Jivemaster

Contributors
  • Content Count

    597
  • 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

4,047 profile views
  1. 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.
  2. 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
  3. 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
  4. 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
  5. 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
  6. 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)
  7. 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
  8. 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
  9. 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
  10. 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
  11. The arrangement has some good ideas in places but transitions between sections feel somewhat disconnected from each other. Likewise, there are some good drop principles at play here that could be expanded upon to make them more effective. Some sections do tend to overstay their welcome. This is exacerbated by the lack of modulation in your synth sounds over time - a technique important for a mix relying on such a minimal sound set. Mixing wise things are quite dry, which when combined with the minimal soundest, makes some areas feel quite sparse. I wasn't as against your sounds as some of the others - basic sounds can work, but they need to be paired carefully and tweaked over time to maintain interest. Some good ideas exist here that should be expanded upon. NO
  12. Jumping straight in, your unpredictable genre choice works well here. You’ve added an interesting amount of movement over the original. The flute has a nice tone and does some great work with the lead portions. The section at 2:11 felt a bit too random time wise. The bass solo afterwards provided a nice break from the arrangement. By the time we hit the 3 minute mark, I feel ideas are beginning to rehash themselves and not bringing significant value to the arrangement. Despite swapping the lead duties between instruments quite regularly, we are not treated to any major departure from the main progression, nor is pacing altered in any way. Great ideas, great execution of those ideas in isolation, but somewhat repetitive throughout the course of the 4:32 duration. Source usage is not as strong as it should be, with good instrumentation distracting from the core requirement of overt source usage. As the others have mentioned - this is where the mix falls down, but things could be easily remedied with a revisit focusing on some tweaks to each section to strengthen the ties to the original source material. NO
  13. There is potential here. I thought things were mixed quite loud, requiring me to reduce my usual volume levels. I immediately notice some elements of the percussion are significantly louder than the rest of the mix, occasionally floating above everything else - making them sound out of place. Leads at times are significantly louder than everything else, and at other times they blend in with the background too much. This is confusing as there is a decent amount of spectral space between parts allowing for each instrument to be heard without the need to over emphasise volume. Arrangement wise, I think more could have been done here. There are some scattered original ideas, but we rarely get significant new interpretations of the source material. This along with the mixing issues and conflicting quality of some of the samples chosen make this difficult to pass. I recommend revisiting this to at least improve the mixing and strengthen the arrangement with more original interpretation. NO
  14. A somewhat predictable choice in going orchestral, but things are mostly done well. Panning appears to favour the left channel for the beginning of the piece, but eventually fills out from 0:36. Instrumentation is handled well, with each part feeling realistic for the most part. The main theme is shared amongst a number of leads, with emotive changes along the way. The arrangement transitions to each section quite often, maintaining interest throughout. The additional build-up near the end of the track leaves us with a climactic finish to the piece, which was a nice way to end things over revisiting previous material. Overall solid presentation here. YES
  15. Nice short, sweet take on the original. I’m not overly familiar with the Pokemon soundtrack. I agree with MindWanderer that the rendition is quite conservative, and your mix shares relatively similar pacing and arrangement to the original, although the additional instrumentation helps a lot with this issue. It has a anime end theme vibe. Production is mostly solid for a track of this nature, with decent mixing. Overall I’m ok with this one. While I would’ve liked to hear some further development and expansion on the ideas presented within the short duration, I feel this works as is. Let’s see what the others say. YES