timaeus222

I think that initial sine wave sequencing needs to be fixed up. The portamento is a bit excessive, and it'd be great if you could give it more phrasing. It sounds like there's portamento between every note, or almost every note, and that's kinda awkward, rather than ethereal. Maybe in some spots, instead of portamento from one note to another, you could try stopping a note slightly short, then adding a quick note before the next note. i.e. a grace note. Yeah, the sax could be louder, and the wet mix could be slightly lower. Right now it sounds almost as distant as the sine wave, and if I were you, I'd push it forward a bit further than it is now. That's what I got at the moment.

That implication came from your thoughts. If I wanted to, I could say you implied with this quote... ...that music recorded before it could be recorded sucked, which doesn't make sense because it isn't possible to record in a time when you don't have the tools to record anything at all. Totally not what you meant though. You meant a time when music couldn't be recorded from a home studio that you could buy materials for and assemble and build yourself. I can see where you're coming from, though, with what I said. It seemed like I linked the word "skill" with the unwritten word "musical". I actually didn't link the word "skill" with anything. I meant to write "production skill" (otherwise it's literally plain old "skill" with absolutely any modifier you want to give it with the uber power of your mind), and you were thinking of "musical skill", which aren't the same, as Rozo mentioned. What I meant is that typical people who don't write music don't hear what we hear. Once you start delving deep into music production, you start joining the group of "elite few" who have ears that can hear distinctive details that the majority of the population either doesn't often notice or dismisses because the details aren't subjectively enjoyable. I didn't imply that the only way to show musical skill is through production. I didn't imply anything, actually. If at all, I would have implied that good or convincingly good musical performance combined with memorable passages and sufficiently good production equals an enjoyable song to both audiophiles and the general audience. I wouldn't say songs before the high quality technology arrived sucked. I would say songs before the high quality technology arrived could be good or bad, depending on the balance between music production skill and interesting musical writing. Basically, songs before the 2000's had the challenge of less technology, and therefore, oldie artists had to develop real musical as well as production skills. Back then, without the somewhat exclusive tools (which were sub-par when compared to more recent years. Like tape delays for reverb, versus traditional digital reverbs, versus convolution reverbs), not many people were capable of writing/starting a song at all. These days, we can just throw things together and call it (or try to call it) a song, and because of that, it's much easier to write a bad song than before the 2000's. Okay, I think that's clear enough, lol. ------------- @Rozo: Yeah, that's what it said in the link I posted and that's therefore what I was thinking about the two words when I typed out that post. It's a long article though, so I'd understand if you didn't read much of it. I'm taking a logic class very soon though, so I'm probably going to go back and read that eventually. It's a pretty cool article I found on a random google search.

Well, since I happen to play piano... I really like the chords you have going on there. Lots of suspensions split between the left and right hand, and cool mode shifts (like at 1:04). The arpeggio at 1:09 might be a bit weird. Try listening to it a few times to see if you can write new notes for just that part, to make it less sad and disjointed, because it feels like it should be uplifting there, but the writing didn't reflect that right there. 2:55 sounds dissonant in the wrong way. The notes are dissonant, but it doesn't fall under a conventional dissonance that I know of. 3:08 as well, but I can kinda hear what you're going for. There's a dissonance that could work there, but right now the intervals are making chords that are slightly off from the "just right" chords. Or maybe the wrong notes are being emphasized. I was told once that playing something bad with the right emphases can make it sound less bad. That's pretty good so far, lots of great change-ups, and I wasn't bored.

I notice that too. After working with music for so long, sometimes I forget how little non-music producers care about how well something is produced. They like what they like, and they're very subjective (that better be the right word, lol). i.e. They comment based on their preference, not the skill your song shows or doesn't show. In the end, the general audience is your final judge on whether or not your music is enjoyable (although there are some people that can be both subjective and objective about a song. ;D). People on the WIP forums are for objective comments or both.

AFAIK, you can only use MIDI CC on one instrument at time, unless a specific sample library is designed to react to certain MIDI CCs without initial setup (like Evolution Electric Guitar, Shreddage, etc.). I can't check right now, but have you tried MIDI channels above 1, by itself only? If that works, my first paragraph is why it works. If not, have you checked if you know how to use MIDI Outs with multiple libraries loaded into one Kontakt instance? Once you can do that, then you should have a better handle on using MIDI CC with them. I don't think I've tried that, but only because I don't think I ever wanted to or had to.

Sounds like an issue with the soundfont's size or something. I get that "really long rendering" effect and the CPU spikes on certain soundfonts from Darkesword's website. The mixed soundfont (the one with the koto, shamisen, hammered dulcimer, shakuhachi, etc.), Orchestral Rhythm, and Squidfont Orchestral soundfonts do that to me. I don't get the muted notes problem though. I think it could just be a polyphony problem. Maybe something right before the part that gets dropped has a waveform tail that maintains the voice for long enough to add to the polyphony, and that makes the instrument using the most voices drop out altogether.

I don't really share WIPs too often unless I want feedback from a close friend, or something like that. In those times, my WIPs tend to be incomplete in arrangement and partially incomplete in production quality. I work on production at the same time as I work on the arrangement. That way, when the arrangement is being written, I don't have to worry too much about the production. Instead of fixing everything later, I only have to fix one instrument at a time, as I'm adding it in. Much easier than making 30+ mixer tracked instruments balance exactly perfectly. In the case I post a WIP on OCR, I almost never post a WIP with an incomplete arrangement. Usually when I post WIPs for feedback, they already have finished arrangements, and I search for minor adjustments to the arrangement and/or fixes to some production stuff. That way people don't have to get distracted and say stuff like "oh yeah, and you should probably put an ending. It'd be a good idea, mate! :D". That's mainly because often, only I can truly write an arrangement that satisfies me, but I tend to be able to put myself in other people's shoes to help with their arrangement if they need it. Rarely do I ask for advice on arrangement; that only happens if I truly get stuck right in the middle of a track and I can't think of anything at all within a whole bunch of retries. As for copyright... come on, really? What musician would be good enough to copy your instrument timbres exactly and then continue your arrangement coherently? Well, the answer to that is simple. One that has the skill to do so... and one who has that skill would also have the proper mentality to not actually try that. What well-rounded composer, in his/her right mind, would need to steal, when they could write their own song, right? Besides, even if they just take the musical ideas by themselves, they probably wouldn't have the same ideas as you for the arrangement, so it would be kind of unique, yet somewhat of a ripoff anyway (in a nice way).

The snare sounds a little weak, so try compressing it with a low threshold, a high gain, a fast attack, and a kind of fast release. That way, the snare is punchy, but not overcompressed; it'll be compressed for a short enough time that it is just more powerful. That lead works for me, but change the lead a tad throughout, and you can make it even more interesting! Maybe give it a slightly resonant filter and some vibrato, or some portamento sequencing? WillRock might give you some inspiration on making that lead more expressive. Great track so far, the drum writing is pretty active and exciting. Just remember to add an ending.

The initial acoustic guitar tone sounds pretty good. The electric tone after that needs some more tone-crafting. It sounds a little nasal and narrow. Give it some more low-end power and double-track it. Right now it's a bit mid-heavy. Your drums are nice, but they sound a bit dry. Try adding some room reverb on the drums. Not too much, just enough to make it sound like it's in an actual room, simply because it's pretty acoustic. The kick and snare could also be brought out some more. When the EP first comes in, it kinda drowns out the kick and snare, and also the guitar a bit. The guitar sounded pushed back and kind of far away. It's fine if you meant to do that, but it's a bit excessive at the moment. Pretty nice so far, keep it up!

I think it's private.

1. I have that problem too, but frankly it's not a big deal, so just switch windows, change the volume, switch back. 2. View > Page Style > Basic Style. That might be it. 3. Tools > Options > Security, and you should find what you need there.

I don't copy and paste placeholder patterns. I just write them in as the time comes. i.e. I write them 4 patterns at a time, and when I feel like there should be a change, I clone patterns 2 and 4 and change them. Sometimes I even change pattern 3 to keep it different the entire time. Great advice: Don't let laziness control how you write your drum patterns. I also don't play it in live. I tried once, and it's hard to get used to it. Just listen to how you want your song to sound at that moment, and make your writing match that. I've done a simple kick-snare rhythm before, and I've done a drum rhythm with 4 layers of patterns before. It just depends on the feel of the spot you're currently composing in your track.

Everything's overcompressed somehow. It might be the drums overall doing that. Try mixing without a limiter, and put it back on when you think things won't hit the limiter so hard. Right now things sound distant, like it's a mix of next door music and an auditorium.

It sounds like a distortion ampsim with some compression where the gain is higher than the threshold so that it clips.

Hope this isn't too ridiculous, but I just finished my track. 0.0 Just in time for university classes to start up again. I called the track "K.Rool and K.Lumsy Punishment". xD

First of all, I'm not sure what you mean by death metal, Gar. This is clearly a dance/synthpop mix. This isn't bad at all. The sounds you chose are really cool, and the song is upbeat and exciting. It's repetitive, but it's not with bad sounds, so it's not as bad. You just need to balance them better, give them more spatial arrangement, add proper reverb, and give them expressiveness (vibrato, tremolo, etc.). EQ out any frequencies that you don't need in certain instruments. If you still have overlapping frequencies, use different instruments, or shift octaves. That should make everything clearer. Then add reverb where appropriate. Fact: Pretty much nothing in life comes without reverb of some sort. Good luck with this. It might not be a fit for OCR at the moment, but it sure sounds good.

The intro/buildup is a bit long. Definitely shorten it. Limit yourself to changing things up every 4 bars, and it should make it more concise. Right now it's about half the song. The pace just never actually gets more exciting until the second half. That first flute doesn't really work because it sounds fake. I think maybe a simple pluck arp might work better. The mandolin-like instrument is pretty good. It just sounds a bit dry, so add some reverb on it, or more reverb on it. I think a Dubstep-like drum rhythm might work pretty well in the buildup. Other than that, it's not bad, a lot of the sounds are pretty good. I'd replace the current leads with something more unique or expressive, and the saw wave playing the jazz chords with a real rhodes, or something closer to that.

I don't think I'm hearing that much low end detail. It's mostly subs, skipping low end, and then the rest of the frequencies. Aside from that, the kick covers some of the low end, but not much. In a song like this, you need an actual bass, not a really low sub bass. Try finding a PWM bass, that would work great. I think in the breakdown section at 1:36, the polyphonic saw is too hissy, and detracts the listener's attention away from the lead. The lead, as it is, is too simple. It's just sustains. Try making it more expressive, like with legato, vibrato, and so on. Or pick a new sound for it. You can change leads in the same song without it being awkward. I think the sub bass overall is too loud, btw. Near the end, the lead is obscured by the bass, and the sound effects are acting like they're the main attraction. Really think about what you want to be heard and what you want to just be there to fill the mix.

The bass isn't too loud, but it has reverb, which it shouldn't. What bass have you heard of that has reverb? Even though it's an arp with automated filter, it's playing really low notes, so close enough. Instead of adding reverb to the bass to get a fuller atmosphere, add fuller instruments in general, like pads. Right now the mix sounds kinda muddy with the excess reverb on the bass. I think if you take that out, it'll clear up room for more instruments. You can also spice up your arrangement by adding things in faster. Instead of just adding things in every 16 bars, maybe add more subtle things in at 8, or even 4 bars. You should also craft your sounds some more. They're interesting, but not all of them.

That's good. I would have recommended Zebra2 as well. That's what I used to make that layered bass sound. I understand that you want to go for a specific style, but that doesn't necessarily limit you to the few instruments in that style. Lots of OCR artists have remixes that mix several genres. Although 80's Acid House is pretty specific, there are more than just those specific instruments that can go well with that genre... right? For example, I don't think I heard this: Then of course you can always give your sounds more life, if you don't want to change them or add more. Craft the tones some more to keep sort of the same tone, but with your own touches to it, like vibrato, phaser, chorus, etc.

I'm not actually asking you to find more sounds. Just more flexible VSTs. I'm asking you to be aware of any new VSTs that warrant your attention (those that are capable of some really great synthesis, AND are inspiring), and it looks like you are. Just don't limit yourself to the free stuff. Be on the lookout for the good commercial VSTs too. Look at reviews and seriously consider buying something that you believe you'll keep using for a long time. What I mean by more interesting sounds is that I'd like to hear more than just basic saw waves and all those basic waveforms, plus a few interesting things. It'd be great if you spent more time adding subtleties that, although most people wouldn't notice, add more to your remix and really make it stand out. For example, layering specific sounds to get a sound that you want that you don't have. On a remix I'm working on right now, I spent about a half hour picking bass tones to layer to get the right bass tone, and I ended up mixing an FM bass, two different PWM basses, and a funk pulse bass. It sounds like this: http://www.box.com/s/22faivryknxo6fg7olvh There was a funk pulse bass to give it a big low end, one PWM bass to give it a powerful treble tone, one other PWM bass to add more to the treble to let it pierce through a thick mix, and an FM bass to round out the overall tone. So what I'm saying is take your ideas to the next level and make your sounds attractive. Add some expressiveness with vibrato, tremolo, pulse-width modulation, phaser, chorus, sync, and so on. Think about if other people might think "Damn, that's a really cool sound. How do I make that?" If they think "Oh, that's a pulse wave" or "That's a square wave on a low octave with some detuning", it's because it's a simple sound. Add some interest into your sounds, and it'll make your tracks much more appealing to more people.

Yeah, a lead would be a good idea. I don't think I've ever heard a song without a real lead (unless you're constantly going for a [insert proper name here] note that is just "there" because the harmony's so good. ;D).

Nah, I just meant you needed more different sounds in general to make the song not sound so much "the same" throughout as just a "consistent feel" throughout. I'm trying to get you to create a track with a more complex and rich atmosphere, not necessarily more packed with filler sounds or super high quality with awesome sounds. The ones you had were fine, just expand the amount of instruments a bit more to create more distinct sections to the song. Listening again, I hear these things: The waveform looks good, I think the mastering is great. At 0:25, the plink-like arp that comes in might be panned too far left, I'm not entirely sure. I hear more of it on the left than the right, and it's kinda awkward. Maybe do some automated panning? I'm not sure what's at 0:53. If it's a sudden white noise transition, it'd be great if it came a bit earlier. For some reason though, at 1:01, when the lead comes in, it's still too far in front. The snare and kick are being obscured. Try turning up the volume on the kick and snare all the way, and using a good quality compressor to keep them from hitting the limiter too hard. Then try lowering the volume (just a bit) of everything except the drums by the exact same amount. Maybe then that'll leave headroom for more ideas. At 1:55 - 2:39, there are actually too many instruments there in the same frequencies, so it sounds muddy. I know I said add more instruments, but I meant fill frequencies that are kinda empty. Maybe it's time you did some more instrument-hunting, to find more resources than what you have right now. I'm still staying aware of anything interesting these days. I also expected the lead to stop at 2:24, so maybe that's a good time to put in a transition into a new section for the song. This time, try breaking away from the feel you've had going for the rest of the song and changing the rhythm. I'm not sure what you could have in mind, but maybe a breakdown section of some sort could help. Taking away the drums, changing the time signature, using a new drum rhythm, or anything like that could make this work. Maybe another thing you could do is automate EQ bands to lower the frequencies that would have overlapped if a new instrument came in. That way, that instrument has room to breathe, and things aren't clashing as much. Sounding a lot better, keep it up!

Wow, that's some extensive expansion on the theme! Well done! Since you change the type of drum beat at 1:22 and 3:23, you might as well make a better transition than that. I didn't expect the change from dance to big beat. It gets pretty conservative after 3:23, but that's a good thing. Maybe you can get more conservative near the ending, because the source has been pretty chopped up before 3:23. I'm thinking you should upgrade the lead sound. Make it more than just a saw wave. Give it vibrato, make it legato, use modwheel, etc. Add some more glitching, like at 1:49. Maybe a glitchy section. Add more interesting sounds, like at 2:04, except not just one new instrument; do more than that.

I agree, the rhythm guitar is too loud, but not by much. Maybe lower the gain by about 2 dB?