• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


About Rozovian

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

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • AIM


  • 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)
  • Software - Preferred Plugins/Libraries
    Pianoteq, Omnisphere, FM8
  • Composition & Production Skills
    Arrangement & Orchestration
    Synthesis & Sound Design
  1. We're finishing up the mastering. There were some unexpected hurdles to overcome, but almost all of the mastering work is done, we're going to set up a control listen so the artists can verify that we haven't destroyed their mixes in the mastering process. We'll try to speed up these last stages of the project, so if you've got a track on the album, stick around, be available for this. I think I'll update the first post with the tracklist and metadata soon, so we can all verify that track and artist names and capitalization and everything is in order. And it's a nice reveal for everyone looking forward to the album too.
  2. Spiccato means bouncing the bow against the string. Staccato means sharply detached from the other notes. Where did you find a spiccato? I've been looking for an affordable spiccato option. In any case, if you like it, then you like it. I'm not remixing this for you; it's all about the decisions you make in making this. (How do I say this without it sounding passive-aggressive?) The person whose opinion on your mix matters the most is you. All I do is point out possible flaws while you can still change stuff. And I can be wrong. There's still a mechanical rolling sound to the steel drums. Less annoying, but still there. I would recommend varying velocities more, or making the synth/sampler respond more to the different velocities. A trick I used with Logic's built-in sampler was to make low-velocity notes start later in the sample, so only the high-velocity notes got the louder start of the sample. This trick, I think, would help with steel drums in particular, because they're used in those rolls. If the synth or sampler you use allows for it, make it respond more to velocity differences. Or make the velocity differences greater. Or both. You might also want to slightly randomize or shuffle/swing the rhythm of the rolls, for a more human sound. I don't know what would work best, but you can try everything and just keep what you like. If you're looking to invest in a really nice steel drum synth, Pianoteq has an add-on for that. It'd set you back a bit, though, 150€ for the basic Pianoteq and the add-on. I like its sound, both the steel drums and the base piano (and I use the Rhodes add-on on almost everything I do nowadays), but it's way too much for a single remix, so if you're not planning on doing a lot more with steel drums, it's not worth it. I think I've heard enough of you to say you've been improving nicely. Keep at it. You're doing great. And take your mixes off eval when you get your eval.
  3. Had my sister come in and give it a listen, since she likes the source. She thought the mixing was weird, the lead being much softer than the arpeggio. She didn't quite like the drums. She felt it (or the drums) was "the same thickness throughout" (translated). She had a reaction to the eclectic sound design, can't say if it was good or bad, but she found it noteworthy. The 2:07 instrument was pretty, but clearly not a real performance (2:17 makes that obvious). But she prefers the original to most remixes of this anyway. Figured you might want that perspective too. eval: Well, the arpeggio is annoying. There's a lot you can do to lessen that. Reduce its levels with automation, push it further into the background. Gradually remove its attack. Have a different pattern, still reminiscent of the source, to use occasionally. Switch octaves. Have a similar, but much less prominent instrument take over. Have a longer loop with a few subtle variations. In addition to that, I find it rather mechanical. When it's exposed, it should sound more human, more performed. Differences in velocity, subtle (BUT DELIBERATE) differences in timing between notes, and perhaps also between loops. It should sound different in the big drum-supported sections compared to the calmer bits. That's how a real performer would do it, even if they'd play these same notes throughout. The lead is buried under the arpeggio, which hurts both parts. Should be solved with some of the tricks suggested for improving the arpeggio. Carving a hole for the lead in the other tracks' frequency range with EQ (a few dB, nothing drastic) should also help. The drums are a little boring. I like their sound, they have a nice groove, but they could be more interesting. And, in some parts, less interesting, when the other instruments provide drive and rhythm. Their brief appearance from 2:45 to 2:10 seems.... brief, and pointless. You're right to think the ending is missing something. Half-tempo drums, a canon arpeggio on a different instrument, some acoustic guitar stuff, something. I don't mind the mellow mood and the absence of a big lead or anything of the sort, but you need _something_ different there. What happened at 1:37, when the piano/guitar thing just disappears for no apparent reason? The arrangement is quite conservative. It's always difficult to say if it's too close to source. In these cases I usually just suggest to sub it regardless and let the Judges figure our if it's too close, but I'd be remiss to not mention it here. There are parts that could use a bit more attention to detail. Your lead instruments, especially in the calmer sections, are quite exposed, which means listeners can hear all the details. For a good performance and a good instrument, that's great. You're lacking in the performance department. 2:27 is a great example of this. It doesn't sound legato. It sounds like a keyboard. Spend some times on details like that, to make them less obvious. Mellow groove, nice sound, chill stuff. Unless it's too conservative, this should pass the panel once the biggest annoyances are dealt with. For clarity, those are in the mixing, the performance (the illusion of human performance), and in the ending.
  4. eval: Groovy stuff. Messy mix, difficult to know what to focus on. Get your instrument levels in order, separate with EQ and reverb where appropriate. Cool source. Sounds pretty conservative. Big sound upgrade, but a lot of the elements are pretty straightforward in how they're used. Might be an issue on the panel. There are some cool creative deviations, from 1:30 in particular. I think it's okay, source-wise. The mix sounds lacking in the highs, and that's on my system that I know hypes the highs a bit. Grab some good reference mixes and see how they compare. Not ready yet, imo.
  5. The orchestral ones, the ones from 4:16. You might want to touch up the strings there as well, use a staccato sample or something. Maybe. I now discovered that the steel drums have a very artificial sound, during the rolls. If your sampler lets you do it, set sample start to a little further into the sample so soft notes don't have as strong an attack, and let velocity affect the sample start parameter so higher-velocity notes start normally. Humanize velocities, and also perhaps slightly the timing of these roll notes. It's a small thing, but it stands out during my re-listen. You can't spend forever fixing everything that comes up, or you won't finish many tracks. But when something stands out, it's worth doing something about it. Headroom is a tricky issue. Intersample clipping is a problem, but so is disparate levels bvetween different works by different artists. For ocr, I recommend you make it a suitable level for being playing with other ocr tracks.
  6. The intro piano stuff is odd. The first 20-ish seconds. It's difficult to get a grip of the first notes of the arpeggio, but that's a very briefly passing issue. Once the arpeggio begins playing, it's fine. The delay is a bigger point of confusion than the reverb. I'm fine with the reverb. The delay is probably too loud. Can't tell what's delay and what's actual notes. That's an issue. It's going to confuse listeners. Maybe that's the point.
  7. eval: The first 20 seconds seem to lack direction. I think it can be cleaned up with better mixing, but it might take something more drastic than that. I'll cover that part in detail, because some of it is applicable elsewhere in the mix as well. Putting it in a quote for clarity. Guitars could be more separated, the lead given a similar space in the frequency range as the lead synth in the intro, carved out of the instruments that crowd it (backing guitars, bass, snare, cymbals; whatever). Weird drum hiccup at 1:11. Plenty of drum fills and things, often for no apparent reason. They're usually used for punctuation, for signalling a change in the track. You seem to use the drums to get some rhythm into your track, while the bass plays long notes. Think like a bassist. Long sustained notes are fine at times, but at other times they're not the right choice. It's often good to have some interplay between bass and drums. Transition to 1:40 is beautiful. Nice work there. 1:41 has an FM-sounding ringing going on. I'd try a different pad there. The problem with the ringing seems exacerbated during long notes. Sounds like a patch with some interesting motion to it, but it's a bit on the bright side, and you might want to try a different sound for it. I know my speakers like to hype certain high frequencies, so if you can't hear an annoying, resonant ringing sound to this synth, it might just be my speakers. But while they exaggerate those frequencies, they don't make things up from scratch. Listen closely, see if you agree with this issue. If you do, do something about it. The 1:50 guitar lead is perhaps a bit too loud, or just has a strong attack. You can compress some of that strength out of it to keep the part soft. I hope you're not running all the guitar parts through identical signal chains. It's okay to treat a part like this as if it's a different guitar, even if it's actually the same guitar, even the same take. The bass seems a little weak. It plays some rather high notes, which isn't necessarily a problem but does leave the track without a solid low end at times. You might want to add a sub bass effect to get some more low end out of it. Just don't overdo it. Structurally, it's difficult to follow. The parts writing doesn't have enough interplay. The sound is messy. These problems remain. But they're solvable. It seems the overall levels are quite good. The drums have a nice ampunt of impact, and while the mix isn't as transparent as it should be, I think it's not an issue with track levels, but with track separation (with eq, reverb, and other techniques). This is something you probably haven't learned to listen for. Once you have, it'll seem obvious, and easy to deal with. Learn it. Not ready to be subbed just yet.
  8. pseudoeval, as requested: Starts conservative. Sound is generally fine, if a bit quiet. One of the synths is a little uninspired, which isn't a problem when in the midst of things but stands out when it's more exposed (the 3:02 one; the 2:10 synth is fine). Some sloppy parts on the guitar. Uses the title screen source also, which should probably be listed when submitting. Some really cool creative takes on the sources during the middle of the track. Bookends with more conservative use of source, but with some creative guitar melodies playing along. Ending could be tighter, and signalled more clearly or earlier. I don't think this will have any trouble passing the panel, but it has a bunch of flaws that will bother you as an artist (if not now, then later) as well as listeners better versed in the genre than I am. Best advice I can offer is to use a good reference track for instrument levels and EQ. Nice work.
  9. Sure, start with sheet music. Some of us do. Some of us use our ears and guess. Some of us download a midi file. It doesn't matter what we start with. It only matters what we end up with. If you're just starting out, it doesn't matter anyway. It'll take you a while to get good at this stuff, so anything that helps you is a good thing. But once your skills are on the level where you can get a remix approved by the panel, you might find yourself limited by starting from something too similar from the original. This applies to sheet music, midi, and your own transcription of the original. Doesn't mean you can't do it, just that it's more difficult to make it your own arrangement. But it's a later concern. Just get started and have fun.
  10. 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.
  11. 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.
  12. 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.
  13. 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.
  14. 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
  15. 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.