• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Jivemaster

  • Rank
  • Birthday 07/06/1982

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Australia (Brisbane, QLD)

Contact Methods

  • Website URL


  • Biography
    Made a name for himself by being one of the first to bring old Sonic tracks back to life with some creative synthage and a touch of guitar. Now lurks the boards from time to time, adding the odd comment, and submitting the odd remix.
  • Real Name
    Joel Bird
  • Occupation
    Systems Training Officer; Producer, Designer
  • Twitter Username
  • Xbox Live Gamertag
  • PlayStation Network ID
  • Steam ID

Artist Settings

  • Collaboration Status
    2. Maybe; Depends on Circumstances
  • Software - Digital Audio Workstation (DAW)
  • Software - Preferred Plugins/Libraries
    Plugins are for pussies 8-)
  • Composition & Production Skills
    Drum Programming
    Mixing & Mastering
    Synthesis & Sound Design
  • Instrumental & Vocal Skills (List)
    Electric Bass
    Electric Guitar: Rhythm
    Vocals: Male

Recent Profile Visitors

2,122 profile views
  1. Nice soundscape over a gradual build up. Your kick has a satisfying thud. The sine wave synth that comes in at 0:22 has a pierce to it which needs to tamed with some EQ. The arp playing throughout the track starts to become repetitive - especially in the intro section as it's only a bar long and doesn't change in pattern too often, though thankfully it drops away and changes up just before it overstays it welcome. At 1:49 when the wub bass drops, a cloudiness descends over the track, where low end clarity is lost. This is also the main area where the kick drum is causing some over clamping of the compressor on the other parts, it's also noticeable on your rolls like the comp is not releasing quick enough. I also share Mike's concern that the wubs are lacking, I felt the growl and bite of them were a bit weak and they played the same basic progression each time they came in - it would've been nice to see some pattern/sound variation in there. The progression of the arrangement feels pretty good. Things run at a fairly slow pace, but at no time did I feel the track dragged on. You noticeably change between a number of sections throughout. I feel this needs some more polish to get past the line. In particular the kick compression issues and sine synth bother me the most, but the drop in clarity and lack of variation in the sections featuring the dubstep bass should also be addressed. NO
  2. Very unexpected style, which suits the tune. Lots of energy here. A few concerns to raise straight up. I share what the other judges have mentioned with regards to the brass. Initially it gives the remix a bit of a fun DDR style feel, but this wears off quickly with its over use, with the sound becoming irritating beyond the first minute. It is also overpowering in volume compared to the other elements and needs some tweaks to sit in the mix better. On the arrangement side there is a bit of repetition, with a fairly similar set of sounds and sections carried throughout the majority of the track. Things take a short break at the mid point but don't depart much from the formula. You also have some notes that feel a little clashy with other parts, especially in busy sections. I feel this mix can work with some reworking. If the brass has to stay, I feel it should be pulled back dramatically in its use, and instead use a couple of alternating leads throughout the mix. You also need to rethink the mixing here, keeping the leads in check so they are still audible but are not so loud to overpower the mix. The arrangement could also benefit from some more variation, especially in the parts that are repeated. NO
  3. Clear production quality here, your parts are easily heard. Bass is quite fat. Things sound a bit dry and could do with some reverb. Guitars are quite fake. Kick hits hard. Your lead during the main theme doesn't have the most enjoyable distortion tone, it feels a bit grating and could do with being smoother. As the track progresses problems are exposed throughout the arrangement. Most elements are running on repeated loops that are dropped in and out. The parts on their own are not bad but in total do not cohesively form a track, with the sound space left feeling sparse despite what you have playing. Gario put it best when saying the track feels like a big build up. There's some meat in the middle eventually, but the progression is somewhat anticlimactic with not much added in to form the "chorus" portion of the track. This ends fairly quickly with everything proceeding to build up again without any real conclusion. Have a rethink about your arrangement here. NO
  4. Interesting use of carnival and theatre sound effects during the intro, quite creative. Things don't quite keep the same standard afterward however. The organ is disproportionately loud compared to the drums. The sound effects running in the background while a novelty to begin with start exposing identifiable loop points and are used too often at times. Panning is not utilised properly, with all instruments mostly sitting in the centre, bar for a the odd part here and there (you do make creative use of panning for the sound effects however). Near the end of the track you wind things down nicely with a completely original section (which I first mistakenly thought was a breakdown until the track ended). Apart from the main instrument levels being off, I feel your mix relies too heavily on sound effects to fill the soundscape - this isn't necessarily a bad thing on its own but the arrangement instrumentally isn't largely varied aside from this. I agree with the other judges. This mix has potential, you've done a good job bringing these parts together, I just don't feel you've quite hit the mark between creativity and overuse of effects to progress the track. Coupled with some of the production issues highlighted, it's a NO
  5. Nice piano in the introduction, fairly emotive. The brass that follows when the orchestration builds up is a little low in quality but we'll work with it. Your accompanying strings that come into play don't have the same detail as your piano, with a lot of held notes and rigid sequencing. This, at least from an instrumental standpoint, is where things break down. The fuller the arrangement gets the overall clarity reduces across the mix, with things becoming a bit muffled at times. Parts in your sections over time feel quite repetitive, with same or similar sections popping up several times over the course of the mix. You had the beginnings of a nice breakdown around 3:00 but things changed back to the main piano motif soon after - would've loved to hear you explore the tones here that were short lived, it would've broken the mix up nicely between the two halves. I'm not as picky here with your samples used, but I do think more attention should be given to your individual parts to make them more humanised and less rigid and repetitive. The arrangement doesn't feel it warrants the length here either, and I would've liked to see more work done to add in more original material and change things up. Especially with a largely orchestral arrangement, there are a lot of things that can be done to change the feel of the writing - even simply changing around what it playing each part makes a significant difference. Humanise, strengthen arrangement, watch your production quality when things get busy. NO
  6. Your mix starts straight with a full soundscape - not necessarily a bad thing, but the material you introduce early on would easily lend itself to a gradual build up, and a more fleshed out intro would benefit the track. You've mixed this one quite loud, the parts don't have any critical problems (such as distortion), but its verging on too hot and easing back from the limiter would give the track more breathing room, allowing for things to be more audible in the busier sections. The marimba feels like something out of a 80's action movie, quite mechanical but a nice sound. The snare has a strange hollow feel to it which I found odd. Your saw wave playing low notes continuously in the background did overstay its welcome as the song progressed - its not a terrible sound but its continuous backing of the bass became old quite quickly - I felt it worked best in the busier sections, and parts like 3:19 sounded nicer without it. I would suggest constrained usage of a pad here instead. I didn't have as much of a concern for the short minimalistic section at 2:22 as Gario had, but having the bass play on its own here would've been far more effective if you truly were going for a bass "solo" type thing. I feel the main part lacking here is the arrangement - its not that bad at times but the main melodies at play here are quite short and don't really vary much. This is worsened by the same overall soundscape, which in combination make things feel repetitive. Couple this with the other more minor problems and things build up against this one. I feel this is close, tweaks to what instruments are playing at what times, easing off the hot mixing, and a more gradual intro would make this a stronger track. NO I noticed a couple little glitches in the audio file which I'm not sure is just a bad file download or not (retried a couple times), but the track has noticeable micro stops in it such as at 0:10, 0:46, 1:48. This doesn't factor into my vote but thought it was worth mentioning.
  7. A great number of changing sections in this one. Your combination of source tunes has worked well here for the most part. Vocals provide great contrast and help set the mood of the track during the opening sequence. Guitar playing is solid, with some great tones, riffs and wailing. Drums are probably the weakest here, with the kick sometimes blending into the background, however attention to detail is there with regards to their sequencing. Panning across the stereo spectrum feels a bit narrow. You have a number of parts playing during each section - some parts get a bit too busy (especially when we pass 3:00). Accompanying instruments (strings, choir) are complementary to the main melodies but do get lost in the background quite often. There are a couple of dissonant notes in the piece, most notably at the end vocal section, but nothing I feel is completely jarring and off-key (4:35 occasionally pushes the boundaries), and most are required to fit the theme. Vocals in the final section are a bit loud compared to the rest of the mix, where all other parts (apart from the guitar) become lost. Mixing is a bit mushy - lots of parts are stepping on each other, some sections have guitar unnecessarily loud compared to other sections, and frequency space is shared a bit too much in the mids. This is particularly apparent later on in the piece. For me mixing is the biggest issue here, I'd like a pass across the track to fix some of the levels to avoid drowning out sections unnecessarily. It sounds like there is too much glue pulling the parts together - perhaps ease back any master bus compressor you might have and let things separate. Otherwise the team has done well here with what I believe is a mostly solid arrangement with its own personality. NO
  8. Echoing what the others have mentioned regarding the saw starting at 0:23, which was very basic/bland and should be tweaked to make it less muffly. Interesting use of sound effects and game samples, although I felt they were heavily overused for the track's rather short duration - to the point where I feel the track relied upon them too much to hold interest. Some parts (such as at 1:31) don't feel quite right musically, likely due to the clash of the detuned saw the other instruments underneath. There is an odd mismatch of tones here that don't quite seem to work when the electronic instruments meet the acoustic instruments. Everything feels heavily quantised, which is good for electronic music but the mix of pianos and other parts lose realism as a result. For the arrangement as a whole - the rapid changes between different combinations of instruments are ok to begin with but become somewhat old quickly, with sections not being explored for very long before moving to the next section. The game samples have a negative impact here as well, making some sections too busy and clouding the listeners ability to appreciate the melodies that are playing. A few comments on the production side. There is not a lot of bass in your track. The main bass patch is quite low in the mix, not being overly audible. The kick could also do with a bit more low end. I noticed there were quite a few parts that feel quite centred in the mix and could be panned more (mainly a suggestion). There seems to be some holes in the frequency spectrum that are under-utilised across your mix, which instruments could occupy to fill out the sound scape. I don't mind the creativity here when it comes to the different sections that come into play, however I feel the arrangement overall is lacking. The mix is overly stiff, and the game samples and other effects make things feel repetitive. The saw synth is muffled and lacks energy. I feel some tweaks to these parts are needed to pull this mix over the line. NO
  9. Nice intro buildup of guitars with accompanying blips. Arrangement is solid, and production elements . Guitars carry a nice amount of low end without taking over (most of the time). At 1:18 things get too busy, with most parts becoming drowned out by the guitars (this happens when this section repeats again at 1:57). These areas could've done with more clarity and IMO are not well mixed compared to the rest of the track and are the main drawback of the mix. Apart from these sections you've done a decent job to keep the parts separated from each other which wouldn't have been easy with the variety of tones you have here. Overall a decent mix, although the busy sections should've been mixed better. You can convey power without drowning out other parts. Had these sections taken up more of the mix it would've definitely been a deal breaker. YES
  10. Nice swells and textures. Your choice of sounds stay pretty similar throughout the mix, although they are complementary to each other and fit the genre well. The opening felt mostly solid, building things up for things to come... however by the first minute a change of pace was well overdue, but never eventuated. In fact for most of the track, things never really evolved past the first minute. A lot of this has to do with the drum line being very repetitive - with its stop starting nature, it doesn't help drive the arrangement forward like it should. I feel even a change to a standard 4/4 beat would've helped after the intro to push things forward. During the opening they felt very fitting, but by the 3rd minute, considering how similar your overall atmosphere here is, things were really getting repetitive. After this point some breakbeats during the mid-point break are introduced, but they don't stick around long, nor to they really change the pace up required by this point, as the underlying 1 bar rhythm is still there. This creates perceived repetition, even though other parts do play different things over time. This is a shame as the overall sound you have here is bright and optimistic. The different melodies over time were welcome, and you made great use of stereo space. Your lead sounds are solid. Your SFX are typical/expected for the genre but implemented well. There was a small problem with the low end being a bit muffled in crowded sections, which could've been easily avoided by high pass filtering some of your synths that didn't need the low end. A tough mix for me. I don't feel the duration of the track is warranted with the amount of perceived repetition here, especially with the repeated use of short drum and melody lines over many bars. I understand the trance vibe here and what you're going for, and appreciate the changes that happen when they do, but I feel overall these transitions to new sections come in too late, and coupled with the repetitive drums the problem is exacerbated, making this fall short. NO
  11. Agree with the main synth is very very plain and could really do with some tweaks to give it more character. The most noticeable thing production wise is most of your parts are panned close to centre, with only percussion heading further out to the left and right sides. You could've made use of the stereo spectrum more instead of having everything sitting on top of each other. As some of the other's have suggested, double tracking the rhythm guitars would've given some width and sounded great here. Your bass is also a little too quiet. Production is otherwise not bad here. The instrumentation here is quite stiff and mechanical, the guitar lead for example (although great sounding) feels heavily quantised, as do the percussive elements. Arrangement is not bad but a little on the repetitive side with some parts feeling like they're lifted from prior sections without much change. I don't mind the track you have here, I feel the biggest issues are the mechanical nature of your parts - loosen things up a bit to make the track more human, the blandness of your lead synth - tweak this patch to liven things up. production - everything too much to centre, bass a little too quiet. Taking a little more time on this track to consider these improvements would strengthen the track greatly. NO
  12. Enjoying the slower pace of your rendition. Agree with Kris and NutS regarding over compression issues with the track. Some parts are affected more than others, with the lead guitar poking through ok, but the clean guitars in the background and the drums are too squashed. The percussion begins to waver under the short ceiling, and there is a unpleasant crunch to the drums during busier sections. Background reverbs and swells add to a sea of sound that while pleasant in some aspects, are too crushed to enjoy. This is the ultimate problem with this track. Pulling back on the limiter and opening any master bus comp you have on will make this much cleaner. There are also some higher frequencies in your clean guitars that could so with some minor taming as so notes verge on piercing, though that may be due to the compression. Play it by ear. NO
  13. Enjoyable instrumentation, great choice of instruments and style. A difficult thing to pull off. I thought the balance of instruments was mostly well done, I appreciate Larry's concern of the harpsichord being low in volume, however it feels this was intended to add backing accompaniment and in that role it does well, as being louder may actually make things sound cluttered. The brass is a bit louder than the other parts and could do with being toned down a tad. Sample quality was ok, I felt it was passable - not the most realistic around but I thought they worked for you. I don't have much to say until we hit the 2:19 things feel off - this part everyone seemed to enjoy, but for me it definitely didn't feel right. I'm completely aware of the time sig change, and at the start a few bars earlier things felt fine ... but the "conversation" between those parts felt out in that section, with parts tripping over each other as more layers are added - perhaps they were too mechanical? I don't know. Otherwise your shift of overall pace throughout the track is good. I appear to be completely out on my own with this but truly for me the middle section felt like it had the most problems, it didn't fell cohesive, and personally I'd like to see that section strengthened. Apart from some minor balancing issues, I don't have any other problems worth mentioning, production was mostly ok and source usage was clear. NO
  14. I agree with the concerns regarding lack of variation that Chimpa has. The beginning portion of the mix right up to 1:00 follows a fairly similar pattern and doesn't change up a whole lot between bars. At 1:09 during the breakdown, tension is built but energy not delivered when the drop hits at 1:35. At the mid point things feel very similar to the start of the mix. The rolling pluck effect here to transition into the next section set this apart from earlier on, but went for too long IMO. 3:53 the drop hits better. When rolling pluck is used again at the end of the track its uniqueness is lost. I felt the ending could've been stronger. Source is completely noticeable in the mix, although things weren't often taken into original territory. Production is ok but some accompanying parts were a little dry and could've done with some reverb. Some highs were beginning to become harsh at times but didn't pass the point of great concern. Ultimately I feel the arrangement lets this down a bit, as sections are quite similar sounding and then repeated later on which makes the problem more noticeable. I'd like to see some work done on this to make the sections more unique, which could come down to simple tweaking of the already existing synths and wubs. NO
  15. Heading straight into production, your starting (0:24) acoustic guitar is too strong in its high frequencies, causing some unpleasant piercing peaks which needs a low-pass filter and or EQ to tame it. At 0:50 when the electric guitar comes in the lead has some similar issues - not as severe but they are there and could with similar EQ treatment. The rhythm guitar is not bad but shares a little too much low with bass and kick. Bass sounds mostly like a rumble behind everything. This is creating a muddiness across the track. Drums are quite well done, especially your fills incorporating toms. At 3:40 there are a couple of hiccups that are quite noticeable though. As far as arrangement goes - while the progression is interesting with changes of pace and rhythm, I'm sharing MindWander's concern about the source being difficult to hear through the different parts playing. I can feel the "vibe" of the source occasionally peaking its head but it's quite difficult to make out full melodies from the original even after a few trips back to the source tune. Tough to fully evaluate this without a source breakdown from the artist. However purely at a production level this needs work to tame those frequencies and balance the parts more appropriately with each other so the mix is able to breathe. On this basis it's a NO