timaeus222

Wow. Haha, I think the weird drumwork made me lose count. I wasn't sure whether I could subdivide by 15, 16, or 17, but it turns out to be 16 since I'm thinking of when it reached the weird syncopated version of 4/4. I wouldn't have thought of counting in 16ths though.

What in the world are the first four time signatures for Nippius?! I'm thinking 6/8, 6/8, 15/8 or 6/8, 6/8, 4/4, 7/8, but other than that I can't think of anything.

The only problem I've ever had with this were the autopilot drums, but they're pretty hefty so I think the mix is solid anyways. I did like the sync lead enough to recreate it.

0:19 - the sound effect should be tuned to be in the same key. Try tuning it a whole step up. 0:41 - I think the wah is a little too fast. Right now it's something like 1/4 bar sync. Try... 1/2 or 1/1 bar sync? Hey, nice square-wave-sloped pitch LFO at 1:27. I put that in the XY controls of a C64 lead I synthesized a few months back. See if you can find a good layer to add to your kick sample. It's a little too biased towards a dance kick to me. Too thud-like. Needs more glue and high end thwap. The 2:22 lead is marginally too quiet. Bump it up about 0.2~0.5dB. I didn't notice it until 2:57, but that lead has too much resonance; tone it down a notch. It got really piercing at 2:57 and 3:06. The mixing at 3:16 is really messy to me. Notice how the backing is buried behind the lead and the supersaw lead, like Gario noticed in the earlier version. Other than that, great energy and arrangement.

The levels and production are a mess. Let's see what's up. It's an essay btw. ---Good Things--- - The kick is pretty standard, and it's good enough as it is with this level of clarity. - Flute and piano are a great combination in the breakdowns. - The plucky sound at 0:44 is great, but it's not clear enough. Bring it out. - The bongos match the atmosphere in spots where they're used. - Strings are sufficient quality for the way in which they were sequenced. - You have some good low end CRASHHHHHes. They do need some EQ work, but those are fun when used right. - Snare isn't hard to fix. Easiest thing to fix in this song. ---Work On These--- Production Issues or Suggestions 0:01 - The cymbal is pretty low quality. See if you can find one with more treble, and do a mild notch filter at 623Hz to soften the transient just a little. The delay is also too much in that it's standard narrow delay, rather than stereo ping pong delay. It's very obvious at 0:56. I'm assuming that arp in the beginning is source. If so, by lowering the volume of the bass instrument, you could potentially have room for a little stereo ping pong delay on it. Don't put too much feedback on it. 0:15 - the low-ish supersaw arp is bland and static. Try playing around with some envelopes on the filter, and maybe a little waveshaping and distortion while you're at it. Try applying an idea similar to how https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAGBUEvQkBg was processed. 0:17 - The bass is a simple envelope-on-a-filter plucky saw bass. See if you can find or synthesize a better bass. Maybe https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tXrsvC25GH8. Something more dynamic. (*1) 0:27 - The white noise sweep is generic, but almost passable. It could stand for some high passing of the bass and lower mid frequencies, and it needs more treble. There's too much delay on it, just like the cymbal. Route everything to its own mixer track; that's entirely possible. 0:56 has a really rough transition with that same cymbal from the first two seconds. See if you can think of something better. (*2) At 0:56, you could also change the supersaw arp to a new instrument, preferably something more tame, like a plucky low passed saw wave or something. If you reduce the reverb here, you can add in a rich pad if you have one. I would consider rich pads to sound similar to these in quality (not tonal aspects, but tonal feel. Chorus-y for sound coloration, full, but tame): http://zirconstudios.bandcamp.com/track/the-end at 0:00 and 3:21 http://zirconstudios.bandcamp.com/track/augment at 2:02 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=szc7HiS5rqQ at 0:00 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8fnvArZlHtQ at 0:34 You can also change the lead arp in this section (1:04). Maybe bells or something more ethereal. The piano delay is also narrow, and the sample is low quality. It needs a brighter tone. 1:23 is another weak transition. The energy is lost there. (*3) The reverse cymbal at 1:25 is too slow or too soft. The end of it doesn't match the volume of the cymbal at 1:27. 1:27 is a great section that needs more TLC. There also needs to be better stereo separation here to make this more 3D. (*4) Try panning that nature noise to the back center, pan the strings to the back and make them wider, reduce the reverb on the piano, and pan the bongos front and make them wider (but not as wide as the strings). 1:30 has a strange note. It sounds like a bass, but it could actually be the piano. I think the piano has too much low end, particularly 60Hz-ish. 1:55 gets muddy beyond the scope of what can be done with EQ alone. Try automating the low end of the strings up with a high-pass-type band token to make room for the bass, then remember to automate it back down after the section is over or the bass leaves to ensure the strings retain the low end when there's no bass. Do still watch the clashing EQ. The white noise panning at 2:24 is a bit obnoxious. It's not delay... right? If it is, that's way too much. It should be fading out much faster than that, more inverted logarithmic than linear. 2:34 - You gotta shorten that buildup. (*5) Listen more objectively. If you still want that section to be a buildup, try just making them distinct sections with subtle progression, rather than explicitly building up with obnoxiously loud kick and snare mayhem (you know, like pop music ). 3:20~4:05 is kind of aimless. The CRASHHHHHHH at 3:20 has an extremely messy low end. You need to be extremely confident in your headphones/speakers if you're going to do that. You seem to have ideas beyond your abilities so far. As far as I'm concerned, you could just scrap that section and proceed straight to 4:05 from 3:20, and adjust the song at 2:53~3:20 to build up. (*3) 3:48 is unbelievably messy and cheesy. 5:55 is dat ambient section. Get going with the rich pads and better flute articulations! =D Sequencing/Articulation Issues or Suggestions 0:29 - The song hasn't really developed much at this point. It would be more interesting if you added a new lead here that played more of a variation on the current supersaw arpeggio. Maybe you don't realize it, but 56 seconds is a long time in music land. Try reminding yourself that 15~30 seconds is a long enough time without any variation whatsoever. To be honest, I approve of 2:34~3:20 as an entirely separate, non-buildup section. The flute at 2:53 is a nice addition. It just needs to be more expressive and less plucky (it sounds plucky to me). Increase the attack a little, or get some more blowing noise into it. White noise just sounds fake though, so don't try that. Try finding real articulations, like blowing intensity and vibrato. 4:05 is very packed and the clarity is not really there. Tone down the reverb and separate your sounds some more here. It gets pretty directionless too. Try taking out some sections and making your lead writing here, specifically, more progressive and less... "bland and boring" (said Liontamer, who, while very blunt and direct, is entirely correct). Try crossing over to another genre, or slowly building down (take off instruments little by little without fades). 4:05~5:00 is the same as 5:00~5:55, except 5:00 is more interesting than 4:05. Considering 4:05~5:00 as section A and 5:00~5:55 as section B, try taking the first half of section A and the second half of section B and keeping those. Then make their combination more cohesive by fixing the arrangement and instrument choice accordingly. ----Specific Advice or Notes--- (*1) - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tXrsvC25GH8 is like a modified 3o3 arp with some automation on the resonance. It couldn't hurt to change up the bass sometimes too, like bLiNd did at 0:38. That's a somewhat simple detuned saw bass, but it has a really smooth filter that works well on low notes. (*2) - From what you have there and judging by your skill level, I would suggest any of these as bleeded transitions (ones that involve a sound that occurs right at the start of the section that is connected to a previous section): - Any type of very simple white/pink noise filter sweep from highs to lows - A smooth cymbal with a softer transient combined with a relatively quiet sub bass drop (quieter than the cymbal). - A resonant FM-like filter sweep with a medium volume (quieter than the sweep) smooth cymbal with a soft transient (*3) - You need leadin transitions too. Some possible ones: - Phaser effect - Regular white noise filter sweep - Slow pitch bend (like on sine waves) - Resonant white noise filter sweeps... in this case it''s suggested to be syncopated, and it's very resonant, so be careful. - Snare rolls - Reverses (drones, atonal stuff, cymbals, kicks, etc.) (*4) - You need stereo separation for things to be clearer with how you're writing. You can try experimenting with these: - Pan to the back (creative delay, like with FL Studio's Stereo Enhancer) - Pan to the left or right - Pan widely (creative delay, like with FL Studio's Stereo Shaper) - Automated pan - Combine any of these. For example, pan to the back AND left or pan to the back AND right for two backup instruments. (*5) - One and a half minutes spent on building hype is much too long. Limit yourself to maybe 20~40 seconds as a rule of thumb. I've seen a few comments people had about buildups being too long on other songs (some have exaggerated 2~4 minutes), so keep that in mind. ------------------------------------------- tl;dr: You are definitely close to getting this above the bar. I agree, you are about halfway there.

That's a huge improvement! The flute is a tad fake-ish because of the few articulations, but it works alright. There's a good amount of bass at 0:33. Choir fits in nicely. 0:48 gets a tiny bit cluttered, and could do with some wider or farther panning. The piano is interfering with the plucky string instrument playing at the same time. The 1:33 and 1:50 chords are pretty messy. It would help to either spread out the notes over octaves or lower velocities of some of the low notes.

The sidechaining was just a reminder. It's kinda hard to hear sidechaining on DnB.

I'm not kidding you when I'm saying it's a non-medley. Well, okay, it's a medley, but without medley-itis. If you have any critiques, feel free to say stuff. Word of warning: This song is chock full of nostalgia (and instruments). You may need to listen more than once, and rewind a few times to notice everything. Curse you, sine waves. So easy to slap you in. Oh yeah, and I didn't reference the sources. Source usage was from whatever came to mind. ReMix: MegaMan Battle Network 1,2,4,5,6 - 'Let's Bust Some Viruses!' (V1 of 3) V3 submitted to OCR on 6/8/2013. Sources: MMBN1 Title Theme MMBN2 Title Theme MMBN4 Title Theme MMBN5 Title Theme MMBN5 NaviCust Theme MMBN6 Title Theme Source Breakdown: 0:08 - 0:45 = BN1 Title Theme (0:01 - 0:15) 0:45 - 0:47 = BN2 Title Theme (0:13 - 0:18) 0:47 - 0:59 = BN1 Title Theme (0:01 - 0:15) 1:03 - 1:34 = BN2 Title Theme (0:22 - End) 1:35 - 1:48 = BN2 Title Theme (0:26 - End) 1:52 - 2:04 = BN2 Title Theme (0:26 - End) 2:07 - 2:20 = BN1 Title Theme (0:01 - 0:15) 2:22 - 2:23 = BN2 Title Theme (0:13 - 0:18) 2:23 - 2:35 = BN5 NaviCust Theme Arpeggios (0:31 - 0:42) and BN5 Title Theme Lead (0:01 - 0:16) 2:35 - 2:40 = BN5 Title Theme (0:11 - 0:13) 2:40 - 2:56 = BN4 Title Theme (0:15 - 0:28) 2:56 - 3:12 = BN1 Title Theme (0:01 - 0:15) 3:12 - End = BN1 Title Theme (0:01 - 0:15) and BN6 Title Theme (0:01 - 0:15)

Haha, I don't think I know any of those guys... other than Torley.

Your kick is owning your snare. You get what I mean.

Well, personally I don't use headphones for bluetooth, but the Grado SR-60i is cheap but fantastic. First pair of headphones that allowed me to hear clear bass, crisp treble, and uncluttered midrange. Looks oldskool. Will last probably 5+ years if you don't be a jogging listener and drop them everywhere 'accidentally'. Otherwise the Beyerdynamic DT-880 is a beast. They don't need batteries. They're not noise cancelling, but they're magical headphones. I'm being figuratively (not rhetorically) serious.

This is pretty catchy. The arrangement could be shortened to maintain its catchiness. Gotta cut out some stuff! Try crossing over to a new genre. Sounds a tad muddy in the low end. Did you sidechain the kick to the bass yet? Howz about doing some smooth-sloped noise gating or bass (frequency) compression on the kick? Snare needs some more high end to really own it. Drumwork is alright, but it needs some more (logical, fitting) fills and a more progressive structure. Right now it's what people call autopilot. The first saw lead is great, but it would be even cooler with modwheel vibrato and some portamento! 1:06 starts to get really crowded, so things are way too loud. Try turning the whole song down by around 5 dB! Brickwall limiters are a no-no in my book unless you have control. 1:58 is a little simple with the PWM synths, but it's okay as long as the drums are more audible. The synths are taking ova. The ending needs more finesse. Dropping things out is almost like fading out... except you chose to slow things down a lot and drop tunings a lot as well. Try coming up with something more creative. Sounds great so far, finish it! Maybe this will help.

Well, okay, let's see. --Boss Dialogue-- The majority of the instruments come in so early, and that really limits the piece from evolving more elegantly. All the instruments come in literally 2 seconds in. When they do, I immediately hear an overcompression by the limiter, on the drums and bass mainly. The bass is playing too quickly to be a realistic acoustic-esque bass, and the piano sequencing is mechanical. Piano needs some more adjustment with the velocities to make it sound realistic. Right now I'm not really hearing an actual structure because of the lack of dynamics. Everything sounds the same volume the whole time. --Frogatto Map and Orchestra-- 0:06 has the desire to have jazzy harmonies due to the bassline, but there's no textural harmony anywhere in the middle of the bass and the harp, piano, or flute. Lots of instruments come in one by one without a cue at all, and all that does is crowd it for no apparent reason. This has no solid or clear plan of arrangement. The flute is unrealistic or unrealistically sequenced, especially at 1:42 with the slow attacks. 2:31 was welcome, but there was no hint of it coming. No buildup, no leadins, nothing. However, there's some muddiness between the bass and brass, even with the creative panning. --Well Put Final-- The 0:04 harpsichord (?) is dry, and doesn't sit nicely in the mix. Try adding enough reverb so that it sounds like it's in a room, but not too much. It also sounds a little stiff, especially at 0:49. 0:47 has a random bass that just came in. No idea why. Must be missing something. (hint hint) 1:11 has another random instrument that just jumped in doing something, but again, no leadin. 2:00 has a breakdown, but... why? There's nothing transitioning into it, so it might as well be something completely different, but it's got to be expected. 2:30... same thing. ------------ I'm gonna stop here. Seems like your main problem is stiff sequencing, dry samples, absence of transitions, and EQ. Try looking at these: How to Humanize Velocities How to Use Reverb Part 1 How to Use Reverb Part 2 Song Structure How and When To Use EQ All About EQ

I chose The Broken Blade to critique. The bagpipes are very dry and piercing. You need reverb on them, and a mild drop in the high frequencies. The violin and piano are very dry too. The guitars seem to be kind of narrow, or just quiet. The piano is very exposed and mechanical at 1:41, 3:52, and 4:31. 2:07 has some very rigid drum sequencing, and it's making things muddy and stiff. 2:31 and 4:50 are very crowded. You tried some panning, but that only exposed the mechanical piano again. 2:52 has some mechanical-sounding brass. 3:53 has some mechanical-sounding strings. Too little release on the envelope, and too much attack. Overall, it's mainly a sequencing and articulations problem. Try working with your samples more and getting a feel for how they can emulate real instruments.

Very fun remix here! I can notice the staccato strings need a little work, but other than that, solid production!

I feel like the wave sfx and the wurlitzer are too center-panned, so everything feels cluttered especially at 1:44. Recommended to be wider. Waves could also have a little more reverb, and be more behind, if you know how to move it to the back. 1:15 could have a reverse cymbal. Cymbal is dry-ish. 1:23 has no transition into a pseudo-DnB section.

From what you said, I would argue it's the textures and arrangement that are the problem, not the sample quality. What you're using has the capability of good quality sounds, but a problem could be your choice of sounds to combine and how you arrange them. Other than that... the song is private.

Seems a little liberal to me. Could be around 60~70% source. Yes, double track that rhythm guitar. Piano felt mechanical, just like last time.

YEAHHHHHHHH. Now I'm excited.

Wait, so have Shreddage and Shreddage X been combined into Shreddage 1, now?

TruePianos is really good too. http://sites.fastspring.com/truepianos/product/truepianos?member=new&option=show_contents I honestly love that although it's entirely physical-modeling-synthesized, it sounds so realistic, and it comes with 4 sets of around 8 different tones. I've been able to use it for plenty of electronic, hardcore, and classical genres so far.

The fire crackling is fine as long as it's more obvious, but if you want to scrap it, that's fine. It doesn't really add anything musically by itself, but it contributes to the backstory. You can be more liberal if it's still recognizable, but think about it. If you heard something that was "based on" a source section somewhat liberally, would you recognize it as the source either by accident or on purpose? It works well to start a little conservative and get a little more liberal as you go, then back to conservative so that the variations you make are more easily detected.

The strings still sound fake. See if you can open the song up in a waveform editor that shows you the exact times, because I am going to time stamp this to the thousandth place quite a bit. 0:00.599 and 0:01.375 - String velocity should be lower 0:01.586 and 0:02.001 - String velocity should be higher, and the second instance should be a lower velocity than the first 0:01.790 and 0:02.201 - String velocity should be lower And so on. You need to phrase your strings so that they sound as natural as possible with what you have, or use something else that is more customizable. Right now... I notice it every time. It's very distracting. 0:06.906 - Fast percussion is OK, but it needs some room reverb to accommodate for there being a lower reverb threshold on headphones than speakers. i.e. Speakers make things sound slightly better since they play sound into a real room. Headphones need that slight ambience so things don't sound so dry, but that amount of ambience can be a good balanced amount so that it isn't making the speaker experience too much more reverbed. I'm questioning the rather random low pass at 0:28.395. It was really sudden, and I didn't notice it happened until 0:30.697, when a resonant low pass swept up. 0:31.549 - The bass that comes in here has way too much treble, and is way too raw because of it being a single oscillator only, without any sort of detuning or doubled up voicings. The filter it uses is also very poorly responding to very low notes. It's really evident at 0:37.830. From my experience with waveforms, I can actually see the bass' waveform is taking over the song until 0:41.098. 0:41.098 has a pitch bending supersaw-esque sound that has a really wide delay. Since I can hear the strings at 0:43.395 on the left, I'm assuming the strings are a little wide somehow, so the delay is taking up the space with the strings. 0:44.165 - The kick is not quite fitting, but don't worry about that right now. The snare/clap is probably easier to fix. 0:44.993 has a snare/clap layered sound that is somehow clicking, literally. There's a transient at 0:44.993 AND at 0:45.125, and they're distinctly far enough from each other that I hear this weird clicking. Is there a slapback reverb, or a short marginal feedback delay on that snare or something? The simple high supersaw-esque lead has less resonance than before or has been slightly low passed, and it's a little easier to listen to. I don't mind it as much anymore, albeit it is rather generic. 1:07.081 has a pretty cool arpeggiating formant thing that could be slightly softer but slightly higher in treble. I'm surprised you didn't put a cymbal at 1:09.486 and opted for a sub bass drop. ...I don't get it. 1:14.351 - clashing notes between arp strings and lead strings. Bass is still taking over. 2:00.196 sub bass drop is very minimalistic, and it needs more of a transition. There should be something in the higher or mid registers to counterbalance the sub bass if you're going to use it. 2:17.896 has that same supersaw lead, but this time it's bothersome in the highs again. Weird. Probably because of that atonal reverse drone at 2:18.719 and 2:22.108. 2:28.562 square lead is quiet, thin, and generic. I highly encourage you to switch it out for something more expressive and laden with energy. 2:37.887 has this weird downwards augmented broken chord arpeggio that should have the second note up a half step. Everything after this is essentially more of the same, so I stopped here. I'm not trying to discourage you. There's potential, but it still needs a lot of TLC.

Alright, here's the demo with guitar only, then bass only, then guitar+bass only. I wouldn't say legato and vibrato are super necessary in a metal song, but it's good to know how to do it for realism. Overdoing it with attention to detail tends to pay off in the end. Note how the guitar is not always playing chords, and the bass is playing hard on the notes where I would want emphasis. ------ As for the separate bass, it sounds like the bassist is playing hard sustains almost all the time, but a real bassist would get really tired playing all those hard sustains so quickly and so often. I would simplify the bassline and make it something that can be played reasonably well in real life. 0:27, 0:30, and so on are places where the bass is playing way too fast but it's all hard sustains, whereas they should be notes that are less subdivided (8th notes instead of 16th notes, etc.) and more like regular sustains or soft sustains in between some hard sustains.