don't want to create your own cover art from scratch? "The Collision of Native and Colonial America" was absolutely awesome.
Thanks! The problem with my art is that I did most of that with Photoshop starting from drawings, but a lot of it was messing around with filters and stuff.
I lost my version of Photoshop when my OS9 machine died. (It was an old version that doesn't work on OSX.) But if you think any of the pics would be useful to throw in somehow. They probably are not too applicable, unless you want to use my alien pic as an example of an online dater. Hahaha
I was thinking of buying a newer version of Photoshop online, but it looked like they might not work with my machine.
My apologies, but I just sent you probably way too many emails about the file you sent. The last one was just two clips of some things you did that I thought were amazingly cool. Didn't want you to think my editing suggestion were the whole picture. Those bits were extraordinary. :-)
Just for completeness, note the track is done! Announcement here: http://community.livejournal.com/interrocartel/60032.html
Yea!!!! :-D
I was just thinking. Can I use the graphic on the main page to have a T-shirt made? Cafepress does really nice T-shirts. Man, I need to get Photoshop back up and working!!!! It would have to have the link on it to be useful as an advertisement.
But all you have to do to get nice t-shirts made is submit a graphic in the right resolution (dpi). Some I made before are only $15, and there is a discount if you are the store owner. I can't remember what it costs, although there is shipping and handling.
Check out the ones I had made before. They turned out quite nice. The mugs they sell apparently rub off, so even though they are the cheapest items to buy (except for the buttons.) Actually the buttons are good too. And their mouse pads are good. I got one of those. In other words, you can spend a fortune on their site. lol
Here's the store I set up. Never made a dime off it! lol So I am not recommending it as a way to earn money. But A T-shirt advertising the website could be useful. Just a thought.
Izzat you Sheryl? Pls send email for this sort of question.
Oops, I forgot to write my name in.
Yeah, it's me. I just figured that I had been barraging your email account with non-stop questions and thought this was a fairly generic idea to bat around. But if you don't mind me emailing you with things like this, email is certainly more direct. I have something else I want to ask you anyway. Hahaha Poor Major Zed!
One of the consistent comments we've had is about being able to understand (i.e. clearly hear) the lyrics. That motivates yet another mix, where the vocal effects are turned down a bit: http://boxstr.com/files/2967105_iii11/OnlineDating_72.mp3
Hey, it was good of you to work on it some more!!!
Let me see if I can get my friend Arleen to listen to both versions and see if she can understand things better in this new version. She was having problems understanding the words.
So which mix do you like better, Zed? Do you think this improves the clarity?
On my headphones it doesn't solve the clipping on the ends of letters that worried me. However, like I say, what we really need is some feedback from people who couldn't follow it at all, eh?
Yes, I think this new version improves the clarity.
Could you give me some examples of "clipping on the ends of letters"?
At 33 seconds, the word "mouse" almost sounds like mouth or mou on my headphones; the s on the end is virtually inaudible. Most of the mouse words, except the end are faint on the ending s, but that particular one just doesn't come out at all on my end.
At 1 minute, 4 seconds "Derek" sounds like Dere. No k sound. At about 2:14-2:15 "some will affect you" sounds like "some will affe you" without ct sound at the end. "Some will reject you" becomes "some will reje you." And "some will correct you" sounds like "some will corre you" on my end.
Removing the sound effects most only flattened the resonance on my end, but that's just on this one setup.
We should ask around and see what the consensus is, eh?
What you refer to as "resonance" is the combined effect of multiple versions of your voice and reverberant echoes - just the kind of stuff that muddies up word clarity. So it's a tradeoff. (And I didn't remove them, I just turned them down some.) I will look into the missing phonemes and get back to you.
Missing phonemes. I didn't know the term. Good to know what that's called. :-)
Yeah, that's all that sounded off to me, but then I am listening with headphones. But from what I am hearing, that's what is making it harder to follow the lyrics.
The reverberant echoes were classy; personally I'd take that back to the previous levels. They were very nicely done.
Actually, it's all very nicely done. But definitely, from what I am hearing, if you could draw those consonant endings out a little somehow, then it would be easier to understand. Is that doable?
In fact, I was talking to this friend of mine Trish today and mentioned that, and she also said that was her only problem with it as well.
You only identified 5 cases - surely that isn't messing up much of the understanding. Are there more?
Those were the extreme cases, where the endings sounded outright clipped off to me, but then I am listening to it on fairly good headphones.
I'm sure if someone was listening through their computer speakers, for example, that they would have problems with some of the cases where the endings are just faded, but still audible if you listen closely. Like the Ss on several of the "mouse" endings.
I can only speculate on what other people are hearing, but I do think 5 cases could throw the ear off on a fast song like that.
On the other hand, I was in the grocery the other day listening to the radio and thinking that I couldn't follow half of the words being sung on a fairly mainstream song. But they probably had a really good PR person promoting their song. We need a Brian Epstein, eh? :-) lol
I guess the real question is whether it can be fixed and how difficult that would be to do, but I do think that is what is throwing some people off.
Also, for future reference, do you know what causes that? I wonder if that wasn't from how I recorded it originally.
My mic was supposed to be fairly decent, I think, but those original sound files I sent you were pretty horrible sounding.
Hey Zed,
I was just listening to the radio today while waiting for my mom at the doctor's office. It was amazing how many songs were completely indecipherable in terms of the lyrics. I'm starting to think Dad's friend was overzealous in his advice. At the risk of being vain, our song rocks compared to a lot of what I was hearing.
I think I am just going to promote the hell out of the song online, and then maybe chart positions could be a way to get radio play as well. :-) Did you upload it to one of those other sites you mentioned?
I should get with talysman about the video idea. :-)
The pros have access to $1000 mics and even more expensive gear to plug them into. The difficulty of understanding lyrics in the popular song is legendary - witness The Archive of Misheard Lyrics (http://www.kissthisguy.com/) I haven't uploaded to any of my sites yet because it appears it is not quite finished yet! :-) I'm still working on a handful of phonemes.
Thanks, Zed!!! Wow, $1000 mics?! [chokes]
This girl in my journal suggested we should submit to this radio show, so I was looking at their submission terms. Get a load of this (particularly the second half of it)!
"The Bob and Tom Show policy does not allow The Bob & Tom Show to accept or consider any creative materials, ideas, suggestions, concepts, notes or artwork (collectively, the "Materials") other than those that are specifically requested by The Bob & Tom Show. If despite this policy, you do submit any Materials to The Bob & Tom Show, such Materials shall be deemed to become, and shall remain, the property of The Bob & Tom Show and you agree that The Bob & Tom Show shall own all rights, title and interest in such Materials."
Can they actually do that?!!! I have a hard time seeing how they can legally acquire all your rights to something purely from you sending them a copy of something.
I mean, when I took business law in college, one of the main fundamentals was that a person has to understand and agree to terms of an exchange for a contract to be binding. Seems like it would be difficult to prove that just because someone sent materials to someone that they necessarily had read those notices, understood them, and were consciously handing over all their rights to their property. Besides, what are they getting for it? It's not an exchange, unless you get SOMETHING for it.
Plus, who's to say that someone else didn't send them in? I have a very hard time seeing how that could fly in court, except maybe big company=big attorneys. But say a fan mailed it in, do they suddenly think they own all the rights?
Anyway, how about we NOT send to this show. lol :-)
That's like Microsoft suing people that send them ideas.
Hahaha. Crazy!
More craziness. I was just looking up the Musician's Atlas to see what a new copy would be. When I bought my copy in 2000, it was $19.95. Now it $49.95!
If it's like the poetry directory I bought last year, then you can find out more online for free anyway.
This is kind of sad. I was looking at one of these college radio stations that linked back to a magazine called CMJ, which is supposedly for college radio stations. Anyway, it had a list of magazines that college stations could subscribe to telling them what to play.
You look a little further, and musicians are asked to pay $90 to be listed on these charts:
http://www.mediaguide.com/solutions/music/submitmusic.php
Sounds like they are taking the independent out of indie radio. I wonder how many college stations limit themselves to these lists. :-/
The -k and -ct seem to be OK now but the -s are a problem. Too little and you don't hear it and too much and it whistles. Still working on it....
I think I got the missing phonemes now. Listen to
http://boxstr.com/files/3011796_cmywu/OnlineDating_82.mp3
I also corrected a synch problem between the vocals and guitars that appeared in two places and had been bugging me and ?!Charlie for quite some time.
Thanks for working on it!!!! Awesome!
Would you be willing to upload it again though? I think something went off in the upload because there's something weird going on with the word "thinker" at the beginning, which I doubt you would have even been working on and also in the center bit (which I also doubt you would have touched.) Because they were both fine to start with.
Anyway, thanks a million!!! Awesome!
Yes, I tried to make the "th" in "thinker" more prominent. What's the "center bit"?
Hmmm...something with the "thinker" change didn't take right. It not sounds like a hissy "sinker." The center bit being the "so you compare them, torment and scare them" part.
Anyway, don't worry about it. I'll see if I can't splice it together with the 61 version. You've done more than enough work on this. A Million hugs!!! Thanks!!!
Really appreciate you working on it!!!!
No derivations needed!!! :-) It's wonderful as it is!!!! REALLY!!!! I LOVE IT!!!!! :-D
...splice it together with the 61 version... ?!
No, nooo, NO! Try this instead: http://boxstr.com/files/3049182_bh2sy/OnlineDating_92.mp3
Awesome mix!!! I like the way you got the K back in there on Derek! :-D Nice!!!
It's interesting comparing it to the 61 version. They are so close, but there are these subtle differences that I can't quite pin down.
Very, very nice!!!!!
Ah, but can you understand the lyrics better?
I do think it is clearer, but the changes are subtle.
It's interesting how changes that are barely perceptible when you do an A/B comparison do in fact make a difference in clarity nonetheless.
It sounded slightly different, but I would completely have to guess on what you did. What the hell, I'll guess what the differences were, and you can laugh when it turns out that it was something you didn't touch at all. :-D
I would guess that there was slightly more treble in this version, and that that probably helped make it a little clearer? Was there more treble? I think that was what made me think that the center part sounded different on the 82 version as well.
The K in Derek definitely sounded better, and the first mouse no longer sounds like mouth. :-)
If I trust my instinct rather than my ears, I think you may have dropped the vocals a teeensy weensy bit back (and that probably didn't help their clarity), but it's so close that I'm really not sure. And maybe an itsy bitsy tiny weeny less reverb, which probably helped the clarity slightly but made it a minuscule less round sounding. Once again, I'm not sure. That may have been the extra treble. I'm pretty sure kind of sorta that there is a tiny weeny bit extra treble.
And maybe added a teensy weensy bit of volume to that little section before the long instrumental that you had previously dropped back?
So I would say it's a bit clearer, but particularly so with a few of the words like "Derek." It's really subtle though. I do think they are clearer, but it's strange to compare the two because you really have to focus to know why it sounds clearer.
I think the real test would be to run it past someone who was having problems understand the lyrics.
So was I right about any of this? Hahahahahaha
In short, I do think it sounds somewhat clearer, but I'm really not sure why. lol
No, on second thought. Forget everything I just wrote. They sound different, but the main difference are in the higher pitches, and I just can't tell if it made it clearer or not. But there were definitely some improvement on some consolnant endings.
