Rozovian

Hihats and crashes feel a bit too high, you could give them some more mids. Currently, the frequency balance seems to be that the low mids and the high highs are emphasized. I'd give the kick some more lows, snare the snare a little more mids. And compress those two more, see if you can get them more punchy. Actually, you could give them a boost using the 31-band EQ AU in the 100-200 range, see what gets you the best punch. I recommend you bring up each frequency band to max to see which gives you the most punch, then taking it to just a few dB above normal. I suggest you give the bass some more definition, at least in the solo section. 3:12, the hats seems phased. Distortion or overdrive can do that for you. Transition from the solo felt a little forced. The 4:13 left-panned melody is in the perfect range to fill out the track. It's panned a little too far, imo, and having the bass panned doesn't work either, imo, but I didn't notice that until the 413L melody came in. I do recommend pushing both of them towards the center, tho they don't have to be dead center. The range the 413L is in is otherwise empty for most of the track. A faint pad could work here. It can be EQd to be without lows and cutoff to not have much highs, but it needs to cover that range. The organ-like pad you already have is nice, but you need something a little lower too. You could add soft little snippets of source melody here and there, reworked into another rhythm, fast or slow, in that range, too, just to fill it out a bit more. You seem to have covered the specific crits the J's had. The biggest problem you'll have with GB (biggest I had when I used it, anyway) is samples. You could switch the snares a bit between the pop and rock kits. Automating compression and EQ can get you some nice sound variations through the track, but be careful with that. Also, take a backup before doing anything drastic. My problem with it is the GB samples. Can't really help you much with that. Other than that, I like what I hear. Good stuff, good improvement.

Check with someone that knows remixes if they think your remix is too repetitive. If so, you can cut some repetition, get the remix shorter and thus smaller in file size. Other than that, use VBR. Still over 6? Aim for 160. Still over 6? Aim for 128. Still over 6? You're screwed.

In preparation for another wip run, I downloaded 13 tracks (of 15, stupid soundclick). I took some notes on how intuitive the sites were to use. What I didn't take into account was space, download bandwidth, and whether or not the files are purged after some time. What I did take into account was first and foremost how many clicks it took to get the file to download. Here's what I got: tindeck - 1 click, good 4shared - 2 clicks, wait time googlepages - direct link, good; (not much space iirc) supload - 1 click, ringtone link bigger than download link mediafire - 1 click, popup ad, otherwise good box.net - 1 click, good soundclick - 1 click FOR MEMBERS, no download for non-members boomp3 - 1 click, brief load time, distorts file name From a listener pov, tindeck, googlepages, box.net and mediafire are the best of these.

Let me repeat something from my previous post: Everything can be used with the effects in gimp or photoshop. Take some photos of various forms and surfaces. Kitchen table, sky, lawn, wall, bathtub, reflection of something in a puddle of water... then start playing with effects. Change colors, blending modes, etc... Learn the program by experimenting, don't start by trying to make something awesome. In short: Get gimp, toy with it. That's how you learn.

Photoshop. Seriously Luke, any graphics program that can do graphics can be used to make graphics. As for making graphics, some people draw on a tablet or scan actual drawings, some people do 3d, some people take photos, some use effect upon effect, some paste together pictures. Whatever they do, it all comes together in the graphics program. There are of course alternatives to Photoshop, like GIMP, and vector-based programs, like Illustrator, but the point is to make graphics, right? MS Paint works too. Ultimately, the program can only take you so far. You need to know how to use the program you've got.

The Wingless' One Girl in All the World, one of my favorite remixes ever. As music, it's awesome. As a remix, it's awesome. It's nothing like the source track, and if you haven't heard the source over and over you might have some trouble recognizing it. It's a simple track arranged into something far more advanced, full of nuances and with a very enjoyable progression. What it doesn't do is take a simple, beautiful, and unnerving track and turn it into bubblegum pop. The original feel isn't there, but it doesn't matter. I get what the OP and others say about the original feel, but my threshold is when it's remixed in an inappropriate feel. OCR, however, isn't about "appropriate feel". It's about quality interpretations and productions. If you don't like a remix, don't listen to it. There are other remixes here, there are other remix sites, and if you don't like anything anybody else did, remix some yourself.

1:27, slowed down too fast so it didn't sound controlled. 0:36, rises to a hit and then does nothing. Hm... I don't think it's executed as good as it can be, and I'm not sure the idea is as good as it could be either. Whatever the problem, that transition needs work. Other than that, it's all enjoyable. The lead violin might be a little too loud, could use a drop of a dB or two. I think that'll make it fit in better without being buried. Still good. And it seems to have the bass range a little more covered now. Good stuff.

Much better. But you're still gonna have to work on cleaning up the progression and make it more deliberate. There's also some clutter with the synth bass, it's a little too loud in some sections. Your drum writing, btw, has improved. I remember you posting about it a while back, asking for help.

Sure. Panning is when you change the volume between the left and right channels so one's strong than the other. This makes it sound like the sound's coming from that side. Stereo spreading can be done in different ways. Flangers and some Phasers modulate a signal so it sounds like it's being panned a little to one side, thena little to the other. Autopan does this without modulating the pitch. Chorus is an effect used mostly to fatten a sound, but some Chorus effects also widen it. Reverbs and Delays also have some stereo features. Stereo means that you're hearing one thing in one ear and another in the other. There are loads of ways to manipulate sound to get stereo effects, but I recommend reverb or delay. there are some special effects dedicated to spread a sound which you can also try. A different way to spread it wouldbe to take a copy of the whole track, pan it hard left, pan the original hard righ, and then make some small changes to the lfos on the synth/sampler. That would change the rate the sound changes subtly, which wouldn't change the sound much, but it would most definitely give you some stereo. Take a backup before doing anything big. And if you want to do your own research, there's Google, Wikipedia...

Area A... IT'S ARGHLOUD!! As for the music, it's enjoyable, tho a little heavy on the highs, imo. Reverse crashes and high synths ('cept the lead after 1:00) could use a bit of high-range trimming. I think this could be awesome, it's already good. Oh wait, singing!? The song is a little too exposed, too upfront, could use some reverb, maybe a delay too. Post lyrics, it's easier to analyse lyrics when you've got them in writing. No source link, no source comparison. But good track. Area F... Hm... Not as appealing to me. It's interesting, has some really cool sounds. It's also loud. And I started liking it just before it ended. Says something about my musical preferences. No source link, no comparison. Decent track. Do the other one first.

Back then, I hadn't finished MP3. Now it was a while since I finished it, so it still isn't fresh in my memory when listening. But there was at least _some_ source in there. Gotta listen more before I can say, but I'm in the middle of a wip run, so I'll get back to you on source/interpretation later. First notes are a bit too exposed. Reverb, stereo effects? Strings sound a bit too keyboard-ish. One of your snares is really painful, makes my headphones crackle. One of your leads is just painfully shrill, the one in the end. Sounds a bit like a raw waveform, so you might want to tweak it a bit, maybe take it down an octave and give it some strong overtones instead. It also has something of an empty feel. That and the exposed sound are probably my biggest crits. Moar harmoniez. It has a great sound, great idea. Has potential for awesome.

Multiband compressor - compresses lows, highs, and stuff in between (depending on how many frequency bands it supports). It means that you can punch the mids and lows without dirupting the levels of the high stuff. A really loud bass isn't gonna overpower the mids and highs. Try a multiband compressor on the master, some preset settings, see what it does.

Intro is a bit sudden, you could make a soft 15-20 seconds off of the first 10 seconds, as a soft intro. I'll get you some length, too. Not that short isn't sweet. Drums aren't good. Not the writing, which gets repetitive. Not the samples, which are kind'a weak but that could be fixed with production... which isn't so good either, I can barely hear the kick, the snare is weak, the toms are loud by comparison (and panned a bit too far, imo), the hihats are ticky, and all the drums could benefit from some slight medium-size room reverb. FIlls are fine, but the length writing, the repetition is just... boring. Brass samples could use some production tweaks, some lack lows, some lack clear crisp sound. Their lows might be better covered by a bass, not low brass. Wait, I hear some kind of bass in there... barely. More lows and more volume to it, can only hear it clearly during its brief solo. 1:11 Some kind of quick harp arpeggios somewhere in there? What was that? Didn't sound good imo. Later arpeggios are a bit too low to sound good, try moving them up an octave and dropping some low frequencies off its EQ. I'm not sure that this meets the source/interpretation standards, but it's certainly not a far cry from them as style goes. Progression is a bit too similar, the J's might ahve a problem with that if you submit it like this. Still, it's an enjoyable take on a song that some think has gotten old. Never gets old when there's potential for something like this.

Hey Chip, you're back. Was wondering what became of this. Still stuff you should work on, but looking at my list of crits, many of them are fixed. SOme partially, some fully. Now I'll make a new list. 0:00 Intro good, but the pad could still be stereo-spread. The flute seems spread a bit, tho, so it's not as important. 0:20 Piano comes in a little strong, I suggest dampening the five first notes a bit. You might also want to EQ the piano a bit to give it a bit more clarity in the high range. Boost the high range with 2dB or so. 1:05 Transition to break is a little sudden, and the 1:13 drums are a bit too sudden for my taste. A faint copy of them at 1:05 might be a good idea. Some soft piano notes might also easy the transition, especially as the right-hand piano writing seem to be cut off there. A warning drum hit or something before the drums could also ease the transition without taking away its impact. 1:48 Rolling crash could be great at the 1:13 section. Hats are a little shrill. Piano here isn't as pretty as the strings you had before, imo. The piano comes with a short decay (by default, it's hammered string instrument), which just adds to the hammering on strings and the staccato strings in the lows. It's your track, I'm just suggesting stuff. 2:24 Here be clutter. Too much going on when the crashes/hihats come in (and they don't sound good). You might want to drop out the piano when the guitar comes in so you can establish the guitar before. Alternately, pan it. The guitar could use a bit less low frequencies, it sounds very up-close, which imo doesn't suit the ensemble you've put it in. 2:32 I'd leave out the drums from here on, maybe keep the hihats. Before 2:50, the guitar writing is a bit too stong. EQ-ing down its lows might work, but I think it needs more. DO you have reverb on it? You should. Not too much, but some. I would focus on subtracting and tweaking the little things. Here's a quick list of things from last post that you've fixed: 000 intro stereo soundscape 020 piano, but more importantly, flute timing 055 still think of sd3 when I hear that 113 still sounds great 149 drums sound much better 215 no electronic drums Getting better.

Since it "should be ready", you won't be getting anything but crits from me. EDIT: Oh, and a bit of kudos for getting a track posted. Brass is a bit weak and blatty. Guitar should be doubled. If you can't record another tight enough track, you could pan it hard one way, add a copy of it, hard panned the other direction, moved _slightly_ forward or back to cause the Haas effect (a stereo direction illusion). It gets repetitive after 3 mins, so you might want to cut some repetition somewhere. Some cymbals don't sound very good, such as your crashes and the count-in at 2:50. The bass range is cluttered in the grand finale, or it's just the slow attack or reverb tails of something in the low range that should be counteracted by moving it back a bit. Tthe staccato strings sound a bit too close and dry compared to some other instruments. I could be wrong there tho. There. Enjoy your crits.

Right back up yours, Alex. Tindeck's working again. Snare is a bit weak. Toms panning is a bit weak, and toms sound like they could use some reverb and some punch. Strings could use some...thing. Can you give them a volume tremolo and make them rise in strength during sustained notes. That _could_ work. The strings are just a bit boring in their current stage. Overall, it could use more strength, more punch, more weight. Use a multiband compressor to give each band its own dynamics and bring out the weight in each range. As far as source/interpretation goes, I think it's in the green. Direction _could_ be a problem, but I can follow this without much problems. The J's might diss this a bit for the direction. Good stuff, man. This could get on OCR fairly soon.

If this is going to OCR, you might want to cut some length, or you're gonna end up with a low bitrate to fit the 6 megs limit. The transition from straight to swing was a bit too sudden, you might want to have something in the bg, some faint rhythm track to ease the transition. While on the jazzy topic, some jazzness are just clashing on purpose, and doesn't seem to work, not being introduced as a jazz piece. Piano, a lot of the time, could use some EQ boosting in its highs and lows. Actually, the whole track seems like it could use some contrast. I recommend a multiband compressor on the master to make sure you have a healthy balance of highs and lows at all times. Currently, it's a bit thick around the waist, and the reduced amount of highs make it sound low-quality. The differences throughout are enjoyable, but some transitions could use some work. It also has something of a style-wise medley-itis, so the transitions are crucial to the flow of the track. Tempo changes are fine, it's the writing I'm talking about. Drums are pretty boring and poorly mixed, to be frank. Mostly, it's low kick+shaker, plus some other percussion. A more balanced EQ mix might improve it, but you might have to work a bit on the drum writing. I did hear the Ice Cap Zone in there, and something else I reocgnized, among all the styles. If this isn't interpretive enough, something's wrong with OCR. You're in the green as far as source/interpretation goes, afaik. Impressive variety of styles, just needs some writing fixes and production improvements. Great stuff.

Piano could use much more contrast. EQ, multitrack compressor, something to raise the highs and lows of it, give more definition to it. Piano writing is a little on the mechanical side of things, it should be more expressive. The guitar sounds like it's got a flanger or something on it before its distortion stage. It also sounds very fake. You can use that in some genres, but not really in this. Go for a sound with less wannabe guitar and more rude synth, or figure out some way to inject tons of life into your guitar writing and effects. Drums+piano... weak. Having a bass there with them might improve it. Drums aren't nearly powerful enough for the style I hear you trying to go for. They work in the calm sections, but not at all in the more intense ones. Overall, there's a lack of reverb and you don't seem to have worked that much on sound quality either. Source is there, and despite the similar progression, I think it's interpretive enough. The quality, however, isn't on OCR's level yet. The arrangement isn't bad (tho some transitions are), but you need to work on the sound quality, production, mixing. More finesse, better production, and it'd be so much better.

Looks like you've got a waaay low... something, even before the bass comes in. You might want to cut that, it could interfare with your master compression or frequency balance. 0:51... ouch. Some clashing in the effect on the melody. The melody itself could use some variation. Progression is quite similar to source too, annoyingly so at 1:52-2:14. Choir could be stereo spread, that could give it a grander sound without needing more volume. Bass in the beats could be stronger. I also hear occasional clicks that bother me. Also, the voice clip feels very redundant. As for the intro... it didn't bother me the least. I might not understand DnB that well, so there's little more I can say. It's enjoyable, there's source, and there's interpretation. Good stuff.

I don't pay attention to the front page, but the improvements on it are great. Latest albums on there - great idea, beautiful implementation. What's not an improvement is the dark grey, which works well when it's just in between white boxes, but not so much under the ad and the "previously on overclocked remix" box. "The latest remixes" box extend the grey box without anything filling up the grey to its left. Making the "latest remixes" box (and the number of latest remixes in it) grow and shrink with the other boxes. perhaps it's easier to do so with the "previously on overclocked remix" box. But then there's the screen resolution problem too. Anyway, albums box - awesome. Remixes box - I suggest putting the date under the remixer. The date is the least important bit. If you frequent the site, you'll recognize the ones you don't have as just that. If you don't frequent the site, you don't know which one(s) you want but the date a remix was added won't really make much of a difference. Making the name of the remix - the link to it - bigger, as it would make navigation a bit easier. Otherwise, you might click the game's link, and it doesn't take you to a complete list of the remixes of it.

Source, interpretation, it's in the green, imo. A bit empty sounding a lot of the time, tho. The piano is panned right, and processed terribly... which might be on purpose. It has a cool sound, but the panning is a little too far. It's mirror track in the other ear suffers the same problem. 2:05 clashing keys, something goes major while the rest is minor. I think the main problem with the track is a lack of direction in making it this long. It feels stretched. Lots of great ideas, but each not developed to the extent it could be, plus they're repeating too much, making you lose interest in them before they're over. It makes the track overall weak. Cut some length, but focus on writing deeper material, giving depth, width to the stuff you have, instead of extending it the way you ahve so far. Another problem is the drum processing. The snare in the ca 3:40 section is pathetic. I feel like echoing DJDT's crits, but they're well expressed in his post so I'll just say I agree with them all. Still, 5:38 and it was interesting throughout. Kudos on that. This could be great.

I think you're in the green, as far as source is concerned. I'm hearing source, I'm hearing interpretation. And it's all very enjoyable. Repetition might be an issue at times. 1:15-1:33 is just brass staccatos, bass, and drums. You could make the bass louder and play something more melodic, serve as something of a lead there. You jump from style to style, and dwell on each style for a while, then change it up again. Transitions could be smoother, but you've managed to shape a cohesive package out of it all, so kudos on that, man. Repetition is my only problem with it. Great great stuff!

My thoughts are that you apparently don't want me to hear it. Still can't access tindeck.

No source link, no source comment. EDIT: Not really long enough to say much on source anyway, but it's there. I'm feeling a headache hearing this, I think it's overcompressed, but can't say for sure. Kick is painful on headphones. Snare is kind'a weak. Track is very repetitive, even for the genre. It's also very simplistic, which I don't think it has to be. Not much to comment on, really, but it could be good, given the right additions.

The notes are kind'a blurry, you might want to use a BP filter relative to key to keep notes apart, as well as give them some timbre, something to tell them apart more. With full organ and especially when it's just organ, clarity is important. This doesn't quite have that clarity. It's also kind'a busy, taking away the potential dynamics a track like this could have. The little break around 1:00 was great, but use more stuff like that. Bwöh, the questions you had: 1. It could be, but changing up the rhythm would both improve the track and serve as a form of interpretation. Since it's a kind'a simple source, I suggest you work more on writing sections with different rhythm for it. See which ones you want to use. 2. Production is not good enough. It's got panning, an organ sample I have no problem with, but it lacks clarity. Multiband compressor, key-relative filter, something to give it clarity. EQ might not be enough, but it's certainly one thing you can try. 3. As it is now... no. As it could be, even if it's just organ... I think so. But it needs dynamics in both intensity and rhythm, as well as clarity. I'm sure it'll be good. I think it could be great.