Rozovian

Max sig pics height is 250 pixels, which is waaay more than the allowed text can occupy. Could the number of lines allowed in sigs be changed?

If you know what you're doing with it, yes it is. Otherwise it's just a weird meandering thing that doesn't know where it's going or how it's gonna get there. In that case, it's better to have a short but well handled one instead. The length is Emu's fault. But apparently I did something right.

Implying the ppl who take the time to listen and critique your work are production asshats is a great way to not get feedback from them anymore. With the cluttered mess you have during the busy sections, everything does not sound well mixed and in the right "place". Rather, it sounds like you can't tell the difference. This is not a listening setup problem, this is a mixing, or hearing, problem. Also, you're getting things mixed up. If you take an electronic mix and downsample it to 8-bit and can't hear anything wrong with it, there's something wrong with the song or with your ears. Likewise comparing a real orchestra to midi. This just tells me you don't listen critically, which will be highly detrimental to your mixing. Depends on what you want it to do, depends on what sound you're making. For a dubstep bass, I could use an lfo to control the filter, and use the modulation wheel to control the lfo rate. I can use an lfo to produce a gating effect, or just to screw with the pitch of an oscillator. Likewise with an envelope, which I can have control pitch, filter, oscillator levels, distortion, or whatever I want, depending on the sound I'm going for. Simple is great when done right, and halc and others do a great job with simple. But if you listen to this by Nase, you'll hear lots of simple instruments each given its own place in the arrangement and mixing. Here, a quick demo of a raw saw followed by an Absynth patch. It's a terrible thing to demo since you could just go listen to the presets in whatever synths you've got, then turn off filter and additional oscillator and modulation routings to get a simple sound out of it - and compare. That way you have full access to go forth and back to compare, you can try them out in different contexts - you can't compare a simple sound used as a lead to a complex sound used as something completely different, like a pad or percussion or whatever. Nothing when the bass sounds good. When it doesn't, it just sounds newby. A lead-in melody. Not beginning all melodies on the first beat also help, and not doing drastic additions like you did at 0:27. You can fade it in (probably not that great an idea), morph the sound out of an instrument already there or just introduce the instrument earlier and let it play along in lower velocity until it actually has its own thing to do.

Indeed. With a pair of good ears and a good idea about what to do about the mix, you can beat some pretty big names in this competition, especially as it's the listeners that vote and decide which track wins. You just gotta tell the good stuff from the bad stuff soon enough to still have time to change it.

Go for it. Vocals are cool with me. I'll help with the voice eq and stuff to whatever extent I can, or just point you to someone that knows that stuff way better than me and has the time to help.

That's a matter of interpretation, but it's your remix so it's up to you what you do. And there's a big difference between adapting a melody to new rhythms or harmonies, and just adding notes. You do both, but the adding of notes, especially in the higher melodies, gets annoying. Doesn't help that the sound is annoyingly newby/simple/basic/primitive/raw. The number of oscillators has very little to do with how complex a sound really is (except in FM synthesis depending on their routing), as much of the qualities of the sound doesn't come from the oscillators, but from how the sound changes over time on a scale of milliseconds to seconds. Envelopes and LFOs controlling filter and other parameters in the synth turn it from a raw oscillator sound to a complex and living sound. You're doing some automation with the bass from 0:20 and on, opening the filter, but doing this in the space of individual notes requires working with the synth, with envelopes, to make the sound seem like more than just a looped waveform. Furthermore, without placing the sounds in their own frequency area, and their own prominence "area", everything bleeds together into a mess. More like 1:28 then, got the time wrong. That part has the most instruments playing, and it's a cluttered mess of sounds all vying for each others' space. Messy. Volume, eq, and reverb. Volume to decide which ones are foreground and background - reverb to push the background ones further back - and eq to separate the sounds from each other. I work with sound and writing in parallel, which means I won't get used to an old sound while writing. I still have to fix various mix problem after the writing is done, but it's so much easier when I can write for the instruments' strength and hear approximately how it's gonna sound when the mix is done. I'm just warning you that getting used to simple, basic temp sounds means you can become deaf to how to improve the sound of the mix. Anyway, the progression... It starts off with a way too exposed bass followed by an added drum track. From 0:27 and on you've got two more instruments playing, and added strings shortly thereafter. Main melody comes in at 0:41, with only a block-based (add instrument x loop, add instrument y loop) build-up leading up to it. Then you have a second "chorus" part with a high leading melody at 1:28 (and lots of clutter). It goes on like this, block-based additions being looped and then removed. it also seems like you're rushing the whole mix in a lack of arrangement ideas. While it's difficult to change the mix interestingly without screwing with the source some, this mix kind'a needs it. It might work better with improved sounds and mixing, but I think the writing would have to be more varied and better paced. Hard criticism.

I'd be more bothered by a melody with weird added notes than a new chord progression if someone gave me a remix they said was conservative. Just sayin'. Too basic synths imo. The intro bass is especially jarring and newby while alone and exposed. Everything could be mixed better into the music. The 1:32 "chorus" thing is especially newby. Drums get boring, but sound ok. They'd probably do well to get some mixing adjustments to stay in their place like all instruments should. Improve the sounds, fit them better together with volume, eq, and reverb. You've got a great source to work with, do it justice.

I used an sd3 source in one of my GMRB tracks.

This, thanks neblix. LG has a good point tho, which I'll consider. PromoToe'd is just provoking me to use my idiosyncrasies more prominently. Am I making the compression section stuff clear enough, do you actually read the synthesis section, are the questions at the end in any sensible order, did I get overtone and harmonic mixed up, do my methods actually make sense to anyone but me, is the frequency stuff too technical, am I missing some convenient ways of saying stuff, what don't you understand, etc.?

Here's hoping the matchups won't be those listed in the first post - it provides a bit of extra time to figure out how to remix your opponent's source... or even start remixing already. Cheating! Also, here I go hating on the sig: it's too tall. Could be wider and shorter. Rozo hatin'. Otherwise it's pretty cool.

At this point, learning to mix is the main thing you should be working on. I have a remixing guide in my sig - read it, especially the parts on mixing. I'd say this sounds like a typical newb mix. It tries to stay interesting by changing instrumentation and not that much else. You've got some nice writing additions but are relying on the same rhythm throughout. Adapting it to 4/4 takes a bit of skill, dunno if you're using a 4/4 midi or if you adapted it yourself... or if you did it on purpose or not. Mixing-wise, you've got some typical newb problems too - track levels and frequency distribution. Read up on how to mix on whatever google gives you, and try to apply it all where applicable. practice with EQ, but read up on how it works and what it does. Listen to stuff, both newby stuff and more pro stuff. This might sounds abstract, but try to hear how it's mixed. You can actually hear how it's mixed when you know what to listen for. For example, how loud is the hihat, and what frequencies are its most audible (play with an EQ to learn more about frequencies... and read stuff). Same with the bass, same with the lead, same with everything. Where in the frequency range is this instrument, and where "on stage" is it (up front, in the back, center/left/right/both sides...?) I've certainly heard worse, so you're off to a good start here. Keep it up.

+1 for the rhodes. Some synths can create some close enough sounds (depending on picky you are about the sound). Found some fairly close ones using Ring Modulation or Frequency Modulation for the attack, but a synth/sampler dedicated to e-piano sounds should be a better choice. Check KVRAudio and the googles. I'm sure there are freebies with this kind of sounds.

Too much reverb and a low pass could get you fairly close. Try it.

Well, Liontamer doesn't let a mix onto ocr that isn't at least 50% source, and the rest of the panel also adhere to the "source must be dominant" rule in the submissions standards. I'll add to the "you don't need school for this" by saying that taking classes is not a bad idea if you have the opportunity, but you can learn this stuff by reading stuff on the net, by experimenting, by practicing, by figuring stuff out, by letting ppl point out what you're doing wrong. Best advice, which I've been spamming all over the place, is to try to understand all feedback, whether you agree with it or not - and apply what you agree with. Trying to understand it can mean to go look stuff up (like the terms we use on a regular basis), to try out what ppl are suggesting (take backups in case their suggestions mess stuff up), or maybe just figuring out what the person was expecting - all depending on the feedback. Anyway, lemme give you a kick forward by explaining those things you mentioned as having trouble with understanding: mid-range clutter - this is when you have a lot of sounds in the middle range of the frequency spectrum/range (see below) frequency range - every sound is made up of frequencies, and the lower a note is, the lower its low frequencies begin. by figuring out (by ear or with a spectrum analyzer) which instruments cover which ranges, you can eq the other other instruments out of those ranges to make all the instruments more clear. we often talk about lows, mids, and highs for different parts of the frequency range, but when you work with instruments you gotta divide the frequency range into more narrow parts (like tenths of the whole range or so). how you understand the frequency range and refer to it doesn't matter, as long as you know what it is and can work with it. compression - a compressor pushes the sound together so loud parts get softer but soft parts are still soft. because the compressor is usually a bit slow to react (you can set how fast it should react) you get a volume drop right after a loud note. listen to how everything else goes soft when a bass drum hits. that's compression. excess lows - not all instruments need low frequencies at the level they have them, and some effects (like reverb) can add some unnecessary lows. you can get rid of frequencies that don't add to the sound by using an eq. filtering - a filter lets some things through and blocks others. in a mixing context, we're talking about frequencies. a typical filter cuts out high frequencies and makes things sound muffled (low pass - low frequencies are passed, high frequencies are cut). the opposite filter does, well, the opposite thing, lets high frequencies through and blocks lows. Combining these, and making the filter edge more prominent (called resonance) can give you some neat effects, especially if you change them over time (automation). dynamics - dynamics usually refers to the changes in levels over time. soft part, loud part. it can also be applied to intensity rather than strictly to volume. mellow part, intense part. changes in dynamics make a track more interesting. mixing - mixing is the process of combining individual tracks (instruments, singing, sound effects, stuff) into a single track (song, output, mp3), and all the tools and techniques we use to do this. Do check out my in-progress remixing guide (in my sig) for some more info, and let me know if I'm explaining stuff well enough there, am missing something, am wrong, or whatever.

Let's put it like this: I've heard worse passed of as better. There's a lot you could improve with this. The lead is too loud and gets whiny and the drums don't really cut through. Sounds as if it's barely mixed at all. It's also quite conservative, but I guess that was the point.

I actually like the sound design here, except that first instrument. Mixingwise, there's the aforementioned reverb issues, low and mid range clutter, and a lack of giving each track its own place in the frequency range. There's some compression issues that might be resolved by cutting excess lows from tracks. Of course, the drum loop does get old, mixing it up with a different loop or intercutting or filtering them would give you more variation and dynamics to the rhythm tracks. The lead is an octave too low to really cut through and just adds to the low range clutter and compression problems. Making the source stand out some more wouldn't hurt. Dude, more effort on the mixing, less on the post.

Sound a bit tinny in the beginning, especially with the choir thing's short attack, but you've got some cool sound design stuff here. With everything mixed to its right place you should have a solid mix here. I like the rhythms here, and the ambience or background sounds, and the overall sound design, really. It just seems a bit raw, the tracks haven't yet fallen into place. Some eq and level edits should get you there. No comment on source, tho. Why am I getting a Monkey Island vibe from this?

Tone yes. And whatever else you need to fix so it sounds less... well, wrong. An obviously fake guitar can be more enjoyable than the uncanny valley of guitar sound. There's some performance-tricks you could employ too, like little bends and vibrato and stuff. Work on the performance and tone, and you'll have a better lead. I couldn't make out what it was previously, so yes, you need the lead melody needs to be louder. When you arrange, you can make the lead be whichever melody you want, tho. it just gotta be audible.

Yup, it's a cover, but a kickass one at that. Bass drum sounds too loud to me. Lead guitar doesn't sound right around 0:42. Melody gets buried around the 1:40 part. Putting some more thought into the levels of the tracks should solve a lot of your problems. Find some good reference tracks to compare with and you shouldn't have much trouble getting it right. If you wanna get it on ocr, you're gonna have to write your own arrangement. Not just a cover with some deviations. That said, this could be pretty big on youtube by itself.

Bass drum is too loud and has too much reverb, the backing 6-note thing seems muffled, choir is too loud, lead is too soft. Put some thought into the placement of the track, specifically how loud and how prominent they should be. Right now the piano is upfront, which is good, followed by drums, choir, and then the other instruments. Those other instruments include your leads, and I don't think they're supposed to be in the background. You can make them more prominent with volume, eq, and possibly some mild distortion to increase the amount of higher frequencies present in the sound. Be really careful not to overdo it, tho. When the piano comes in, the rhythm is caught between the rhythm that's you've had before then and the one the piano has. The choir especially throws me off at that point. Consider rewriting the drums and either rewriting or dropping the choir for that part. Arrangement consists of two blocks of pretty much the same, broken up by the inclusion of the piano and the subsequent breakdown. Would be cool if they were different from each other. You can screw with the chords, the rhythms, the instrumentation, whatever. You've got some cool drum sounds here, but the drum writing could change as the track progresses. Make it build up to a high point near the end of it. It doesn't have to be a big dramatic thing, just a little more than before. More variation, better placement and mixing, some dynamics to the overall progression, and you'll have a pretty cool track here. Lots of potential, nice take on the source. Hope this helps.

I was just told that Sam English is done with his track, and I have his wav, so why wasn't it blue before? And Sixto is working on a track of which I haven't heard a recent wip despite that it's almost done, what's up with that? It's simple - this project is a mess to coordinate. +1 wav is it can be consent form signed for all the tracks, too? Also, where are you guys who've claimed tracks and made some progress, even, but then don't keep in touch? Lots of cool tracks that won't be on this album if you guys don't come back.

Everything on ocremix is available to you, as long as you follow the Terms of Use (middle section of the linked page). Basically, give the artist and ocremix credits in the video description. Link to the remix page. Because videos tend to move from youtube to other video sharing sites, it'd be best if you'd also include that stuff in the video itself, usually at the end of it, like with movie credits. Beyond those, there's aspiring remixers on the feedback board that might be interested in doing some tracks for you, plus other remixing communities like Dwelling of Duels and remix.thasauce.net (with some overlap between the communities). Check those sites for how they feel about you using their remixes.

idunno, sure, go sign it. And yup, bio plz. You _are_ on the project. So are the rest of you! Sign it, send me your bio, send me your track notes... and your wavs. Wavs! WAVS! (I shouldn't be awake atm)

*ahem* But yes, A VST is a plugin, which can be a sampler, a synth, and effect, or possibly something else. Logic uses Mac OS X's own plugin format, AU. If you mean to say virtual instrument, say that instead. btw, didn't we have a discussion about using loops fairly recently? Could be worth linking to.