timaeus222

I think this kind of evokes a hometown-like feel (y'know, like the ones discussed in the "town themes" thread) due to the acoustic guitar, flute, and overall 'welcoming' vibe. I didn't find this repetitive at all, actually; just the right length. The production is only mildly problematic (a little midrange-heavy); not enough to really have much to complain about in this context. Congrats on the mixpost! Keep on improving!

The cello at the beginning needed more overlapped notes to make it more realistic, but the compositional aspect of the intro was good. The overall mastering is pretty cramped though; you can tell from how you get mostly that "papery" tone from the kick and mostly the transient from the snare. Still, the way The Great Toymaker was adapted to the performance makes total sense. I can feel the wintry influence here. Sounds almost like Carol of the Bells or something like that, due to the repeated arpeggio that is only slightly different each time it's played (such as 2:07 - 2:24).

The slightly washy, "roomy" feel of the atmosphere almost sounds like a cave. Nice!

Oh, well that would be a soft synth pluck with some ambient reverb and some delay (you can hear the delay at 1:45 - 1:46). You can also hear the same sound exposed at 3:31 - 3:36 (the guitar layers with it at 3:37 - 3:43). As for the "exact" settings, you'd have to experiment with it. I think NastyDLA MKII (which is free, in the Downloads page) can get you partway there in giving you the delay. The synth itself doesn't have to be anything in particular; with enough reverb, you can get a similar sound as long as it sounds like a pluck and it is low-passed.

https://loudr.fm/pricing --> 70~85% revenue (but don't forget to read the web page in full) https://bandcamp.com/pricing --> 85~90% revenue (but don't forget to read the web page in full) You might be hearing a few hits from a ride (drum kit component). The kick drum is also playing a fast rhythm there.

Well, since the Impact Soundworks website is putting everything on sale, the original price doesn't show right now. But if I remember correctly, it was $119. A similar version, Shreddage 2X, is normally $139. As for a free guitar, KVR Audio is a good place to search, as it contains a very large, up to date database on many VSTs, sample libraries, etc. http://www.kvraudio.com/q.php When I simply search for "guitar", with the conditions "Free", "Plugin", and "Released", I get: http://www.kvraudio.com/q.php?search=1&q=guitar&ty[]=i&pr[]=f&av[]=re So you can sift through that if you want. But it's a huge jump down in quality, in addition to many (if not all) samples already with distortion on them, just so you know. For example, I checked out SuperRiffGuitar, and it has vibrato baked right into the already-distorted samples. The recorded samples themselves are also very short, so long held chords aren't possible (for instance, in Shreddage, you can hold sustain chords for almost 30 seconds if you wanted to and it'll fade out naturally; I've tried!). Some of the others are just apps (like WI Guitar), some are functioning as a visual fretboard for MIDI input (like Armchair Guitarist), and some are discontinued (like Milk Guitar). And with the original music, I personally use Bandcamp.com (the site itself makes about 10~15% revenue for digital, for example), though other people like Flexstyle have also suggested loudr.fm. You'd want to get more opinions on that though.

FL Slayer doesn't have the capacity to sound as good as a realistic guitar. It lacks many of the intricate details that you'd find in a realistic guitar emulation, like multiple mute layers, specific string selection, virtual hand reach, the occasional fret noise, chromatic sampling, etc. You'd be better off looking for a guitarist to collaborate with or looking at a sampler like Kontakt 5 and a sample library like Shreddage 2 IBZ to get a realistic electric guitar. Probably the best demo I can find for it is this: In the case of Shreddage 2 IBZ though, Kontakt Player 5 works with it just fine. So really, if you wanted it, while Impact Soundworks is still doing its holiday sale, you can get Shreddage and use it for like, $99. You'd still have to learn how to use it, but it's way more capable right off the bat in emulating a realistic performance and can be much more realistic.

I have both, but I found Shreddage easier to use AND more in-depth in its features. More flexible, more customizable... yeah. All-around, definitely better. Shreddage is more for hardcore rock/metal, but Strawberry is generally for the less-aggressive variations of rock/metal.

Hooray for Christmas musak!

Hm... well the source is pretty simple! So indeed, the challenge is getting mileage out of it. I like what's going on here so far. Cool watery piano, and that helps anchor the creepy mood. The piano is pretty resonant though, at 800 (± 20) Hz, so you can do a notch EQ there to make it easier on the ears. You could also raise the dry mix some more; it's actually pretty distant, and while it's supposed to be distant, it can be a bit less distant. At 0:27, when the choir comes in, it's pretty static; you could automate its volume throughout the rest of the mix as well to humanize it with some swells. Additionally, if it's a soundfont, you can adjust the ADSR envelope on it and increase the attack to make your job a little easier. At 0:55, the snare that comes in, while I get what you're going for with the reverb, it's pretty hissy. You could lower the high cut frequency from within the reverb to decrease the hiss while still maintaining the watery ambience. 1:23 was cool with the low drone, but pretty sudden. Try leading into it earlier on. I'm also not so sure the pulse wave lead really works; it's kinda distracting IMO. At 1:26 - 2:25, am I hearing really quiet pizzicato? If so that can be brought up quite a bit more, because if I can't hear it, it wouldn't count towards source usage. At 2:26, I hear some sort of organ, I think, but it's pretty washed out from the piano reverb, perhaps, and now the pulse wave lead really ends up being a distractor for me. Maybe try a trebly/cosmic "sweep" pad atop the organ and somewhat low-passing the 'organ'. Also, try lowering the wet mix, or the decay time, a tad on the piano. It's a tough mix to do for sure; the biggest struggle I'd say, is to get the pacing right in this atmospheric arrangement, and using just enough reverb. I have no problem with the structure, but some more interesting ear candy littered about can help make the pacing less stagnant. Maybe some sleigh bells and long reversed-"cymbal-like" transitions can help signal different dynamics. How about putting a delay on the piano, muting the dry signal, rendering the delay itself, importing it back in as a WAV, and then reversing it? Then you can automate the volume of that up if you want to use it, and down when you don't want to hear it.

I just pasted a bunch of my reviewed-thread links in a word doc.

pH has a knack for chopping breaks for sure. Personally though, I felt the bass and energetic drums distracted from the more atmospheric background textures, making it sound like energetic foreground on top of chill background, so it was a little disjointed in that respect. Maybe some of the background could have also been slightly glitched to work more cohesively with the foreground. Either way, I do like the amount of detail put into the bass motion (I hear that high-end buzziness which is cool) and the beat-chopping, and the break at 2:53 - 3:30 was welcome to keep the pacing from getting too similar. That solo at 3:49 - 4:10 was really good too.

Okay, so it looks like the Judges' main criticisms had to do with the need for (1) more creativity in the interpretation on the arrangement (most important), (2) the lack of overall punch on the production (second most important), and probably (3) the arrangement's pacing. Now, this is just how I'm interpreting what's going on, so if someone else thinks differently, feel free to chime in. And @NeoS, I think PMing a mod can help you get that Mod Review. What that could entail is altering the rhythm or "contour" on the melody (possibly hinted at by Liontamer), or perhaps altering the chords underneath the melody (like anosou and Palpable explicitly suggested). This can still use more, since the piano in your track is pretty much verbatim when comparing to the piano in the original track (especially because it's a piano; listen closely to the original). If you want to keep using the piano, but still make it sound different, try changing the notes a little. That had something to do with the amount of reverb you had (that Palpable mentioned), which seems to be better now (though still a little high). No one called the kick drum a problem, though, so that's good. This is improved, since you shortened the track by about 1:40. Other relevant improvements since 2013 that I hear: The piano is less distant, so it feels a little less muffled (as anosou had mentioned), though it can be just a tad more upfront. You could accomplish that by lowering the "wet mix" a little (if it displays in dB, try decreasing it by around 2~5 dB). You might also see it called a "Dry/Wet" ratio. If so, maybe 10~20% less on the "wet". Your mixing is clearer overall, if not less distant enough. Some might say that there's some clutter in the treble, but I can't tell while it's on soundcloud if it's really the case (again, because of the low encode streaming, which distorts the treble from its true fidelity), so I would expect it to be only a minor issue if it were to be the only issue for the entire track as a whole. It's better than being lower fidelity, IMO. Personally, I don't think there's much you could do with the melody itself other than changing some chords or adding countermelodies. You already had an original melody that you incorporated, but maybe a little more of an original undertone can help. Some things that can help: You could work more on the notes on the background strings at 1:54 - 2:22 and have them change more often to support the lead writing. For example, at 1:54 - 2:02, a C is held out, but in the original, the chords change within half that time. I get that you may have wanted to stretch out the chords over the entire 28 seconds so that the notes don't change too fast, but I've constructed an example set of notes that you could take a look at. Since they would clash with the bass you already have, if you temporarily disable your strings AND bass, and layer this on top, I think it might help you get some ideas (or maybe you want to use these notes, I dunno). Strings, Bass You could alter the melodic "contour" and/or rhythm at 2:25 - 3:20 (since Liontamer called it "bland and boring") to make it more interesting. For example, the F-D-D triplet you used a few times helped (like at 2:31 - 2:32), but it may be too subtle to really call substantial. Maybe you could chop up the rhythm even more or add filler notes at the "changing" points, like at 2:38 - 2:39 (since afterwards you add another drum layer; sounds like a ride or a tambourine), 2:52 - 2:53 (since you already meant to go up an octave on the melody to differentiate the second half) and 3:05 - 3:06 (since it's similar to 2:38 - 2:39). Sidechaining the kick with the bass to help make the bass "duck" whenever the kick plays, if you haven't done that already (sometimes it's hard to tell). Whenever I mix other people's tracks, I keep seeing that they have more layers than I originally anticipated, some of which weren't necessary. So, consider muting certain melodic or harmonic patterns to see if they contribute to the soundscape at all. If you can't hear a substantial difference within the context of the track as a whole, you might as well not have those notes there (because you can't hear them).

Not metuhl enough! For some reason the amp sim you're using is giving this a dull tone (can use more treble). The tone can also use more "bite"; it's not very aggressive. Try comparing the tone to the one in this cover (the original is here), which I think showcases the mutes. Or, I also isolated the guitars and bass here so you can hear the articulations better (the bass is just Shreddage Bass), so maybe that'll help with the sequencing. In terms of the sequencing, I try not to overuse the pinch sequel, because it's a unique sample that can seem fake once you hear it many times. Also, in spots like 0:36 - 0:37, it seems unrealistic when you go from a high note to a low note on the lead with no fret noise, because the time gap between them is so short that the guitarist would have to move his/her fingers quickly, likely making a fret squeak noise if not careful. You can probably have a better idea with sequencing lead guitar from watching this. At 1:52 - 2:04, it's pretty blocky when you have a bunch of chords one after the other like that; it almost sounded like you wrote it in a hurry, it sounds pretty quantized, and it would be smoother if you used single notes every now and then when it makes sense. Lastly, remember that metal track on BadAss V3 that you did where you were happy with the drum production? Yeah, get that production with these drums. You've done it before!

I'm a slowpoke. I got to 50 just now.

The strings have a lot of weird swells, and the piano volume dips weirdly near the end, but oh well. Great work, especially for 2001. I bet back then it was well-received.

Wow, this is actually really good for its time! I'm getting that island relaxation feel from this. While some of the samples are pretty bad, the solo acoustic guitar was pretty convincing (isn't that sequenced?), and I honestly can't tell if the right-panned electric guitar is real or not. But man, that ending though. Could have gone without that last note!

Interesting. Wasn't too much of a fan of the music box-like intro since the rhythm was sloppy, but what came after showed promise as to how it could sound today. I like the rhythmic change-ups. The partwriting during the non-dance rhythm (e.g. 1:56, 2:09, etc) was the highlight of this for me. Nice work!

Hm, a few more issues arose since last time, some small, some that probably won't be too hard to fix. There's a strange hiss at 1:28 - 2:22 coming from one instrument (a supersaw? It's hard to tell because soundcloud encodes at 128 kbps); it can be low-passed to clean up the upper treble, because I'm finding it to distract me a bit from the piano. Also, the flute at 4:18 - 4:43 is somehow louder and more compressed than the previous version; you could just lower the volume, but varying the velocity magnitudes some more can also help. At this point I think it would help to get a Mod Review (and perhaps post your 2009 version, to see if the Judges' comments still apply?).

Funny story. So, I finished a remix of an icy theme. But it wasn't for this album. But it would totally fit the theme of the album. So... I'ma submit that one right NOW! Also, @DarkeSword: ICE BRAIN HYPE!

Thanks @Nostalvania, appreciate it! And yeah, that tempo change at 1:52 was pretty subtle! I went from 152 BPM to 144 BPM, and then after 2:35, I went back to 152 BPM. The same to @Daniel Caton! I don't play cello, but I sing at my local church, and one day my director decided to take up a guest cellist for the day, and it was the first time I heard a cello up close. So I figured I'd put one in here.

Wow, I think Rhapsody Orchestral Colors has its own distinct tonal character. If you don't have a full orchestral library yet, this is always a good place to start!

Wow, haha, I was pretty picky back then. So I'm probably going to have completely different comments now, but let's see. With the 2013 version: I don't really mind the white noise sweep at 0:27 anymore. There is no weird note at 1:30. The buildup at 2:34 is fine, length-wise (what you did during that length of time is another story). And my 2013 comments were more harsh than I intended. However, I do still think that: The cymbal has quite a bit of delay, and the "feedback" (or the extent of echo, in other words) can be decreased on it to clean up the stereo space. The stuttered saw lead at 0:56 doesn't seem to fit the atmospheric vibe you're going with here. The transition at 1:23 can use a bit more work, but isn't "weak"; it just stops the flow of the track for a bit. Something like an ascending piano arpeggio could help, for example. The transition at 2:24 felt a bit long before tonal elements came in. I don't think the white noise sweep is "a bit obnoxious" anymore, but yeah, I think you should bring tonal elements in more quickly. 3:20 ~ 4:06 is not THAT aimless, but the transition at 3:48 - 4:06 was super cheesy (like, pop cheesy). If you're going to do that, I would at least vary the velocities on the kick more to keep it from getting too machine-gun-like. It would be interesting to try scrapping 4:32 - 5:27 to see how it sounds. Hm... sort of similar. But anyways, that's just me updating my old thoughts, and that only applies to the 2013 version. Now, with your updated, 2015 version, here are my thoughts: Nice, the production is much less cluttered. Oddly enough, your stuttered, phasered saw wave (from 0:16) was clearer two years ago, and now it's pretty buried (until about 0:55). The amount of delay on the cymbal I mentioned before is just fine now though! I'm still hesitant to say that 1:23 isn't stopping the flow of the track for a bit; like I mentioned right above, some sort of tonal arpeggio leading in can help keep the pacing going (though it's not a big deal anymore). The dynamics are much better here, honestly. The buildup starting at 1:55 isn't overdoing it, although 2:25 is pretty underwhelming after the impact at 2:22. Maybe a more nuanced cymbal-like sound can help. Basically, something that signals an increase in the forward drive. Anything else you can think of to raise the energy of that transition can help. The outtro being slightly drier than two years ago actually also helped make it more intimate by exposing the flute and piano a bit more. Great job so far! This is a huge improvement over the 2013 version. The master track is much less squashed, the soundscape is less muddy, and is cleaner overall. The arrangement is also well-paced now. To be honest, this is going to turn some heads. I still think it can be improved further, though, and it's almost there! At this point, the major stuff I would be concerned about are the transition at 2:22 - 2:25 and just working on the overall clarity of the production a bit more.

Yeahhhh, this track! I loved this in the workshop. So much creativity brought to a well-known source that just blows it out of the water. melody has always had a brain for improvisation. I was a fan back when I knew him as xRisingForcex on YouTube... still a fan of him here on OCR as melody.