timaeus222

[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.

The point of turning the knob on the hardware instead of adjusting the internal volume is that you aren't changing one of the only things that could be consistent across your listening methods. If your speaker 'noise baseline' is audible, it may be that the impedance on them is high (it takes more power to achieve the same volume as something with less impedance) and you should consider getting new speakers with lower impedance (or an amp to boost their base volume, so that you don't have to turn the knob up so high).

Well, for one, at least start your mixing on headphones, and not your laptop speakers. They are certainly not designed for mixing, and you know they have no bass, and so they will not sound right anyway... ----- There is no exactly correct loudness, but you can get close to what is too loud for you. I probably listen to music about 3 dB louder than other people, but it allows me to hear more detail, it still doesn't hurt my ears, and I still write music with consistent loudnesses. YMMV. I have a loudness reference that I like to use. This song is about as loud as I would listen to before I don't want to turn it up any higher. Try it when your ears are cleared, on your system when using the headphones specifically, and turn the internal system volume up until you want to turn it down, and find that balance (if you are using "Audio Enhancements" or whatever it is on your OS, turn that off, it messes with you). Establish a consistent perceived loudness for your different listening scenarios for the same song, that ALSO uses the same internal system volume. That is, try to make the same song feel about as loud across the board... but keep the internal system volume the same to make it easier on yourself. To further adjust volumes on speakers, turn the knob on the hardware, instead of changing the internal system volume. That way you are at least keeping one setting constant across your comparisons.

Just my two cents; I made a small guide a while back on mixing metal: https://app.box.com/s/ibj5yh5toh2yfc56f4aa You might also find these two tracks to be useful mixing references.

Awesome, there's a lot of heart that went into the guitar performances! I especially liked the build back up from 3:40. A bit heavy on the bass frequencies, and the kick is pretty light on the punch, but overall the arrangement is super engaging and this is pretty sweet.

Wow, I never expected Bluegrass to sound like this. Really brought a new perspective on the genre, and I thoroughly enjoyed it.

The playlist and piano roll actually allow separate time signatures, but they can be matched up by clicking the upper-left triangle on the pattern itself and going to "Use current time signature from > playlist to pattern" to use the playlist time signature for the pattern, or "pattern to playlist to use the pattern time signature for the playlist. I assume it was done this way so you can subdivide measures how you want; for instance, 4/4 then 3/4 pattern time signature within a 7/4 playlist time signature.

Just my 2 cents here, but the "swell" you speak of in the strings is a minor 2nd trill (fast alternating notes a semitone apart), and in terms of notes, what I'm hearing is an ascending scale in a minor key (seems like E relative minor, meaning you start on E and end on E, but use notes in G major, having only F#). Among the textures, what I perceive is a harp glissando on the left, a flute (or perhaps piccolo) playing the scale legato in the middle, and probably some violas playing legato on the right (ending on a perfect fifth below the flute)

Wow. This is one of those mixes that you really shouldn't skip through, not because it has such a wide span of genres, but because you don't want to miss anything. Been a while since I've put something on repeat.

Well, that's true, a melodic focus isn't necessary, but I do think some sort of leading contour could still shape, say, a desert track, using your example. It doesn't have to end up being a melody, but you could hypothetically hum a melody on top a chord progression you try playing, but then not put a melody. It can just guide the chords you write (or help you visualize which chords you could write), knowing that one can write a chord progression to any given melody (in principle). And then, that wouldn't have a strong melodic focus, but it may be easier to construct by using a leading contour as a guide.

As a note, whenever I write a song with a strong melodic focus, it does go case-by-case whether I write the chords first or the melody first. I do get that sometimes the melody can be hard to think of, or to be original with if that's an issue one has. Most recently, I did what @TTT was describing: playing out something rough on keyboard and getting that down to MIDI. Then, I dumbed it down to a more basic chord progression as the intro to an original WIP, with plans to, later in the arrangement, add in the full deal of what I was playing. A few months back though, I also wrote and finished an original where I thought of the melody first, playing chords with my hands and humming the melody on top of it to test it out. Then, I used the melody throughout as a motif, to try to make the listener familiar with it... and perhaps even make it more catchy. This is done, but here's an early WIP example. A few years back, I actually had a burst of inspiration in college and sat down in the library to mouse in raw sheet music for one of my songs, purely because I thought of the melody first (I was humming it on the way home every day for a week), and then the accompaniment came to me while sketching it. Here it is: https://www.noteflight.com/scores/view/3829339a06f1f5fefe6c1978a5ac8a4dd86e0894 And here is an early WIP of the now-finished song. In all three cases, in the DAW itself, I did write the accompaniment first, but I had the melody in mind early on in the second and third cases, and sketched the major bits in the third case outside the DAW.

Menu 1 and Final Destination are two SSB themes that never really get old for me. DaMonz has shown that he can improve upon a classic, and make it his own!

I think even though the ending is the same, the ending works better now, because of the fix on the production in the low end; now you have noticeable high pass automation, which has more contrast than it did originally. Comparing to the judged version again, this is much improved! It has more bass body, less shrill highs, and leads that are more foreground. The track is also at a good loudness now. Perhaps one final thing I might do is let the final delay go on a bit longer, and fade it out a bit more slowly. I didn't think it was too short, and would chalk it up to a nitpick, but each of the judges seemed to think so, and it's an easy fix, I think.

Regarding "Time Traveler", I think the low bass is kinda flooded starting at 1:37, and would do a small cut (1 ~ 2 dB) on those low-drum samples at around 60 - 80 Hz. That may help give headroom for the guitar to breathe, since (and I'm guessing here) perhaps your car has the bass turned up? If you do that, I would suggest you do it in context (meaning, instead of isolating the drums and EQing, EQ the drums without muting all the other tracks). Another reference I like to use for low bass (sub bass, bass drums, gran cassa, etc), for cinematic music, is this.