timaeus222   Members

They should - and they did: essentially, it wasn't interpretive enough, and the second half was too similar to the first half. In other words, the arrangement could have been more different from the original to illustrate that you tried to inject your own original ideas into the remix as well as those from the original track, and there could have been more variation in the second half to reduce the repetition and show that you made a lot of effort to not simply copy and paste. To be fair, they did note that it sounds good on its own merits, and encouraged expansion and resubmission.

I feel like I've heard this in the WIP forums before, but I can't find it. :/ That bass solo though, so good! One of your funkiest tracks yet!

April 15 is coming up soon! Please get something a-brewin' if somehow this slipped your mind!

@Winning900 If you want more helpful help, then post your effort at making the music that is relevant to the question. If you don't give proof that you are trying, then it's hard to believe that you actually want to learn.

Generally that implies expression controls, so any of the following might help: vibrato, filter envelope (evolving filter), oscillator sync (one oscillator stays still, the other keeps moving forward, creating a dynamic phase offset), etc. Basically, filter and pitch motion.

I think it does work despite not having an overt melody. It still uses a clear motif that is repeated in various contexts, and that is sufficient in many cases.

Well, not amazing, but it still manages to successfully introduce a fresh interpretation without using too many cliches. Could have used slightly more sophisticated sound design for the leads. But still pretty cool. At least there weren't low pitch-shifted vocals.

Fuck yeah, that's rad, man! #outofcharacter

I think this is so out there that it's actually inspiring. It's a bit minimalistic in the textures, but it works. Crunchy, distorted mixes are hard to come by, and this accomplishes grunge, distortion, and lofi in an enjoyable, standout way.

It starts out pretty conservative arrangement-wise, but it does get more interpretive later on. I like the mallet percussion that is in the background, and I think it would be interesting to feature those in a section with quieter dynamics. I'm not entirely convinced the drums work though; they seem to be out-of-place in terms of how upfront and aggressive they are, while on the other hand, the brass is kinda trying to be funny (and not aggressive). Not a huge deal but I thought I'd mention that. 1:56 starts to introduce some noodling in the drums and melody (the melody seems to meander), and the lead is pretty piercing in the upper treble (metallic, almost like you cranked up the FM depth). The tempo change starting near 2:40 is a bit weird IMO, and I'm not sure it works. By the time we reach 3:00 - 4:25, the low-mids, and soon the entire soundscape, gets quite cluttered and loud. Personally I found this arrangement to drag longer than it needs to, not because of its length but because of how meandering it was. If you try to dissect the structure today, I think you might have a hard time. The production is OK, but still (like in past remixes of yours) has that issue where you layer a lot of elements without taking many out, and you just get a bunch of clutter from sounds that don't add anything to the mix. At this state, I hate to say it, but it's too rough for OCR. :/

All he's doing is resting his hand on the snare and hitting the rim (with the drumstick). It gives a woody impact, rather than a regular snare hit, but whatever the sound of the knuckle hitting the snare is, it doesn't matter since it's more subtle, and giving a hard hit on the hi hat layers on top and obscures the sound anyways. The result is more of a punchy splashy sound overall: the splash from the hi hat and a "punchy" layer containing ~200 Hz frequency content from the rim hit (rimshot).

Did you read the manual?

Great work guys!

I know you can work fast, so I'm okay even if you don't make the mid-April deadline. I just don't want to overlap too much with the SFRG album deadlines.

For the sidechaining, we are not asking you to put a high release; that would crush the bass presence too much for too long at a time. Try lowering the release and raising the threshold some. Also, currently the entire track is quite quiet. I do hear the kick better than before, though it's still lacking in low-end presence. The snare is also very mechanical in the rolls, and it would really help to vary the velocities on the rolls to make it more realistic. The rhythm guitar can be wider in order to fill the stereo field; right now, you do have lead guitars panned, but the rhythm guitar doesn't have to be so narrow. If you add delay with a very short Feedback time (a bit less than 15 ms) and have it echo left and right (Ping Pong), then it should make the rhythm guitar wider without giving it a noticeable echo. If that is hard to do, try simply doubling the rhythm guitar track and panning one left and one right. By comparison, you should see that this has a wider stereo field.

I don't really see why you've high-shelved the treble on the kick downwards; that dulls the kick, when in a rock track the ~4000 Hz "click" of the kick should be heard (it's the distinctive "thwap" you hear in some metal music with double-pedal kicks). Also, the kick doesn't really need a boost at 20 Hz; it can't or can hardly be heard at that frequency. Furthermore, I get that you want to cut at 50 Hz in the kick to bring out the 50 Hz in the bass, but 6~8 dB is a lot in either case. Try toning it down to a less drastic compensation in the EQ, and then try the sidechaining advice @AngelCityOutlaw gave.

This is something that's easier to get down when putting the practice in... http://www.northernsounds.com/forum/forumdisplay.php/77-Principles-of-Orchestration-On-line

No idea what you mean by "something". If you mean the low wobble, turn the width knob all the way up. If you don't have one of those, try adding a Delay to the bass with a very low Delay Time (such as 0:06 on Fruity Delay 2) and a Ping Pong feedback mode. That would have the bass bounce far left and far right quickly. If it's quick enough, it's perceived not as echoes, but one wide sound (generally, separation of left and right starts getting perceived at greater than 15 ms of Delay Time). It adds a touch of phasing in a somewhat bad way, but it's not that prominent. https://app.box.com/s/ofwwndutyt4ikjzsggun7rhbpzpee1ro Can you tell which one is more natural in producing width? One of these is when using a width knob in a synth, and the other is using the Delay trick. (These are separate keypresses so their phases are different, but that's not the point.) Oh, and your "awesomeness"? Can we not brag about ourselves without proof of recording?

I don't know what OS you're using, but if you have any sort of "loudness equalization" feature in your Windows Sounds settings (or the MAC equivalent), it might be messing with your Sound playback volumes. It doesn't jive well with us music producers---we like to hear what we write as we expect to hear it.

I didn't make this one, but I liked it.

Well, I still have almost the same criticism as before: - The guitars are too far back in the room. Either record them more up close, or use raise their volume and lower their reverb. - The drums are lacking punch in a rock mix, when they should be quite punchy. It's supposed to be energetic, so practice adding parallel compression on those drums. - There isn't much bass, even with a bass instrument. I can barely hear the bass instrument. Raise the volume, or record it with a mic that can actually pick up bass. Cross-reference your mix with this, and you should hear a huge difference in bass presence, guitar closeness, and drum punchiness. I also would not add post-mix reverb. What you probably meant to do with that was to put everything in the same room, but putting reverb on a bass just makes the mix muddier, so you should route your non-bass instruments to a send and place the reverb in a send.

Yep, I saw it live!

Yes, I like that better!

I find that they both are just as useful, but in terms of perception, "This year" doesn't grab me as much as "This month". So, I might find it more practical to merge it so that it's: "Today" "Yesterday" "This week" "This month" YYYY-MM-DD (if some X number of months ago where maybe, X > 1?)

As someone who writes slightly "nontraditional" dubstep, I would recommend Serum. Since one can import Massive wavetables into Serum, it is sufficient to use Serum if you want to make patches similar to those you could make in Massive. The factory presets are terrible, but the sound design capacity, especially for bass, is great. Here's an excerpt from two things I made with Serum (with separate drums, but with other synths removed). https://app.box.com/s/qg3ydqs69llbnha0r0bqf1z9ki4m244u Or, if you want an even better demo, check out zircon's Ice Lock. It's got Serum bass written all over it (and wherever Massive was used, Serum could do it as well).