timaeus222

This probably counts. The intro feels a little random. The 303 arp at 1:11 adds more clutter to what's becoming pretty muddy. By 1:32, I'm not sure this has a focus to it; it sounds almost like a sound design experiment with Lavender Town pasted on top. Finally, at 2:24, what you grab from Lavender Town changes up melodically, but I honestly think it took a bit long to get there, and it only stayed for like, 30 seconds. Nothing wrong necessarily with using one part of the source for most of the mix, but to me it felt imbalanced. Overall, it's a good idea that can have a more focused execution and cleaner mixing and arrangement decisions in the low-midrange. Right now it's a bit too esoteric for me, and I normally love sound design.

When I installed it, I put it in an external HDD, so it shouldn't matter too much what the parent directory is. For me, I have it as F:\Storage\Kontakt Library\Kontakt 5 Library\Super Audio Cart, and the Data, Documentation . . . subfolders and the Super Audio Cart.nicnt file are in that Super Audio Cart folder. Have you tried simply deleting Super Audio Cart completely, re-unzipping the files, and refreshing Logic X to try to detect it again? Also, is it possible for you to record a video of what you do when this occurs? Sometimes it's easier to get what the issue is when we see what's going on rather than when we read some text.

I think I still got #436 - 500 to go through, but yeah, maybe more assignments, @Liontamer? EDIT: got #442 - 500 left

Okay, hold on. We need to clear up a few things here: Yeah, that's fine. It's just that some people say "Sanic" to poke fun at Sonic, just like saying "Pokemanz". Are you saying it's recorded with a microphone? Because you mentioned having a MIDI keyboard, which tells me you can (and should) record MIDI so that it's easier on you with the mixing side of things. Just because you recorded it with a keyboard doesn't mean it's not MIDI. In fact, recording with a MIDI keyboard generates MIDI data (notes, Modwheel, PitchWheel, and so on). The best part is, when you have MIDI data, you can fix it after-the-fact, and with live playing (actual live recordings), you have to do it all over again. Since there are so many tracks, it's hard to give critique on a few tracks, and easier to give general feedback instead. So with me, I picked a few tracks as examples, and gave more general feedback. Okay, so there is a joke song in this. But not all of them are joke songs. Slimy didn't say it like that, but it may come off that way. He really meant, "Is this topic supposed to be for sharing music that you made as a joke?", as in, he was wondering if he was supposed to laugh with you. People have made joke songs before, such as this parody of club music: https://soundcloud.com/zeb-ro/hashtag Honestly, I've shown that to a friend of mine who isn't by any means a music composer, and he literally said, "wow, that's actually really well made. If you didn't tell me it was a joke song, I probably wouldn't have given it a second thought." I think if you can get that kind of reaction for a joke song, that's pretty awesome. It means it's "so good at being really bad", being good in production but doing all the cliche things you find in club music (builds that lead nowhere, copy/paste, one synth for most of the leads, lazy drums, etc). That's good that you really like your own music. Hopefully you can put the critiques to practice so you can find what makes writing music so fun.

Sorry @Gario, but I have to agree with Slimy here (plus, thus guy asked for "feedback, pronto"). I'm not hating, but it's hard not to hear the sloppy rhythms. I don't mean to say the rhythm is terrible, but that it's "too human", or that you had recorded "live" MIDI with significant latency and didn't fix the rhythm. It's particularly noticeable on "Gaster's Amalgamations" since the piano is by itself for most of the song. Fortunately, at least a good portion of your stuff isn't quantized (computer-perfect rhythm), so it makes me think you might have a MIDI keyboard - do you? If so, it was a good decision. "A Possibility of a Fight" is actually not that bad. It kinda sounds like a garage jam. Granted, the guitars aren't the most realistic, but it's fairly enjoyable. "Wrong Enemy" is alright, but the sounds are fairly dry; that is, lacking reverb. If you want instruments to gel together more cohesively, it helps to add reverb to give a sense of similar spaces (even if it's to the subtle extent of a natural room). "The Wrong Number Song" sounds comical in nature, honestly. I think it's a funny listen, with the speech synthesizer lyrics and oompah rhythm. Unfortunately it's not something I would put on 24-hour repeat because the vocals are too loud. "The Great Papyrus" has better rhythm than "Gaster's Amalgamations", though there are still a few rhythmic errors. I think the average Undertale fan would like it, but it's super loud, especially at the 1-minute mark. "Hold On To Your Hopes And Dreams", like "The Great Papyrus", gets quite loud at 0:22 and on, and it clips. So, you should use a limiter to watch your peaks. TLs-Pocket Limiter is a nice, free limiter that doesn't give you overcompression (it does, however, allow overcrowding, so be aware of that). I'm going to stop with the critique at this spot in the playlist though, since you probably see a common theme: many of these tracks are pretty loud. Like @Gario said, it would probably be more practical to choose individual tracks that you want to work on more, and post those in their own topics, as it's time-consuming to critique an entire playlist, in the amount of time you deem as "pronto". My advice is, try not to keep boosting instruments until you hear each one over the other. Instead, treat it more like a balancing act between instruments, with a specific maximum loudness that you don't want to exceed. Once you get the volumes down, try EQing at clashing frequency ranges so that the characteristics of each instrument can be heard. In general, it's usually better to cut than to boost with EQ, since it's less painful (to anyone's ears) if your sounds are hollow than if they're overboosted. Here's a frequency range chart to get you started: Also, here is some music for you to listen to for comparison, so you have a mixing reference. https://soundcloud.com/isworks/shreddage-2-srp-the-devils-mudflap-by-andrew-aversa-power-metal (power metal) https://soundcloud.com/isworks/henning-nugel-leaving-dressed (cinematic) https://soundcloud.com/isworks/tetralogy-worlds-most-wanted (jazz, funk) https://soundcloud.com/biggiantcircles/borderlands-2-tropical-paradise-exploration (ambient) If you really want to get better, it would be well worth your time to take criticism with a thick skin, and not be saying "I'm not tolerating haters". Sometimes that's necessary. You may also want to listen to many styles of music so you have a greater knowledge of multiple mixing contexts. Hope that helps!

Arrangement-wise, it sounds literally note-for-note, to me. Not necessarily a bad thing if you meant to do a straight cover, but I just wanted to note that just because you want to transcribe it for orchestra doesn't necessarily mean it's going to be naturally playable as it is. For some reason I hear a bit of a hole in the soundscape in the middle-left every now and then. Maybe the reverb is not simulating a wide enough room, and maybe your panning's just a bit too wide. Not a big deal, but I thought I should let you know. Also, each note on the leads (brass or strings) has a really similar attack envelope (each one swells up from a similar starting volume), which tells me that you don't really have that many round robins if any, and that the legato notes don't really connect together naturally - did you overlap your legato notes? That should help them connect a little more. Shifting slow notes to the left would also help them line up with the beat. Other than that, I don't think I hear much if any expression automation (CC1, CC11, and maybe something else if available) on sustained notes, so it comes across to me as "MIDI orchestration". Also, I pretty much agreed with @Slimy here on his crits. A Pokemon fan (like me) would probably like this as it is, but in terms of "does this sound convincing", it needs some work. Hope that helps!

Hm, the drums seem disconnected from the ambient soundscape because they're rather upfront. I'm also not sure why, but the background just seems to smear together; the bells are maybe just too thin to be distinct with that amount of reverb present. At about 3:18, the bells get pretty loud though, so there's no problem hearing them then, but at that point it would have been more appropriate to change up the soundscape, IMO. Overall, nice ideas, and I love Pokemon, but I would have liked the soundscape to have had its textures change, and the drums felt too upfront.

"Somehow, Jordan managed to deliver his smooth funky self through a calm/relaxing piece." <--- Timaeus says, as if Jordan couldn't pull it off.

Volume 2: http://ocremix.org/remix/OCR03293

Huh, interesting; I think I find this more dubstep than orchestral, but pretty cool. The wubs add extra aggression to what would also have been uplifting and "mountainous" (from the taikos and ethnic pluck). I think they could have been more complex, actually, but what's there works nicely. Katskachi's choppy/chopped singing really fits the electronic soundscape well too.

I don't see why @zircon would have you pay $199 for something that normally costs $149...

It's not bad, per se, it just feels to me like a sample limitation or something. Ah, okay. Just making sure! Yeah, I'm not sure what it is either; maybe a latency issue? Sometimes if I have a really memory-intensive project file, and I get clicks all over while previewing, I get a few while rendering. That hasn't happened in a good long while though.

Agreed with Gario, but I do have some suggestions/comments for further improvement regardless. At 0:51 - 0:53, 0:57 - 0:59, 1:07 - 1:09, and 1:20 - 1:24, I think the violins/violas (whatever's leading) have a weird attack to them - kinda 'pulsey', or like multiple same-direction bow strokes, instead of a smoother phrase. Loving the emotion in the lead at 2:05 - 2:32. OK, not exactly a crit! At 2:54, does that piatti seem a little late to you? At 2:58, 3:03, 3:17, 3:22, 6:05, 6:07, 6:11, and 6:27, obviously a very minor thing, but I'm hearing a small click. I listened back and forth on it, and I'm pretty sure it's there. However, very solid dynamics work throughout! 3:36 feels like it got quiet in lieu of a smoother transition, IMO. What if at 3:31 - 3:36, you had the piano play a few descending single notes to signal its arrival? The hit at 4:57 could maybe have a cleaner arriving connection, as it felt a bit sudden to me; perhaps a cymbal roll, and lowering the velocity on the piatti a little? I did like the transition at 5:35 - seemed good to me. Really enjoyable overall though; relaxing. Neat mood change at 5:35, and nice and mellow ending. Great work!

Well, I do hear the jazz influences, but I think these are more like... jazz with significant hip hop influence (due to the drums, like the claps and sub kick). There are jazz-based instrument choices, but the mixing seems to be by someone who mainly likes hip hop; not necessarily a bad thing, but it's what I'm hearing. Mainly what I'd say is that the saxophone is narrow and upfront, particularly in track 1, 2, and 4, making the soundscape feel empty/not full (not in terms of EQ, but space). The piano in track 1 is distant and narrow, which adds to the emptiness. You can help that by increasing the room width on the applied reverb on both instruments and cutting down on the midrange on the sax. Try listening to other tracks with a fuller stereo field and thinking about how you want to fill out yours, as that's the major mixing issue IMO. Here's an example:

Ah, yeah. I didn't get to say it earlier, but I think the Iwata inspiration is summed up pretty well like this. "Above all, video games are meant to be just one thing: fun. Fun for everyone." ~ Satoru Iwata, Game Developers Conference (2006)

I actually like this more - the decreased effects usage actually helped clear up the low-midrange (phaser may add low-midrange frequency motion, which can get messy sometimes), so the soundscape is clearer. I think this is a great improvement from before, because there's less clutter, and more "you" in the arrangement. I like the new rhythmic variations in the drums and the revised structure. Also, 1:54 - 2:02 was a cool lead-in back to the 'chorus', and the pause right at 2:02 was well-executed. Nice work!

I love this. Normally I find bluegrass to have only a few gears, but this shows some of the versatility and additions to bluegrass that I haven't heard before. The outtro is brilliant, as Jarel says.

Even so, it's to your benefit to settle for higher standards. I give advice for personal improvement, not necessarily just for one single piece of music.

Getting better! The piano does sound more natural than before; what if for every 6 notes on the left hand, the fourth note is lower velocity than the first? Also, if you have a more velocity-sensitive piano sample, it might be even better, since each note is simply getting quieter, rather than softer (less 'spiky') *and* quieter on lower velocities. I actually like the percussion better than before; seems like you fixed that resonance! When it comes to the choir, basically, the volume swells would emulate the breathing of real people, and one way it can be done is by automating the choir's volume up slowly and then down a little medium-slow for a single phrase. Other than that, as a hypothetical vgm song, this could work in an OST.

Nah man - dis is what happens to the FBI!

Not too bad; personally I did find the standard kick + clap rhythm to get stale rather quickly though, so changing up the drums by adding drum fills and microvariations would help reduce the repetition and encourage people to listen for longer. In general, having variation in your patterns (drums or other repeated elements) is a good idea to make your arrangements more interesting. You have a lower dynamic going on with the textural dropoff about 1/3rd of the way through, so that's good. I like the additional pads at 1:48, which help you move away from the sparseness of 1:23 - 1:48. So, you seem to have a nice grasp on textural additions/subtractions---but you can do more. A lot of the track was driving forward, even the texturally sparser sections, meaning that even if the remix were to be all drums or no drums, the underlying rhythm is fairly uniform throughout, and so, the lower-energy sections end up sounding similar to the higher-energy sections. Nothing technically wrong with that, but it can be better, and I think having more rhythmic differences would help add interest. Regarding the ending/outtro, I found the 2:40 reverse-snare-esque percussion to be rather upfront compared to the sparseness of the rest of the sounds, so it felt texturally awkward for me; might be what @Gario was referring to. Lastly, minor thing, but make sure your endings fade everything out completely; the delay on the percussion at the end cut off before it ended. Hope this helps! I did like it; it just has room for improvement.

I'll be honest - I saw the title and thought "this is going to be metal. Cuz face-melting." When I read "complextro", I also expected a, well, complex breakdown, but ah well. Very energetic, funky, and in-your-face. This pretty much stands on its own as a ReMix + Club Mix at the same time.

Well, I think there is still a difference between: copying someone's notes intentionally (specifically verbatim or very similar), but is not necessarily a textural similarity (it could be). copying someone's notes by accident (a coincidence; may be verbatim or just reminds someone of a particular song), but is not necessarily a textural similarity (it could be). imitating someone's instrumentation (like the selection of instruments often used by a particular artist you like--- a stylistic similarity), but not necessarily their notes nor their exact soundscape's EQ, reverb, instrument placement, etc. imitating someone's soundscape (i.e. an extremely similar selection of instruments, similar panning, enough to call it a stylistic similarity, down to the frequency distribution, filter motion, etc), but not necessarily their notes. NOTE: This is a closer similarity than simply imitating instrumentation. While those are all forms of imitation... (which I think is when you said "in the end it's the same thing") I think #1 is not OK. That, you might call "theft", because it was intended (unless it's a cover). I think #2 is excusable, and is not uncommon to have happen. However, if the person then realizes it, and does nothing about it, I would say it becomes intentional after-the-fact. It's like saying "oh, you're right, it sounds like so-and-so. Whatever, I don't feel like fixing it." I think #3 is OK as well. This is something I've done a few times, and I would call it inspiration, as it might remind someone of an artist, without leading them to accuse you of plagiarism. For example, this was inspired by Weather Report in the drums and bass. I didn't, however, copy exact notes outright---mostly, I used similar instrumentation and occasionally playing styles. I think #4 is a little sketchier, but can be OK. This can sometimes be construed as a remake or cover rather than an inspired-by, but this does not necessarily have to involve copying someone's notes. However, I think this can make someone say "huh, this reminds me of something..." and they might really try hard to convince themselves that you didn't intentionally steal notes, because it's so similar in feel. The point is, I don't mind if imitations or similarities occur - what matters to me is, was it 'malicious intent', so to speak?

Thanks for asking - I started two days ago and finished yesterday, because I recently bought Blakus Cello and wanted to give another shot at remaking the song after having tried once before two or three years ago. Back then I couldn't discern all the notes/chords I needed to fully realize the remake, and I didn't get past the first 20 seconds. Since it is one of my favorite songs from my childhood, I really wanted to get this done.