Rozovian

Random things I found. "Thanks for using it, and for giving me credits .CandySoup 2 years ago" More CandySoup, he praises the work of Phoenix Project, is on another given credit for it as "being part of" PP, and replies to one as if it's his music. There's more if you google him. noobface4291 explains on the first vid: "Yeah, it turns out that good ol' CandySoup is a massive fraud. He claims to be part of the Phoenix Project, but isn't. His newgrounds account also has a Schala remix that is in fact from OCReMix, which he kept up despite the creator finding out. He also claims to be from Japan, giving weight to his claim of being part of the P.P., despite the fact that Web Archive showed that but a year before he was living in Montreal. He deserves no credit for this." Not sure if this is him, but here's someone by the same handle on youtube, apparently from Montreal also: http://www.youtube.com/user/CandySoup On the flip side, here's an appropriately corrected vid: ("Candysoup is not the creator of this arrangement and is absolutely not affiliated with the group.")edit: these may be him: http://www.blogtv.com/people/CandySoup https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=734857198

A quick listen shows it's too loud. Always be careful so you don't mess up the track level, making it too soft or too loud. I'm moving this thread to the right forum. Welcome to ocr.

Nice sound, nice groove, great way to get into the track. First take on Shadow Man's level is a bit bland, but I know it's the source's fault. 0:53 and we're cool again. 1:41 ARGH! Watch those shrill bell things. Trumpet is cool, the drums in the last minute feel lazily looped, track ends well, sources are there... I hate trying to analyze multiple-source tracks, unless I already know the sources or don't have to comment on source usage. AFAICT, source is cool here, but another mod might wanna double-check. Feels a little soft, tho. Some subtle side-chaining, low cuts, and other tricks might yield a little more headroom to boost without creating any compression problems, but it'd be better to leave the dynamics as-is than to screw it up. Make a copy before screwing with it. Dunno what else to say. Fix up the shrill breakdown sounds, maybe spice up the drums a bit towards the end, see if you can get it just a little louder without destroying anything. Overall coolness. No checklist. Nice work.

Nice playing. Can't really judge the production that well from a youtube vid, because yt's compression won't be the same as the mp3 you sub to ocr. I only really have two concerns. One is that it sometimes goes into some quite liberal territory, difficult to hear connections to source sometimes. I've kind'a done that myself, and the judges did have some trouble hearing connections to the source with those tracks. That said, I think someone with a better understanding of classical music will have less trouble hearing the source in it than I had. The second concerns levels. Frequency balance. Those things. It sounds ok at my usual listening volumes, but I don't know to what extent youtube's screwing with the sound. Dunno the actual dynamics. But in both cases, it's just concern, not any solid criticism. Very nice work.

The track was going so well, up to around 0:45 when the drums came in. They just aren't good. The rest of the sound design works well, the drums are terrible. Yeah and the lead is a bit bland, but not _bad_. There's a rhythm clash here, mostly the hihat rhythm clashing with the triplet beat of everything else. A failed attempt at polyrhythmic music? Some cool chords here, 2:25 clashes with the bass tho, and I thought I heard some other clashes with tracks further in the background before that. Watch your writing. Breakdown and build-upworks, some parts better than others (3:08 to 3:318 my fav part). This is a track based around breakdowns and build-ups, which is fine, but it's easy to have too many and just throw in a breakdown when you don't know what else to do in a track. Some more deliberate build-ups and bigger payoffs at the end of the buildups would make the track better, and reduce the need for so many breakdowns. Really weird compression mishap at 4:15. PRODUCTION - Drums have no energy - not quite true, but they don't have the impact they should have, they're just using their energy to make the rhythm clunky and - Overcompressed (pumping/no dynamics) - mostly not a big deal, but that 4:15 thing is weird - Mixing is muddy (eg. too many sounds in the same range) STRUCTURE - Too repetitive - drums could vary a bit more, the genre calls for repeated elements but there's room to change stuff up I can hear you know your toolbox, there's a lot of cool automation tricks you use. Your drum sound design and mixing needs work, and figuring out how rhythms work together (or how they don't) should also help. You can do it.

Watch the low toms, they get pretty bassy. Bass kind'a has a similar problem, in that it sounds played high and muffled, rather than natural. The lows are a mess. Also, watch how instruments exit. There's a sampled isntrument in the middle of the track that ends a bit clunkily, same thing with the mid-range guitar in the end of the track. Watch out for stuff like that. There are parts where I think it's too conservative, and others that feel right in line with ocr's re-arrangement thing. The overall structure is pretty cookie-cutter, but it works. It's a nice short track. Couldn't be much longer without doing something different with the source, so it's at a good length. Not sure about the heavy distortion on the rhythm guitars, they clash with the summer day feel of the melody imo. Just my opinion/taste, tho, it's your track and your choice what to make of it. Biggest problem is the muddy, heavy lows. ARRANGEMENT / INTERPRETATION - Too conservative - sticks too close to the source - slight possibility PRODUCTION - Overcompressed (pumping/no dynamics) - should solve itself with lighter lows - Mixing is muddy (eg. too many sounds in the same range) - especially the lows Nice work.

Stereo width, panning, phase, how the sound is represented in each speaker... basically the direction is seems to come from. The way I see it, there's three types of audio separation: by frequency (timbre, eq, also writing), in stereo (left-right, width), and distance (reverb/volume/eq).

Boost the important part of one tracks, cut that part in overlapping tracks. Figuring out the important frequencies and how much to boost/cut is the hard, case-by-case part.

The Sonic community Sonic Stadium have made a Sonic album. There may be others out there, check with sonic sites and vgmdb.

Rhythm or lead? Metal or jazz? Be specific. Also, you'll probably want to use an amp simulator in addition to the guitar instrument.

Bad form or not, it does set the bar. Not so much in sample quality (considering some of the suggested influences) but certainly in overall quality. I mean, _I_ now feel that I have a better shot at this , I'd just need time to find/make something (silly me, went and got myself a job). It could have been phrased better, and/or handled in part privately, tho. Also, nobody vents here.

Dat bass drum. Transition a third into the track is the first thing that really bothers, it's sudden and leads to a part with some weird harmonies. The bass in the break seems to play in a different mode than the melody. Some weird harmonies and changes in scale/mode after the break, some that work, some that don't. Leads are pretty soft, but they're also quite bright, so while you should probably raise their level some, you should be really careful with how you do that. Starts well, ends well. The bass drum is unsensibly loud, yet you've managed to write around it quite well. You could drop it a few dB and still have it loud, tho. Arrangement/source crits if you take it to mod rev. I'm lazy.

Brentalfloss, you annoying mofo, I can't listen to this without hearing them lyrics in my head. Anyway... Drums are pretty cool, just EQd to have this really loud muddy rumble in their lows. Always go for a balanced mix instead of one with the bass knob turned to 11. The rest of the instrumentation ranges from mediocre and passable to unconvincing and horrible. Put some thought into your sound design, how it actually sounds (rather than what the instruments say they are), and you'll be making far better mixes in no-time.

Hey Bread, welcome to the workshop. Bass sounds really uneven and broken up. While it could just be uneven playing, I think it's from mixing everything else so loud that the compressor on the output is cutting the bass into pieces. Despite the compressor problems, it ends up sounding weak. There's a lot of excess lows and an unhealthy emphasis on the low mids you could get rid of. EQ separation can do a lot to clean up mixes. That should give you more room to mix this aggressive without destroying it in the process. No link to source, and don't remember the source, so idk, idc. Anyone who knows how I feel about voice clips can imagine what I think about the voice in the intro.

idunno, to me, humanization is about faking human performance by whatever means available. If there's a combined timing/velocity/detune/vibrato macro that turns stiff sequencing into hard forte and smooth piano according to the value of a single automated knob - that's humanization. If you spend hours on screwing with every midi attribute of a dozen separate violin solo patches - that's humanization. Humanization is making it more human, any means necessary. But yeah, it's easy to overthink it, overdo it, get overwhelmed, or whatever. My advice is to just learn every tool in the box, and then just use the tools you need for the parts that need it. If an auto-quantize tool to a light swing rhythm makes your drums sound more human, it's humanization. But for sustained strings specifically, the most important is that they swell and wane with the rest of the track. Think like a conductor. Humanize accordingly. Also, humanization is not randomization. They're both opposites of mechanical sequencing, but in different directions. If that makes any sense.

Farscape SG-1, SGA, DS9.

Most of what I said makes sense if you're using the link I gave you to create m3u playlists and attempt to import them into iTunes. If not, ignore it. While on this topic, iTunes seem to wanna sort ocr tracks with the new id3 tags into a single itunes media/music/compilations/http___ocremix.org (on mac). Once the entire ocr database is updated and ppl use files with the new tags, a script that does this could probably be added to Kieran's thing. Or ppl could just open the m3u files and search&replace all new lines with new line and whatever parts of the locator are needed. idunno, Larry, Dave, Kieran, whoever.

tl;dr: genre stuff wasn't used before because genre snobs would then not listen to the many cool mixes that weren't in their preferred genre. You could try to use this off-site resource to create playlists and work out of those. I gave it a quick try with an artist-sorted iTunes library, which didn't work. They playlist can be drag-n-dropped or otherwise imported into iTunes, but ends up empty. The playlist file is just a list of the filenames for the tracks. Dunno how up to date it is, at what stage the tagging project is, if iTunes or more recent naming conventions screw with the filenames, or it can be conveniently converted to something that takes different music library organization schemes into account. Or perhaps importing the m3u from a directory full of shortcuts to the files works?

I'm not sure what you mean. Or, I'm sure what you mean, but not that you understood what I meant. To get it posted on ocr, you'd need source in 50% of the remix, nevermind whether it's the same source melody throughout, or if every little part of the source is used. Just in case you weren't clear on that. Repeated elements, sure. Repetitive... not necessarily. There's a lot you can do on top of those repeating elements. But that's semantics. You should be able to work on those speakers, unless they're actually _bad_. Just compare your mixes with similar style pro mixes (that are actually well mixed). If your mixes don't have as much bass, add bass. Too much mids? Reduce mids. There's also all kinds of visual analyzers that you can use to gauge the music regardless of yoru speakers. I'm not pro enough to mix blind, I use two or three different analyzers at different stages of my mixes. I'm sure others mix like that too.

A long strings note at a constant level, constant timbre, constant pitch will sound fake. When the music swells, so should the strings, likewise when it wanes. While this can be done with volume, it's better to use the expression midi cc for that. When using volume, you typically change the volume of reverbs and other effects as well. This is not realistic. You'd want the change to exist as close to your imaginary performers as possible, before reverb and other effects. If Expression doesn't do anything, try other midi ccs, like the modulation wheel. Some patches/samplers may go for convenience over intended use. In any case, this is for the bigger dynamic movements that can happen during a long note. Subtle touches of vibrato and/or tremolo also remove some of the fakeness of it, tho an entire strings section would typically not do tremolo or vibrato in perfect sync (hence why you make it subtle, and use different patches for more overt tremolo/vibrato strings). Some subtle filter modulation can also work, it'd suggest the strings are being played softer, bowed slower or something. All it really does is softly muffle the sound, which is a change in timbre - which can be useful. It's best used in conjunction with the changes in expression. Note: subtle means you shouldn't notice it if you don't know it's there. Very subtle. Remember that humanization isn't randomization. Think like a performer or a conductor. How would the music move? How should the sustains move? Also, if you're not faking an orchestra, screw strings humanization. Just make it emotive, even if it's mechanical.

There's some pretty weird harmonies in there. Are you sure your instruments are tuned right? As in, the samples set to the right keys. The bass is especially weird, sometimes clashing, sometimes just moody. DUnno how much of it is deliberate. Then this thing lacks humanization. It doens't sound performed, it sounds written. A good remix will have a sense of performance to it, timing, velocity, expression cc, all those things. A good hall reverb should then add some space to the performance, but the reverb alone won't do it. 3:15, your instruments don't sound good that high. Too similar to the original for ocr, but a pretty cool take on the source. Also, welcome to ocr.

HDJS, don't use other ppl's wips to advertise your own. Not unless it's relevant (eg "I'm also remixing this source"). While I'm in this thread... Biggest problems here are sound design and repetition. Yes, repetition is a staple of the genre, but it's usually padded with some more advanced sound design and a lot of motion in the sounds. I'd avoid adding any length to this until I can make these 4 minutes (quite long already) sound more engaging. Automation and delays should help. I'd start inside the synths tho, their internal modulations offer a lot more to do than applying effects afterwards. Are you aiming for ocr with this? It's a little too liberal for ocr atm. I mean, I can hear some vague connections to source in the 0:45 part, but I think it'd have to be a bit more overt to count on ocr. If it doesn't count, that's an 80-second part of source that wouldn't count, another 45 seconds from 2:22, ending it at 125s/240s, under the 50% minimum. If you're not aiming for ocr, you can just focus on having strong source usage wherever you want to and use as much original/liberal/whatever material in between. I think you've got a good base here. A predictable, DJ-friendly structure, and that's not necessarily a bad thing. It's functional, and lets you focus on sound design, mixing, and writing smaller stuff. Do it well.

Easy no. Sorry. About a third of the track is intro. That's not good. The second minute is a build-up, and the third is the payoff... which lacks impact due to the sound design. Which is really newby. Nice use of the background melodies of the source. Tho they aren't quite dominant I think the arrangement has them there well enough for ocr. Source ok. Should be brought out more in the mix, but the mixing is another matter entirely. In other words, this arrangement, while a bit awkward in its third minute lead rhythm and taking a very long time to get to the beef of the track, might be passable. There's stuff in the arrangement that may need adjusting after a proper sound design and mixing, but the rough structure is ok with me. The sounds all sound straight out of the early 90's computer game music. That, in itself, isn't a bad thing, but they'd need to be mixed in better. Levels mixing seems to be ok, but the tracks still all sound raw and stacked on top of each other, not separated the way professional productions are. EQ and reverb where appropriate. It's also waaaay too soft. Yes you should have dynamics. Yes you shouldn't squash things with excessive compression. Yes, you can start it soft. No, not this soft. If you do the above separation and giving the tracks their own space, their own area in the frequency range and all that, you could probably get this sounding ok with just some parallel compression on top of that. That's not saying you shouldn't side-chain (if the sound calls for it) or do all the other things, where appropriate. PRODUCTION - Too loud - Low-quality samples - Drums have no energy STRUCTURE - Too repetitive - buildup is long and same-y You may need to look to some more modern reference material for your sound. Grab remixes from the past few years and you should have a fair amount tracks to compare this to. Just find the ones with appropriate sound design, or mixing, or mood, or whatever, and compare those aspects. Learn from those. No. (resub?)