timaeus222   Members

Right off the bat, the guitar is fake (FL Slayer is just not good, honestly), mechanically sequenced, and just not a good tone. It's not your fault, it's because of the VST quality itself. Also, the panning supersaw is pretty weird because it's very fast; why not have it at about a quarter the speed? It's dizzying as-is on headphones. FPC drums, it seems like. The drums, combined with the guitar and the bass (BooBass? Sytrus?) create a pretty muddy result overall. Did you do any EQ or change any velocity timings or magnitudes? The instruments seem to not fit together at all, and everything sounds computerized. And I know it's a WIP, but it felt looped or repetitive. Overall, it's just lacking in cohesion (incompatible instruments), sample quality (fake guitar, fairly unprocessed drums), sequencing (mechanical), humanization (not present), production (muddy), arrangement flow (repetitive), and interpretation (not very personalized). I think you should get to know your VSTs better in FL and practice how to use specific ones more than others. But I think you should avoid FL Slayer and Boo Bass, because those are the most obviously fake instruments in FL. And I like using FL. Don't get frustrated though, because it sounds like you've just started. We've all started here, pretty much.

Very nice job! I love those videos! Neat touch with the sheet music, Jose, and great playing, Seb.

If you need me for anything bro, just holler. Mixing, 'mastering'/finalizing, synth fluorishes, dark basses, heck, even electric basses.

Well, to sound 'game-like', it should fit the context and the intended era; so long as it doesn't sound outlandishly unfitting it's fine IMO. So if you wanted to write something Final Fantasy Tactics-like, something like the Roland SC-88 could give that type of atmosphere, and then you would just need to write something to fit the context given for the game. Central Bark specifically sounds like a track with a smooth jazz feel (brush snare, e. piano, guitar, pluck arp, synth bass) and a slight chiptune influence to make it somewhat more game-like (but it wasn't necessary, assuming Central Bark is supposed to be like a stroll through a park, which was apparently the goal anyhow, now that I look at it). The first track does lean much more towards chiptune though. It sounds like a mixdown with a C64 arp, an E. Piano, vibraphone, and probably Roland TR-808/909 drums.

Last I recall, you push forward on the joystick to maintain speed? Haven't played arcade games in a while.

I would second Juggernaut (audio demo) and Damage. I use those pretty often.

I don't hear any major mixing issues, actually. Maybe you could bring up the fundamental frequency of your snare a little more (~200Hz) to strengthen it, and the same with your kick (but at ~140Hz). The main thing for me is just those tempo oddities and the structure overall; it sounds too similar in too many spots that the track as a whole feels repetitive. I hardly hear any lower energy sections that let the instruments breathe some more before continuing on again.

This has a very cool atmosphere, and could have worked as a sample library demo track in terms of the cohesive atmosphere it gives. However, the hi hats sound completely quantized, with all the notes at the same velocities, so it sounds too mechanical. Also, the arrangement is quite close to the original's notes, feels looped, and the dynamics don't really go anywhere. While this sounds nice on its own, currently it has major issues in its lack of personalization, humanization, and dynamics.

The main thing that completely throws me off is that... pause at 1:05 - 1:15. The tempo change just doesn't really make sense to me. The slowdown at 2:05 - 2:28 felt odd too.

Sure thing! PM or Skype are both good, and email is good too (timaeus222@yahoo.com)

Consider me in for this one as a star again. Same deal, open for practically anything.

Haven't really forgotten about this; just busy. But right now I'm really just working on the track demo.

I think it's a great composition. The bigger issues I hear are in the sequencing, really. Overall it is pretty stiff-sounding, and the strings in the beginning, though similar in RPG-style sequencing, are not realistic like that with the fast staccato, not even with those samples (unless done veeeery carefully). You shouldn't need to do that much mixing on this, so really it's mainly CC11 automation to do volume swells on the individual orchestral instruments, velocities to trigger the proper articulations, and more human timing.

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?