timaeus222

More often than not, making a buildup fuller increases the anticipation for the drop. So maybe, you might have some prolonged snare rolls, plus a riser, plus the melody during the buildup, and then perhaps a short fill right before the drop starts, if applicable. A recent example of mine is this: You can tell that 0:33 - 0:48 is a buildup, and that 2:36 - 2:52 is a bit of a larger buildup (due to the more intense sequencing at 2:48 - 2:52). Using the same Rollerball example above: Even though the sound palette is perceivable as consistent throughout the track, it's not so similar that you can't tell where you are in the track at a given timestamp. 0:33 - 0:48 is a buildup, due to the prolonged snare rolls, the riser, and the fuller soundscape at 0:40 - 0:48 adding more hype. 2:36 - 2:52 changes it up at 2:48 - 2:52 and adds more subdivided sequencing for even more hype than the first instance of the buildup. The repeat of 0:48 - 1:19 at 2:52 - 3:23 is noticeably different in the rhythm and melodic contour (if you have to listen back a few times to notice it, that's OK). Even though the sound palette is similar, the composition is varied. There's a low-energy chill solo section at 1:19 - 1:50, with softer half-time drums, greater focus on the e. piano than before, and a more ambient/atmospheric feel. There's a lower-energy breakdown section at 1:50 - 2:21, with no drums except cymbals, greater focus on slow-attack pads, and overall a "slower", even more atmospheric (and cosmic) feel. There's a low-energy lead-in (2:21 - 2:36), with very soft e. piano and bell arpeggios, as well as soft 4-on-the-floor high-passed drums; it leads back to the buildup variation at 2:36 - 2:52. In terms of energy, it kind of went Low (Intro), Medium (Buildup), High (Main), Low (chill solo), Lowest (Breakdown), Low (leading out of breakdown), Medium (Buildup), High (Main v2), Low (Outtro pt 1), Lowest (Outtro pt 2, without drums). If you draw it out, it's basically 1.5 sine waves. Take the time to process this. I think this demonstrates many of the things that I expect there to be in a dynamic EDM track (clear sense of intro, buildup, drop, breakdown section [optional], climax, and outtro; diverse-enough textures). Try to pick out the individual sounds that you can manage, and try to understand their role in the section. I think I mentioned this before, but writing something that you would like is probably more productive in your musical output. If you keep writing what your audience likes, then if you don't like what you're writing, I don't see why you'd be satisfied with that. Audience tastes can be very subjective, so if you keep catering to them (as selfish as this sounds), you might actually be less productive in your musical output. This is just one man's take on this, but that's what I think.

For "Sunshine", the same sidechained saws were repeated quite a bit, so it got tiring to listen to. The buildup at 0:40 didn't really connect with 0:44. I expected 0:44 to be more interesting, but it's the same textures as before plus a violin and some padding. It just doesn't feel as big as it suggests it should be. I think it was a good starting point, but it still sounds like a work in progress. Not really electro house, by the way. It sounds like house or trance. For "Daylight", 0:44 was a pretty good dropoff. It could have used a transition, though. 1:15 needed a clearer transition, one that started at around 1:12, because that was actually a good climax. This is closer to electro house, but it's mostly house. 1:45 needed another transition sound, like a snare roll or something. The ending cut off prematurely. For "Shade", immediately there's a trance-style sidechain. I like the dropoff around 0:40. This is effective. At 1:11, the saw waves confirm to me that it's trance. It's good, but it's not electro house like you had said. The climax is more like electro house, but it took a while to qualify as that. 2:36 - 2:39 gets a little cluttered in the bass. I don't think the vocal clips really added much, but they were OK.

Kinda wish this was still going; I finished my track.

Man, the sound design just nails an unnerving feel perfectly. Sure, it's dissonant, but it's done tastefully. Pushes the boundary of pleasant-enough sound design (in terms of abrasive timbre), but for me it's just about right. Today, I'd probably define music as "the logical sequence and combination of tonal and atonal sounds to generate a harmonic experience." Yeah, this counts. I honestly found this to fit more as a track in an OST than as a remix, since you generally have more freedom in an OST, but this can be some fun listening in the dark.

Well, if you move non-muted notes around in the piano roll, when you don't highlight them, they're going to make sound anyways. An additional thing you could do is Ctrl+Left-click-drag and highlight the notes you want to move, and that will make the note movement silent. So, if you're looking to work in the same project file and have trouble with lag, try that while you haven't yet turned off the convolution reverb. And indeed, Kontakt's convolution reverb can get quite CPU-intensive; I would agree that you could opt to use external reverb instead.

Minor EQ things: There seem to be two slightly conflicting "leads" at 0:51 - 1:24. I know the funk guitar (with the phaser) isn't supposed to be a lead, but it sounds like it because it has a fair bit of midrange. It contributes to the overall uneven (overboosted) EQ of the mix as a whole. If you do a wide dip on the EQ for the funk guitar in the midrange a bit (about 1~3 dB, at about 400 ± 50 Hz), that should help make it feel more like accompaniment than a conflicting lead. Could just be soundcloud's poor compression for the upper-treble at 128 kbps, but the treble sounds overboosted to me, specifically in the drum loop, and maybe a tad in the funk guitar due to the bitcrushing. This isn't a big deal, but I thought I'd mention it anyway. Repetition (major concern): Speaking of the drum loop, it's on autopilot, and it really could use more variation. The same 9-second drum loop gets stale pretty quickly, and I can tell that (or, it feels like) it's copy-pasted all the way through with no variation because the kick drum follows the same pattern each time. It would really help to add drum fills and other drum variations to differentiate between sections, to keep the whole mix from sounding too same-y and to introduce dynamics to the overall arrangement. This is actually a fairly significant issue, because it makes the pacing plodding and invites people to skip through the mix to see if the soundscape changes. Random loud instances (semi-major concern): The reverse at 2:12 - 2:14 and similar repeat places is too loud; it could be about 2~4 dB quieter if you want it to be a transition sound. At this loudness, it's distracting IMO. Not a huge deal, but an easy fix. This does add to the repetition, because you do use it multiple times. Miscellaneous (semi-minor concern): As far as I'm concerned, a sufficient ending was at 3:21. The ending at 3:22 doesn't make any sense. It sounds accidental, even though it wasn't. Honestly, I don't think it fits at all. It's not going to make me troll the mix all over the interwebs, but I don't see any justifiable reason why it needs to be there. If not having there "makes it boring as hell", then having it there doesn't do it much good either. ----- Overall, it's an enjoyable groove, but the copy-pasted drum loop and the lack of dynamic variation would be significant issues to address. Even a funk mix that depends on groove doesn't have to have a bunch of copy-pasted measures. You could add a breakdown section with a lower energy, or maybe even add a short jazz solo. Anything to intersperse a different energy amidst a continuous groove. One way you could check for repetition is to skip 15 seconds at a time through your mix with your screen off (such as with WinAmp and the D-pad). If you can honestly tell where you are in your mix (intro, 'verse', breakdown section, climax, outtro), then you have enough variation and dynamics. If not, keep working on it. This is an example of a funk remix with sufficient variation, while being a decent match to your style: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fsaBsI0_viE Or, this one is simply a funk remix that I found to still hold up quite well today: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xn8zj1--_bg

No, not me; I did use 16-bit int for a while, but I actually have been using 24-bit int for a few years. Any differences I may or may not have heard are really minor (w.r.t. 16-bit int/24-bit int/32-bit float). You'd sooner hear quality issues if you decrease the bit rate (e.g. 192 kbps vs. 224 kbps) upon encoding than if you decrease the bit depth (16-bit int, 24-bit int, 32-bit float; basically bit resolution, analogous to pixel resolution) upon render. ----- However, whenever I have rendered 32-bit float WAV files, encoding into VBR1 MP3 via WinLAME gives me a silent MP3. My 24-bit int WAV files don't run into that issue.

Well, the main thing I can say is to vary your velocities a bit more, because the instruments sound quantized, so they sound like a robot played them. If your velocities are even a little bit deviated from the grid, the instruments should sound a little bit more human and less lifeless. Other than that, there isn't much else I can say right now, because there isn't much content there. The best I can say is, "I need more to work with", because due to the repetition, about 20% of each songs' length introduces unique content.

Despite the limited source material, it doesn't mean you can't come up with your own melodies to contribute to the remix. Also, I gave you several examples to compare, and mentioned that the drums should be more rhythmically interesting. Did you try adding something more than a kick drum? Any timpanis, bass drums, snare drums, congas, bongos, darbukas, djembes, taikos, or anything else?

I'm not really getting a "battle theme" feel here. "Bond of Fire" feels like a standby theme, and "Chidora Omega" vaguely sounds like a boss is talking, but not a "battle theme". In both, there really isn't much in the way of drumwork. It's pretty much a kick drum. Battle themes hinge on rhythmically interesting drums to convey excitement and tension. Furthermore, the leads are "too nice"; they don't make me feel like I'm battling. More like, I'm relaxing. The melodic writing is also very repetitive; in both songs, I hear at most two short repeated melodies, and little compositional development. As a result, the dynamics don't change. No amount of mixing can fix this kind of issue. If you try skipping 15 seconds at a time through your songs, can you honestly tell me that you can tell the difference between the beginning, climax, and the loop point? That would be amazing, because I couldn't. Here are some examples of battle themes: https://soundcloud.com/overclocked-records/zircon-dungeonmans-ost-05 https://soundcloud.com/overclocked-records/zircon-dungeonmans-ost-07 https://soundcloud.com/overclocked-records/zircon-dungeonmans-ost-14 https://soundcloud.com/overclocked-records/zircon-dungeonmans-ost-22

From what I can tell, it uses the highest note as the upper bound and lowest note as the lower bound, calculates the midpoint and uses that as the reflection axis, and reflects each note in the highlighted set over that axis.

Actually, a lot of these entries are really good! It's a very interesting idea to write something based on a line from a book... I may try it in general (not for a contest, just for fun).

Oh yeah, this one! Yeah, this was a pretty fun remix to see on Round 3. The production is fairly clean. I did have a few nitpicks, which were that the left-panned wobble was a bit too resonant for me, and the lyrics weren't really intelligible. That crit about the lyrics turned out to help you though, I think; can't violate the standards with unintelligible lyrics (?)! Other than that though, the meshing of the sources was fairly seamless, and I believe I had voted this highly. EDIT: yup! I put (2).

This one was used:

Pretty much exactly what I do, except I use different orchestral libraries.

Well, that's not true, dude. I'm obviously part of the community, and I contributed to the preset creation. Hence, someone from the community has contributed to Super Audio Cart. It doesn't automatically discharge me from the community, nor does it make my association with the community a mere claim. --- And well, let's say this too: I'm very familiar with Zebra2 and that has been my primary, mainstay synth for 4 years. I will always recommend that to anyone who can afford it. After having the privilege of being a part of the beta testing for Super Audio Cart, I can say that it will be a second mainstay synth, and I will similarly recommend this to anyone [with the money to spare].

Great work! I thought the lead strings attack was a tad weird when they were more exposed (0:22, for instance, though elsewhere they sounded clean), but I found the brass to be particularly excellent.

Yeah, I'm kinda 2:30 into the track... :/ If you want to go with your track, then just tell me, and I'll treat mine as a separate endeavor.

Huh, well, I found time/inspiration to do a Pokken Tournament track this morning, and I'm about halfway through! :3 If anyone else can write something in 3 days, by all means, give it a shot! Shariq wants to get finished tracks by the end of this weekend.

lmao, we don't even have a link to your channel, dude.

Neither am I, but Darke's post made a lot of sense to me! Basically, if two source motifs lie in scales containing different intervals (for instance, 1 2 2# 4 5 5# 6# 8, vs. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8), regardless of their tonic (the note that defines their scale, i.e. the tonic of C major is C), just match the intervals (for the example, shift the 3, 5, and 6 to match 2#, 5#, and 6#, or vice versa). You can decide to match the modes later (in a DAW, literally by shifting a set of notes up and down), which may or may not require matching the tonic (e.g. C major can go with A minor just fine). So long as the intervals in the scale match, it's much easier to make two motifs work together. I don't really explicitly talk about that *while* I write these remixes, but I do implicitly go through that process.

Agreeing with Jorito-Dorito here. ----- In terms of basic skills: Something useful to know would be to recognize what each type of basic harmony sounds like. For instance, practice identifying how two notes feel when they are 2 semitones apart (a major second, like C,D), 4 semitones apart (a major third, like C,E), 5 semitones apart (a perfect fourth, like C,F), and 7 semitones apart (a perfect fifth, like C,G). Then, maybe try identifying what a minor second (1 semitone apart, like E,F) and minor third (3 semitones apart, like A,C' or C,D#) sound like. Once you have those down, you should be able to identify most two-note harmonies, which is going to be a key skill to dissect even the most basic bare-bones VGM. If you can identify a minor third, you should find a major sixth to be similar (differing by the octave of the "root note"). If you can identify a perfect fourth, you should find it similar to a perfect fifth (differing by the octave of the "root note"). Some examples of VGM I think would be reasonable for you to transcribe: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZUJCpOZIjdo (try focusing on the left and right channels, and the center-panned material individually, and seeing how that works for you. This is in 4/4.) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z8j2PT7181c (this has some detectable patterns and repeated melodic motion. The only hard part would be the first arpeggio I think. Once you get that down, that melodic motion pattern repeats a lot and can be copy-pasted and transposed around. This is in 6/8.) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lamug9E_5OE (just kidding.)

It really depends on the combination of tracks. I usually find inspiration by listening to new-ish music and finding a style that could gel with the particular sources I chose/got matched up with. I don't really worry about any difference in key, and I just either transcribe it in my head or repitch a recording of the entire source tune if it's too complicated to transcribe multiple times in my head. Generally what gives coherence in a track I make is the sound design and the way I modify the motifs in one source to mesh with those of the other. If one track is minor-key and the other is major-key, I either would transition to a new mood and then back to the original mood, or change the mood of one source motif to make one cohesive major-key or minor-key track. A lot of this is practice, really. ----- As far as "is this too original", just listen back to the source tune, and if you can convince yourself that your interpretation reminds you of the original, then it's probably on the right track. For instance, I think this is recognizable (i.e. not too original), but it's certainly not a walk in the park to dissect: Source tune 1 (Cyber Peacock) Source tune 2 (Final Weapon) ReMix

The timbres are quite similar until 1:57 when you actually introduce the strings as accompaniment. That leaves the soundscape lacking in dynamic contrast, and unfortunately makes this feel more plodding than you intended. If you skip around at 0:00 - 1:57, you'd be hard-pressed to figure out where you are in the arrangement with your screen turned off. So, that would tell you that textural diversity is a good way to add a sense of progression to this, and it's just not present quickly enough yet. As others have suggested, a more distinct lead sound would be a good first step. Right now, there's no clear climax, and evidently no clear breakdown. Not really sure what to make of 2:28. It just sounds like a complete stop in the arrangement and the starting up of a brand new track, except it's the same source tune, and the same textures as at 0:00 - 1:57. So, this stops your arrangement flow in a way that if I were to stop listening at 2:32, then I wouldn't think that there is more to the track. Here are two examples of music with a large amount of dynamic contrast. Here is a track walkthrough of the second example.

The main problem with the example is the choice of slow-attack samples on fast notes (these should be faster-attack), and the lack of variation on the drums to enhance dynamic contrast (the snares are pretty much on autopilot the whole time here). So, it's partially your sample choice that's limiting you, and partially your sample quality that's limiting the extent that you can write. But mainly it's not the samples, it's you. The more you look into the amount of detail work it takes to orchestrate with more expensive libraries, the more you should realize that you need to practice so that you can figure out what you don't yet know how to accomplish. So, why not look into when you should use each articulation so that it sounds good for the particular samples you are using, and so that you actually have significant dynamic contrast? That's what's currently the major issues are here. Now, I'm not actually saying, "start from free samples and work your way up." I'm saying, "don't buy the more expensive sample libraries until you have a better idea of what you're doing." So, it's sensible to buy a 'starter' sample library to get immersed in the orchestral-sample-library composition/modulation mindset.