Bring Your Face starts and sounds like it could be a funk rock song – but then it gives much more intelligence. And again this is not found through unwanted details or flamboyance, it instead comes through mindful arrangements, changes and personality – that bit of what you couldn’t expect.

Treading Water. Deep, meaning piano. Clean yet weighted.
And I think the vocals work well. They add to this emotional, capturing, other place.

Lunar Month. And the tides are pulled in and out

New Arsehole. All belonging to one groove.
If I was to suggest anything that could add to this one –– I wondered what it would be like to play with/within that echo repeat more. It comes in delicately with its own sound and I thought what could you reach if it was used as a tool in there more.

Madcap. You guys write such odd and fresh riffs. Then you feed them well. But this one finished before I expected and feels a little undergrown compared to the works prior.

Tea Chest. I like how you are trying different relationships in these works between the tones of the Piano and the Guitar.

Secret Drawer. there is definitely a special, unique SeeBeeOne Sound building and flowing well into and through these various different works.
(A neat drummer. Those in-between rhythms are made so valuable)

Riding Roughshod. There is something grand. Maybe it is the heart that is heard.

You all listen

What you have done works. I enjoy it most when it blends in and becomes an inseparable part of the music rather than mere fusion.

I think your grasp of what we’re trying to do is most encouraging and we’ll definitely let you you know if we ever get around to playing live or recording something a little more solid.

You made a point about enjoying it. I’ve constantly had that in mind, as evidenced by the fact that I’m actually playing something again. As you know, I gave up on music for a few years, precisely because I wasn’t enjoying it anymore. Now, after messing around with computer based stuff from around this time last year onwards, I’ve come on leaps and bounds in both technique and love of music again. Playing with Dave and Al has been an inspiration, indeed. I know I will never have their prowess or ability with various instruments, but the one thing I’ve always had is ideas - now they’re making these ideas a reality and easing the frustrations I felt when working alone. This is great.

So, my point, buried somewhere in all that, is that we shouldn’t worry about being unconventional - we thrive on unconventionality. Above all, it’s a chemistry I’ve not had as yet with other musicians and we shouldn’t force someone else into the piece without a damn good reason for doing so. No bass. Wow, that’s a trend bucking idea, especially considering today’s musical climate. But somehow it works. NO BASS.

And, yes, make some music, Matt. NO EXCUSES.

As I understand it, you have had this question about whether there could be a benefit to adding another person to your group. Your group is small, but I would say not to worry about your sound being full – your sound IS strong. And I have said before how I find it interesting how an unusual setup can provoke the need for unusual solutions; that maybe the redefinition of standard roles and function could aid the creativity of your group’s output.

That is not to rule out the addition of someone else. But it looks like they will have to be perfectly empathetic of your found philosophies [it seems that your trio has found a special crossing of paths that works for you] or be unique enough to surprise your thinking with something all-together new.

In your position I’m not sure if I would think to playing around with a hundred different musicians or to concentrate your time on developing this arrangement and understanding that you already are confident in. Just enjoy it.

It would be interesting to hear what you, and the other members, think needs to be developed. It would be interesting to see where you are aiming and if you do have conceived plans for the future. Do you think I, as a listener to the samples of jams on here, could imagine what will come out of your group’s writing, playing and future recordings?

It has been inspirational to view your movement on these pages. And while I have again spent this past period preoccupied in professional pursuits, I get prompted to remember how I promised to re-prioritize my program, and philosophized that the prime period is present.

When playing your first track here, the piano starts and a voice asks for some “…simple washes…” on top. The next sound that is heard is an accidental snare before the drummer builds in some perfect cymbal washes.
What got me excited at the sound of the snare was the idea that the drummer was going to play the washes, not on the gentle cymbal, but on the attacking snare. I’m not saying you should do this but i mention it merely to make a point:

There is something i don’t like about ‘jams’. I had a friend who got uncomfortable with me using the word and i didn’t know why at first because i never separated it from the concept of ‘improvisation’.
A jam can be a great moment: You turn up with an idea you have had and you get to hear it turn into reality; it is translated and expanded through the other members and can become something much more than it began as.
What should be feared about jams is the pull towards mediocrity and replication, as an individual and a group: A musician begins playing a written part with the idea that the others join in. The second musician hears the first part and their own role jumps into their head –– this is what they will play. The trouble I have always had with this is that the first idea that springs into your head is the idea of what ‘would fit’ ––meaning really; ‘the norm’.

I am saying this to encourage critical development as i really like where it is now standing and want to push the exciting elements further as you take them on.
What i am trying to explain is how a musician wishing to make ‘contemporary’ music or relevant music, must question their instincts when jamming.
The strongest example for me is a couple of chords i always used to play (and caught myself doing again last week) every time i heard any form of funky bassline played. My brain clicked into a mode and knew that this would fit. –– it does. but it makes me a boring musician.

I would describe Radiohead as a good example of a band that deals well with this writing process. In many ways they are a simple guitar based rock band. if you break down the individual parts you will see that they are, alone, nothing to blow the mind. What they do so well is composing how they intercept, counterpoint and overlay. It is hard to imagine how the guitarist thought of that picking after hearing that synth; why did the drummer then choose such an odd beat; and why did thom start that vocal line ignoring the phrasing of the riff. It creates something surprising and gripping out of great imagination.

The only parts that i would criticise in your music are not any bad decisions or ‘errors’ but only where there are times when a decision can be made again, and it is important to keep that open to make again. To write a second part, that contradicts, or pulls away, or sits below, or tints its colour.
I guess that is what is great about recording your jams and being able to listen to them back. You can then use it as a multi stage compositional tool

I like the drama and strength of 4. (your pedals seem like they are turned up way too far yet somehow still in control in these tracks. great)

I like it when track 8 builds into this distortion that seems to flood every frequency before dropping to a broken version of the original riff.

I like the fast delicate interweaved rhythms of 12.

I like the sad push of 17.