timaeus222

Jason Covenant, but it was very close.

timaeus222 bcuz

I'm just gonna say my major concerns, because any nitpicks I have are pretty minor compared to the major stuff. You've also heard these before. - feels repetitive, almost loop-like because it's essentially one groove throughout - mechanical sequencing - uses soundfonts, like you mentioned, which means the arrangement would have to be super good to sort of balance it out. EDIT: second half of reason is independent of this specific arrangement

Well, there's a lot of niches to "proper" composition, and I'm not uber-pro at music theory. Sure, I could say "write thoughtful melodies and logical harmonies", but that's vague. There are loads of logical harmonies one could write, and loads of melodies one could thoughtfully write. Other than doing something that follows theory, it gets to be subjective as to who likes what melodic contours and what harmonies and why, assuming it follows theory already. By that claim, this remix can be liked (which it can), but it's really hard to try to like it at normal volumes, IMO. It's essentially what your example is---harsh distorted noise plus some (nice) dubstep and some sine beeps (literally). Obviously no hate to Clem, just putting out an example. I just don't like music that hurts my ears. I think that's fair. No one purposely harms themselves except for a higher overall gain, such as injuring your leg for an alibi to commit a crime, assuming the alibi is worth more than your leg (extreme but it's something I saw in a detective show, so it's been done). Not really. Understated much? I'm not saying make boring music with perfect production. Elevator music is simple by definition, and played as background music. All I said was that if certain music follows that criteria and does it as well as it can, then the most people that would want to listen to it will listen to it for as long as they are interested in the arrangement itself. In other words, it's a case of near-perfect production and however-you-want-to-do-it arrangement. Of course, I don't consider production a chore, so I don't have an issue with pursuing great production in my own music. I'm also not OCD, so I'm ruling that out. I don't think it's a waste of time. Here's an example. I claim that this is universally better than , with the criteria of a more meaningfully-written arrangement and cleaner and fuller production. Yes, meaningfulness is subjective to an extent, but there's a way to write something that appeals to many people without trying too hard to appeal to them on an individual basis. If that isn't evident, then I'm confused as to how you view musical enjoyment. It's not all subjective by the time you're a few years into practicing music production and composition. If you don't compare yourself to someone else, you might not know what it is that you don't yet know, and you won't know to pursue it. Paradox of Learning. This simple quote says it all: "If you don't know something, then you haven't learned it yet."In other words, saying it's "different" is an oversimplification to avoid the objectivity. Let's not become subjective relativists, now. Surely, we have some objectivity. Sure, everyone has different tastes. That's true, but it's a simplified way of looking at it. Even if you're confident in what you do, it definitely doesn't mean it's good. Fundamentally, it means that you, yourself, like it. You might find someone who likes it, but who knows if they're about as experienced as you, or if they are just a regular/normal/common listener (or if they're just being too nice). And you will generally second guess yourself if you compare yourself directly to someone else and focus on how much better they are than you. If you focus on what you can improve on and what analyzing the other, better person's music can do for you specifically, and not saying anything about how that better person is better than you, then you'll be looking at your own improvement, relative to yourself, not relative to that other guy. That's less depressing. Second guessing yourself a lot can lead to depression, and that's not what SnappleMan really wants to focus on, afaik.

Things universally accepted as "right" don't correspond to trends, or whatever similar idea you want to call it. What's "right" is underlying what's trending, but is not the trend itself. They correspond to what's universally accepted as sensible. i.e.: Avoid overcompression. Avoid muddiness. Avoid excessively piercing qualities in your music. Strive for the most clarity that you can manage between instruments. Strive for realistically sequenced sampled instruments or well-placed live-recorded instruments in sensible contexts. Strive for something that keeps people's interest. and so on. In other words, the "right" is what many people shouldn't complain about if it's done as perfectly as you can manage it, and that's part of what SnappleMan means by holding yourself to the highest standards. Don't compromise your output by assuming that you don't have any room for improvement simply because you aren't sure how you can improve. You're going to find someone that's better than you because it's inevitable, and you also don't have to be commercially successful to be considered the "best" at something (unless you want to call that something "networking").

Just wanted to note something: Snare Ensemble seems to be marked not available in Essentials on the site while Ride Cymbal Stick is marked available, but in the list of available patches in the Essentials manual, Snare Ensemble is listed while Ride Cymbal Stick is not.

I agree with Will that 1:05 felt empty due to the sorta low amount of sustained bass and that the mixing was a little bit muddy. Melodically, this was pretty hard to reinterpret, it would seem, because it's so atonal, but this worked quite well. Great job, guys!

I didn't mind the mallets, though the piano felt a little out of place and the mixing was overcompressed. Other than that, this really does conjure a feeling of malice, and a little chaos.

Reminds me of some stuff that's done in Neurofunk sorta.

Make sure the link doesn't have ellipses on it.

There's mainly a problem with how these instruments are handled. The bass that goes on throughout is pretty boomy, and can use some cutting in the EQ in the low-mids. It might also be too loud, but it could just be the EQ. The pad at 0:50 just has too much EQ below 200Hz. It needs to be high-passed at about 200Hz, and the reverb should have a low cut close to 200Hz to prevent low end ambience on frequencies that would then not reach down there. There's also too much reverb. When we do finally get to Spark Mandrill's theme at 1:14, the melody is just too low in pitch to stand up to the backing elements without muddying things up more. It's hard to tell what instrument it actually is. I would recommend raising it an octave and using an instrument with more expressiveness. Also, the lead is very similar to the one from the original. The low arp and snare are getting buried under all the excessive reverb. The snare has quite a bit of reverb too, and the kick should be sidechained to the bass if it hasn't been already. The toms are good. The SFX at the end is a touch loud. Overall, too much reverb on the pad, snare, and maybe lead, too much low end clutter in the EQ of the bass, pad, and kick, the arrangement should be reworked to make sure the instruments are playing at reasonable octaves, and some instruments could be changed to make it sound less conservative (i.e. more differentiated from the source tune).

I signed the consent a few days ago.

Looking forward to seeing what you guys have to offer! I'll do my best to give y'all some feedback when you get a WIP posted on the subforums!

Very relaxing, ethereal atmosphere. I love the piano and airy pads.

Okay, here's my take on Joe's review, if it'll help clarify. I have to say, I certainly agree with Joe on the notion that it could feel too upfront. I don't think it really is completely the case that it's too upfront BECAUSE it's too upfront, but because the textures are too sparse until 0:45. You have a bass, reverbed bells, and reverbed aux percussion (rimshot?) until 0:45, yes? Yeah, it's not enough. When you added the pads later on at 0:45, it filled in the soundscape and made it substantially fuller. Even something like WN faux wind or additional reverbed aux percussion such as clave or shaker could help fill in the hole by supplying that ambience and covering up the dryness of the bass (which just has no noticeable reverb... even though it's not actually conventially necessary).And the other reason why it felt too upfront is because it actually is. When more elements come in at 0:45, and even 1:15, the bass sounds a little too loud, but if it's really exposed, which it was at the beginning, then it just seems louder. I get that that's playing the source tune notes, but with bass, you can feel the notes without hearing the filter modulation. You don't need that much treble on it, necessarily, even when things pick up more at 1:58 with the addition of the acoustic-like snare and the little plucky arp, so you could probably subdue the bass's trebly frequencies later on to make it more of a felt presence than an audible presence (obviously you can still listen specifically to it and focus on it and hear it, but you know what I mean). And yes, I agree with Joe here as well that it takes too long to progress. Think of it this way: 30 seconds in, generally there should be substance to the arrangement that is enough to keep people listening, regardless of what it involves. It has to maintain interest, however it is that it's done, because 30 seconds is quite a while (it's a whole TV commercial, of course). I can personally stand a minute or two of build and development, but three is stretching the limits of one's patience. It just isn't changing up quickly enough. In a sense, it's almost proceeding like a logistics curve with regards to the dynamics and layering for 3.5 minutes. Remember that the average song is 3~4 minutes. If the same notes repeat with only a little variation texturally but not dynamically or melodically, for 3 minutes, that's just it, it gets too repetitive. If I were to imagine the dynamic curve of this remix, it pretty much goes like this:1 - logistics curve (0:00 - 3:27) 2 - exponential decay, tapering off at a low point (3:27 - 3:29) 3 - backwards logarithmic curve, down to the lowest point (3:29 - 3:58) 4 - logarithmic curve (3:58 - 4:58) 5 - high, sort of constant point, arguably the climax (4:58 - 5:27) 6 - exponential decay, tapering off at a somewhat lower point (5:27 - 5:28) 7 - backwards logarithmic curve, down to the lowest point (5:28 - 5:59) 8 - gaussian curve with a low maximum (5:59 - 6:55), maximum at 6:27 - 6:43 You can have the nicest textures ever, and it wouldn't change the arrangement that much because it's sound design, not note pitch or melodic contour. How you wrote the notes is how you wrote them, even if you add more and more layers and take some out, if the layers don't make it feel different overall melodically or harmonically. Also, this is a very conservative arrangement. Almost all of the instruments match the original exactly. So overall... (if you didn't fall asleep reading this) Write some more overt variations in the melodic contour. Either develop the arrangement more quickly or add more contrasting ideas. Cut out the unnecessary repeats (which honestly I would put 3:58 - 4:58 under, because you already had that snare roll going at 3:58), because you aren't really cheating your listeners out of something they hadn't already heard before. If you were to scroll through this 30 seconds forwards at a time, I think you could notice how similar it really sounds all throughout. Lastly, the sounds you chose are very, very close to the original. You have a bass playing the bass part, strings playing the strings part, and pads playing the pads part. That makes it much harder to differentiate from the original. You might be able to find something from this that gives you an idea of how to adapt the source tune in interesting and diverse ways.

Hm... yeah, a little too weird, even for me. I did like the more dubstep-oriented sections not because it was more familiar territory, but because it wasn't grating. I thought there was too much purposeful distortion and purposeful crackling in the other, more atmospheric parts to really get into it without it just hurting. Maybe if it was quieter and if there was some attenuation of the higher frequencies and some more reverb, it could have helped. EDIT: I now confirm it. It's tolerable at lower volumes. So really it just bothers me at full volume. I wonder if anyone on youtube bothered to turn it down rather than turn it off.

Yeah, the harmonies work better! It's still a touch strange in the interval jump at 1:58-ish on the louder lead, but harmonically I think it works.

I have a hunch that Room of Close Associates might fit in well with Treasury Room, so can Yami and I claim it at the same time?

Okay, a source breakdown since I used 3 sources: 0:00 - 0:16 = Treasure Src 1 (0:00 - 0:19.2) 0:16 - 0:17 = Treasure Src 2 (0:09.1 - 0:11.8] 0:17.4 - 0:21.3, 0:25.2 - 0:29 = Spectre Src 1 with some fills on second half of each iteration (0:09.6 - 0:14) 0:32.8 - 0:48.4 = Treasure Src 1 (0:33.6 - 0:36) 0:50.4 - 0:52.2, 0:54.3 - 0:56, 0:58.2 - 1:00, 1:02 - 1:03.6 = Spectre Src 1 (0:45.9 - 0:48.1) 1:03.6 - 1:19 = Spectre Src 1 with some modal variations (1:00.6 - 1:17.9) 1:27 - 1:34.8, 1:42.6 - 1:50.4 = Spectre Src 1 (0:09.6 - 0:14) 1:50.4 - 2:01.9, 2:05.8 - 2:17.4 = Treasure Src 2 slowed down; listen to the bells (0:11.8 - 0:21.4) Sidenote: turn on dat subwoofer

k, I'm basically done with the track right now. Ended up using both Treasure sources and one Spectre source. xD EDIT: I'll add a source breakdown later. I think I might have made a mistake in that I actually used only 3. I can't remember at the moment. I drew from some of the subtler portions of a source sometimes (EX: the MidEast arp in Spectre).

Hm, looking at this again, there's a lot of copy+paste. Try not to do that so much, because it doesn't really add new content to listen to. 0:11 - 0:34 is the same as 2:35 - 2:57. 0:34 - 0:45 is basically the same as 1:43 - 1:54, except with drums 0:45 - 0:57 is basically the same as 1:54 - 2:07 0:57 - 1:20 is the same as 2:07 - 2:35, except for that last bit of variation at 2:24 - 2:35. That kind of stuff should be done for the other sections too.

There are just a bunch of notes from that long-release sound that bleed together, and clutters up the harmonies from the other instruments. Imagine a piano with a million slatherings of reverb on it.

Some of the cymbals are somehow off. The one at 0:56 didn't line up with the first beat. Also, I actually didn't suggest a cymbal at 1:36; it didn't feel like that one was necessary; plus, it was too loud. The click at 1:48 is gone enough, though the one at 3:04 is still there. 2:15 ended up muddier than before, and there's a weird dissonance until 2:27 that muddles the harmonies. There's something with a long release that's doing that, and the notes are clashing with basically everything else. So, basically, some things got fixed, but some things were overlooked accidentally, and some other issues were introduced.

I still use Cool Edit Pro, too, for post-processing (no, really).