Jump to content

timaeus222

Members
  • Posts

    6,135
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    49

Everything posted by timaeus222

  1. This is approaching kind of an old-school style of remixing, I suppose. Now it sounds kind of Electro-like. Not bad. Now you're putting a nice sense of style and personalization into this. I'd watch the compression on the track overall though, since it's overcompressing and there's a lot of sub bass from the kick and sub bass. I also don't think the voice clips really fit. They just sound corny IMO, and they degrade the remix to the point where it doesn't even focus on the source tune anymore. The UG theme just gets lost in the glitching and overcompression, and this gets too liberal after 1:56. 2:20 vaguely has something UG-related, but it's really hard to discern. It finally comes back at 3:03 - 3:20, but again, obscured by the mastering. Quick source breakdown: Source = 0:14 - 0:51, 0:54 - 1:30, 1:34 - 1:56, 3:03 - 3:20 = 37+36+22+17 = 112/222 secs = 50.45% source And that's considering even the parts where it's hard to hear, so it's a stretch. Overall, this needs the overcompression fixed by getting a more tolerant limiter, and it can really benefit from some more inclusion of the UG theme. You were able to include it earlier just fine, so include more of it.
  2. The glitch flow is very well done. It fits without being too distracting, and acts as a nice textural addition to the otherwise cinematic take, giving this a distinct style. Great pacing and atmospherics. I wonder if this might be hard to "get", but otherwise, great second mixpost!
  3. You can still do more with this if you want the practice This may be subtle, but at 0:08 - 0:38, all the leads that play throughout that time are detached, so yuuuup, you can predict that I'll say it's fake-sounding If you listen closely, you can hear the envelope give it a bit of a repeated 'pulsing'. The detached quality is less exposed later on, but I guess the strings lead at 1:30 - 1:40 is missing a little expressiveness---a little lyrical excellence---due to its detached sequencing, too. A lot of this is great later on, and if you want to keep working on this, I wouldn't worry about the rest of it up til 3:06. That triplet... yeah, I'd change that, even though it's a neat highlight, since it sounds like three rapid staccato notes in a row, which is hard on a real trumpet. So yeah, just the detached feel of the earlier stuff at 0:08 - 0:38, 1:30 - 1:40 (I may have missed a spot), and the little triplet doodad at 3:06 are what I'd consider taking another look at if you want, seeing how long ago you made this. The scales and harmonies on this are rather unusual, but I think they work, and there are some neat tonal shifts in the chord progression too. This kinda sounds like some sort of victory march or something adventurous.
  4. Actually, I think he meant that they achieved it in the sense that for as long as they fight for it, they are already submitting themselves to the goal of equality being correct, but BECAUSE they continue to fight for it, they aren't truly aware of this cyclic relationship, and because they aren't aware, they continue to fight for it. For as long as they aren't aware, they're stuck in an endless cycle. In other words, by fighting for equality, they've proved to themselves that equality is important to fight for, without realizing that that's what they've proved to themselves. If they did realize it, they would stop. And they're not aware maybe because of ego, or perseverance, or blind rage, or whatever guesses you may have about it. An important thing to realize is that this "equality" goal GG participants have, on either side, is perceived relative to the person. So "equality" on its own is really just something each side claims is their goal/resolve... even though their means to get to that end are polar opposites. Maybe that's where they get their idea of their being superior to the other side.
  5. Happy Birthday! :)

  6. Ah, yeah! They aren't aware of how they already believe it, but in the pursuit of it, they already believe it for as long as they do so. Socrates!
  7. Yo, did you get my PM about BA3? Get back to me! >O

  8. It'd be pretty tough, but maybe. I think it's only been done .
  9. Ah yes, this one is up! I like the way the sound design flows together, and you've got some good pacing. A little noodly here and there in the melody, but otherwise a solid, meditative take with creative use of sound effects!
  10. Interesting groove. In general I think it is working in the sense that the notes create some nice harmonies for the overall body of sound. I do think it's a little empty though. There's a nice amount of bass, some center lead work, and good arp work, but it can have a pad to fill in the soundscape. I also found the panning dubstep wobbles distracting, rather than a stylistic choice, because it was panning so quickly. I'm actually not sure it fits in the first place. The soundscape gets more empty at 1:26, so that could be filled out more, similar to earlier on. Actually, similar sounds are being used here and there, so I guess my above comments apply to the whole track. So yeah, soundscape is a little empty and can use some padding, and the panning wobbles are distracting me.
  11. Aha, thanks! I'm workin' on being less blunt =P
  12. Thanks, you guys! <3
  13. They are. Blaming someone vs. calling them responsible is different via the level of sensitivity in which you say it. "IT'S YOUR FAULT!" is blame. "It's what you ought to be associating yourself with in an absolute relationship" is assigning responsibility.
  14. Starts off nice, but eventually adds too many layers and clutters the midrange. 1:00-1:16 is muddy with reverb and bass frequencies, 1:24-1:40 is cluttered by the piano and that saw lead, and somehow 1:40 got even louder. X_X Yeah, I think it takes too long to get going, and the textures come off as sparse until 1:09 for me. Needs something more to ground the direction. Seems like a looped arpeggio with changing background elements, which isn't necessarily a bad thing, but there's just not enough development and it gets repetitive overall.
  15. FL SLAYER IS IN THIS?! I have to agree, this is worthy of being called 'awesomesauce'. I mean, some of the leads were pretty piercing (lots of FM basses turned into leads can be pretty painful, and that seems to be what kind of lead that is at 1:29), and the (of course) fake guitar can be offputting, but I think they work in this context, somehow... The wubs were woven in cleanly, so I like that. Nice and diverse tones. Ending was kind of abrupt for me. Sounds a bit like something I guess I could call complextro, in a sense. Overall, great adaptation to the genre. I would personally have liked less bright highs and less high end clutter, and a less abrupt ending, but other than that this is pretty solid. I think this is on the accessible side of dubstep. omglistenlistenlistenspam
  16. Hm, that library sounds really good. I do think you can definitely work with that.
  17. Hm. Yeeeeahhhh, I would like actual ribs better. Don't hurt me.
  18. I see this more like a cinematic-electronic hybrid film-score-type remix, actually, and I personally find that harder because it asks for solid perception of low bass (this is not obvious). The concept is nice so far, but you've basically set a standard for yourself by using these high quality cinematic drums and percussive instruments, in comparison to everything else, which was handled in a way that makes the overall sound design combination feel disjointed (this is not obvious). It's kind of a situation where you bought high quality samples early on, perhaps, and tried to integrate it into what you already had, creating a discrepancy in sound quality (again, this is not obvious). There is a fair amount of low bass frequencies in your drum samples and they currently overpower your other instruments. However, I think you can find some nice inspiration from these since you're going in this direction: https://soundcloud.com/stephen-anderson/hackers-at-work https://soundcloud.com/stephen-anderson/the-black-flag In the beginning, the harp feels a little too quiet, and I can barely hear it over the nature sounds (try turning up your listening volume for that part so you can hear the volume differences more clearly, and then turning your listening volume back to normal). Also, the woodwind lead at 0:22 has some sort of awkwardness to its attack. It feels like either it resets its phase (restarts its envelope) or is doubled up with some sort of plucked instrument. As a result, it sounds as if the player is... I guess re-breathing constantly, in a sense. At 1:01, there's some major overcompression, so all your drums are too loud. At 1:20, the bass instrument harmonically clashes with the bells in a way that doesn't sound like natural dissonance to me. The piano that comes afterwards is also mechanical in rhythm and velocity variation. Layering it with that glockenspiel was a nice idea, but I think that can hide some of the softness to the piano tone sometimes, if the velocities of the glock are too similar. Softness to a piano's tone would be a sign that there's many velocity layers, which would say that it's a dynamic piano sample, so if all the notes sound "hard" (plunky), it might sound low-quality. So I think fundamentally, you need to work on orchestration techniques so that you can get your non-drums up to par with your drums. Or, just use different drums if you have them. It's not you; this musical direction is just hard, that's all.
  19. Happy birthday dude. :)

  20. This deserves more recognition =)
  21. http://ocremix.org/forums/showpost.php?p=958022&postcount=3
  22. This actually has some really cool harmonies. Aside from the mechanical and loud hi hats, everything works well.
  23. Yeah, and that's mostly true and all, but at the same time, if your family and friends ought to be building up your habits, they can't do it when you're somewhere else. If your child is often away from you and you know you're a person with the good kind of knowledge (because being "clever" doesn't mean you're not a bad person), or they were somehow with people who weren't raised properly, they'll learn not-so-good habits. Fast forward 10 years, and you've got a bad person. Look to all the people in the world, and you've got diversity. We know what we ought to do, but sometimes it's pretty hard to overcome your strong impulses or inclinations to do something base. Maybe you've got this craving for glazed donuts and you eat four every day. Then you go to McDonalds because you keep passing by the place when you're walking to save gas, and every single time, you happen to be hungry. And then maybe you go home and you're itchin' to play that awesome video game you just recently got instead of doing homework when you know (read: think) you ought to. Each time, your reason lost to your inclinations, and you're labeled a "morally weak" person by Aristotle. Something Aristotle never says is how we can overcome this life where we are trying to hit a mark and continually missing until we get close. He just basically says "weeeeell, if you're fortunate, and you have friends, and you know how to exercise your wisdom, and eeeeeverything falls into place, then you've got a good life, but if you continually screw up when you're young and no one sets you straight, you're too deep into it, bro. You only got one chance at life, and life is HARD. If you aren't lucky as well as all of the above, sorry Charlie." Normal people (i.e. not diseased, badly habituated, innately corrupt, or otherwise brutish) get that in general, killing is bad and respecting others is good and so on and so forth, based on the fundamental laws of nature, but when they've been poorly raised, or just not raised at all, they're at a loss. No idea how to proceed, and literally guessing what's better or worse for them, letting fate give them their life and having it turn out however it's going to turn out. When you don't have enough of an education, you tend to turn to conformity, and that's the danger. Conformers don't think so much as just doing something. Knowing how to prevent obesity is learned information, and if you've never seen a chubby person, you won't know to not-eat in a similar way or not-exercise in a similar way. So in a nutshell, obesity is a problem because those people weren't fortunate enough to be taught or learned in a way that steered them away from that lifestyle, and well... that's how it turned out for them, and they just have a hard life ahead (unless someone helps, of course).
×
×
  • Create New...