timaeus222

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.

YEAH! http://ocremix.org/remix/OCR03277

Wow, I like the creative usage of the clean guitar mutes as a dynamic contrast with the distorted mutes. The frequency of distorted pinch squeals used, and the frequent use of toms also really make this sound nothing like other guitar music. It distinguishes you pretty well, and that's tough to do for rock/metal ReMixes. Nice work!

For what it's worth, I think this produces a frantic feel, and kind of sounds like an acoustic Drum & Bass track sometimes, if that makes sense. I think the snare also adds to the frantic feel. The mixing is kinda stuffy, but not a huge deal. Holy bass, Batman!

Pretty solid, rocking ReMix. Did you change key at 2:10? Somehow that worked. Cool transition at 2:27 - 2:37 as well; that was my favorite part. The ending note could have been held for maybe 2 or 3 more seconds, but that's a minor nitpick.

I haven't heard a happy guitar song with non-heavy guitars in a while, and it does remind me of the Hot Freaks mix (especially 0:32 - 0:45 with the two notes that bridge across two measures). It's nice to hear a cleaner guitar-laden track every once in a while.

Apparently it's really well hidden then!

This is nice and upbeat for sure. I like the chord resolve you keep using. It was a good way to showcase a catchier portion of the original. It's kind of pop-like in structure due to that.

The rhythm here is pretty interesting. It's still 4/4, but having the melody starting ahead of the first beat and making it further syncopated really adds to the unique character of the mix. The pun on color mixing is pretty funny too. Harmonically this also differentiates itself from other variations on this theme. This really does sound as if you were writing a variation on the original for an OST initially, and then decided to make a ReMix out of it.

Sounds kind of like standby music. I liked that delayed metal percussion in the background. The change to 12/8 at 1:57 was pretty unexpected but welcome. It helped keep the pacing from getting too plodding. The glitching in the background at 3:20 was pretty cool before we got back into 3:33. I see what Palpable is saying with the "extra measure". Going from 10/8 to 12/8 back to 10/8 is quite unique. Quirky track for sure, but more people should take a listen. Don't miss this!

I do love the guitar tones. Personally I thought the rhythm guitar wasn't too loud; just that some of the drums were too quiet. I'd agree with Brandon on his advice. Standard DusK.

Kinda sounds like rave music. Except, it's the kind that I'd actually want to hear at a rave. This brings the hype, and is one of Will's best mixes. Personally I like Bleets of Lightning the most, but this is still among his bests.

Pretty sparse soundscape. Granted, this was 2002, but I would have liked at least some filter motion on the staccato chordal synth. I think the breakdown starting at 2:11 - 3:48 was the better part of the overall track. It took its sweet time building back up, and it worked fairly well.