Jivemaster

Members
  • Content count

    520
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Jivemaster

  • Rank
    Judge
  • Birthday 07/06/1982

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Australia (Brisbane, QLD)

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://www.jivemaster.com

Converted

  • 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
    jivemaster
  • Xbox Live Gamertag
    jivebird
  • PlayStation Network ID
    jivebird
  • Steam ID
    jivebird

Artist Settings

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

Recent Profile Visitors

2,568 profile views
  1. There is noticeable wavering in parts of the track where the compressor can't handle the signal coming through. This starts at 1:10 just after the bass comes in - when the guitar returns its dynamics are very wobbly. The guitar parts that proceed to come into play get progressively loud from this point, which only detracts from the overall mix, rather than adding a sense of power that I believe is trying to be conveyed here. The lead activity occurs on the right channel more often, although this is balanced occasionally by other accompanying instruments on the left channel. Drums are drowned out through the majority of the mix, and need space to breathe, even for a guitar heavy track. The arrangement progresses ok, although I feel most sections go on for too long without much change. The outro portion at 5:20 was well done (if also a bit long). This needs a revisit when it comes to mixing and EQ - parts are stepping on each other and creating a cloud over your mix, making it difficult for the listener to appreciate what you've done. Adding layers is a great technique but you need to balance these layers appropriately so you don't just keep getting louder and stepping over what is already there. I would also look at either value adding to some sections or shortening them in order to warrant the length presented here. NO
  2. A very original take on the source tune. When the track starts up, things are promising, with a soundscape that fits your theme of inspiration well. However as things progress we run into a few issues. Your general progression in the arrangement here is lacking. You have a solid selection of sounds and a build up of parts that work well together, but they play similar things for too long. This wouldn't matter if the progressions were more varied and/or alternated more often, but the repeat points on the headlining parts are quite short. This is compounded by the repetitive arpeggio. The changes in background textures across the mix are largely lost due to its continuous pattern. It's quite distracting, and while I don't hate the pattern, it would be nice if it changed across bars, or at the very least, had some parameter tweaks to make it evolve over time. It's also quite dry compared to the other parts which exposes it further. You have a good overall sound here, production feels mostly solid with nothing (aside from the arpeggio) really standing out as a major problem, but it feels like you're only at the starting point of a good groove to springboard off. The content alone IMO is not enough to sustain duration. I would really like to hear you take this further. NO
  3. Great opening sequence. The combination of acoustic guitars for rhythm, and the electric guitars for lead works very well. Across the duration the mix is packed full of licks laying over each other which help both with transitions to new sections as well as keeping things fresh. Parts are well played, tight but not overly nudged. Backing instruments create a full soundscape. Arrangement wise, parts are not visited long, with something new frequently presented to the lister. Bird chirping is a little loud during the section around 2:00 but they don't go for long. Mixing wise things are quite full, sometimes overly so. You don't always have a heap of instruments playing at the same time, but even in sparser sections the parts share a lot of frequency space which tends to cloud certain areas (the worst of this was later on during the section starting around 5:10). There wasn't a point where you completely ruined the clarity, but the mixing in these kinds of sections definitely pulled this down a bit for me, I felt some tweaked eq for sections that were fuller was definitely needed. That said, as the others I think this is overall very well done, you've expressed a lot of creativity in particular with the guitar in this track, having it fill a number of roles (rhythmic, lead, backing, sfx) which I found impressive. YES
  4. Gentle tones, very emotive. Completely agree with Deia here. The use of dynamics here are great. The shift in pace of the piano playing is great as well. I did also share the same concern of the mechanical nature of the track. Things sound quite realistic as you have them here, but at the same time there is an almost inhuman tightness to the progression, which sticks out even more due to the otherwise strong pacing and dynamics. I am not sure if this is due to some quantising after the fact, or if things were written like this intentionally, but it is noticeable. I enjoyed the arrangement progression for the most part. Some bits near the end felt a little similar to those that opened the piece, but there wasn't too much of this, and I felt the length of the mix fit the content you had well. No mixing issues here either (to be expected for a solo instrument piece), piano tone is solid and has a good balance of highs and lows. Tough one for me here, as things are by no means poor, but I feel that due to the nature of this being exclusively piano, I think you need to revisit this and humanise the notes further to take things to that final level. NO
  5. 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
  6. 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
  7. 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
  8. 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
  9. I'm with the others on the arrangement. I feel that it brings some nice original additions to the table. Sounds and production have some issues worth mentioning. Rhythm guitars are noticeably dry. Guitar leads aren't as loud as they should be (particularly in the earlier parts). The bass is pretty much non-existent, as though the guitars had too much low end and instead of high passing them the bass was reduced to compensate, resulting in a fairly bare centre mix. The drums are tiny, they have a pop to them but no real impact. These mixing decisions made me wonder if vocals were ever included and then removed, because the hollow nature of the centre is what would normally come as a result from that. Taking into consideration these mixing issues, the mix falls a little short, the absence of any real bass and the tiny drums really detracting from the overall sound and the otherwise solid arrangement. I think this could do with a second pass. NO
  10. 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
  11. Lyrical writing is clever and performance is strong. Your musical accompaniment while genre accurate is a mixed bag. I don't mind the less complex synths you have going on here but it would be nice if they varied up a bit. The claps are a bit loud compared to the rest of the mix but do a good job at providing some much needed stereo width. The arrangement Is quite minimal, it's largely fitting through the first verse, but when you go minimal like this, you need to make good use of what you've got, and sections feel repeated in places with a lot of stuff sitting mostly in the centre. While I acknowledge that hip-hop drums don't vary up a whole lot traditionally, I do agree with the crits regarding the drums being a bit too samey all the way though and could do with some changing up. Despite the faults I've described, I feel you've brought a good amount of personality to the original tune, even though you're largely relying on lyrics to get this over the line (which is not overly different from what others have done before). For me I feel I can borderline this, some things could be better but I can't imagine those changes making a significant difference. We'll see where this goes. YES (borderline)
  12. Enjoy your mix of chiptune, orchestral elements, breakbeats and guitars. You've certainly added your own personality to the original tunes. The instruments surprisingly fit together well despite being quite different. I didn't have as big of an issue that some of the others had with your orchestral stuff - I thought the sounds were serviceable, but due to their attack they did at times lag behind the rest of your arrangement in your sequencing, and were a little stiff. They were also too loud compared to the other parts they were playing with. This highlights one of the more major issues for me here in your mix, which is the mixing. Drums get drowned out regularly, strings take away too much attention from parts that are meant to be leading, and during the busier sections things feel squished. This is a shame as you have a solid arrangement here with some nice original additions. Would like to see this go through another pass to fix up the mixing and orchestral issues. NO
  13. 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
  14. 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
  15. 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