Jivemaster

Contributors
  • Content Count

    608
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

About Jivemaster

  • Rank
    Judge

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

4,293 profile views
  1. Great instrumentation as always. Good amount of depth in the dynamics, although as the others have mentioned, this could certainly be boosted up without any negative effect. The choir also stuck out a bit for me, against the other elements it felt lower in quality and broke the immersion, and I'm normally a softie on this stuff. Things travel in a similar pace throughout, 3:00 changes things up a little. Each section has its charm, and we get changes in parts of the ensemble for variance. I think this is a good mix, but would side with the others here on boosting the volume, and perhaps looking at that choir implementation while in there. Once we get that looked at, I think we’re fine. NO
  2. I liked the synth swells at the intro. I notice you have a bit of bass rumble here. There is also a bit of an unintentional pump on the master side. I understand this was fixed from the previous version... but I still think work needs to be done there. It’s not overly distracting (at least initially) but it does occasionally take you out of the mix. The soundscape is quite full/atmospheric. The break at the 2:00 mark is good, but we hear the effects of the mastering warble again here, even when instruments are peeled back. I think the entire presentation would be improved if we dialled this back further from hitting your limiter so intensely. Otherwise I feel your choice of sounds is good and the arrangement is well executed. Can we get a further revision that isn’t as hot? NO
  3. Vocals lend an interesting quality to the arrangement, and while not terribly tight/pitch perfect, I can see what you’re going for, there is a sweetness to them. It’s a good out of the ordinary mix for you — I love to see artists to step out and try something different. I will say I found the arrangement a bit too sameish throughout the duration, I was left waiting for some kind of evolution that never eventuated. Not to say the choice was bad, but I think this could’ve been even bigger if the mix evolved and things picked up at the halfway mark. Even without major changes, I think the mix would benefit from more variation. Overall mix volume is quite soft as others have mentioned. This has placed me on the fence. While I do want to see this posted, in thinking what’s best for the mix — it would definitely benefit from a resub to correct some of the above mentioned issues. NO
  4. Enjoyed the Arabian vibe of some of the instrument choices. In the first few sections, I feel things are a little boomy in the low end which seems to be caused by a mix of reverb on the bigger percussive elements in combination with the other instruments, some revised mixing would help here (and/or you could possibly HPF out some of the reverb low end so to not impact the rest of the atmosphere). Initially the arrangement progressed well in that it doesn't stick with a section for too long, but while there are a number of nice transitions to different sets of instruments, the arrangement doesn't evolve a great deal - keeping mostly the same mood throughout. Combining this with the production issues others have mentioned, I think this should be tweaked a bit prior to posting. NO (please resub)
  5. Sounds like a mad idea, personally I'm most familiar with the JSRF soundtrack, but the original has lots of great stuff. Creatively I'm still trying to find myself (having challenges with getting the spark back in between other life commitments), consequently I don't think I could reliably contribute to a project at this time, but love the idea and will certainly consider it.
  6. The looped intro rhythm strumming feels a little clumsy timing wise. Synths pick up the main theme shortly after. The arrangement you have here is okay for the first minute or so. There are some solo elements dotted through which help quell some to the lack of variation. Breakdown around 2:45 was mostly well done and greatly needed. Agreed the mix is somewhat generic in execution, with some sections repeating a bit too often. Mixing quality is ok. There is not quite enough here to sustain length IMO, with a lot of segments feeling loop based. I think the arrangement could do with some improvements, perhaps by hitting the breakdown earlier and introducing the original elements sooner. This certainly has potential, I'd just like to see some refinement of the final package. NO
  7. Track is certainly on the quiet side. Arrangement wise, I thought things were ok. The transition from one section to another is done well, with a good amount of instrument variety between sections which helped to compensate for a lack of drastic departures from the main theme. I didn't quite have the same issues some had regarding sequencing, and while I agree some parts felt too tight, things felt convincing enough to me overall. If the volume could be increased without affecting the dynamics of the piece I’m all for that, otherwise, nothing stuck as being a major issue for me. YES (would appreciate a volume bump though...)
  8. Blippy intro leads us into this noisey instrumental rock interpretation. There is some lack of separation between each element, even for this style choice. The lead synth playing the main motif is quiet compared to other elements. The portion at 1:19 gets quite noisey making the each part difficult to hear. The wall of sound approach stylistically fits, but I feel has taken too much precedence over an acceptable level of clarity. Not much in the way of variation across the arrangement, a departure from the main progression would have been appreciated. You’ve hit some of your chosen stylistic requirements, however there is more that could be done here to improve mixing levels and overall clarity. NO
  9. A strange package of a minimal lo-fi drum and crackly bubbly synths. The lo-fi works quite well for most parts, although the effect can be a bit too strong compared to others. Lead synths were a touch too loud, making things feel disconnected at times (like at 1:14 for example). As a fan of the lower quality vibe found throughout, I think some additional cohesion in the bit quality and mixing would go a long way in making the track feel more complete. I didn't have too much problem with source. Agree the track is a bit short for what is covered, some expansion to explore these ideas further is encouraged. Agree with Rexy that this feels like a tech demo. A good overall concept with some outstanding issues to address. NO
  10. Crisp drums. The source is certainly chaotic, and your mix builds on that in some good ... and not so good ways. The glassy atmospheric backing synths during the first portion (in particularly 0:36) clashed a bit with the rest of the instrumentation. I know this exists in the original, but I feel it's too strongly present here. There is quite a lot going on in that intro section. I enjoy the creativity here in updating some of the existing sections. The 1:26 section was a bit dissonant. In contrast, the 2:13 portion was quite good. The arrangement didn't stray too far from the original overall, I felt more originality could've been mixed in here. From a production standpoint, I found the highs were abrasive, and could've been smoothed out. Levels of some background parts were unbalanced compared to the rest of the mix. Drums and bass were audible throughout, which helped. I think this could really do with some tweaks in the busier sections to bring things more melodically into line, either via a rethink of the detuning of some of the synths, the patches used, or some of the notes themselves. A revisit of the mixing would help here as well. There is promise here, but I don't think it's quite ready yet. NO
  11. Good instrumentation and initial impressions, with interesting changes in pacing throughout the arrangement. Changes between sections occur quite often, which helps to maintain interest for a minimal ensemble. Some transitions felt ok (1:20, 1:30) while others felt more abrupt (like that at 1:53) due to the change in rhythm or timing. I feel more could have been done with these to make things more cohesive. As the mix progresses, the initial novelty of approach begins to taper off, as the mix maintains the same overall feel throughout. It left me feeling that more could have been done with this ensemble (changes in articulation, some licks/nuances in performance would have gone a long way here). Production wise, things are mostly clear as you'd expect from a mix with a fixed set of instruments, bass was perhaps a touch strong. Overall an enjoyable rendition and amalgamation of a number of classic tracks that feels more like a demo than finished piece. NO (please resub)
  12. Variation. I ask for this quite often, and your mix is one that needs a revisit of its arrangement on this basis. Across the duration, there is not much in the way of changes from the main established groove. 2:45 gives a bit more of a departure from the parts preceding it, but things soon return to the previous groove, with only minor layer dropping and some minor note shifting occurring. Furthermore, the first and second half of the mix share similar content - I would be rethinking the duration and/or approach taken here. Production quality is ok, although the lead is quite basic and would benefit from some tweaking over time, which could in part help your arrangement issue. I think what you've laid out here is a good start, but from the content presented, I don't think this warrants the current duration. NO
  13. Interesting take. Drums are a bit soft compared to the rest of the mix. The vocals add a level of character and originality. The performance is mostly ok during the verse sections, however the chorus-like vocal portion from 0:50 has some pitch issues which I recommend ironing out. As mentioned, the bass does stick out quite a lot, a bit boomy. Some timing discrepancies along the arrangement were slightly jarring. I am of the same opinion as my fellow judges here - this has the feel of a demo mix prior to retakes. I think this has potential, but you'll need to iron out the kinks. NO
  14. Good guitar tone. Some original licks dropped in here and there, however the mix mostly follows the progression of the original. This is a shame as the mix features a solid guitar playing performance. The mix seems to repeat (at least in part), this is where I would have explored some new territory. You layer the guitar channels well. Some low end could be tapered off on the guitars for extra clarity, but I didn't think it was a major issue compared to other tracks of this nature where nothing but guitar can be heard. The fade-out finish was a little disappointing. Taking this mix as it stands now, it's too cover-like for posting. I share the same enthusiasm as the others however when I say I'm looking forward to hearing more work from you, the skills you demonstrate here could quite easily translate to something postable. NO
  15. Agree with the others regarding this mix. Good execution and strong vocal performance. Production was mostly solid, although I found there was slight over compression on the master bus causing the mix to flap about on occasion. Agree that overt source usage is an issue here - apart from a strong first minute, the only clear source usage I could connect to was in the remaining 30 seconds. When it comes down to it, I would always advise leaning towards easily identifiable majority usage of source as it helps to get the mix over the line a lot easier. I think this really could make it with some more clear source integration, although I am unsure how challenging this would be to achieve. As it stands here, it's a NO