Gario

I think it needs work, but it's very difficult to distribute feedback on 20+ tracks at once. Find one or two from this album that you feel you could use advice on, and post individual threads. I also suggest not coming onto the WIP boards with a defensive attitude against "haters" - you're asking for help and criticism, so people WILL criticize your music, no matter how good it is. You're asking for the feedback, and from it will be criticism, so simply be ready to listen; it will help make you a better musician, if you are receptive to it. That's not to say you're not welcome, if you get significant criticism - I think if you post individual tracks for criticism and are receptive to the crits, you'll be quite welcome on here. I do hope this helps you find your way around here, and I hope you get good advice in here.

Very nice muted trumpet - not nearly enough of that in people's remixes. It has such a nice, calming quality to it, and you really use it as it should be used in this. The performances in general are pretty good, and the arrangement does a nice job playing around with the source once it picks up. The brush drums are slick when they come in at 1:17, though the pattern used seems to repeat for the rest of the song. That being said, the arrangement seems to be lacking direction a little bit. From the change in drum style in the middle of the track (that four to the floor comes and goes at 0:30 - 1:00, never to be heard again), to the repetitious use of the piano backing chords (nice change of chords from 1:20 - 1:47, though, that was neat), it feels like a jam session where the performers didn't quite land on an idea to develop yet. It's a good jam session, but it doesn't feel like a complete piece of music, yet. The track overall is also pretty quiet, too, so be sure to raise those levels, if you can. The performances are good, and the ideas in the track are things that you could develop fully in a longer track, but what is here sounds incomplete. I like it, though, and I hope you expand this song and explore what you can do with the ideas that you present here. NO

Very pretty, and there are some cool little embellishments to the piano parts. I've got to agree with Chimp that this is very, very close to the source, in instrumentation, percussion, style, atmosphere and note usage. What's here is very well done, and the production is spot on, but unfortunately it doesn't fit with the goals of OCR, due to it being too conservative. Thanks for sharing your work with us, though! NO

I'm liking this. It's got some very delicious jazz throughout, and a sexy sax solo in the middle. The brass really makes this track sound 'big', and all of the instruments together produces a great, colorful sound overall. Altogether the performances are a little loose (sometimes the instruments don't quite line up proper, such as at 4:15 with those arpeggiating instruments). The recordings are pretty clean, too, which is always a good thing. The first metroid source is unmistakeable, but the second source is a bit trickier to hear. I'm hearing bits and pieces being improvised throughout the solo in the middle, but it comes and goes. 1:21 - 3:02 is tricky to pull source from, but since the track is five minutes long, and the rest of the track's source is easy to recognize (from the first game), I think this has more than enough source for OCR. In the beginning, the saxophone pans hard to the right. While it's not an issue once everything comes in, when it's more bare it sticks out like a sore thumb, on headphones. That mic doesn't need to be panned that hard - setting the panning level to +/- 40 should be enough to give you space without making the saxophone sound so alone on that speaker when it's not accompanied. This isn't really a dealbreaker, though, as when everything is together it doesn't sound distracting at all. The recording is quite good, as I mentioned before, but it's very quiet, and save for one or two spikes it remains very quiet throughout the entire track. Those levels need to go up higher. Fortunately, since the offending instruments that keep the levels down are very few and sparse, it's a very easy thing to fix - limit the track down by about 5dBs, then raise the levels by the same amount. Technically this causes production issues with the parts that I mentioned, but they're so short and inconsequential it's worth it for the boost in volume. Otherwise, I think it's a great song - certainly good enough for OCR. The volume is an issue, though, so my vote is conditional until you raise your levels properly - in this case, it's literally just raising the volume on the exported track - a two minute fix, on Audacity. YES/CONDITIONAL (on raising volume)

Holy crap, you're right, that's how the track is designed. That's a bit embarrassing, for me - gonna scratch the section on this being too conservative. I will argue that there are pieces from the source that are embellished in that section (such as the lick at 1:15 - 1:17 mimicking 0:23 - 0:24 in the source, for example), but there is a lot of original material in there, as well. Glad you pointed that one out. It doesn't affect my vote negatively, so I'm still a 'YES', but it's good to be corrected on that front.

Mmm, tasty metal. The production values are very high, as are the performance... values. The guitar playing is great, and the drums compliment the arrangement precisely as they should. The balance of the guitars sound fine, for me, but I agree that the drums are mixed just a little quiet. It's not breaking the track, or anything, but they could be mixed into the track a little better. The arrangement is conservative, but the arrangement does a good job of really transforming it into a stand alone metal track in its own right. I feel the overall atmosphere pulls this track's weight well enough. I can hear Chimp's concerns about repetition, though - some parts sound pretty close. Sections like 0:17 & 1:01, for example, sound very similar. Most of the time, though, there's something that differentiates it from a prior section (drum pattern being different, addition of small background instruments, small doublings, etc.) that helps mitigate the issue, but it does still feel repetitive, from time to time. The fade out ending is also unimpressive. Hell, this could've ended on a single chug of the guitar and it would've worked fine, but the fade out makes the song sound a little incomplete. While I can understand Chimp's vote on this, I don't agree that these are dealbreaking issues. The performances are great, the production values are solid and it's a clever take on the source material. I can honestly see this swinging either way, but I think it just hits the bar, as is. If it doesn't pass due to repetition or the conservative arrangement, make the different elements of the repetitions more salient and noticeable, mix the drums a little louder, and give the track a proper ending. YES

Oooooh shit, my Zeal track was just compared to one of MY personal favorites on the site (dat Catacombs track). This pleases me. This arrangement is also awesome. The singing is on point, the autotuning is certainly stylistic, here (no one at DrumUltimA's production level would accidentally make autotune so noticeable), and it's sexy as shit. The chill backing instruments compliment the whole thing so damn well, too... Just pure goodness all around.

Wait, this doesn't have a remix? That's pretty shameful. Also, such painful "I Wanna Be the Guy" memories... ._.

Oh my God, I literally was just listening to this from his album two minutes before Larry posted his comments on it - I had no idea Rushjet1 was posting any of his arrangements on here. Forgive me for geeking out a little bit, but this makes me happy as hell. Not that I can add much to what has already been said, but it's incredibly impressive just how much Rushjet1 has pulled from such a sparse source. There's a lot of original writing in this, but it's very solidly based on that rising, repetitive motif. Changing chords, antecedent/consequence form, generative development of new themes and motifs that build off of the previous material... if anyone wants a lesson on how to develop a simple source in rich, interesting ways, study this track. It's incredible. The production is good, pushing great. I'd argue it's not astounding, as far as regular (or even chiptune) standards go, but it's still pretty solid. This track does a very good job establishing instruments and timbres that fill the space effectively, and the panning of the elements helps give the different channels some depth. There are a few cool tricks that are used to emulate things like delay and reverb, but overall the track has surprisingly few tricks that many chiptune artists utilize - this track would rather simply build instruments and let the arrangement do the core of the work. Considering the arrangement quality, that isn't a bad thing. The arrangement is incredible, and the production is good, overall. I'm very glad to see people giving this a solid vote. My hopes are that this can act as a flagship for other chiptune artists to send some of their even more timbrally rich and complex remixes our way - it's a very under-represented genre, on here. YES

Hmm. Well, it is what it is. If they can't do any sort of touching up on it (which I had some suspicion was the case), then it's worth it to see if the issues are absolutely crushing, rather than just something that was more an ideal to fix. They're a problem, but it really would be a shame to drop this entirely due to some intonation in the beginning. Going through it a few more times, it's acceptable. Would've been better with the tighter tuning, but I think a 'warts and all' approach is a valid one, in this case - there's too much good in this to reject it entirely based on a few intonation errors. YES

Ooo, an improve, sudden jazz album, out of the blue! Nice. There's a lot of really awesome saxophone playing throughout, and the e-piano works great with it. The drums are dry and drum-machine-y throughout, but they're not terribly sequenced, either - they could just use some humanizing TLC, overall. Yeah, I'd call this jazz. It's a very soft jazz, but it still has decent improve over the VG tune base throughout. Like you said, there's many types of jazz out there (not that I'm THAT familiar with it all). One tiny thing, though - since you're posting this in the WIP boards, you should label this as an album. Otherwise, it looks like you're posting a bunch of individual tracks in the same thread, which is looked down upon (and against the forum rules, even). It seems that this is intended as an album, though, so just put that tag on there and/or make it clear that it's an album on the title. I enjoyed it, though, for what it was worth. It certainly is rough (Bowler's points are not inaccurate), but for a ten hour investment it's pretty darn good. Nice work!

Haa, your user name is appropriate, this IS smooth. Lovin' your vocals on this. Did you do the production on this too, or is this overlaid on top of the source? I can't tell, since there's no link to the source. Either way, this is pretty slick. If I had one thing that to bring up, sometimes the vocals stay in the same place (tone, pitch, style) for longer periods of time than I'd like (such as from 0:12 - 0:37), but it's not too big of a deal. I like it. Keep it comin'!

EVAL Ooo, this has a bit of a modern space-y sound to it, a bit of Strauss (Waltz King) and Strauss (Ego-centric Romanticist) influences in this. Really solid arrangement, and the source seems to be well represented. The orchestration is solid. I feel sometimes it relies a little too heavily on the low strings to carry the theme, so it feels a little predictable after six minues, but it isn't a big deal. At 2:14, the attack on the strings is a little high, creating a tiny swell for each note. Your other phrases sound near perfect. Yeah, not much I can add to this, it's pretty darn good. I think it'll pass, as is.

Oh, awesome. Chiptunes are pretty sweet - glad I could introduce you to them! I think this came out in January, though First post is updated with minor mixing changes, will not be working on it further (got more things to work on!). Thanks for the input, everyone, it helps greatly!

If anyone needs my submissions from ThaSauce, I'm sure I still have them archived somewhere. Yeah, I noticed the remix portion of the site was down about a week ago, but I didn't know whether it was a temporary thing or if something happened to the site. :/

Man, this is really good. It does a great job driving that theme home, and it does it in different ways throughout. Nice, clean acoustic guitar in the beginning, funkifying it up later, breaks it up with some synth-y stuff, then ends it with some straight up heavy goodness. I hear the concern that this could be conservative (and it is), but I think more than enough personality went into how it does quite a few different styles and soundscapes throughout the performance. The performances were pretty good. The acoustic guitar is a bit loose on the performance, though. It would improve greatly with a tighter performance. The chords used at 1:53 (and similar parts) seems a little bit off - making that chord major introduces an augmented chord that doesn't sound right in that context. It's not a big deal, but it is worth mentioning. The synth strings that play in the background of 2:11 - 2:51 are pretty plain and uninteresting. Some reverb, perhaps another effect (like distortion) could've made that more complex, as right now it doesn't sound like it fits with the rest of the song. Otherwise, I think this is awesome. Do keep sending us more awesome music. YES

Mmm, got some nice power behind this arrangement. Drums drive the whole thing forward, and you got some great synth wankery going down in the middle, there. The production seems decent, too, so you've got a lot going for you on this. The harmonies used are literally used throughout the track, without change. They get very stale, after a while. I mean, they're a great chord progression, but it leaves the listener wanting something different after nearly seven minutes of the arrangement. There are other chord patterns used in the source, even - please change it up even a little bit, from time to time. The harmonies that are used throughout are linked to the source, but since they never change it just washes over the listener, becoming difficult connect them as the source after a while. Aside from that, there's one melodic hook that keeps this connected to the source. From my count, that theme is playing in some form or another from 0:00 - 1:33, 3:58 - 4:19 and 4:41 - 6:07. In a 6:52 track, that equates to 48.5%. Technically, the harmonies are related to the source, but since they never change it really doesn't take me back to the source; I'm going to make a judgment call and say this is a little too liberal for OCR, as it stands. I hear the fadeout on this, and normally I'd suggest giving it a proper ending, but I'm going to argue that it works alright, in this case. I like the new material that it fades into - it seems appropriate for this track. It's close, in my mind, but I think this is a little too liberal, as it stands, and the chord usage is pretty repetitive, to boot. Change up the chords, hell, even consider using the other chord patterns in the source - doing that even for one section would help a lot. Incorporate a little more source into this (there's a LOT of source that you can draw from), possibly even incorporating it better into the solo-ing portions of the track. Doing that will be enough to switch my vote in your favor, as it's a pretty slick arrangement otherwise. NO

Atmosphere galore! Those cluster chords in the pads, the sparse (yet effective) textures, the gating effects... This has a whole lot going for it. The snare that utilizes the heavy reverb sounds a little too heavy on the reverb. I know the effect is intentional, but it still sounds a bit overwhelming. I really don't have much else to say about it, I think it did just what it's supposed to do, source is clearly there, production is pretty clean. I think it's a solid track, great work. YES

First and foremost, why is this track so quiet? Just putting it in Audacity, I pushed over 8 dBs by maxing the amplification option - without adding even a bit of clipping in it. Always raise your levels, if no production issues arise when you do so - I see no reason one wouldn't do that. I like the style that this track has - it really does feel like an old spaghetti western. The vocal vox, although cheezy as all hell, I think even adds to this atmosphere. I'm surprised the source lends itself so well to this style. Overall, though, the arrangement seems to feel empty and sparse. Even raising the levels, there seems to be virtually no bass, and the only instrument for a good while other than the lead is a quiet pad. Eventually another instrument doubles the lead, but all that really does is make one part louder - it doesn't contribute to filling the track out. The organ that comes in even later helps, but there's still nothing that counts as bass. The lack of percussion really drives that empty soundscape home - aside from a few hits of the bassdrum and woodblock (used quite effectively, by the way), there's nothing there. There's not really much I can say to this, other than it doesn't feel finished. Flesh out what you have here - give it a bass instrument, be willing to fill the harmonies out more, etc.. Also, raise your levels - there's no reason for this to be so quiet. NO

Ooo, nice drums. Although they get repetitive, the bass sounds pretty meaty. Very fitting for a good ol' EDM arrangement. The structure sticks pretty close to the source, but I like what you did with the themes in the middle of the track. There's potential to weave what you composed alongside the original source material and have it play off of itself, which you do a little bit of at the end. The overall soundscape seems a little static. It doesn't really sound like much changes throughout the arrangement. At about 2:20 it seems to lighten up, which is a relief - perhaps a few more moments like that sprinkled in the track would be helpful. The ending ends up sounding kind of hollow, though - the synth you use at the end there just doesn't seem to fit with the rest of the track, for me. That could simply be my opinion, though. I like it, though. Nice work - hopefully some of what I said helps.

This is pretty darn good. In the beginning the arrangement feels like it sticks pretty close to the source, but it takes some interesting harmonic liberties later on into the track, and it purposely retains the ethereal quality that the source starts off with (whereas the source builds into something more majestic). It's close, but I think there's just enough reinterpretation for this to pass on the arrangement front. The orchestration is pretty good, although sometimes with the backing textures it feels a bit static. The flute sometimes loses its place in the mix when it goes into its lower range (like at 1:59), though it's not too prominent an issue. The strings sound like their release cuts short from time to time in order to make room for the swelling attacks - listen to the backing strings at 1:10 - 1:12 for an example of this. Let the strings release a little more naturally - reverb alone should have the strings have at least a little sound bleeding into the next, unless you have the strings decrescendo prior to the next chord they play (which you do for other string parts in this track, such as the strings at 1:25). Overall, though, these issues are quite minor - the humanization is very well done in this arrangement. The overall volume of this is needlessly quiet. I can push an extra dB by simply importing the song into Audacity and amplifying it without affecting the production quality at all. A rule of thumb - if you can raise the volume of the track without introducing any production errors at all, you should do so. Otherwise, I think this is a pretty good arrangement. It's conservative, but I feel there are some subtle changes that occur in some of the reharmonization and the retention in the overall ethereal feel that give this just enough reinterpretation, for me. I can see others knocking it down on it being too conservative, but I think it's okay, on that front. Nice work, I hope to hear this on the front page. YES

Mmm, not enough Mega Man Network representaion on here, and this arrangement does a nice job taking the best elements out of the source and running with it. There's also some really great lead synth work, too - there's a lot of little grace notes, portamento tweaks, pitch bends etc., that really liven this up. The sequence that occurs at 0:02 - 0:08 is quite recurring in this track, in precisely this format. 6 repetitions from 0:02 - 0:39, 4 repetitions from 0:54 to 1:30, alternates between it and other source 4 times from 1:30 - 2:08 and finally closes off with 6 more repetitions at 2:59 - 3:35. The pattern is really dominating when it's there. Due to how often it comes up, it really wears on the listener. I'd suggest cutting a few of those repetitions off (perhaps cutting the six repetitions to four, cutting the four to two, etc.), or consider varying the pattern periodically. Right now, even with all of the cool envelope work on the lead, the track becomes difficult to listen to due to the repetitiveness of that pattern. The instruments overall sound like they're lacking in the upper EQ space, a little bit. Some of your more prominent leads could use a bit of an EQ boost in the upper range, to help fill the EQ space that's lacking, at the moment. Overall, it's a pretty decent arrangement, but that repeating pattern really drags this down. Cut some of those repeating sections out, or at the very least change them up so it doesn't sound like the pattern is repeating over and over again. Also, consider brightening up some of the instruments with some upper EQ, in order to fill the space a little better. NO

Pretty much that. With practice, you become good enough to get most sequences down with one or two listens, but it takes a lot of just going out there and doing it. In the mean time, slowing things down isn't recommended, as that means either the pitch slows as well, or confusing artifacts mess you up (like slowing down with Paulstretch, or something similar). Either pull individual notes out like this, or set the part on repeat and dictate notes one or two at a time. You'll get it, soon enoungh.

I think you might be mixing up some terminology, here. You're likely looking for me to make the melody and background elements more distinct (they're "vying for attention at the same time", at the moment). If I mix the background elements down, the melody and the background square won't fight for the same melodic space. That was the point that Nikanoru was making, and I agreed to give more space to the melody by simply mixing the background down a little bit. That would have nothing to do with counterpoint, though, which would literally be changing what notes are being played instead (which wouldn't fix the root problem). Panning could work too, actually, but the way I achieve a fuller sound for the melody and some background elements (like the other organ) is to pan delays on both speakers set at different feedback levels (mixed appropriately lower than the actual synth). I can still pan something if I want to (I do it at various points in this song, in fact), but I would need to be careful not to clash with these already panned elements. Just an FYI to show that I'm listening, but there actually IS a reason I'm avoiding panning the elements presented that you couldn't have been aware of. I do appreciate the feedback, though - there are things that my ears have gotten used to that people's comments have made more clear, for me.

Nice breakdowns, you two. I hear where you're coming from now, Nikanoru - there could be a little less competition for the space in there. If I have time I'll go back and open it up a little bit. Thanks for the timestamp, that helps me focus on what you're hearing. Funny enough, I actually adjusted the volumes at the second version of that later in the track, which is likely why that isn't as much of an issue. I'll give that bit a pass again, as far as balancing. I hear the issue with the pads, Timaeus. I'll see if I can balance them a little better - the original had them quite quiet, so I may have overcompensated them in this version. Thanks for the criticisms - I will do what I can to make this even better. Oh boy. I would suggest you investigate counterpoint a little bit, if your point is to avoid conflicting motion (you could mean otherwise, but that's how it reads) - your point is literally the opposite of what you're supposed to do, with good counterpoint. Contrary motion (e.g. voices moving against one another) is literally the best method of motion, and should be what you strive to achieve whenever possible. Similar and imperfect parallel motion are your methods of compromise, when counter motion isn't possible anymore (perfect parallel motion is strictly forbidden, by the way). Counterpoint is literally the art of making voices sound independent while still working well harmonically. Good voice leading follows the same rules, so it's also useful for creating as pleasing a motion from chord to chord as possible. It's... literally one of my areas of specialty, from college, so I will set the contrapuntal record straight any time I see it come up on the forums. But yeah, for the love of Counterpoint, use contrary motion whenever possible. If anyone ever has questions about it, by the way, I'm literally always up to discuss it. *end rant* Apologies if that seems a little wordy, but counterpoint errors is one of my biggest pet peeves. Just ask Rozo or Willrock - I've had historic clashes on these forums on it, in the past.