Rozovian

I know what you mean. I've heard a number of tracks that started off great, progressed good, and kept going decent, but the time they've reached the grande finale, I'm already bored with it, and want the dang thing to end. Then again, "re-emulated" falls into the opposite ditch: it starts off decent, turns good, but doesn't have the length to finish great. Cutting 10-20 seconds from the intro and adding half a minute of finale, grand or not, would balance it out.

I need to listen and compare source in detail to give you decent feedback for this one, so I'll get back to you for the lowdown. First impressions, however, are positive. It's got energy, it's rocks. It's a good wip. But I'll give you the details later. About the tempo's, I'd suggest something in between. The 133bpm piece feels a bit rushed, and there's some ugly choppy jumps in it. The 110bpm version sounds cleaner, but is still a bit too slow for my taste in this kind of music. Tho raising it by just a few bpm could be enough to make it feel much faster without actually making it much faster.

It sounds sequenced and stiff, especially the flute. Use pitch bend for fast note motion, or find yourself a sample with better attack. Also, you might want to add some envelope-modulation-controlled effects, if you can do that with your DAW. Just to make the long notes seem less looped. I'm not talking about flanger, phaser and chorus, I mean modulating the cutoff, pitch, volume, and other attributes _slightly_. I'd recommend leaving out most of the mario sound effects, they make it sound cheesy. There's a few that work, but most pipes and bounce effects sound dumb, frankly. Overall, it's pretty simplistic. Much of the time, I'm hearing to pad+flute or pad+flute+base, and drums. There's asome cool articulations you've done with pitch bend, but I'd like to hear something more elaborate. There's a long break towards the end that doesn't work well, you need to fill that up with... something. Ideally, it'd be different enough from the repeated melodies and harmonies you've already used. Listen to source and see what else you can take from there. Then there's the mixing headaches... While I can't judge from laptop speakers the finer details, i sounds like there's not much done in terms of leveling and EQing. Do some slight changes to track volume and EQ, maybe master EQ as well. Everything sounds like it's in the mid-high range, not much going on in the mid-low range. There's a bass, but it doesn't have bass enough, methinks. But try stuff out, and undo it if it doesn't sound better. But it's not bad. Arrangementwise, I think this is too close to source, but I don't remember the source and am too lazy to look it up right now. If I'm right, it needs much more soundscaping, rhythms, and harmonies. You're off to a great start, but you've still got ways to go before it's submittable.

See what I made happen:

There's an obscure community dedicating to polishing unfinished original songs/original releases, I don't know if you've heard of it, but here's a link to it. This is terrible feedback. You obviously fail at realizing what the point of line breaks actually is. For shame.

It's a bit quiet, but it occasionally peaks. That's a problem. Maybe using a limiter on the master and raising gain a few dB. It's now meandering about the 50% line, most music is a bit louder than that. Also, some piano notes should be longer (longer decay/longer notes), perhaps some harp notes as well. The harp sounds mechanical in places, I recommend pulling back the attack a bit. If you can, do some _MINOR_ tempo variations where appropriate. The ending tweaks are essentially this: the low piano keys should be louder. 2:15, piano soft. From 2:25, the piano should be booming, the harp should have its velocities move along with some rhythm you feel it should have. Save, experiment, listen, and compare. Arrangementwise, I've got nothing to say short of a one-man applause: this is pretty. I'd YES this, but I would have YESed a number of my own too. In terms of direction, the whole song vanishes and returns towards the end, so it's a good progression in that sense. But volume mastering, and mixing, possibly some more arrangement tweaks for direction. If the source ratio is as it should be, I'd say you should submit when you're done mixing. Or you can come here to ask if we can hear something you've missed.

The lyrics aren't particularily relevant to Donkey Kong, the melodies and rhythm only contain obscure hints at any source. That source is the pre-SNES Donkey kong, btw. If you're attempting to get this on OCR, it's gonna take a massive reworking of most of it, or a massive re-write to most of the submission standards. This isn't my kind of music, but I'm not gonna go so far as to say it isn't music. However, this is hardly OCR-stuff. While you might win the popularity contest with this, you'd probably get an instant rejection letter if you submitted it, unless the Judges want to list the reasons themselves for laughs. So, nice track. Now how about a real vgm remix? -- And Snap...!! That's just annoying.

Altho you could probably emulate it by using pitch bend, moulation, and the right ADSR settings on your everyday sine wave.

Just set it to match the song tempo. Or, in the rare case where applicable, do a cutoff sweep (requires automation or post-render audio edits). Depends on what you want to accomplish.

The intro feels weak, the drums dry and the lead too soft. Actually, that applies to most of the track, but that's a mixing problem. Arrangementwise, Sixto's right about this being kind'a empty. It picks up a bit after 2:00, which is nice, but I can't help but to want to hear a faster guitar melody in the bg. When it comesback to 2:45, it's grindtastic: same old, same old. That would have been the perfect place to give it so much more energy, especially in contrast with the following softer part. 4:10 - Why not up the drums to double speed top give it more grande finale feel? And pull a solo up to an octave higher, and whatever else you can think of. Seriously, it needs a finish. Can't comment on source vs interpretation, but otherwise, this sounds like a technically successful WiP. As a WiP, I mean. It's not quite elaborate enough to work on OCR, so you need to add stuff, solos, background melodies, and variation. I smell promise in this piece.

Arrangementwise, it's passable, I guess, and on OCR, passable is _good_. However, as Boz said, it's got a very simplistic MIDI-like sound. The bass drum and snare are panned funny, put the bass drum in the center, snare almost in center, and use something else to balance out the hihat, like a shaker. The bass is weak. I've heard worse, but it needs to be better. The phased and autopanned pad in the left channel is annoying. Most of the synths are a bit too simple, you could add more modulation- and envelope-controlled effects (detuning, cutoff, resonance and related) on them and fit them into the soundscape with better EQ-ing. You gotta listen to it constantly trying to hear which instruments are important where and where they're more peripheral and could be softer. But length- and arrangementwise, this isn't bad. It does need some more elaborate arrangement, especially in terms of filtering. Nice job, now the hard work begins.

He also stole from djp. http://bluebomber.imeem.com/music/4qVNreDR/bluebomber_yoshis_island_2005_elasticnewyear/ http://www.ocremix.org/remix/OCR00232/ Bad move.

I like it. It's too varied to keep track of things I think need improvement. I don't know and am too lazy to look up source, but other than that, I think this is fairly close to being YES'ed. It's varied, it's not too long, it's interesting, and it keeps moving. There's a sense of direction at times, but most of the time, I don't care where its going, I just like it. Someone like Boz who's more into electronica could comment on the drum mixing, if the drums need more punch or something, but they sound okay to me. If there's enough source, this gets, imho, a YES.

The harp needs more reverb, the water feels unneccessary, and the synth pad in the background doesn't fit well. It's too sharp. A really soft pad might be okay, but...not this. Lose the water. Let it appear somewhere, that's okay, but letting it just sit there throughout is distracting. It sometimes feel like some kind of EQ'd noise. Not good. Cut it out earlier, let it be heard a few times, and cut ut out in between. I feel the same way about the birds. There's some stuff that sounds too loud towards the end. While I recognize it as the ending, it's a bit too loud, there moight be some kind of distortion... Are you using lazy compression again? See if you cna smoothen stuff out in the louder sections without removing intensity. Anyway, the water fits well into the beginning and the end, and some place in between, but it's too loud in the intro, and it needs to be removed from some parts so it doesn't distract the listeners. This piece has softer water, but I'm still annoyed at it when I hear it. That's in a piece where it's taken out a lot too. Still, harp and strings are good. I like the sound. As for EQ, don't get too excited. Just drop the right track a few dB at the right frequency. The goal isn't to EQ everything, it's to enhance the sound, bring out the important instruments, and ive the remix balance.

Is this where I say: "Like Fishy said, 'Nice soundscapes as Rozo said'?" Anyway, there's of course loads of different things to do with the same melodic theme. Start it off before the beat and let it rest on another key; play it at half speed; play it in bits and pieces; cut it apart and divide the parts between two different instruments; move from plain repetition to repetition an octave up, or down, or both; play it with the bass; play it backwards... Those being some ideas I get from not even giving you another listen. With the fantastic soundscaping you've got, repeating the theme a few times isn't gonna be as much of a problem as not having it play more than once or twice is. OCR could be called ThaSource at times, because OCR wants a lot of that in the remixes they approve. That, and an ending, next.

Aww... Now I feel all warm and fuzzy inside. Anyway, I like how the strings and the choir blend together. I'm not gonna look up the older version, but I see what joren means about soft melody->LOUD CHORD. You could make the melody LOUDER towards the end. About half way through, there's enogh of a change to make it feel like it's another source track. I admit, I don't know the source. Towards the end of the first section, it could get louder, only to move softly into this next section. This is a nice and soft piece, Alex, and I think that's good enough a direction as it is. Some velocity tweaks and maybe some tempo changes and/or occasional long loud (-ish) echo effects would be nice. Nice is, btw, a great work to describe this. it doesn't have your usual genre-schizofrenia nor (yet) an attempt to sound totally awesome. *ahem* It's really nice, and I think it shoudl remain that way. Make it prettier. If you can d that with a church organ, it's fine with me, but you better do it really impressive if it doesn't stay _nice_.

Bass drum sounds weird on imac built-in speakers, I suppose it's a bit ewird on all speakers then. There's a bunch of different rhythms that seem to coexist in some dystopic soundscape. It has some variation, but it feels a bit too simple at times. Some samples/synths don't have the quality the Judges™ seem to enjoy, imo. It might be a YES as it's a pretty good arrangement and not a bad mix, but you might as well be getting a RESUB. It might be that although the mixing is okay, they'll say the remix doesn't go anywhere. There's still stuff you could improve, and I have a feeling the J's will point that out to you. Still, it's a decent piece and wouldn't have much trouble blend into the OCR's musical gallery, methinks. Might be that the mix sounds so much better on headphones or better speakers, or it sounds worse. The J's vote could actually rest on that. Short answer: I don't know.

Just so you know, there's better hosts around that googlepages. If you'll be hosting more than one WIP on googlepages, you better not put them on the same page. Many who comment on WIPs are lazy (I know I am), so different tracks on the same page is not a good idea. Still, you haven't done anything bad yet, so I'm not gonna bitch about this. v4.5: Cool intro. The instrument that comes in at 0:10 is a bit repetitive tho, so consider reworking that a bit. leaving it out occasionally wouldn't be a bad idea, as it gets kind'a cluttered at 0:22. At least match the rhythms of it and the melody better from there on. Mixingwise, the pad is quite loud. While the arduous parts of mixing usually don't happen until the end of the production, a preliminary mixing is always good. Decide which instrument is important when, and drop the others accordingly. Drums are usually important, but raise and lower to always provide as much rhythm as you feel is appropriate. At 1:10, the previous lead instrument seems to occupy the same frequency range as the present lead. Drop either an octave, or leave out the background "lead". 1:31 back to repetition... maybe a bit too soon. This would be the perfect place to run the same thing with something cut out of it (like the lead). It'll less melodic and more soundscaping. Could sound good. 2:14 Low pad is too loud. By 2:35, I'm tired of the repeititive lead and it's accompaniment. You need some other way to get it across, I suggest playing it half speed with some other instrument, then modifying it to match another chord progression. It ends in good time, but probably needs a better ending, whether bigger or just lighter. This is a step up in terms of quality, but there's still headaches ahead.

Ultimately, the purpose of the WIP forums isn't to act as your musical spellcheck, but to help you notice stuff yourself. If you choose to ignore the advice, that's fine, as long as you understand why we say what we say. That way, you'll learn to listen to your WIPs in a new way, one more fruitful. Hopefully. So it's not like we get mad if you don't do as we say. It's _your_ remix, and _you_ will be hearing the YES or the NO from the judges after you've submitted it. If out advice helps you, good for you. The repetition issues I've got with this piece aren't as much in the melodies themselves, but rather in the overall sound. From 0:07 to 2:15, it's pretty much the same sound. Nobody can say you're not consistent, but it gets boring to listen to. Listen to the deviations from source, the soundscaping, and whatever else you can think of, that DarkeSword does/uses in his remixes. With 20 remixes on OCR, you can learn some stuff from him. Compare familiar sources to his remixes of them to learn. -- Bla, bla, bla. This WIP doesn't really ad much new. It's a bit too late at night for me to focus on the details in mixing and such, but the impression I got was that you've done a common newb mistake - changed melody to try to be less repetitive. The melody isn't the problem, it's the repetitive nature of the track that is. Use more breaks from melody, use other chords, other drum patterns etc. Think about the progression you want the remix to have. The WIP is way too short to be this repetitive, so you need to do a lot of soundscaping. Seriously man, you have a very simple XABCABCA progression (intro part, part A, part B, part C, part A...), and each repetition of each part sounds about the same. When do you want the song to sound the coolest? Where should the calm before the storm be? How should the transition from one part to another differ from the same transition elsewhere in the track. I have a track in the sd3 project that progresses in pretty much the same order as the original, but there's velocity changes, tempo changes, instrumental changes, rhythm changes, intensity changes... soundscaping. Add breaks, fills, and drumrolls, and you've got yourself a pretty neat piece. So while forced melody modifications aren't gonna work, soundscaping should do a better job at mixing it up. Regardless of how much of my comments you've got the patience to read, regardless of how much you've got the motivation to implement, good luck. I'm looking forward to your next bigger update.

Intro has a really retro feel that I enjoyed. And those colorful phase sweeps are cool. 2:0X solo surprised me. At first, it felt too original, but I keep hearing stuff I can tie to source. Overall, I can't compare the 2002 version to something this much better. One thing tho, I think it lacks a grande finale. It takes a minute before the bass drum comes in, so it sets up the track to be a "big" track. But intro+2:21 and no big finish or long beautiful fading aneding?

The intro could use some softer strings, at least the first two or four chords. I'm missing something in the left ear high range to counter the right-panned hihat. There's some annoying whipping noises in the high range up until the 1:40 break. They're pretty annoying, sounds like phased or flanged hihats which doesn't work well in this soundscape, imo. There's some crackling noises. Are you using Vinyl on this? I don't think it has the effect you intended, it's not audible during the louder sections, and it's distracting during the soft ones, The strings arrangement is pretty. The ending sections are totally awesome, from the point where the drums cease 'til the point where the strings should have faded. Yes, _should_ have. Overall, this is already awesome, and with Pixietricks' voice it'd be even greater. Looking forward to hearing this completed. btw, your WIP version numbers aren't very consistant: v1, v2, v4.1, 3.2. Any particular idea behind that?

When I started with music, I used trackers. Trackers are pattern-based sequencers, meaning I'd do a 64-step pattern, then another, then put them in whatever order I wanted. I came a cross a resource called the Tracker's Handbook or something like that. It said "never repeat patterns". Your rhythmic variation makes this easier to listen to, but there's still a persistant repetition that you're using. Try muting some instruments and just listen to the lead and one other instrument at a time, see what soundscaping ideas you cna come up with. Also, 1:29 and forth is pretty beepy. While it's variation, I'd dampen those, dropm them an octave, and make them less beepy. The drums are not as bad as I make them sound with this comment. They need more variation, as it's pretty much the same upbeat rhythm throughout. It's not that you don't vary it, it's more that the variation doesn't change enough before it changes back. Are you using a shaker as a hihat? Try using a ride in some sections, try using just bass drum and cymbals in one section, try stuff like that out. The 1:44 volume drop is good, make sure to keep it. Just sayin'. Ideas for spicing it up and varying stuff: -leave out the guitar for a bit -use triplets in fills -leave out the snare -add pads -play a section at half speed -leave out the melody and do something cool with the other instruments There's some stuff to try out, see what you like, use what you want to. Make a backup before doing anything drastic, tho.

There's a knob in many software synths called cutoff, it's essentially a single-knob EQ that reduces (usually) the high frequencies drastically. It's often used in electronic music to dampen stuff. there's a number of different cutoff parameters that you can set the knob to control, but usually, it's the high frequencies. A cutoff sweep is when you cut off almost everything in the track, drastically, and then in a beat or two restore it to normal. This usually works best with a high-pass cutoff. I know Prophecy had a vgmix track that used this effect, but it doesn't seem to be up on vgmix x. Don't remember any on ocr either. Add a high-pass or low-pass to the master and play with the settings to see what I mean. SInce it's a sweep you need, you need to automate the effect, I dunno if you can do that in whatever DAW you're using. If not else, at least you'll learn what it is. For what cutoff is and means and how it works. The picture says more than the thousand words.

Cube - good plot, scary scenario. Hypercube - fatty rectum^5 Cube Zero - can't agree with Skryp before I've seen it

Everything? What Would SHTY JDGFGT™ Do?