Rozovian

The reasons it might be a bad thing is because it might dissuade people from commenting more than "version A is better", if they'll comment at all. This is mentioned in the linked thread. People who comment on wips on the board, unlike yourself, might have their own preferences, thus the need for them for a thread to voice their views on it and other wip-related matters. Also, the reason I posted this on the wip board is because this is wip-related. The wip board frequencters don't always come here to check this thread. They do come to the wip board. They're not gonna dig up this thread when they have a question will likely go unasked, the idea unmentioned. Furthermore, the reason I didn't suggest moving this thread to the wip board is because if I have the first post, I can edit it to contain summaries and links to discussions that we've had in the thread. This way, no newbs are ever gonna find this thread, and nobody's gonna sum up discussions and post them where they're easily available. wtg overzealous mod. edit: link to the thread LT had to make to keep mods from abducting it.

Grr, everybody, there is now a thread for further discussion about multiple versions, and any other wip board items. Here.

In Willrock's recent wip thread, the question came up as to whether or not it's a good idea to post multiple versions of the same wip. See this thread for that discussion. Any further thoughts about that? Also, I'm wondering, does anyone have any other suggestions for how to improve the wip board, the feedback or lack thereof, etc?

You're talking about the last.fm player, right? As I understand it, the remixes are streamed by last.fm to prevent too much bandwidth clogging for ocr. Before the player works, those files have to be on last.fm, and someone has to manually add them to it, as well as add the right stream to the writeup page.

This thread is the home of one good track and two good ideas. I let Liontamer know about the need for a discussion thread for the wip board, and once there is such a thing, we'll move the rest of this discussion there. There's evidently use for it. Grr, the biggest problem with the wip boards is the lack of feedback. If you hang around for long enough, you'll see a number of posts with one or two feedback posts, if even that. If you want to run around like me, posting on stuff, that's good. Most people here need _any_ feedback far more than detailed feedback. Some people, like Willrock, are close enough to the standards to benefit from a multiple-version evaluation, but most people that post here aren't on that level. Some want opinions, some need technical expertise... I think the idea of posting multiple versions isn't bad, but I've only gotten annoyed at people actually doing that. The problem is that there's then three files to listen to, the source and both versions of the remix. It clutters the post, it clutters the feedback, and it can dissuade listeners. Too much trouble. Overfixing isn't as great an inconvenience as relistening to each version and copy-pasting the good bits of one version together with the good bits of another, especially if you can't copy-pasta instrument and effect settings. Gradual tweaks is the way to go for most of the development of the track, but I know I've been rendering multiple candidates for the final version of one of my recent remixes, trying to figure out what to tweak and what sounds best. Let's agree, tho, that it can be useful to provide more than one version, especially in the late stages. Grr, make use of your detailed thinking (and listening), a lot of wips need feedback. Any feedback is usually better than no feedback, and your feedback looks good to me. Some people need details, so don't be afraid to provide it.

I gotta disagree with Grr on the multiple candidates idea. I know I'm too lazy to listen for specific differences in tracks, even when I'm comparing source to conservative remixes. I know I think it's easier to listen to _one_ version, and providing specific feedback for that one instead of spending far more time on comparing different versions and noting the pros and cons with each. Granted, that kind of feedback could be very useful, but I think there'd be far less feedback that way. I mean, it's easier to say (and to read) "it needs more bass" than "the bass in version A was too muddy and in B it was okay when tehre wasn't many other instruments around but it needs more punch when the whole thing gets started". Also, multiple versions make the post longer, which makes it a bit daunting. As I see it, this can be daunting for listeners just looking for a track to comment on. A long post with a lot of links to different sources, different remixes, different version... they make the post look bad. Complicated. This is how I tend to write my wip posts, tho I haven't made any in a while. I think the simplicity helps listeners. *ahem* My way: Would be interesting to get a discussion started on this (and perhaps other wip forum-related things), but perhaps that should be its own thread.

Too fast fade at 2:22, and the lead is a little too loud at times, but that's about it. No more help from me. For this track anyway. Awesome work, man. Looking forward to seeing this on the front page. I advise you to check with a J before submitting tho, they might have some more crits.

The slow attack of the :09 instrument makes it sound weird. The electric guitar sounds terrible. I understand the need for it, but you need a better sounding guitar to make this track submittable. You still need some high-range backing (hihats or shakers) for some parts. Using a shaker has the advantage of not needing its writing adjusted to fit the crash writing. The electronic kick still doesn't sound good in the mix. Keyboard? No DAW? Recording audio or midi? EQing seems to have improved this fairly well, but sadly, it's not submittable yet, imo. I would suggest you hand over drums and guitar midi to someone who can make it sound better. It doesn't have to be Sixto. I really like the writing here, you've done a great job refining it, but you're still suffering from a number of production problems, most notable in the guitar sound.

Dunno what I was thinking when commenting on the hats last post. The ticky hihats are annoying. Apply reverb, raise release, do something to reduce the tickyness of them. Also, the 1:48 section sounds much better here. Good edit. The main concern I have with this now is the repetition. While it's something of a staple of the genre, it's not a necessity. See if you can vary the melodic content, perhaps also the chord progression. Still on what I think is resub-level.

Source is there. Would probably be easier for someone having heard the source more before to hear, but there's a elements I recognize from a comparison, so the source content is probably in the green. Lower range strings are a bit too... sharp, prominent, to fit into the otherwise soft soundscape you've got, imo. use another sample for the low-midrange strings so make it softer. And that dissonance at 1:26 repeats at 1:42. It's a key change/odd chord thing that's causing it, another weird key thing happens at 2:12. They're not _bad_, but they can annoy some listeners. Also, you could change the snare sounds depending on the dynamics of the rest of the track. IYou use a normal snare, albeit soft, at 0:26, as a fill. Using that as your main snare during the more busy sections instead of the softer hit could get you a more pronounced progression - which would bea good thing. It could come in at 1:52, there's really no need for it earlier. Note that this is just a suggestion. Overall... still enjoyable, still want to hear it completed. It's got a shot with the J's, considering its interpretation, sound quality, and enjoyability. Once it's long enough, get on ocr's irc channels and ask one of the judges to have a listen.

You're gonna have to put more of the melodic content into the remix. I couldn't recognjze the remix despite its source being in SSBB. Then again, the remix is still short and thus probably in its early stages, so there's room to expand and to use the source melodies more. Good luck with it.

This is the url to your user profile: http://www.ocremix.org/forums/member.php?u=25343. The number you're looking for is 25343, the number at the end of your profile url. The staff will be able to find it if your nick is also there, plus they'll probably find this thread too.

Pick one if you want specific feedback. People generally see this as "too much to read/listen to". I listened to your most recent one. The source is pretty good, there's lots of melodic content to pull from it. Your stuff, however, doesn't quite have the sound quality I'd wish from them. It sounds like old mods (like those of Skaven, Purple Motion, Jester, and others, couldn't remember the name of the track this sounds very similar to (in terms of overall sound)), something that would have been good 10-15 years ago, but the sound quality is a far cry from what modern music software is capable of - still talking about your mix. Your brass samples are awful. Some stereo effects on the pizzicato - not good. Panning, awful. The mixing is quite good, but there's the sample issue to resolve before this would be _good_. It's got some nice arrangement ideas, but it's quite repetitive at times. There's also an absence of ambience, reverb, release tails, giving this a very dry feel, even to the point where it's annoying to listen to. I also got no clear sense of progression in it. There's a section that develops, then there's another section that develops, etc. These sections don't seem to be the same track, just similar sounding. Their similar sound could also be something of a problem, it can wear people out. A song that wears people out is not a good song. I can connect it to source, so you're clear on that, as far as I can tell. The verbatim intro and the overall homogeneity of the tracks make them difficult to focus on, so that's as specific as I can be. Overall, it does show a lot of promise. Good stuff.

No source link, no source comment. Sound effects intro... Might be good, but it's a little long. The bell is horrible. As an intro, it could work, but you'll need to replace the bell and transition into the track better. The bell remains a problem throughout the track. Was just started to get into the track and there it was again. Overall, the track seems spread between elements, and you might want to use a pad or something to tie things together. First trance drums, then something more of a breakbeat. And the organ and bells, although thematically a good idea, they sound horrible. EQing the organ or tweaking drawbars (or picking another sample with more high frequencies) would improve it, but I esriously have no diea how that ugly bell could be improved. Reverb, volume envelope, stuff like that could improve it, but I can't say for sure that it will. Dropping all drums for a break, and then introducing new drums work if everything is mixed beautifully and the writing matches the drums. In this case, that's not the case. What I hear in this are great thematical ideas, and a lot of good musical ones, but the mix and some progression and writing issues tear down the good stuff quite effectively. There's not enough drive in the end of the track, you may have to extend that to get more progression and dynamics out of it. Overall, promising but flawed. You might find some things you hadn't thought of among the production pointers I listed above, but I do hope you'll fix the two main writing issues I have with this: transitions (into the track, from trance drums to organ, from organ to organ+beat), and the progression of the ending. I repeat: it's promising.

Best place to put it, despite that people might mistake a sound upgrade for a rearrangement. Could use some compression on the master, I recommend using a limiter as it doesn't clip. The lead is a bit annoying, you could work in some mod wheel and pitch bend automation. it doesn't alter the arrangement, but it can make the world of a difference when it sounds less like sequenced and more performed. Also, the phasing/flanging of the lead gives it a slightly unpleasant stereo phasing, you might want to reduce that effect. The choir-like pad could use some serious stereo separation to gain width and not just be midd-stereoscape filler. Bells are pretty good, or they're just not loud enough for me to hear what's wrong with them. Bass could have some more bass frequencies, might even need a push down an octave. Bass drum could have more punch, but also be shorter. There's a long low sound that follows the bass drum. The snare needs punch, so boost it a few dB somewhere in the 50-200Hz range, wherever that sample has the best punch. If it doesn't screw with the sound upgrade thing, you could give the drum writing some variation with occasional small fills and ghost hits. The hihats need stereo presence, I recommend delaying their left channel and panning them just a little right. Also, you could add a second crash or some faint reverb or delay on the crash to make it more balanced. Right now, all the high range drums are in the left ear, so try different ways of giving them more stereo width instead of just panning. Reverb and delay (esp. with the Haas effect (left/right channel delayed slightly behind the other)) are good tools for that. As for track volumes, you could bring down the lead a little to bring out some of the backing more. Overall, a decent sound upgrade. The stuff I listed above are suggestions for how to fix specific problems in the track, mostly mix-related. I think it's pretty much on the level I expected, perhaps a little better. Good work.

Unless things have changed since I downloaded it, Audacity isn't a sequencer. It's an audio editor, which means that it works with preexisting audio files. If you can record a live piano, you can probably process that just fine in audacity, but writing notes might be impossible in it. Considering your years on the piano, I think your best approach would be to use a midi keyboard (or any keyboard with midi output, electric pianos usually have that too) and play the notes into the sequencer and work it from there. I recommend that you download some DAW demos and see which one you like the most - and then go get that one. Audacity is gonna be problematic to work with, I suspect.

Difficult to say without testing the program myself, but it looks all right. One way to find out would be to listen to a bunch of tracks made with Rosegarden, compare them to recent OCR tracks. At least if you know what to listen for. My advice: Listen, and try it out. If not else, it's at least gonna be a learning experience.

Suddenly, I realized the intro has something of a cave story quality to it, albeit not as clean. lead seems panned left, not good. Next lead is centered, but not quite dominant enough to hold it's own. Pan each a _little_ to either side, to get some more balance in it. Ending... better not be the end. It's not a good ending. Some comments. The track is still interesting to me. Keep working on it.

Very in-your-face, those bells. Reverb, and other stereo palcement/distance effects. Please. Beat is nice. Track is repetitive, first minute is essentially the same thing through out. Note clash at 1:26. Once you get that far in the track, the bells fit in much better without the effects they should have in the intro. I have no idea what the source is, and there's no link to it. There's some helpful criticisms. Aside from that, and the length, all I can say is that it's enjoyable. I want to hear this completed.

No link to source, no comment on source. Piano panning is a little too extreme. Interesting, but a bit too far imo. Drums need some serious velocity tweaks to make that beat interesting, especially on the snare. Ethno percussion -good idea, weak execution, use reverb and EQ to give them more depth. Remove piano clashes. That's what I got from one listen. It's interesting, and I'm gonna try to mimic that pad you used in the intro some day. The arrangement is pretty (excluding drum writing), but you need some more performance in it. The bass is way too high, doesn't have much actual bass up there, so move that. Okay, two listens, and some crits. It's certainly worth finishing, because despite being just under 2 mins, it sounds quite complete and contained. The writing is quite enjoyable, exceptions noted above. Good stuff.

Rewrite the drums, or at least use other samples. Bass drum is too deep for a faint little clap, especially without an even beat. Synths could use some sharpening... Actually, the whole thing coulod use some sharpening. It's quiet, and lacking in the mid range. The bass could have more bass frequencies and less mids and highs, and you should have a shaker or hihat providing additional rhythmic support and hi-range frequencies. As a sound redo, it's actually a bit lacking. Since all you had to do was tweak instruments, you could have done more, the drum fixes being one such thing. Would still count as a midi rip, so it would probably still count as a sound upgrade. Another thing would be to work on the actual mastering end of it, applying a multiband compressor on the master to boost levels and give it a good clean sound instead of this soft-volume stuff. Well, practice makes pancakes - the more, the better. Keep making 'em, both you and they get better.

I think the drums are ok. Work on making the track more cohesive. There's also a number of instances where the notes are clashing, and I'm not talking the weird glitchy shifted melody. The sound is okay, tho you might want to work on making the piano more ambient (in terms of sound, not volume). No comment on source unless I get a link to it. Guitar sounds a bit too midi. Use an amp sim. And check its notes, they're among the clashing ones. Overall, really interesting, awesome digital weirdness, good mix... Might have a chance with the judges, tho I recommend polishing the writing more before considering submitting.

The track seems overcompressed, the pads duck when the bass plays. That's a sign of things being too loud. The guitar is overpowering anyway, considering the sound of the higher frequencies during the faster notes. Anyway, the arrangement seems like it could work. It's hard to tell, since the track would ahve to be longer before I could say if it's repetitive and/or lacking cohesiveness. I'm not gonna look up source, you'll have to provide a link for that yourself. I think this could turn out good.

Here's an idea, cut the EQ lows and some highs before 1:09, add to the low-quality speaker effect. Also, when do you cut the vinyl. Once the track gets going, there's some bg noise, but I'm not sure its the same thing, could jsut be a noisy pad. In either case, noise is bad. Noise in the midsection is fine, tho. Could actually be more of that. New e-piano melody is great. Some two-handedness might be even better, tho it could just as well just clutter the whole thing up. As a finale, that section is cut a bit too soon. The cut might work well in some cases, but for casual listening, it might feel a bit too abrupt, giving it an interrupted feel. While it might suit the setting, it doesn't quite suit most listeners, methinks. Some comments. Good luck with the track.

Hits before 0:20 felt a little weak. Looking forward to hearing _more_.