• 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

2,014 profile views
  1. 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
  2. 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
  3. 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
  4. 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
  5. 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
  6. 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
  7. 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
  8. Enjoyed the stereo percussion. Interesting choice of synth to start the track. Solid evolution of the intro. Soundscape is mostly minimal but makes use of creative synth tweaking to keep the parts fresh. Although the arrangement pattern is similar, it strides in different directions slightly, with different sounds at different times, and at least initially creates a non-repetitive soundscape. However this seems to hit a point of expiry. As we progress further into the track past the 2:00 mark, things begin to feel a bit too loopy and repeaty, by the mid-point ideas don't feel as fleshed out as the earlier ideas, and by the 5:00 mark I was ready to close off. I believe a lot of the issues here stem from the minimal nature of the track paired with the short repeated patterns that are experienced regularly. Although the first few minutes were good, I strongly felt more of a transition needed to be made in the second section - the track needed a departure from what was going on with a change in texture and feel, perhaps to build back up again for a final close out. Instead things felt more like a variation of the original rhythm without any true progression. For this reason I feel some more needs to be done on the arrangement side, especially to justify the length. NO
  9. Simple but effective intro and build-up. Agree with Larry regarding the fairly generic trancey backing synth featured throughout, which from a sound design standpoint is awfully static. Also agree the drums plod along the track for too long without much variation. Despite these problems the overall soundscape does work, with the parts complementing each other fairly well, with appropriate stereo balance and mostly acceptable mixing. I did notice like some of the others that things are a bit bottom heavy which during the busier sections begins to cloud the mix (nothing major though). The break at 1:48 is a nice departure from the sounds used from the start of the track, although is very minimal in composition and very robotic. Second half of the song begins to feel a little copy paste until the short riffing drops in. Things pick up near the end and then trail off for the outro. A few issues: The arrangement structure is ok, but I feel some more could've been done with some parts - sections are borrowed heavily at times with minor edits. The backing synth would've benefitted greatly from some minor tweaks/modulation over time to give it more character (the synth plays such a large role in the mix and doesn't do all that much) The drums could've evolved more over time and they weren't that complex to begin with which made the relatively continuous pattern stick out more. Individually these things would not have been a big deal but combined I feel these points pull the mix down. I wouldn't mind a possible revisit to address some of these (and the other judges) concerns. NO
  10. Enjoyed the piece. Great playing throughout, the instruments are spread out nicely (though the right channel is heavier than the left in a lot of sections) and the mixing is solid. Like Gario I think it could be a bit louder, although it does pick up in volume across the track. While dynamics are critical in creating and maintaining the overall mood for an organic track like this, at its peak it was noticeably quieter than other submissions. The backing at 3:45 and 4:15 also sounded slightly strange and jarring for me in a non-jazzy way. This wasn't a problem for the others though, and while I wish the overall volume was higher, I won't hold it back for that. YES
  11. Good instrumentation across the track - dropping instruments in and out as the arrangement progresses to keep things moving. Synths accompany the guitars well, both sections complement each other. Parts are panned well and mostly sit in their own space, making them easily audible. Over compression is definitely present here, and is the main flaw with your production. There is a bit of pump to the track that doesn't suit here, causing some subtle unwanted distortion at times. In addition, the drums are a bit on the mechanical side, with the snare rolls sounding machine gunny and lacking tonal variety on each hit. Drums are also muffled compared to the rest of the track. Not a bad mix. Over compression stuck out easily, likely due to everything else being so well done. I certainly think had your arrangement not been as good, this would've carried more negative weight. Because the others don't feel it's a big problem, I won't hold it back here for this, but it is certainly something you should tone back in future mixes. YES
  12. Sly and dirty mix, great transformation of the source tune to a slow groove with original personality. Some great lead work and generally trippy synths throughout, creates a nice contrast through the track. I enjoyed the production elements you have dotted through the mix, such as the delay signal panned to alternate ears. Leads and percussion nicely fill the upper register, as the bass grooves below. Mixing is clear. The breakdown and build-up around 2:55 was a nice change of pace but was a tad overdue. Mix felt it went a little too long because of that, but there were lots of parts dropping in and out over time to keep things fresh. Great to see you drop back to remind us how it's done YES
  13. Nice source choice, and some great guitar playing. It may have been the drums but some of the guitar parts felt like they ran ahead of the rest of the mix at times causing a sensation of lost timing. The drums were also a bit soft and regulated to the back a bit too much. The synth that drops at 2:20 wasn't really audible and kind of lost in the mix, not because of bad EQ, it was simply too low in volume to be heard. As Gario has mentioned, your mix is much too conservative for OCR, with no real original interpretation added in to personalise the mix. There needs to be some re-arrangement for a track to be passable. Above problems aside, as the arrangement currently stands, this is a NO
  14. 3. completed

    Great intro, I like the combo of synths and real instruments. Main synth lead that plays for the first minute or so is a bit dull and could do with some EQ work to bring it out of the mix, and is probably my main problem with the piece. Guitars seem fine in level mostly and don't require work IMO, great playing and tone, especially the lead at the half way point. The drums work well and drive the arrangement forward well, carrying a nice thud with them. Intro was brief but decent. With regards to overall track clarity, there are some parts where things get a little cloudy - this is likely coming from the synths stepping on each other in the same frequency space. I think the contrast of basic synths works well in this piece, but their mixing isn't quite right. I think this is very close though - if the lead could be brought out more (brightened), and the low-end toned back on some of the synths that don't need it, things should work out well. Until then, NO (borderline)
  15. Not a bad arrangement. Source is easily identifiable. Great use of instrument combinations to build things up triumphantly between each section. I agree with Gario on the choir, it definitely doesn't fit the rest of your instrumentation, it's very robotic and a little off-putting in this context. For a mix just over 4 minutes, I thought some parts (particularly the main melody) were played too often without much change. The mixing here isn't too bad, most things are audible. Your drums get drowned out a bit during the louder sections where everything is built up. In some sections you have instruments poking out/hovering above the mix when it isn't necessary (eg: 1:27), like they're in a different room - this could be due to a lack of reverb or different reverb being applied to these parts. Some backing parts are also a bit loud compared to their lead counterparts. The yoshi voice samples were quite irritating when played over and over. I feel like things like this should be used sparingly, to keep that uniqueness and not become annoying. I would recommend their usage be pulled back should you submit a resub. Overall this is ok but there are some niggling issues in arrangement and mixing that hold this back. NO