timaeus222

Congratulations on getting this on the site! This is one of my favorite pieces of yours. 2:10 - 2:34 is my favorite part.

What's the issue here? Are you unsure how Bandcamp will end up tagging and encoding your files for you? Because its scripting will make that happen, based on what you enter in the Artist field, Album title field, etc. I believe the audio file description ("Comments" in the OCR submission form) becomes something like "Visit http://artistpagename.bandcamp.com/". If you want to provide background for each track, you could always do so in a separate .txt file and provide it with the album. You can edit FLAC tags with FLAC Frontend, if you want. You could tag AIFF (or WAV) with http://kid3.sourceforge.net/, but again, if you're using Bandcamp, they'll take your WAV and convert it into multiple file types with proper tagging for you according to your specifications (you don't have to chat with them; it's the script that does it for you). https://bandcamp.com/help/uploading#aiffwavuploadrequirement

Why the WAV? Why not encode it into MP3 (VBR1 for OCR, perhaps) and tag it with Mp3tag? You could also just name it a certain way: Artist - Song Name Remixer - Remix name [source] or something like that. Or: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?94016-Is-it-possible-to-tag-WAV-files

In that case you should have no problem tweaking the velocity response; try the dynamic range knob, or even soften the tone a bit.

7/4 to 6/4 to 5/4 to 4/4 to 3/4 to 2/4 to 1/4!

I was joking. Though yes, rejecting on not hearing the source usage is better than doing so based on the vibe of the original being altered, because the intention at least isn't contradicting the standards and policies. You know that. But yes, that's true. It might be an oversight.

Specifically what's off about it is that it's a hard tone, and the low number of velocity layers makes the hard tone stay hard even on lower velocities, when a real piano would give a softer tone on softer keypresses.

Well, that would be, because the vibe relative to the original doesn't matter; getting rejected for the source usage not being clear on their listens is a better reason.

You might wanna check 2:08 - 2:19. There's a little cluttering in the midrange there from the leads. And yeah, I agree that the leads sound a little plain (even though it's chiptune like this, more expression could really personalize this).

Strange, I could understand every word.

How's this going?

Better! The bass is a little simple (it feels like a subby square wave or something), but it's an improvement. The glitching is pretty darn cool. The drums improved a bit too. However, the same issues of the drums not quite punching through are still there. So you're sidechaining the kick and snare with the bass so that they make the bass duck? I'm not hearing it that much on them. It would help to apply some tasteful distortion to strengthen the fundamental of the kick, and a little bit on the snare too. I did a review on digitalfishphones endorphin on my website, with an audio demo for it, and I think using that plugin can help bring out the high end punch in the kick. Also, if you want, maybe you could make the snare sound "bigger" by adding some reverb to give it an "airy" reverb tail in the upper treble. Moving over to the vocoded vocals, yeah, I can't understand them, and it kinda bothers me. Did you try them on a lower octave to bring out their buzzy quality? You might find helpful on getting vocoding to pierce through better and sound more interesting.

I'd be glad to participate again.

What if we collab and I write a Jaco-esque bass part? Yeah, you could use a piano with more variation in dynamic layers. Also, check the piano timings; sometimes it feels sloppy. For example, 1:21 - 1:24 has a few late chords.

Maybe this? http://zirconstudios.bandcamp.com/track/poke-the-goozim or this? http://zirconstudios.bandcamp.com/track/run-for-it

To explain pH's comment on adding compression before EQ, it's so that the EQ itself is what you did, and the EQ itself is not boosted by the compression in a way you may/may not perceive as distinguishably different from what you want to hear. In other words, generic compression (i.e. not multi-band compression) boosts everything, and anything that was already previously boosted in the same signal chain is affected more so than anything that was not. It's a minor point but nevertheless is something you should know to keep your mixing clean.

I don't recognize any of them, but I can tell you these things: 4 - Vaguely Indiana Jones. Sounds heroic. Might be intro-ish. 3 - Might be a battle theme 2 - Sounds like some sort of standby theme, or pre-boss theme 1 - Surf-like.

Yup! =) So something like this would be a nice D&B drums reference track, I would think. Try finding some punchier kick and snare samples to layer, to start with.

I thought it was pretty good; I think it just needed some more refined balancing of levels and stronger drums. The main chip synths could have had more reverb and had their volume lowered, and the remix overall might have benefited from master track compression to glue everything together. The Reese bass was a little narrower than the rest of the soundscape, and the kick and snare (and occasionally arps) were buried under the lead.

I hear it as an enthralling ballad. I think the bass is especially well-written. I did a short remix clip of this once before last year. The strange thing is that I didn't even listen to how the original bass was written, but it still turned out really similarly.

No, feel free to voice concerns... just don't go wacko about it and we won't bite. The judges simply hear critically when they judge, and if they can hear the arrangement excellence, then it's all set to go on that front for OCR.

It's Fishy's remix, so it's a real guitar. He may use a guitar amp sim, but he plays guitar.

In any case, here's what I was hearing: ReMix = Source (Times, Instrument) 0:00 - 0:22 = (0:03 - 0:09, Bass) 0:22 - 0:26, 0:28 - 0:32, 0:34 - 0:38, 0:40 - 0:44 = (0:09 - 0:20, Melody) + somewhat different intervals on the perfect 4th jump portion 0:44 - 1:06 = (0:03 - 0:09, Bass) 1:06 - 1:32 = (0:20 - 0:43, Melody) 1:32 - 1:37, 1:39 - 1:43 = (0:09 - 0:20, Melody) + somewhat different intervals on the perfect 4th jump portion 1:44 - 1:48 = (0:20 - 0:43, Melody, slight) 1:48 - 2:28 = Solo 2:28 - 2:38 != (0:20 - 0:43, Melody, vague resemblance though too different) 2:40 - 3:00 = (0:47 - 0:58, Melody) 3:03 - 3:14 = (0:03 - 0:09, Bass) 3:14 - 3:28 = (0:20 - 0:43, Melody) Total: 231 secs --> 22+4*4+22+26+5+4+4+20+11+14 = 144 secs 144/231 = 62.4% = good to go!

There we go. My official perception of this. :v) ReMix = Source (Times, Instrument) 0:00 - 0:22 = (0:03 - 0:09, Bass) 0:22 - 0:26, 0:28 - 0:32, 0:34 - 0:38, 0:40 - 0:44 = (0:09 - 0:20, Melody) + somewhat different intervals on the perfect 4th jump portion 0:44 - 1:06 = (0:03 - 0:09, Bass) 1:06 - 1:32 = (0:20 - 0:43, Melody) 1:32 - 1:37, 1:39 - 1:43 = (0:09 - 0:20, Melody) + somewhat different intervals on the perfect 4th jump portion 1:44 - 1:48 = (0:20 - 0:43, Melody, slight) 1:48 - 2:28 = Solo 2:28 - 2:38 != (0:20 - 0:43, Melody, vague resemblance though too different) 2:40 - 3:00 = (0:47 - 0:58, Melody) 3:03 - 3:14 = (0:03 - 0:09, Bass) 3:14 - 3:28 = (0:20 - 0:43, Melody) Total: 231 secs --> 22+4*4+22+26+5+4+4+20+11+14 = 144 secs 144/231 = 62.4% = good to go!

That's the problem; the interpretation Nostalvania had is beyond the comprehension of many people who don't have much of a critical ear, but for those who DO "get" it (or are specifically told exactly how it all connects), it actually works.