timaeus222   Members

Obviously I'm not Rozovian, but for another perspective, here's my take on it. Even if someone has some idea of what kind of OCR-oriented feedback they want (such as specifically mixing), they might not be aware of other issues that are also important (such as an overly-conservative arrangement, or an overly-liberal arrangement). I like the idea of adding a short description; it encourages people to actually spend time to say *something* about their track, and sometimes I see people post JUST the links and nothing else, and it feels like advertisement to me. I would be fine with having the goals there, and I think that would help more people than not, but I personally don't really need explicitly stated goals to figure them out. Maybe it's just me. It still helps more of the time to have those goals there, sure. It's fine and dandy to ask for specific feedback, and I'm aware you didn't imply the following, but I would not go so far as to suggest that being closed-minded towards feedback that was NOT requested is conducive to the ReMixer's learning. So, while I would support asking for specific feedback, I would also encourage being open-minded to all feedback, even if it was not asked for. It would be, again, because the ReMixer might need feedback on something they don't think they need help on. (Believe me, there are people out there every now and then who think they've got certain things down pat when they really don't, and then sometimes they deny the feedback they don't want because they didn't ask for it, or something crazy like that. )

This is pretty good. The production is good enough, but it can be better. It's fairly clear, though I think the instruments are lacking a little bit of excitement. I find that it's mainly because of the looped/copy-pasted rhythm guitar throughout, and the lack of expression on the lead that you have hold that note at 0:33. I can't really tell what it is because it feels like sustained synth brass or something, but nothing real. Compositionally this has some potential to it; it's the beginning of a nice groove, and could probably function as a "chorus" or "hook" in a more complete track. It's the lackluster expression that's making this sound less exciting than it wants to suggest. It sounds good but not great. You may want to listen to this as a point of comparison.

There's President's Day next Monday. If you don't like Obama it almost counts!

@YoungProdigy Aside from the subtle (and not so subtle) "jabs" at you (which, keep in mind, are essentially a bit of tough love and character building), there has actually been very useful advice given here that you can easily try (or check out) without too much effort I would think. Kat ~ Adjusting the buffer length (seeing as you apparently are already using the ASIO driver): Flexstyle, Neblix ~ Check your multi-threaded processing settings. See Flexstyle's images: [1] [2] and see Neblix's screenshot of multi-threaded processing working in FL: [3] Neblix ~ Consider spending 30 minutes learning the differences between real-time vs. CPU performance: Flexstyle ~ Try another very large sample library if possible, or load a bunch of other VSTs until you break past 1 GB and see if you still get those popping issues without using Sampletank.

Have you even read Flexstyle's reply?

There's a weird piercing instrument at 2:01 that just sustains. I really think that should be changed to something else that's more expressive and evolving, since it actually hurts my ears. It sounds almost like a long harmonica note run into a guitar amp.

I think there could be a more obvious transition into 1:17; I do hear a snare fill and that cymbal hit at 1:17, but maybe the piano could have some leadin notes to signal 1:17, so I agree with Txai on that. Same at 1:54. I love the break at 2:20. I think that it might be even cooler if you had the bass do some filler runs as well (increasing in complexity on each subsequent fill?), kind of like what you would hear from Jaco Pastorius. And then maybe sweep through the track to see what variation you can add to repeated sections. I'd say that's my main crit at this point. I hear a lot of that already; some of it is more subtle, like extra octave notes, but even that works! Other than that, this is a seriously advanced arrangement. I see no reason why it wouldn't pass on arrangement. I'd say you're good to go whenever you're totally happy with it.

Are you exporting the song or a pattern (is the loop button above the Pattern rack highlighted? That's Pattern mode)? You should be writing your parts in separate patterns to make it easier on yourself when it comes to organization. As for the actual track, the guitar is just not good. Listen to a real guitar on a youtube video and compare, then see what you think. They don't sound similar at all, right? (Yes.) I would not bet on a simple 8-bit VST to not load completely by the time the project has loaded; it shouldn't have that large a sample size. I usually have to wait on only sample libraries. EDIT: By the way, @Winning900, it would be nice if you actually edited your posts by clicking Edit and not post short posts multiple times. It clutters the topic with posts that don't really do much good scattered about. You can also delete past posts by clicking Options -> Delete.

Those 150 undo levels though.

I told @Flexstyle that I'd collab with Neblix someday. Let's make it happen for this album! It's literally perfect timing, because I leave for grad school after this summer.

I don't have an inherent problem with autotune, but I don't think it was a particularly effective use of autotune here (specifically before 2:20). On the other hand, I actually liked the autotune on "Tetris Plays You!" because it was funny, so I'm not dismissing it as a technique that insults the singer's ability. In this case, I preferred the usage of autotune at 2:20 - 3:52 the most since it was less obviously correcting pitches there (less warbly) and felt more integrated. Let's put it this way: I liked the autotune here more than in this.

It's slight, but I am actually hearing the bass itself more clearly; for instance, if you A/B compare 1:20 - 1:21, there's a touch less low-end clutter from the bass's reverb. The snare's just about the right volume now without stealing the spotlight. Also some really nice new note choices near 2:13. The piano sounds a little clearer now too; it's easiest for me to hear the difference at 2:01 ~ 2:10.

No problem! I found it interesting, so I looked around for an example and found this:

Man, this is some good-ass Jazz-ass! Seriously though, you just have this excellent understanding of jazz partwriting. It's so good.

"Air" is kind of hard to describe, but it sounds like there is more of the upper-treble reflections in the reverb. Here's a before-and-after example. I accomplished that by raising the High Cut frequency from within the reverb plugin.

If you mash up VGM with an original song, then if the original song is copyrighted, it is copyright infringement when the mashup has content substantially taken from the original and the mashup is commercially distributed, and still probably copyright infringement even for free distribution. It depends on whether the original's composer saw it and whether he/she acts on it. It's safer to just not distribute it. In terms of OCR standards, when a mashup (or remix or whatever) has content (either musical or directly-ripped usually count) substantially taken from original non-VGM (like Metallica, Paramore, Slipknot, certain folk songs, other mainstream/classical songs, etc), it would be given a NO OVERRIDE. Here is an example:

Arrangement sounds great! Has some cool chords and solos as usual! ------ The stereo field feels off to me though. Some things feel wider than I think they could be, seeming to be for the purpose of getting the lead and bass to come through. It can work, but in general, a lot of wide sounds could be as similarly problematic as a lot of narrow sounds. The drums could be a bit stronger because right now some parts of the kit seem unintentionally hard to hear (the toms are a bit noticeable but not very, for instance, but the rides, cymbals, and hi hats sound fine), though I get that it's not supposed to be powerhouse-compressed. I can barely hear the snare (I started hearing it at 1:55 and on, but it seems far back), even though I can kind of tell it's there. Definitely bring that up more, get it more upfront, and try to get more "air" on the tone if possible. Where's the kick drum though? It felt strange for the chord-playing acoustic piano to be so far to the left at first; and then the shift to mostly right-panned at 0:52 made me feel like the entire piano 'performance' should be narrower in the stereo field. At 1:53, the piano chord makes me think there could be less reverb on it, but I'm not 100% sure how much there is. If there's too much, you could lower it a bit, and then that should bring it a bit more upfront, allowing you to slightly scoop the mids to accommodate for being more upfront and still let the lead come through. I can sometimes hear some sounds kind of fighting each other when the arrangement gets especially busy at around the 2:00 mark. I like it, don't get me wrong, but specifically, perhaps the chordal piano can have slightly lower velocities there to keep the listener's attention on the lead. 2:09 is where I hear the bass most clearly, and I think I hear a few weird clashes. Not harmonically, but in terms of its polyphony smearing the intonation (like at 2:11 and 2:13). For instance, I know what you wanted for the chord at 2:13, but you might want to move more of the lower notes to higher registers to reduce low-frequency smearing. This is not a big deal though; just wanted to mention it. Also, I'm not entirely sure, but does the bass have some reverb? If so, it could be lowered just a bit to reduce low-end mud. At 2:27 - 2:39, I don't really have a criticism, but it's more like a suggestion; I think you have a great opportunity here to put some Jazz Fusion-esque drum fills that keep the excitement going instead of stopping the flow like it's doing now for me, but it's up to you. And this is more of a nitpick, but right near the end, I wish there was a more obvious drum fill to signal the last note. Right now I just hear straight eighth (or quarter?) note hits. Maybe end on an off-beat hit as well? ----- The arrangement is pretty well off already, so no big worries about that. My main concern is on the mixing, where the piano seems overly wide and perhaps a bit washy in the low-mids, the bass oddly seems a tad reverberant (slightly), and the drums can come through more clearly (is there supposed to be a kick anywhere? Can't hear it. Also hard to hear the snare).

All of us start off pretty bad. We've all been there. I understand that evaluating your own improvement can be hard at first. Don't worry too much about people who criticize you unconstructively. I would suggest that you find a few good people on OCR who are willing to give you honest feedback, and they can help evaluate how much you are improving as you keep writing more music. Plus, you can rest easy knowing that they mean well. It's more informative than figuring things out on your own, I can tell you that. As for keeping up the motivation? Don't worry so much about the end goal. Focus on what's next. There is no real end goal. If there was, there would be a stopping point, and assuming that invites you to slow down at some point, which doesn't help you get better.

...What? ...WHAT? ... Dude. YES. All my YES. While this can seem unpredictable at times, I still like it at each step along the way. Lots of creative drops (like at 1:36) and transitions (like at 3:21). Liked those stuttered snares. Cool use of those "YAH!" and "YAHOO!" sfx at 1:52 - 2:00. I also really liked the reharmonization at 3:32 - 4:03. It's fresh, innovative, and should be enjoyable to a large audience.

The groove is strong with this one! I usually don't know how to appreciate repetitive genres like this, but this really works well.

Yeah, I don't ever use Soundgoodizer because I don't think it sounds that good. Plus, it has four unmodifiable presets (except for how much of the effect is in effect), which inherently limits your capacity to adapt to multiple contexts. For instance, if you apply a specific distortion and compression algorithm to particular drum samples and it sounds good, different drum samples being treated with the same distortion and compression algorithm won't necessarily sound good. Instead of using Soundgoodizer, I would suggest that you should practice distortion and compression techniques using other plugins that actually have tweakable settings, then A/B compare to see if you actually like the results or if you want to change the settings to get something better. Some people have trouble accomplishing what they intend when it comes to production because they picture it one way (perhaps as ideal results) and it turns out differently, and that may be one confusion here. Since you're writing drumstep, I think these plugins can help: - Fruity Blood Overdrive (dial in the edits SLOWLY; I think you can hold Ctrl and click-drag to turn knobs finely. That way, you can hear more of the intermediate changes in the sound and hone in on ones you might not hear had you not been turning the knobs so finely) - endorphin (digitalfishphones), a dual-band compressor (treble+bass). I use that for my drums all the time, such as for this.

I hate to say it, but yeah, I would agree that the drum writing itself could have had more interesting rhythms and fills. Let's see: - The toms at 0:30 - 0:40 (and 2:00 - 2:16 or so) have a fairly straightforward rhythm; what I mean is that it's like, for example, a bunch of quarter note hits in a row, a bunch of eighth note hits in a row, etc. I think if you replaced some quarter-note hits with two eighth-note hits, it would make the rhythm more complex and more engaging (really, over the entire piece). Whenever I imagine a more interesting rhythm, that kind of subdivision tends to come to mind. Also, I gather that at 0:39 - 0:40 you were aiming to signal for a higher energy section coming in next; perhaps that second snare+hat hit can be choked after making the hit (basically holding the drum head for the hi hat after hitting it). Whenever I imagine that, I get the feeling of anticipating the downbeat. Additionally, perhaps shift that fast hi hat rhythm at 0:38 - 0:39 so that the last hi hat hit lands on the snare+hat hit at about 0:39 - 0:40, which should make the signal more obvious. - At 0:40 - 0:56, it sounds like it's supposed to be almost like a "segue" into the main part. Perhaps have some syncopated (off-beat) cymbal hits to signal the shift? For example, at 0:50 - 0:51, there could be a cymbal hit at the "+ of 3" (when you count 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + ). Syncopation generally makes rhythms more interesting. The main part at 0:56 (or 1:28), I'm fine with the rhythm on though since it's like a "verse" section to me (while 1:12 sounds like a "chorus"; ironically you also called it that). - At 1:12 - 1:28 though, I would use more syncopated rhythms like suggested for 0:40 - 0:56. - The breakdown at 2:00 - 2:16 could have different drum patterns that differentiate from the intro. Also, 2:16 - 2:28 seems to me like it was intended to be higher in energy than 2:00 - 2:16, so perhaps consider changing up the playing style a bit, such as switching from playing the hi hats to playing the ride. - I'm thinking at 2:32 - 2:47, you have the opportunity to shift to a rhythm that isn't so much what I called straightforward. For example, using the kick drum on the + of 2, and then additionally on the + of 2 AND the + of 3 for variation? - 2:48 is totally the fun part, so maybe add some syncopated soft cymbals more at 2:48 - 3:04 and 3:20 - 3:36, and maybe even switch over to using rides at 3:04 - 3:20 instead of hi hats for contrast---by this point your "drummer" is basically on autopilot with his/her hands.

If I were in Taucer's shoes, I wouldn't want to change much either; there are five collaborators, so y'know, it might be best to just go for as good as you can manage without pulling some of them in for more and more fixes. That aside, I actually haven't heard this since I heard zircon's Phasma Elementum, which was like, 3+ years ago (when I heard it, not when it was released ), so let's see. Yep, Jill is still killin' it with her tone, and she only got better in the later years. Shonen Samurai makes it sound somewhat parody-like, in a good way. Almost talk-like, but not like he wasn't motivated, and not so flat that it felt unenthusiastic. A bit more like he maybe didn't understand the message of the song but wanted to sing it as well as he could anyway. Sure, I can see sometimes the lyrics are trying to fit into a large number of notes (yet a short time span), but it's not "phoned-in at best" or even "cringe-inducing". At worst I'd say it's occasionally awkward, but clearly not so bad that they might as well not be there... As it stands, it's right on the edge of the typical production standards in 2006 IMO. Maybe it wouldn't pass today, but I wouldn't go so far as to say it should have been further revised before final submission in 2006. Still holds up well today, and well worth listening to.

Okay, so now that I'm listening on my mixing headphones, the stereo field still sounds pretty good. With the stuff I said before, I'd say: - Yep, some slight overcompression, so definitely see if you can lessen the amount of compression on the master. Maybe the ratio is too high, because for some reason it's not so overcompressed that it's pumping, but it's right on the edge where you could tell something's off in the denser timestamps. - Still going to say the same things about the drums, rhythm guitar, and lead guitar. Haha, I guess I was general enough after all.