timaeus222

I would say mostly yes; although I am also very much a sound design guy, these days I am OK with using placeholder sounds that are almost what I hear in my head, and I'll just, for instance, leave a note to myself in the DAW to polish the sound further later on. The more important thing is to get the idea down as much as possible, in such a way that you can visualize what you meant to write, in terms of (mainly) composition and (in part) the feel of the soundscape. Generally, being able to visualize the final result is easier when you have more of the actual composition done than if you have more of the sound design parts done.

That's fair. Yeah, I usually realize what I learned after-the-fact, and so, writing that down, or associating it with a particular piece of music (by reflecting on what I learned from writing that piece of music), helps me remember that technique. Even though I don't necessarily have a clear path on what I mean to learn, it tells me what my progress has been. As for being able to write music with "zero theory knowledge", I know what you mean, but it's probably ambiguous wording there. Even though I have no advanced formal theory knowledge (I had basic theory knowledge from my piano teacher and 6 years of choir), I've actually learned in practice what I have never formally learned in advanced theory classes. In other words, I don't know enough advanced theory to express formally the most advanced things I intuitively construct in my head. That's probably what you mean---I wouldn't be able to write what I can write now, if I had literally no theory knowledge in any way whatsoever, formal or intuitive.

Are you keeping yourself active with making music, or have there been long breaks where you haven't been able to do any music? Each day I try to do at least a little with something musical, whether it's sound design or actual composition, to keep my brain music-oriented. That might also help if there were times where you were forgetting some things you've learned before.

Maybe you could make a list of what you've learned, and brainstorm what you can work on. I did that back in the day. I kinda stopped doing it because I don't feel I've learned much new stuff lately, but here it is: http://tproductions.comeze.com/educationallog.php

Is it any surprise that I still give my consent explicitly?

Hey man, Fortunately, my dad happened to set up a brand new laptop from work with Windows 10, so I now have a new laptop, OMG. I still can't provide vocal/choir stuff though since that stuff is at home within Omnisphere.

Update: I finally purchased a 3DS XL (old model), and a copy of Pokemon Super Mystery Dungeon, and I am LOVING every minute of it!

Same here. Some more cash for you, but @HoboKa, come join the Discord channel. It's a great way to chat in more of a 'live' setting, and hopefully it'll help you feel like less of an 'outsider', as you call it. I've yet to find a more friendly community than OCR.

You might be going insane here. #RealityCheck - FWIW, I'm not afraid to use orchestral instruments in my music. Just because I'm not totally confident in what I can do with them, and just because I don't usually write orchestral music, doesn't mean I should discourage myself from using those instruments. In fact, I use them anyway, for the sake of learning how to use them... - Furthermore, if you have "poor tools" as you say, you don't have to shoot for "stylistically fake". That's not the point; the point is to do the best you can with what you have, meaning you can make something stylistically realistic with so-called "poor tools". - Remixer's privacy is more important than you think... It's important to have the rejection up for people to see, so that the public can know that the Judges aren't just some black box group of people who put up mixposts and hide all the rejections. In fact, if they did that, aspiring composers won't have examples of possible critique to be on the lookout for in their own mixes. However, the Judges don't want to offend those who got NOed, so the least they can do is omit the link to the submission by default unless requested otherwise by the remixer him/herself. I DO think that's fair...

Quoted for truth...

Hey man, Although I would love to help, I done goofed and spilled zip fizz over the laptop I'm using in my dorm room, so I can only write music in Thanksgiving and Christmas (when I'm able to get home). I might be able to help, but it'd be quite hard to do it as soon as possible.

I see what you mean, but you may be assuming here. Maybe you're not saying it directly towards me, but personally, I actually don't simply listen for chord changes and progressions (although those are two things I listen for), and I do listen for textural changes as a factor in deciding "is this too repetitive". Being a self-proclaimed sound design nerd, that is something I do all the time. So I'm aware that repetition in trance music, at least compositionally, is common (it's in the name!). But in comparing trance to jazz, what I'm saying is in the relative sense, i.e. that there is typically less compositional repetition (i.e. copy-paste of notes) in typical jazz, compared to typical trance. It's not to say that trance is "automatically boring, neeeext"; as music enthusiasts, we should be giving all genres a fair shake. [I didn't want to pick something like ambient music, because I've written ambient music that isn't as repetitive as one might expect, and I didn't pick "minimal" music because (i) I don't think I've even heard of it, and (ii) now that I hear the genre name, it doesn't sound particularly descriptive (and thus I wouldn't choose that off the top of my head as a genre to classify something).] ----- That clarification aside, yes, I do think the particular genre carries its own way of presenting structure, and that should be taken into account when evaluating, "is this too repetitive?". It shouldn't just be, "is this too repetitive for me?", but rather, "is this too repetitive for people who listen to that genre?". However, I do think that what you're saying is an ideal. In principle, it's what we would want to see on the Judges' panel, but I do think we should allow for those kinds of nitty gritty discussions to work themselves out (seeing as how each Judge may specialize in a given set of genres better than other genres, there will be debate at some point).

First off, I do want to point out that what @Gario said in here seems to just be a typo. I listened through the track, and I think he just meant 0:18 - 1:36 vs. 1:36 - 2:54. THAT would be a pretty significant repetition and THAT makes a lot of sense to me. And it isn't just the idea of repetition that's the problem---it's the collection of textures, expression, contour, . . . that feels too same-y the second time through. If that wasn't apparent the first time, @HoboKa, hopefully that clears something up. Yes, I do see what you mean there. And that boils down to, "what is the point of this particular music?". The purpose of video game music WITHIN a video game is to keep the gameplay exciting, match the mood, what have you, and if it had an ending at an improper moment in the gameplay, that wouldn't feel right. And so, looping is an easy way to make sure that doesn't happen. That's fine, in that context. With "actual music", i.e. music that is meant to be listened to as complete, standalone tracks, satisfying endings are preferred, and repetition is disfavored. Of course, repetition keeps familiarity with the musical content, but eventually it gets taxing, and the Judges regard repetition in a general manner, trying to predict how long someone would need before they skip to a new song, let's say. And that varies from Judge to Judge---someone who writes trance music might be more numb to repetition than someone who writes jazz. There are inherent assumptions as to how repetitive is too repetitive, and that's really the contention you have here. A non-Judge might not be actively watching out for blatant copy-paste, whereas mods and Judges would (or should) actually keep that in the back of their mind. That's a fair remark. But even Simon himself has gotten nicer over the years, in case that wasn't clear from the more recent America's Got Talent appearance he made this year. Along similar lines, Liontamer has also been passing stuff more recently that I might personally not be totally in agreement with, but that I would argue is a good thing (from the perspective of the listener, that is). I've never met him face to face either, but I definitely enjoyed the OCR Podcasts I managed to get onto with him there, at least. In general, as I keep suggesting to all the aspiring or struggling composers here, you gotta have a thick skin. Just keep in mind that you gotta read through the Judge comments with some scrutiny in the sense that they're made from a human's perspective, and differences in perspective will arise. Fix what you agree with, and see if you come to a better agreement. It's an iterative process (and here I'm referring to any remixer), and by being self-aware and honest with yourself as I mentioned, you can eventually spot your own mistakes and improve on those without simply submitting as soon as you get the chance (not trying to accuse you here). That will give you a better chance than making small tweaks and subbing again with little community input----that's what mods are for! Hey, I'm glad you got that out of your system (or some of it anyway). No matter what though, asking more questions, IMO, is better than simply getting frustrated internally and keeping it to yourself. I don't speak for the community, but I think that as a whole, we are generally willing to put up with "rabblerousers", and "shit-shows" as you put it.

Here's my 2 cents on this. I DO feel the panel has been faster lately, even if it's not obvious. The Decisions thread has indeed not been updated nearly as often as of late, but I know that the action is still happening behind the scenes because I remember how fast some of my own mixes have been moving through the queue (again, as everyone here ought to keep straight, independent of who I am, and 99% dependent on who's judging and what they choose to judge next [because y'all have lives and limited time]). I don't know if that's particularly satisfying as there is still an uncertainty as to the time between judged mixes and posted mixes, but I've honestly stopped staring at the Decisions thread a long time ago, and just let the decisions be made when they can be made. I suppose that's in part because I'm more picky than the Judges are (though I've been much less picky lately), and I've just stopped thinking, "will this make it?", and started thinking "what minor subjective differences am I going to see that ultimately don't affect the decision?". With time and practice, @HoboKa, you can become more confident in your abilities to churn out something that you're happy with, that you also know the Judges would pass. Just keep at it, and be self-aware, and in particular, honest with yourself. Again, just as @Gario and @AngelCityOutlaw have said or implied, the reasons the Judges have come up with had evolved over the years and have had proper rationale in them (though the standards are actually fairly low compared to so-called "modern production standards", as I think I've mentioned a few times before), and they do mean well. Whether or not that is well-conveyed is another story (as it may seem "black-box" to an ordinary bystander), but one can always make a topic (like this!) asking/ranting about it to get more of that rationale clarified. Any good Judge shouldn't feel openly offended anyways, right? (I'm being a bit cheeky.)

Yep. In short, I would suggest a reverb layer for the basic reflections that the instrument would physically cause in a mostly "dry" room (like if you were to record with a room mic, i.e. the upfront signal), and a reverb layer for the characteristic tones you want to come out of the "actual" constructed room that the instruments are all "in" (like if you record with a stage mic and a bit of hall mic, i.e. based on the impulse of the surroundings---the ambience signal). The former layer just sets up the "dry" stereo space you want, while the latter layer provides the proper decay time and the smoothness of the diffusion. [We really don't mean simply tacking on a reverb on the master track and calling it a day. Nope, don't do that.]

I noticed this, so I wanted to mention that I hear ya, but grad school is going to pick up the pace pretty soon, so I don't think I'll be able to do this in a timely manner. But good luck!

PRODUCTION I agree about the reverb. It's not that having reverb is a bad thing, but you seem to have gone a bit overboard with the amount you actually have. I would suggest lowering the wet mix maybe 10% and slightly lowering the decay time (by around 0.2-0.5 seconds) so that the soundscape as a whole doesn't sound so washed out. I do recognize that this sounds like synthwave as it is, though, so I think you've accomplished what you wanted. STRUCTURE/ARRANGEMENT I don't listen to much synthwave, so just personally, I felt this was pretty long. The section at 1:47 - 2:48 sounded pretty similar to what you had at 0:30 - 1:47, so it may be worth considering simply cutting out 1:47 - 2:48 and focusing on what's left. Also, the tonality shift at 2:48 for me was fairly jarring, as I thought it could have come earlier in the arrangement. I did like the shift at 3:04, but I do agree that given the dissonant section that came before, the major-key tonality could have been foreshadowed more effectively. At 4:05 - 5:07, it's another similar rehash of 0:30 - 1:47 with a few changed notes, so it doesn't really sound new. It could use some more significant note variation to distinguish this from what was at 0:30 - 1:47. This part at 4:05 - 5:07 could be further justified if you did cut out 1:47 - 2:48. SUMMARY Overall, my main concerns are that (i) the major sections (0:30 - 1:47, 1:47 - 2:48, 4:05 - 5:07) are too similar, (ii) the transitions could be more clear (most importantly, 2:48 and 3:04), and (iii) the reverb could have slightly less decay time and wet mix so that the mix sounds more upfront despite the synthwave aesthetic.

I would agree with @Geoffrey Taucer for the most part. My main concerns about this would be the arrangement copy-pasta, and the odd mixing choices. ARRANGEMENT/STRUCTURE The big red light is that 0:00 - 1:04 is EXACTLY copy/pasted at 1:05 - 2:08. That instantly tells me that there can be more effort into putting variation and interpretation into the arrangement. Sorry to say, but this loop structure is one major reason why this wouldn't pass the panel at this moment. Beyond that though, the intro just leaps into the action headfirst, without easing us in at least a little. The dynamics are fine, but it doesn't sound like you've incorporated any other source tunes yet. MIXING/PRODUCTION I'm not so wild about the high pass automation going on in the first 30 seconds and after 2:08, as it sounds awkward and clips the limiter. The distortion does not sound deliberate to me. It's a result of the high pass being too spiky at the resonant frequency that everything collectively clips there. It's quite prevalent, so I felt like it was necessary to bring this to your attention. The sound balance is a bit strange as well in terms of the panning, since the midrange-heavy sounds are sometimes to the slight right, while the upper-frequency sounds are on the slight left. I generally would keep the meat (the 500 - 5000 Hz range) of the sound design centered. SUMMARY Overall, I think you should keep working on this, particularly on expanding past a structure where only 1:04 of it is unique and the rest of it is an exact rehash of what you had already stated. Furthermore, the odd mixing choices of using a dramatic resonant high pass filter automation and having most of the midrange sounds slightly right-panned would also contribute to a NO on the panel. Don't get discouraged though, and keep trying. This is in fact fun to listen to, particularly if you're a run-of-the-mill fan of mario music in general. Here are examples of Mario Kart mixes that passed the panel to get you going: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=DCZey2P5KlI https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=U8koP8Zimxo https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HftNT3UDaEg

Hm, first things first: Sorry to say, but I hear the Kefka sfx, and that unfortunately, as part of the OCR submission standards, is not going to fly, since we had an agreement with Square Enix not to have any of their sound effects in approved ReMix submissions (especially if unprocessed like that). But that aside, you should still read on. I like the sinister vibe you have going on here, and the sounds you used are all distinct. The mixing itself isn't that much of an issue in terms of clarity, and the main concerns I would have are the (i) simplicity of the sound design, (ii) the structure/development (due to the sound design and repetition), and (iii) the conservative nature of this arrangement. SOUND DESIGN/SOUNDSCAPE The sound choices themselves are up to you, but the problem I see here is that many of the accompanying sounds (arpeggio, textural glitching, etc) are competing with the lead sounds in the frequency spectrum. Besides the bass, they are all upper-midrange, with similar resonances in their filter setup and similar portamento styles. As a result, they blend together "too well" while also getting a bit painful, and for me, get grating within about a minute. Here is a resource for practicing sound design, or at least getting yourself familiar with the general features of a synthesizer. As for the percussion, the drums themselves don't seem to actually fit the vibe you're going for, and in my mind, they don't really suggest a specific genre. They actually sound like default FL Studio drum samples for house or electronic dance music, and if you pay closer attention to the drum sample choice in modern music, it's typically tailored to the particular genre. Here is a nice resource that taught me how to choose or layer drum samples. At 2:04, there are suddenly hard-panned drums, which just throws me off until 2:20. It just doesn't make logical sense to me to have drums panned that far left and right (and alternating at that). Conventionally, the kick and snare are front and center. STRUCTURE/ARRANGEMENT Whenever I listen through this, I can't wrap my head around any sort of structure. The sound design is so similar throughout that---and I'm sorry to say this---it doesn't sound like an organized, planned structure was in mind. The other reason why is that the drums are very much on autopilot, and they feel like they're just there to be there. One way I think about evaluating structure is that if I fast forward 15 or 30 seconds, I should be able to hear something that suggests that I'm in a different part of the song or that the song is making progress in its dynamics. When I do that here, I just get a meandering feel from the structure. The arrangement itself is also rather conservative. If you A/B the source with your ReMix, the notes are similar, although I do think there is sufficient interpretation purely on the arrangement perspective. SUMMARY As a summary, the overarching concerns I would go over are: Simplistic or overly similar sound design and soundscape. This is not easy to address, but you can start by practicing more with your synths and getting more familiar with their nuances, trying to design your own sounds to get a feel for those synths. This led to difficulty discerning a clear structure, as I can fast forward through 15 seconds at a time and not tell where I am in the song. Since the sound design is so similar throughout, I can't identify any clearly distinct section in the arrangement. The arrangement is somewhat conservative, but I wouldn't think that is a major issue here, as the above are more prevalent IMO. The source usage is obviously there. Overall, I don't think this would pass on the panel. (Besides the disclaimer about not using the Kefka sound effect, I mean.) Keep it up though. This is definitely more coherent and distinct than some of my old stuff!

We're almost there? Sweet! Unfortunately, due to how busy I am in grad school, I probably have to retract my offer for mixing and mastering (seeing as I can't get home until Thanksgiving/Christmas), but good luck with everything!

Okay, now that I've had a listen to this, here are my major thoughts: The amount of arrangement development that actually occurs is not enough compared to the actual length of the ReMix. In other words, you need to be more concise with your arrangement. I still hear a lot of copy/paste with some instrument swapping, and that means not much interpretation going on, particularly according to OCR standards. The textures are fairly sparse, or the mix is fairly quiet, or both. You can focus on addressing this after managing to make the arrangement more concise. The sequencing is fairly rigid still. So I think I can safely say that all of my previous concerns still hold. There might have been an improvement in mixing but for the most part the arrangement sounds unchanged (having been 2 years, I'm just listening fresh). I would certainly echo @Garpocalypse on his advice. I usually try not to suggest simply starting from scratch, but... this time I almost would. My advice is to pick one of the iterations of your arrangement with textures that you would think is easiest to expand on for partwriting (I would consider the segment containing the lead guitar since that's what you gravitate towards), and start fresh from there.

Yeah, I should have said that although sometimes it sounds like loss of breath in the middle of a phrase, having them isn't necessarily a bad thing. So you should use your best judgment whether to keep some of them and whether to make some of them quieter.

Before I even say anything else, didn't @Kat suggest that you shorten the track to focus it more? @Garpocalypse also hinted at it. It looks either the same length or a bit longer. So, you should read back through the feedback more carefully, and note patterns in what people are saying. Consider the issues previously at hand: mechanical sequencing, or lacking expression, or both too long for the amount of arrangement development it has too repetitive (similar partwriting with a lot of copy/paste, with swapped instruments) You should really ask yourself, "did I actually take these feedback into account, or do I just think I did?" Be honest with yourself and really think about it. Some newer composers lead themselves to believe that they took certain feedback into account, when they only believe they did and actually objectively did not. That, and it's been 2 years. Again, I haven't listened to this newer version yet, but I want you to focus your attention on this concern and to think about this.

I still recommend the Beyers, for both quality and comfort. I can use the Beyers for 5+ hours if I wanted to, and not get ear fatigue (sometimes I forget I even have them on).

There's a reason why I hesitate to label something as epic---it's so that I can say it for a ReMix like this! If this is the last Dark Souls ReMix you want to do, at least you blew us out of the water. The dense textures could have easily washed out the mix, and the choir could have felt cheesy or made this sound like any other overly straightforward symphonic piece, but you made it work. The apparent energy stayed fairly constant for the most part, and most of the changing dynamics were in the addition and removal of textures, rather than the variation of the core rhythm, which is probably the only critique I had about this.