Rozovian

No source link, no source comment. I take it you haven't spent much energy on the production since you're admitting using lofi samples and focusing on the arrangement. There's a lot of stuff that bother me about the mix, such as weird autopan effects, the low volume, a lot of instrument choices, the varying level of frequency coverage... Some production issues to be dealt with later. I think it's funny, this track. Some sound choices are hilarious... and not that bad in terms of quality either. With samples that are a bit richer, and properly mixed this track could be pretty good. The arrangement seems to hold back, tho, and while skipping forth and back reveals that it's fairly cohesive, it can get repetitive. An improved production would reveal that better. This could be good.

No source link, no source comment. The bass in the intro sounds a bit ill fitting. It also feels a few dB too quiet. Piano has some bg clicks and pops, sample problems I suspect, clear in the :49-1:07 section, check it and fix it, fix it elsewhere too. Piano could be a bit more performance-sounding. This is something of a piano track, despite it having a lot of trance elements to it, so emphasize the piano more by developing the piano writing. The overall sound is pretty good, tho I'd try to get the drums a little louder, a little harder. See if you can compress them more. I'd also suggest using a pad to control the mood more, it's a great way to change it up, too. If you'll use 'em, make sure not to wrap everything in pads, I like the more exposed, bare, clear sound this has. Arrangement is repetitive, has a lot of underdeveloped parts, the piano could use some more elaborate writing... I'm a bit concerned that this is source melody+random background track, so you might want to make sure you've got recognizeable source elements incorporated in the bass and the backing as well. It's pretty good, but like you said, the arrangement probably isn't OCR-worthy yet. Also, the contrast between the orchestral and the electronic sections is kind'a sharp, so you might want to use pads to transition from one to the other. The snare roll works, but it still feels a little too hard. Blah, blah. it's enjoyable, could be great. Keep working on it.

"Download a keyboard", hehe. There's basically two ways to work with midi - one is to use a midi keyboard (thatis, a physical musical keyboard with midi output) and record the input (and then process it), the other is to use the mouse to enter notes where they belong and process them accordingly. You'll need a DAW (digital audio workstation) in order to do anything. Look around the forum, some threads in the ReMixing section should get you some idea of what to get. FruityLoops is one of the default DAWs people use. I haven't used it myself, but I hear it's easy to learn (in comparison). edit: well, LT moved the thread, so the link doesn't take you far.

Just thought of yet another problem with the wip board - you never know if a wip has been updated. Sure, the OP posts edits the first post, posts a new post to say it's been updated (sometimes including the link to the new wip)... A regular reviewer, or someone who's invested a lot of listening time and comments in helping someone with their track doesn't know it's updated until he/she checks the thread. The OP could flag the thread with an update, so anyone who's commented since the last version knows it's been updated since. Yeah, takes a little coding. I'm adding this to the list on post #2. Also: Thanks to Willrock and Hylian Lemon who've already answered this, the rest of you wip board users could do so too, so reviewers know what they should say.

The door closes. Someone pushes a button on an old cassette recorder, then walks in a large room And then comes an ugly bell, one that is way too soft. Try using both bells on top of each other, add reverb, add a compression with a slow attack (200-500ms), and boost its lows. Bell problems. It works better in the body of the track, like around 1:30. 1:41-1:55 is just repetition. Add some ambience, single low strings note, choir, random bg noises, something to keep it from being just repetition for the sake of pacing. The pacing is good, imo, but the repetition isn't. At 1:55, the bell sounds a little out of synch. Dunno if it sample attack thing or what it is, since it wasn't nearly as annoying when I relistened to that bit. Phaser on the drums is a little annoying, I'd make it muhc softer, and work on spreading the drums more instead. A lot of the stuff in this track is centered, you'll want to give each instrument a place, both in fvrequency and in stereo palcement. Some can coexist, some can't. And the drums are more than one instrument and the hats and other high-range drums should be spread. Reverb on the drums _might_ work to solve this, but I recommend trying to spread the high frequencies of the drums (sounds like a loop, so panning individual isntruments might be hard). See if you have an effect that can spread jsut the high range. 2:34 sounds dissonant. Bell clashing with organ. 2:46 has a weird noise in the left channel, which should either be removed or used more often. Most of my issues resolved? Hah! I keep finding new ones for you. But it's getting better and better. Rest your ears, read the feedback, listen to the track, fix what you agree with. This has progressed far, imo. Good work you, good stuff yours.

No source link, no source comment. Those rising and falling noises are pretty annoying. Some of the ambience, tho, is pretty cool. The crazy panning on the drumloop makes me wonder what the loop is doing there in the first place. But as you said, those parts are still unfinished. Once it gets started the track makes a lot more sense, percussion after 1:30 is all fine with me (really liked the 2:13 bit). I'm really enjoying the new instrument after 2:02, but some of the other sounds, especially the falling pitch things... not as good. 2:30 seems to disagree on the key, so you might want to clean that up. The frequency balance could use some work, there's a lot of competing sounds in the same frequency range, and it's sometimes hard to know what the lead is. Change both EQ and volume. The bass reminds me of Bomfunk MC's Super Electric. Enjoyable. This could be good. Much of it already is. Make it better!

You might want to host it somewhere else. The file doesn't play for me. Didn't even load.

No source link, no source comment. Drums are smack in the center. Everything else has good stereo width, but the drums don't sound like they fit in because of that. Soundswise, you only have to carve some room for the isntruments with the EQ. The snare is obscuring a lot of the instruments, and tehre's a lot of competition for some of the higher mids going on. The arrangement is pretty good, tho I can't comment on interpretation much. I think this works. It's a little repetitive at times, but changing it up for the sake of making it less repetitive would just make those differences sound awkward. I think it works. it's fairly enjoyable, but you'll need to work on the EQing and the drum stereo width. Note that I know nothing about the source and therefor can't comment on it. Good stuff, tho.

1:27 ouch. 1:42 isn't as bad. 3:07 doesn't have the problem, which was weird as I anticipated some dissonance there. Annoying, but it's better than if it were bad. 1:53 gets way too thick too sudden, you might want to drop the choir volume a bit. Either my ears or headphones have some balance issues, or the drums, perhaps the entire track is leaning a bit right. Some bells/celesta are panned left, but the drums and some of the isntruments sounds a little panned right. Panning all of them just a little less to the right would probably resolve the problem. Or maybe it's just the Haas effect screwing with my ears. if that's the case, you might want to shorten the delay between the channels a little. It's also a little bit of the quiet side. A track like this shouldn't be LOUD, but "normal" tracks are gonna make this sound way too quiet when put in a playlist. You can make one with a few other soft OCR tracks, compare the levels. I think 4 dB could be enough, but that's just a guess. Comparison would give you a much better idea of how quiet it is and how much louder it should be. Use a compressor/limiter to raise the volume so it doesn't clip. I can't really grasp the dynamic curve or progression in this, but there's nothing that stands out as being bad. I don't mind it as it is now, but dropping out the drums sooner might make it a bit more clear that the track is ending. You could end them at 2:59, or at least drop out the kick and snare there. Sure, a half minute of winding down might be a little much, but it's winding down regardless, the drums just make it more clear to the listener. But like I said, I don't mind the current ending. Great stuff. Check with a J.

It takes half a minute until I hear the source. Production is also pretty simplistic. I think paso doble would suit a lot of source tunes, but you'll need to process the tracks way better. I enjoy these tracks, but I wasnt to hear something mroe complete and well produced. Start by finding better samples, and work with the EQ. Read zircon's compendium. Paso doble would be awesome if it were on the same sound quality level as accepted remixes and professional music.

Listen to the mid frequencies. The Eve sample doens't have nearly as much as yours do. EQ those down a little (maybe 5dB), and you should be able to raise the volume a bit. You may have to drop the highs too. Also, you might want to cut the low low lows (<50Hz) so they're not pushing the peaks. And like zircon said, if you take your sample, open it upin an audio editor, cut some of the attack to get it to rise faster you get a faster attack. Listen to the perceived volume of the Eve sample, you should hear that the volume drops sooner than in yours. Try dropping the decay slider to around 200ms, and make sure the sustain slider isn't at 100%.

Maybe this thread should be split into an AU and a VST thread? Anyway, I use the following free AUs: BetaBugs' Crayon Filter, Camel Audio's Camelcrusher, and mda's Combo. You might want to have a look at the last two, Fishy.

Yep, the WIP board. People usually post their whole songs there, or as far as they've done. WIP reviewers can't comment on the overall progression, ending, length, buildups, stuff like that from just a sample. If you want to improve the track, post the full track on the WIP board, wait for people to comment on it, and see what issues they're bothered by, and what parts they're enjoying the most. OCR doesn't host wips, tho.

This is a problem I've brought up before, someone probably long before me too. The response I got when bringing this up in the feedback checklist thread is that too conservative means: Too liberal is where over 50% of the track can't be traced to the source, but there's no such rule of thumb for when a remix is too conservative.

The thanks idea is pretty much like the "helpful?" idea, with the one difference that the OP could thank anyone saying something nice about his/her wip, while the question as to whether or not the reply was helpful is a bit more specific. I'll add it to the list anyway. Personally, I think the WIP boards could be improved significantly by dealing with the quality of replies and splitting the forum into separate wips and releases forums, which shouldn't require any coding. The problem is _how_ to improve the quality. I'd like any remixers and wip posters to answer my two questions on the first page as it could help us understand the current perceived role of the wip board better.

Got the source. The genre adaptation is probably enough to keep you from getting NOed on source/interpretation, as you've added content make it fit the genre. Do watch you energy levels when you re-record so it doesn't end up being long sections of the same. That doesn't work in the genre, imo. For that matter, everything has energy, and you don't want it to have the same amount of energy for a long time, every part should be either building up or toning down, whether it is the harmonic/melodic progression or the energy that's changing. Melodically/harmonically, it's repetitive but not to the point where it bothers me. What bother me is the flat energy level during the aforementioned sections, but that could change with the new instrument. Be mindful of the energy, it's what makes good music great. Whatever. Good luck with it.

Doesn't really matter that you're a piano player, either you played at full velocity, or the soundfont you're using ignores any recorded velocity. It sounds mechanical and stale as it's all too evenly played, and it should be fixed. And like I said before, my biggest crit isn't the panning or the mechanical velocities, it's the energy, which doesn't change enough imo.

Not familiar with source and since there's no link to it, I'm not gonna take the time to look it up. I'll mention the track being renamed wrong if I run into a mod when I get on irc. Also, I found your other wip to be more enjoyable, but the production tips I mentioned are pretty much the same. Record to computer, add effects, maybe some backing, and it'd sound way better. Good luck.

I vaguely remember the source when I hear this. Recording it clean (ie: not with a handicam mic), and perhaps adding some backing sounds (occasional soft string pads, some sections with a bit of bass) and some effects (a soft delay and some reverb) would turn it from just impressive playing to also sound great (production is noisy, mono, and could use some EQ atm). Wonder what the J's would say about just a guitar with effects. I know I find this enjoyable already, and that's with the noise and without effects afaik.

The new bell sounds better, but it needs to be louder. So does most of the track, see if you can compress it more. A multiband compressor is useful on the master channel, as it compresses different bands separately, you can push up the mids without worrying about the lows and highs. Drop the kick and the track elvel doesn't get near 0dB. it needs more compression, regardless of the choice of compressor. Source is there, tho it took a while for me to recognize it. The bassline is derived from source, and after 2 mins the source becomes more obvious. btw, the organ panning is a bit annoying, still is after the centered synth comes in. It and the bell further left might improve it, but I recommend working with reverb and short/soft delays to give the organ the sound of being panned without leaving the opposite channel that quiet. Well, it's improved, but still needs improvement. It flows better, sounds better, and simply works better now. Keep at it, it sounds like it could pass the J's one day.

Progression is pretty much identical to source, and you're using a bit too much of the lofi lead. Still, the feel is great, and it could pass, despite how conservative it is. It's a very different pacing, and the sound is quite different. I'd get rid of the lofi lead from source, tho, replace it with something more interesting. As it is, it works well in the intro (of course), and throwing in a lofi iteration in the middle/towards the end of the track would be a cool way of varying it. For the rest of the time, it sounds cheap. Fix it up, man, I think it could get passed.

A lot of the instrument choices and some production issues make this a bit annoying to listen to, but the arrangement sounds good. It's pretty varied, but feels somewhat cohesive despite that. Good stuff, but I'm not surprised you were rejected. The aforementioned instrument choices could use some fixing up. Not that there's a problem with synths, it's that they could be a bit more varied and more complex. Better mixed, all that. Keep trying to get one past the J's.

I dont' think this track is gonna be YES-ed in this condition, and I doubt you can get it there using just the keyboard. Sorry man. On the other hand, if you could record/export the midi, someone else might get the sound done more realistically. A collab. If you're interested, check who else would be. Good luck, with this, and whatever else you're working on.

No sourcce link, no source comment. It's quiet, it only approach 0dB when the kick plays, so you might want to balance it a bit. You've also got the pads nice and rich, but the leads really clean and bare. You might want to add some reverb, compression, something to add width and energy to the leads. While on the topic of making things richer, raising the volume on everything should get you there, but you'll need to compress the peaking instruments. I recommend putting a limiter on the master, and compression on leads and kick. It's not very cohesive, just listening to the kick makes it obvious. There's some nice melodies in here, but it seems a bit crazy, going from one section to another with very little transition writing. Dunno how much is from the source and how much is yours, but just cleaning up the drums and making some nice transitions would improve the track significantly. The melodies mesh well into the track, and the style is roughly the same. I suggest you rewrite the drums compeltely, as they're responsible for a lot of the loss of cohesiveness. Sorry, I can't say this is good atm, but I'm certain it could be with the right fixes. Place some more thought into cohesiveness and get the volume up a bit. Good luck.

No source link, no source comment. Seems to lean to the right a bit. Also, the intro guitar sounds fake, in a bad way. Either synthy or more realistic, but it's in the uncanny valley of guitar sounds, imo. Could be the fret noise that's giving it that effect. Arrangement is pretty, tho the main melody gets a bit tiresome. I like the bass writing, but those semi-note steps are good... in moderation. I'm not bothered by the backing guitar, it's quiet enough to pass unnoticed during casual listening. I gotta disagree with Eino about the 1:02 section, I think it's a nice break from having all foreground to listen to. This sounds a bit like Necros' tracker songs, like Click and Metroplex. And that's a good thing. Good stuff, man.