Rozovian

Members
  • Content count

    5,101
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

About Rozovian

  • Rank
    Workshop Evaluator, Songs of Light and Darkness Director
  • Birthday 10/25/1985

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Finland

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://rozovian.wordpress.com/
  • AIM
    Rozovian

Converted

  • Biography
    Dude with beard. Makes music sometimes. Short on pronouns.
  • Real Name
    Ad G

Artist Settings

  • Collaboration Status
    2. Maybe; Depends on Circumstances
  • Software - Digital Audio Workstation (DAW)
    Logic
  • Software - Preferred Plugins/Libraries
    Pianoteq, Omnisphere, FM8
  • Composition & Production Skills
    Arrangement & Orchestration
    Synthesis & Sound Design
  1. Deviation for the sake of deviation usually don't make it better. I find that the best approach is to deviate early, on a structural level, where you can then add elements verbatim without it feeling too similar to source. Typically I create a groove that I can stick some source element onto, build the track on top of that. Maybe it's a percussion and bass groove. Maybe it's a synth arp. maybe it's a staccato strings loop. And then I see how well different parts of the source will fit onto that. The opposite approach is when you first make a cover, and then try to force the arrangement and melodies to be different. It usually doesn't work. Besides, when it comes to ocr, people will have different ideas of what's too close to source. Maybe the panel will be perfectly fine with a conservative intro and deviations later in the arrangement. I'm inclined to think that's the case with this remix at least. Good luck when you sub it.
  2. 2. ready for review

    Welcome to ocr. This is a good place to learn. For starters, I recommend you put the name of the game in the title, certainly in the post somewhere. And use ready for review when you think your remix is ready to be submitted to the judges' panel, but want someone to check first. eval I recognize stuff from source. As there is no source link (which you're supposed to provide when you mark a track ready), I won't comment further on that. No source link, no source comment. The intro sounds okay. At 0:14 there's a terribly loud monosynth (with a terrible pitch bend at one point). It no longer sounds okay. The organ provides a thick carpet underneathy the rest of the mix. You definitely want some of that to keep the sound from becoming too sparse. But it's a bit too thick. Consider EQ-ing away some of its lows or low mids, and being careful with how many notes you let it play at once. Using a multiband compressor on it is another way to keep it under control. The organ and the drums don't seem to have much interplay. Not a big deal when the organ is just playing chords, but it's all the more important that they share a groove during the solo. There are several instances of parts not understanding where they are in the rhythm of the track, the worst at 3:08 where the whole isntrumentation seems two beats off from the drums. At 2:36, another terribly loud synth plays, this one a poor fit for the overall sound. I can understand the monosynth sound from earlier, it fits a kind of retro band aesthetic, but this one simply doesn't work. Why not use something similar to the monosynth (at a more reasonable level) for this part? The performance overall is very sloppy. As it was arranged and recorded in just 3 hours, I can understand where some of these problems come from. I recommend you spend more than 3 hours on a remix. For a 3 hour project, I'm actually a bit impressed. But as for the eval, it's a no. This is just too sloppy. There are some interesting ideas in here, but you clearly need more than 3 hours to bring those out. Post more music, get more feedback, spend more time on your remixes. Welcome to ocr.
  3. A softer take on the source. Sweet. Nice sound. Structurally, it's really similar to the source. It gets mnore interesting once the rest of the instrumentation enters. There's more dynamics, more texture, more going on and more differentiating it from a plain cover. The very conservative first half might be an issue on the panel, but it's difficult to say. Put it in a playlist with some posted remixes, other orchestral works, and compare levels. Is this _too_ soft in that context? If it's just down to source usage issues, my go-to response is to just sub it and see if it passes. Check levels and sub it when you think it's sounds good next to posted mixes. Pass or no pass, I think it's lovely. Nice work.
  4. Posting a game remix here? Yes, that's the point of this place. Marking it for staff review/eval? I'm not sure. Did you read everything here? If you did, you forgot to link to the original. As per my own policy, if the remixer isn't linking to the source, I'm under no obligation to consider source when evaluating. eval The piano sounds stiff, like the velocities were all the same. Maybe it's just a piano that isn't very responsive to velocity. It seems to have the same sound on the softer notes as on the louder ones. It makes it sound stiff and mechanical. That's not good for a track like this. Piano+brass is a nice combo, but there are times where I feel something's missing. It might just be the mix, the balance. The piano is rather loud and dominates the piece, when it feels like the two instruments should have more interplay and their own moments to shine. 0:44 is a transition that doesn't quite work. It might, if it was a larger band. It might, if it was signalled differently. It might, if it was mixed differently. I like it, despite the crits suggesting the contrary. If the original is anything like the music in Okami, it's quite a departure. Ready for review is to be used when you think your remix is good enough to be submitted to ocr for an official mixpost, so that's what I'm going to evaluate. And it's a no. The piano is too stiff. The other issues aren't as big an issue, but they're still worth mentioning. I also have no idea about how the source was handled (you said cover, so I assume it's quite close to source), so I can't comment on that. If it's too similar to the source (arrangement, sound), that's another reason for a no. Welcome to ocr, though. Stick around, post more, and you'll probably learn to spot these kinds of problems earlier in the process.
  5. The concept for the intro is wonderful. The slow and unsresponsive strings drag it down though. You might want to look for a better strings patch for it, or go with a synth, and/or possibly write longer chords for them. You keep on using elements of the source verbatim, where I think you could take more liberties with it. For example, the 2:25-ish piano melody doesn't have to follow the original exactly, it can play something more mellow, or more intricate, depending on the mood you want to go for. It can play from a different chord (Willrock-style). There's nothing wrong with using stuff from source verbatim, and changing them just for the sake of chenging them doesn't usually work. But I think there's times where you can make deliberate changes to the mood and dynamics of the remix by altering the melody. You're also inclined to repeat the structure of the original, where going back to a previous part might make more sense for the structure of the remix. Consider what I've done in Frozen Rose. At 2:09, the track skips part of the source. Why? Because I'm saving it for later, for 5:04. At 3:35, I bring in the main melody on flute, but I don't finish it like in the source. I don't do that the next time it plays, either. Or the next, on another next instrument. Or ever, during this remix. Why not? Because it didn't fit. The source plays over 6 measures, mine on 8. Or something like that. They're different, so I had to adapt it. Or compare the start of the track proper, at 0:57, which mimics the source, with 4:28. I've left out a note, I vary the rest of the notes depending on the chord. Obviously I'm using one of my own tracks, because that's what I know best. These are all things you can do as well, when it makes sense for the arrangement you've got. Don't feel so locked in to follow the source's structure and melody exactly. Back to the eval. The mix should be louder. Just watch out for the problems that come with trying too hard to make something loud. Compare levels to that of posted remixes for reference. The sound design is great. There's little things you can do in the mix to improve it, like making the tom part feel tighter and less reverb-y, and the aforementioned issue with the strings in the intro. But the overall sound design is great. Nice work. Source is there, and while I think there's plenty of creativity in here, the conservative use of it bothers me. I don't think it's the point where it's a problem (difficult to say, difficult to do something about thais point in the remix' development), but it's definitely something worth looking into for your future works. With the intro strings improved and the overall level brought up, I think it might be ready to be subbed. Nice work
  6. eval: The piano is quite mechanical. Humanize it. The drums are boring. Create a better groove, eg by varying hihat velocities and adding some percussion loop to the background. There are many solutions to this problem. Some better than others. Don't think you need a hundred percussion elements and a messy drum pattern to make it work. Just give it a little more life. The whole thing sounds quite loud. Find some posted remixes with a similar enough sound or style that you can compare levels to. It seems that at the skill level you're at right now, you've got the tools and know how to use them, you just don't know _why_ and _when_ to use them. Find some good reference tracks from ocr's recent years, and start comparing. How loud should the bass be? How bright should it be? How about the hihat, the kick, the rest of the drums and percussion? How about lead, secondary melodies, pads? Is the bass too indistinct when the rest of the insturmentation plays, does it need the reverb gone at those points? Is something too prominent and needs some eq cuts and reverb to be pushed back? What stands out in the wrong way? Basically, learn to listen. Source is there, sufficiently interpreted, and I think the arrangement, albeit messy, is okay. There's some weird (or absent) transitions that could be improved. The abrupt changes _sometimes_ work here. Ones I think must be improved: 0:31, 1:15, 2:00, 2:34, 3:10-ish, 3:22, 3:28, 4:13. I might have missed one, so consider all of them, whether they work for listeners or not. Sometimes, the problem is that the transitions lack signalling, sometimes that their timing seems off by a measure or two, sometimes that the change in sound or rhythm is too great, sometimes just that the next part just begins without any change to the drums (a crash is often enough), sometimes there's just a jump in levels because of the overcompression. Find the problem, diagnose the problem, solve the problem. The writing at 3:20 seems too messed up, though. You might want to go with conventional writing and glitch up the sound instead. There's a loud and annoying glitchy sound towards the end, like a mouse squeek. When it becomes a regularly occurring thing like that, it's more annoying than interestingly glitched. I think you're ending on the wrong note. It feels like the notes were just cut off arbitrarily. Ending with just the bass is fine, but I'd end on a different note, possibly at a different point in the loop too. If you really want to end on that note, write the preceding notes differently so it makes more sense. Your questions: Excessive sidechaining - Not hearing any sidechained compression, but the whole thing is too loud. Overcompression - Yes. Cluttered sound - Not terribly so (except around 3:00, which is a mess), but you should probably separate the instruments with EQ,. Consider which ones are foreground and which ones background, and process them accordingly. Make subtle (or not so subtle) EQ cuts in the background instruments so the foreground instruments have more room to play. Not ready for ocr yet. Seems like you've got all the right pieces for it, in sound design and arrangement, you just gotta shift them around a little. As for mixing, the best advice I can give is to listen and compare.
  7. eval I think you're right about the samples. If the original samples are cool to use, there shouldn't be a problem. Let's hope the panel agrees. I'm normally the guy complaining about voice clips and sound effects in tracks, but this is tastefully handled and they're integrated into the track well. It all makes sense. Check their levels though, the clips seem rather loud at times, and there's sometimes a noticeable different in level between two clips. Not much else to say. Source is there, handled creatively. Nice groove, cool sound design. I'm sure there are nitpicky details go hunt down, but I don't have any. I wouldn't be surprised to see this posted. It hinges on whether the use of the samples is cool with ocr or not. And of course, the ending silence. Nice work.
  8. There's some major bass hyping here. Relax. Don't over-EQ, don't over-process, don't over-produce. Isn't EWQLSO recorded in a concert hall already? If so, be subtle with your effects. I'll defer to one of the more orchestrally inclined evaluators for a proper eval, but my initial impression is pretty promising. Nice work. Also, include a source link when you want staff to evaluate your work.
  9. eval Right off the bat, I don't like the bass drum when it's exposed. It fits better in once the track gets going, so not a big problem there. But why does the track keep going back to parts where it _is_ exposed? It makes for a weird arrangement and breaks flow when that happens out of nowhere. You could mitigate this by making the bass drum softer, by reducing level or filtering it or using a partly different bass drum for those parts. Many solutions. Source is undoubtedly there, and there's definitely a lot of interpretation going on in the sound. As for arrangement, it feels like a bunch of disparate parts stacked on top of each other with little thoiught to continuity and progression. Take the 2:31 part. It just starts. New chords, new set of sounds, new rhythm... It just happens out of nowhere. That's a recurring problem with the arrangement. As a lot of the track seems to be source parts placed on top of the beat, you can probably move those parts around to make a more intentional-seeming structure, something with better flow, better transitions, better overall structure. The sound is loud and aggressive, and overcompressed. There are instances where the lead feels too loud or otherwise poorly integrated into the mix, like at 2:31 or 2:59. The overall sound design works though, despite my misgivings about the bass drum. I'm not a fan of the voice clips, but that's a very subjective criticism. I don't think they do anything important for the track, and are mostly there because one of the sources had it. But I might be wrong on that. At the very start, there's also a weird fade effect, as if the first bass drum note was faded in. That's a really annoying problem once you notice it. Not ready for ocr. Overcompressed, messy arrangement. I think all the right parts are there, though, you just gotta put them together in a way that makes more sense.
  10. While I'm going through everything marked for eval, I might as well drop a line here. First, it rocks. Second, that choir is terrible, and the snare is weak.
  11. No source link, no source comment. I'm not gonna go hunting down the source for every remix. The remixer can supply the link themselves. But clearly I should play this game at some point. Seems like it's got great music. eval I think the middle minute's drum rhythm is a bit repetitive, as the track gets stale towards the middle.. Yes, despite the cool rhythm. The transition to the last part also doesn't quite make sense to me, and should probably be signalled better in the dynamics and writing. I'm not saying it's out of place, it could work, but it currently doesn't. It currently feels like 2 separate tracks, one after the other. It might be a good idea to let some instruments carry over, a percussion element or the low strings or something. I suggest you try something like that to make the track more cohesive. An intro in the same style as the ending part might also do it. There are many solutions to this problem. Repetitiveness is a problem in the ending part as well. It shouldn't take much, just a variation to the melody or a change in the overall dynamics, an instrument entering or dropping out. Again, a problem with many solutions. It also sounds like the lead and drums are too loud compared to everything else. I'm having trouble listening to what's going on in the background. You'd best check this against some other posted remixes in a similar style. Not yet ready for ocr, but it's a short and sweet track that has potential. Needs work on the mixing and on making the track more cohesive, as well as reducing the repetitiveness. edit: Link supplied. It's fairly conservative in material, but the structure is handled creatively. No complaints regarding source. Well, that source. Is the ending part from a different source? I can't connect it to anything in Liontamer's source. If so, that means integrating it into the main track is all the more important, as the arrangement otherwise turns into a medley of two disparate parts. That's a type of arrangement that usually doesn't pass the panel. Also, I noticed on this listen that some of the shorter notes from around 0:35, probably on the clarinet or whatever that is, stand out as particularly loud. Instances of individual notes being too loud appear later as well. It's an easy fix once you spot it, reduce velocity or automate a reduction in track level. But you gotta catch 'em all. And you gotta find them first.
  12. I hope this hasn't been on eval since the end of January, as that's a bit too long. We've said (haven't we?) that it should take us about two weeks to notice and evaluate your track. If you don't have an eval after two weeks, PM us or something. MM is one of the first games I have any memory of, along with Battle Chess. Never played enough of it for any of the music to stick, though. eval Long piano intro, seems like it's gonna be a piano-centric track. Odd stuff playing, but I don't terribly mind. It's at least interesting, though it's important that those odd parts in particular feel performed, intentional, rather than sequenced. I get the impression that they're imported from a midi in which they were played on a different instrument. The delay and reverb are messing with my impression of the piano. Later parts have a different keyboard instrument handling the arpeggio, but some rather stiff piano stuff on top. The background stuff isn't as important, but the piano needs to sound more human. Not a fan of the piano+bass sound, but we'll see how it develops. Takes half the track for drums to come in. The track instantly feels a lot better balanced. Drums for the most part are quite straitforward, but there's some nice fills there at times. I don't think drum writing is much of a problem. Fadeout ending. I don't think that's necessary. It almost sounds like a normal ending, one that works fine, except it also fades at the same time. Consider how you want it to end. Source is obviously there, and while it sounds rather conservative, I think the genre adaptation and stuff makes it interpreted enough. No problem there. I can't make sense of the choice of bass. Most of the track, it sounds randomly chosen with little regard for the overall sound of the track. The piano needs to feel more human. During some of the weird writing in the beginning, and when it's playing melody on top of the arpeggio and bass, it doesn't feel performed by a real person. It should feel deliberate and emotive, respectively. And the ending is cheap. You could just drop out the drums and let the guitar stop after a long note. That's an okay ending. There are other ways to end the track, too. But the fadeout doesn't work. Not yet ready for ocr. Sounds promising tho. And nice choice of source.
  13. Like timaeus said, as long as your track reaches normal volumes, it's probably acceptable. The best way to check this is to check how it sounds next to some posted ocremixes in a similar style or genre. Even then there can be a lot of variation. You should probably compare your work to similar, posted remixes anyway, as that'll make issues with frequency balance and some other mixing issues stand out more so you can deal with them before submitting the track.
  14. Orchestral sounds is something you'd best look elsewhere for. Depending on your needs, something like the Kontakt factory library (part of Native Instruments' Komplete; I highly recommend you get Komplete rather than just Kontakt) or an old library like Miroslav might be good enough. I use them - but I don't make much orchestral music. Or you might want to save up a few thousand bucks for the really big orchestral packages. It's difficult to say without knowing your needs. And none of that's free. Logic should have everything you need when it comes to electronic sounds, though. If you're only a few years into this stuff, just now going from GB to Logic, I'd recommend something like this: 1) Learn Logic's instruments, how to get a decent performance out of them. This is free, now that you have it. Find their limitations, and figure out what it is you need from future purchases. 2) Get Native Instruments' Komplete. You get Kontakt, which you'll probably want for future libraries, as well as its basic sound library which includes a wide range of instruments and a lot more options than Logic's own sampler has. Find its limitations, and figure out what it is you need form future purchases. 3) Decide whether to build a library out of smaller purchases (that usually run in Kontakt) or one big monster of a library (often its own plugin). If you're not at this point drawn towards orchestral music, you might find that you need better drum samples, or a good fake/sampled guitar, or more synths, or brass for jazz, or... something else. Figure out what you need before you start spending any money. While there is free stuff out there, I'm not sure I'd bother with it myself. These days, the tools I use the most outside of Logic's own stuff are Pianoteq (mostly the e-piano add-on), Omnisphere 1, a couple of things from Komplete, and a couple of SampleTank things. That's for e-piano, pads, various uses, and drums, respectively (with overlap). But I started with just Logic's own stuff, and that was years ago, before Sculpture and Alchemy. I think my 5 first remixes were done with just Logic's built-in stuff back then, though I can't say for sure. Sorry to not answer the question, but it's difficult without knowing your needs. Even then, it's difficult to say whether a new tool is the right way to go, or just more skill with the tools you've got. What do you want to make?