timaeus222

I think when I first came here, it took me time to come to appreciate the tremendous amount of help you guys give (call it early ignorance), but looking back, I think I was most inspired by @zircon, @WillRock, @Chimpazilla, @Gario, @djpretzel, and of course @Liontamer, who could forget him? zircon is kind of an obvious one --- I learned most of what I know in music from studying his, from watching his streams / remix walkthroughs, etc. It has also been a pleasure and a joy to do sound design and to test Super Audio Cart (SAC) and SAC PC. I've generally found Willrock to be someone who really made an identity for himself; he isn't afraid to express himself, and he makes music that is clearly identifiable as his own. Chimpazilla has been a good influence on me from nearly the start, and inspired me to realize that collaboration opens you up to new ideas and really supports you in areas you still need to work on. Gario is like a super-mod, who is also very empathetic, and eloquent. He inspires me to express my feedback in both clear-cut and respectful ways, and in essence it's great for my character. djpretzel has a great sense of humor and writes excellent ReMix writeups, and does plenty of behind-the-scenes administration, advertisement, and legal stuff for the website, youtube, twitter, etc. while not necessarily getting the thanks he deserves. Without djp, we wouldn't even be here now, talking about... each other. Woah. Liontamer is honest, direct, and pleasantly sarcastic. If he had to, he could probably carry the legacy of OCR on his shoulders, and he really embodies the spirit of OCR, IMO. He's also damn funny. ----- If I forget anyone, it's not a knock on you, by the way.

Lemonectric's been going the more-lofi route lately; I think my first introduction to him was "Essence of Lime", which mixed in more organic flavor, but I can still dig this "new" retro (oxymoron?) palette he has going on here. A nice and full Genesis bass foundation along with the similarly-old-school leads makes for a welcoming presentation with some homey feels.

A few basic tips: Listen to songs that carry out the style you are looking for, and try to make sense of what the structure is. You can even put it into your DAW to try to tempo-match, and then break it down into how many bars until each section is over. Where's the intro? Where's the outtro? Bridge? How are the dynamics changing over the course of the track? Common transitions make use of cymbals and other transition sounds, or perhaps drum fills, but good transitions tend to connect both texture and contour (especially when writing orchestral, which has "only" organic instruments). Not just the density of the elements present, but also, the elements should feel like they're working together. Make yourself write a melodic transition sometime, and with time you'll hopefully develop that (voice-leading) as simply a core skill. You can do a simple melodic transition by writing a melody that sustains through into the next section, but later on, you could improve it by making all the little elements around the lead work together to lead up to that new section. For an example, I tend to share this, since it's what I consider my personal best arrangement. Maybe it'll help. Have your friends listen to what you have and give you advice... including us. That means post a WIP, not just "help me".

Maybe in the early part of the song, the "yeah"s were a bit overused, but this gets better as it goes on, and becomes rather enjoyable in the end!

Yeah, I hear you; I chose FF4's prelude because it had the main melody that I have on the strings here. IIRC, I could have chosen FF1's prelude instead and it would have been basically the same. Thanks all the same! This is one of my personal favorites of mine.

If you are talking about this one, then it should be able to record via USB. No recording function for FL Studio? I'm guessing you don't have the Producer Edition, which should include it. I would try to see if you can upgrade to that sometime, because that should give you that feature (which is very important to recording realistic acoustic parts). Whoops! Yeah, it would be here, and I've also fixed that link: https://app.box.com/s/lr9nxha1zbg5vfcxufqqvuiz9vjnliyu Yeah, exactly. An analogy is to make it sound like all parts were written on the same sheet of music by one person for the performance, rather than written in multiple separate sheets of music on separate days, that are then pasted together to use for the performance. I'm exaggerating, but I think you get the idea. Well, since you're using FL Studio, I figured I'd use its terminology. A pattern is what holds the notes and automation that goes with those notes. It represents a measure in sheet music. They go into the Multitrack (the big canvas where you arrange/place your musical objects) along with audio clips, automation clips, etc. If you left-click the top-left of the pattern in the Multitrack, you can go to "Make Unique", which clones it and leaves the original intact. Then you can add variation to that. I think longer patterns (say, 8 bars instead of 4 bars) should encourage you to do more to differentiate them. What I mean about emulating randomness is that you can manually shift notes a little bit in this new pattern you made from "Make Unique" for variation where the actual notes stay the same but how they line up differs. I think @PRYZM would be able to help you here. He has used CS2 before, I think. CC#7 (volume scaling) and CC#11 (expression) are pretty widely implemented to adjust the same parameters across different libraries, but CC#1 (among others) could differ depending on the library used (for example, it could have been vibrato). You should have the manual as well to look at, which might explain what CC#1 should do for CS2. Yeah, essentially it was like an actual fade-in, like a volume knob was raised on a digital piano, rather than the pianist just playing gradually harder.

MOD REVIEW Hey man, I will give you the heads-up that this is not going to pass right now, and to summarize, the primary reasons are: The instruments are mechanical, because their velocities predominantly have a quantized rhythm (stuck to the grid), and have similar intensities. This is most easily noticeable in the piano starting at 0:24, in cello/bass starting at 1:22. For example, the piano plays chords where all the notes in the chord hit about the same time instead of slightly different times. Something to listen to, to train your ear to hear subtleties like this: Robotic Rhythm Robotic Velocities Robotic Rhythm AND Velocities Humanized The accompanying instruments (particularly cello/bass and snare) fall into the trap of (potentially) being copy/pasted while playing a few similar patterns (generally multiple eighth notes in a row), instead of being written to have a certain phrasing that fits with the current musical section. Because of that, it sounds more like it was written on a computer than something that would have come about from being performed off of sheet music (if that makes sense). Frankly, this is actually pretty enjoyable though, Judges' Panel aside. Some of the good: I can hear most of the instruments pretty well, so there doesn't seem to be much of a balance issue. I might note that for example, the snare and pizzicato at 2:02 - 2:30 or so gets bit buried behind the cello/bass, which seems to have gotten louder. I can definitely hear the source in there, so anyone could recognize it if they heard the original or played the original game. It's slower, but not so slow that you can't tell what it is. It sounds like any casual listener could enjoy this, even if they didn't know the game. It's an uplifting arrangement without being too aggressive. ----- Since this would be a pretty big undertaking to revise and update, here's some advice that hopefully helps for the future: When using FL Studio to write orchestral music, try to make somewhat long patterns, so that you 'force' yourself to adjust them more significantly to differentiate them. Even subtle adjustments to rhythm and note intensities would help emulate the randomness of real players. On long notes, never leave a sustaining orchestral instrument static. If it has MIDI CC, consider CC#7 (volume scaling) and CC#11 (expression/dynamics) and modulating those. Basically, CC#7 controls the range of dynamics you can access, while CC#11 moves within the range allowed by CC#7. If the sample library is designed to use those, it's more realistic than automating generic volume knobs in FL Studio (if you did). Some miscellaneous suggestions that came to mind while listening to this back and forth: That 24-second intro probably doesn't actually have to be there, because it's very bare and somewhat meandering, but leads into a piano that fades in. Because of that, they feel separate. I know it would make the piece sub-3:00, but something to consider. It sounds as if you were automating the volume of the piano while keeping the velocities the same (0:24 and on). I'm not sure what samples/VSTs you are using for it, but instead, try to adjust the velocities (the "note loudness") to create that feel of increasing dynamics. If possible (and I don't know if you have a MIDI keyboard), try to feel it out and play it on there for a more humanized phrasing. END REVIEW

Oh yeah, I remember when I saw this as an SACPC demo. Perhaps your best chiptune work yet! Flows well, sounds good, enjoyable!

Well, I still try to ReMix... not as much anymore, but not because I lost interest. I'm in grad school, 3rd year, so by that time I just have a lot on my plate. (Officially became a Ph.D. candidate starting May.) I finished 1 recently, which I think I started in May, combining Chrono Cross and Pokemon Super Mystery Dungeon, and I still found a lot of enjoyment in the process of doing it. I don't have all my supplies with me in WSU, but it forces me to be more particular about harmonic and melodic cooperation instead of production and sound design, and instead I fix up the production on holiday breaks and such. Either way, I still ReMix, it's still as fun as it used to be, and I do so BECAUSE it's fun, not because I feel any obligation to do so.

Solo piano pieces are generally great. I played piano for about 8 years, so I can relate to how hard this is to play.

Thank you, I really appreciate it! That was a tibetan bowl sound from Omnisphere. I think it was "Tibetan Bowls Shaking Doppler".

Whaaaaat? How did I miss this? This is awesome!

@GuJiaXian In case you were curious, it just got approved this morning for a direct-post. Those are by email, so this would not show up in the Judges Decisions page.

[This is an automatically generated message] I've reviewed your remix and have returned it to Work-in-Progress status, indicating that I think there are some things you still need to work on. After you work on your track and feel that you'd like some more feedback, please change the prefix back to Ready for Review and I'll review it again! Good luck!

Hey man, sorry for the wait! ----- MOD REVIEW Phew, this sounds like a rather ambitious piece. Also, a mod review is generally for when you want to submit to OCR, just fyi. Summary The main things that I would keep in mind are: Each note in each instrument feels like a similar intensity, so the instruments feel robotic. Try to keep instruments playing their usual role, at least in this context. In this context, my suggestion is that, e.g. a bass should play bass, not "baritone", orchestral drums should play as orchestral drums, not rock drums, etc. Perhaps consider cutting out some parts of the arrangement, so that it flows better. I know you may be attached to some of it, but sometimes you gotta be more objective about it. There are some good things in this though: Props for writing something this long. It's hard to even think up something of this length. You have a pretty good structure, and nothing too much feels that out of place, besides the parts I mentioned. You do have drum variation, which distinguishes sections from each other. Arrangement Whenever I see a long piece like this, I consider whether the ideas still flow into each other, whether there are sufficient transitions, whether there is a dynamic progression, etc. Because I like to be able to figure out how a piece progresses, here's how my mind is trying to structure this based on what I hear. Maybe it'll help you decide what you may want to cut out, because this is quite long, with many ideas packed in, and can be condensed down. 0:00 - 0:35 = Intro 0:35 - 1:00 = Buildup/Verse (maybe?) 1:00 - 1:26 = Chorus? 1:26 - 1:46 = Slow Bridge 1:46 - 2:14 = Chorus 2 + Solo? Leads into breakdown 2:14 - 2:27 = Breakdown 2:27 - 2:41 = Big verse? 2:41 - 2:49 = ??? This doesn't feel like it fits here, because it's out of the key and sudden. 2:49 - 3:15 = Chorus 2 3:15 - 3:41 = Continuation, suggests winding down again. 3:41 - 4:15 = Dissonant proggy section? Perhaps try cutting this out to see what you think, as it seems to connect just fine without this in here, and it feels a bit out of place. 4:15 - 5:07 = Big verse again + drum variation 5:07 - 5:20 = Breakdown + more drums 5:20 - 5:34 = Chorus 2, meant to sound bigger 5:34 - 6:17 = Continuation to ending Production You seem to be fairly new at this, so it may be better if we focus on arrangement primarily. Nevertheless, I would say that most of the production weirdness is actually in the choice of sounds (in terms of what roles they are apparently playing, or doubling up on), and how robotic their note intensities are. Regarding the note intensities, they feel like they're mostly the same; an analogy is plunking on a piano with your fingers for the entire performance. They need humanization. A typical pianist would have phrasing, and in that phrasing, the note intensities have variation (randomness), and an arc (a flow or shape to it). This is hard to learn without learning an instrument in real life, but perhaps it will help to listen to how these differ: https://app.box.com/s/ndt9vz26mjhdul6sreqgkvf6eqlp2qfy (Robotic intensities) https://app.box.com/s/lr9nxha1zbg5vfcxufqqvuiz9vjnliyu (Robotic rhythm) https://app.box.com/s/pmwybgad4who5679p9xvuxdnnmqshas5 (Both) https://app.box.com/s/jjapuupib9zfypwoew1ecr31nlq8siw4 (Humanized) This probably fits better as an arrangement critique, but... it influences how you would produce it, so here are some examples of how certain instruments seem to be not playing their usual role, or seem to be playing in an uncomfortable range. 2:49 - 3:14 --- the bass seems to be playing pretty high, so it's not providing the low foundation that it typically would. 0:48 - 1:00 --- the lead there is pretty piercing, since it's playing fairly high notes, above its usual range. 1:00 - 1:24 --- the drums you are using (snare, timpani, ...) are made for orchestral music, but here they are playing the role of the double-time 1-2 kick/snare rock pattern. It is because of things like these that there is a lot of frequency clashing, particularly in the low-midrange (250 - 500 Hz or so). The range above the bass hits here, the range of the left-hand piano would hit here, rhythm guitars would hit here, etc. Lots of ways to clash, and you'd want to avoid that. Whenever the timpani plays as if it were a kick drum in a rock drum kit (0:35 - 1:26 is an example), that adds to the muddiness of the production. Besides the clutter due to instrument roles, also consider the clutter due to instrument count. I know it can be fun to keep adding and adding, but sometimes you gotta take out an instrument to leave room for another (call this competing for attention), and you gotta let the lead shine. An example of too much is 2:49 - 3:15, where everything competes for attention. ----- Conclusion Overall, unfortunately I would not believe this is going to pass the panel, if that was your plan. But it's a good starting point for improving. Good luck!

I think @Gario pretty much shares brains with me at this point. Yes, all this. Having a mentor is good and if you find someone who can help like that, go for it. But don't let that be your only avenue for learning. Public feedback can be useful too, because It potentially could provide a greater number of fresh ears. In principle it is probably easier to obtain (if the mentor would be hard to contact, which he/she probably will be because he/she is only one person who has a life). It opens you to potentially inexperienced perspectives that you should digest, which likely provide for you a realistic experience on how your music may sound to a general audience. The main problem with public feedback is of course that sometimes, you have to filter it and figure out who is actually saying what, because more experienced people might either speak with jargon, or less experienced people might say what they think they mean without actually projecting what they meant. That's the chance you take, and I am quite glad I took that chance for 2+ years... Fortunately, when I got public feedback, the people who came in (Flexstyle, Gario, Phonetic Hero, Chimpazilla, DaMonz, . . . ) knew enough, and I will fully admit that at the time it was I who needed to learn more! And it was because I took that chance and met those people, that I had extra motivation to keep coming back! So, for me personally, public feedback (forum feedback) was more important than mentor feedback. I don't think I had a real mentor (besides the Judges), more like I had some friendly collaborators...

I think we've gotten to a difference of choice, which gets rather confusing... You're considering "feedback" as opening to public critique with no particular expectations, while I'm considering it in a more general sense, where any interaction involving critique about your stuff, public or not, is feedback. Also, you have basically stated (using your definition of feedback) that mentorship does not require the public to give critique. That's true, it doesn't, but why do that? I wouldn't value the mentor's feedback (my definition) any more or any less than public feedback (your definition); everyone's feedback (my definition) should be taken into account, even if the poster is proficient (whether they do or not is another story). That is why I am saying that mentorship necessarily requires feedback (my definition), but also that feedback does not require a designated mentor to obtain (i.e. can be from untrained critic in public or in private), whereas you are apparently saying that feedback (your definition) is not required within a mentorship. See the confusion it makes? What it looks like is that we agree about general feedback, but not about public feedback.

Is an assessment not feedback? In assessing, you are responding to an incoming interaction to provide your thoughts, which, whether opinionated or not, is feedback, no? I don't think feedback is disconnected from mentorship, especially since it should involve communication. @AngelCityOutlaw So, what @Phonetic Hero seems to be referring to is that the mentor is like a teaching assistant, while you seem to be referring to the mentor being like an actual teacher/professor.

I think it depends on how long you've been writing music in the first place. I like to think of it in a few somewhat general stages (fyi, I just came up with these now): Early on / Barely started something -----> Definitely ask for feedback Somewhat proficient / usually appreciates feedback -----> Definitely ask for feedback Quite proficient / sometimes needs feedback -----> doesn't hurt, ask for it! Extremely proficient / occasionally asks for feedback for a reality check -----> Nice to have, but not absolutely necessary to ask for feedback Back when I personally found the feedback worthwhile (enough to come back and work with the poster to continually improve the same WIP), it was when, e.g. I did not have good headphones, or did not pass any or recently passed only 1 or 2 tracks on OCR already. (I try to take all feedback into account, though, and give it a chance first. As another note, whenever I share after I submit, I usually just forget to share before I submit, sorry!) I definitely attribute OCR to helping me get to where I am now, though, not even from any obligation. Without OCR forum feedback, I would not have good headphones, nor good arrangement skills (in practice). I would say it was the headphones that helped the most with production skills, but OCR with arrangement skills. Mainly, what I can only learn in practice is what I found most helpful from OCR. And so, what I mean by that is if you don't know what questions to ask, or you don't know how you could proceed, then ask for feedback. You'll learn about topics you haven't thought about, and it'll give you a better sense of what path you could take.

Cool arrangement. I like the ideas here so far. If you need a resource for writing your own Shreddage lead, zircon did a pretty good job here. See the 12:51 mark.

You're not the only one! I generally like an 8-10 song album, if it's going to be one I enjoy in the long run (and probably play in the car, if it's not super elaborate dynamics), but I don't mind getting a 5-8 song album if I just find it astounding. Usually I like it if the album happens to be 30 minutes long (5-8 songs) or 40 minutes long (8-10 songs), but I'm open.

No, it either means it was direct-posted, or it is not there and approved yet. If it was of this caliber and also rejected (meaning, if it was not so terrible that it was rejected without judging), then it would be there.

It's right at the bottom of the main page: https://ocremix.org/community/forum/4-commentsreviews/

No worries. It's good that you are actually asking, and you seem to be getting it so far. I don't use Audacity that much, but I can give you my thoughts on the rest. Visually, you would have to inspect the mixer dB meter to see that something went over 0 dB. Sometimes (if the DAW is programmed that way) it'll show red, which should indicate clipping. If you haven't heard it before, it sounds like a crackling, but it might be subtle if you don't exaggerate the volume level. I know I didn't perceive clipping in my first year learning music production without looking at a mixer. You can think of hertz (frequency) as the horizontal span of what we can hear, and dB (loudness) as the vertical span of what we can hear. Hertz is a frequency unit (as opposed to, say, length units of meters, or mass units of kilograms). It just means that for every second that passes, one wave cycle passes by, so 5 Hz means that 5 cycles pass per second. It is also written Hz, or 1/sec. Some producers might say that higher frequencies "brighten up" a sound, etc. Lower frequencies sound "boomy", "rumbly", sometimes "muddy", etc. Higher frequencies span the treble range (generally around 4000 - 20000 Hz, give or take) via high notes, and low frequencies span the bass range (generally around 20 - 1000 Hz, give or take) via low notes. Lastly, midrange (the rest) is where most sounds lie, like the human voice, lead instruments, guitar, etc. It's where you hear presence, and all listening devices hit some of this range. On the other hand, dB is basically just loudness. Louder, or softer, at a fixed frequency. Yes, the net result is what you should pay attention to. As a general property of audio waves, their amplitudes (loudnesses) will add, and also cancel, at various points, and so, if every channel hits 0 dB, the net result will exceed 0 dB. Therefore, NOT all channels "need" to reach 0 dB by themselves.

Yeah, that's true, and it's good that you cover that below; however, it also looked to me like he was having issues with figuring out how he can match up all of his listening methods to hear a consistent loudness across them, because he was unsure of what to adjust (without re-rendering, presumably) and ended up adjusting the internal volume control several times in the process... So, after establishing a setting from previous listening methods (say, headphones), it's now changed (say, after trying speakers), which would then lead him to go back and adjust again... which could be a frustrating cycle. Hopefully either of these approaches (mine + PRYZM's) help though! I think both were good to have.