Harmony
-
Posts
1,081 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Articles
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Harmony
-
-
This one is a mixed bag for me. On one hand there is plenty of stuff that just doesn’t work for me, theoretically sound or not. On the other, a casual listen doesn’t reveal anything too atrocious and the groove will get your head a-bobbin’.
The dissonant intro fortunately resolves itself quickly because the odd harmonies were approaching leaning-on-the-keyboard level by 0:08. Given the chill almost organic nature of the rest of the mix, I’d say a clean harmonic intro would work better. However, once the main groove kicks in, the very cool dynamic percussion, simple bassline and non-obtrusive leads are pleasant indeed, even though slightly repetitive. I’m definitely feeling Larry on the melody at 1:26 and 3:04. The lead synth smears the melody with an all eighth note rendition of the familiar source which sounds somewhat random. Those sections are kept alive however both by the subtle phaser/flanger on the lead and the interesting background organ synths and short strings.
The extended groove of 2:07-2:48 was pretty nice leading up to 2:48-3:20 which was basically a beefed-up version of 1:10-1:43. And then at 3:20 all heck breaks loose, heck I say. The key change is completely random with nothing more than a reverse cymbal to lead us into it resulting in some brief clashing notes and melodic ambivalence. Turns out that the key change is really an outro because little develops after it leaving me to feel that it is unnecessary and obtrusive to the vibe of the first 3 minutes.
A gust of wind could push me to either side but I think that in spite of the problems, the solid production, interesting textures and decent arrangement are hard to ignore and eventually push me towards a
YES (oh so borderline)
-
Good beginning effort Jim but there’s a lot of work to be done here. The sounds are not only generic but they are underprocessed. The only real effect that I hear is the delay on almost everything. While in some cases this creates some interesting textures, the cross-panned delay on the claps for example only accentuates the fact that they are bone dry amongst the other fluid, dreamy synths and bells. A little reverb can go a long way.
Although I do hear some compositional and instrument additions, the arrangement was too conservative as well. Also, it’s unfortunate that in the sections where we do hear some of your creativity, the out-of-tune bells spoil the experience.
Visit the ReMixing forum and read up on layering your samples, acquiring new samples and processing what you do have. You also might consider stopping by the WIP forum for some feedback on your future mixes. Keep working at it.
NO
-
Nail on the head.Everything on the production side lacked clarity and separation. The organ at :36 was being obscured by the bass and all of the beatwork going on.While I really like the arrangement, percussion and some of the samples I can't get past how cluttered and mushy large portions of the mix feel. 0:52-1:06, 2:13-2:27 stand out as major offenders but working on clearing the distinction between individual elements throughout the entire mix is a must. I would especially work on the guitar that has been mentioned as well as the organ that just doesn’t have much life to it and sounds slightly over-reverbed.
The panned pandemonium of 2:27-2:49 rocked the house!
I’m actually pretty borderline on this but with what can be the hardest part out of the way, composition and arrangement, working on the sound issues that I and the other judges have mentioned doesn’t seem like too much to ask. Good stuff so far.
NO (Please Resubmit)
-
Use generic ingredients to make a cake and you get a generic cake.
Some ideas that might help with your next trance mix:
- The chord changes on the intro pads are way too slow allowing chords to bleed together which in this instance sounds sloppy. There’s a similar but less pronounced problem with the bass when it enters. Make sure that doesn’t happen or that it works with the mix.
- That overused open hi-hat rarely sounds good unless it’s processed to death or layered with something. Make all of your sounds more interesting using FX processing and layering.
- Watch the delay on the sawtooth synth . It’s a little much throughout but especially towards the end which causes a lot of mushiness.
- Try for more interesting dynamic variety than slow section, fast section, slow section,…. Also, the transitions here are OK but they could be improved.
- Head to OCR’s ReMixing and WIP forums for some good tips and feedback.
Keep working at it.
NO
-
Holy mother of cow. this is really messy. SPC with some aharmonic repetitive synthy stuff. This is just really sloppy and should have got the form letter.
NO OVERRIDE
agreed
-
There are plenty of really creative arrangement ideas packed into this short mix. Like Shna mentioned, the first minute or so holds a lot of potential. The melting of the bassline into the main theme at 0:25 was slick and I was looking forward to more of that same give-and-take but it never really happened.
Much of the remaining arrangement ideas were interesting and non-repetitive however the production made them feel lifeless. With the solid ideas, I would be borderline on this one if the mixing was better. 0:12 was a huge letdown as the lead synth is field-mouse quiet and the hi-hats are not well integrated with the other elements. The section from 0:57-1:20 is a bit cluttered and the drums again feel disjointed from the synths. If a little quiet, the ending from 2:03 was mixed fairly well I must say.
There are some cool ambient effects and sound FX scattered throughout and the sample processing is decent as well. For the resubmit, bring the global levels up and work on more effectively managing the balance between elements.
NO (Please Resubmit)
-
Good crisp sounds for the most part. As Vig mentions, the exception are the vocals which I think would work better with a creamier feel, especially when they are exposed towards the beginning. Not bad at all though.
The development through 1:11 was a little slow. The intro synth and vocals are interesting however the other supporting elements in the understandably extended intro feel rather flat. A thicker bass and a layered or more punchy kick would help to fill out that section. In any case the build is steady and the song gets really engaging approaching the breakdown at 2:23.
There is a good amount of creative arrangement, especially given the genre so no complaints there. I think that the cut-off ending worked well in this mix.
The limited criticisms I have are easily outweighed by the cool lyrics, clean production and decent arrangement. Good stuff.
YES
-
For this genre I don’t have a problem with the limited level of arrangement. There is a great drive to this mix that screams “Doom” and while more development would have been nice, I think the mix does it’s job. I do however agree that the rhythm guitars are overwhelming for too much of the mix and in general the mid-range is over-stuffed. All-in-all this is a simple and enjoyable track. Fix the sound balance issues and send this one back. …oh snap, unintentional rhyme.
NO (Please Resubmit)
-
Cool title and I really enjoy this mix. The arrangement ideas are straightforward but interesting, the guitars are cleanly recorded and I don’t think that the production needs that much work to bring it around. The major production problems are the clarity during sections like 1:05-1:47 and power during the drum sections. The power can be improved by making the strings more prominent and working on the percussion.
I think one of the largest contributors to the mushiness is the delay that is not set in sync with the tempo. As a result, instruments step on themselves and each other, especially during busier sections. In Home Studio 2002 I don’t think that the default delay plugin allows you to sync the delay with the tempo; instead it requires you to specify delay in milliseconds. If this is the case, try this for your delay next time: divide 60,000 by the tempo of your song. If your tempo is 120 then this gives 500. Using 500 ms of delay (or any multiple thereof) will have the echoes line up with the tempo.
The drum samples have a good acoustic feel to them but I agree with Samuel that some greater variety would help this mix. Bring in a ride or toms on some sections. On some sections you might try a subtle fill beat instead of cutting the drums altogether. Hit the remixing forum and look for Zircon’s Groovy Drums tutorial for more tips.
Composition needs to be improved as well. With the limited variation on the theme it’s going to be difficult to sustain interest for 5 minutes. Thus, cut/shorten/revamp some of the sections that drag on (1:04-1:47, 2:30-3:33,…). The section at 3:57 was pretty fun, although it should have come much earlier. The transitions between sections are somewhat choppy so you might also work on making them more interesting.
Good stuff but with some fundamental problems. Nothing that I don’t think a little practice and some more tweaking can’t fix though so keep working at it.
NO
-
Lack of clarity is a big issue here. In addition to the comments from the other judges I would work on cleaning up the guitar. The performance is not tight enough to fit nicely with the electronic elements. 1:36-1:52 stands out as obviously off but the other rhythm guitar sections (90% of the rest of the mix) aren’t much better. This fast paced power chord work can be difficult to nail so consider going behind your performance, slicing up the guitar track and making sure the chords fall on tempo. Essentially, manually ‘quantize’ your guitar.
Put more work into creatively arranging the source as well as cleaning up your sounds and your mixes will fare a lot better. Keep working at it.
NO
-
The drumloops themselves are good but in the context of this mix they are very generic, they overpower the leads and are not well integrated with the rest of the elements. Using a limited number of loops is fine but you have to work with them. Slice them up, switch them around, creatively mix and process them; don’t let them sound like simple loops. Variety my friend, variety.
Not really that bad but could be much better.
NO
-
The piano is taking a lot away from what would be an interestingly mellow take on the source. With “limited resources” you might consider hiding the average quality of the piano sample by not allowing it to serve as the key exposed element in the mix. The higher piano notes especially sound plain when played alone, however when combined with the other instruments the piano quality is hardly distracting.
Sound quality aside, the repetition in the piano part is another factor that’s hurting this. Variation is a key to interesting music.
Keep working at it.
NO
-
This has a great clean sound throughout. The vocal samples are wonderfully used and the instrumentation is very engaging. It's euro stylin' all the way and some of the arrangement feels like something a favorite conductor/composer of mine Paul Schwartz would create.
The composition is standard yet interesting, the arrangement is creative and the sounds are enveloping. Great work Carlo.
YES
-
Not really much development or variety here. Most of the synths sound like the solo synth that we get in the intro. Combine that similarity with the gobs of reverb and you have a mush of indistinct sound. A stronger beat would have helped things but the percussion here is too quiet, not varied enough and drowned in reverb.
Aim for more clarity by choosing instruments that sound interesting together without sounding the same. Also, tone down the delay and reverb. Selectively apply those effects to individual instruments rather than pouring them over the entire mix.
Before submitting next time, take some of the great advice that can be found in the OCR ReMixing and WIP forums. My advice: have fun and keep working at it.
NO
-
I’ve been looking forward to reviewing this one. Dan turns out some really great original stuff and if you haven’t heard it already, stop by the WIP – Other forum to hear the cool stuff that he and others are creating on the non-remix front.
No question that some good quality samples are in play here. They could have been used a little better though. The constant attack on the strings from 1:01-1:15 sounds completely synthetic in a sea of realistic orchestral sounds. Same problems when the section is repeated. The guitar section starting at 1:30 is interesting indeed. Some stereo separation as well as more balanced levels amongst the instruments would greatly improve the clarity there.
Why was a beat skipped at 2:12? If it was intentional, I wouldn’t advise an abrupt break in a slow ¾ tune without following it up with something other than more ¾ music.
The biggest problem however is the arrangement. The instrumentation differences between the mix and the ToP “Good-Bye Friends” source are somewhat superficial. Compositionally, sections 0:00-1:00 and 1:59-2:25 are mere covers of the first part of the original. The powerful orchestral builds are present in the source and honestly the largest arrangement decision that I hear is switching to a staccato melody at some sections.
Sorry Dan but I can’t pass this one. Listening to some of your original stuff it feels like you haven’t finished this mix. From the choppy strings to the tail of the piano fade out being chopped off, I know that this doesn’t represent your best effort. The arrangement is the major killer though.
NO
-
Good samples. Some more attention to production and mixing would give them more pizzazz though. Use of purposeful panning, more reverb on the drier percussive elements, EQ work on the drums, and more sample variety could really add a lot of punch to this mix.
Unfortunately, this is too conservative a take on the theme to pass. There’s some limited arrangement but in general the source and the mix use the same instruments in the same way throughout which isn’t exciting.
You’ve got the hang of making a decent sound. Now make the sound more your own.
NO
-
Not a bad effort, just not quite there in terms of arrangement and mixing/processing. I’m also digging this dry lo-fi vibe but the integration with the sampled SID stuff isn’t the best. The chorus separation on the lead weakens it IMO. I would have liked the lead to be stronger and more centralized to better tie the other elements of the mix together.
The melodic and percussive additions and changes are minimal which, as has been said, makes this feel like a tribute rather than a remix. Still a fun piece of music to listen to though.
NO
-
Not the most trance friendly source but I like the way that the transition to 4/4 has been made. Although the source could have been used more creatively and with less repetition, I think the arrangement for the genre is passable.
The synths aren’t bad. They don’t stand out much but they get the job done. The ultra plain drums are killing me though. The sequencing is pretty generic, which isn’t all that bad, but the samples and their processing (or lack thereof) just come off as flat. Try layering your percussive elements to create richer more engaging sounds. Also try layering the main beat with another subtle groove. Even for this genre some background snare-play or hi-hat work could really spice up some of the more empty sections like 1:20-1:27 and 2:27-2:47. Check out the Remixing forum and Zircon’s Groovy Drums tutorial for some other tips to spice up your drums.
I like the dynamic bass on sections like 0:26-1:20. It’s got a lot more character than some simple standard sine wave bass. It gets a little muddy and disharmonious though at some points (1:00, 2:34,…).
Work on toning down the generic vibe and a lot of the potential of this track will be brought out.
NO
-
I think the opening chord progression is a close cousin of the progression at 0:01 of the .spc otherwise I don’t hear the source until much later as has been said. The source is there in some form past the mid-mark of the mix but it certainly isn’t developed well enough.
The WEEeeooww synth that comes in at 1:10 somewhat overpowers things. Might want to tone that down.
The clips weren’t all that bad but they would have been more appreciated if they came after a good rearrangement of the source or were well integrated with the music.
Lots of the samples are pretty nice, such as the string instrument at 2:22, but I can’t pass this on sample quality alone. A more developed source would have made this golden.
NO
-
I think the VGMix version is the better mix but the differences between the two come down to remixer preference. The mix that we have has a lot more attention paid to production, FX and variation. Although these are offset by some of the issues that Larry mentioned I don't feel that this mix is significantly weaker than the VGmix version, especially since the composition of the two is pretty similar. I say judge what we have.
-
Not bad but this is a very straightforward adaptation; this mirrors the source instrument choices, structure, and even uses the same panning of the percussion and some of the supporting elements. I can’t pass this based on that alone. Bottom line is that I can’t hear any of your creativity shining through the good musical base that the source has provided.
You mentioned that you were going for more intensity than the original but this mix doesn’t exactly deliver. It’s louder than the source and the percussion is more prevalent but more intense a mix that does not make. Like Larry said, most of your elements mud together. The lead and supporting instruments need better sonic separation. Even if they were separated the repetitive percussion is overwhelming much of everything else. From 1:04 for example I can barely hear the lead strings under the kick and the loud piano. I like the piano sample and it has the potential to achieve what you were going for but just like the percussion, it has to stay in its place.
Some of the FX/processing are interesting such as the flanger on the ride and some of the ambient stuff that makes it through the percussion. Make sure that your levels are kept in check to avoid the clipping that pops up here and there.
Creativity and originality are the name of the game Adam so work on expanding on the source material in future mixes and check out the WIP and ReMixing forums for help with the production as well. Keep working at it.
NO
-
Some of the fuller sections towards the end have a decent sound to them. For the most part however, the low quality of the samples is bringing this one down. There’s also the matter of the sax in the middle of the orchestra which sounds a little out of place. It was good to hear some attention paid to dynamics with the build starting at 2:16 but much of the rest of the piece felt flat. Some soft cymbals, for example, might really add some expression to this mix.
The arrangement is very conservative and with the sound quality problems that the other judges and I mentioned, this can’t pass as a genre adaptation or an additive remix. Check out the WIP and ReMixing forums for some help with your future works. Good orchestral arrangements can be difficult to pull off so I think what’s needed here, even more so than better samples, is some quality practice time. Keep working at it.
NO
-
Nice groove. It’s got a lo-fi Sade vibe to it that could be really cool with better processing and clearer samples. Pushing up the mid to high frequencies on many of the samples (guitar, percussion, pads) would add lots of life to the track. Even the vocals at the end that are intended to be subdued could benefit from additional highs. You also could have gotten a better take on those vocals. The speaker breathes into the mic a few times and the delay echoes the mistakes for what seems like forever.
There is some light clipping throughout the track (eg 1:34, 1:40, 2:59,…) that should be cleaned up.
With this short of a source the ambient mix seems like a good way to go but you’ve gotta keep things alive with plenty of variation. The percussion is way too constant and not many additive elements are thrown in as the track rolls along. The pads are nice but some addition of interesting harmonies or changes in samples would have made them a lot more engaging. Original melodies played on the lead wind instrument would add both variety and personal flare.
Good simple groove here. With some work on the repetition and limited arrangement this mix could sparkle. Keep working at it.
NO
-
The vox and the intro harpsichord are way too robotic. It’s an interesting combination that might be interesting to hear performed by an experienced vocalist and harpsichord player. Some of the sustained “ahhs” towards the middle of the mix sounded good though. In general the sample quality is good but the sequencing needs some work.
There’s a decent build through 0:48 but after that, the track pretty much plateaus at a certain dynamic level and doesn’t let up. This isn’t helped by the repetition, the shortness of the track or the conservative interpretation. The percussion adds a very stately feel to the source but they aren’t enough to keep the mix engaging for long.
Keep working at it, and don’t be afraid to pull farther away from the source in future remixes.
NO
*NO* MapleStory 'Kerning Techno'
in Judges Decisions
Posted
I couldn’t find the source either but I think that this mix needs a little more work to pass on the sound quality side of things before we get into arrangement. That’s not to say that there’s not some good stuff here including a nice thick bass, solid beat and some interesting SFX.
The biggest problem is that they don’t change at all throughout the song. The buzzy lead that first enters at 0:47 is cool for a while but it slightly overpowers the background elements and doesn’t let up after its introduction. By 2:38 we have at least 3 more similar synths all playing at once which mashes for something of a synth mush. I could say that more drastic panning might help matters but there’s only so much it can do. There is also the problem of relatively sparse section at 1:19 that could have a lot more going for it, even thought it builds to something.
Some of the synth sequencing (lead and supporting) in the first minute sounds a little loose so you might want to look at cleaning that up. Other than that, variety is the key Tyler. I’m all about lyrics so I think a rapper or a vocalist would be an interesting way to replace some of the lead synths. Keep working at it.
NO