timaeus222

Well, the "Stop stirring up drama" sounds imperative in a joking way.

http://textmechanic.com/Reverse-Text-Generator.html ;D

I think Argle is saying pretty much exactly what he means. When the arrangement is sparse, he's saying that not only are the textures sparse, but the coherence, flow, and simplicity of the parts as well. The key change at 1:28 didn't have a transition to lead into it. Yes, the previous note was the same note as the first note in the new key, but that doesn't make it natural to shift into the new key. There are particular ways to change keys that work well, and it's up to you to learn what ways there are, how they can work in your own mix, and how you can implement them cleanly. If you really listen hard, you can hear that this is a rather straightforward interpretation of this source tune (no offense of course). It uses the same 20 notes (the new keys within the same source are still the same 20 notes, shifted into the new key, in my interpretation of pitches) with an interpretation that can be polished more in general. This is not jordan's fault though, because this is a difficult source to re-interpret. This is hard because the source itself is already sparse in its notes and repetitive nature, so remixers have to really add their own original content in a cohesive, creative way to elevate it well. With a source like this, feel free to change the tempo and use some notes from the new tempo (just don't, I dunno, slow it down 400% and use 4 notes from that, unless they're very distinguishable notes, so that it's not too liberal). Here is a fantastic example of a source tune and that are recognizable as related but have substantial interpretation of source. Yeah, I can't find the source tune anywhere on youtube, but see if you can notice that the same notes are being re-purposed at different tempos and in different genre segments in the same remix. The notes from the source are everywhere, but almost 100% the same notes the whole time.

˙ooʇ ƃuoɹʍ ʇı ƃuıop ǝɹ,noʎ

What if we had Likes only visible by the artist of the remix, and not visible by other remixers or visitors? Then the artist could get private feedback, but it wouldn't have any impact on what remixes appear to be most liked out of all the ones on the site or give hints to visitors on what remixes were more liked than others. Then visitors would be less inclined to view specific remixes just because they have high ratings (since they wouldn't see the ratings!). e.g. public can like a mix, likes display privately to remixer as "feedback", they don't display publicly in databases or listings, and mix popularities are determined by actually choosing to listen to some random remix that you think you'd like --> all remixes essentially displayed neutrally.

I call it "when you don't know how to start because you aren't comfortable writing with the flow and don't know if what you'll write will be good to you or not", rather than "I've been trying and nothing I make is sounding good right now" or "I'm still trying with what I have here and it's not working". Going with the flow is... pretty hard, actually. If you don't think about it and just write what comes to mind, eventually it'll come naturally to bust out an arrangement without turning back. Wouldn't that be a milestone achievement. Sometimes I have to listen to some songs before my compo week and use those for inspiration. Once you can identify the origins of many sounds (the "how-to-synthesize-this" process), the hard part is differentiating between the original inspiration and the inspired track in as much of an extent as possible. ...Then again, you may just have this random burst of inspiration and the blend of two or more tracks just works. But try not to depend on that, because that's more or less random.

Yes. I actually think that way, and then fill in the missing notes in the chord progression outlined by the bass. If it's a case where I want it to sound super complex in harmonies, I hum/improvise the bass over the melody looping over a groove, and continue from there.

Except your post was meant to be a joking nudge and it could come off differently. We'll see how this goes.

Sounding cool so far. I think the treble is what I'm most concerned with. The first lead could have something to tame the harsh treble. Maybe some chorus to smear the highs a little, if you're having trouble finding those frequencies? It sounds kind of nasal in a sense. The hi hats starting at 0:27 have some sort of resonant frequencies too, at 16000~20000Hz, and I'm feeling it pretty prominently over here. I can't help but feel like the bass was underrepresented here after 0:27. It's kind of a basic vintage saw bass, but maybe something thicker would add more groove. Also, the stereo field seems to be rather busy in the center. Maybe some wider elements would help fill it out, or some widening -of- elements. The chordal element, perhaps. The 808/909 snare is pretty good, but the kick needs some more love throughout. It's mostly clicky. I kind of hear it, but it's not extremely present. Feel free to hit me up if you want some advice or examples. At 1:10 leading into 1:12, I feel like the volume of the lead jumped from just right to a bit too loud when it's exposed, without the bass and kick to really back it up with some oomph. It even sounds a little too dry in comparison to the point when it sat in the mix and wasn't exposed. A few seconds later, since practically everything is narrow (or non-wide), there's less impact perceived than there can be. Here's an example of a full, wide stereo field (ignore the fact that I'm using way different instruments, and try paying particular attention to the first 27 seconds). 1:35 gets pretty piercing in the high treble with the portamento lead combined with the hi hats, as well. Lastly, the ending starting at 3:00 has a rather static sustain on the lead that could either be more vibrato, fading out earlier but more slowly, or both. That way the organ-like instrument gets the attention by the time it starts playing. Overall, this is a nice and playful track. I like it, but I believe fixing up the treble where it's harsh, perhaps thickening up the vintage saw bass, creating a fuller stereo field, and processing a stronger kick would make this a stronger candidate.

I dunno, it has plenty of dubstep elements, like the bass wobbles and the halftime drums, and it integrates other elements in there from granular, chiptune, organic, and cinematic contexts.

It's a little more complex than that. Yeah, the bass outlines the chord progression, but not always in the tonic. It may be the subtonic or something else, who knows. Also, while basic chords made into complex chords of the same essential components do sound similar, there are notes within the complex chords that create very specific chordal movement that would otherwise seem missing on the basic chords. This is especially prevalent on the bigger chords, like 9th or 11th or even 13th chords or something. Sometimes when I hear a big complex chord, it actually evokes a particular mood for me, but that mood is partially lost when the chord is simplified to its basic triads. The "extra" notes are more than just multiple lines of melodic content; they distinguish between subtly distinct moods. e.g. if you have tension... what kind? Something that foreshadows death? Something that's supposed to scare you? Something that's simply suspenseful? Something that acts as an ending jazzy chord? Something that's just the "perfect" passing/linking chord? etc.

I'm going to second this for obvious reasons. and this. I wouldn't want people to say "Oh yeah! I got posted on OCR! I'm official now!" if they've literally just posted something in the Workshop forums and it actually wasn't judged/dped or approved at all. Getting a mixpost is an honor, and you know, just posting something that wasn't evaluated isn't really an honor. You'd just liked what you'd done and had wanted to share it, but that'd be about it. and this. Except I would agree with Argle that "Likes" would be more friendly than star ratings. I'd add that perhaps we could just have Likes, but no Dislikes. Then it'd be just the number of Likes you have, rather than the ratio of Likes/Dislikes you have. It would at least make me feel better if I were a beginner than in a star rating system or something like that.

Whether or not I like dubstep, and I do, this is more or less electro house because of the rhythmic choices made. Dubstep is generally half-time, like at 0:00 - 0:22. Anyways: The pitch envelope kick at 0:15 was cool at first, but to me it got old eventually. Don't be afraid to use new drums every once in a while throughout a single track. Also, that kick sounds messier in faster sequencing than slower sequencing due to its envelope decay being quite long and presently audible (it's basically a fast bass drop). That said, I generally like the atmosphere here. The intro was actually pretty good, though I thought the orch hits were a bit cheesy playing fast triplets like that. I imagine if you had actual string samples, you'd have chosen to use them instead. At 0:30 - 0:59, the pacing was generally the same all the way through. The kick drum at 1:00 - 1:28 was very good. At 1:58, things get rather muddy with the lower orch hits. Overall, some textures are rather abrasive/resonant (e.g. 1:29 - 1:43, 2:27 - 2:54, 2:57 - 3:01, 3:04 - 3:08, 3:11 - 3:16) in their frequencies, even though it's dubsteppish. The pacing of this as a whole is generally the same throughout, so it gets kind of plodding at times. You have a general idea of dubstep so far. Maybe can serve as a good example.

Sounds like a pop song. Except it's good.

No wonder it worked! Yeah, you're right, these chords, aside from the Bmaj9, are in C minor and Bb minor (I said sometime earlier that I modulated down a whole step from C, so yeeeeep!). Secondary dominance... ah, okay. You're saying that since F is the dominant in Bb minor, it should naturally cadence back there. I see what I did there! Bb->Eb->Bb->F->Bb.

Oh. Yeah, I get about half of this, and then the other half (getting it down quickly vs. slowly interpreting it) is just *whoosh* EDIT: I'll post the actual notes soon, since my notation is weeeeeird. C Eb Bb C G C --> B Eb Bb Db Gb B --> Bb F Ab Bb Db F Bb --> C F Gb Bb C Eb Gb --> Bb Eb F Ab Bb Db F --> A C F A Eb A http://www.noteflight.com/scores/view/72f311e2cd57ac4a8594f3cccfe8d20fc8c3019b

Well, then I'll include an audio example. https://app.box.com/s/ix4pdipb06v9bq6p6r2e

Okay. So... I used this progression to modulate down an octave. ...Yes, down an octave. o_o I started in C and ended up in Bb. xD + = add - = omit Cm7(-5)(+(+12)(+15) --> Bmaj9(-5)(+12)(+15) --> Bbm11(-3)(-9)(+(+12)(+15) --> C11sus4(+(b10) --> Bb7sus4(+(b10)(b14) --> Am6(-5)(+(b12)(+15) --------------- EDIT: C Eb Bb C G C --> B Eb Bb Db Gb B --> Bb F Ab Bb Db F Bb --> C F Gb Bb C Eb Gb --> Bb Eb F Ab Bb Db F --> A C F A Eb A --------------- Ironically, it seems like my next 6 chords are identical aside from the first chord being a Bb chord instead of a C chord, so I changed keys without changing 5 out of 6 chords. SNEAKY. (The last four chords essentially resemble intervals that go down a M3, up a M2, and down a m3) https://app.box.com/s/ix4pdipb06v9bq6p6r2e (I think some notation is probably unconventional. I'm just referencing notation from a book of jazz sheet music, but obviously these chords are beyond 11ths so there's some guessing >.> I also don't know how to notate when I've simply added a root note an octave up for voicing or shifted a fifth up an octave)

Do you mind if sometimes I just post the notes I used so you can analyze it? Honestly, I write stuff beyond what I can analyze.

Oh, you mean almost like how it is in a MIDI file. Yeah, merge works great; the only drawback is that you can't copy/paste stuff you already wrote.

I uh, just don't do that. I used to get confused when I went back to old project files, but I no longer get confused because these days I'm organized. I have my own method of organization in which I put related patterns and automation clips near each other (related by instrument), put similar automation clips near each other (related by parameter [EX: EQ band #X gain] or ultimate purpose [EX: compensation EQ]), put section tabs, and name everything. But if you really do want to just condense your patterns down, do what Skrypnyk said. Here are some shortcuts to working within patterns that I use a lot: F4: new pattern F7: piano roll F9: mixer Ctrl+Shift+Delete: delete entire pattern Alt+Delete: delete instrument when window is not in focus or not open (highlight instrument) Ctrl+Shift+C: Clone instrument Alt+Up/Down or Shift+Mouse Wheel: move instrument up and down in list Ctrl+C/X/V: Copy/Cut/Paste piano roll data when window is not in focus or not open (highlight instrument) Ctrl+Up/Down: shift notes up/down 1 octave Shift+Up/Down/Left/Right: shift notes up/down/left/right 1 grid rectangle Ctrl+Select: select multiple notes in piano roll Alt+click-drag: move notes without quantization Alt+X: scale velocities (make a preset for FL to remember after closing. You'd probably use this a lot if you like it) Right click-drag: change multiple velocities as a linear "slope", e.g. for drum rolls More here.

Yeah, this is sounding much better. The lead at 1:09 and so on could be louder if you can manage that without much overcompression. It sounds a bit more distant than I think you would want it. The piano's coming through, but it sounds kind of "plunky" and hard, no matter what velocities you had. I don't know if you wanted that, but that's how it sounds, and it makes the chords in the breakdown section sound "blocky" (very quantized). I assume you had the most trouble with 4:34? It doesn't sound too bad, actually. If you want the piano to come through more, you can look for the quality of the tone you want to come through, then notch EQ the sidechained saw wave a bit there and that should help. Great job so far. This is turning into a cohesive track.

Says ol' grandpa j00j Shariq

So they feel our pain.