timaeus222

Even though it's for charity... even it was just something for free, legal issues can happen. Square Enix reacted pretty harshly at first in regards to the FF6 album, I believe, and obviously the album was free.

I'm no expert on chiptune production, but I know when something sounds good, and this is most definitely one of those times. This album should be backed, fer sure. But gosh man, all these kickstarters just make us feel so bad for you when you have to follow up with your backer rewards (especially ones where you give away your one-of-a-kind items)! D:

Editing is like, half the fun, bro! And half the misery, I know, I feel your pain... but once the detail edits are done... you can party in your room. Hell, I do that all the time when I get my detail edits done.

Sounds good so far. The only thing left I would personally question is the source usage general minimum. 70% seems reasonable to me, whereas 80% seems to be closer to restrictively conservative. My own ReMixes tend to land at around 75~90% source in the end, for perspective. Case-by-case bases might work out more nicely, though it's entirely up to you.

Well, this is sounding rather badass. xO And along with the video production stuff, I'll also offer mastering and collaborative electronic/acoustic drum processing/programming. Examples on here. I work very fast in a time crunch.

If you do need a co-director, Flex, I could volunteer. I don't actually do EDM all that much, but I *can*, and I have a great idea of when sound design is actually good enough and I know enough to appreciate it when an EDM song (or several other genres, really) is done well. A few examples of EDM that I think are good (objectively, of course): , , and Tantric Decks - Disco Kitchen (Electro Funk) Knife Party - EDM Death Machine And I might as well include this and this in there separately, as examples of my progress so far with EDM. The second track was soooooo fun to start. <3

Flexibility is key in compos. I dunno about the "Be Conservative" guideline. I'd much rather it be "Don't stray too far from the source", as it's less rigid. Reinterpretation is just fine and dandy, as it promotes creativity. If "some reinterpretation" is recommended, but not "reinterpretation" in general, it kinda says "do a half-remix, half-cover". I think I get what you're thinking, but the wording makes it seem like a compo for remix pseudo-covers. Also, "Monstrous Turtles!" is Cinematic Big Beat, as there are no DnB elements in there. Some examples of ReMixes that retain the atmosphere of the source very well: , Source , , Source 2 , (Try listening to the source(s) first)

Last I heard, Zebra is available as AU ;D

Plugins that cost $50 or less are pretty hard to come off as "a good bang for your buck". Depends on the plugin, but in a general case, you're better off saving up more money for that one plugin that will last you years and years. Zebra2 is one of them ($200). I heartily recommend it for anything and everything synth-related, or anything in general, really. Anything that doesn't have to strain to be real can be done (i.e. pianos are almost impossible to make without physical modeling, electric guitars are out of the question, etc.). It can make bass drones, space pads, PWM pads/synth strings, moog leads, sync leads, trance leads, synth brass, E. Pianos, plucky arps, filter plinks, 80s acid house basses, kicks, snares, hi hats, bass drops, dubstep wobbles, harpsichords, clavinets, flutes, sitars (acoustic and electric), zournas (yup), sine arps, psytrance arps, 303 arps, pitch envelope basses, FM basses, CS-80 basses, dirty pounding basses, ... , and [insert your goal sound here]. Seriously, it can make all of those sounds, almost all of which I've learned how to make before. It's completely worth it, plus there's a good chance you could make your own unique sound if you experiment enough.

Out of personal taste, I don't like the sidechained lead at 0:43 (or, I guess you could just call it pumping). There are certainly trance songs that don't have their leads sidechained and they turn out great. You mentioned that you love zircon's music, so I figured, why not check this out for production comparison? The difference is the drum samples, the sound design, arrangement choices, and overall production. The biggest problem with trance music for OCR is not the repetition, but the source usage. Typically, as you obviously know, trance repeats certain notes many times, generally in the rhythmic backing. The issue is which notes are memorable enough to repeat (in regards to the general listener's experience with the source) while also allowing room for variations whenever the melody isn't playing, which can give a better sense of progression than a typical, generic trance song, and obviously maintain attention more easily. You didn't give a source breakdown, so I'm going from an AB comparison. I shouldn't have to if the source usage was more obvious than it is now, but I didn't notice much without doing so, which means this might have a chance of being too focused on an unmemorable section of the source. Someone else might need to chime in with another opinion. Basically you took the first four distinct notes (past the fast arpeggios) and repeated them until the first lead comes in, using them as the backing. 1:12~1:25 is the one spot for me where the source gets lost. Aside from that, the source is actually pretty prominent, in somewhat unmemorable chunks. The first four notes that you repeat in many spots might not be memorable enough to count as genuine source usage, but eh, it's something. Just recognize that the less notes you use in your repeated chunks, the more it could sound like another song, as some songs use the same chord progression, and in this song you used those four notes kind of as a chord progression. I'd say it's just over the 50% guideline, but I didn't actually do a real source breakdown, so it's just an estimate. The ending is OK, but only just. Nothing too spectacular, but it works. I didn't find this super repetitive, but that's because I'm a sound designer. Sound designers tend to be less prone to stopping a song with reasonably good or reasonably fitting sound design. The sounds here are pretty staple for trance; i.e. they fit. Not extremely impressive, but not underwhelming either. That said, the drums are pretty weak. The kick is almost strong enough, but it's just barely peeking through. The hi hats get kind of obnoxious with the consistent four-hit velocity pattern, especially at 1:12. The rhythm of them never actually changes in any way for extended periods of time, so they sound especially fake or flat when exposed. The snare is pretty buried for a four-on-the-floor track. In fact, the hi hats are always covering the snare. Overall this has reasonably good production, so since I don't know you well at all, if you say it's far cleaner than your usual songs, then good start so far. As for the arrangement in terms of dynamics, it sounds like this to me: Generic intro with gradual layering --> A Section (0:43) --> A Section Bridge (0:57) --> Leadin to breakdown (1:06) --> Breakdown Section (1:12) --> Breakdown Section Buildup (1:40) --> Generic Pop Buildup (1:54) --> B Section (2:08) --> A Section Climax (2:23) --> A Section Climax Variation (2:51) --> A Section Climax Variation 2 (3:20) --> Ending (3:52) So yes, three climaxes in a row. There wasn't that much of a difference between 2:51 and 3:20 for me though. Some things are different, but for the most part, it's the same. Since it's trance the repetition is fine, but repeating with minimal differences might not come off very well. Unless, of course, you like to dance. With enough variation, any trance song can keep people listening pretty far in, but enough is pretty variable.

Alright, the treble on the pad is much better, and the bass is much better as well. The pad also sounds more natural. The bass' volume is good. There's just a little overboost at 75Hz and 120Hz, but not by *that* much. Maybe 0.8~1.6dB. I'm not entirely "sold" on the first lead sound you used (around 0:06), mainly due to the strange attack speed, but I'll live. I also find it awkward that the reverse cymbal at 0:40 is panned, but the cymbal at 0:41 is both disconnected from it timing-wise and completely centered. I'd imagine they were intended to be related, but spatially they're in two different locations. The timing is negligible, though, in my opinion. As for its timbre, I would personally try to soften the transient (created when the drumstick hits the cymbal) by lowering the right frequency range (it tends to be near wherever the default location of the "4" band token is in FL), as the atmosphere you're going for would lead me to choose a cymbal with a softer hit sound. I like the plinky arp in the background at 0:41, as well as the majority of the instruments in the breakdown section at 1:00. My opinion is that 1:28~1:48 has a lead that is kind of meandering, with objectively minimal connection to the source. Half the time I didn't know what implied chord progression to imagine next, and typically a song has a somewhat predictable one, or at least a somewhat predictable implied bassline. You see, I was in jazz choir in high school, so I developed my skill in improv, which is why I can listen to a song and improvise a bassline. Long story short, if I listened to the soloed lead at 1:28~1:48 a few times and tried to improvise a bassline, it would be pretty hard. In terms of the sequencing, in some sections it seems like many of the instruments are combined in such a way that they suggest specific atmospheres (breakdowns, high energy, half-time, etc.), but the rest of the instruments contradict that suggested atmosphere. For example, 1:00 sounds like a breakdown section, but the drums continue in a dance rhythm rather than, say, a high passed big beat rhythm, a pure hi hat rhythm, or no drums at all (which are all common but not the only possibilities), and the outtro at 1:58 could suggest a bassline with longer sustained notes rather than short/staccato notes since it's reasonable that the energy is toned down there. Overall, the arrangement is pretty standard, but not bad at all. Texturally, it could optionally use some more detail, which some people might call "ear candy". It would seem to imply extra unnecessary/filler material, but actually, it's something that audiophiles love, and it's also something that developing audiophiles will likely love in the future. It's not necessary to add that extra level of detail, but every little bit helps.

It really depends on the person and the game, I guess. I was able to finish MegaMan StarForce 3 twice (it always gives you two save slots so you have more flexibility in customizations for online) without using a walkthrough, and all I did was use the L button sometimes to get a message that may or may not hint at what I should be doing next. I only got stuck once or twice.

It's workinnnnnnn

Okay, a few more minor detail fixes! The strings/pads at 0:47 feel a bit narrow and stuck behind the rest of the sounds. It gets lost very soon, until 1:04 when it starts gating and panning. Something tells me its wet mix is too high or its dry mix is too low. At 1:38, the nylon guitar is buried and could use some brightness to the tone. Also, at 1:59, the bells coming in sound a little weird. It's like they have a little too much comb filter feedback or something, and it sounds close to atonal, but I would believe that you wouldn't want that. Some of the percussion gets a bit buried too, at 0:53 (slightly; it's quieter than the open hi hat), 1:22 (slightly), and 1:45 (slightly). The 2:47 reverses (snares?) are also a little quiet and could use more of a transient punch. Reverse kicks tend to seem stronger. The rest is much better than before, so great fix-up!

That's a pretty good 7-string guitar you have there. Solid production, and the bass is awesome too.

I agree that the key changes are still pretty abrupt after waiting a while between listens and I personally think the textures are a little sparse. The last key change felt a little bit dissonant in a bad way (i.e. dissonance in a good way is a jazzy chord). A little bit after the left end of the time marker hits from halfway between the c and k in "Download Track" until the left edge of the k, I'm hearing two decay issue instances in the balalaika. It stopped suddenly, which can count as a click. The mixing is fine, but I really only hear one or more balalaikas and some hand drums. It's certainly fine to have only two instruments for this particular case, I believe, though having a bass would not be unwelcome and it could fit in this context. It's not entirely necessary but you could do it. The arrangement is the biggest concern here. It's pretty simplistic, yet it's 5:03. A simplistic arrangement lasting 5 minutes, albeit with three (?) key changes can be repetitive to some people. There isn't much rhythmic contrast in each section, just different tempos and key signatures. The playing style seems to stay consistent throughout, too.

I <3 this. Super solid mixing, and tight vocals. Those are all the words I got.

The new beginning pad is pretty interesting, but too high in treble (the sparkliness) to sit nicely in the mix. Also, the way it's written, it sounds like a fade-in to me, rather than just a pad sound with a slow attack envelope. In other words, the fade is unnatural. It kinda sounds like it's clipping in the intro, particularly if you listen to the cymbals. The bass is not necessarily too loud in volume, but in frequencies, yes. There's loads of low mids that could have been cut to let it sit better in the mix. I think you could benefit from looking at basic EQ tutorials and practicing how to EQ intuitively.

Billie Jean works mainly because of the non-percussive instruments, especially the filler vocals (WHOO! EEHEE! ). Sometimes good drum sample selection/layering can make something sound less repetitive because you like the sound of it, and the way you write the non-percussive elements as well as their timbres helps too. From what I've observed, I think if you like something objectively, it tends to sound less repetitive to you than to someone else who doesn't like something objectively. I put everything in by mouse, but I'm a pianist, so I naturally think about how velocities "should" be. Developing intuition like that is going to help reduce mechanical sequencing, at least, in the velocity variation aspect. Then, in some cases, mechanical rhythm in the sequencing is OK, such as a non-live performance containing piano (and it gets more OK as more elements cover up the piano, for example). Fills are things such as tom/snare/rimshot rolls, open HH usages, etc. Quantization is basically perfect rhythm in the sense of computers, as "perfect" rhythm in the sense of humans is imperfect rhythm in the sense of computers.

This is so cool! It feels reminiscent of irish folk music (reminds me of this) mixed with mideast music, and I love the dulcimer!

It's YOU, isn't it?

I think until 1:10, the arrangement doesn't really progress very obviously. The pizzicato notes are more or less looped, probably with different velocities between similar chunks. It just doesn't feel like the dynamics really changed gradually, which makes the track up to that point somewhat static with an instrument swap (oboe-like woodwind to the glock) and some new notes. You might call that terraced dynamics. At 1:14, there might be a timing issue on the glock, and at 1:26, the dynamics did another jump, but to me it feels too sudden. Perhaps if the bass frequency occupants had a slightly longer release to connect the section, or something else connected the section, it could improve how well it's working now. Dunno if it's just me, but at 2:22 the pizzicato feels behind in rhythm. A similar dynamics jump occurs at 2:22 and 2:38 as well, and each might also benefit there from a connecting sound. The trumpet at 3:02 sounds a little bit thin, IMO. The buildup to 3:26 was nice. That to the end is where the arrangement is strongest, for me (in terms of the effective choices you made, not the apparent energy). Sounds good so far, just needs some detail-oriented polish and minor fixes from what I heard.

That's awesome. I kinda understand it, though I never formally learned music theory. Still, I got the gist of it.

Very nice, it fits the intention perfectly! The acoustic bass is what really makes it work.

Yeah, I should be able to make it then.