Rozovian

Aside from some rhythm screwups (intentional or not, 0:50, 2:10), it's a really nice relaxing piece. Cool stuff.

Yeah, the performance is really cool, but the mixing could use some work. I find myself bothered by how bright and harsh the mix sounds. You could probably tone down the high frequencies subtly.

Minimalistic but cool. Sometimes had a bit of a Majora's Mask vibe to it.

Source sounds a bit like Ghosts n' Goblins. Didn't notice that before. I hear at most subtle hints of the source in the intro. At 0:32 I recognize the first discrete elements of the source, but it's a two-note pattern that could be filler in just about any track. Two notes. Long intro with no dominant source usage. It doesn't transition well into the 1:24 part. The slowing-down tremolo effect there is cool, but it doesn't line up with the next part which makes that whole transition weak. There's something about the drums too that doesn't quite feel like it lines up with the rest of the track. Too early or too late, something's not right. There are also melodies that don't quite match the rhythm of the track (most egregiously at 2:28), which you should also look at. The sound design here is full of cool futuristic effects and ring modulation and other nice things, but the melody synths themselves are nothing special... and what's worse is that they do nothing special either. Uninteresting sound design is fine as long as the stuff they play is interesting, but that's not the case here. Nothing jumps out as outright bad, but they could be mixed a little better to give more room for one another. Those cool effects crowd the low end of the mix too, you can high-pass them to clean up the lows. Structurally, this is mostly just a part of the source with a dance backing and a very long intro. I don't think that's enough for ocr. As for dance overall, there's not a lot of bass drum after the intro. From 1:24 until the end, the bass drum is missing from almost half the length. That doesn't seem appropriate for the style. The long intro does, but not a lot else. Speaking of the bass drum, there doesn't seem to be any other bass in here. There's some pads that range down there - which is a valid approach - but it makes the parts where the pads drop out (like 1:24) sound empty. Those additional effects and elements you've used, including the processing on the sound effects at the end, are cool. A cleaner sound design and more deliberate structure and writing would improve the track a lot, you should also work on your timings; but it's going to take a lot of work to get this on ocr.

The worst that can happen is that the remixer gets two mod reviews, and the other mods point and laugh at you. The best that can happen is that the remixer gets two mod reviews, and broader perspective on his remix. If you have time, just do it. Nobody here calls dibs on tracks to review. (also, links are working. i checked)

Official mod bump, because I forgot about this one, but will get to it asap if no other mod gets to it first.

Let me jump in to clarify some stuff about drums and our kind of DIY music making. 1) Electronic-sounding electronic drums for electronic-sounding electronic music. If the word drum machine describes the sound well, this is it. This retro sound is easy to work with, but won't work well with all styles and genres. 2) Modern electronic music doesn't use the oldsk00l drum machines sounds raw, as was done in the 70s and 80s. It won't sound like a real drum kit, because the samples are processed too much for that, the performance is often inhumanly precise and too repetitive for most real drummers anyway. Modern electronic music uses processed individual samples, but also a lot of loops, processed in different ways. Glitching, filtering, reverse effects... This style will work with just about anything, but it's hard to shake the electronic feel of it. 3) Simple "acoustic" drum kits are also available, ones with samples from real drums but put together into a very simple sampler that really only plays those sounds back with no regard for how they'd work together in a real drum kit. These kits tend to have few velocity layers, no round-robins, and a simplistic instrument group muting (if any). You won't miss those things until you know you want them. If a kit sounds like it tried to be areal kit but failed to convince you, this is probably it. I find that this option, while sacrificing realism, is a lot quicker and easier to work with than the 4th. 4) Advanced "acoustic" drum kits. They've sampled real drums and put them together in a more advanced package. Maybe they've recorded everything the way you'd record a real drum kit. Maybe they're simulating that part. These kits will rarely be free (unlike the aforementioned options), but they'll sound a lot more realistic. They'll have velocity layers and round-robins, and plenty of drum-specific options. For realism, this is your best bet, but it takes a bit more work to get the instrument to behave the way you want it to. 5) Actual acoustic drums, and a studio, and a lot of mics. Most realistic, least flexible once it's recorded. it also means you have to get a drummer, or be a decent drummer yourself. And a recording engineer, too. At the same time. Not impossible, but imo more trouble than it's worth. But it's not particularly electronic anymore, so this is hardly the option you're looking for. -- As for writing the drums, you've got a few options there too. 1) Mouse them in. Sequence them with the mouse. This is the most rigid and time-consuming option, and if you're shooting for realism, this is not what I would recommend. it's a gerat way to learn how drum writing works, though. 2) Keyboard recording. The drum kits are mapped to keys on midi keyboards. With a midi keyboard, you can record, in tempo or at a lower tempo, the notes you need. You may have to adjust the timing afterwards. I know I usually do. That's why I generally avoid trying to sound too realistic. This stuff is hard. 3) Electronic drums, a midi drum kit to beat on in the real world, and get the midi data into your computer. This is more costly than the other options, but if you're a decent drummer, this might be worth it. Even then, you may need to go in and mouse in some adjustments. 4) Midi grooves. You can of course find ready-made midi drum patterns to import and use. I think it's cheating, but it's the results that count, isn't it? Even as a cheat, they have educational value in that you can import them, see how they interact with your drum kit and mixing, see how a groove you can recognize looks like in midi, see how nuances like subtle timing differences and changes to velocity (note loudness) affects the sound. And _then_ you have to mix the drums.

I'm making a track anyway and sending it to Dyne anyway and complaining about how he spelled its name wrong anyway and...

This is what I like to use. Not actually a library, though.

I PMd a few little tips. Everyone else who's directed, helped direct, contributed, tried to contrbute, promoted, listened to, or heard of a remix project should help too.

Yes. But preferably not. I have the tracklist. Also, no points for guessing whose track that "one track off" is.

As a workshop mod, I can tell you how I see you, your old works, and your old threads: Welcome back! Your old works are useful references for people who wonder when in the process you came up with which idea, and a nice history of your development as an artist. I wouldn't delete any of my own old terrible stuff. They're useful. Embarrassing, sure, but useful. You don't have to necro some post that's years old. Feel free to make a new one. The rule/guideline/whatever is mainly so that people don't post a dozen threads that are just updates of the same track and clog up the workshop with that one single track. While some of us might find it useful to have a look at your old thread to remember what we thought back then, you don't have to mention it, you don't have to link to it, you don't have to necro it. Pretend like they don't exist, start fresh, post new stuff, and we'll complain about your new stuff.

Can't listen right now, but I wanted to comment on something. "A big part of why we're concerned is that we changed the chord progression". OCR is a place where we make new arrangements. New chord progressions aren't just tolerated - they're appreciated. The submission standards essentially state that a remix is too liberal, too unlike the original, when the source material is no longer "dominant", usually understood as a remix with less than 50% of its length being identifiable as source is too liberal (not strictly true, but a useful guideline). A remix can also be too conservative, which is when it's not enough of a new arrangement. As I said, I can't listen to it now, I'm just clarifying this aspect of what ocr's idea of a remix ("ReMix") is.

Wording and writing style stuff you can skip. Everything else I'll take.

No. Thanks for reminding me this guide exists. I had a look at it the other day and concluded that I need to work on the writing. There's a lot of it that probably made sense in the voice I wrote them but that, after a year of not really touching the guide, feels awkward and clunky. There are parts that are way too long, parts I could cut down on the wording without losing the meaning, or parts that are just badly explained or over-explained, that I could rewrite or cut. Besides, this guide is an ongoing project. It's supposed to get better, and it's not something I can or even want to do alone. That's why I want feedback on it. And I still want feedback.

Ugh, the mixing hurts. Tone things down a bit, sort out what's important and what its place in the mix is. The arrangement sounds rather conservative, although it has some nice dynamic changes towards the end. It gets a bit repetitive, and some more dynamic contrast would be nice and help sort out where in the track the listener is at any given time. I think the sound design has plenty of things going for it, but it's not very cohesive. It's too repetitive, too conservative, mixing (or bits of the sound design) should be less painful, and the structure could be more clear. I don't think it's a good fit for ocr, but a) I could be wrong, and it's a rather nice track anyway, and wouldn't need much changed for me to enjoy it.

Well this sounds badass. Dunno if it's the file or your host, but I don't get timestamps on the file. Strange. Not a big deal, though. Orchestral elements sound a little weak, a more aggressive articulation might work better. Brass could be a tad louder, strings a bit softer. Overall a nice and tight sound. Flows well, seems to know where it's heading. Starts well, moves well, ends well. It'd take me a longer examination of the source to sort out exactly how you've used it, but there's plenty of elements that are easy to identify. Unless it's more conservative than the brand new sound, style, genre and attitude swap lets on, I don't think source usage will be an issue. There are nitpicks to be had, but I think the only thing that really bothers me is the orchestral elements and their lack of bite. I think this is in the clear. Nice work.

Please specify which song(s) (eg timestamps in the YT vid) you've used. You know what you've used, I'm not gonna do the work for you. I, or another mod, will give you a proper mod review when we know which source(s) to listen for. I recognize something from the video, but I'm not going back to check just that one song. My basic impression is that this is a source+drums kind of arrangement, with some added glitching and annoying sound effects. The sound design is fine, but the mixing could use some work. Structurally, it doesn't seem to know where it's going. 1:24 is clearly when the intro is over and we've got the meat of the track, but is sort of loses direction after that part. Proper mod review when you have proper source info.

Nice groove. I'm digging this. 0:54, I was expecting... well, more. Now its getting repetitive. Which is what I was expecting from this source. Nice glitches, but this thing bores me before it's even half way into the track and you've used all the source material at least once. That's not a good sign. And then voice clips. Yeah, no. Not my kind of track. The sound is pretty cool, but you're painting yourself into a corner by sticking to just this one source. See if any of the newer Mario games (or any game, really) has some appropriate melody you can incorporate into it as a second source, just to give yourself more material to work with and keep the track from getting too same-y. What's with the ending? That doesn't make sense to me. Nice sound, nice take on the source, but way too repetitive. It's the source's fault. I wouldn't expect this to pass.

Summer and Workshop Mod stuff clearly don't mix. A mod should've commented on this way earlier. The submission standards say the source has to be "dominant". I hear more source in there than what Timaeus has in his breakdown of the source usage. I'm inclined to say this is okay in that regard. It takes a while to get started, gets going all right, but doesn't go anywhere. I'd like to hear some big reprise of a previous part after 3 minutes in, big and loud. Maybe that's not the arrangement you're going for, but it seems like the track could use at least something like that instead of tapering out into random bits. It sounds like you've just shoved all your unfinished glitches and source transcriptions to the back and forgot to take them out after the track ended proper. There's a lot, not just from the ending, that you could cut to make a more streamlined track. Or you could inject more source into those bits. The sound design is simple but works well during the glitchier parts, but the more exposed simple synths at the end seem out of place. Drums have a nice sound, but end up sounding a bit too loopy for my liking. I wouldn't expect this to pass. I don't get the structure. It doesn't feel like one complete track. Cool stuff, but not quite there imo.

It's reminiscent of the source, which I haven't listened to in quite a while, so that's good. Unless it's too conservative, but there's a lot of detail you've added to it. Nice sound choices, really cool sound design. It might be a little on the loud and bright and... well, forcedly loud sounding. For something with a little bit of a chill vibe and not a relentless aggressive pounding, it seems mixed a little too hard. It bothers me.

There's some nice sounds and good ideas in here, but you don't seem to know what to do with them. For example, you have a really nice buildup that goes nowhere, just hits a high point at 0:12. You have a nice, sparse, relaxed bit at 0:25. The arp backing in the B-part (0:38) is cool. You just seem to have missed the part about arranging these cool ideas into something that flows well and makes sense to the listener.

Write something that'd be fun to play. Okay, I'm a bassist, so maybe that's easy for me to say. No matter the type of bass, if it's fun, it's probably good. I started out on guitar, and if you can play a melody on guitar, you can probably make it a bassline. If you're a pianist/keyboardist/organist/accordionist or something along those lines, you should be able to come up with something fun, too. If you're a drummer and can't play anything else... just write something with a pattern that'd be fun to play on the toms. Write something fun. Another option is to construct it. If you can't just drum out a fun rhythm over your beat, copy the kick notes to your bass track and start from there. Move one of them forth or back. Move another one. If it doesn't sound engaging, try adding a note somewhere in there, or keep moving stuff around. Go for a good rhythm. Or you can listen to a fun bassline and copy it. Don't worry about copying it exactly, just get something in there that's fun. If it has a good rhythm, you're done with phase one of making a bassline. If all you have at this point is a rhythm, start considering your chords and your scale. We'll assume E minor for this. An A minor chord contains an A, a C and a E. So you can use those, including at higher octaves (just don't jump octaves _too_ much. It's probably best to start on the A, at least for now. Though it depends on the scale, B, D and G are fairly safe bets for other notes you can use. You'll want to remind the listener that the chord is an A, so you should probably use another A. If you don't have other chords in your song, this is all you need. But you probably do, so then you have to adapt it to the other chords. That's fairly straightforward. You can just copy this bit of the bassline over the other chord, and transpose it to the right key. If you have an ear for music, you can probably pick out any clashing notes. Otherwise, you can just transpose the notes that don't fit into the scale so that they do. If you've written the bassline before any other chords, you can try out different chords on top of it. If our bassline only uses A, C and E, we can play Am and C over it, and chords like F and Em won't sound out of place as long as they're not the first chord. A less melodic bassline, one that's only a rhythm played on A, can work with almost any basic chords in the scale. Actually, it works okay with almost every combination of white keys I just tried. if you're struggling to make a bassline that's flexible, just keep it simple and stick to one note (and its octave, if necessary). Not that it's hard to transpose it if you know ho scales work. Then you just have to adapt it to the rest of the arrangement so it doesn't clash melodically with chords or melody, or rhythmically with the beat.

Awesome bigass news. Not what I expected when I check ed the forum tonight. Nononononononono dude, we can still make it better. There's still time!

Already at the start there's a bright and annoying, ear-murdering synth thingy. It's not the only offender; a lot of parts have highly resonant sounds or effects that you should probably fiddle with some more. If you've mixed on a particular setup at a particular volume, change it up and see if you can spot the stuff trying to murder my ears on a different listening setup. If you're using fm-based sounds, you can easily have some particularly loud, particularly shrill overtones. FM is great, but it can come with some overtone baggage you should clean up before using. A lot of the instrumentation seems high-passed way too high. I get that it might be a stylistic choice, but it comes off as lacking body. It's good to give the bass and kick room to work in, but this is a little extreme. It flows well, and I don't think you'd have to do anything about the writing anymore. Source is there, and I find it arranged well. Pretty good. I'm just not sure about the extent of the hp filtering, and I'd rather not listen to this again if it's got those shrill, resonant highs there. Other than that, I can see this getting posted on ocr.