Chimpazilla
-
Posts
3,206 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
6
Content Type
Articles
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Chimpazilla
-
-
MW pretty much nailed it in his writeup. I love the idea for this mix, and what's here sounds so promising. The instrumentation is dreamy. I hear what he's saying about the intro pad. It doesn't bother me as much as it bothers him, because I don't think it's trying to be bass. When the bassline enters it is clear, but the bass is very quiet though, it could be louder. At 1:26, the writing changes totally, and the previous writing's delay is still playing, making for a few seconds of horrendous clashing. The first part with the delay playing should stop abruptly (render it out and cut it if necessary so no delay plays) as the next bit is starting up (right at 1:24 with those intro notes to the next section). Overall, this arrangement is just too short. I would love to hear a proper soft breakdown where you now have the outro starting up, followed by a second lively section with unique writing, solos or variations on the theme, different instrumentation or drum patterns or other elements to differentiate it from the first playthrough, and then the outro. I'm in agreement with MW also that fadeouts, while not an OCR dealbreaker, are such a disappointment. I'd much rather hear some thoughtful resolution on the track to wind things up.
NO
-
What a perfect source tune for Michael Hudak to tackle! I love the source, and the remix. I have no problem with the crackly effects. But others clearly do, so I suggest we reach out to Michael and see what he's willing to dial back or part with, and/or if he has any ideas to replace the "unpleasant" sounds with some other effect.
YES
-
This mix is cool, it would be right at home in the actual Mario Kart 64! I love the synthwave, but to differentiate this even more from the source tune while keeping the synthwave, I think it would be a great idea to expand the arrangement with more changes in writing and instrumentation, a proper breakdown, drums dropping out for a section, more varied writing at some point, solos, altered drum patterns, etc. just more ways to keep it interesting and give it some dynamics. This arrangement sounds really repetitive as it stands. I agree with DarkSim that the track is mastered way too loud. I don't hear any crunchy overcompression artifacts but the track is pumping from the limiter being driven so hard. SPAN says the track is clipping billions of times. The production is good enough, it's the mastering that is a problem. I always recommend cutting lows from every element that isn't kick or bass, so you're not mastering any mud. Also, you can lower your input gain into your master channel, I do that by 5-8db before I even begin to write. This allows you to mix louder while not actually being louder. Then, you can bring up the volume in the master chain through a couple of compression and limiting stages, and get a really clean, loud mix with zero clipping or overcompression.
NO (resubmit)
-
Yikes, between 0:35-0:50, that is a crushing wall of sound, almost physically painful. I agree with MW this is an eclectic mix but it works and keeps it interesting, but I also agree with him about the mixing. He said the hats can't be heard, and that is because every other element is absolutely screaming in the range in which the hats should be heard. The mix needs a major EQ overhaul, cutting lows out of everything that isn't kick or bass, to make sure no low-end mud is getting mastered, and toning down highs and high-mids on elements that don't need to be that crispy, so that things like hats can sparkle and shine. I like this arrangement though! Also, the mastering is WAAAAAAAY too heavy, it is clipping according to SPAN, and hitting -6db RMS which is just stupid-loud for a mix of this type. The heavy master compression is surely adding to the over-crispy wall-of-sound effect. Once you've addressed the mixing (primarily EQ corrections and cuts) I guarantee this will master much better, sounding even louder but without the uncomfortable crispiness. I'd love to hear this again with the mixing and mastering fixed up!
NO (resubmit)
-
What a fun idea you have here, starting out with nature and monkeys, then monkeys flipping channels, and finally your computer-voiced narration of the songmaking process. This kind of thing is entertaining for SoundCloud or YouTube but not for OCR. For OCR, just the actual song would be appropriate, as we have a rule against making a song (or in this case a large portion of a song) out of pure SFX. The bigger issue is the production. The writing parts are very simplistic and they repeat all through the track. There are clashing notes and instrumental parts all throughout the track. The piano begins clashing note-wise with the pizzicato strings almost immediately. When the bass starts up at 2:25, the bass writing is so off from the other elements that it sounds like it is playing another song altogether. The parts are just so simple, robotic (not-humanized), clashing in writing, and stepping all over each other in the frequency range.
You're going to want to start by listening to the parts individually and in small groups (i.e. just piano plus strings, just strings plus bass, etc.) and look for clashing writing. Ask for help if you're not quite hearing it. Once the writing is cleaned up, you'll need to work on making some of the writing a little bit varied, so it isn't the exact same pattern for the entire seven minutes. Then, the next step is to learn how to mix. You'll want to watch tutorials or have someone teach you how to properly use EQ to make sounds fit together in the soundscape without clashing frequency-wise. Reverb can be used to fit elements into the soundscape; as it is now everything is bone dry (the vocals and SFX are painfully dry). Then, learn about creative sidechaining to make the whole arrangement breathe and groove.
Lots of work to do here, but I want to highlight what you got right here:
1. Your storytelling idea! This is so creative. (not for OCR due to our standards, but you get credit for the creativity!) You could still have monkey sounds or other small SFX throughout the track for OCR if you wanted to.
2. Your sound selections (strings, piano, vibes, bouncy bass, fun drum groove). The sounds you chose fit nicely together, they just need to be mixed better, play more interesting and varied writing, and sound much more natural.
3. Your layering of sounds, dropping things out or adding them back here and there as the arrangement moves along. That's probably the biggest way to keep an arrangement fresh!
This remix makes me smile! I hope you will take my words to heart and learn how to address the issues I've mentioned, because your creativity deserves to shine! Good luck and please let us hear back from you in the future.
NO
-
My first complaint is, this mix doesn't sound Japanese enough!!! ? I mean I'm just not fully immersed in Japan while hearing this. I'm not smelling cherry blossoms or anything. Nope, sorry. ?
OK, joking aside, I love this remix! The production is ace, it sounds delightful floating out of my Presonus speakers. The arrangement is awesome, great dynamics throughout the piece, great energy management, very clean mixing. The track is so full of ear candy, fun panning, and it switches up all throughout the track while keeping the source material prominent. The faster source lead writing in the second half is just dynamite, it fits there just right. I love the 90s style breakbeat starting at 1:11, and the taiko drumming starting at 1:45. The breakdown in the middle is utterly dreamy and breaks up the energy perfectly. You've mixed the low-low-lows of that sub boom perfectly as well, without sacrificing your mastering. This is a lot of arrangement smashed into a short 3-minute span, but it never feels too-short or too-long. BRAVO this is just excellent.
YES!!!
-
This is a great arrangement! Lead is sometimes buried by the rhythm guitars as MW said. In the fullest sections, it is a wall of sound that is overwhelming; from 1:35 - 2:01 I would argue that there's just too much going on and it feels oppressive. This is a well crafted arrangement and the production is generally good (drums sound great!), but I think some mixing cleanup is required. At the very least, the final limiter needs to be toned down as the mix is hitting -7db RMS (hardcore EDM territory) and SPAN tells me it's clipping like mad. I would suggest bringing the lead volumes up a tad, and rhythm guitars down by a tad as well as using EQ on the rhythm guitars to make more room for the lead especially during the heaviest sections so it isn't such an assault on the ears. I really dig this track and I just think it should be sounding its best!
NO (please clean up and resubmit)
-
These are two interesting sources indeed, I had not heard them before. I love the metal concept for the remix. But I have to agree with my fellow J's that this arrangement comes across as extremely repetitive. The same phrases are repeated over and over, and the entire arrangement sounds like a backing track for lead writing that never shows up (what about adding a solo somewhere?). The mixing sounds generally good, although the kick and snare are mostly buried. The piece begins in an energetic gear and stays there for the entirety of the arrangement; a quieter/calmer breakdown near the middle would break it up nicely. I could already see that this track would have no dynamics looking at the waveform which is a consistent sausage. Fadeout endings, while not technically an OCR dealbreaker, are such a disappointment for me as they seem to say the artist lost interest in finishing the track. What's here sounds quite good, production and performance-wise, but needs direction, trimming, and possibly some lead work in order to maintain the listener's interest.
NO
-
Short and sweet little cover here. I really like the sounds you used, and the drum groove is a nice addition. The writing is verbatim most of the time, but there are plenty of additions to make this stand out. I especially like the writing from 1:36-2:24. The arrangement works well, although I admit I would prefer another breakdown and another full section before the outro. The arrangement feels unnecessarily short, but what's here works well. However, the mixing needs some cleanup. In the beginning, the bass is heavy in the mid-lows, which is accentuated when the pad begins. I recommend removing the low-lows from that pad, and also from any leads. That alone will clear up enough headroom for a full master without overcompression. As it stands, the master is too loud and clipping during the fullest section. I can hear the compressor pumping as it works too hard from 1:36-2:24. Also, make sure the reverb on your bass instrument is low-cut so you're not reverbing lows (adding mud). I recommend also sidechaining your kick to every element in the mix in varying amounts, not enough to sound "zomg EDM" but enough to clear out space when the kick hits, thus uncluttering the mix. Please clean it up and send it back, it's very cute.
NO (resubmit)
-
Hhhmmm. As much as I appreciate the attempt at a timestamp, I find myself rather confused and struggling hard to hear the source material clearly. Right out of the gate, the source material is clear (first 4 seconds of underworld), but once the glitchy bass begins, I can't understand this writing as source since it is heavily interpreted. The two iterations of "success" are clear. From 1:26 all the way to 4:04 I'm struggling. You are relying heavily on what you're calling "underworld part 2" as your lead writing, and listening very hard I can discern that they literally are the same notes. I hope Larry will chime in here to say if this counts or not. I suspect it might count, but for me, it is so heavily interpreted that I have no sense of the original source tune, and that's a dealbreaker for me personally. I hope another J will help me clarify if this is ok. I only begin to hear clear source use again starting at 4:04-4:25. I like the SMB1 at the very end although I feel like the outro is too long, with the same confusing interpretation of that "underworld part 2."
Honestly I feel like you took those few notes of "underworld part 2" and played around with them in different ways until they created something cool, while pulling away nearly 100% from the feel of the source tune. I have done this myself, and I feel it here.
This will require a more detailed source-use breakdown. For now, I will just comment on other aspects.
From the beginning, I'm concerned about the mixing. This is already a mix filled with unconventional sounds, bubbly glitching and lots of filtering, and the mixing is muddy. Once the soundscape is really full at 1:57, I'm hearing an amalgamated wall of sound. I can't tell leads from backing, and the bass is barely audible. Overall, the mastering is too hot, sounding rather crispy and distorted (not in a good way) during the fullest sections. At a minimum, this mixing will need to be addressed and cleaned up.
I like this concept, it's creative as can be, but I'm not sure there's enough source. I am sure however that the mixing needs another pass.
NO
-
This is a light, dreamy mix which is pleasant to hear. I think the performances are good generally, the slightly off-kilter writing fits the mood of the source tune well. I agree with XPRT that the leads are often mixed too far into the soundscape while strum guitars are too dominant on the sides. None of the mixing is dealbreaker for me though. I do agree with Larry that the source is under-represented for an OCR mix. I think this would be a fairly easy fix by putting the source melody into the sourceless sections subtly using a bell or some other backing timbre. The ending of the track is disappointing as it just drops off with no proper ending. I agree with DarkSim that the arrangement could have been better utilized to control the energy with full sections and softer breakdowns. I would love to have all these issues addressed, but the most important one for me is the lack of overt source use, 38.84% just isn't enough for us.
NO (resubmit)
-
I'm going to have to agree with the NOs on this one. The strings and brass are exposed enough for their fakeness to stick out. The arrangement is nice, but the samples aren't strong enough to carry it. The panning is quite heavy, in particular you have low brass and low strings sitting alone on the right side and you have harp and some bells completely on the left side, which feels very unbalanced. When the drum groove starts up at 1:48 it doesn't jive with the rest of the arrangement at all. It sounds like a leftover from a different song that got left in accidentally, and the drums drop out abruptly at 2:14. The ending feels like an afterthought. And as with your other tracks, mastering has been completely overlooked. This one's not quite ready for prime-time!
NO
-
Great performances here, and super arrangement. In-game vocal clips must be removed. I agree with my peers that the mixing is less than ideal, a bit on the muddy/overcrowded side, but I don't find any of it to be dealbreaker. Take out the game audio and let's get this one posted.
YES (conditional on removal of game audio)
-
OOF that drop is startling. It wouldn't be, if there were any sort of buildup to it, but there is literally zero, so it just slams the listener in the chest. I jumped out of my skin a bit at that drop. When it hits, the timbres used are so different from what came before that it is sonically shocking. The sounds themselves aren't bad, but the lack of signaling makes them feel totally out of place, and as MW stated, I can't quite get over it throughout the rest of the piece. MW said the kick was too loud, I don't think it is too loud, and it won't sound too loud if the drop section has some sort of buildup to prepare the listener for it. The arrangement itself is creative and well crafted. The mixing is good if a tiny bit muddy, but I feel like there might be a bit too much crispiness on the highs. Prophetik has some good advice about the mixing that makes sense to address. Mainly for me though, the disparity between loud and quiet sections is too high. I think this is a fairly easy fix though, with some kind of buildup writing to bridge them better than this.
NO (resubmit)
-
This is a great arrangement, performances are tight. I agree that the machine-gun kicks are distracting and off-timed, and I also agree that the choir/vocal sound is not good, it is too heavy in the mid-lows. The mixing is on the muddy side which doesn't bother me too much until 1:16 at which point the choir and backing elements (is that brass, I can't tell) are so loud that I cannot hear the lead guitar in the middle at all. Starting at 3:12 there is a solo string (I think) doing something but it's so buried I can barely identify it. I feel like this arrangement is close to passing, but it needs another round of mixing, balancing, and EQ treatment to make the soundscape less muddled and let the elements breathe throughout the piece. Be careful about relying too heavily on panning as a mixing device, instead EQ the elements so they aren't in each other's way in the frequency spectrum.
NO (resubmit)
-
Wow those first two minutes are LONG. I'm at 2:30 and the track is just barely getting going and peak volume is still -9db. At 2:45, things are changing but it still feels like a ramp-up. Ok, now at 3:08 there's finally what I would call a "drop" but the textures are so thin and anemic. The brass sounds weak and terrible and so do the drums which are also written extremely simply. The writing is verbatim to source, no source issues here. It's a very interesting concept to arrange this theme into a spaghetti western, but there's just way too little going on in the first three minutes, and the production overall needs serious work. This mix might be a lot of fun with ambience going on in the background, such as sounds of a western town, people talking, whiskey bottles clanking, and horses walking and snorting. But for this to work, the instrumental production needs to improve by a significant amount.
NO
-
2 hours ago, MindWanderer said:
? Not sure how I feel about you voting on a mix you mastered, Kris...
Aw STAHP it haha! I would have YESsed the track originally if the low end hadn't been so borked. I didn't change anything about the track or collab in any way, I just put it through my normal final mix/master processes and it meets my production bar now, and it would do so sounding like this even if someone else had done it! So I think my YES vote counts. (If anyone disagrees, then fine, let it get five YES votes before passing!)
-
What an awesome approach to this source tune. This mix is dynamic and exciting. I wish the super quiet sections weren't as long though, the fast paced sections are such a rush! Larry is right that the mixing causes the sounds to blend together into an amorphous mass, and that's a shame. Some strategic EQ treatment would fix that, in particular cutting lows out of instruments that don't need them, freeing up the low end to breathe. The track sounds very heavily compressed, evident mainly in the fullest sections, and I would prefer a fuller low end overall (the eq treatment I suggested will go a long way toward fixing that). There's too much sub-bass, causing the lows to drop out further, and the mix sounds a bit crispy. You'd get a fuller master out of this by carefully cutting sub-rumble out of everything. It sounds counterintuitive to say that cutting lows gets you more/fuller lows, but it's true. My biggest complaint though is the same as prophetik, that low brass has a slow attack that makes the writing sound behind the beat. The brass generally is the weak spot in your instrumentation. All of that sounds negative, but overall this mix is totally awesome. If it doesn't pass, I suggest making these changes and sending it back to us, in particular if you could get a better low-brass patch that would be great.
Edit 4/22/22: I initially went "yes" on this track because I love it so much, but seeing all the NOs I listened again, this time on headphones. That slow-attack brass patch really sticks out, and the flute patch has a similar issue. I believe both patches need to be swapped out for something with a faster, more natural attack. And the over-compression and overall too-crispy sound is overwhelming on headphones. Please take my EQ suggestions to heart, cut out all unnecessary sub-rumble, and your master will be able to breathe without driving your compressors so hard. Then please send this delightful arrangement back to us!
NO (please resubmit)
-
Where's the bass? The lack of lows on this mix gives it almost a punk feel, oddly I'm not finding this to bother me too much. The flute is an interesting choice, and I hear why prophetik said that section sounds like the timing's off. I think it's the bass? Almost sounds like the bass is trying to play a swing pattern. As for the section with the lead guitar playing down, I can only assume that was a stylistic choice. I could nitpick this mix even more, but it's still a fun listen and the arrangement and performances are good. Overall I feel like this mix is trying not to take itself too seriously. I'm with Larry on letting this one pass.
YES
-
I remember this one as I mastered it for the album. I loved it then and I love it now, it's cool and creepy and well put together with fun elements. Easy
YES
-
What a cool unique approach to this track! I love it as a trap beat. I love the blend of sounds used here, and the bendy lead is excellent. There's a lot to love about this mix. It's not quite there for me though for a couple of reasons. The parts used are copy/pasted exactly in the first and second half, although they are not all playing at the same times, they are layered in different ways. This counts as variation, but just barely, because by the end it feels very repetitive. The trap beat having no variation throughout the track adds to the repetitiveness, something as simple as adding a shaker loop or changing the trap hat loop to something new as the arrangement moves along would help break it up. I don't have the problem with the strings that Larry has, I think they sound fine in this palette.
(personal opinion incoming) I think the entire track would groove so much better if you would sidechain the kick to the various elements, in differing amounts. Sidechaining isn't always just a pumpy effect, it can be used as a mixing tactic to mesh things together. For example, I sidechain every element in my tracks, all with a quick attack and release, 2:1 ratio. Bass gets the heaviest (10-12db of gain reduction), pads get almost that much, backing plucks I give around 6db of gain reduction, and leads and even perc loops I give 1-3db of gain reduction (too subtle to notice, but cleans up the mixing quite a bit). If you try this, I can almost guarantee the whole thing is going to sound more cohesive. As it is now, the elements compete for attention when everything is playing and I can barely hear the kick or bass when it's all full, and sometimes I feel like the leads are just riding on top of the soundscape instead of fitting into it. I would love to hear this again with some better sidechaining done, but even if you don't, it needs some of the copy/pasta writing to be varied between the first and second repetitions. I do hope to hear this again soon though, it's really not that far from passing and it's an enjoyable listen!
NO (please resubmit)
-
Track is loud. LOUD. LOOOOOUUUUDDDD did ya hear me say it, it's LOWD. Cubase tells me it's contained at -0.5db peak but SPAN is telling me it's clipping all through the track. Maybe just dial the master back a hair? Other than that, production here is absolutely ace. This is a super fun, energetic track, I think it would fit nicely into an action movie. I love all the elements and writing. There are small unique elements added in each section (piano writing, soft plucks, various screamy/squelchy things), but they are small additions/variations that are buried under a tsunami of the same writing, instrumentation and arrangement over and over. I'm gonna toss this back for an arrangement trim, I think two minutes could be deleted without losing anything. As it stands it's just too repetitive.
NO (but please resubmit)
-
This is a lovely arrangement of a beautiful, emotional theme. I'm agonizing over whether it should pass, but ultimately I'm with my fellow judges pointing out the production issues. XPRT is right that the harp needs a bass trim, it's booming in the lows. The winds don't sound great, the clarinet sustains sound awkward. The flute patch has constant vibrato which sounds very unnatural. The piano needs humanization to avoid sounding clunky. The strings are the worst of it for me though, the attacks are all the same making them sound very choppy and the patch sounds flat generally. The chords are gorgeous, they deserve better legato treatment than this. The glock does get quite loud at 2:25. There's a small rendering error/pop at 1:07. And of course, the mastering is falling short at -7db peak. Even if you do no mastering, perhaps just normalizing the track to somewhere around -0.5db to -1db would put the track in a better volume range compared to other tracks. This is a lovely tune but I think the production issues drag it just under the bar. I'd love to hear it again with those issues addressed.
NO (resubmit)
-
*NO* Kingdom Hearts: Birth by Sleep "Dismiss (Chinese Mix)"
in Judges Decisions
Posted
The two guys nailed it, this sounds like a midi with the instruments changed to your Chinese libraries. These instruments sound great! Although they need some finesse to sound natural, some humanization and reverb, and in this case I think some fleshing out with other timbres would make it sound fuller and nicer (like a nice full bass instrument, and some taiko or other drumming). There isn't much arrangement here other than the original writing with very little interpretation, and the whole thing barely clears our "two minute minimum" standard. This definitely sounds like a concept demo more than a finished track; the insufficient mastering and premature ending cutoff don't help change that perception. I'd love to hear this again fully fleshed out with a longer arrangement if you're interested in revisiting it!
NO