timaeus222

If I really wanted to be pedantic about this, I would say the guitar wasn't particularly rhythmically tight enough. But I found the vocals distractingly bad (so bad it's good) enough that eh, I can accept this as a joke track that's just good enough.

For both our sakes, I hope you get your first pick so that I get mine. =P icwutudidthar

Not to mention it's apparently the same as Squid Adler...

They're gonna have their own creed and everything.

Or rappers.

I like the way the track opens up with basically a jazz chord ostinato with filter modulation. It gets a little repetitive with that though, since that goes until 1:09 without changing between that many chords, so that chord repetition could have been remedied with a few more chords interspersed within that timeframe. So, 1:09 is where the track started getting more interesting for me. When we get there, I appreciated the shift at 1:24 to more of a "Big Beat" type of feel, although the dropoff at 1:39 was rather sudden. Even something like a change in the drum pattern near 1:39 to signal it would have helped. When we did get to 1:39, that was the highlight of the track for me. Finally we get some meaningful dynamic contrast, IMO. The bass could have been heavier there, but no big deal (you had basically a low, detuned saw, whereas something closer to analog and/or FM is what I would have done instead). From 1:39 until 3:55, the flow was great, and worked well. In fact that is my favorite part. The siren transition was OK at 3:55, but I would have done something closer to a resonant FM tone instead (sounding somewhat bubbly, in other words); just something to consider as an alternative at some point. The solo starting at 4:06 was a good change of pace and did incorporate originality. It was making a lot of jumps, though, and in that sense it makes the melodic contour sound somewhat meandering to me. Maybe some spots in the solo there could have a few long notes so that there's more of a separation between phrases, if that makes sense. But that doesn't really make it a bad or not-good solo necessarily. I understand if you wanted to keep the empty feel of space. It's good, and it just could be a tad better. I do like this overall, but in the future, I think you could work on the amount of repetition you have, and when in your structures you can incorporate more dynamic contrast for maximum effect. Nice work!

That nurse's voice is so silly. This whole ReMix is silly. *KOFF KOFF KOFF KOFF WEEZ(ING)*

I think Clem pretty much nailed it calling this "deceptively simplistic". Arrangement-wise this is not your run-of-the-mill house track. It starts off pretty basic and sparse, with a thin kick, simple bass, and a rather nasal lead (like Clem mentioned), but compositionally this actually deserves repeat listens. If not for the simple tones and the slightly unusual structure, I think this would have been closer to a DP.

To be fair, at 0:23 you did layer on another piano line, but I am strongly convinced that the arp line underneath it at 0:00 - 0:12 was copied at 0:12 - 0:23, 0:23 - 0:34, and 0:34 - 0:45. However, by the time I get to 0:23, I expect more than the thin piano playing. Where's the low end? By "no layering", Skrypnyk probably meant that the textures have no variation at 0:00 - 0:45, which is correct; it's only the same piano sample doubled, and in terms of EQ, I don't hear any difference or immediate contrast when the top piano line comes in at 0:23. It all sounds like one instrument, except you have a lead line that presumably you would want to be heard prominently. I would say that either that top line is too quiet, too similar in texture, lacking enough motion in the melodic contour to draw attention to it (I understand that this one can be tough to address), or all three. I would suggest that if you want to keep this repetition going for 45 seconds, use a distinct-enough piano sample for the top line and at least give some sort of EQ contrast to the repeated piano arp line (0:00 - 0:12) by the time you get to 0:12 - 0:23. i.e. allow more sub-200 Hz frequencies to come in using automation, if those were high-passed previously. You can also do something arrangement-wise (though it may be hard to think of it in the first place), and that's to add a lower piano line that plays some sort of more-noticeable bass-range counterpoint at 0:12 - 0:23. Surely you have a sample that can reach below 200 Hz and at the same time be played more loudly than what's here now. Then what you could look at next is how to further make the textures heavier and heavier until you get to 0:45, in segments of 0:12 - 0:23, 0:23 - 0:34, then 0:34 - 0:45.

That real-time divisi is so good.

Panning implies an imbalance between the left and right, so when I say "wide implies it's in both the left and right speaker in far positions, just so you know", that emphasizes my suggestion to have the signal be in two far positions. To do that, you would need either two signals panned separately, or one signal with specialized delay (I let him decide which way to do it, but yes, I could have just said specifically how I would do it). When I listen here, I hear a narrow signal, not one I would term "wide". (I should also clarify that if you pan 100% left and 100% right and you lower the volume, that does not turn it into a centered signal; it's just a quieter wide signal. The signals in the two stereo positions remain the same, but each signal's volume was just lowered) Ideally I would rather have two different guitar takes panned at around 90~100% left and right, respectively, and the takes should be different enough in timing, tone, and offset in such a way that the overall perceived tone of the guitar sounds bigger, and a more complex tone is more easily achievable in this way than with one tone with that specialized delay (ping pong delay with small echo times [<15 ms] that are imperceivable to the human ear as distinct reflected echoes, and instead are perceived as one wide signal). Just so you have a point of reference for panning for electric rhythm guitar (and it doesn't have to be omega-heavy deadly doom metal), here's a narrow sample of a recreation I did of a friend's band's metal song that approximates your panning, and a wide sample of the same thing, but how I would actually do it. Just to be clear, there is no exaggeration here on any of the guitar panning. Both the drums and guitars have their panning altered, while the bass stays centered. (My suggestion of this panning in far positions should help to free up some of the low-mids that gets cluttered later in the track)

Unless you mean literal sampling, everything is cited here, and based on the source tune names (which I am rather familiar with from playing the game as a kid), it does look like every source tune is rooted in SM64: http://ocremix.org/album/56/super-mario-64-portrait-of-a-plumber Technically, Metallic Mario (and Wing Cap Mario) is built off of "Invincible", but that's recycled throughout many Mario games anyhow, and it is personalized for SM64. If someone did use a source tune not from SM64, I would like to believe that it's only as some sort of small cameo. Literal sampling is encouraged to be minimal on OC ReMixes, so no, not all of the music samples SM64, if at all.

Cool ReMix, bro! I like this OST myself, and you'll be hearing a ReMix from this game from me as well (subbed in April, YEAH)! Neat use of the Omnisphere jazz doo-wop vocals. They fit in pretty well with that energetic slap bass and cheesy fake brass.

I've run into a similar situation. I did dispute it, but then the copyright claimers just denied it. Nothing else happened, but whatever, I still have my account intact. I decided to let it go to avoid actual (and wrongful) copyright strikes. Although... I dunno, maybe those claims disappeared, because I don't see them at the moment.

RIP.

If you are willing to buy VST plugins, then I would definitely recommend Zebra2 for its flexibility and ease of use (synthesis demo here), or Serum for its synthesis engine (I have a demo of some experimentation with it). I also rather like Variety of Sounds' free plugins, especially their NastyDLA MKII delay plugin.

There is no "standard" DAW for writing music with. If it fits your workflow, and you like it, then use it. But download some trial versions and evaluate them first if you want to make a decision early. Even if you do make a decision early, for as long as you haven't bought a DAW yet, you won't have wasted any money buying one you may not like, and you can try a different DAW. I use FL Studio, but that's because I happened to choose it and made it work. (Unlike what you may have seen in tutorials on YouTube, if you gather your own plugins, you can write music other than hip hop, dance, dubstep, "techno", or whatever.) These were written in FL Studio (with commercial and free non-native plugins, but still arranged and mixed entirely in FL): Drum & Bass / Metal Electro / Funk Middle-Eastern Big Beat And these were written and mixed entirely in FL Studio with all stock/native plugins: http://ocremix.org/remix/OCR02935 http://ocremix.org/remix/OCR02876 http://ocremix.org/remix/OCR02956

What's going on? You said right in your post that you did pan the guitars left and right, but it didn't happen. Are you aware that it didn't happen at 0:30 and on? It's important that your audio system can tell you whether something has been panned or not, and that you can hear it. This did improve a bit more. I hear the kick a bit better, but the soundscape as a whole is still rather narrow compared to the previous versions, and there is noticeable overcompression when the kick plays quickly (e.g. after 1:49). See if you can get the guitar panned like you are stating, and again, check your instruments to see if there are so many that some instruments don't contribute enough to be audible. I hear some extremely faint brass at 3:20 that is just almost impossible to notice, for example. I get that you may want that brass there because you believe it makes the soundscape more intense, but try taking it out and really comparing the differences; I really believe there won't be much difference at all. If that's the case, then it might as well not be there. It's like someone screaming in a screaming crowd of people at a live metal concert; it doesn't matter whether that screaming person is there or not because no one can hear that person. Try comparing the soundscape at 0:35 - 1:48, at 1:49 - 2:12, and at 2:16 - 3:34. Are you noticing how it gets more cluttered as the track goes on? If you do, that's a clue to compare those timestamps with each other to make them sound about as clear as the clearest one. I would use 0:35 - 1:48 as your standard for now.

Dandy. And you? pu_freak and I are looking for a third teammate. EDIT: Got Mak!

I like the expansion of Brinstar into this rubato take. Slow, but well-executed, and I liked the Eastern part at 3:20.

If you (or anyone else) want, feel free to bounce ideas off of me. I'll be available. =)

Well, I for one strongly believe limiters are extremely conducive to helping achieve an optimal loudness. They are not inherently going to ruin our music. Anyone who uses them to write ridiculously loud music is doing it wrong. I use one all the time, and I have no compression issues at all these days. In general the vibe is enjoyable, and the instrument choices make sense. However, the flute and strings are noticeably in need of more humanization. The flute keeps reintroducing its slow attack envelope, instead of playing connected legato notes whenever it makes sense to do so. The strings also experience the same issue. It would really help if you overlapped your notes more in places where it makes sense to play legato. With strings samples like those which lack sufficient articulations and round robins, you essentially need to overlap most if not all the notes to hide the fakeness. It would help even more if you additionally automated volumes of the flutes and strings to properly emulate breathing and bowing. Right now, the flute and strings just do not sound convincing to me. With those instruments being pretty much primary, this becomes the dominant portion of the composition that should be addressed, if nothing else. I should also mention the drums, which are pretty quiet. You should boost them higher so they're actually audible and not just able to be felt. They just feel subdued, IMO. And then of course you'll probably need to actually use a limiter to keep the drum peaks in check. You've basically led yourself into this one.

What I would do is at least learn how to theoretically play the instruments. If you can imagine how a real person would play the instrument, it would be easier to model that. For example, if you were to model someone playing electric lead guitar, you probably should consider when they play any of the following: - hammer-ons and pull-offs, tremolos, portamento (single notes), portamento (chords) - pinch squeals, tap harmonics, etc. - whammy bar vibrato, finger vibrato (light, hard), etc. - pitch bend via finger, pitch bend via whammy bar - tapping down/up vs. picking/strumming down/up - chokes, mutes, etc. and so on. Then once you have an idea of the features you would need, then see if there's a way to emulate these features. If you can't afford the libraries you want (tends to be $50~500, more or less, with what I've seen), then some of the major things I would say you should concern yourself with are: - human timing via MIDI note rhythm (avoid 100% quantization for realistic instruments) - human volume variation via velocity magnitudes - faster passages tend to be sloppier than slower passages - consider note length variation and overlap - pay attention to when playing the same note yields the same exact sample; that usually is the problem to contend with on free VSTs

Well, you don't have to have master track compression to get louder results. I just use a limiter that allows me to boost to near 0 dB without overcompression (TLs-Pocket Limiter).

Team Zero Tolerance with Mak and pu_freak (1 = highest-ranked pick) 1) Blizzard Wolfang, X6 2) Cyber Peacock, X4 3) Grizzly Slash, X5 4) Gravity Beetle, X3 5) Bamboo Pandamonium, X8 (if only one, Stage 1)