Rozovian

Supload is ugly but works fine. Boomp3 is annoying, as it names all downloads "downloaded from boomp3.com.mp3". Just fyi. I'll probably tell darke to update his post at some point. For that matter, the quality is pretty much the same in both. Doesn't sound that good in either, tho. Spakku sure proves his sig accurate. The guitar is awful, and the hihats aren't much better either. Drum processing is... well, subpar. If you have an amp simulation effect, use it. Use that, and use velocity, the mod wheel, pitch bend, and other midi-effects to create a more organic guitar sound. This just won't cut it. As guitar, at least. Turn it into a good synth sound and you shouldn't have this kind of problem. You've also using a synth for bass. I'm not hearing it all the time, and it eats up some of the rhythm a sampled/real bass could have. On the other hand, you have other things that you can do with this, really fast melodies, filter changes, stuff like that. Don't use it as a filler, use it to bring out the best of the other tracks. As for drums, some amount of reverb and EQ-ing the drums separate from each other might get you a better sound, but you might need new samples. Snare and kick should have a small 2-5dB peak somewhere in the 100-200Hz range. That'lll give them more punch. They could sue a little more voerall volume, too. Also, drums need to be panned. Make sure you've still got balance between them, so you most of the time have something in the high range in both ears, even if one's far louder than the other. It makes for a more balanced sound. Snare and kick are centered, of course. I think you should take a backup, then play around with possible replacements for the guitar, try out different drum processing, and play with the bass writing. Take the time to make some additional backing tracks, whether they're backing or just soundscaping. You could do a lot with the organ you already have. Source/interpretation got hard for me. Source-deafness or whatever, I only recognized the first notes of the remix as the first part of the Battle source. I hope someone else can be more helpful on that, or that it'll suddenly click for me and I suddenly get it (in which case I'll let you know). Then there's overall levels mixing, EQing, and stuff, but that's a later concern. Since it's not a midi rip / midi clone, and the writing sounds like it'd be great when produced better. Good potential, this track.

Yes, _I_'m the hobo here. Snare could use a little more of its high range. After 1:53, the drum writing gets poorly synched, probably your excessive snare writing. Finding a softer snare to alternate between might improve that, but you still have to deal with the timing. Saws panned hard in both channels. Could be more varied, it gets a bit thick sounding. Gets a bit thick and unclear sounding. Maybe that's your idea of OCR's sound, but then you've probably listen too much to Darke's tracks. Clutter towards the end, those saws could play something more supportive instead of detracting from melody. Toms in the end are a bit too exposed, which doesn't sound good. Maybe you can cover them with bass notes. Melody feels a bit lonely in the writing, it could use a backing track with a supllementary melody or something. Yes, you've got two tracks playing the same melody, but you could use a track playiong something different yet supporting. As for source, I recognize some bits around 1:00 from source. No source link, no source to compare to except what I remember. It also has an overall muddy sound. See if you can bring out the higher range more and the low mids or mid mids a bit less. EQ or multiband compressor. It's pretty good, tho. I think this could get on OCR if you can unmud the sound and fix most of the issues mentioned above. IMO, good chance to get on the site... eventually.

Noise is unwanted distortion, clicks, hisses, and the standard white noise and it's colored cousins. Yours follows a rhythm, so it's probably a track that's causing this, solo each and listen to them individually. Clutter is when you have too much going on musically, or when things are happen too fast or too close, sometimes this is just a matter of separating tracks with EQ, levels, panning, or something else. In this case, it's the piano and the square-ish track, and the sine melody that together just make it difficult to focus on any of them without being sidetracked by another. Too little source is much easier to deal with than not enough interpretation. If you've used the backing, it counts as source, of course. Liontamer goes by the 50% rule, if 50% or more can be traced to source, and it's interpreted enough (which yours probably is since I failed to recognize much of it), then you're fine as far as source/interpretation is concerned.

I noticed that POCKETMAN from Arizona managed to access a tindeck-hosted wip. So far, at least two europeans have been unable to access the site, while at least two americans and a canadian haven't had any problem with it. EDIT SEPT 17TH: Tindeck's working again.

That rumbling sound in the intro could last longer, it's very soothing. You've got a delay on the rhythm backing... thing, it makes it sound choppy and takes away from the calm feel this track has. Use a slower delay or a reverb instead of delay, see if that makes it better. The dry sound of the drums, while improved by reverb, is more a matter of frequency balance, methinks. Try pulling down on the highf requencies, try to drown the track in water. The kick could use more bass frequencies, so if you've got the drums separate, give the kick an EQ boost, or layer it with a more bass-rich kick. The strings might benefit from some synth-ish processing, such as a filter with mid/high amount of resonance, cutting 12dB of the strings' highs. That's jsut a guess, you should listen for what sounds best yourself. I can only suggest and criticize, I have no power over you and your mixing. Everything I've said so far has essentially been "drown it, cut the highs". YYou need high frequencies, of course, and the guitar parts could provide those. Not to stomp on your artistic vision, but the electric guitar might sound better as a synth, and then you'd have more control over its frequency range. A mellow synth with strong overtones might work here. Bringing out the piano a bit more would also balance it out. The piano and the guitar could both benefit from some creative rewriting. This is more of a genre/style adaptation than a rearrangement. While it's possibly my favorite take on the source so far (on par with Protricity's version and the Brawl remix), I'm not sure it's interpretive enough for OCR. You may have to work on remodeling parts of it to fit a different chord progression or something. You need to vary the writing. It feels more tolerable than last version, but it's still the same thing over and over. Not just after 2:40, but throughout the track. perhaps you should cut some length to make it more contained instead of sounding like it's looped for length. That's ultimately your biggest problem - it's not as much a rearrangement as it's an adaptation. I'm not a judge, so I don't know whether this counts as interpreted enough or not, but I know I'd like to hear some variations on the source in this. That's really the only thing I can hear that's keeping you from getting it posted. The crits listed above are worth fixing, but the writing is more important. Ffix this up, it could very well end up being one of my favorite OCR tracks EVAR!!

The intro mallets are very SD3-ish, and I certainly don't mind. Around 1:00 there's a really annoying tone in the backing hitting on the odd beat (or something, I gotta read up on the terminology). Bass is much better, but it's constant presence make this a little repetitive. When you want to chill the track, drop the bass compeltely, and bring it back when you want the track to rise in intensity again. Bass comes in from the very first note in the track, and plays throughout. That's too much. I understand you might want to use it as a rhythm instrument, but it's thre same rhythm throughout, which is rarely a good thing. Mute the bass, listen to the track without it. Then figure out where you need the bass as well as what parts sound better without it. The speed of the mix seems to clash with this mellowness you say you want for it. I was gonna say I'd like to hear drums in this. The bass rhythm is a fast one, and the overall tempo might be fast enough to require some rhythm instrumentation, so slow it down and drop the bass for part of the track/rewrite the bass... or add drums. Either way works, but it's caught between impressions right now. Improved, yes. OCR-level, no. Keep at it.

Prom band sound. Or my idea of what that'd be. The foreground guitar(s) is too loud and way too distorted to fit with the rest of the sound. It's hard to hear any of the backing tracks when that's playing. Stereo soundscape is a little limited. Old stuff? Source is there. Style is different. I think it's in the green, as far as source/interpretation is concerned. Not a favourite Willrock piece of mine, but it's still enjoyable. Certainly will be when it's fixed up. btw, I was gonna comment on your Ken stage remix, but then tindeck went down.

It's a bit lacking in the bass department. My forte certainly isn't orchestral stuff, but as music goes, it feels like it's lacking... base. It's also mixed LOUD, compared to what I'm used to hear, but LOUD is better than "what?". Adding bass frequencies might even that out in the final EQ/compression stages. Progression is the same old as in most remixes I've heard. Not sure I've ever heard the source, I know I can't remember the original version. It's good, but I'm not really surprised. I mean, it's you.

Strings are lagging behind the rest. Drums are surprisingly dry for a watery mix like this. The guitar, while not sounding mechanical, sounds fake, and not really different than other fake guitars I've heard in wips. And it sounds bad. The distortion reacts with the dry signal the wrong way. It's also too quiet to really break through the backing. It just doesn't have the power nor clarity that the track deserves. After 2:40, it feels like I've heard everything the mix has to offer. There's not enough interpretation for a mix of 4:40. While the interpretation is certainly enjoyable, it's also repetitive. Up until 2:40, it's tolerable, but beyond that, its just repetition for the sake of length. I'm a fan of your soundscaping, but the actual writing doesn't seem any different from the source. You've moved parts around a little, but there's not much new writing in this. The repetition is its biggest problem tho, but the solution to both problems could be the same - interpret the writing, not just the soundscape. I have no doubt that the overall sound quality (with the exceptions noted above) is on OCR's level, but the writing is pretty close to source. It's certainly worth working on. Great stuff.

Let's move the tindeck discussion to this thread. HoboKa, if this keeps up, you'll have to find another host. See this thread.

Tindeck has been unavailable for me for a few days now, and it'd be good to report it here. My guess is that it's locked out Europe for whatever reason, or that a european mirror is offline and strangely not redirecting. Willrock (UK) can't access it either. Cyril the Wolf, in "Northern New York" was able to download it. HoboKa, in Canada, had no problem uploading his works there. Try accessing it, and reporting here where you're at and whether or not you managed to access it. If you can access it, have a look at whether or not there's anything about this stated on the site. And if you want feedback on your wips from me, willrock, or anyone else unable to access the site... find an alternative host.

There's also a certain discipline you need to learn in order to get stuff done well enough. While OCR's standards don't specify genres or styles you gotta conform to, the source/interpretation requirement is a challenge for newbs to arranging - and as such a great reason to develop their arrangement discipline. Also, I know my music has risen in quality since I came here and tried to conform to the standards. It's about setting goals. I made enjoyable music before, but people with critical music ears probably wouldn't enjoy those songs. The music I make now is a step up in quality, and it's because I had to improve to get stuff on OCR. So while creative growth might be withheld by conforming to OCR's standards, it does serve as an incentive for technical growth.

How did you update it? I can't access tindeck at all. Ping, lookup, traceroute... none of them even acknowledge its existance. Anyone else having problems with tindeck?

Did he just call MIDI rip? Transitions between sections suck. They need to be so much smoother to work. And you're right about the third section being too fast. I think you're focusing on the wrong issues. The problem is that the track gets repetitive and thus boring. I'm capable of forgetting a track after I hear it a few times and crit it. It happens more often than me remembering them... I think (can't remember). The repetitive nature of the track has nothing to do with the number of times I've heard it, it's the writing and isntrumentation. The writing is similar (plus repeated twice), and the instrumentation is just... boring (nothing wrong with an organ, but it gets old before the track is finished, especially an unprocessed organ). Also, I'm not hearing any reverb or other processing that you could use to give some more character to the track and take away from its raw writing-feel. So no, this version isn't enough of an improvement. However, you improving is good. That's what I hope you're doing. I think you should take a step back from the track, listen to some other organ music, and see what makes it interesting. Then see if you can do the same with this. Both the writing and the overall sound. Good luck.

I should remember this source. I don't. No source link, no source comment. Snare is weak. Make it louder, and if it gets too hard for the feel you want, use another sample. Bass, vox, hihat... they all need to sound less exposed. Process them more. The bass could use an amp sim or at least some EQing. Vox sounds strangely dry, it needs some low/mid mids imo. It's also lagging behind. Move it back a little. The hihat could utilize the Haas effect, or at least a little bit of panning. Sax, on the other hand, could be more exposed, more foreground. Drum writing is a little rough. There's no transitions between different regions, and the hihat writing just comes off as annoying when it's centered and not transitioning smoothly. Also, you've got 20 seconds of nothing at the end of the file. Anyway, the track is enjoyable, but it could be better. Aside from the specifics listed above, I'm having a hard time figuring out what's foreground and what's background. You can have tracks with soft leads, elaborate backing, etc., but when there's instruments fighting over the attention of the listener, then you've got a problem with it. Working with volume levels should solve that, tho. Overall, pretty good. I remember something of yorus from some time back, and I think you've progressed nicely. Good stuff.

I gotta replay Galaxy, the music is great. (as if I'd have time for it) Piano reverb could use some low cut, it's got some low frequencies that just don't sound pretty. Piano panning is a little annoying, but it works. Noise around 1:00. Clutter before 2:00, as well as some time after. Drum panning (and pitching) is a little extreme, you might want to go easy on that. Source-deafness struck, but I did recognize enough to say it's got source. Can't say if it's got enough, but since I'm having trouble recognizing it, it's either too liberal or well interpreted. Do the stopwatch test, check if over 50% of the track can be traced to source, and you should know. Very enjoyable, despite the flaws listed above. Good stuff.

Why not post a link, not just most of the url? Drums gets old... eventually. Changing them up would be good. Melody is.. well, we've heard it a few times already. I could imagine some nice mid-range solo towards the end of the wip, between rhythm guitar and the high-range stuff. As source/interpretation goes, I've heard this source more than I'd like to, and this doesn't really bring that much new to it. The repetitiveness of it is hurting the attitude you've fit into it with. Still, it's enjoyable already, and it's obviously quite early. Good stuff, man.

Some piano notes are in this really annoying frequency, you'd want to EQ that one down. It's a very specific frequency with them all, so a narrow band EQ would work well. Piano comes in at a good time, but your could introduce them with a slow cutoff sweep. Ticky hihats... (ARGH!) But it works for the genre. 2:48 - great sound. Not quite as great after the chord change, but still good. It clicks, so you'd want to give it an ms or two of attack. While on the topic of clicks, you might want to check your instruments for other clicking. While the hats are ticky enough to mask any clicks there, several of the other instruments click clickety bother me. Good.

Kick seems a bit out of synch at times. It also doesn't quite have the punch it should. The hihats seem to have been EQd a little too much, there's a high frequency area that sounds really dry, and you've managed to place them there. Balance it out a bit more, give them a little more mids. There's also occasional little noises thata re pretty annoying. It could come from a too slow attack on a limiter/compressor, so check all of those. Ultimately, you'll want to have a limiter on the end of the effect chain on the master channel to kill any peaks, so make sure that it's got time to process (slow attack). As for compressors, too slow attack means the track could clip before it's fully compressed. Need more interpretation, methinks. See what source variations you can create. There's a lot of really cool backing stuff going on on the piano in the 1:38 area. I like it. Especially since you're "not even able to create a random background". It could use some softening. If you've got it as a separate piano track with separate settings, give it a bit longer attack to make it smoother. Volume balance between them is excellent. You're improving. You're not pwnsome yet, tho, and neither is the tracjk, but it's heading the right direction.

Took me a while to get back, but now I'm here. It's got a weird juxtaposition between speeds, like each instrument was playing to its own idea of the rhythm the track has. Piano is fine, and as the centerpiece of the track, you should probably fix the other instruments. Drums seem to want to rush it, but their samples seem suited for something of a little slower tempo. I think it could be fixed by just changignt he drum writing sound less like trying to fit into a rock symphony and more to fit with just the piano. The lead synth's cutoff envelope doesn't really suit the soundscape. Either the decay or the sustain should be upped. I'm don't think it's a good synth sound, at least for this style. The other, more rhtyhmic synth is giving the track a feel of a faster tempo than the strings and piano suggest. I say you should save that instrument for the end of the track. It's suits the style, but not the tempo. Make it half tempo, and it could work just fine, the current speed of it might be suited for a part of the track, but not the whole - and not where you've currently got it. The strings are of the slower tempo style. If you want to speed up the track, the strings might be a problem. That, and the piano, are why I think you should go easy on the tempo, just let it be slow. As you write, you might want to double-speed it, and that could be good, but so far, it's just poorly matched ideas of its speed. Instrument processing is mostly fine, imo, tho you might want to work a little more with that stuff when you're done writing the track. You'll ahve to make it sound less like bored instrument players with different ideas of what they're playing and unify the track more, but like I said before, I think this could be good.

Much of the Trial source seems to be backing, but prelude was used pretty good. My occasional source-deafness made the comparison a little difficult, but I eventually did spot the similarities. I do think that you could use more source in it. The first 1:30 is a good palce to put it. Then again, you might be having this just full of source, and I'm just not hearing it. But I did recognize some in the latter half.

All instruments are very exposed and that makes them sound unprocessed. Normally, music has something of a depth-perception thing going on, where some things sound like they're further from the listener. Faint reverbs, delays, stereo effects tend to improve the depth effect. It's most prominent in the very intro. The zither sounds fairly good, possibly because there's a lot going on when it's playing. The other intro instruments could use some processing, tho. The electric guitar-like synth could use some different processing, it's got this really short delay which is a bit annoying. The little string crescendo is a bit annoying. Not the idea, not the sample or processing, it's the last stage of their volume rise that's too short for my taste. It turns into just reverb before you've noticed it ended. Your hihats are centered, like a few too many of your instruments. You have a pan knob, use it a little. Just avoid m aking the track unbalanced, you'll want something in the high range in both ears, so go easy on hihat panning (but you should do _some_ hihat panning). I'm not sure, but the track could benefit from a kick with more bass. Since that'd easy push the amplitude of the track, you'd want a multiband compressor to keep the levels balanced. While on the topic of cdompression, the 3:13 section seems to suffer some compression issues. Source usage is ok-ish. It's more of a build on the source than a rearrangement, but those counts as remixes too. I think there's lots of stuff from the source that you could draw from. Utilize more of the source. I do enjoy its sound, but it's got some issues, mostly about instruments not being processed enough. There's a lot of really cool atmosphere effects, and the progression makes sense to me. Good stuff.

Hm... Not what I thought it'd be. It's less repetitive, but also less cohesive. I'm hearing some stereo effect I can't quite put my finger on, it's a bit annoying. The track is obviously stereo, but much of it is so centered that it becomes annoying. Not sure if you're using a reverb here, could just be release tails, but I think you need more reverb regardless. The middle section has a flute or something that's just plain annoying in the higher range - there's a frequency in it that you should try to reduce. It could also be a result of whatever stereo effect you've used. Some of the instruments work well, some... not quite. There's this weird synthetic sound it it all, and while it could be sampled, I'm guessing this is fully synthetic. Making it more obvious could work, but I can't promise you anything. The final section, just strings or strings-like synth, is interesting. The speed does make it different from the other sections, but the long attacks and releases take away from the clarity the other sections had. The repetition in the writing is still a problem. Also, the organ section is the best of the three, the others aren't nearly as refined and defined as that one. What do you think yourself?

No source link, no source comment. I do recognize some of this from other remixes, I think. The whole track sounds like it's played through a guitar amp, you should find some better way of recording this, some way where you have a bit more control over the sound. I'm also annoyed by the noise, fixing the above problems should fix that too. The drum writing isn't very interesting. It's functional, but there's times when it's just plain boring. The heavy reverb on the drums might add to the sluggish feel I from it. Everything's compressed, too, so when the strings play, the hihats are buried. Not good, you should use a multiband compressor to keep the highs at the appropriate level while raising overall volume without getting clipping. It's not bad, but it's repetitive, sluggish, it's got noise, and it sounds low-quality. See what you can do to fix that. Good luck.

How many hands does an organist have? Even considering pedals, I'm not sure it's realistic. But it is cool. Work some on the production, use reverb. I'd also recommend compressing the mids and lows, perhaps looking into the sample you're using, see if there's any way to boost the highs in the mid-range notes without making the higher range notes painful. Some master EQ might work, or a multiband compressor. As for the writing, it gets repetitive, so you might want to use more than one organ, more than one instrument to get a more varied sound. Pipe, electric, there are so many types of organs and each can have a number of different sounds, not to mention ways to process the samples. From 1:32 when the writing repeats from the start of the track, you might want to swap instruments, or at least send a few parts over to another instrument... or another octave of what you've already got. Your call. As for source usage, it's quite conservative. There's stuff I don't recognize from source, and suits the track well. I'm more bothered by the repetitition, but you might want to have a look into source/interpreation of it too. Anyway, Uub's crits are spot on, at least the first two. Not sure I recommend doing #3, but it sounds plausible. Good work so far.