Rozovian

Polo. Nothing's happened that' have us update the info, but there's stuff going on anyway. One track is almost compelte, and I keep getting progress reports for another one. There's still unclaimed tracks tho, so, if anyone's interested, let me know. And all you who've claimed tracks - work on them. Show me or Usa what you've done with your tracks. Abadoss, wanna grab another track?

I like it. It's repetitive, and could use another melody, maybe a whole 'nother source in case the original doesn't have enough melodic content that you want to use. The rhythms are great, but the melodic content get sold really quickly. For five minutes, I'm bored after 3 mins. Cut out the repetition. Some of the samples are a bit noisy, e.g. the shehnai or whatever it is. What's the stuff at the end? Funny, but not good. Sorry man. ARRANGEMENT / INTERPRETATION PRODUCTION [X] Low-quality samples PERFORMANCE (live recorded audio/MIDI parts) STRUCTURE [x] Not enough changes in sounds [x] Too repetitive Cool, but way too long. Too tired to comment on source vs interpretation, but... maybe later.

Man, you're popular. I was gonna use the feedback checklist for this, but I realized the problems that I'm hearing are either not on the list, or they're all related to the same problem, somewhere in between two items. Anyway, it's repetitive and that makes it a little dull. Play it backwards part of the time, change the key signature, play it half-tempo, do something to vary it more. Instrumentally, an orchestra has woodwinds, brass, strings, and percussion, each with their own uses and areas. Change the soundscape more according to the sound you feel is appropriate for the progression... ...and speaking of progression... Change it. You have a few crazy ideas listed above. We've all heard this progression before, not all the nuances your remix has, but other versions with other nuances. Make yours special by mixing it up somehow. Change the order of the parts, change... something. Move the bass to the bells and the bells to the bass, play it backwards, take a cool chord progression and apply it to some part of the wip. See what happens. Do remember to take a backup before doing anything drastic. Overall, it's good, but not good enough. Keep working, you're doing great.

Interesting blend. I didn't realize you had used SMW until I heard it the second time. Anyway, there's some compression issues that I find really annoying: it's pumping. There's a place where I think it's intentional, but some of the time, it's really just bothersome (1:33 and forth) being a good example. The stuff between the circa 2:00 brass mayhems are really destroyed by the pumping. Ease up on the compression, that's all I can say about production. Progression works for me. It's a creative mix of sources and genres, and while I usually don't like electronica/orchestral blends (they're usually cheesy), this one works for me. Just... lose the pumping. I recommend not making this much longer than it currently is, it gets tiresome to listen to. 4:09 is a good length. Decent ending, decent intro. I like it's sound, I like how it moves. Good stuff, just... not done yet.

Interesting source. Snare is weak and doesn't quite fit the the soundscape. The next snare/clap isn't any better (tho the snare roll is). Choir is way too dry, more release, more reverb. It's repetitive. The lead is too loud, and I think you've EQd the bass drum too far down. If I remember correctly, you should be boosting 100-150Hz where the punch is (correct me someone if I'm wrong). You need to work on making it more interesting, adding depth to it. Sorry this is all negative. You've avoided some newb pitfalls but not others. It does sound like you've got potential to make good remixes, with time and practice. Listen and compare the sound levels, punch, soundscaping, in remixes as well as commersial music.in related genres. Learn to listen, and then listen to your own track. Good luck!

Heh, this is both cute and mighty. How'd you do that? Anyway, I like the sine, it just gives it a more spacey feel (appropriately), and it's not breaking the orchestral soundscape. Use it whenever it works. As you have so far, I mean. I like how this progresses too. Good intro, good transitions, good accompaniments... Good stuff! It'll be really cool to hear how you'll continue with this, especially since it seems to pick up pace towards the end of the wip.

Stereo snare, with noise/distortion... I don't like it. Might be a genre thing, or just your own. I recommend making it a bit less... whatever it is. Some of your synths are a bit too simple. They sound okay, but the judges might be looking for something better than that. See if you can find something else to use, for at least some of the track. Then again, Platonist's track uses kind'a low-quality sounds. The repetition is also a problem, even with the key sig change. The genre don't really lend itself to variation and soundscaping, at least not as you approach it. You could use more pads, a more driving lead, something for variation without breaking too far from genre. The feedback checklist really isn't made for dnb (bold stuff): ARRANGEMENT / INTERPRETATION PRODUCTION [x] Low-quality samples [x] Generic/cliche sound choices PERFORMANCE (live recorded audio/MIDI parts) STRUCTURE [x] Not enough changes in sounds [X] Too repetitive Summed up. Note the difference between uppercase and lowercase X's. It's not bad, but the genre makes it difficult to say what the judges will think. Go bother them about it on #ocrwip for better feedback about how they'd treat

If you're not gonna submit, I won't comment on source/interpretation. My first impression was that it was something really cheesy. I was wrong. Aside from the panning effect, it went on just great. It's a bit empty and repetitive, but it's got a cool sound. Could use a little more punch and a lead with some more energy. Overall good imo.

At 4:43, there's a note that you should fix. If it's MIDI, that shouldn't be a problem. From 5:15 and forth, the higher notes are really weak in comparison. You might want to fix the velocities, even it out a bit more. What else can I say? This is great!

I like piano tracks. If you can, you should make it good enough and submit it. What I was saying was that when you record the whole thing, do it well.

The Plummer is still asleep? Anyway, the strings are weak, a pad might work better. It has speed but not energy. More punch, more weight, more of that stuff. It's also kind'a minimalistic, which makes it feel weak. Your transitions are a little too sharp, when the harpsichord-like instrument comes in, it comes in really suddenly. I don't think it fits into the soundscape, but since you've used other non-synthetic instruments, it works. Changing the strings to a pad would make it feel more awkward than it already is. It feels a bit newby, which I thought you had grown past. It's a great source track. You need to work on pretty much everything: instrument choices, settings and effects; soundscaping, sequencing, arrangement, everything. Tho nothing's very good, it doesn't mean it's bad. It's early. Good luck!

The intro is too long... And it better just be an intro. Cheesy organ sample. Raw mixing. Seriously, the hihat is more dominant than the rest of the drums and most of the instruments... Wait, hihat or shaker? And it's quiet and boring. Sorry man. As it is, I don't think this is worth working on, not like this. You need a different approach. Besides, you've got dozen tracks you're working on, focus on Schala, Maridia, and the best of the rest. On a second listen, it sounds a little better (interesting soundscaping), but it's still repetitive, dull, and poorly mixed. Focus on the better wips instead.

You've got no replies, and I can't get the file. Your server doesn't seem to cooperate with the rest of the net. btw, ha linken direkt till filen.

Background noise, metronome...The actual music is pretty, but you should record it somewhere else (and with the metronome in your ears only), or in MIDI. If you have access to an electric piano, use that. If not, put the mic somewhere good and don't use a metronome. I know I've heard a remix with a metronome, but it could be on vgmix. A take on Kraid's theme, Metroid, on violin. Anyway, the metronome doesn't really work here since you don't seem to follow it. It might be I'm making a big deal out of some old clock that's near your mic. Regardless, it's annoying. Try finding a quieter place to record it, or use MIDI. You've got some effect on this, it sounds. A flanger or something. I don't like it. Also, aside from being noisy, the audio is a bit short of the higher frequencies, which really hurt the piano. It's also a bit short. The music sounds good to me. The rest doesn't.

I think it sounds cool. I'm a bit behind on my feedback quota to look up the source from anywhere but vgmusic (where it's not... or I missed it), so I'll leave out interpretation/source feedback. I spent half a minute wondering what kind of piano panning effect you're using,sometimes the piano's in the left channek, sometimes in the right, sometimes in the middle. Two piano tracks? While it might bother some people, even me sometimes, I like how you did it. It's strong, bright... It's somewhat repetitive, might a bit too empty for OCR, and I'd like to see a bigger finale before the stripped down version (1:55)... Regardless, it sounds okay to me.

The low strings and some weird rhythmic thing in my right ear are the only things that bother me. The overall sound is great, the source is great and has lots of stuff you can incorporate... You know, as short as it is, I'll just leave the feedback a little short. At the risk of sounding a bit negative, I think this sums it up: Sounds great, most of it, so far.

I like it. There's not much else I can say. I'm hearing occasional melodies I recognize, but it might be a little low on source. I can't say. Technically, my only criticism so far would be that the messy drums might need some leveling, some of them could be softer. It's cool enough to work on, and it's got a great sound. Sounds a bit like the mahabaha something Halo remix, but with lots more energy.

"Sick as a pile of rancid shit"? Wow, I really feel appreciated now. The piano is, most of the time, too soft, but there are occasional notes that just jump at you. Too much humanization, or bad samples, I don't know, I'd guess the former. It's also really dry in comparison to the rest of the soundscape. The strings work, but much of the time they're bad. There was some sour notes in the intro. The drums are cool, I was hoping for double-speed drums sliced and done like the section after the intro. The drums are still cool the rest of the song, most of the fills and thingies sound good to me, but the first section was the best. The drums are a bit too wet for my taste, too, could be harder, sharper, brighter... It's kind'a repetitive. The sections are different from each other, yeah, but there's not that much variation within them. It's a matter of taste more than it's a technical problem, tho. I thought I heard a few tempo changes, at least between the mid section and the last one. When you've got a beat, tempo changes are really obvious. Besides, why'd you want to slow down for the last section? There were some panning issues that bothered me, especially the lead and piano in the lastsection. The lead would occasionally jump to the right channel. The drums make this a bit too messy for that to work. In a song with a cleaner drumscape, it would be awesome. The ending is... bad. It's not abrupt, it's just... not good. As a fade, it works, but it still feels a bit too open-ended. Fading out everything but the piano might be cool (or just fading the piano slower than the rest of the tracks). I don't know, that's just a suggestion I thought of when I heard it. So, criticisms aside, this was a pretty cool track. I'm too lazy to look up source, but knowing you, I have a feeling it's relatively close. Here's how I see it on the checklist. Note the difference between uppercase and lowercase X's.

Too conservative - I remember a remix getting NOed because it was just a genre adaptation. While "conservative" is easy to understand, it's the other word that's the problem. Generic/cliché sound choices - Just copy-pasta it to the checklist. Drums have no energy - "Drums are too weak" might be better, which takes genre into account. "Drums do not have enough energy" would also work. Mixing is muddy (eg. too many sounds in the same range) - add "bad EQ" phrased however is appropriate and I'll shut up about it. Lacks coherence overall - Coherence, in my dictionary, means consistancy, which I feel applies mostly to instrument choices, style, and overall sound. Flow has to do with progression, pacing, and stuff like that. imo they're not the same thing. Wrong? -- If the checklist is gonna be used on the wip forum, it shouldn't neglect other criticisms (tho we shouldn't add any, just elaborate). Omitting other flaws from the list might have them neglected. My suggestion above might help with that: All it needs is for the "specific comments" to include "other criticisms". The checklist looks like it's the complete feedback. This is a problem if it doesn't cover everything. While it lists common flaws, it can make reviewers neglect commenting on, or even hearing other flaws, since there's no place to say it, besides "personal comments". [ ] Other flaw (please elaborate below) That could also solve the problem.

Which is why I said AFAIK. As well as "I don't know", "I don't see", and "I think". You missed my point. The point I was making was that whether or not the submitted remixes contain flaws the wip board usually notices and point out, omitting them from the checklist could result in them being neglected in the feedback. Making the "personal comments" so inconspicuous isn't really helping. The following are some thoughts about some of the items on the checklist. Too conservative - I know at least 50% of the remix should be traceable to source, or else it's too liberal. What is too conservative? Direct rips, covers, yeah but where does the line go? Unrealistic sequencing - Three-handed pianists are rare, but there can be more than one pianist. Aside from sequencing too perfect to be human (when applicable to genre), what's unrealistic? Generic/cliche sound choices - Isn't this pretty much a case of interpretation, taste, and the presets you've heard before, in the DAW you've got? btw, my dictionary says it's spelled cliché. Drums have no energy - Do they have to? Mixing is muddy - This item could also mention EQ (or lack thereof) Lacks coherence overall - Coherence and flow aren't really the same thing. I'd make coherence an arrangement/interpretation item, and "flow" structure. Pace too plodding - "a specific, fairly objective problem that's easily identifiable"? A matter of opinion and inner rhythm, imo. Abrupt ending - Isn't it a structure problem if the song just never seems to end, even if it keeps dropping instruments every measure? And as I've said before, I don't like the "personal comments" at the bottom. The size of the checklist make it take precedence pretty much regardless of where the comments field is, but now it's kind'a inconspicuous. It could be renamed "specific comments", and a "general comments" put above the checklist.

I don't know to what extent you guys listen to early WiPs. I don't see your comments on early WiPs on the forum, that's why I'm saying this. You're hearing what's supposedly the finished product, or something close to. On irc, you're hearing wips in various stages, but I think most people work on their wips using other people's feedback before asking a judge. AFAIK, anyway. I'm just saying, the feedback form should cover as much as possible with as few items on the list as possible. The current number of items is good. ..."if they're done properly", no, there's nothing bad with that. But I've heard a number of WiPs with an ending that was neither good nor abrupt.

The checklist, although named "feedback checklist", isn't exclusively for the reviewers to use. I see no reason why a remixer couldn't listen to their own track while looking at the checklist and considering the items on it. Compiling criticisms from the feedback onto a single checklist is another use of it. Neither of tehse uses exclude its use as a feedback checklist. The checklist items are fine, imo, with the possible exception of "Abrupt ending". It could also cover an ending that just never ends. It'd have to be renamed, tho. Since the Judges mostly hear (supposedly) finished or nearly finished remixes, they might not be fully aware of the many problems the wip forum has been able to find and point out. I'll have a closer look at the list, in case you missed something.

So do I. But that's because I still don't know where the bar is, exactly. If they'd occasionally post here, I could compare the quality of a WiP to my own and hear if my WIP is closer or farther from submittable.

Coop's point: People might not be able to specify what they like about a WiP. Coop's solution: A form for the good stuff. Problem: Aside from making it a big form, the idea of a template easily kill the personalized feedback, even with comments fields. The Judges' point: The feedback people get is often not good enough. The Judges' solution: A form for the bad stuff. Problem: The template focuses on the checklist of negative aspects, which is likely to take precedence over the positive feedback. As a template, it easily kills the personalized feedback. Rozovian's first point: Templates easily kill the feel of someone actually having taken the time to listen to the music, not just the things on the list. Rozovian's solution: Use the judges' form as a checklist (not template) for the bad stuff. And let's work out a checklist for the good stuff. Problem: Now there's two lists to keep track of. Rozovian's second point: With or without a template, people don't always have the production ears needed to fill out the form appropriately. Rozovian's solution: The Judges can occasionally visit the WiP board to review a WiP, to show where the bar is at for the reviewers who have already reviewed that particular WiP. Problem: Aside from that this can make other reviewers lazy, the Judges have neither time nor interest in this. -- As a "feedback form", it's implied it must be used. With comments at the bottom, the much more dominant checklist takes precedence. I'd lose the "other comments" from the checklist and instead state the list is only half the feedback. Maybe the comments field should be moved to the top of the list, written like this: I'm liking it better now that it has been renamed "checklist".

ARRANGEMENT / INTERPRETATION [X] Too conservative - sticks too close to the source PRODUCTION [X] Unrealistic sequencing [X] Generic/cliche sound choices PERFORMANCE (live recorded audio/MIDI parts) STRUCTURE [X] Pace too plodding [X] Too repetitive OTHER COMMENTS (positive feedback, and specifics on criticisms from the form) It's an improvement. The lack of bold chunks of text make it more easy on the eye and kills some of the formal tone, although the language might still need some humanization. The inclusion of an example at the end makes it feel more complete, and here the language is human. What bothers me most is how intuitive the checklist is and yet you find it necessary to explain its use at "Place an "X" within the brackets next to any critiques you feel are applicable". Speaking of which, this doesn't emphasize enough that the feedback is still not on the level the submission standard is, regardless of how elaborate the form is. Listeners are not judges, and might think they hear things the judges don't. "...you are strongly encouraged to use the WIP feedback form at the bottom of this post" seems to me like it's a demand in disguise. Since you've already established that the site offer the checklist "as a tool to help with WIP critiques", the whole "strongly encourage" part feels redundant. One last thing, the comments should be more emphasized, not placed at the bottom, as it makes the checklist take precedence. Alternately, the form could be renamed checklist and "other comments" removed. This post could then merely state that using the checklist, copy-pasting it into a feedback post is encouraged. It's an improvement, but I think it's not quite there yet. It doesn't cover all the ground it could, tho another guide could cover what the remixers can do to get the best feedback and how they should deal with the feedback given. Overall, better. Still needs work tho.