timaeus222

Thanks, bro! Yeah, I had lessons for about 6 years in classical and 2 in jazz.

Yeah, the guitar sounds like it has no round robins at all. Each part with multiple repeated notes in a row sounds as if it's retriggered. In other words, the phase of the sound resets on every note on the same velocity. It's not necessarily off-putting, but yeah, it's fake and not sufficient for a remix with so many organic instruments playing. Same thing as above with the e. piano and piano. Since their velocity ranges are rather small (all three instruments), there is very little variation in their tonal hardness and character, which heightens the stiffness. However, the piano is substantially quieter than other instruments in the beginning, so it's not as big of a deal to me at that part. At 1:30, it's more of an issue though since it's more exposed, and at 1:48 the fast notes reveal its stiffness the most. Good news is that there is thankfully some reverb to hide the stiffness a little. The bongo work is interesting, though a little loud, especially that last hit at 1:04. The strings aren't bad, as they were sequenced within the confines of what you had on hand. For some reason, at 1:49 - 2:10 things are quite indistinct. I can very barely tell what notes are being played or what harmonies are being made. I guess the volumes are very close to each other and frequencies in the upper mids are overlapping; as you go more to the edges (far left/right) of the frequency spectrum, it's harder to hear frequencies clashing, but if enough of them are, then clarity is an issue. Right now, things don't sound muddy there, but they are also not clear enough.

I'm finding the dynamics to be relatively constant until 2:47. I can't tell how far along I am if I skip forwards and backwards in the track. Texturally it feels really similar throughout the whole ReMix. Overall it's a bit too bright IMO, and the mixing is a little too hot. The writing sounds good, it's just the dynamic contrast that makes this feel "one-noted" to me.

Use bookmarks?

This is pretty awesome! Some tight bass work here, too!

For me, 0:24 was a substantial jump in volume. Maybe a riser or reverse that covers a larger dynamic range could connect this part a little less jarringly. The volume in either part is fine, and I think it's just the connection that's the issue here. I agree with Moseph on the brass being boomy at 1:22, but it's just slight on my side. Other than that, at least for me, although I agree with Moseph on the reverb, stereo field, and MIDI CC, I feel like it's not a very big deal. Still sounds quite good to me. Try listening to this as an example of a very polished orchestral piece. Maybe it'll help.

It's okay, mixing with live samples is hard! I haven't done it before. Funny though, we have the same headphones.

The lo-fi-ness just means that it sounds *as if* it is a low encoding---the uppermost treble is a little low overall. Other than the drums, there's not much above 13000Hz. Since the orchestra is samples, that treble's essentially all good; the drums' treble seems good; maybe it's just the other live performances that make it seem that way.

Hm... the kick and snare get a bit buried below it all. Also, for some reason the bass instrument sounds a bit stuffy, like it was overboosted in the low mids or something. 1:17 - 1:41 and 2:16 - 2:26 get quite muddy, but hey, bass mixing is hard. As a rule of thumb, I try to cut more than I boost. The sequenced orchestra feels a bit faker than the real performances in a few spots and is a bit buried under them. Overall this feels slightly lo-fi and a little muddy. Biggest issues for me were the bass mixing and the sequencing of the orchestra coming off as faker than the live performances while also being buried under them.

It's so hard to tell if there's been any copy+paste since this arrangement asks for one to listen for how the pads and atmospherics develop (it's a good thing). Dunno if the heaviest drums here meld into the soundscape as much as I would like, but otherwise, this is a really good ambient arrangement with an organic soundscape that doesn't actually feel long. Nice vinyl effects.

I do a little sound design every day just in case I capture a moment of inspiration or a happy accident occurs and I make a really inspiring sound. Aside from that, I've probably gone about 2 weeks without doing something with sounds or music. I just keep myself busy so that I don't get bored, even if I just make a lame little sound that I throw away in my "Random Experiments" folder. In fact, right now I have *8* WIPs for various things, and I finished one ReMix for Brandon Strader, one cover for mahself, and 3 *very* long-term (2~4 months!) ReMix WIPs for fun in the last 2 months, so I'm feeling pretty happy.

Yeah, and that's what I was confused about, and that's what other people could be confused about too. Expression isn't just the expressiveness of an instrument combination to sound like they're "alive", but that's certainly one definition of it, and that's why I was interpreting it partially in that way, and partially in the "development" way. Maybe it's just because I think of structure in terms of perceived energy (chorus, breakdown section, buildup, intro, outtro, etc.) rather than how rhythms, mood, and tempo are ways to determine movements. But anyways, [/offtopic]

Maybe a better way to name this thread would be "Most expressive VGM that you have heard before". The extent to which you see expression is just different from how I see it. What you call expressive I might call very expressive, or I might call it just "well-written" (as a "compromised way" of conceding to your point of view). I could be more touched by certain harmonies than you might be, and you could be more touched by certain structural developments than I might be, for example. That aside, expression in general can be vague. If you've ever used MIDI CC before (and *you* have), you'd know that expression can be stuff like vibrato, tremolo, portamento, etc., but in this case it's defined more like the word development or the word progression are defined. What *you're* saying is to look at the arrangement in terms of the development, rise, and fall of the notes and their organization, without focusing so much on the textures, layers, and tonal character or articulations of the instruments. I certainly agree with your view, but I'm just not sure you'd believe me when I say I get that you meant that. (btw, I did read that post you made earlier about "form and progression", which I also agreed with.)

Something like Pentatonix represents that fairly well. And btw, even if a piece is not long (like I mentioned earlier), it can still have substantial development, which is similar to what you were saying about "form and progression"; just has to happen faster to match up with the longer, more developed pieces out there. I'm not actually looking at layers *only*, but what I'm definitely aiming to say is that the layers contribute to the expressiveness. i.e. A distant flute arpeggio does wonders to textures, and little harp flourishes add a fresh sparkle to the overall atmosphere.

I wasn't actually depending on an opinionated way of listening to it as I wrote that. Maybe certain modulations resonate better with me than with others, but nevertheless, they are there. For example, Sticky Sewers has some diverse time signatures and Use Those Jetpacks has that descending part that becomes a key modulation (0:40), as well as some depth to its layers. Fusion Master as well; see the E. Piano. =P Also, the pieces I pointed out were the ones that I thought were fitting the topic description IMO. They had distinct, memorable melodies, and despite being the kind of music that loops, sounded just as layered and detailed as "normal, non-VGM" music.

Personally I cut more than I boost when I mix when I can (here's where really good samples out-of-the-box comes in, if you're using a lot of samples), and I usually only do any sort of EQ at all where I can hear an actual change for the better. Occasionally I boost for strength, but mainly little peaking boosts at specific frequencies to bring something up in the mix. I would check on other audio systems if possible. Checking on ones with differences in bass and differences in treble allow you to balance the frequencies between the better and the worse-case systems. I actually have one pair of headphones with okay bass, nice treble, great resonance detection, and more reverb than the average pair, while my main has great bass, great treble, good resonance detection, and minimal reverb. But yeah, if you "don't trust" your headphones enough to do major cuts or boosts, look for ones with flatter frequency responses (try http://headphone.com/). It's fine to not EQ as much of what you aren't confident in listening for, but if you feel like you need to, go ahead, and then try asking someone you strongly believe knows what he/she's doing and getting feedback.

Yeah, and isn't that what I posted? Despite the brevity, PF2D displays a tremendous amount of development and harmonic modulations in such a short time, and Fittest has quite a bit of complex harmonies, dynamics, and flow to its arrangements.

My main crit with this is that the strings sound detached in a context where they should be more connected. Try overlapping the sequenced notes and having them start before the beat, and automating volume swells (think of a conductor). The notes are great, it's just the way they're played that sounds awkward. Try listening to this, especially @ 2:24 and 2:45.

I'm about to do it again. http://zirconstudios.bandcamp.com/album/pf2d-original-soundtrack This was done in 2011 but released in 2014. Almost all orchestral. Most expressive tracks IMO are Sticky Sewers, Use Those Jetpacks, and Airborne Action (which for some reason isn't released???). (btw, the Bandcamp play volume seems quieter than the actual download volume)

The ADSR Sounds sale has started! 25% Off everything (all sounds and courses)! If you have Zebra2, that includes my 179-patch soundbank. Use code 5umm34 on checkout on http://adsrsounds.com.

Anything from Fittest (besides the Startup and Menu themes). Each of those pieces could easily stand alone as something you could put in a playlist and enjoy, especially Photosynthesis, Fusion Master, and Morsecode.

Pretty cool transformation of the source. I would've liked the mixing to be a bit more in-your-face, as it felt a bit weak in comparison to some of the stuff I heard from ISW Juggernaut demos, but otherwise this is quite enjoyable.