• 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

2,365 profile views
  1. I agree mostly with what the others have said here. I enjoyed the opening sequence and atmosphere, the organ like synth, bass and drums set things up nicely. When the lead guitar comes in I feel there's a few issues. Firstly, I'm with the others that it's too loud compared to the other parts. It already sticks out frequency wise, you should really consider dialling the volume on this back. Speaking of frequency, you do have some piercing frequencies here on the lead that should be tamed, I'm sure an LPF or surgical notch EQ would be enough to ensure this remains relaxing on the ears. Breaking away a bit from the others, I also feel the lead guitar is a bit too clashy note wise here when paired with the other parts, to the point where it felt out of tune at times. I understand what you're going for here - the lazy surfer vibe, and I also know the original has a lot of slide notes which you're trying to represent here. But there was quite a lot of clashing here with the backing elements. I'm not skilled enough to understand exactly what's at fault, but things feel off. Arrangement progression is certainly interesting, and you've got a good level of original elements here accompanying the source. I know my vote is more critical of what you've done than the others, but I did feel strongly about these issues. First and foremost focus on the lead volume/EQ above all else, perhaps this may make it fit in the mix better and overall make things more cohesive. NO
  2. An impressive (if somewhat predictable) rock take of the original. Your guitar tone has a good level of brightness to it, the distortion levels have a nice level of bite while keeping things clear and audible. Performance is solid. As the arrangement plays out things start off fairly conservatively, although we do see a number of licks presenting themselves over time to maintain freshness. Parts transition mostly well, although some feel too sudden (such as the break at 1:17). The panning used on the lead to alternate parts added a nice feeling of movement. Pace maintains fairly similar throughout most of the song, which for a duration of almost 3 minutes is a long time, especially at this tempo. One noticeable nitpick is the drums play the same pattern through almost the entire song - even the main fill that plays before transitions is very close, if not the same each time. In contrast to the real guitars they also felt somewhat robotic in their performance. This I felt detracted from the otherwise solid presentation here. Not enough in my opinion to hold this back, but more variation here really would've been nice. I also feel with the level of skill you display here, more risks could've been taken to depart from the source providing opportunity for more original material. Maybe next time. YES
  3. Quite a funky vibe going on in your track. Things start with a fairly full soundscape, without wasting any time. The main groove has some nice movement to it, and supports the various leads that play over it as the arrangement progresses. Sounds work well with a nice combination of synths and real instruments playing together. The detuned far left/right panned synths add a level of eerieness to the track, although their presence felt overused at times. Things are pretty good in the first half. The main groove evolves over time with a nice transition into the chorus - I particularly enjoyed the fake brass. As we progress to the second half of the track however, a lot of ideas are reused, with not much in the way of new content. The short break with off beat flute licks at 3:15 were a nice touch, though I thought they came in a tad too late. This is a shame as the content you have here is well done. Production wise things could do with a bit more punch. Mixing works but isn't perfect - parts were blended a bit close together, with the drums sometimes being overpowered and lost underneath everything else that is going on; but for the most part things remained audible enough to make out the individual parts. I feel this mix is close. If you could do some more during the second half to differentiate it from the first, you'll cover a good amount of the concerns that have been raised here. NO
  4. The source is an interesting one, with the original's melodic content largely hinging on a bass line and specific percussive elements/patterns. Having trouble with this one as well, drawing a true connection between this and the original. When remixing a source track which is atmospheric, minimal and percussive, you'd need to capture the vibe (melodic, rhythmic material) of the original and return there at various times to remind people of the connection. For this mix you've taken the bass line progression and moved it to a new instrument, which ties it back somewhat. However the melody here feels more background regulated, and everything else is completely original. This isn't a bad thing in isolation - the instrument palette is great and you've done a good job at arranging something that could fit alongside these original tracks, but for me it feels too little of a connection over the duration. I think it would've helped massively if the departure from the original was dialled back a bit to make things more obvious in some sections, perhaps to the extent of imitating some of the percussive progressions - this would really help bridging that divide between the original source and your own material. Sound wise I enjoy your mix, but my initial impressions are it doesn't sound enough like the original. NO
  5. Not a bad performance. Guitar tones are serviceable, although there are a few holes in the frequency spectrum here making things feel a little hollow at times. Agree with the comments that this sounds very mechanical for a live performance. Clearly some audio quantise has been used here, or excessive nudging of audio has occurred to get it on the grid across the board. This did take away from the liveliness of the track somewhat - it wasn't a major downside for me but it was noteworthy. Choir portion starting at 1:26 was fairly week, with that part feeling quite out of place sonically compared to the other parts. The arrangement on a whole is very conservative, without much in the way of original flair added in. In fact apart from the genre being flipped, I don't think this quite adds enough in original personality to be considered a remix, especially for this duration. Other criticisms aside, we need more you in this mix. NO
  6. Really enjoy the guitar opening, smooth chorus, and good performances throughout as the arrangement progresses. The strings felt a bit strange here, like they are separate to the rest of the mix, floating above it almost. This may be due to the lack of reverb. Their quality also sounds a bit too basic, which in contrast to your other parts really makes them stick out in a negative way. During the sections of your arrangement where they're included, I felt they didn't really add much to what was already happening. Otherwise the progression of the arrangement feels relatively decent. The outro I thought was a little strange as the track felt like it closed off nicely only to briefly start up again before ending for real. That nitpick aside, I think this is pretty solid, but the strings do bother me somewhat, and I feel the track would be better off with some revision there first. They don't fit in with the live feel you have happening with your other parts. NO
  7. Good performances, the violin in particular had a nice sweet sound it. I've got no problems with creative panning - I know that you've panned in this fashion to fill out the soundscape seeing as you've gone for the minimal approach. That said, I feel the violin being the main instrument, should be centred. This would carry the additional benefit of leaving space on the right channel for some additional accompaniment. I don't mind the minimal nature of the track, it grew on me throughout the duration, but at 2:50 I think things went on a bit too long for the content you have here. I think this is not far off - if your accompanying parts were strengthened and expanded in terms of changing up over time, it would give the mix more of an evolving feel without having to change the main progression you have going on here. Please give this another look. NO
  8. Appreciate the concerns brought up so far. The arrangement is indeed very safe in the first half of the track - for me I felt the song took a while to really get started and once things hit interesting territory it was almost over. That said things didn't drag on, with parts changing at the other end when they needed to in order to retain interest. I found the sounds used here ok. As always I'm far from an orchestral expert, so I'm not as sensitive about things being mechanical, provided parts aren't overly stiff and sound real enough. Accompanying parts here certainly felt a bit rigid, but the leads kind of masked this for me. I didn't have any major problems with production, parts seem to be mixed ok. I wish there was a bit more creativity here, especially in the first half, it would have made this an easier decision in that regard. Still for the duration, we do eventually get some originality, I just wish there was more. YES
  9. Smooth filtered opening sequence. Things start off fairly minimum. The plucky synth was a little distracting initially as it was panned off centre and occupied most of the higher frequency space making things feel a little off balance, but thankfully additional accompanying parts drop in soon after to fill the space. You have a nice selection of sounds here, with some plucks to electronic bells, a bunch of different leads, and even piano like synth sounds. This great variety also carries one the tracks biggest issues however, which is a lack of cohesion between the sounds. In isolation the sounds work well, but together they feel mismatched and out of place at times - this is most noticeable in the second half of the track where more sounds are introduced. This is confusing in contrast to the arrangement, which I feel is cohesive, well implemented and didn't sound like a bunch of unrelated songs glued together like some do. Production wise things are quite clear, you have a fairly rumble free low end. There are some mixing issues worth noting, mostly with your leads, which seem to be much louder than the rest of the parts. It would be great if these were dialled back a bit so they sit in the track better. I can understand the split vote here - I think your track is decent, solid arrangement with good sounds that don't quite fit together, along with some mixing issues. We'll be in a better place if you give this another pass to correct some of these problems. NO
  10. Chaotic mix with a lot of energy. I got a Sega Genesis vibe from a lot of the sound design in this one. Drums were a bit generic. On the arrangement side, I agree that some of the transitions are a bit odd here, with the mix sometimes coming to a complete stop to change to something else. At other times the themes almost immediately switch. In isolation, these events don't detract from the overall quality of the mix, but the quirks with this were definitely noticeable and began to add up. The writing in the individual parts was certainly creative however, if a tad on the safe side. Arrangement has a lot of perceived and actual changes in pace which helped break things up. On the production side, I thought things were a little dry (at least initially), at ~2:40 when the strings come in it fills out the space a bit more adding depth. The left side at times felt more busy than the right. Overall I think this isn't too bad - the arrangement pushes things to straight medley like proportions at times, but there is enough creative additions throughout to add that needed level originality. If only the transitions were more seamless. YES
  11. 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
  12. 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
  13. 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
  14. Nice clean intro. I feel the piano is a bit too loud across the mix here compared to the other elements, could go down a bit in volume. It also feels quantised and a bit rigid in that regard. Arrangement is mostly solid, the change in tempo near the track conclusion was a nice inclusion, where the theme changes up, and it lent itself well to the change in pace. Nice clean outro as well. No major complaints here, especially with the other judges feeling this is pretty solid. I would've preferred a bit more looseness in the piano but it doesn't break the mix. Short and sweet. YES
  15. 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