Rozovian

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.

Interesting. You know, I've heard a few of your wips, I think you're progressing nicely. Take some time to work with the instruments before continuing to write this. Specifically: - The bass should probably be replaced with something with much less modulation and a more clean punchy sound. - The first instrument that plays is fine in the intro, but once the drums come in, it's a little too loud, taking some attention from the lead. I recommend moving it (not the lead) up an octave and/or dropping volume. - Kick needs some compression and a boost around... 100Hz, I think. Snare should be louder. - I hear you've not just copied the source, which is good. The second lead you used could use some high frequencies, boosting the highs with a few dB (3 or so) would probably bring it out more without altering the sound it has. You're doing fine, man. You're improving.

I share Darke's concerns when it comes to bad tagging, but I'm positive to the idea of letting people tag the tracks... assuming there were clear guidelines for how to classify stuff. Perhaps it'd be best to start with pretty large tags and go into more specific details if the system works well. Essentially, there'd have to be a brief description of the genre, not just its name. While electronic implies "done with a computer", pretty much all music passes through a computer these days. Electronic would have to refer to synth-centric music. Of course, there's synthetic elements in everything, sampling ios something of a typical aspect of electronic music... but it's not what defines the genre. I think some of the basic tags would be orchestral, jazz, electronic, rock (should probably be more genres than that, tho), and then a tag for multiple genres and a tag for just one. Some remixes jump from genre to genre or blend them together so much, so there'd have to be something for that. Then, if these general tags work well, I guess just adding a layer of more detailed tags for people to attribute would be next. -- An idea: Should the tags be yes/no, or should they be "% of tag voters"? The latter system comes with the benefit of ranking tracks in people's opinion of what they think it sounds like, and also allows mods to remove tag voting privileges from people who intentionally mistag. If 80% of voters feel a track is jazzy enough to be "jazz", then people looking for jazz are probably gonna find the track ranked fairly high among remixes. This way, tracks could be sorted by how fitting they are in a specific genre, allowing people who are looking for a genre to more easily find everything in that genre. On the other hand, it could make people more selective about the remixes they dl.

Happy OLDday, guys!

What bothers me most about the instrumentation is that the slightly right-panned saw-based bass is wrecking the feel. I like pretty much everything else about the instrumentation, and your marimba sound is just pretty. Oh right, the pan effect on the electric piano - not good. The source issue is either that there's not enough source, or that it's not interpreted well enough. I tend to be source-deaf, so I'm not gonna comment too much on source, but I think this is different enough from the source FireSlash provided. I'm not a J, tho. Do take a backup of this version, I think it's a good place to keep working from. Good to have one, in caxse you're not happy wit the changes you'll make. Dropping/replacing the bass would improve the sound significantly. I recommend replacing it, as well as removing it for part of the track. Currently, it clutters and obscures the rest of the track, but it's a good source reference so don't lose it compeltely. The track has a functional progression, lots of nice writing and really interesting backing/soundscaping, lots of good stuff that you should let take precedence over the bass. I think this could be good enough to get on OCR... eventually. I enjoyed it. Good stuff.

No source link, no source comment. Intro strings are really dense, not really letting the soundscaping be heard. When the breakbeats come in, it starts getting repetitive. More variation in the beats, or some foreground stuff other than them would be nice, as it's currently mixed to put them in the foreground. The ethno flute vanishes a little too soon when you start building up, and it's a shame, the flute sounds awesome. Ending feels a little sudden. The piano is cut off, but I'm more bothered by how it transitionsed (or rather, didn't transition) from beats and all to just piano. It's probably a little too short too. It plays the intro, it gets started, it takes a break, it builds up, it rocks out, and it's over too soon. It's awesome, save for those crits.

If you listen closely to the electric piano, you'll hear this short delay of clicks. Fix that, both by watching early reflections and by fixing the a or r of adsr or the sample itself. Conceptually this is really cool. The execution of it isn't quite on that level. It goes nuts, but not really managing to sound any better than the calm sections. It also gets quite repetitive, and at times is just a copy of the source, sadly. Would be awesome to have a track like this on OCR, but there's a lot to fix before this would even get on the panel. Mixing, instrument choices, writing... It doesn't sound like you're that experienced a remixer, so keep improving your skills, and revisit this later. It's got more than one good idea in it, so get your skills to the level where you can make something more refined out of this. Good luck!

Piano sounds like it's got a bit too much of its highs cut. It's got a lot of intro, so it gets a bit repetitive before it gets to the theme. Inserting a version of the main theme earlier, an incomplete, withheld, teaser version of it, could solve that problem. The lack of clear high-range frequencies are probably what makes it sound muddy, poorly mixed, and low quality. You'll want to look into that at some point. The noise intro is pretty cool, and the lower quality mix might work there, but at 0:55, it could break into full quality. I like the track's progression, altho it's hard to guess how it'll develop from the end of the wip and for how long, so I can't say if it's paced well. But I like it. The chord progression, while on the topic of progression, is nice, and adds to a more mellow sound than the source, iirc, had. Good stuff, man. It's already enjoyable, certainly gonna be more so when its finished.

The link is relevant, go ahead and post it. Do remember to post your upgrade here after you've improved it, I want to hear how it turns out (and I might have more crits and/or nitpicks for you).

Use the torrents to get ALL ReMixes. Then, make a playlist of all those, set it to shuffle tracks, and... enjoy your discoveries. OCR doesn't rank remixes, classify them in genres or so, but it has a great sorting system when it comes to other info. If you find a track you like, check the rest of the remixer's tracks, check the rest of the game's tracks, check the rest of the composer's tracks, etc... Then, when you find something else you like, repeat the process. Or use the russian roulette on the front page, a bit down. OCR's policy is that everything that gets on the site is good. Although older remixes don't meet the quality standards of today, most are enjoyable, and some of them are just awesome despite their age.

What it means (it's swedish) is "snake gas" (gas as in helium, air, fart, not as in gasoline). What it means is of course another question.

The guitar-like bass give the track arhythm that could use some drums. Removing or rewriting (and relying on the high-range synths for rhythm) would reduce or even rrid you of the need for drums. I like your idea of using the drums for sound effects, and their sound sort'a works as such. There's a lot of weird sound effects in this, such as they bouncy thing around :50. Those _don't_ work. This is just a suggestion, but how about muting the guitar bass thing, and using a low pad for bass instead? I think it's interpretive and creative, but mostly the latter. It could use some more interpretation of the progression of the lead melody from source (note: not the melody itself, which I can hear you've altered at times). The bouncy sound starting at 2:20... no, imo. You should go over the sounds you've used, think about making it sound more cohesive. It'scurrently a mix between cool ones and bouncy or otherwise ill-fitting ones. The high-range xylophone-like thing is good, just to clarify. Hasn't been an ICZ remix here for almost a month, so it's nice to see the it can still be done in a new way. I'm still waiting for a bluegrass rendition of it. Not making this drum-driven is a great idea with loads of potential. It's definitely worth trying to get on OCR. It's not that good yet, tho.

Post +1 for me, and so far it's just as useful as Glitch's post. Aside from Logic, I've got GB2, not 3, so I can't talk app details that much. Still, a few production pointers for you. Arrangement - Source is there, but it's verbatim. Listen to this remix, much of which are just different takes on the same part of the source. There's so many different melodic and rhythmic combinations of a few notes, so pick a mood and force the theme into it. The mood might not end up what you planned it to be, but you'll have adapted the source, not just inserted it or built a track around it. The progression you've got is fine, imo, but it could use some variation, some deviation from the bassline. Also, consider adding drums to give the track a bit more defintion especially in rhythm. Writing - Not very good, sorry. It's simplistic, not that interpretive, and not very expressive either. Think of adding voices, backing melodies, variations of the theme, new chord progressions, a more developed bassline. Speaking of which, the rhythm of the bass is a little jumpy, and I keep wondering if it's a bass drum or a bass synth. Instrumentation - A strange mix of synths and sampled instruments. While I enjoy the sound of the synths, they don't fit that well together. You should have a AUGraphicEQ 10/31 band graphic EQ among your audio units (if not, get it). Use it to check what frequencies which instruments use, and make sure they're not crowded in the same range. Most instruments leave a lot of lows that can muddy up a mix, and those frequencies aren't really needed anyway except for drums, bass, and other stuff with low-range writing. The harpsichord-like instrument could use an EQ cut in the mids/highs, a few dB in the right place could make it far less annoying. Instrument settings - Learn to use the ADSR (Attack, Decay, Sustain, Release). Not all voirtual instruments have those, some only have "Duration". Use Google or Wikipedia if you don't already understand adsr. Also, check out Cutoff and Resonance, and what they do. You can enrich as well as... unrich... synth sounds with those. Not sure you've got those on GB's sampler, but if you do, see what you can do with it. Anyway, the second synth that comes in (ie the first that isn't bass) has a kind'a slow attack, high sustain/long decay, and a long release, making it interfare with itself when the next note is played. The cello in the end could use a little more release and a shorter attack - now I'm starting to wonder if you used automation or jsut slow attack for it. Anyway, use automation. Mixing - Well, it's not bad, but it does clip at times like 1:40-2:10, and you could balance the parts out a bit more. This is an EQ thing, too, where you gotta make sure each frequency range is covered (lows, highs, and mids). The lack of hihats/shakers make this a bit empty in the high range, and while they're not encessary, you should compress the higher range using the AUMultibandCompressor to boost it. Using a multiband compressor is very useful otherwise too, it gives you a bit more control over the balance of the final mix. There's some chunks of useful advice, opinions, hints, suggestions, criticism, and other comments. Good luck.

No source link, no source comment. But at least you specified what source it is. I'll comment on that later, don't have time now. Synths are a bit noisy, you could work with the cutoff more. Their release tails are a bit annoying too. There's also some clipping. Bassline could be more interesting, but it's functional as it is. Flute doesn't sound very organic, probably because at the beginning of each note, you've still got the expression automation of the old note interfering; try moving the automation back just a little. I'll comment more on this when I have the time. It's certainly worth developing.

Not that I have time to compare to source atm, but if you post a link to source, you're more likely to get comments on how well interpreted it is. Drums are dry, and could use some contrast (EQ/compression). Writing is nice, but I don't know what's you and what's source. Production sounds way too early to comment on. Sounds like it could be good. I'll be back.

I'm a little pressed for time atm, but from I can hear, the production is ok-ish, the creative parts are nice but haphazardly arranged. Whatever drums you had there didn't contribute much to the rhythm, they were just soundscaping. Not bad, but I'd like to hear this improved. I'll post more when I have more time to analyse it.

The drums don't have the punch they should to stand out, it makes the track sound a bit muddy. You can fix that by EQing up their punch frequencies. Also, one of your rides has a really weird panning effect, like volume is panned one way and the channel delay is panned the other. The track is also kind'a quiet, you should probably use a multiband compressor to have control over each frequency band. That could help with the mud, too. Also, you should check each instrument, see if it creates any unnecessary low frequencies that you can EQ away. The rest of the track is fine imo, but the ending is... Well, slow. You should fade it faster, either sooner and overlaying some non-fading part, or later. You may have to shorten some part of the ending to get the pacing better, it just feels like it's fading for too long, starts too early. It's getting better. A drum fix and a volume fix should improve it significantly, and fixing the rest of my few crits would improve it further. Great stuff.

It's improved. Sounds a little quiet now, tho, boost it with a limiter or multiband compressor. Some sustained high notes are still a little painful, but the vibrato makes it less prominent. I recommend dropping the volume slightly on sustained notes, that or closing the cutoff (control it with an envelope, 1 second decay, 50-70% sustain). There's a few clicks in the end that you need to watch out for. Panning of the snare is a little annoying, you should probably give it stereo width using reverb or something. Using two different kicks makes it kind'a weird. They're not synched, so while changing the balance between the two is a good way to vary the sound, this isn't that. Can't think of anything else atm. Getting better.

Yep, source is there. And well interpreted, imo. No further comments on that. Rhythm in the intro is hard to grasp. Better mixing could help, but cleaning up the drum writing would probably be better. First lead sounds a little unprocessed compared to the other instruments that are almost drowning in effects. Second lead is better, but it could be louder. Third lead is great. You could have a fill or something at 1:47, to emphasize the melody staccato. It'd also serve to vary the drums more, and considering the main section that follows it'd be good to break it up a little. 2:32 break down needs some work, especially on the lead as it fades too soon at 2:36. As for the ending, it'd be awesome if it'd start fading a little sooner, and if you'd throw in a piano or some other clean solo instrument to put on top of the fading stuff. Not to tell you how to remix, but I think it'd be less of a fadeout-copout. Also, it's funny. I'm not liking this as much as your previous stuff, maybe it's the muddy mix, maybe the source, maybe the aggressive writing and mixing, idunno. Still, it's good. GOOD. As usual.

There's a few different sources you can link to. vgmusic's midis are a fair comparison, especially if they're transcribed well. A link to an archive of the game OST works too, but not everyone has chipamp or other means of listening to it (I'm on mac, no chipamp for me). Youtube is common and works well. Then there's khinsider and galbadia hotel, neither of which offers legal downloads but it works for comparison. Thanks for bringing this up, I'll add it to the WIP discussion thread FAQ (it'll be the first question).

Intro organ could be louder, would be awesome to hear it more than the drums, but that could screw with the sound balance later on. Source/interpretation: The sound is significantly changed and you've elaborated on it. I think you're in the green as far as source/interpretation is concerned. I especially liked the sections in the end. I want an organ solo somewhere. Not to screw with your plans and ideas for the arrangement, but the organ is among the coolest sounds in the mix. Some sustained synth notes could use a bit of a vibrato/tremolo, something to make them less static. I'm surprised at the energy this has when the drums aren't playing. Drums seem to be holding it back, strangely. Which isn't encessarily a bad thing, it's got a very interesting pacing. I'm wondering how it'd sound with the drums twice as fast, tho. Not sure what I think about the drum balance either, the snare sounds panned, but it also sounds panned of necessity. Overall, I think you're close to the acceptance bar. Good stuff.

Conceptually, it sounds promising. Hard to miss the source here, and it sounds ok in metal. The sound quality here isn't far from midi, tho. Conceptually, yeah it's got potential. Technically, it can't sound like this. As for writing, the main part of it sounded poorly matched with that drum writing, the second part sounded good, and could be awesome with real guitar. The concept is a good one.

No source link, no source comment. It also sounds like a lot like what I remember of the source, but can't say for sure since that's not much. Structurally, it's typically boss music, which makes me doubt the interpretation further. Doesn't quite have the energy it should have. Drums could use a lot more energy, but I have yet to get what makes rock drums energetic or realistic sounding, so I can't help you there. The bass, however, needs some serious bass frequencies, as it sounds very poorly fit in this combination of instruments. Orchestral bits sound sampled and sequenced. The right amount of reverb and the right EQ could make it a bit more realistic sounding. I'm surprised at how low-quality this sounds, despite it being almost 200kbps. That tells me you need to EQ the master too, raise the highs. Compare this to some sixto and fishy tracks, see what you can hear that you should change. I'm not much of a guitar wip reviewer, so you should go on #ocrwip and annouce your wip there. Tensei-San could give you a lot of pointers how to work with rock/metal in general, and he's not the only one. Wasn't bad, wasn't good. Could be good. Good luck!

Sorry man, this might leave you a bit disillusioned, but: NO Even before the first VA there's sounds that just don't work well. Dunno what to say about the drums, because they're obviously not done that way by accident. The repetition of the backing tracks, and the fact that they don't work well together, harmonically or rhythmically, make this a bit difficult to listen to. The trance hook sounds pretty good, but it needs some fat. Try adding a delay on it. Bass is terrible, you should probably replace it compeltely. Dunno what kind of speakers/headphones you've got but if you compare this to some OCRemixes, you'll hear that they've got waay more bass. The voice clips in the end are clipping (no pun intended). You might want to ask for a re-recording of those (esp. at "...was wrong"). Repetition, weird drum writing (and weird drum), and sound quality and mixing are my crits for this. Source is there, but a genre adaptation is hardly enough to put it in the green in source/interpretation. If you fix the harmonic and rhythmic problems with the backing you should be having a much more complete sounding remix, but still in the need of some more interpretation. I have serious doubts that this could get passed, I'm not sure it'd get on the panel, sorry. Then again, it's a great base for developing the track further, and using VA certainly set it apart from just any genre adaptation. I suggest you keep working on it. I'm surprised you think this is complete. Still, it's a good start, so don't give up.

This might be a bit too close to source, despite the genre adaptation. Then again, you haven't done much to change it yet, and I've listed some ways to do that in this post and in the earlier one. The piano sound is fine, save for the noises. With performance, I mean to make it a bit more human. A trance track with piano doesn't have to be, but a piano track with trance should. That means to add left-hand writing, humanize velocities, possibly make changes to note lengths and timing. That's what I meant with performance - that is sounds performed rather than sequenced. I heard a backing melody on something that could be a pad, and listen close, I can hear the pad. Don't raise it too much, and do keep in mind that the pad can be used to bridge the orchestral and the electronic sections as it's mellow enough to fit into both worlds. Also, varying the pad writing can, like I said before, change the emotional landscape a lot. 1:37, you're talking about the piano, right? It sounds okay, it's one of the more human sounding sections (the writing, at least). Good job on that, now analyse it and learn what makes it good. Apply the same attributes to other parts of the piano writing without copying the arpeggio. Everything takes practice. Forcing yourself to write a few original tracks is a great way to learn how to do it. I started... six years or so, to do that, and I'm pretty happy about my writing skills. I'm sure you've tried, but TRY AGAIN. All you need is to learn (at this stage anyway) is how notes interact (different chords, dissonance, and key signature) and how you can hear if two rhythms are working together or against each other. Let's talk about your idea for a solo. Your idea might work, but I suggest also copying bits and pieces of other parts of the writing to make it fit and be more than three note-motions. Listen to some solos in some OCRemixes and see what's different. Play it in your head. Write more than one version, and then use the one that works best. Knowing music and making music are two very different things. As an adaptation from one genre to another, this is quite successful. Take a backup, and play around with it, see what you can change without making it sound bad. Change chords, move sections, add writing, change rhythms... See what you can do. I think you've done ok for someone who says they don't have any musical knowledge. Keep imnproving, both you and the track.