timaeus222

Art is about what makes you happy. If you like your own music, and you want to market yourself as a producer of that kind of music, that's great. If your fans like your chiptune arrangements more than your rock arrangements, it doesn't matter; make what you prefer more to make. If you feel the need to do so, incorporate more chiptune into your rock, or something. Try to balance what you think your fans want and what you actually want. You shouldn't have to slavishly make music your fans will like, and you shouldn't have to give up your pleasure in whichever genre of music you prefer to write. I'd say that I like your rock-infused chiptune arrangements more than I like your chiptune-infused rock, if that makes sense. I don't often hear you write vocal songs, so maybe your fans are used to your instrumentals. I think you have great talent in writing synth solos, as you probably believe too. I think you should do another "Welcome to the Real World"-esque album.

There we go! Final revised version: https://app.box.com/s/50yyxi6hzdwsjqzg9d44bfudh424ebd5 I did a few midrange EQ fixes and made some partwriting in the midrange louder or more busy. Submitted!

On the melody at 1:09 - 1:22, on the second iteration, try keeping the first 8 notes the same as the first iteration. I've had an issue before where people have a harder time figuring out the source tune connection because I changed it too much too early. I think what happened here is that you varied too much of the melody in the second iteration when in a call/response melody, you typically have a sense of familiarity when the second iteration comes. If you listen to Hydrocity Zone again at 0:37 - 0:42, you can tell that the first and second iterations start with the same first half. The rest of the track sounds improved!

who lix? #suspicious

Some smart arrangement here! I like how you guys feature everyone in some sort of central role every now and then. My only gripe is that sometimes the piano feels fake, but it's just the sample.

Well, in the case of compression, it was honestly a bad-sounding issue for me; I was using a compressor on default settings to catch peaks. And it was Fruity Compressor if that means anything more. Essentially, I was "covering things up" instead of fixing them at the root (volume sliders), and I wasn't really thinking that much about why I was using them. I just wanted to not clip, and as a result, I got major overcompression. As for the language, I'm just speaking within the language of the topic title

Yeah. I don't mean for people to read the whole thing though. Just what they want (which was the point of the outline in the beginning). Part of me just wanted to write it out as my own reference for other things.

I know this is an old topic, but I want to post what I do and give my $1. And when I say compressor, I mean a dedicated compressor, not a limiter. Also, this is again, just how I would do things. I'm not suggesting that everyone should do it. But what I do works and I like it (a lot). Warning, this is going to be long! So, I'm gonna address these topics: - Compressing on the master - Mixing "in mono" - Common mistakes I made back in the day - Common mixing/arranging mistakes I hear others do Compressing on the master It's not something you necessarily need to do every single time. It really depends on what you mean by compression. (1) Do you want to "glue" your track together? That is, do you want to make your soundscape to suddenly sound a little more cohesive, in such a way that the instruments feel like they're "working together"? (2) Do you want to just even out stray loud transients? (3) Do you just want to be loud? I do this on some of my tracks. I'm not going to say "electronic" tracks, because it's too generic. I'm going to say, specifically, for my case, Electro House, Complextro, Drum & Bass, and any other genre that people generally like to group into the single term "EDM". The reason I do this is just because my instruments end up sounding more "in sync" and cohesive afterwards. An issue I do run into sometimes when I do this is if I forget that I have something EQ-boosted and I put a compressor on the master, if the compression is substantial (and this is completely case-by-case), that EQ boost will be a little more emphasized. As a result, I end up going back to the EQ and slightly toning down the gain on the particular EQ band that's sounding overboosted. By the way, this is not a result of me boosting far too much initially; it sounds fine before the compression in examples I'm thinking of right now. What I'm talking about here is what I call slight. Some people might not hear it at all. It's like me saying, "hey, I think this might be too loud by about 0.8 dB in volume." People would be like, "that's not a lot. Really?" And I would be like, "yeah, really. It's subtle though, I will say that." This I do for non-"EDM" tracks. This is more of a visual thing, really. I just do it so it'll look nicer. What I end up doing is "transparent" compression. All that means is, it doesn't sound like anything happened, but the waveform looks nicer by the end of it. And, generally, if you catch your peaks before they reach the limiter in this way (i.e. before it in the Master track signal chain), going above 0 dB will occur less often (unless your compressor ends up boosting it above 0dB without a limiter, but it depends), and if done correctly, the mix won't sound that different, just look more even. I don't do this to be loud. In fact, I consciously ask myself, "what's the loudest I can stand, again? Lemme check this one track..." And I look at this: https://soundcloud.com/zircon-1/level-bounce And if I'm somehow louder than THAT, that's a little insane. That is the loudest but still controlled song I will ever listen to. So, if anyone tells you to use compressors to get louder... I'd say it's risky. Either it works for them because they know what they're doing, or they don't know what they're doing and are giving strange advice. Personally, I would only use compressors after feeling comfortable enough with them. Mixing "in mono" I put this in quotation marks for a reason. When people say "mix in mono to avoid phasing issues", it may have to be explained more. What they intend to say is: "When you mix in mono, you hear more phasing issues more easily than if you mix in stereo." They are not telling you to mix in mono for the whole entire mixing process. That's just not correct. You cannot make mixing decisions regarding the stereo field while the mix is still in mono. You cannot make panning decisions while still in mono. That's just how it goes. For example, you cannot EQ electric rhythm guitars after they are already hard-panned if you leave them hard-panned for some reason while you EQ. You would have to solo each one while it's hard-panned, and it's disorienting to EQ one guitar while it's hard-panned. What I do here is I DO mix the guitars in centered mono (EQ and reverb only). Then, I actually DO do the hard-panning afterwards, check the reverb, and it works out. I only mix the guitars in mono for 'perfectionist' reasons, but oh well. It still sounds better in the end, at least for me. Gives me a 'cleaner' result. What they ARE telling you to try is to check your mix in mono sometime, before you say it's done, and see if it still sounds fine. That's all that means. Furthermore, some people don't actually mix after everything arrangement-wise that they do (and by mixing, I mean, including panning and "stereo mixing" or whatever that's supposed to mean in your definitions), but during. In fact, I mix while I arrange. And it works for me (and zircon, if that means anything to ya). That way, I hear the context of the final result before I finish the final result, and I have a much clearer idea of where I want to go than if I waited on the mixing until the very end. Common mistakes I made back in the day Hah, more like two years ago. But I digress. Here are some things I don't do anymore today: Boost beyond what I can hear in changes. If I can't hear what happened, I tone it down until I start hearing a difference, and then I tone it back up until I stop hearing the difference. I hone in on the middle ground. That makes sense, honestly. It's like what you can get your computer to do if you want it to "guess your number"; it tries something, and if it's too high, it goes too low, and repeats until it gets it spot on. Not high pass instruments at all, anywhere, at any frequency. These days, I high pass if there are stray frequencies I can't hear but that I can SEE in FL's parametric equalizer, like sub bass artifacts in a sound that isn't intended to give sub bass frequencies at the particular octave. Maybe I'm using a comb filter to make a glassy "bowed bottle" type of sound. That may have odd subs that I don't want. Or, maybe I have a lead sound I don't want to use for notes below a certain pitch. Then I just low-shelf the EQ down so that most EQ below 200 Hz or so is toned down. I don't want them gone, but just much less noticeably problematic in conjunction with pads, basses, etc. The main reason is to save headroom and eliminate inaudible (and hence unnecessary) frequencies. Use compressors willy-nilly. I used to slap a compressor to catch peaks... on everything (surprisingly I stayed away from multi-band compressors!). You shouldn't do that... unless you don't hear an issue and you trust yourself highly. Anyways, my reason for not doing that "just because" anymore is so that I don't get overcompression in places where I don't expect them and so I don't get lost in what I've already done. When I use compressors, I do so with a purpose: to make my drums or bass more punchy, to even out stray lead-instrument peaks, to "glue" my entire track together, and/or to even out peaks in general. Scoop too much in the midrange. I was taught that if I wanted my leads to sound clear, I could scoop backing instruments in the midrange, but I used to do that too much. Nowadays I have a clearer and more accurate idea of how much to do it, and it's not necessary to really do that much with the scooping. I think I usually do it at most around 0.8~2.4 dB downwards (I think in ± 0.4 dB). Something like that. But above 4 dB of reduction is a touch excessive sometimes, IMO. Remember to check your context! Use too much reverb. I used to have either too washy or slightly too washy mixes. Nowadays I realize that it's because headphones have varying reverb responses. My Shure SRH240A? Pretty washy. I still have it though. My Grado SR-60s? Pretty darn nice, though slightly, slightly too washy (literally, probably about "10%", but I'm sort of making that number up, though not entirely). My current headphones? Just right. Juuuuust right. So now I'm quite sure I don't use too much reverb, usually. Common mixing/arranging "mistakes" I hear others do Some mistakes I hear other people make so often: Lack of transitions, or poor transitions. The least you could do is add reverse and regular cymbals. A lack of transitions leaves people having little idea of what to expect to happen in the song. Overboosted frequencies, mostly bass and upper treble. This takes time to realize though. It's because those people couldn't hear what they wanted to hear as well as they wanted to hear it, so they boost like crazy to hear it "better", when really, it's boosted like crazy. I think at some point, it would help to try to look up the frequency distribution of your headphones and figure out how to read it. Whaddayagonnado. Compressors on almost everythang. They aren't doing you BIG SERVICE. They're doing you BIG DISSERVICE. The point is, think about what you want to do before you do it. Mechanical instruments, especially guitar, piano, bass, and all orchestral instruments. Hopefully it isn't out of laziness, or out of some idea that you just "have" to fix velocities last or mix last or something. I'd like to say it's just because some people aren't used to listening for it. It is a subtle thing to hear, even "late" in your music composition days, relatively speaking. Try listening to real people playing these instruments, and pay close attention to how the instrument notes move. Too much reverb. Don't go slapping 3-second reverbs on everythang. It ain't doing you BIG SERVICE. The point is, think about what you want to do before you do it. Instruments clashing in the low-mids. Kind of inevitable, even if you use the "right" instruments. Think about it: Piano goes everywhere. Guitar has some picking noises in the low-mids. Some pads have some warmth in the low-mids. Thick dubstep wobbles have body in the low-mids. ...Check your low-mids! Not-cohesive instruments sound-design-wise. This takes time to work with. It's basically, the pickier you are, the more cohesive choices you may make when picking out instruments. But you may also take too long to do anything else. It's weird. Unexpressive lead sounds (bland basic synths, for example). I don't know why people do this. I guess they start out not knowing what it means to have an expressive lead sound, and they don't do it. It was that way for me, at least. Oh well. Learn to use your sounds. Don't just get what you think is good before making your own judgments and learning it yourself. In a nutshell: It's not what you have, it's what you can do with it. Take DDRKirby(ISQ) for instance---he's not one who has this issue! Lack of direction in the arrangement. This is hard to fix. This sometimes has to do with just writing random notes. Oops. It's just something that has to be developed through experience, IMO. Something is too loud or too quiet. I recommend starting with low settings and raising them until it sounds right. I used to find myself hearing volume increases more easily than volume decreases. Now I hear both about as well.

You mean John Kohlrabi? OH SNAP! I'm just in a memey mood today.

That which we call a rose By any other username would smell as sweet. I'm just kidding. I like Yu-Gi-Oh!, so I used my favorite Dartz-season dragon's name, Timaeus.

Well, actually, a lot of this is mechanical. The acoustic guitar has zero round robins and often has rigid sequencing here; 1:04 is especially exposed. Same with the bass and fake electric guitar, though the electric guitar isn't so exposed that it matters. Even the flute is mechanical, though it's in a similar situation to the electric guitar; fake but not too exposed.

Y'know, in the beginning, there's a surprisingly narrow stereo field in comparison to how good the sounds are. Things don't really open up until 0:25 (though it's a touch wide at 0:16 with the grainy sound). What if you took the reversed sound and put some stereo delay on it? Oh yeah, you have Zebra, right? Wanna use some of mah bell sounds? (PMed you some) I did think 2:42 was an odd shift in mood. It sounded like an innocent chill track shifted to a serious, almost cyberpunk track (at least until 2:56). I think you could go into a different key than you're in at 2:42. Try shifting the key after 2:42 a whole step up instead. The key change out of it at 3:47 also sounded a bit odd to me. The chord before that sounded like a good ending chord. At the moment though, this has great potential! Sounds big! Looking forward to more.

X.X Dat robo-piano. The repeated high note at 0:12 is definitely the main culprit in the beginning. There are just too many rigid chords lying around throughout the whole track. Also, those Damage impacts at 0:40 or so are quite loud. I wouldn't have expected them. I think making them more distant would help make the soundscape more cohesive. Something as simple as a low pass near 10000 Hz could do it. 1:15 just felt like the timing was off. Did you mean to slow the tempo down? I didn't expect that. Also, 2:13 - 2:23 on the piano just felt like you were trying out a direction, and kept whatever you tried. To me it sounded confused. So, basically this: - The piano notes feel rambly - The Damage drums stick out a little too much IMO I think you should at least be able to mark up some clear sections in your remix, if it is to have a regular structure.

I think it's an objectively fantastic tone, honestly. It's definitely worth it IMO.

Jaco rocks the bass like a mofo. Not as a "main" instrument, but pretty major. zircon's done a Jazz Fusion OC ReMix like this, called "Ragol Weather".

My source pick will be Chrome Gadget from Sonic 3. EDIT: AND KNUCKLES. Can't forget the KNUCKLES. The KNUCKLES. The KNUCKLES.

Yes. I'll just pick one that generally fits nicely if possible. I don't want to pick something too hard for a "novice".

I'll sign up as a star again, but I'll wait on picking the Sonic source until a novice picks a Mario source.

Well, the first things that jump out at me is that the kick is too subtle (not enough frequencies above 100 Hz), the supersaw raises the cheese factor way up high (generic sound design), and the snare doesn't sound like it fits (it's too smack-y, and not tight). Also, based on the way the drums move, it doesn't really sound as much like a rave song as it sounds like... I guess an 80s... something-or-other. Doesn't really sound like anything in particular, actually; it's sending mixed messages. Is it supposed to get us dancing slowly and bobbing up and down, or jumping and raving? The basic drum rhythm is saying the former, and the supersaw is saying the latter. Where is your hi hat? Lastly, there's not that much going on in terms of partwriting. It just sounds like you have, like, 7 sounds. Supersaw, bass, 2 plucks, kick, snare, toms. Where's your chordal instrument while the supersaw is not there? Etc. So in a nutshell, the sound choices overall end up sounding too simple IMO. Mainly, I would say the issues are the drum rhythm choices (conflicts with intent), the sparseness of the soundscape (lacking chordal instrument and proper reverb), the weak kick (hard to hear), and the snare sticking out as an unsuitable tone. For me it's the sparseness and drums that are the biggest issues here. It sounds like you may be just starting, so I would recommend studying other music more closely and listening to at least what makes its soundscapes full. This is a good example of a full-sounding dance song. Notice how there's always at least something filling the soundscape enough, whether it's a chordal instrument (like a pad, rhodes, piano, rhythm guitar, etc.), or the lead instrument's reverb, or something else. Also, working more with reverb can really help you keep your instruments cohesive. This is a nice guide on digital reverb.

I really don't mind; we could just move on to the next one.

To be clear, I only took a cursory listen for the arrangement comparison. I don't think there is enough work on this yet to say where this will or could go in interpretation. Here's where you (Nyx) get to work on that.

Needs more than just additional vocals. Right now as I compare to the original, it's pretty close/conservative. As you make a longer arrangement, a soundscape as sparse as this one asks for both more compositional and textural development. Maybe some immersive pads, bells, and maybe ambient percussion could do.

Though I don't know them that well, 2:31 is one spot where it seems to me like you switch to a new source tune. Maybe you could look at it and make the transition more seamless. Other than that I think this is really cohesive arrangement-wise.

It's nice, but as it is, though the short length doesn't necessarily constitute a *NO*, one could argue that it's too short for the amount of development it has. At the moment that's probably the only issue here. So, maybe make it longer, into a more complete work.