timaeus222

In that case, it would help to do so, because it may be what @germanjazzguy is hearing. It's not exactly obvious, but I hear it too: if you don't sidechain the kick with the bass, since your kick happens to have a long meaty tail, the frequencies at 20~100 Hz can clash with the bass at nearly the same frequency range, creating what can be called muddiness (clashing bass frequencies). If you try EQing the bass down where the kick's bass frequencies are, it sacrifices power for clean bass, which you probably don't want. Sidechaining the kick with the bass allows the bass to duck as the kick plays, and there should be a bit less muddiness as a result, and you don't have to sacrifice some power for a clean bass frequency blend.

Are you sidechaining your kick with your bass? You seem to be doing it with your synth pads.

i don't think any good composer wants something to sound completely mechanical (100% perfectly-quantized rhythm, zero variation in velocities), because it sounds stiff and lifeless. It's not an "obsession"; it's the product of a trained ear. Mechanical notes are the equivalent of a real person playing with zero emotion, and evidently, a person cannot have 100% perfectly-quantized rhythm, nor can they have perfectly even note intensities in real life - that would be extremely unusual. For pianists as an example, a real person does not plunk down notes at the exact robotic intensity or rhythm on every single note (unless they truly try to play badly by slamming a finger onto a piano for every single note, which is not how anyone is supposed to play piano, even beginners who don't have experience using all their fingers on a piano). When we on the forums ask for humanization for a track to be submitted to OCR, we usually aren't saying, "go make it so no one, not even the best digital music composer in the world, can tell it's a sample." We're often saying, "make it so it's not so stiff in rhythm and intensity, so that there are actual dynamics in the song." The point of humanization is to give a sensation of dynamics, and that doesn't always require realistic rhythms and intensities. As long as the rhythm is not 100% quantized, and as long as the note intensities are varied, that's a step towards humanization - at that point, you should ask yourself, "is this how a human being would play it [approximately]?", and adjust further until at the time, you think it sounds good. It doesn't have to be convincing to everyone, but the "general audience" shouldn't be able to tell that much. Sometimes the rhythm and intensity adjustments are subtle, or sometimes they're kind of obvious, depending on your experience in rhythm. For example: Mechanical rhythm + intensity Mechanical rhythm Mechanical intensity Fairly realistic You should also consider the context - is the instrument in question exposed, or mixed down pretty well that it becomes harder to hear the qualities that tell you it needs humanization? So, for a solo piano performance, humanization is absolutely crucial; for something that features a piano but not at the forefront, probably not as necessary to be uber-realistic... With certain OSTs, people don't necessarily shoot for "man, I can't tell if this is a real band or not." As long as it fits the mood, era, etc. for the game, and the composer and other participants are happy with it, I think it's fine. It's what they were going for, probably. But I would say those standards are associated with the fact that the relevant OSTs are probably pretty old, like 8-bit, 16-bit, stuff that's pre-2000s - early 2000s. Or, it's based on dated styles. I don't think anyone expects something crazy-realistic from, say, Pokemon Sapphire's OST, but it fits for a GBA game. If it "holds up song writing", then it just means you need more practice working faster. It honestly doesn't make me slower, because I'm used to it, and I adjust velocities and rhythm as I go, instead of putting it off until the end. That way it doesn't feel like a lot of work left to do later. You don't want to grade 48 lab reports the day before they're due; you want to grade a few every day until you have to turn them in later, so that it's not such a pain for you.

If you know the principles behind how to make the lead, you should be able to make it. The main difference between synths is the approach to making certain sounds, except for sounds that are particularly complicated (such as some FM sounds, or metallic sounds). Try going for a detuned saw lead with multiple voices, and a slight envelope depth on a low-pass filter's cutoff frequency. Further tweaking would be needed to get it exactly, but that should get you most of the way there.

Basically, it should sound like one cohesive song if you aren't familiar with the sources, rather than multiple songs pasted together. IMO, key things to focus on include (but are not limited to) good transitions, smart source overlapping (for "bonus points"), that the arrangement doesn't meander (since it's a long piece), and that the sources aren't just inserted for the sake of insertion, but that they make sense that way. And besides that, the usual expectation of solid production and creative+valid arrangement.

huh, I feel like the smiley was changed. Or maybe it's just because of a different computer. Anyways: Yeah, I definitely agree with Gario that having just textural additions on top of relatively conservative source isn't inherently insufficient. There may be more merit in changing the form of the music, or not, depending on what the textural additions actually are. I don't mind that it's basically textural and production-based changes happening around the source arpeggio; but I would have considered: does it make sense, and does it make a large enough improvement to the original that it counts as a separate interpretation? In this case, I think the production would have to be pretty solid to carry the composition. That's my take on it anyhow. I don't inherently mind the textures chosen (they make sense to me). I don't have my good headphones with me right now, but I think the production's still a bit rough, with a few muddy (EX: 1:11 - 1:32) or resonant spots (EX: 2:16). I think you also have some sub frequencies (check your kick and bass, and maybe your sidechaining) that are adding some overcompression in spots with drums. In terms of a reference mix for an (IMO) esoteric track like this, maybe this is suitable, since it has some fairly abrasive textures, and unusual processing.

About 0:22, yeah, the crackling was an aesthetic choice that was aimed to create some unease; what I did was increase the bitcrushing depth on the entire mix, which could sound like your speakers' wiring got loosened. Mostly, it was inspired by Clem/Redg. Ah, okay, that would be a zourna (although I see how it can sound like bagpipes in its nasality); as for what I think you're taking issue with (the playing style?), it's actually a common way you could play a zourna in real life, so if that trill is what it is that's kinda bugging you, it's something that the instrument can inherently do. Either way, thank you for the feedback! I had a lot of fun writing this, and AngelCityOutlaw was a great help in keeping the arrangement ideas flowing, making the foundation that was to be fleshed out, and brainstorming what to do next.

Sí señor. And for collabs, you got my portion of the YESes.

hah, yeah, it's because I did my track in literally two days.

Yeah, fair enough; for the Torvus bog melody, it's really just a product of the way I wrote the CC11 + CC1, not because of the library I used; I just need more practice with that kind of emotional writing. If I had more time (and I weren't at WSU already), fixing the legato leads would be on the list. But for OCR I think this is sufficient.

Should totally pin that.

FWIW, you can freely monetize remix videos for my mixes (though with my collaborations you may have less luck getting the a-ok).

I'm not saying they don't matter. I'm saying few of them are rooted in anything more than built-up resentment or some sort of personal hate. I already read all of the ones here, and I honestly think that only a few of them are productive to listen to, and many of them are literal hate comments hid under slight euphemisms. There is value in noting that people have reacted this way and accounting for that in OCR's actions, but there is hardly any value in taking them as unbiased truth.

A lot of these people sound like haters to me - people who are very close-minded. So I don't see the credibility in these people, only that they take issue. It doesn't mean that they're correct. In fact, I saw mostly sardonic and some incorrect comments. This is one decent comment: "As for the whole money issue, DJ Pretzel laid it all out in that thread that Strader linked and they barely make any money off of YouTube and operate as a non-profit organization so they have to be diligent about their money for the IRS. But please don't let your bias get in the way of learning what is actually going on." At least that guy is TRYING to be unbiased... Or maybe he's just hiding his inner mistrust too. Hard to tell...

@Brandon Strader These are not contradictory. Let's take Larry's response as a reference point (meaning that what OCR does would be presented as valid under Fair Use arguments). This is what @Liontamer said: I think it's clear enough that Larry argues Fair Use. And this is what @zircon said: What @zircon actually said - when we actually consider the rest of this post, I might add - boils down to, "well, if you want to assume that monetization of youtube VGM remix videos is illegal, then I don't see why you wouldn't first assume that monetization via OCR website ads are illegal." It was a hypothetical - a logical thought experiment to show you that you are approaching this with unapparent effort to compile the information given to you (i.e. it was a method to try to convince you by showing you what logically follows from your stated thoughts and his experience). It was also to emphasize that based on what he is comfortable asserting, he believes monetization via YouTube ads won't be significantly different in relation to monetization via website ads (or any other OCR-related advertising or ReMix distribution, hence the "everything OCR has ever done"). Thus, if you, @Brandon Strader, don't believe website ads are a problem but do believe that YouTube ads are a problem, then you don't see @zircon's point, or are ignoring it... Although his approach was on the side of "well, what if we make the assumptions that you ( @Brandon Strader ) made? Then we'd come to this off-conclusion," Larry's approach was to state his view outright. Either way, @zircon went to great lengths to explain what Fair Use is and repeat what his view is. Several times. He just has a more cautious, "let's sit back and consider OCR's history before we make hasty assumptions" point of view, which - correct me if I'm wrong - is just a humble way of saying "if OCR's putting up a Fair Use defense, then YT ads vs. website ads are hardly any different" without asserting "I am a lawyer and I know 100% what I'm talking about".

Come on, dude. If anything, it's NOT to your benefit to ignore a sensible argument, and it IS close minded on your part. I'm saying this because you sound like you have a thing against OCR making money and have constructed a conspiracy theory as to what they plan to do with it, no matter what the staff or zircon tell you. You need to open your mind to others' arguments. WE (OC ReMixers) are not staff, except for a few (and no, you are not staff), e.g. OA, Jose, etc, especially not the staff that is "responsible for the site['s] exist[ence]", in your wording. OC ReMixers don't run and maintain the site (operating costs, bug fixes, web design, judging, etc), the staff do. And if the staff decided to shut down the site, then clearly the site wouldn't exist, and thus, OC ReMixers (those who are NOT staff) are NOT in complete control of the site's existence. The staff is just as important as the ReMixers themselves, if not more, when it comes to keeping the site up and running. When it comes to giving the site content to further its mission, OC ReMixers can be considered contributors, to be sure, and in that regard, we are important. But don't think for a second that OC ReMixers (who are not staff) are the complete OCR organization in and of itself. That IS close minded.

With FM you have to be more precise in your editing. Listen to when the sound becomes too harsh, and dial it back until you get that sweet spot. Try learning how to literally fine-turn your knobs (except tuning, which generally works well on fifth and octave pitch differences between modulator/carrier), and that may help. lazygecko also has some good advice.

Dude, no one wanted that riight off-the-bat. Pretty much all of us contributed to OCR to make music. Stop making up stuff bro. Anyways, djp already said he did that so he'd get honest reactions, and be able to survey genuine responses, and it seems like that's what he got. Maybe now he can make a more informed decision in response to our responses now that we've responded. Because responses.

Yep. I would just want that clarified, but I think that's a fair interpretation...

Last ReMix for a while - since I'm headed off to grad school literally today, Chris and I thought we'd work on a Metroid mix to follow our 2013 "Let's Upset a 'Troid!". Here's how it turned out! https://app.box.com/s/j3wcpb77b9o2k5ron5jy882l78524gt5 - MP3 Also available on SoundCloud:

Well, evidently I didn't like the thought of OCR monetizing on youtube videos (since I mentioned that on the Spotify topic), but if it were changed to sidebar display ads, then I wouldn't mind nearly as much because it would be similar to the site ads. Youtube inline ads do kind of bug me, but it's not really a big deal with respect to whether or not I can skip them.

Yeah, of course; it's a *tuatara* swamp jam - one of the slowest jams you'll ever have. (no innuendo intended.)

Welp, not exactly something you want to give someone who's never heard metal; it just slaps you upside the face and hammers you down hard. But then again, that's Sixto's style.

I like the arrangement and performance quite a bit; I think it's mostly the mixing that needs a bit more work. Right now it's kinda "medium metal" in the mixing of a track that's probably supposed to be pretty heavy. The metal drums could use heavier compression (especially when you compare to the huge hit at 1:30), because they're fairly quiet compared to the cinematic percussion. Also, I hear a bit of overcompression when the cinematic percussion plays alongside the guitar. You may want to use this as a reference:

I said it earlier, but man, this is your best work yet! You definitely nailed the Metroid vibe, while still retaining your highly-percussive style. You've also really improved on your orchestral work in general, relying less on well-written percussion and presenting a more balanced package overall. It does seem like the percussion parts might have been the thing that significantly kept your inspiration going to write such long tracks (I usually have a hard time writing something longer than 4 minutes by myself), but hey, it worked out. I think my favorite track is "Sentinel", as it had a great balance between atmosphere and compositional merit.