Rozovian

Weren't you just complaining about how so much music is blocky and sufers from sequenced-ness? Also, I second the suggestion of film music techniques, makes sense. Films have a wide range of emotion. _You_ don't have to sync anything to anything, just listen and study it and make use of what you learn. I have a feeling you're just looking for shortcuts. Stop it. Look for techniques, examples, reference material, and make music. Don't post your half hour experiment, spend time on developing your tracks to develop your skills. Take whatever classes you can get that relates to it, and read everything you can get your hands on, but there's no magic chord that'll make your music feel like X.

Again with the hyperbole. The statistics are 39% FL, 14% Reason.

Pick a melody, short and simple, maybe just 5-6 notes, and play with it. How does it sound in a different scale? How does it sound when you screw with the rhythm? Transpose some of it, let it wait another eight note to be played, start it before or after the beat. Swing the rhythm into shuffle, see what that does. Try some other time signatures. And when you're done with that, add chords. A melody using the notes CEFGA can use any of the following basic chords, and many variations thereof: C, F, G major, E, G, A minor, as well as various sus chords, D minor and Bb major. And when you're done with that, change the melody from a minor scale to a major scale of the same key (musical modes)... or to any mode. ...and when you're done with that, experiment with instrumentation and note length. A piano will not make it sound the same as staccato brass or a square lead will. Short or long notes, or some of both? ...aaaaand when you're done with that, experiment with other melodies. This is something you'll learn best by experimentation, analysis, and while it doesn't hurt to find courses or books on the subject, you'll have to put it into practice eventually if you wanna make use of it, so get started, and learn what you can as you go along. While the exact emotion is nearly impossible to convey, it can be captured - even if you're the only one that gets it, others will get the idea, the general mood. I wrote a track consisting of 40 minutes of just variations of the same theme, as separate tracks with ugly pauses, some tracks being minutes long, some just a few seconds of an idea. Try writing a score for your own rpg game* - using the same basic melody for everything. Apply what I've suggested above and you'll have a wide range of variations to play with. *) Why rpg? well, I'm thinking they have a wide range of environments, characters, and moods overall. If you can imagine a racing game wit the same range of emotional contexts, sure, make a racing game score instead.

Technically yes. Wasn't forgetting, I was just trying to keep it simple. Anyway, in order to "synthesize realistic sounding music without hardware", you'll need to shell out money for sample libraries, a single DAW will probably not come prepackaged with all the sounds you'll need, certainly not of even near-realistic quality. It can be done in just software, but as with hardware you'll need to get the good stuff and learn to use it - with all its modulation wheel and expression controls, keyswitches, not to mention learn to write/record the midi for the whole song.

Your ignorance makes me lol. You at least have a good way of dealing with it, tho a little googling wouldn't have hurt. Anyway, the process of "running midi through" stuff is a little more complicated than it sounds. If you just want a better isntrument sound, sure, it's not hard, but to get more of a realistic performance out of it takes more than just import-select-export. While some instruments are easier to get a passable sound out of (depending on your standards) raw sequenced notes won't sound good on a piano or guitar because they don't have any of the intricacies that make a piano or guitar performance sound good. That's assuming you have a good enough sounding guitar library, which I assume you don't have. Sustained brass, electric guitar, solo strings, and a wide range of other instrument tend to sound terrible when faked if you don't know what you're doing. Sustained strings, woodwinds, staccato brass and strings, piano, and a few others can sound tolerable, depending on the samples. tl;dr: running midi through stuff is as easy as it sounds if you don't mind the terrible sound it'll have. It will not sound realistic, and will bother ppl that can tell. Sequencer lets you write notes. Synthesizer makes sound based on math (yeah, really). Mixer is where you combine different sounds, different tracks, be they instruments, effects, vocals, ambience, whatever - think of it as a mixing console like the ones in church or school or wherever - cables go in, sound comes out... somewhere. Sampler like a synthesizer in that it's something that makes sound - but it uses sampled sounds, sound files, to produce sound, and is generally more suited towards reproducing realistic sounds than synths tend to be. So you can have a few synths, a few samplers, write their respective notes in a sequencer, and combine them into a song in the mixer. A DAW combines all these in the same program. A good DAW is one that fits your workflow. If you work much with patterns (blocks of notes for different instruments) FL might be good, whereas if you prefer distinct midi regions REAPER might work better. It's hard to say, so you should just get demos and try everything out. Also, check out my remixing guide in my sig, it should hold some valuable insights. It currently doesn't have a terminology section, but a lot of other technical info is there. The section on humanizing seems like it could be especially useful to you.

That's one of the reasons I don't watch TV much anymore. As soon as the commercial break starts, the TV gets about twice as loud as whatever dramatic or interesting show I was watching. And everything has to be so loud to compete, so nobody cares to change it. The worst thing is that even commercials for pain pills get painfully loud this way. And it's not just a loss of dynamics, but there's noticeable compression in any voiceovers or extra loud sound effects that have to break through whatever loud music they've chosen for the ad. The same thing happens during some documentaries, where the voice isn't side-chained right so we just get an ugly compressor sound instead. I remember watching LOST back when, and at the start of every commercial came sponsor messages from either of two competing telecom services. Either a calm voice saying the service number and a tie-in line to the show's title "so Finns wouldn't be lost", or a loud annoying jingle singing their service number. Not only a moodbreaker, but annoyingly loud too. Some other guy noticed the loudness problem in commercials too. Anybody else bothered by this? Anybody else have a TV?

They're both repetitive, the difference is that the second is built on a groove. Besides the groove, the first minute and a half seems less repetitive. The other one has a long build-up, and is based on the piano loop. They both have blocky structures. Bad example. So what you mean by sequenced-ness is that a song builds on a noticeable groove or rhythm that doesn't change? That's a terrible definition.

Gateway drug software/freebies like Independence Free and Kore Player (Yellow Tools and Native Instruments, respectively) are quite diverse. Google them.

Poor intonation. Poorly tuned instruments. "it's art". And ugly, and annoying, and _bad_. As for the OP, sequenced-ness is the wrong word, you're talking about block-based arrangements, and they're a natural part of playing in a band (repeated parts are easier to write and get the others to play right), writing a song (if you have more than one verse or any part is repeated for whatever reason), or composing in most of the DAWs, especially pattern or loop-based ones. Sure, you can make music that never repeats anything. That's actually not a bad idea, go do that so you know a little more what you're talking about.

HP filter would probably be better, so you keep the icy highs and get rid of the warm low-mids. Can't say what the best waveform to use is but I would recommend something with more harmonics than sine. Part of it's distinctive sound comes from the tuning of the filter and the high resonance. Try the fourth or fifth harmonic with the resonance turned to max (and use a spectrum analyser or tuner if you don't wanna rely on just your ears). Another option is to use sines and a lot of EQd reverb to get rid of all the lows and some mids, but it won't be as flexible as something that's straight out of a synth. Might work better with an fm synth, as it might help creating the right overtones, but I'm not sure you actually need fm synthesis for this sound. edit: sine/noise. oh. Never mind my waveform mention then.

New version doesn't sound much better. Okay so... EQ or equalizer is a tool that's already in FL. I don't use FL so I don't know what exactly the effect is called, but you should find it. Don't know about amp sims and FL, but there's free ones on the net. It helps to not expect anyone to do anything for you. There's free resources on the net that a few minutes of googling should get you. kvraudio is notable enough to get a direct mention. I get the impression that you're expecting things to happen by themselves somehow, that your music will magically be better because you add guitar or that you'd get someone else to just appear and do the hard stuff for you. That didn't happen for any of us afaik, we had to learn stuff. it's taken most of us about two years or work to get posted, less if we already knew this stuff. If you're looking to get good at this stuff, use everything you can find, learn from everything you come across, practice, experiment, and you should do all right. I'm in the process of writing a remixing guide, link's in my sig. Feel free to read and learn from it.

Let me also suggest that you have a look at the free options available before shelling out any money on anything. If you're not used to virtual instruments, go check out the freebies Native Instruments have, whether they be feature-limited freebies or time-limted demos or whatever. This also lets you get into the products faster when you do buy them, when you're used to how the interfaces work. There's also a wide range of other freebies on the net, such as my favorite freebie synths: TAL-Elek7ro II and FreeAlpha. They come with presets. You haven't listed your DAW, so we can't comment on the tools it came with... or if it's even a full DAW. Make _sure_ it can handle the stuff you buy, or... it'll suck to be you.

I think it's common sense that ppl don't suddenly start to make good music just because they suddenly have good samples, but you felt it was worth stating anyway. Common sense - repeating it is a good thing.

I'm saying it because I bought Logic Express instead of the full version (because it was cheaper, obviously), and find myself needing some of its functions but never really wanting to shell out the cash for an upgrade; and how I bought two sample packs that would have been included in the full version. I'm saying it because the same thing happened to my sis in buying Final Cut Express instead of Pro, and it's lacking some much-needed functionality. Or my dad getting a laptop without the appropriate screen adapters, for a few bucks less probably. This just keeps happening when you settle for less. So if I'm faced with a choice between a cheaper version that lacks feature x, and a more expensive version with feature x and lots of stuff I probably won't even use, I'd still rather pay for the more expensive version, if feature x is something I think I'll need. Like how I've recently been looking to get a strings package with spiccato samples, but they're either too expensive or don't have the stuff I think I need such as an adequate number of round robins or velocity layers (physical modeling strings section plz). It gets especially annoying when you're talking to ppl who have the full version and assume you do too, or reading about all the things you can do... with the full version. You wonder why such an obvious feature wasn't included in this top-notch tool you bought, and then find that it is... in the full version. So ultimately, if you can afford it but think there's stuff in there that make you question if it's worth it - get the full version. That's why I'm saying this all the time. tl;dr: crippleware. not cool.

Any reason you shouldn't get it? Well... You shouldn't expect it to do the work for you, you'll still have to mix the tracks right to make it sound good. You get some great sounding instruments straight out of the box with it, but as with everything they're no good to you if you don't know how to use them together. Which you'll have to learn - and you can't expect to not have to learn. Then there's the hardware issue. If you have an old, underpowered computer, you won't be able to use some of the more demanding parts of Komplete. With little RAM, you won't be able to load a lot of Kontakt instruments. With a slow processor, Guitar Rig and other processing-heavy stuff might not work for you. Not everything "most ocremix composers" do is done with Komplete (and certainly not with Elements). Some people use other samples, other synths, other effects, real instruments etc.. So be careful with your expectations. And finally... the full version gets you so much more. Yes, it costs so much more, but it's worth it. If you can, buy that one instead. There's some reasons not to get Komplete Elements. That said, if you don't have anything else, it's still a good buy.

Even if you're going for a lo-fi sound, you should still strive for a high quality first and then downsample. Maybe you'll find that the drums need a different kind of low quality sound than, say, the guitar. Lo-fi - low fidelity, where fidelity is how well the sound is reproduced. Lo-fi is any sound system that doesn't do a great job at reproducing the sound accurately, whether this be distortion, added noise, clipping, crackling, or an uneven frequency balance. As for the track... Being mostly drums and bass, those elements would use a touch-up. The pad stuff works fine as-is. I'd EQ the crash to give it more highs and less mids, and maybe find more similar crash samples to avoid the crash always sounding exactly the same. Snare has a similar problem, as does the kick, but not quite prominent. The crash is also too loud. The bass sounds an octave too high, and I can hear it being a single sample being retriggered. Variable sample start, round-robin samples, subtly randomized pitch, and an amp sim would help. The amp sim being especially helpful in turning it into something more aggressive and driving rather than the clean bass you have here. Even with a guitar added, it might sound too samey and boring, I would suggest a more varied arrangement. Using hihat, ride, and crashes for variation in the drums help, tho changing the rhythm entirely would probably work even better.

Guys... not the right place to crit tracks. New guy, feel free to post on the feedback boards to get some pointers on what you're doing right and what you're doing wrong. While knowing you need a real guitar for a track is a good thing, most guitarists might not care about your track if it sounds too newby. Improve your production skills and try again later.

Now I'm done with mine. Probably.

An AU version.

Listened to the first part. This kind of music wouldn't make it on ocr anyway, so an increased size limit wouldn't solve your problems. The arrangement sounds like a series of conservative takes with awkward transitions between them. Production sounds newby, both in sound design and mixing, and the low bitrate doesn't help. There's some weird timing issues in there too. So for a number of reasons, this isn't the kind of remix ocr accepts. If you wanna get on ocr, focus on one or two songs, make a shorter arrangement in line with ocr's standards, and improve production. There's youtube, newgrounds, this forum, and some other places where you can release the track... but I wouldn't listen to it twice in its current state, so I would suggest you make an arrangement with a more natural flow and better production anyway.

Mostly nice sounds, but the louder drums sound distorted and noisy, and the 3:13 bell/string thing sounds terrible. The guitar underneath isn't that great either, but would probably work ok with a better lead. The arrangement flows ok imo, there's just the 2:42 transition that bugs me and it's not _terrible_. The intro is quite long and cool, but the mood and effects don't make up for the lack or things happening melodically. Shortening it would benefit the track overall, I think, but there are ways to just make those parts more substantial instead. I can't hear the source at all until 1:33 where it's quite far i nthe background, then it comes in at 2:34 as very conservative. From 3:13 to 4:39 I can't hear any source either. Definitely too liberal atm, but if you'd get source into those long sections without it, you'd have a really cool remix here. I'd use the e-piano or add a flute to bring bits and pieces of the source into the track. Loads of potential here, nice work.

Hi and welcome to ocr. It takes about two years to get to ocr's standards - less if you've got a music background and a good ear for production, more if you don't bother learning stuff and practicing or just aren't musically inclined. Depending on the sound and genre you wanna remix in, there's different skills and resources you need for it, but the basics are this: - DAW (cubase, mixcraft, reaper, FL...) - virtual instruments (synths, samplers and samples... there's free stuff out there) - recording equipment if you need to record anything (some instruments are still impossible to fake convincingly) I'm working on a newb guide that's supposed to teach everyone the basics of it all. It's in progress, but the important bits are there. (feedback on it welcome, see thread)

Dude, most DAWs use midi - it's a standard for notation and communication between devices. He's saying you did something close to a midi rip. It's not a knock on the software, he just feels your arrangement wasn't as good as his. And he's upset about you getting so many votes despite that.

Everyone, remember that you have to vote for all matchups in the round for your votes to count. (great, important notice as the last post on the page... when it should be visible as the first on a page, or... something)

The Haas effect works with a single signal in both left and right channels, creating a pan effect because it's slightly delayed in one channel as if the sound would reach that ear later. If you're doing this with separate takes, it's as if it's a different guitar from a different direction - and if you've hardpanned this single track, there won't be sound in the other channel/ear for the effect to actually work. If you already knew all that, it's info for ppl who didn't. As for Shreddage, which I don't have (yet), you can still create a separate take by randomizing timing and velocity (if encessary) slightly and maybe detuning the guitars ever so slightly in different directions to get something more like different takes than just splitting the signal. Screwing with mutes vs half mutes would also help, dunno if this is a SX only thing... or if you have X. And that's if Shreddage doesn't have some two-separate-takes-at-a-time feature built in, one that keeps Kontakt from using the same round robins at the same time. zircon? Beyond that, I guess it's only a matter of guitar sound and mixing.