timaeus222   Members

Just give up. Do teh technomangaz and ull get ur votez

This is more low quality than I remember. I can really hear the huge difference between the MP3 and the video BGM, lol. And the MP3 is way bettarrrrrrr

Kristina is on the money as well. It helps quite a bit to switch to another genre if your mind naturally shifts that way. Eventually you'll have that type of intuition.

There's still a panning issue in the entire track. It's so far panned that there's literally nothing in the middle except for the weak mellotron choir sample. It sounds very fake, and just doesn't cut it. The distortion on the guitar at 0:53 is too much, and you should reduce it by about 5~10%. This amount sounds sharp and thin, and it's blurring the clarity of the notes. The kick is too weak as you heard from avaris, and should be louder. The hi hats are slightly too loud.

I listened on speakers earlier, but on headphones it still sounds fine. There isn't any background noise from the hi hats at all, or from anything at all. That's reverb, nothing wrong with that on the hi hats.

Yup, pretty important. I try to have patterns go v1, v2, v1, v3, v1, v2, v4, v5 for one section, where v4 is similar to v1 somewhat. Variation is key in reducing repetition.

It is bare. The intro phaser didn't really connect too well with 0:07. You don't have a lead until 1:07, and that's almost 1/3 of the remix already. Yes, you do have reverb, but reverb alone isn't going to fill any soundscapes. You need to fill in open frequencies with instruments that meaningfully contribute to the soundscape in an inviting manner. The kick was OK until 0:36. At that point, you need a tighter kick and more of other percussion than a few tom hits and a tinny snare. I don't even hear a single hi hat. =O 0:52 was especially bare. It almost sounds like a fake piano, but anyways, it's not enough to be a little mini breakdown. You need some filler instrument, like a pad or sweeper drone. 1:36 gets muddy in the low end, and an easy part to fixing it is to raise the lead one octave up. 2:06-2:35 is a repeat of the intro a few times with the drums of 0:37, a few new tom hits, and less reverb on the phaser saw. 2:35-3:39 is a repeat of 1:06-2:05 with the addition of the phaser saw and no notes changed. If I could name two times that you repeated things, it's a good sign to put more effort into your work. I think you can do it. Try to think of something to vary up a section significantly from the previous one, and try really hard not to repeat anything verbatim.

Looks like you knew your source well either way. Sometimes it gets hard to determine whether a source was interpreted just right or too much. I did get something privately rejected because it was too liberal, with unsaid comments that I surmise didn't call the production a dealbreaker (album-to-be track eval). I agreed with how it turned out, as I did variations too early. It could happen to anyone though! Also, that EP... killer. Trust me when I say that's one of the best EPs I've ever heard, especially in the low range.

Tender Lovin' Care and Musical Instrument Digital Interface Control Change.

That guy 10char Here are my reviews btw. Lights Out SuperiorX: Nice, you had a similar idea as me on the wah EP. I was gonna do a wah clavi, but I went with an EP eventually. I'm missing some of the tines frequencies, though, since you went for 100% mix rather than a 50-50 signal split. Mixing is generally good. Bass is a little muddy, and sometimes treble is ever so slightly too much. Integration of sources was pretty smooth. Nice slap bass and soft arp. Smooth atmosphere. From Dark to Light Sir_NutS: Nice, this is what I wanted to do at first, if I had a mic lol. Michael Jackson and Daft Punk influence, it seems. Ever so slightly too much reverb, not a big deal. No major EQ issues. Smooth mix. My only other nitpicks are probably that the vocals could have used some vibrato from the vocoding modulator to go the extra mile, and the vocoded tone is lacking a good amount of clarity (which, believe it or not, can possibly be better). Chilled Duck KgZ: May be just me, but I don't like it when leads sound like they're sidechained. Production is pretty smooth, though there is still room for improvement as there isn't much content above 16kHz aside from the middle section's lead. Preferentially, some leads could be improved tonally and frequency-wise, but I'm not bothered by anything else, other than the title. This isn't chilled. It's like, Party Duck. You know, if there was a Party Man. Spicy Icy ectogemia: Yeah, pretty funky, but to me more in the Blues Brothers sense than the Joshua Morse sense because of the brass section. Instrumentation was pretty cool, though some transitions were a tiny bit iffy, such as 1:17. For example, a way you could have connected the section at 1:17 and the section that came before it was doing a neck slide on the bass combined with a reverse and regular cymbal. Sometimes the organ note variations at the 1:17 section were written for the sake of variation rather than progressiveness (the result of just replacing old notes with speedier notes), so at times it didn't really flow. It seems you have a harmon mute there, which was EQed pretty well, actually. Other brass sequencing was pretty solid, and sources were used nicely. I liked your fretless bass, too. The Sky Demon Phonetic Hero: Brave effort. Staccato strings fell behind the tempo a bit. You didn't keep with the cinematic theme so much though, which was to your benefit ultimately. Some leads were a little buried, and attention was sometimes drawn away from the leads by the rapid drums for me. Chiptune section was just a bit too quiet in comparison to the other sections, but not a big deal. I tend to be bothered by sync leads sometimes, so don't mind that I didn't like its usage here. Groundpowuh therex: The only full chiptune track here. I'd say the notes are great. The only thing I'd suggest is a fuller atmosphere. Sometimes it feels bare, even for chiptune. If you want to use few instruments at times, I'd suggest you compensate with frequency distribution or reverb. Still a pretty well done arrangement. Ragebot Massacre Ghetto Lee Lewis: Sounds like you have a woofer on-hand. Reverb is a bit much on the low mids, and the saw leads are pretty grating sometimes, especially the supersaw-type of leads. Mixing gets pretty loud at 0:46. Some sounds are pretty cool. 1:46 is pretty neat, though the rising arp on the left was a bit rigid. Pretty heavy stuff, almost too heavy, but I'm sure you'll notice it. Burning Disaster Esperado: Pretty good effort. A little quiet, but still pretty cool. Transitions between sources are iffy. Oh hey, some CSD was gated and glitched. The instrumentation worked pretty well together too, good job. Dr. Wilyarty Stage 1 Hakstock: Oh yeah, really balls to the wall here. Noticeable overcompression. Good news is that I can hear the leads. Some instruments and sometimes the drums are buried by the reverb. Some leads could get more attention to detail, just preferentially. The Postman Always Rings Twice Parah Salin': Transitions were pretty iffy, but interesting use of sound effects to do so. Bass tone does not suit the notes it plays. Brass falls behind the tempo a little sometimes. Grime Mr. L: Slight timing issues in the EP, chill atmosphere. Tiny bit bare. Seems to doodle a bit sometimes, but pretty cool entry. I could kind of spot Moliarty's Tower, but it may be a bit too liberal in interpreting that source. Forceful Typhoon Tower Sterling Ortiz: Timings were off a lot, especially between the static bass and the leads. Lots of reverb decreases the clarity. Somewhat random source insertion. Good effort. A Fowl Knight Trism: Really loud frequency-wise and generally reverb-less, but giving you the benefit of the doubt. Nice arpeggios, and great energy. I think you paid a lot of attention to minor details rather well. Ending was strange though. Awkward silence, and then really loud and dry lead. Some stereo imaging is pretty cool, but because of the frequency overboosts, it isn't as cool as it could have been, but the gesture was there, so good job.

Good remake. Objectively it could use more TLC on articulations and MIDI CC for the fake orchestral instruments, but it's just a remake, so it doesn't matter too much.

Like before, 2:46 was a good spot to end on. The rest is another repeat, of 1:07 this time. Nice smooth jazz.

Errrr that is stretching (thankfully only one part of) the page. You might want to consider shrinking it or linking it. Yep. Hard to believe, but sometimes I find (or make) synthesized E. Pianos, for example, that are more fitting to (or even better for) particular remixes of mine than an E. Piano library I have for Kontakt. Another example... a synthesized electric sitar I had created one day fit into my Yu-Gi-Oh ReMix better than EWQL Ra's electric sitar, after I tried substituting in both to compare. I remember zircon talking on KVR in 2007 about EWQL Ra's sitar not being all that great before working on Sitar Nation, but the fact is that it was sampled, and samples are *usually* better than synthesized versions. =)

No, I'm not comparing myself to him. Though he is one of the best producers in this competition, he isn't the best producer in this competition. I'm not going to say who it is, however, he still has room for improvement in production and arrangement, as does everyone. I bolded what my points earlier had expressed. +100 Give them more than 30 seconds. Give them the whole song. I know it's a competition, but if you listen to one great song fully and one almost great song partially, the almost great song will tend to seem "almost good" or "decent". Be fair. That is all.

"you gave his ambiguity the benefit of the doubt." is what I got. The rest is my additional comments. Information in this case means a story, or auditory information, like arrangement content, ambience, head-bang or not, dance or not, etc.

What I'm getting from this is that you gave his ambiguity the benefit of the doubt. While 30 seconds is long to the listener, 30 seconds is not that long to the producer. To be able to fit engaging content in 30 seconds might actually be pretty difficult for some people, and if I were to take KgZ literally, it would be the case that he means the first 30 seconds (which apparently seems to be very close to what he said). I wouldn't just listen to 30 seconds and quit if I'm not interested in the first 30 seconds. What if the intro makes use of long, well-selected pads that convey 30 seconds' worth of information in 50? I would take Gario's approach and skip around a little first if I ever was somewhat skeptical about the intro. Then if I notice something really cool, I'd go back to see how it connects. Regardless, I still listen to the whole track in the end, and I give everyone a fair listen if their track is listenable---listenable being not ear-splittingly painful the whole entire time.

Minor production issues aside, I'm really diggin' this. This is an extremely smart arrangement with some smooth harmonic modulation.

I don't know how 0:50 got messy again. It was fine before, and now the snare is indeed buried again. Did you add more bass or sub bass content? I'd agree that ultimately, the arrangement when deconstructed has cool parts on its own, but when combined as it is right now, it doesn't sound like a cohesive piece.

Good start. The hard thing about this source is the lack of a memorable melody. Try to start off with a conservative arrangement, then vary it up as you go.

Yeah, he's a faggot for being an awesome OCR judge and moderator. Woohoo. Don't get butthurt because someone was being straightforward with you, and people will treat you better.

That I'd whole-heartedly agree with. It's not as much of a grey area as it seems. Opinion and subjectivity are grey areas, while technical comments and objectivity are grey areas. Opinion is purely based on personal preference. Objectivity focuses on technical aspects, like production, arrangement complexity, and arrangement flow. Subjectivity focuses on personal opinion that is slightly based on objective analysis, like arrangement flow, drum programming, and sound selection. As you could see, arrangement flow was something that was inside the grey area of objectivity and subjectivity, but I personally haven't run into very many of those situations.

Maybe it's the vague wording, but putting the producer at fault indefinitely, as it seems, is, in fact, very narrow-minded. I feel like blaming them all the time is just disrespect. If they put hard work into something, the least we could do is commend their effort and reward them by listening to their song further than just 30 seconds before making a solid judgment. If we hadn't done that all this time, few people would feel motivation to get good. It's not the producer's non-incriminating fault that people don't like their music as opinion; it's only their non-incriminating fault if people truly don't like their music objectively---from a technical standpoint. We don't control opinion to a good enough extent very often at all. "Fault" is just a terrible word without saying if it means "a reason" or "your problem". /offtopic

Maybe they should be, but the love for their own music might make them a bit oblivious to outside negative feedback, not to mention it's better to write what you love rather than what people love and to let them like what they want to like. If you don't like what you wrote, where do you get motivation to keep going? Also, five bucks = exaggeration of 2 cents.

The production for me wasn't as tight. I'm not getting as heavy of a sound as you seemed to want to portray. I know this is a sample library, but it's still heavier. Maybe it's because they're riffing on a low A string, but it's still the case that the bass is really refined. If you listen to that and then go back to this, it's much less heavy in your remix. I know sample libraries were made to be perfect, but sometimes live can sound better than sample libraries. Decent production, but it does have room for improvement. Your drums appear to be lacking some treble above 16kHz, the kick is not coming through very well, and neither are the toms. 1:38 is extremely muddy. I can barely hear a kick there, which shows me that you're using a hard knee limiter in digital software, meaning you have the resources to get this fixing going! The piano at 1:50 would be called out for sure on its mechanical velocities and timing, and maybe even on its sample quality if this were to be submitted. As far as I'm concerned, 3:00 is your ending. The rest is nothing more than a repeat, and you wouldn't lose much content as 3:00 is a pretty good length anyways.

I'm not against your view necessarily, but the phrase "full control" might not be entirely accurate, and I just want you to be aware of that. You, specifically, may have full control, maybe, but not everyone does. If the producer doesn't have the skill or knowledge to make anything other than the annoying type of dubstep wobbles (back to that example), and they don't know where to look to improve because it's outside their realm of knowledge (which is the case with many people, in the sense of searching skills), they don't have "full control" of how the patch sounds as a result. Any producer who loves what they do may or may not be completely "aware of the consequences that people might perceive" differently. That's my five bucks. /pun