timaeus222

Yeah, when I do my mixing, I'm willing to automate EQ bands to make it sound right if I have to. With the stuff I apparently do, I usually end up doing it. For example, on that Apex 2014 remix I did, if you listen to the huge buildup near the middle, there's no way I could have done that without automated EQ bands.

You're running out of inboxed subs? what has the world gone to what in the what that's when you know the judges are doing a good job

I agree with Argle that the leads can be more expressive, as the soundscape suggests some sort of awesome 80s lead. Jupiter-8? Oberheim? I dunno, I'm sure you can find something in Omnisphere to accompany those boy vocals. I would call the repetition substantial. Spatially you've got it, but in terms of arrangement, it does have plenty of potential for more developed dynamics and surprises. It'd be a close call on the panel, but I think this would still pass as-is. It would just be rather close, on the basis of the missed opportunities and relatively static arrangement flow. A good rule of thumb is to skip 15 seconds at a time through your track and see if you can tell where you are in it without looking at the time stamp (you could do skip forward with WinAmp by pressing the arrow key right). If you can't tell you've gotten further into the track... then decide how long is too long for same-y melodic contour and harmonies. I generally try to change it up somehow after 15~30 seconds.

The source usage would check out with me. No concerns there. Production sounds pretty good. Most things are clear. I would suggest some stronger vibrato on the left lead at 1:10 - 1:40 and in other places where it shows up. 1:21, for example, seems to have vibrato, but it's hard to detect, and it's a longer note than the previous moments at 1:10 - 1:21, so it's more noticeable there. Also, perhaps the two leads that were used there might be a little too loud overall. Maybe reducing them by about 1 dB or so can balance out the loudness of everything. For example, at 1:40 - 2:11, there's that C64 arp playing at the same time, occupying the midrange, so it gets a little crowded. You might also want to automate the midrange of that C64 arp down about 1.5dB or so to clear up room for the leads whenever they're playing alongside, then automate the midrange back up whenever the arp is by itself. I'd try it at 1000~2000Hz.

No reason. =P Also, nice to be able to reinforce the belief that IL is well aware of customer needs.

Um, doesn't the academic version mean you can't use it to make for-profit music? Like educational/academic versions of sample libraries? /necro

Well, the biggest gripe I have about this is that it's repetitive. That in and of itself is not wrong, but it seems over my threshold for repetition. The drums feel loop-like, and the "cry" sound effect is overused in places where it's used. I'm not demanding you to use it less, but it just feels cheesy to me. It could stand to be used less anyways, though, because it contributes greatly to the repetition. The copy-paste in some places contributes fairly substantially too. The chords are cool, and samples aside, the concept makes sense, but I believe the textures you chose might come off as too oriented towards the better headphones. i.e. people with half-decent headphones may not hear the good aspects of this. For example, there's a portion of the intro and similar copy-pasted sections that is mostly bass and low passed drums, so some people might only hear some muffled clicking. I don't hear any substantial mixing issues that can really be pointed out at the moment, but there isn't much mixing to be done yet, it seems.

Also, you should try to comment on other people's remixes too. That way they have the opportunity to thank you by paying you back and giving you feedback too. If you just post your remixes and that's all, then you have no interaction going on and people will just think of you as that one guy who posts remixes, leaves, then comes back to see if anyone looked.

You can post these MIDI-remixes, as you call them, but there's not much one can say other than "yo, this is a MIDI rip. I encourage you to learn how to write by ear so you can personalize your arrangements more." You'd have to start 'being serious about it' and think about how you would want to write a remix from scratch so that it isn't an auto-violation of the submission standards should you want to submit to the site. Also, yeah, if you want to post a bunch of these, space it out. Don't post, like, five remixes in 10 minutes.

So far, it doesn't seem to have a structure; it just plows through with a simple beat, and it sounds like "okay, let's use the source here" (unless this is a snippet.) It seems it's a short WIP at the moment. So the one thing I can say needs the most work is the development. Right now, it just starts "cold". i.e. the action is gotten to right away without anything to say "alright, the song has started. There's gonna be action, just wait a sec. Okay, here it comes! Wait for it... Here it is!" Where do you want to go with it? Do you want to start out with few textures, then build up to a high energy main section? Where do you want to go after that? A breakdown section when you feel your ears get tired of hearing the main section? And after that? A buildup back to a variation on the main section? Then what? An outtro resembling the breakdown section? That's a basic structure. [A, B, C, B', C'] or [A', B, C, B', A'] depending on how you end it. The second one is called "book-ending". The first one reminds me of pop music but is a little different. Pop music is [A, B, C, B', C], D, C, C, E. A = intro B = verse C = chorus D = breakdown section or something low energy E = outtro , for example, follows a structure close to that, if not exactly like that.Other than that, the harmonies develop a little weirdly too. 0:27 has a melody that seems to go into a different key, but it just popped on over there without a transition, and without enough time within the remix to get there. It sounds like it's out of key in comparison to the whole (i.e. incoherent), but if you listen to the section in isolation, it sounds fine. It's like you're going from A to C instead of from A to B to C. Basically, jumping straight to a new key just like that is like skipping a step in the arrangement.

Um, that's not a request.

Hm... that adds up to 185 seconds out of 393 (29+30+15+9+58+29+15), so, at least according to the attributions to the source that you gave yourself credit for (i.e. the max), it's at 47%. It might help to fill in the gap at 2:00 - 3:00. I would agree with you that 3:01 - 3:16 is too different. 4:14 - 4:45 might be using the original melody, but I actually can't hear it because it's overcome by the original melody you have there. So I would call it 35% instead. What you have from 2:04 - 2:33 seems fairly close to Melody B, so I think it won't be too hard if you tweaked that, for example. 4:14 - 4:45 is a definite candidate for volume and EQ adjustments so you can bring out the actually-attributable melody. Even then, it would still be really close to 50%. So perhaps hinting at the theme in the intro can help too. Ultimately, if there's more of the source tune incorporated than there is now, then a few abrupt transitions aside (2:33, 3:31) and the slight crowdedness at 4:45 aside, it has a pretty nice chance of being YESed. It couldn't hurt to also address those two things in addition, though. Those two sections, 2:33 and 3:31, sound like unexpected key changes, and 4:45 feels a touch crowded in the midrange.

Let's compile the gist of what just went on... (do still read it all though, for the sake of taking it all in) tl;dr: The point of comparing oneself to others is continual pursuit of the best that you can do at each particular moment. Timing is key to how motivated you are, but not ever committing to comparing with other people ever is a hindrance. Even though you can never be absolutely perfect at musical endeavours, the least you can do is go on that journey and pursue it (well, really, the most), because the preferences of the members in your musical audience are not random.

I can spot the difference between Copper and Aluminum by smell. *ba dum tshhh*

Every time I try to introduce OCR to people, they forget about it, or just don't "get" it. "Here's some awesome VGM. Doesn't sound like VGM, right?" > "It's okay." "Any additional response?" > "No, I just don't like electronic music." *facepalm*

If you list what it is you intended your source usage to be, it'll help us evaluate (or try to evaluate) what could count and what might not count. Just the time stamps from the ReMix would be fine, as the source tune is fairly straightforward. Generally over 50% is recommended, but just saying that it "feels like it's enough" wouldn't be enough, though. It'd help to actually check.

There's more detail in this than meets the eye. It's more of a subtle progressive track than it is an obviously progressive one. Takes a while to get going, but ultimately, it still makes some sufficient and substantial additions before it gets to the higher-energy parts. The bass is pretty slammin', too. I think it's a fair structure that works. Instead of calling the heavier parts the "main" parts, I would actually call them the climactic parts to a subtle, undulating, dubsteppish, atmospheric arrangement. Also, just for educational purposes, there's a click at 3:11.

Ooh, that E. Piano is suuuuper warm. Showing off the arrangement process as per yoozh™. Really gorgeous bass writing, clever harmonic progressions, and the comping is pretty inspired.

Damn, there's some nice and gritty textures in here. Heavy drums, pumpin' bass, crisp production, and some subtle variation make this pretty accessible. There's some welcome drop-offs, and even a little bit of a classical influence to the descending scales (EX: the rondo-esque part at 2:48 ), which is surprising, and in my opinion, this ReMix just makes it even clearer why you call yourself the dropper of beats. Probably your best yet.

ooh so is it like Beatdrop and Jivemaster quit, then rejoined? Sweet. =o And big welcome, you four. Legs go! =D

B is more of a positive possibility than A, and it seems that you're thinking more about the A side than about the B side (>50% A, <50% . B is just something that you need to do in order to understand what it is you have in you that has room for improvement. Without looking at others who you know are better, you don't have an idea of what it is you can work on. Again, I don't consider it to be as much on how much better they are than you, but rather, what you can learn from them to improve your own abilities. I personally don't really need to win competitions, though it would be nice as a side result. Meeting my own standards though, is a fair thing. My 50% this year is probably close to my 90% last year, and is maybe 4 times better than my 100% 3 years ago (EDIT: in terms of effort, not success), so my standards rose. It's OK. And if I keep evaluating myself like this (not while I write, but after I finish writing), I'll just keep improving until I've reached my peak---and even that isn't enough. I don't just say outright though that "I improved aw yeah etc." I just get happy when I accomplish something I've never done as well before. It's really just like approaching the Good in Philosophy; you can never really reach it, but you can continue to inquire and pester people until your questions are answered like a gadfly on a horse, and you can continually improve your soul. Looking up to people is like admitting your ignorance and working to improve your soul. If you don't, it's like a double ignorance, where you claim you can't improve anymore because you think you already know enough, even if your reasoning is that you don't want to oppress your own potential; you'd be ignorant of your ignorance, philosophically, you'd still oppress your own potential, and you'll never go further, because you don't want to keep inquiring. Levels aren't really just in your head, just not extremely accessible to that many people. It's objective. Some people know how to write a better hook than others. Some people hear more detail than others. Some people learn faster than others. etc. Once you get it (if you get it), then I would personally just keep it in mind but not say it out loud who's better than who, so as to not offend people. That's my take on it.

Yes, but it would still have to have enough source usage as usual, and it is compared to the original remix to examine the differences in addition all the other criteria for a typical remix. If it's not different enough from both the original remix or the source tune, it's still not going to be posted. So you can, but it's not typically encouraged because you're basically making it harder on yourself.

Well, let me clarify this too: Even though I compare myself with others, I'm not the type of guy that gets stressed over someone being better. I actually simply admire the other person, and give them praise for being that good. I guess I kinda ignore the bad parts of comparing oneself to someone else, so I don't really feel bad in any noticeable way when I do it. As for exploring new niches, yeah, I do that a lot. Thus far, I've tried and was happy with these genres: Ambient (one of my favorites) Atmospheric (kinda falls in line with Ambient a lot) Big Beat (I should do more of this) Comedy/Open Mic Night (I have no idea how to classify this one ) Complextro (I do this a lot) Dance Downtempo Drum & Bass (I try not to do this too much since I've done this a lot but I'm not against it) Dubstep (fun) Electro Electro House Glitch & various Glitch fusions (I do this a lot) Horror / Horror-like (nice experiment, will do more) Jazz (I do this a lot in my harmonies) Metal (would do more) Middle-Eastern (would do more) Orchestral / Film Score / Cinematic (definitely will do more) Retro So yup, I think that's about as experimental as you can get. Buuuuut, I've narrowed down some favorites, for sure. I'm an ambient/atmospheric/dubstep/glitch/complextro kind of guy, but definitely willing to do other genres. (a field recorder, I don't have though)