Rozovian

lol It's very.... you. On a more serious note, it's a little heavy on the lows, it's got some clashing between ambience/sfx and melody (when it finally comes in), the organ seems to be a minor chord as-is, and I don't get the direction of the track. Still, it's got some nice mixing choices, and the pression seems like it could make sense once after some instrument/dynamics fixes. Unfortunately, it's a source I neither know or care to dig up atm.

First notes had a very synthy sound due to their weak bleating attack. The arrangement is pretty but empty at times, and makes a few too many stops on the way. Timpani rolls are also pretty abundant compared to the number of timpani strikes in the track. EQing is a little on the weak side, probably due to the samples. I also got no sense of where the track was heading. It was heading up, and then it stopped, did something, and started heading up again. And stopped. Then it did something, and stopped again. And rose. And stopped. It needs more direction. there's also a bit of dissonance at aroun 1:45, but I don't mind that as muchy as the other issues I've mentioned. I remember this source from somewhere, but it took me until the flute at the end to recognize it. That's about as much source comment I'll give you atm. Either it's copy-pasted from source (which I don't know), or you've done some nice writing. Ending sucks, fading out orchestral works just doesn't work well. It also implies something about the source/interpretation ratio, but I'm too tired to care. Overall, it had an okay sound, and it could certainly turn out great, but it'll take a sample upgrade, a writing upgrade (such as transitions, wider range on the writing, counterpoint, overall more elaborate stuff), and a mix upgrade. Don't let that stop you, it's just one step of the way.

The bass doesn't seem to stick to the right rhythm, it feels rushed part of its repetitions. Overall, this has a very pleasant sound, It just feels a little unbalanced. The bass seems EQd a little too far down, and the ambience could use some serious stereo placement. The drums are a bit weak, and as far as kick and snare are concerned, that's a problem. You also had a tom that got way too loud, especially compared to the rest of the drums. It also seems like it's missing stuff in its mids. You've got steel drums and the flute in the highs, bass in the lows, and the rest isn't really that audible. Overall decent. Hard to get a grip of it since the soundscape and instrumentation was pretty much the same throughout. Could work despite that if you change the key range the instruments are playing in (such as moving the bass up or down an octave, flute or steel drums down an octave, or threw in something else to cover the mid range while you dropped one of those for a while). Not gonna comment on source, as I'm at the end of a wip feedback run and tired. Enjoyable, but it didn't sound finished.

I agree about the drums. Aside from the bass drum being way too heavy, the snare is awful. Hats don't seem to fit in any more than the other drums. Consider some other type of percussion, such as timpani+orchestral cymbals, or some ethno stuff. The synth bass also doesn't really fit in, imo. Since you're blending genres, not changing genres, you should introduce that stuff way earlier, have it in a different genre (such as world/orchestral), or just not have it. Doubling the melody makes the two blend together a little too much. Consider playing different... voices, I guess, with them. Counterpoint matching rhythm but not quite melody. Move the melody up two or four notes (note: not seminotes) to separate them. You get free harmonic width. The orchetsral arrangement was pretty, tho you could take some more liberties woith the source. The drums are very distracting, so make them fit in, or drop them. The sound is pretty good imo, tho the J's might disagree. I think you're onto something here. The overall mixing of orchestral stuff is great. All you need to do is drop/replace the drums, take some more liberties with the source to avoid making it repetitive, and write an ending. Then, it'd me awesome as far as I'm concerned. The J's might disagree, but you'll have written something good regardless of what they think.

The synth you've picked/tweaked has a little too much oif a twirly feel, it makes it a bit tough to listen to it. A backing pad would make it easier. ...And then it tranbsitions into poorly mixed rock-ish synth stuff . I gotta say that the rock-emulating first bit (1:18) didn't sound very good, but the following (1:49), when you weren't pretending to be real instruments, was way better. Still, drums need writing fixes as well as better samples and overall better mixing. At 2:06 comes a section that sounds passable, but the rest is subpar. Sorry man. The levels are very different in the two sections. Twirly is LOUD in comparison, and it should be the other way around. It takes a lot of work to do this stuff, to get your mind around how to arrange/rewrite stuff, as well as how to get the sound right. Keep trying, the original sections sit well with Terra's theme, so you'v eobviously got what it takes. Just... keep at it.

Your crashes are too weak. The bass-rich kick probably clog the frequency range a bit. Cut its really lows (under 50Hz), and drop some of the other lows. That should make it possible to raise the overall volume more, too, it seems to be a bit quiet (a multiband compressor can also help with that). The saw could drop some volume, and the drums could lose _some_ bass. That should clean up the track further. My biggest issue with this atm is its thick lows. It's gonna feel weak at first, so I recommend EQ-ing it to something that looks reasonable, then dropping its levels and raising those until it sounds good. Whatever approach works for you is probably gonna sound fine anyway. Once again, it's an improvement. Great stuff.

Some hard velocity-tied cutoffs could give you different saw-based sounds without making too radical soundscaping changes. Overall, the only thing I think I could say that avaris didn't already cover would be that, the low source usage (during a quick listen at least), and the muddy and crowded mix. I'll also have to echo avaris' advice to cut some lows off of some of your instruments, it gets really thick at the end. Overall, this has got some pretty cool sounds, and the arrangement overall is pretty good, but imo it needs more source, and a lot of mixing tweaks. Levels are fine, but EQs and instrument tweaks would turn this into a great track.

Definitely feeling what the J's said about the too synths. The overall arrangement isn't bad, and tho I'm not very familiar with the source, I've heard remixes enough oif it to know what's sopurce, and what's not. The J's seemed not to have too much of an issue with arrangement and source anyway. I like the drum writing, especially around 1:23 where the ticking "hihats" came in. I thought that was great. There are places where you could spice up the drums a bit, and you should find yourself a new snare or just tweak it. It's weak and way up in the high range, making it sound more like a trashy hihat. The very first instrument is very exposed, and it sounds too raw. Some faint reverb or a delay could work, and coupling it with a pad, at least for the intro, could improve the sound further. The melody that comes in early seems to fade a little too soon. If you've got a delay on it, you could raise the wet level a little. If not, give the releae, decay, or sustain a nudge up (longer). You might also want to EQ it a little, drop some of its highs. The 0:14 melody is too simple imo. It needs more complexity. Give it a faint envelope&lfo-controlled volume/pitch/cutoff modulation, or some other nice change to the sound. And the way it cuts off at 0:18 isn't cool. You'll have to refine that bit. Not playing the full melody there is a good thing, tho, so don't lose that. 0:53, not that cool. At 1:08 it gets cool, but you'll need to do more intricate things with it before then. Consider some severe bandpass automation for that part, just to make it more interesting. You might also want to EQ it so it doesn't hog up all the mids. The lead that comes in at 1:00 could be a little more interesting - soundwise. Also, it gets kind'a old over time, so you could bring back one of the earlier leads. As far as writing goes, it's pretty good, with bends and all. You could do some mod wheel things with it too. Its sound, however, is too simple. Pulse width modulation would be pretty cool there, tho almost any fairly slow lfo-controlled parameter change would improve it. Just don't go overboard with this or any of the tweaks I suggest. The J's suggested additional elements, and I think a pad would be a good choice of additional elements. It could be a fairly high-range thing, perhaps even to the extreme - but it'd have to be soft. Overall, this has a lot of potential, so good luck refining it.

It's more performancelike than I imagine it was at my last critique. It's a bit difficult to get a sense of the rhythm, but on the other hand, when I do hear the ticking little rhythmic... things, they start to bother me. I guess that's the perfect balance. Once again, tho, I'll have to say it should sound more like a performance. Take a backup, and then imagine drawing the intensity outline. Start, loud, calm, break, finale, or whatever progression you feel is appropriate. After that, change velocities accordingly. This is a track that could benefit from some mild tempo changes, tho the velocities are more important for changing the intensity. The melody instrument around 1:15 in v2.7 feels like it doesn't belong. The slow attack feels inconsistant with the rest of the mix. On the other hand, those weird little noises around 1:40 are pretty cool. Hard to say which version is better. As for the ending... It doesn't work atm. It could work... if it was more of a performance! Seriously, the biggest problem with this mix, imo, is the velocities. It still feels more like notes than music. It might be that you've done a lot and little of it appears, so check your synth settings if note velocity controls the cutoff and volume. This feels a bit long for little more than a quote of the last paragraph of my previous post.

Davos-Moon's choice of words made me post. Defiantly does not equal definitely! Argh! /spelling fit I know I listen to way too many wips to keep track of stuff, but this took just a few seconds to remember. That's a good thing. Sorry man, mixing is atrocious. Backing tracks hog a lot of room, drums are pushed back, hi-range stuff (crashes, hats) are unbalanced. I know you hit the toms on the beat, but also hit a hat or something to cover the high range. Guitar in the beginning - use reverb. Backing guitar is too loud most of the time and sounds too midi-ish, use an amp sim and reverb, or emulate one with EQ, distortion... and reverb. Just be careful not to use too much reverb. Can't remember the old version, but what I'm hearing isn't on OCR'sw level yet. There's a lot going on, most of which is good, but you need to mix it better. Figure out what you want to have in the foreground and what you want to have as background, and cut their levels accordingly. You'll probably have to cut their EQs a bit to make sure the instruments don't intrude too much on each others' frequency ranges. The arrangement is nice, I like the calm end. I think the arrangement could get through the panel. Mixing is gonna get you NOs, if it'd even get that far. I'm not gonna attempt to compare to source today, maybe later. Take a backup, work on the mixing. This is a nice track that I wouldn't mind having on my ipod... At the time, it's a bit of a mess tho.

The wip was posted 12-26-2007. While I'm sure the attention is a big compliment for elluwu2, this occasional bumpin' could easily be mistaken for actual updates. Just saying.

I like this idea. it's one of those things that newbs could have a lot of use of and non-newbs would find interesting (and probably learn something useful from). But I gotta say djp's idea could be just as useful, it'd just take more work than a post-posted analysis of the track. The one thing I've found on the wip boards is a general lack of interpretation, and I suspect it's because of the abundance of midi ripping and the fear of transcribing (perhaps in fear of getting notes wrong, or just insecurity about their own musical abilities). I think the most useful tutorial would be one that describes how to take a track and make it your own.

Piano plays source verbatim, and the other instruments feel very inconsistant with the piano sound. It took almost two minutes before some interesting happened in the mix. That's clearly a sign of doing something wrong. So what are you doing wrong? Well, we've heard those same notes over and over. The backing things that you did don't really constitute a significant change from the feel of the source. You should rework the progression of the song to make it different. A few pointers: If you're going for a piano+synth, introduce the synth much earlier so it's a part of the mix from the start, instead of coming in later and seeming mispalced. If not, use another instrument. If you've got a solo instrument, you need reverb. Otherwise, it sounds newby, no matter what it is. Guitars, synth, kazoo... just doesn't sound good without it. Too much reverb can ruin it, tho, so use your ears. Thing about the stereo placement of instruments, as well as their EQ. If an instrument (such as your 1:45 bells) has a frequency that's just overpowering, reduce it with a good EQ. Read OCR's submission standards. You'll find that they'll reject stuff that isn't arranged differently enough from the source material. This means varied melodies, backing, instrumentation, rhythm, tempo, key signature, chord progression, time signature, and/or overall feel. Not until after 1:45 does your remix get different from the source, and that's mostly just the instrumentation. There, that should get you started. Rearranging something requires a whole other approach than what you just did. I suggest you start a new file, write something (like random strings chords, slow bassline, rhythm on a shaker, something new), and then see if you can fit Zelda's Lullaby to that. You'd probably have to change the melody a bit, but maybe that'll get you started on rearranging the source ina way that OCR will accept. I wish you luck.

Dunno. You could start by fixing the production problems, so you have a good version of the current arrangement before doing any changes to it. better yet, take a backup. Then add more melodic content, or change the stuff you got. Jeremy Robson's Not So Ordinary People is a good example of how you can take a short bit of a source and use it in different keys, different rhythms, and get a lot of variation. You don't need to make drastic changes, but lace the emptier sections with references to the source, and vary the melodies you did use (just not too much).

It's a little muddy. Part of it is the myspace compression, but you could improve it with Apple's multiband compressor AU. It can take a little tweaking to get it right, but try the presets. You could raise the third and/or fourth band EQ slider, and/or drop the second a bit. That's what I'm guessing would be best, but you should go with your ears rather than my guess. I'm not sure the arrangement could get this on OCR. There's some production issues, but mostly arrangement things. The source is used well, imo, and the drum writing is great. The melodies from source are used verbatim for most part. Then again, the arrangement is significantly modified for your drum-oriented approach. Still, there's little clicks in some instruments, there's the overall muddy sound. I also think it's a bit quiet, but as I can't download it I can't say for sure. Actually, the whole post can be summed up as "I'm not sure". I'm enjoying the track, and it's a few production fixes from being _good_, imo. But even then, it could have arrangement issues that the J's are gonna reject it for (such as the lack of interpretation of source). It does have a lot of good qualities, so it's certainly worth working on, improving. Good luck!

It's very simple sounding. The isntrument is fine, but if you're just gonna have that, you should make it sound like a performance. Vary velocities and pacing according to some sense of progression that you have to devise. Even when there's a lot going on, it sounds empty, simplistic. Consider using pads at least some of the time, even softly in the bg. It'll get you more control over the emotional landscape, take care of the empty feeling if necessary. It's an interesting idea that I'd like to see you develop further, cuz it has a lot of potential. At its current level, it sounds like notes. Just notes. Work on the performance and progression. This could be great.

I think you've done great for a first timer. It starts off being difficult, but you eventually get the hang of it. Toy around with your music software and see if you can make an original song. Some pople I've talked to say you learn much more from making originals. It also helps to get feedback. If you change your mind, these boards are probably still gonna be here.

I can still hear some noise. EQ down the middle frequencies, they sound a little overpowering. You should also raise the bitrate a little, 128 can mud up some of the pretty high frequencies. 160 should be fine, and over 200 is overkill. The playing sounds more human, tho it still feels a little too loud. It's less of a problem than in the previous wip, iirc. Also, the timing seems almost inhumanly accurate (no offense ), at least to me. You should also apply some reverb to give it some more performance qualities. That could also mask the noise a bit, so better recording equipment would be better. There's some crits and suggestions for you. I'm no expert on piano music, but this sounds pretty good.

Okay, it's a bit quiet. Use a limiter or maximizer or something to raise the level a little without risking peaks. Kick could be a little louder, too, at least its mids and lows. Leads are uneven, sometimes too loud, sometimes just fine, perhaps even a little too low. I'm a bit worried your solos are gonna push this on the short side of Larry's source stopwatch, but if not, there's just the abovementioned crits that I think could be a problem for you. Those, and the quality of your cymbal samples. I'm not a judge tho, so there's no guarantees. Good luck when you submit.

Sorry I didn't get back to you earlier, rl stuff. Overall, this is sounding fairly well mixed. It is missing a few things, and once they're added, you'll have to recheck the mixing. The flanging on the background is a little too intense, I recommend reducing it. Lead could be a little louder. I'm not hearing a bass (which is important), and you could even out parts of the track by adding a pad. The rhythm feels like it's staggering, especially since your main drums go KICK_space_space_kick_SNARE_space_space_space. Put something in the second half of the loop (i.e. 2nd or 3rd space after the snare, depending on what rhythm you want), preferably a kick, but a hihat could work, perhaps both. The snare is also way too weak. For a remix, it opens way too abruptly and doesn't have an ending. Work on writing those. Don't worry about it being short at this point, just write those two things. It could get about twice as long then, and wouldn't feel like a loop. Making it all electronic is probably gonna make some stuff easier, since you don't have to make it sound real. So far, so good.

lol@sig You've got a host I've never seen before. That's interesting. First thing I think is bad is the bass. It starts off making pan sweeps annoyingly far (tho the panning works well for the intro if it'd be a bit more subtle), as well as sounding very much in-your-face. You need to EQ it to drop the in-your-faceness. Then it turns out it's also too loud. Seriosuly man, drop the bass to nothing, and raise it 'til it sounds like just another part of the mix. Snare is too weak, especially when it first enters. The other drums sound ok to me, tho the electronic kick felt a bit unfitting. Make it more subtle, introduce it earlier, or use another sample, that's my suggestions. The calliope-ish instrument at 1:24 seems like it's got too much resonance and too hard (or just too closed) filter. At 1:56 comes an instrument that makes everything clash and sound completely awful. You need to check the sequencing there, to make sure it's not clashing keys. If not, it could be a pitch setting on the synth, which you'd do best to check first as it's easier to fix. And it's a bit too loud. It does capture the feel well. I recently listened to the source, and I can connect most of it by memory. It does seem like it's following the structure a bit too close. Can comment more in-depth on the source after those production fixes. Not bad if it hasn't even been half a year since you start with this stuff. I've got some terrible old tracks from my first year, and this sounds way better than that. It does, however, need those fixes.

The changes you've done make it far less cluttered. I do wonder if you've got EQs on the tracks or the master. Dunno what DAW you're using. Intro guitar still feels a little too weak imo, but it's hard to say what you could do about it. The echo does reduce some of that weakness. The kick drum could use a shorter/lower release, sustain, or decay, depending on what the settings currently are. That would prevent it from hogging the bass range for too long. You could EQ the bass to have less really low bass so it doesn't overlap the kick too much. you could drop a low shelf with 2-4 dB from around 150Hz (shelf means all frequencies below the set frequency are cut, not just a the frequencie around the set frequency). In simple terms, just cut the bass where the drum is, should be somewhere in the 50-150 Hz range. The saws feel a bit too loud, and the guitars not loud enough. Consider automatic the saw's filter cutoff, dropping it would make the bass less sharp, which would be a tool for varying this more. Panning works well, tho, and the synth in the end is very fitting for the track. Can't remember and am too lazy to check: how close is it to source?

I'm gonan echo what's already been said int he thread: go for it. It's never too late to learn. There's some genetic factors (like finger/hands/breath coordination), sense of rhythm, hearing pitch, stuff like that that you don't have that much control of how well you are when you start, but most things can be learned to some extent. Besides, you say you ahve some sense of musical that goes beyond casual listening. Good for you, make use of it with an instrument. Try several. Good luck!

I've only got one criticism right now, it's the panning. You've done that part of the track, and it sounds great, but it feels very centered center-heavy at times. Some of your backing tracks could head a little to either side. Your strings could also spread far to the sides, see if you can spread it (as opposed to panning just one way).

The source is a bitch. Seminote steps, weird key sig, short and repetitive. Lol, this is certainly a far cry from the how the source had. It's gerat, man. Didn't expect this. There's more source that you could use, tho, and I'm interested in seeing how it'd turn out in this style. You might run into some length/repetition problems later on, tho. Drums are all panned center, crashes and hihats should at least be panned, and the snare could use a bit of stereo presence. Toms are awful, imo, but if I knew good tom samples or processing, I'd be using it myself too. Can't help you with that, other than to remind you to pan stuff. Just don't pan too far. You could do some preliminary EQing of the track, save the final tweaks for later. The piano is a little heavy on the low range. Strings need shorter attack, longer release. Bass sounds ok to me. Synth stuff in the bg could use some stereo effects. Overall, this is a track that I'm really looking forward to see develop.