timaeus222

lol Stretch goal: like, $200000~300000 Acquired: like, 10x that and by $ I mean dollars ofc

The best old Disney song of all time

I would go for #1; most concise IMO, and it doesn't make it so OCR has to have a plugins/libraries database (right?). The only "problem" is, if the person doesn't type in the developer name too, it might not be super identifiable, and perhaps ambiguous in certain cases. For example... sfz and sforzando may be the same Italian notation in music, but they're two different plugins---sfz by Cakewalk and sforzando by PLOGUE. So, MAYBE add a fourth option? One text box for the developer name, and one text box for the plugin/library name. i.e. u-he Zebra2 Cakewalk sfz Impact Soundworks Plectra Series 4: Turkish Oud

I wonder if it would help if you used two piano samples; one for the Salsa feel, and one with more reverb and more legato sequencing for the intro. I think based on what you were going for, the piano sequencing for the Salsa/tango sections are sounding pretty good!

If someone simply decides to completely alter the implied harmonies of the original and use their own, then it doesn't involve merely understanding the chord progression of the original, but rather, how to use proper chord progressions and bass lines in a coherent way with the original melody, as well. Even though I talked about replication of the original, the above is mainly why I involved the interpretation aspect---because if you stray from the original (like if you kept the melody and wrote everything else as new), you have less of a concrete reference for the harmonic structure and a greater difficulty in formulating a proper one, if that's not your strength. That's definitely your intention at least, sure, and I agree. However, if the point of the checklist was to provide specific bullet points, it could be pretty long; imagine if everything on the checklist was split into separate, specific points. (Hence, the first post states that it lists presumably common/generalized issues, rather than particularly specific ones, and acts as a "supplement to personal, specific feedback".) I'm not against including what you have, as you know, but my intention was to say that I would rather they be more general phrasings to be elaborated upon, so those who don't know music theory well have a clue of what the bullet point even says without having to look up difficult terms. It gives the flexibility for explanation in a way with which they are most comfortable. Again, I think the checklist is meant to be more general, and the reviewer can elaborate however he or she sees fit; if the issue does happen to be bad counterpoint, then that can be mentioned. If the reviewer doesn't even notice it, or doesn't use that keyword but still describes its principles, or doesn't even understand what it is and doesn't say anything about it, I think that's forgivable, because it could be too minor or too complex of an issue in the big picture. It would be an oversight to be sure, but in the long run, realistically, who's going to notice it? The more attuned people. Well, one of the qualifications to be a judge was that you 'don't have to know music theory', but you do have to be able to articulate your observations to a comprehensible extent. Because of that, yeah, some judges might not notice some of these issues, but again, depending on the remix/song, it could just be too minor to matter in the big picture or too complex to notice. In short, "it happens... oops". Just for the record, I don't think proper melody/harmony sensibilities are subjective, but it might be treated as such every now and then. Lastly, I'm not against these being on the checklist; I would just rather they be rephrased to be more generalized so that they're more "accessible" to the typical reviewer, and that's what I aimed to do in my previous post.

I think the checklist is mainly to cover the *common* problems. I don't know how easy these harmony/melody-related observations are for others to hear (some might even call it subjective ), but I think those can be covered using these more general phrases: Lacks coherence overall (doesn't "flow" enough) Can simplify clarify that it is due to a strange chord progression that sounds off; already on checklist Ineffective counterpoint In my opinion, this may be too specific and can probably just be a "personalized" comment that is "off the sheet" (AHA! I knew I could use this phrase somewhere). Not on checklist at the moment; would need elaboration / 4. Instrument/sound parts lacking cohesion in harmonic or rhythmic movement ("bad voicing" and "lack of agreement" were your phrases) --- Not on checklist at the moment; may need specific elaborations The last one (the interpretation of [or how they understand] the source tune, in a case where the person decides to retain some chunk of the original chord progression, involves inaccurate replication of the chord progression) is probably not general enough though; [irrespective of what you meant,] you can interpret a source tune however you see fit, as long as it sounds sensible and it reminds someone of the original. In some sense, this last one could potentially lead to all of the above, especially 1, 3, and 4 (or at least, I've seen it), but either way, it seems pretty specific. It has happened a few times in compos though, I do recall. [One might want to call this: Clashing harmonies ] Also, zircon did make this statement: ...y'know, if the checklist didn't cover what you wanted to say.

This is really cool! Good to see more work from Jill!

Well, it's not really something that I personally like, but it's pretty clean-sounding, and I think it sounds better than more typical trap music IMO, so I think you accomplished what you wanted.

Yep, that's been asked earlier (in the "Welcome to the New Forums" topic here), and hopefully it can be addressed.

Yeah, no problem. Even though you do want it to be staccato though, the timings won't be spot-on in real life; for example, if you play a chord quickly, there's a minimal amount of time where your hand is still on the piano before it's lifted, and so the leftmost edges of each note and the rightmost edges of each note won't line up perfectly. That means not every finger on your hand will hit the piano or leave the piano at the exact same time, and that's what makes it more human. Even if you offset the notes by the smallest offset amount that you can manage (even a few milliseconds), it helps. While the notes for this style are probably going to be at similar velocities, sure, if the velocity response of your piano sample is low, the variation in tone that reflects the variation in velocity will be low as well, and vice versa. So, listen closely for the variation in tone, and try adjusting each individual velocity a bit to see how much and in what way the overall sound of the chord changes (slammed, medium, soft, or somewhere in the middle), as an experiment. Alternatively, you can also try changing the velocity response, if you have that kind of control in your VST or sample library.

Yeah, I think it lived up to the hype. Kinda odd though how no one wrote or was asked to write an artist bio for themselves.

This is pretty elaborate! I thought the sax solo was a pretty risky choice and felt a bit sudden when it came in, but no big deal. Alex's vocals... I dunno, I guess they didn't need that much delay; the delay could have had a lower high cut to affect the more hissy syllables less, but again, not a huge deal. Later on though, I agree, they were pretty unintelligible. Regardless, all that doesn't really undermine how good this is. Great work, guys!

Listen if you like dog squeeze toys or rubber duckies. (Who doesn't?)

I thought that some of the tempo changes made me land into a tempo that didn't always quite feel right; sometimes the new tempo was a bit too slow (like, 4~8 BPM), sometimes a bit too fast (again, like 4~8 BPM). But other than that minor thing, which is hard enough to think of and accomplish without a proper sense of tempo and rhythm, this arrangement is totally bonkers. Only you could think of this.

I agreed that the initial glitching was a bit too superfluous (I mainly found a problem with this because one of my specialties is glitching), but it started making more sense after 1:20 with the chippy lead. Before then the arpeggio flow felt odd/chaotic/too dissonant to me. Best part was at 2:21. Great job expanding the source harmonies!

You should check your bass sounds and see how much frequency content there is below 200 Hz. Try low passing near 200 Hz and seeing if the frequencies below that feel strong. If not, try looking at how the sound was made in your synth and see what could have decreased the amount of bass below 200 Hz. Maybe you decreased it in an EQ plugin, or you used too much overdrive/distortion in a filter within the synth, or something else.

Gentle reminder that if anyone needs any help on their mixing, feel free to collab; I'll be available!

Even churches are motivated; they're telling us to eat Jesus's flesh and drink his blood to become immortal, and plant our seeds of worship. Even they want us to be zombies! That's a sign, right?? *nudge nudge*

The Remember Me soundtrack, which GLITCHES AN ORCHESTRA, WHAT?

I develop one skill at time, doing a bit of it every day to make it more natural, like muscle memory, but I only try when I feel the need to learn it. I don't really play the drums, but I can imagine someone playing drums and that's good enough for me. Similarly, I no longer play the guitar, but I still can imagine an expert guitarist and sequence a realistic electric guitar as if that person was playing it. If I do something with an instrument in a day, I usually end up aiming to recreate something I hear.

What happened at 1:18? For a bit it felt like a note got pushed down in the middle, and then at 1:20 it was fine again. Otherwise, sounds really good! I think it comes pretty close to the original.

What "selected knob"? I think it's more likely that your individual instrument volumes were too loud, and your Limiter just pushed them down. Without the Limiter on, does your Master track read red? Regardless, did you change your default sound settings on Windows? You need to make sure the Sound settings for the so-called "Playback Enhancements" are turned off, because they alter the final result of your listening experience, especially the loudness. They will affect how you mix, and won't give you an accurate perception of your music. On Windows 7 (Sound > Playback Device > Properties > Enhancements), the options are called "Environment", "Voice Cancellation", "Pitch Shift", "Equalizer", "Headphone Virtualization", and "Loudness Equalization".

Note-wise it shows promise. I think the buildups are all the same though, and in some cases it works and in others it gives a false sense of energy. The buildup you have at 0:08 - 0:16, 0:39 - 0:47, 1:01 - 1:09, 1:27 - 1:31 and 1:42 - 1:46 have identical snare sequencing and/or ambient hits, but they're all used for different purposes. The first and second ones prepare me for something so high energy that I feel disappointed when I don't get that. The third one makes some sense, but I'm still not getting something as high energy as you make me anticipate. The fourth one didn't even build up to anything (if it wasn't there, I wouldn't notice a thing different), nor the last one either (is this track incomplete or is that supposed to be an ending?). Huh? Drum programming is supposed to reflect the current level of energy in a track, and evoke a sense of where you are going, structurally. It can also set a particular mood, or, in buildups, make you anticipate a change in the level of energy. Try thinking about what you want your listener to think by the time they listen to the end of the buildups you do, and if your writing doesn't imply or match that, then it doesn't make sense for the buildup to be there, or it doesn't make sense for the buildup to lead to that particular section in your track. Snare buildups with continually subdivided hits implies the anticipation of quite a high energy section. Also, while not quite as important since it's supposed to be for a game AND it's supposed to be EDM, in my opinion, the piano notes sound too mechanical because they're detached at times when the notes played make more sense objectively to ring on rather than stop suddenly in the middle of their decay (0:00 - 0:02, for example, is easiest to notice IMO). To be more specific, it sounds like they're literally being muted as they're being played, which I have never seen a real pianist purposefully do. What you could do to help this is to, again, practice using reverb and putting it to use. Reverb would have helped to hide the mechanical notes on this piano sample. tl;dr: Practice more with reverb, and try to think about when your buildups sound anticlimactic or out of place. For a cliche example of what not to do in EDM: https://soundcloud.com/zeb-ro/hashtag

I kinda agree with Kristina that the first saw lead was a little underwhelming. It's lacking some extra expression to make it even more interesting, and it feels a bit too low-passed to cut through. It's not so bad that I'd replace it, but it could have been a bit brighter. The marimba/xylophone that occasionally comes in feels a touch sharp, but nothing major (hah, get it? Sharp... major... ). The track overall sounds slightly lofi (~16000 Hz and above are rolled off or not present). I definitely hear the anime-opening feel though, and I think it's cool how well it reminds me of that. Kind of like if Phoenix Wright (or even Dragon Ball) had a new anime season and this was the opening theme. Feels like an elevated 80s~90s-inspired track.