• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


About Jivemaster

  • Rank

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

3,868 profile views
  1. Well done. While the main melody is quite repetitive, the creative use of samples and dropping layers in/out gives this a similar style and feel to the original soundtrack. This would likely be my main criticism as well, in that your mix takes a lot of cues/inspiration from the original soundtrack, and while not necessarily a bad thing on its own, it would have been nice to hear some further creative exploration of the piece. That criticism aside, mixing is good, arrangement progression is good and mix duration frames the content appropriately. YES
  2. First time listening to this mix, so apologies if I cover some previous ground relating to the previous submission. I found the selection of instruments quite interesting, while odd in parts I think they worked together well. The synths during the intro portion threw me off completely as far as determining mix direction. A strange move but I'm down for different. There are some clicks during the intro portion which I believe may be the bass, I found this a little off-putting. The piano arp at 0:57 was quite robotic, with the piano in general needing some humanisation. On the arrangement side, 1:30 sounds like we're closing off, but the mix starts up again. Not sure how I feel about this approach for introducing the second section of the mix - it almost felt like two variations of the same mix were glued together one after the other. This hurt the arrangement side for me, as I didn't feel that things changed substantially or built up enough between the two halves to warrant both sections. Mixing is ok. There are some parts that are competing for the place of lead, particularly the piano and violin. The cymbals on the right side made the balance feel a bit off in the high end. I agree with MindWanderer that the ending is weak (the "ending" half way felt more like an ending). I think this is close. Some aspects could do with further work. The lack of humanisation in the piano parts made things feel quite rigid (and became more apparent as the piano persists through the majority of the mix). Mixing could be improved to better regulate supporting instruments to the background. Although there are some good ideas here, I thought the arrangement was lacking and missing direction. A tough one as this is a resub. I am open to revisiting the vote as necessary, but I feel this mix still needs refinement. NO
  3. Basic synths with stereo separation worked well. At 1:02 I was taken off guard by the direction of the arrangement. While I usually find the use of sound fx from the game a remix is based on to be cheap and often irritating, but here it works rhythmically to complement the arrangement as opposed to acting as cheap filler. The following transition where strings were introduced was a nice change. Percussion that is mixed throughout fits well, and helps to differentiate this from other minimal mixes. Creative take on the original. YES
  4. I thought things started off ok - no major production issues from me (which I would expect from a solo piano mix). Piano could do with being a bit less stiff. As we hit the 1:17 mark, I found there wasn’t much in the way of personal interpretation of the original - apart from short licks at the end of each set of bars, things remain relatively similar right through to the conclusion. From my perspective, your mix has a good foundation here for some personalisation … and that kind of sums up how I feel where this is at currently - a starting point for something bigger. The repetitive nature of the original comes through too much here, and there’s a lot of potential to build this into something more substantial. I would like you to revisit this and see what you can come up with. NO
  5. Reminds me of something out of a Tarantino film. Guitar twang and all. The arrangement while fairly minimal, has a reasonable amount of changes. Some things repeat at little too much for my taste, but I think they change enough to maintain interest. The fade-out at the end could’ve been done differently, but I do like how things changed up for that final section. Production quality is ok here, mostly passable. I felt the percussion on the right ear was quite loud but things weren’t too off balance. I agree some of the percussion patterns were a repetitive and stiff at times, the lack of humanisation there detracted a bit from the overall presentation, but not so much to ruin the track overall. I think this gets the job done. It’s certainly a unique take on the original. YES
  6. Enjoyable rendition. Agree that things were mixed too quietly - not a major issue but the overall volume could've been bumped up a tad for this one. I appreciated the variance of instrument lead in each section, parts drifted in out making way for the next transition. The changes to the main melody early in the mix are subtle but add much needed originality. Things felt like they had wound up at the 2:20 mark but built up again, adding further original material. The attention to detail here IMO was quite good, natural changes in pace and velocity. Short, sweet and whimsical. YES
  7. Minimal and ambient. Initial panning of the percussion screws a bit with the mind, but things thankfully balance out as more elements are introduced over the first minute. A slight change of pace occurs at 2:01, where we have a slight break down and build-up section. The arrangement keeps a fairly similar feel and pace throughout, although the changes featured in some of the lead progression helps to make things feel different. I feel the mix could’ve stopped close to the 3:50 mark, as the sections introduced afterward don’t particularly add any major value to the arrangement. This worked against the mix, especially with it already being minimal in its presentation - it made the problem stand out more. The section at 4:48 which changed things up a bit could’ve shown up earlier in the mix to help close things out sooner. Production is ok, but I mostly expect that from a mix that keeps layers to a minimum. I thought the percussion initially being left panned would become irritating, but the counter percussion on the right hand side restored balance. The ambience of the lead was largely dominating, but I understand it was being used to fill the soundscape. I think arrangement variation and overall duration are an issue with this one. Willing to revisit and reconsider based on the other judges comments, but I find that the mix covers a lot of similar territory over its duration which makes things sound somewhat repetitive by the time we reach the mid point, leading me to say that the arrangement needs a revisit. NO
  8. Nice little buzzy bass line. The vocals seem to work well and harmonise nicely with each other. There is a bit of dissonance between the piano backing notes and the main vocal melody however, which I found a little jarring and became a persistent problem throughout most of the arrangement. Production wise, vocals are up front and centre, with backups mostly centred as well. This makes the centre of the mix quite crowded. Things are mostly easy to hear when where aren’t too many things happening, but clarity drops when things like SFX and strings drop in. The outro is relatively sudden and I feel it could’ve had more done to close things out. I think the dissonant disparity between the backing and vocals is something that doesn’t quite work here. Mixing could also do with a revisit for clarity in built up areas. I would like a revisit to see what can be improved. NO
  9. While I'm not an expert, I thought the opening choir was well done, with solid integration of the other elements as they come in over time. Mixing between parts is largely well done, with good use of the stereo space. Some parts could do with slightly more foreground/background separation. The progression is not rushed, although changes could do with occurring a little more quickly. I also feel things were played a little too safe at times, with a lot of the original's cue's being relied on. I would have liked to hear some further originality mixed through. These crits aside, I think this is well done, a softer paced rendition, maintaining the angst of the original. YES
  10. A great adaption of the original. The instrumentation here works well, the sparkly and distorted guitars have a nice tone. When the bass drops in just after the one minute mark, the full soundscape features a good mix of instruments, with some decent mixing. The individual parts do sometimes get drowned out though, especially in the solo section starting at 2:33. This is where the mix loses some points due to ineffective (crowded) mixing. I think some of the parts here weren't needed, and the section would've still retained the same impact if the unessential layers were dialled back in volume or completely removed. The rest of the track is mostly well done, although the drums do feel somewhat muffled. The arrangement while slow, progresses relatively well. There was a little too much build-up before the mix actually got going, but these portions were still interesting in their own way. YES
  11. Hits full force on the first note. Lots of varied sounds, growls and sfx, although the first minute does become slightly repetitive by the time we hit 0:50. The following break certainly helps with bringing in much needed variation. The change of pacing here is great as well. 1:45 we break again with ‘lil spacey build-up, and back into the main growly hook. 2:19 again departs from the main progression dialling back layers and introducing elements back in slowly for a final build-up. 3:11 picks up the pacing to take us out, which appears to abruptly end on the final second. What you have here is done well, and while each section isn’t as varied as I would’ve expected for this style of music (with some elements being reused a bit too much), you do have a lot of arrangement variation which makes up for it. I think the drums hit well and you don’t overcrowd the sonic space too much with additional elements. The abrupt ending didn’t feel right though, it initially felt like a mistake in rendering or my download didn’t finish properly. Overall a nice take on the original. YES
  12. The big synths in stereo spread add a lot of width and impact, and while they draw a lot of attention, they surprisingly don’t take up as much of the low end as I was expecting. As the mix progresses however the bigness of these synths seem to be the main causality for your mix issues - mixing levels are affected due to the size (volume and sonic space) of some of these synths, needing other parts to be cranked up so they can be heard. Better use of complementary EQ curves would’ve worked better here, and further to this I feel some additional thought should've gone into selecting what should be foreground and background material, because a lot of of what you have going on wants to be both. Some of the lighter drum rolls are overpowered by the strength of the synths. There isn’t any major breathing room issues otherwise, which I also found surprising considering the volume that everything is trying to pump out at. I think the arrangement is a good take on the original - while it follows somewhat of a similar structure, it does bring in a number of lead elements (riffing) which do add to the mixes own identity. Mixing problems aside, I don’t have any major issues here. YES
  13. Intro builds up steadily. Lead melody hits us sparsely at 0:40. The pacing while punchy, carries a calming feel with it. Instrumentation is fairly minimal as we hit the first breakdown at 1:40. A pair of plucky sounds build things back up into a full soundscape from 2:15 and again at 2:41 where the main hook plays. Instrumentation still remains fairly basic but does the job well. The second breakdown at 3:36 changes up the melody and rhythm with mostly familiar backing elements. I found the sound effect at 4:33 a little jarring, it plays a little too long and carries some sharpness. Things close off fairly suddenly after the 5 minute mark and could've been more developed. On the mixing side things are done fairly well - while improvement could be made with some of the separation each part, I feel things are audible and well fit into the sonic space provided to them. The same sound fx were used a little too often for my taste, and I would have preferred to have heard some more varied sounds across the mix in general to make things feel more varied - particularly during extended sections of similar melodic content. Overall, some niggling concerns with SFX and variance in arrangement - but not enough in my opinion to drag this back. A solid interpretation of the original. YES
  14. Good use of stereo space. Synths are crisp, with a nice air to them. Dynamics are punchy, with a solid rhythm driving the mix forward. Separation of the instruments is achieved quite well, with a good amount of low end on the bass instruments that doesn't interfere with the other parts playing along. Arrangement progression does feel a little samey at times, despite featuring a number of transitions to different melodies (or variations thereof). This is mostly due to the underlying elements being relatively static, but thankfully, creative use of glitching and the introduction of different lead sounds add much needed variation to the mix as it progresses. The break starting at 3:25 provided an enjoyable change of pace, which I feel could've occurred earlier. The glitch filled ending sequence was relatively clever but could've been more musical. Overall, while the mix is somewhat predictable given the source material, things are well presented and move along at a solid pace. No major issues. YES
  15. Smooth as. Although we don't get much variation throughout the underlying groove, the lyrics are well constructed and keep the mix moving at a solid pace, making the mix feel like it crams a lot into the relatively short timeframe. Typical dropping in and removal of layers which feel right and we placed well. The bass only break at 1:28, while simple, was a good addition and was timed right. Vocals did seem a little soft in places and could've been more upfront, but I think the blend here works. YES