timaeus222

Haha, yeah, I just wanted to be as clear as possible, so sometimes I elaborate a lot. =P

I have to say, I agree with Joe on the emptiness of the textures. You need some filler material, like pads, arps, or harmonies, earlier on than 2:00. The emptiness makes it more plodding because I keep thinking you'll add to the soundscape. That could have helped the progression a little, but it never happened for the first two minutes. I partially agree that the sidechaining is too heavy. I don't think it hurts the entire track, per se, but a hefty chunk of it, sure. At 0:29 - 0:36, I would say that it is because there's a silent kick. At 0:42 - 0:56 and onwards, it's more ok, but at 0:36 - 0:42, I would reduce the Ratio by maybe 20%. Also, I know it's stylistic preference, but I just don't like 0:42 - 0:56. Buildups don't have to have the same note playing on repeat almost the whole time (hey, at least it's not rising in pitch ). I end up focusing on that note and forgetting it's even a buildup. I would use an actual part of the source tune in there, maybe in an arpeggiated modification, and have some wobble-esque risers perhaps. For example, you could have used that hook you keep using from 0:56 - 0:57 with more velocity variation, faster sequencing, and automated the velocity response up, creating the illusion that some notes are disappearing in the middle of the melody. Those toms were great though. After 0:56 it sounds sorta ok, but like mentioned earlier, yeah, needs more body to the soundscape. If you end up getting overcompression by adding more harmonies, then try steeply high passing the kick drum at 35Hz. Saves some headroom. If that isn't enough, lower the volume of everything individually (not with the Master fader) until you don't hear it anymore. I'd go until the peak dB is about -0.5~-0.2. I wouldn't say to use the Master fader because it doesn't really fix overcompression that could be caused by the instruments themselves being too loud before reaching the Master channel---it just makes the overcompression quieter. I think 1:51 could have lasted longer. I don't see any breakdown section to give a break from the main electro house sections, which are pretty high energy, other than that 7 second one. Also, this gets repetitive due to the similarities in the melodic usage throughout, and this is the biggest issue here. It's like you're using a hook a lot. Okay, try this: count how many times you use the melody at 0:56 - 0:57. I counted 22. What is this I don't even--- So... try syncopating the second of each repetition differently. Maybe glitching each subsequent second instance. I dunno, differentiate them each time, and it'll feel less repetitive. Additionally, 1:10 - 1:17 was copy-pasted at 1:17 - 1:24, 1:37 - 1:44, 1:44 - 1:51, 2:32 - 2:39, 2:39 - 2:46, 2:59 - 3:06, and 3:06 - 3:13. Literally, every single time you used it, it was exactly the same melody. Change it up each time. Do something more than just changing the drums and bass notes (which are sub, btw, so it's not extremely accessible in terms of who can hear it). It's over half of the source usage. This could be rejected for these copy-paste reasons alone; no joke. Overall, I would focus on fixing the repetition. You could do two-in-one and address the soundscape emptiness too. Yeah, sure, why not. This might help as a reference, or maybe this.

Yeah, it sounds better. Good improvement. It wasn't as clear earlier that the bass was wide since it was panned, but now I do think the bass should be narrowed. If you have some sort of stereo enhancement plugin, try doing the opposite (stereo reduction). The bass is sorta taking up the space that the "psych noise" and the lead synths are occupying. Try perhaps 30~50% mono? The kick is punching through pretty well. Maybe pan some of your hi hats, too. There are on-the-beat hi hats and off-the-beat hi hats; perhaps each one on opposite sides? Conventionally, hi hats are panned like on a drum kit, but since it's electronic, feel free to do what seems to make sense. This might be a nice reference for a nice "stereo field".

It can do chords, but if you just play single notes, then generally it plays octaves to sound like that. When you play chords, if you arpeggiate/roll the notes very quickly, it's pretty similar.

Audio Example So yeah, I checked, and here's a synth pic. The patch is just so that you can play chords and it arpeggiates them. It's a 1/64 division at 130 BPM. You might be able to imitate that through just fast sequencing. Audio Example

Just wanna bring up that I use FL Studio, for the doubles tourney.

Hehe, I just recalled the name from Ravenspiral's music theory guide.

It's basically an arp patch playing octave intervals. I usually end up using 32nd notes. IIRC, it might be a pulse wave?

Nah. If anything, they would be taking loads of middle-eastern influence in this with the sitar emulation and the Mohammedan scales. Wah guitar is nice and all, but it doesn't remind me enough of dubstep here. That's like saying using a filter LFO with distortion = dubstep, because that's basically what's happening to that guitar (though yes, there is more to it than that). Still retaining the metal quality here IMO. Cool song though. One of my favorite artists, actually.

The cheesiness might be because there are sometimes sustains in places where staccatos can feel more natural. Also, 0:23 - 0:24 (and 2:11, 3:07 and 3:17, among other places) sounds a touch stiff, so the sequencing seems like a plausible reason. Pretty sure Larry would catch it and have a nice laugh about it. ;D At 0:28, the brass-like synth patch might accidentally be perceived as fake, but I dunno. I think the guitar gets a little loud in the low-mids~mids at 0:42 - 0:54. I agree that at 1:30-ish (1:26-1:38 ), the lead gets a bit loud. I'd say the bells are part of it. They're currently only adding the frequencies, and not really an audible pitch, so I don't think it would hurt if you lowered their velocities there. Additionally, the bells sound a little thin and inconspicuous after 1:38, so maybe it would be fine if you just changed up the textures by leaving it out after that? Or just maybe find a new bell patch with more body? And moar cheeze brass at 1:38, sounding a little bit "nasal". I agree that the 2:25 strings on the left aren't feeling connected. You can probably help that a little by overlapping the ends of notes. Nice jazz doo wop vox, by the way. Sounds like the ones from Roland pianos or maybe Omnisphere. Lastly, I'm thinking maybe 3:26 doesn't *really* need those bells, but that's up to you. may be a good reference for this kind of style.

Yeah, just do a simple search; you know the source tune title.

I think he said it was at 4:13.

I agree about the recording quality. To me it seems very quiet and a bit thin somehow. Personally I feel it's a substantial hindrance to my enjoyment of this. You might also get some crits on the hardness of the piano tone, as it's a big enough deal for me. Not enough by itself, but combined with the awkward... angle (?) of the recording and the apparent lack of much bass frequencies, those I think would be the major issues here. As for the actual arrangement, is this supposed to be very interpretive or just a cover? I'm not sure since you said "more a transcription than an arrangement".

y u procrastinate bro

Without the lyrics, it just would be rejected outright. The melodic instruments playing the source usage are so minimal and occasionally mechanical, and the drums are just flat. Sorry, I can't really get into this, because the lyrics are not exactly tasteful. :/

stealth talkback >.<

Wow, this is so good! Okay, yeah, the vocals were hard to understand, sure, but the harmonies, the melodic contour... they just make this more modern than it actually is. The vocoder wankery towards the end is hilarious.

I think I see why it might be cheesy. 3:08 kinda sounds like it could be some lovefest music with those SWEET harmonies. : D

+1 Exactly, recording in 24-bit vs. 16-bit might sound noticeably different, because some instruments just need that extra bit of detail to capture the little nuances. http://embertone.com/instruments/friedlanderviolin.php ^ There's a note there that says:

It's similar. If you don't have a sample library, which generally have CC11 available, you can certainly automate the volume knob instead (I would actually use the volume multiplier knob within the Wrapper since you have a wider capable range). For example, with soundfonts you would have to do it that way because they don't have CC programmed into them, even though volume for them is just amplitude of the currently played sample. CC11, from what I've read, is an "additional" volume control; what that means is that you can adjust the volume one way in your DAW, but if there comes a time you need to simultaneously have volume swells AND have it reach a specific volume during the swell that happens to be louder than the current maximum (expanding your dynamic range), for example, then CC11 can help with that. Another way to say it is that it's a local volume control, rather than a global volume control. --- In short, you can use the volume knob; it's just a little less flexible with only that on hand.

Man, all y'all are in the East. D:<

From what I've used, 24-bit and 16-bit samples are so negligibly different in quality that I would rather use the 16-bit samples just to conserve physical memory. If your 24-bit samples are actually noticeably different from your 16-bit counterparts, there's something inconsistent. I can't tell the difference between my 24-bit samples I have in LASS compared to the 16-bit samples... at all.

Naw, I think the lead is alright so far. Also, now that I listen more closely, at 2:58, the rhythm guitar is really loud all the way to the end of the piece. It might be because it's playing full strums instead of mutes, so the upper mids frequencies are more present.

This is excellent; all the background components are on point, and the vocals are pretty spot-on, too.

This is a hard one to mix. The harmonics in the guitar sound pretty piercing when played so often. :S