timaeus222

I think the main things that come to mind are: - The melody at 0:44 is not in the same key as the chords, even though the chords are in the same key as the bass. The bass is in A minor, the chords are in A minor, and I think the melody is in Db minor, so there is a lot of clashing. - Beyond the different keys, there is a lot of frequency clashing in the low-midrange (100-300 Hz) at 1:20 - 2:04. Because of that, it sounds too chaotic and muddy. There are a few things that it would help you to work on: 1. Mixing using an EQ so that you can declutter frequency ranges that are occupied by multiple instruments at once. All you need to do is look at what instruments are occupying what frequency ranges, then decide what you want to be heard, and cut down overlapping frequency ranges until there is not nearly as much fighting. I don't know of a better example than this person's archived livestreams to learn how Parametric EQs work and how you can tell where to cut. 2. Expanding your sound palette. I didn't mention it because it wasn't the main issue, but it would be good to save up money to buy a good synthesizer plugin (like Zebra2, FM8, or Massive). I think for over 7 years I've just used Zebra2 as my main synth and it's given me the chance to practice with it and make or gather a very versatile set of sounds. What you've used in this song is just very simple-sounding imo. 3. Getting a basic grasp of music theory. Mainly, you should know what a key is (C minor? A# major? D minor?), how to recognize that two instruments are not playing in the same key, and how to identify what key a melody may belong to. Hopefully this video can help.

I don't think I have much to say here on the arrangement itself, but I will say I'm somewhat concerned that the degree you are incorporating Transatlanticism might give you issues with copyright. Maybe @Liontamer can check this out and see what he thinks. I'm pretty sure it isn't directly sampling the original, but it's closely emulating it while mashing it in. Besides that, I think the pacing is good for this context, and most of the production is already solid. Great guitar tones, and I'm not worried about them sounding unrealistic. --- I would just have a few things to say about the humanization or production. - The piano at the beginning is a bit stiff, so you can offset the start time of the chord notes a bit more to soften the attack. - The drums at 2:51 (mainly the snare) sound mechanical to me. It seems like the snare is about the same velocity the whole way through, and it sounds like one sample. I would at least lower every other note's velocity so that not every note is exactly the same. This is probably the biggest issue for me besides the potential for being too similar to a licensed song. - The part at 5:27 and on is pretty loud. Maybe it's because of the added rhythm guitars there, but the whole thing sounds collectively louder than what came before it for whatever reason. Try lowering the volume of the rhythm guitars for that section and try to match the loudness of what came right before, and that should do it. Not really a dealbreaker but I figured I'd mention it.

[This is an automatically generated message] I've reviewed your remix and have set it to Completed status, indicating that your remix has been reviewed. If you feel like you still need to work on your track and want more feedback, you can change the prefix back to Work-in-Progress and we'll go through the review process again. If you decide to submit your track, please change the prefix to Submitted after sending your email. Thank you!

MOD REVIEW As far as the length goes, it's maybe okay. We've had really short ReMixes posted before, but they had to be sufficiently evolving and feel complete despite the length, and they also needed significant personalization that distinguishes from the original. The original was mostly piano and guitar, and you at least transformed it to piano and an orchestra, so I think that idea should be enough in terms of the written arrangement. Generic mixing remarks: - I like the tone of the piano in a vacuum, but at the start it seems to clash with the pizzicato bass you have a bit further in at 0:23. Try raising the lower bound of the reverb's Damping range to be above 200 Hz. Basically, this should decrease the amount of reverb that is applying to the bass frequencies of the piano (not the same as high passing the piano sound itself). That should let the low pizzicato breathe a bit more. At the same time, you may want to slightly decrease the reverb on the low pizzicato to increase the clarity between the two. Also worth high passing the piano around 40 Hz just to remove any unnecessary sub bass frequencies. - There is actually a bit too much reverb going on overall in the high strings, so it's hard to distinguish the notes starting at 0:45. It also accidentally hides any lack of humanization that we'll talk about below. Despite the "instant playability" that Spitfire promises, you will still have to do some manual work to make them sound more realistic. Sequencing remarks: There are a few things you'll want to humanize some more. - The strings that come in at 0:45, as well as the oboe at 1:05 and the flute at 1:22 are behind because the articulations you are using are slow (a long Attack envelope). The piano is giving you the beat. Try shifting them about 0.15 secs to the right, and they should line up a bit better with the beat. - The notes on the strings are bleeding together. It sounds kind of like what they would do right out of the box without any MIDI CC because there isn't a smooth transition between notes like you would hear if they played legato, portamento, etc.; instead they just mush together. I think the "Performance legato" patches would do the job best here, but you'll have to use MIDI CC #11 to add some expression and make those legato lines evolve as the note plays so that it sounds more humanized. It'll take time to understand, but it's needed for this to sound realistic, especially on a 2 minute ReMix. Check this out if you haven't already. Minor remarks: The ending is quite loud compared to the rest. I would say to lower the velocities on the strings at 1:38 and on, and that should match the loudness of what came right before it. Adjust the piano velocities accordingly too after 1:38 if needed. --- Overall, I think the major things to look out for are: - Too much reverb on the strings, which bleeds the notes together. Piano has a bit too much low end on the reverb, so it clashes with the low pizzicato. - Strings, oboe, and flute are behind/late. They also lack MIDI CC expression and a legato feel that should be there on a melodic sequence. - Ending is loud compared to what came immediately before it, so lowering the strings' velocities there should help smooth it out. I think as far as being conservative, it might be just personalized enough mainly because the original used guitar and you used an orchestra. This being a very short ReMix could hurt you though, but that being said, short ReMixes have been approved a few times before, so it's not impossible to see another. END OF MOD REVIEW

MOD REVIEW Well, sort of. It's more train-of-thought than I'd like, but it should get the points across. - The right-panned guitar starting at 0:08 is piercing around 2700 Hz, but also sounds alike to the left-panned guitar, just with added flanger-like effects. Part of me wants you to try replacing both lead guitars here with synth leads to add a sense of progression when you transition at 0:26 into the heavier section where guitars are more justified. (The guitars make more sense at 0:42 - 1:06, although the piercing nature of the right-panned guitar there also stands.) - At 0:26, there is a very piercing left-panned synth lead (just low pass it above around 11000 Hz), because it has a metallic quality to it above 13000 Hz. Same at 1:27. - At 1:27 - 1:42, which is similar to 0:26 - 0:42, you're definitely putting too many high-frequency instruments in the same spot. Consider that you're probably just using too many instruments there, and take the time to decide what you want to lead, what is arpeggiating, what is doing rhythm, what is doing bass. Think about the question, "if someone were to attempt to recreate this by ear, how feasible would it be?", then adjust accordingly so that you can distinguish most of the notes and what is playing what. - At 1:42 - 2:06, consider again that you could replace the two lead guitars here with synth leads (preferably two different ones from each other), to add meaningful variation across sections. No matter how much I like guitar, this is too much guitar noodling in these first 2 minutes. - I do like how 2:06 - 3:06 sounds. That should be the kind of feel you shoot for. - Within 3:06 - 3:48, the church bell sounds off-tune (maybe sharp). You could just use a tubular bell soundfont and it would probably fit the role better. Also, you could probably remove the church bell sound by the time you get to 3:48. At that point, 3:48 - 4:10, it doesn't add to the soundscape, but just puts another sound in the background, basically adding extra clutter and, at the moment, extra dissonance. Also, the guitar coming in at 3:24 - 3:48 is nice, but I would suggest maybe starting out with full chokes, leading up to lighter palm mutes to add more of a sense of progression. - For 4:43, I'd say you don't need the hits there; it sounds like you were about to finish the ReMix there, then you decided "oh hey, let's add more", and then proceeded to add more without changing how that transitions. Without those hits, you could let the guitar chord ring out from earlier, which should lead more smoothly into the harpsichord. - Around 5:38, maybe refine that transition a bit more to be less sudden. Could just add a double kick hit plus a snare beforehand, instead of immediately slamming the listener. - 6:16 - 6:40, same remark as for 1:42 - 2:06. - 6:52, similar remark as at 4:43; it sounds like it's done, but then you added more. So try simply making that part seem like it's about to end, but not like it's already ended, because you have the last bit right afterwards. - And last bit at 7:04, maybe just take off the lead guitar there and have the rhythm guitar end it. Just something to consider. --- Overall... Main concerns: - Overused guitars to do lead parts when synth leads could do them (which leads to this being tiring to listen to over time). A good mix between synth-driven sections and guitar-driven sections will be the key to this really working. - You have multiple sections with drastically different dynamics but lacking progression between them (making this seem longer than it is, other than it already being 7 minutes). You basically have step-ladder dynamics, rather than a dynamic curve. Other concerns: - You often have too many instruments playing at once, in the higher registers especially. - Smooth out some of your transitions (considering this is a medley, this is still important), and some select parts that sound like endings but aren't actually supposed to be endings. Here are some recommended references to listen to that I feel match what you are going for, and/or have been approved before. SSH (a bit lower quality than I'd like, but it's the only video with this specific version I can find) - ocremix (HeavenWraith): END OF MOD REVIEW

Yoooo, a jazz musician doing metal? Sign me up! The shift at 1:42 - 1:45 is actually really cool. You put a chord progression there that you wouldn't expect from your typical metal artist, but there also wasn't enough distortion to deter from doing that kind of thing, so it actually worked! The only thing I wish you did is let the last chord ring out for longer.

MOD REVIEW Arrangement/Structure The arrangement is fairly short, but it does keep me engaged for MOST of the way through. I think it could benefit from the below suggestions on making the instruments sound less mechanical / more humanized. It's fun to listen to, just gotta make it feel less repetitive one way or another, even though it's inherently part of the Polka style. Otherwise, I think it's an enjoyable transformation of the originals into a new, effective style. As far as reminding me of Polka but still sounding like DKC2, it does that job. Production/Sequencing When I consider the production, I'm keeping in mind that this made it on OCR: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m7NlqGwYVUk One thing I'd be concerned about is the repetitive nature of the drums, because the snare sounds pretty much the same on each hit, and the drum pattern is very simple. I know that drumming style is in the style of polka, but maybe vary the velocities more so that not every hit is the same intensity. Maybe even slightly vary the sample choice on every other hit to add a bit more human element to this. Also, I'd say you can add a touch more reverb to the oboe, accordion, and trombone/french horn. Not that much more, just enough to help move everything back in the mix so that it sounds less upfront/dry, and actually also more humanized (bonus!). As a result of adding this reverb, it would then also help to make the reverb on the snare a bit narrower (simply decrease the simulated room size) to compensate for adding reverb to surrounding instruments. Overall I would say to continue working on making adjustments to the drum sequencing to make it less mechanical, and add that slight bit of reverb to the oboe+accordion+trombone, etc. to make them sit better in the mix (narrowing the snare reverb a bit to compensate). We've gotten Polka on the site a few times before, and this isn't too far off. END OF MOD REVIEW

Yeah, give it a go. If anything it'll be enjoyable.

This is making me go back and resume playing Plants vs. Zombies 2.

No worries man. I don't have to dislike something if it doesn't meet the bar.

Mannnn 2013 mix up in 2020, but still sounding hot!

MOD REVIEW Arrangement/Sound Design I think the written ideas are there, and obviously it's not too original/liberal. "Underground Sewer" is readily recognizable, but I don't think it's too close to the source. There is definitely a sense of dynamics and panning here, or at least the notion is there. The one thing that stands out to me is that 0:15 - 1:20 vs. 2:31 - 3:36 are very similar-sounding. The differences boil down to a simple instrument swap (such as the countermelody at 3:12 - 3:21, or the swap at 2:52 vs. 1:30 where you just changed which instrument was louder than the other), which to me feels like a placeholder move. One option I think you have is a bit more commitment to richer sound design (or sound layering, if design isn't your forte), to further differentiate the later portions of the ReMix. Even though you may be limited to certain sounds, you can definitely use the Layer tool in FL Studio to, for example, combine multiple lead sounds, each with different qualities, to make one big lead, or take different bell sounds, filter out low frequencies on the brighter layers, then stack those on top of the original mid-heavy layer to make the result sound bigger. Here's a video that demonstrates sound layering pretty well: This elevation of sound design later on in the ReMix would help make the arrangement sound more progressive, as opposed to certain 'musicians' playing more loudly and certain other 'musicians' playing more quietly to 'change things up'. Another option is to vary the melodic contour to add a sense of progression, but this is arguably harder to pull off if you don't happen to have a lot of musical background. Production/Mixing The mixing isn't too bad. I can technically hear most of the elements well enough, but the stereo image is sometimes awkward. Specifically, I hear you have a bass panned to the left (say at 0:50), when the ear naturally wants to hear basses, kick drums, snares, etc. in the center because they provide the foundation to the groove. The drums aren't that beefy, which is sometimes okay, but because of how they sound single-layered, they seem rather vanilla. These can benefit from a bit of layering as well. For example, the snare lacks high end, so you could layer on something like a TR-909 snare to add that high end splash that it could use to cut through the mix. Here's a nice tutorial for layering drums: The bass mixing in general is a bit indistinct, but I think it has a lot to do with the basic nature of the bass sounds you chose (built primarily out of sine waves), and for now we'll see how it sounds with the bass in the center. Overall The main takeaways would be: Work on layering your sounds. Even if the individual layers sound basic/vanilla, combining different layers with their own unique qualities will make for a more-interesting single instrument. Specific examples are the snare lacking high end and the leads at 1:30 vs. 2:52 simply swapping volumes rather than being new-sounding instruments. Because of the way this arrangement was written, bigger sound design will act as contrast, if not in addition to any variation in the melody that you could do. In general, place your bass-heavy instruments in the center, which is where many bass-heavy instruments should go so that they don't distract too much from what's usually important (the lead and harmony). This isn't ready to be posted. It has a lot of potential though, so I think you should keep working on it, and we'll see where it goes! END OF MOD REVIEW

"Cerebral" certainly describes this mix well. Lots of cool, subtle percussive effects/details that don't really distract the listener, and just add a layer for acute listeners to notice.

Hm, I don't know, it might be time to give our own definition to what a Melissa is... Melissa - When a particularly talented musician pulls off a graceful feat. Certainly a proper homage to this wondrous game and its playful soundtrack!

Hm, I would say it's a fun listen. One minor production issue I can see is that the sound effects you are using are fairly narrow, such as the chains at 0:31 and the laugh at 1:15. I feel like there could be enhancement of the stereo image without making it sound unnatural. To do that, one way is to add a ping-pong delay with a delay time of 15 ms or less, just so that you fool your ears into thinking that the sound is more stereo than before. You can do that with Fruity Delay 2 manually, or if you prefer you can try it with Fruity Stereo Shaper. I like the lofi part at 1:20, and while I think it technically isn't too lofi as far as the fidelity goes, the muted brass does sound noticeably fake, particularly on the trills. If you stick to those samples, I guess what you could do is slightly lengthen the notes to overlap a bit more, and increase how up-and-down the alternated velocities go. I don't think those two production issues bring it down though. It's mainly that the overall soundscape, to me, is more like how it would be if this were put into a remake of the game, rather than being an arrangement that puts your own twist on it (it's too conservative). Still, I enjoyed this as it was, and while I wouldn't say it's currently ready for OCR, it's a good way to get in the mood for Halloween.

Nice and chill vibe you had. I will say the main pluck synth does sound a bit static; it could have used more motion, like with a filter LFO or a slight phaser. Same with the pads at 1:30, for example; the high reverb with the low frequency cutoff muds together the chords when a filter envelope (with a somewhat long release) to slightly open up the frequency range could engage the listener more. Other than that, a good listen.

Quite an old topic, but I figure I'll throw my 2 cents into here... I don't think it's a good idea to press your headphones more tightly onto your ears. What that does is trap more of the bass and just force more sound into your ears instead of letting it sound natural. Headphones are not made for you to tighten them up onto your head; they're made to just put on and take off without having to customize for your own head.

I was honestly not sure what to call the fake key change. Guess I'll roll with that! FWIW, the "PMD2" imitation was pretty good. Sounds like it would fit in the real game!

I've never heard a soundscape quite like this. Definitely memorable, and one I will certainly share with others!

Hm... I do think that the new synth (hypersaw?) in the breakdown at 2:10 - 2:40 seems too much. I remember hearing it early on as an accent, and I believe that it isn't needed in this breakdown because it decreases the contrast you have with the more energetic parts of the ReMix. Other than that, just let the ending trail off for longer naturally (it's abrupt right now), and I think you're good to go.

The intro is a lot better already, just by easing into it! The lead also is improved with your layering so that it isn't basically just thin/resonant. Overall a great boost from what I first listened to. At the moment I would say the hi hats playing the off-beat are kinda loud though (especially at 2:26), either because they're lacking some reverb in the upper-midrange, or they are a little loud in volume, or both. Other than that, just add an ending and you should be well on your way. You seem to have a good idea of pacing here.

I like the glassy stutter synth at the beginning. Good way to establish the atmosphere there. Also good development of textures to keep the groove from getting too stale. However, I would say the lead sound at 1:35 for example, is too thin. Compared to the bass, which is really meaty, the lead is just overpowered when it's playing melody. I would consider picking a different sound for the lead, one that has more body and expression. Lastly, I think the beginning maybe comes in with the claps too quickly (before 0:32), so that the intro doesn't really sound like it eases you into the track; it just starts.

A pleasant surprise! I like the 'desert' feel in the middle (2:02)!

I don't know why I haven't heard this. This is such a great contrast from your usual work, and I very much want to see you do more like this! I hear the overcompression, but it isn't at all a problem in the big picture.

This is some cheeky stuff. Good to see that it set a new precedent as well, and wasn't just NOed and asked to be extended.