Rozovian

Already emailed k, and I don't really think either of you need any further direction with the wips you've got. Just do your stuff.

It's not that quiet, and you really don't wanna destroy the dynamics of solo piano piece. That said: You can roll off some of the low end. I did a 24dB/octave high pass at 50Hz. That'll keep any low lows from pushing peaks. To counter the mud, I did a -2dB low shelf from 500Hz and a +2dB boost around 5kHz. Some EQ surgery can get you more exact numbers, but those two seem to work. Some gentle compression can boost the softer parts. I had the compressor right after the EQ, with a threshold of -8dB, ratio of 1.5:1, 2ms attack, 600ms release. Seems to work ok. That gave me about 6db of headroom to work with, but as it peaks above 0dB you should use a limiter to prevent clipping. Screwing with the compressor more can probably get you a dB or two more to work with without messing up the dynamics too much. You can test how loud you want this to be by boosting it disregarding clipping and compression problems just to see how loud you want it to not sound out of place next to pro-recorded and pro-mixed piano tracks. There's tricks like multiband compression and parallel compression that might get you a little more loudness if you need it, and beyond that you'd probably have to mess with the mic setup to get it any louder, but that's something I don't have any experience in. I hope this stuff helps.

If the reverb is delayed far enough, it'll be distinct from the dry sound, thus not dragging it into the background. It may also need to be EQd out of the way of the dry sound, and a widened stereo reverb would separate them further. Attack helps. If the attack is loud and clear, it'll clue ppl in on what frequencies to expect. It's like the arrow in the FedEx logo - once you know where it is, you can't help but see it. Something as simple as settings the volume envelope (ADSR) to D200ms S75% can make your lead stand out more than playing at 100% all the time (remember to adjust track level). Additional oscillators, filters, fm or whatever can also be used to make the attack stand out more. What you want in a lead is a strong fundamental and some interesting harmonics. In simple terms, the fundamental is the lowest frequency in a sound, and the harmonics are frequencies that add up to the same length - making it a clear waveform rather than a wobbling mess. You get some control over this by using parallel filters and/or multiple oscillators tuned to different harmonics (+12, +19, +24 above the fundamental) to make the harmonics more interesting. Nothing says you can't tune them down, either, tho that effectively just shifts the fundamental. Different waveforms contain different amounts of different harmonics, sometimes a triangle works better than a saw, and vice versa. A static (non-changing waveform) lead often works in chiptune-y tracks, but in other soundscapes you'll probably want to use multiple, slightly (or significantly) detuned oscillators, filter modulations and other motion in the sound. Then there's a range of effects that can be used for a more interesting sound. Overdrive works well on filtered or triangle/sine-based sounds and brings out their harmonics (and interference from polyphony, which can be used to good effect). I'm not as fond of amp sims and/or regular distortion just to create leads, it mostly just muddies up the sound rather than make a clear, strong lead. Delay works well, as does the aforementioned reverb - when used to give it a stadium rock sound rather than a back-of-the-orchestra sound. Stereo effects can do a lot, too. If you can pan your oscillators (or use layers), try making (slight detuning) two slightly different sounds and hardpanning them opposite each other. This is used to make electric guitars big and wide, but the principle works the same with synths and sampled instruments. You can even use a third, center-panned one, as long as the three are all different. If they're not different, there won't be any wide stereo effect, just a louder center-panned thing. There's some thoughts worth trying out.

Starts off nice, if a bit empty. The lite drum kit has a nice sound and a good groove, but the drum writing could use some spicing up. There's some variation later on, but I think some more fills and subtle changes to the drum patterns as the track develops would improve the track. Breakdown at around 1:00 feels weak. Once the drums come back, it holds on the same level until around 2:00, which is a much better breakdown. Might be a good idea to have something bridge the 3:16 gap between the break and the subsequent start to a buildup. It makes it sound like two separate tracks, either of which, btw, is long enough to stand on its own. There's some length you could cut down on, tho I'm not sure where. not a big deal, but a long track with a fairly same-y sound can get old before it's over. Halftempo drums. Was gonna suggest that. Seems we share an ear for what works. Cuz it works. Transition to the regular beat is a bit abrupt, keeping the halftempo stuff until the 4:34 part might flow better, as might a fill or something to draw attention to the drums as they change. The new harmonies are a bit Willrock-y, dunno how much of that is yours and how much is DKCR. I had a lot of trouble actually getting to the melodies of the DKCR source, since so much just seems to be variations on the tried and true melodies from the original DKC track, of which I think there's plenty here. The main problem I think this track suffers from is the minimal sound. Some soft supplemental writing, be it rhythm or pads or whatever, could fill out the track some without ruining the minimalism that works quite well here. As for Skryp's crits... While it didn't bother me much, the 3:50 lead isn't that great. I'd suggest a gliding lead instead, but you've got one of those already, and the difference between the leads is a good contrast. You should also consider shortening that part, there's a whole minute with that same lead. While it does develop from the minimal DKC melody to some more interpretive soloing, you might not need _that_ much of it. I think the basic drum machine sound you've got works, but there's parts where it could be supplemented by a breakbeat or some other percussion stuff. I'd keep any additional drum elements in the background, but you do whatever you feel works best for the track, even if it means not doing anything. STRUCTURE - Not enough changes in sounds (eg. static texture, not dynamic enough) - it's fairly varied in chord structure and sound, but it's so long that the overall sound gets old - Too repetitive - it's not terribly loop-y, but the drums could use some more fills and subtle changes I like it.

Of course they'll say something is wrong - it's what they're there for. And it's helpful. The first few times it stings, because you thought you had a great mix and hate having them poke holes in it. Once you know better, getting rejected is frustrating for a different reason: because you know you could have done better. Use your limitations as direction. Crappy mic? Make distorted, industrial, post-apocalyptic music, or apply synth-y effects and make android music. We all have ideas, and most of us fall short of realizing them the way they are in our heads. What's the best idea you have that you can actually make something of? Do that one. If it doesn't turn out as awesome as it is in your head, do another one. Learn something new from each attempt. I've started over 2000 tracks. Many have great ideas in them. How many actually sound good in the state I left them in? Not many. Be less frustrated, make more music.

Well something was missing. Shows how well I run this ship. I can write your bio. How do you feel about the name Shirley? And track notes? Send by pm or email or something non-public plz.

Updated. I've probably missed something or someone, but this should be a lot closer to reality. Whatever. Not much left, and then we can F I N A L L Y release this thing.

There's a difference between someone being harsh to you and someone actually giving constructive criticism. The latter is more common here.

SuperiorX has wip, beckett007 has track, Mokram has extension, Rexy has everything. I'm looking at opening Usa's, k-wix' and pu's unfinished tracks. And... doing something... else. More. Something. We need consent from ilp0, the Dual Dragons, Jokey, and one or two names for 107. I need to take time and get this tracklist update done. What moron decided to do deadlines every month? Gonna take some proper sd3 time tomorrow, get through all the sd3 stuff that's been piling up. Progress has actually been piling up. It's both awesome and frustrating at the same time. PS. Rexy clean up your PMs.

Troix, you've been registered here for a couple of months, you've posted two remixes and one original, commented on four remix wips by other ppl... that's not a lot. You'll learn more by doing more, listening more. There's also a whole lot of other stuff you can do. Read whatever music-making-related articles and Q&A you can find, talk to ppl who make music, set limitations and work within them, experiment, make use of free plugins... Most importantly, learn to listen critically. That you can tell your stuff isn't up to par means you can tell there's a difference. Now figure out what the difference is, one thing at a time, and learn how to fix it. It'll take time to learn, but it doesn't have to take 5 years. I got posted in two years. Others have in less. Also, Modus wins this thread.

Yeah, I got your email, keiiii, I'm just slow to reply this time. (just ask MangaMan about our potential non-sd3 collab) While on the topic of being slow, tracklist cleanup time is apparently tomorrow, not today.

Cleanup time tomorrow afternoon, my time zone*. If you haven't already, make sure I know you're actually working on stuff. * "My time zone" doesn't necessarily correspond to the time zone I'm in. Just saying.

Cool. Speaking of which, where the other one?

Yeah, i got it. Sorry, I've had a lot on my mind this month, so my sd3 management has been pretty... bad. Updating the first post now. Now Archangel's actually listed on a track he's doing, you're blue, and... well, the date is updated.

It's not like we don't review tracks without a source link, but I (can't speak for the others) don't necessarily consider source usage if the remixer didn't include a source to consider. Not a problem with sources I already know, but if you don't include the source link, you've only got yourself to blame if we don't crit your source use. As for super helpful, source breakdowns are also much appreciated, especially for sources we're not familiar with and/or heavily interpreted stuff. The judges sometimes request those too, so you might as well include them if you write heavily interpreted stuff.

0:27, 0:41 source A part Okay, only two short source references in the first minute and a half? 1:50-2:24 source A part 2:24-2:40 B part 2:40-3:08 A 3:08-3:24 B in a different take 3:24-3:51 based on source part A 3:51-4:05 A 4:05-4:22 new version of B 4:22-4:36 A 4:36-4:51 B A-B-A-B-A-B... So, 176 sec required to meet Larry's stopwatch criterium. This adds up to... 181 sec, plus those two source bits in the beginning. That's cutting it pretty close, especially if the 3:24 part doesn't count (27 seconds). The source is dominant as per the standards, but I don't know if a third of the track can be a practically source-less intro and still get on ocr. Production sounds fine to me, in keeping with the trance style as well as I know it. I don't like the arrangement, there's some nicely interpreted bits in there (among more newbish takes on "personalizing" it), but the structure is pretty much a cookie cutter medley of the A and B parts. Cheesy sound effects added in. Classy. It also looks like the tail of the last hit gets chopped off. ARRANGEMENT / INTERPRETATION - Too conservative - sticks too close to the source - the main part of the arrangement - Too liberal - not enough connections to the source (too much original writing) - intro and outro PRODUCTION - Mixing is muddy (eg. too many sounds in the same range) - it could be a little cleaner, but not a dealbreaker STRUCTURE - Too repetitive - the ABABAB structure does that, especially coupled with four on the floor beats Cool track, but I reckon the source usage and the basic arrangement would keep this from getting passed.

So... this one again. 0:30-0:40 bits of source main mel 0:57-1:24 probably not source 1:24-2:04 main mel source bits, increasingly less bit-y 2:04-2:32 chords 2:32-3:10 source mel 2 3:13-3:39 chords in bass 3:39-4:35 main mel Including the chords-only parts I arrive at 196 seconds, excluding the chords it's 132 sec, 10 seconds shy of Larry's stopwatch. Dunno how the judges will count, but it might be bit short on dominant source usage. Interpretation is sufficient, it's clear what source you're using, this just hangs on there being enough source... and possible technical details that I think I'll let someone better versed in psytrance comment on. What I can say is that there are parts that could be cleaner and less harsh, 2:46 is probably the worst offender there, cluttered and not easy on the ears. There's instruments that'd benefit a lot from being softer. There's a kind of artificial brightness to it that gets harsh. I would have used the checklist, but most of it would be caveats. Not much else to say, this'd fall on source usage or production, and I can't say much more about either of those atm.

This isn't mod review again, is it? Remember to change the thread prefix when bumping after a previous mod review. (this is why getting multiple mod reviews is problematic) Everything is really raw and upfront, see what you can do about giving them their own space. Notice how the strings and the flute thingy at 1:50 sound more subdued than the rest of the sounds. Figure out why, use it. As a hint, consider an effects chain of instrument->eq->reverb->eq where the first eq would soften the raw sound, and the second eq would bring out the important frequencies of both the instrument and its reverb. Also consider how the reverb sounds, and whether a single reverb is enough. I think it was Ghetto Lee Lewis or Blue Magic who mentioned using three reverbs on low-quality instruments to hide their low quality. What's the ideal placement and settings of a second or third eq? Experiment, research, see what you can come up with. Good luck.

Going into this, I expected this to be quite medley-itic. 0:00 sos 0:42 add smw 1:04 add... something 1:47 add something else 2:08 add dkc Oh man this is long. Overcompressed, repetitive, slow, loud beat, loop-y parts. I don't remember tmwtmg from any remixes and don't recall the original either. In this case it doesn't matter, this is still an easy NO. 2:51 just sos, dkc, smw 3:12 just dkc and smw 3:35 add sos And then it just ends. Sure, the drums drop out but it still just ends. Too long, not interesting enough. It's not as much of a medley as I expected, the different sources are layered on top of each other instead of stacked in a row, but quantity is a poor substitute for quality. There's some more elaborate writing in the background, but it's not brought out well enough in the mix. Things bleed all over each other, use levels, eq, and reverb to put different instruments in different places in the mix so they're all clear and don't get in each others' way. That's especially important in layered tracks like this. Its also too long, which is fine if it'd be more varied, but it's the same slow beat through it all, the same take on Song of Storms through most of it, meaning it's the same chords (or chord) through it all, the same slow takes on the SMW Overworld and the DKC theme throughout... It's the same throughout. ARRANGEMENT / INTERPRETATION - Too conservative - sticks too close to the source PRODUCTION - Too loud - Overcompressed (pumping/no dynamics) - Mixing is muddy (eg. too many sounds in the same range) STRUCTURE - Not enough changes in sounds (eg. static texture, not dynamic enough) - Pace too plodding - Too repetitive - Abrupt ending I'd add "too long" to the list, but it's not part of the checklist, and it's not the length, it's the tiring overcompression, repetition, pace, and lack of change that's the actual problem... tho a 4 minute track needs more than 40 seconds of ideas. Cool idea to layer stuff like this, but there's a host of problems with this mix. You could try again with a shorter arrangement and focus on quality over quantity, get the mixing clean and clear, keep the arrangement interesting. Fitting these sources together shows you've got ears for stuff like this. Do it better.

Okay, so my idea of "today" is quite flexible. Sorry about that. Source breakdown: 0:00-0:54 source arp and 3-note mel adaptation 1:06-1:30 new melody over source arp 1:30-1:56 add mel adapt 1:56-2:18 mel adapt and source references in the bass 2:18-2:32 later source melody in lead synth 2:32-3:29 source string mel 3:23-4:04 source arp Way over 50%, so we don't have to worry about that. Most of the source usage is verbatim, there's a 57 second part with the strings from the original, basically just cloned into the beat. The transition into that part from the 2:18 part wasn't great, and it only highlights that you're sticking to the progression of the source, in this case to the detriment of the arrangement. Most of the arrangement is built on the arp from source. While there's nothing wrong with that, the remix is kind'a sparse in other source content and certainly so in the interpretation/personalization department. As it says in the thread title and the SC track title, it's a cover. Too much of a cover for ocr, imo. The low end is thick, the lack of dynamics makes it more of a carpet than a groove. Separating the bass from the bass drum and getting rid of excess lows from the other tracks should solve that problem and possibly give you some more headroom for all the other tracks as well. While there's no discernible pumping, there's still a bit of a squashed sound that makes this tiresome to listen to. (The repetition doesn't really help.) Too much multiband compression? ARRANGEMENT / INTERPRETATION - Too conservative - sticks too close to the source PRODUCTION - Overcompressed (pumping/no dynamics) - the "no dynamics" flavor - Mixing is muddy (eg. too many sounds in the same range) - the low range at least STRUCTURE - Too repetitive In other words, some technical and arrangement-related issues but otherwise a pretty cool cover... just not enough of a ReMix for ocr, says I.

A couple of days left of this month, time to show me you're making progress, folks. (first post update, Frenzy's being worked on)

Whoa, this one fell through the cracks of the mod review thing. I'm gonna give this a proper review later today, just posting now to let you know we see it. First impressions are that the main issues will probably be interpretation, repetition, compression, and the low end. That's from a single, first listen, tho.

A place worth years of music production education and training, faster than schools, has vgm in it.

Here's some basic reading material. If it's not easy to understand, let me know so I can improve it.

A lot of time, ppl don't know what they're looking for, they just want to learn something new. If what they find is a way to make a "really whimsical, Stygian-sounding phrase", they'll probably find that it helps them improve their music overall. I would never have come up with the question of how to make a "really whimsical, Stygian-sounding phrase"; I reckon a lot of ppl could use answers to questions they don't know they could ask. Consider writing a guide to moods in music, one that covers a lot of different moods. Not to say you can't do a thread like this, I just know I have no idea what to ask.