timaeus222

Yeah, it seems counterintuitive to say that you can do something that brings out the best of what you can do, even if you don't know music theory to the extent that you would need it if you were to use it while composing something, but the fact is, I wrote this without extensive theory knowledge on complex chords and effective chord progressions. That's just how it went. Maybe it's an exception, but that's what happened. It has plenty of chords above the complexity of basic triads, all of which are sensible. You don't have to write notes outside the key in a theoretically interesting way to have a good song. It can sound cool, but few people without the theory to understand it won't get why it works, and truly why you love it. So no, theory is not necessarily important for arranging. It's helpful, if you put in the effort and understand it and can apply it, but it's not absolutely crucial to realizing the best of what you can do. I know I'm not a conventional person when I say I don't rely on theory to compose harmonically complex music, but oh well. That's who I am.

My biggest concern would be the muddiness between the piano notes and the bass from 0:28 onward. Something's clashing there harmonically and cluttering the low end.

Seems to be a style of these four to start off a little conservative and personalize it later on with rad solos. I checked out their old music, and they kicked up their game since a year ago, and it was already good back then. Totally groove to me. The solos demonstrated plenty of skill, music theory prowess (or just really good ears), and some excellent arrangement flow.

It's been a while, but I think I can come tonight!

15 yeeeeaaaaaaaars!

Interesting juxtaposition between the major-key and minor-key portions; the Lavender town theme seems to lend itself well to both moods. The dubstep was also really well done. Could tick some people off, but I personally think it's on the borderline of like-dislike (I like it, anyway). Keep up the good work! Hope to see more of ya.

Theory may not work for everyone. I personally know the bare minimum about theory (scales, chord names, etc.) and I don't feel like I really need more than that; it's weird, but I've made music with harmonies I can't explain, which I honestly am okay with as long as I like it. I would read a manual on your synth, try to figure out what the knobs do, and recreate some sounds to refine your sound design imagination. Maybe try to transcribe simple songs by ear and write your own harmonies to them, see what works, and see why it works (note relationships, like basic intervals, even). Maybe imagine chords in your head, write them out, and see if it matches what you thought. Listen for other peoples' chords and try sequencing out what you hear.

It just sounds so transparent. This is exceptional.

Yeah, I agree, the structure of a subtractive synth is fairly straightforward to understand, if you take the time to read up on it (I didn't when I first started ). Basically, you usually start with an oscillator (might be called VCO for voltage-controlled oscillator), which is a module that gives you a starting waveform, such as saw, square, triangle, sine, or maybe noise; send the output through a filter (might be called VCF for voltage-controlled filter) that attenuates/cuts out some frequencies or changes the width of the frequency band (small width = resonance, high gain = brings the pain; no gain, no pain! ); and optionally modulate/modify with things like a low-frequency oscillator (LFO; inaudible) or an envelope (ADSR; attack, decay, sustain, release). I think if you get used to imagining what happens through that process, even just how the input sounded and how the output could sound, you can think up sounds and decide "okay, to make this sound, I should probably do this, then this, then this." or "I have this sound somewhere... it's on the tip of my tongue... now where was it?" FM is a little funky (also an inside joke, 'cause you can make e. pianos with it!), and the theory on that was pretty hard when I tried to read up on it (I ultimately just figured it out by experimentation). It's essentially when a waveform gets stretched and compressed according to the slope of another waveform over time (stretching = positive slope, compressing = negative slope). What you get is a sound that becomes buzzier as the frequency increases; some might call it "gritty" in some cases, or "glassy" in other cases. It gets even more interesting when you change the pitch of either the incoming oscillator or the FM oscillator, since that changes how the wavelengths of the waveform line up a bit, creating less "standard" modulations. Wavetable is more or less just a way to draw your own waveforms, or use predrawn waveforms. It's not much more than having more interesting "basic" waveforms to begin with in a synth.

Oh yeah, that's another good point. Sometimes there's a particular type of instrument that you know you want to use, but maybe you have multiple samples or VSTs that can give you the tone character you want. For example, if you realize a piano would really make the song, you have choices between a hard-toned piano, a multi-velocity-layer ultra-realistic piano with a range between soft and hard tones, or maybe one from a specific set that's just really unique (like Roland SC-88, or FluidR3, or somethin'). Also, you could even go more specific into the sound's playing capabilities. Do you want it to sound legato? Retrigger? For example, I would generally use legato for synth leads, or retrigger for a pitch-envelope bass or a cinematic "pulse" bass (not a pulse wave, but in the sense of straight quarter notes in a horror genre, perhaps), or something like that. (If you're using a real instrument, that can be read up on, since flutes can't only be played staccato, cellos can't only be played legato, etc. but that's obvious)

I pick my instruments based on the mood I want to evoke and the frequencies that are empty at the time. It really depends. I think it'll help quite a bit if you synthesize your own sounds so you can ingrain how it is a sound is made, and that way you can try synthesizing them in your head as you imagine them, and look for what you're imagining. In time, it can become straightforward to think about how you want realistic instruments to sound before you pick them out and process them (because real instruments are usually less complicated than synthesized sounds, if you already have a base sample ).

Played that four years ago in my high school's talent show, I think.

When I said that, I was referring to the low ambient hits and distant snares coupled with the sustaining bass.

Yeah, I agree. Some of the old artists that I used to like, I'm now turned off by because they really weren't that good So yeah, I would listen to more varieties of music. Get inspired by new music.

Okay, and now the minor nitpicks: - 1:50 was where I was hoping a change would occur in the lead melodic contour - 2:13 would be where I would hope for a slightly different soundscape; something where the sync lead was swapped out for something else (like the bell at 3:04) to highlight the ambience of the supporting instruments before you drop off at 2:42. - Personally I would prefer the sync lead be less retrigger-like and more legato, because it could make it more soaring and evocative. Sorta big but not major thing: - 3:34 is flooded with bass; if you didn't have drums there, I think it would sound less flooded, especially considering you are nearing the ending anyways. i.e. I think 3:34 could be your outtro, rather than a climax that drops off to a quick rehash of the intro. Overall though, I love the soundscape, and the arrangement mostly works for me. It's just those things above that I would have to mention. If you want to submit this to OCR, I don't think it's that far off.

I actually prefer both (yes, I've done orchestral, recently). Velocity-sensitivity gives me the performance I want, in terms of the order/flow of the articulations used, before outlining the dynamics with MIDI CC; I basically try and decide how I want it to sound before I do it, right down to the articulations and the general volume I would want it at.

Just wanted to provide a quick thought. Generally it's good, but I think the major issue is the sync lead line that comes in. It sounds like it's playing a few quick notes, then some longer notes, and to me that sounds noodly, rambly, and as Michael said, meandering. For me it makes the arrangement feel directionless until the next breakdown section. I don't think it drives the arrangement forward, basically. It leaves me thinking, "okay, when is this going to change gears? It's still going on at this dynamic. Is a more concrete section going to come to offset this section, which I am phasing out of?" Any other thoughts I have are rather minor, so maybe I'll mention them later.

Plopped in some feedback!

I remember telling this guy 3 months ago that this would definitely pass on OCR, easily. Look at that, it did! Totally deserved the DP.

This week was quite possibly my favorite week in general. Lots of good things happened!

It was just a timing issue on the genre switch. The tempo is still about the same, but the playing was rushed early on. I think the lead guitar is too loud, and the intro had too much bass. It's overcompressed. Other than that I'm not wearing my good headphones right now, so I don't really have much to say about the mixing. I don't think there's not enough development in the arrangement to warrant the length. 1:54 is OK, if the structure is changing quite often. It would be easier to make the remix longer and add more dynamic dropoffs and variation to add more substance to the listen. This sounds like it could have gone at least 30 more seconds.

Yeah, the judges check and make sure that anything that would become a copyright issue or is not written for a game gets a NO override.

Unless it's sarcastic