Jump to content

Chimpazilla

Judges
  • Posts

    3,359
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    6

Everything posted by Chimpazilla

  1. Very simple, short, repetitive source tune, which is fine but often makes remixing difficult. Not impossible, just difficult. I hear why Larry is giving credit to this remix, the approach is very creative, cool and moody. I like the evolving textures. But I have to agree with the NOs that this arrangement isn't developed enough to qualify as a standalone musical piece. It feels like a four and a half minute intro with no substance ever appearing. I like what is here, but it is overly simplistic and it feels like a substructure and not a fully developed song. NO
  2. Very good blending of all of these sources, using OoT Forest Temple as the backing and glue. Mixing is a little low-heavy, and I'm seeing a peak max of 1.0db which is odd but I'm not hearing any artifacts. Good use of sfx. Very nice emotive arrangement of the varied forest themes! YES
  3. Ooooooo I love this soundscape right away, nice and beefy! It is a little low-mid heavy though, could use more highs and presence. I appreciate Larry's timestamp so I can just comment on the mix itself. The vocal is great, and mixed nicely up front, I feel like it could have some lows EQ'd out however. Her vocal has just a bit of mid-low boxy-ness. Sax sounds great. Awesome 80s-ish synthwave interpretation of this source. I'm not a fan of fadeouts but this one is handled well enough. YES
  4. The mixing could definitely be cleaner, the mid lows are indeed very dense. I think this is a fabulous arrangement, although I have a complaint that is going to be a bit hard to describe. The drum groove is upbeat and dancey, but the music is not, so it is giving me an odd feeling of disconnectedness. The music itself has very little groove, although the drums are suggesting groove. Maybe if the bass were mixed more audibly it would help because I think the bass is playing a groove pattern that compliments the drums but it is so quiet. The strings and piano are very loud, and they have no groove (and no sidechaining, which would have definitely helped) so it just sounds like a flat wall of sound. The strings are in the uncanny valley and they are so loud, but sequenced well enough to get the job done. The live instruments are played really well although the piano sample isn't the best and the bass is mixed too quietly. The guitar performance is excellent. Mastering is on the loud side but adequate. I completely disagree with Brad that the problem is with the mastering; the problems all stem from the mixing of the track. This arrangement is over our bar but I'm pretty borderline on this due to the substandard mixing and the odd groove issue I have described. I'm pretty sure the issue is 100% due to the unbalanced mixing. But the arrangement and concept carry this for me. The guitar and theramin solos are highlights. YES (borderline)
  5. There is more than just detuning going on, there is some flutter and wow, and it is very heavy and feels disorienting especially since it is so exposed. I'm going to agree with Brad that this is unpleasant to listen to, but I respect the concept. This soundscape sounds like it could appear in a 70s sci-fi movie like Logan's Run. There is definitely an audience for this esthetic. For what this is, it is done well. No outro, just a cold stop. I am not a fan of this type of non-resolving ending to a track. This arrangement is conservative to the source as Brad mentioned (at least until the 3-minute mark after which I am losing the plot), but I don't find that to be a problem as everything has been modified so much. It is certainly not a cover! This is a weird one. I am not going to reject it on those grounds though. I'm not sure what to think of this one yet, I'll be interested to see a few more votes first. ?
  6. File downloaded fine for me. Wow right off the bat, directly into the writing with no kind of intro, the soundscape is established and everything feels separate. The bass as Brad said is fundamental-only and has no synergy with anything else. The piano is washed out and delayed with a very fast, stiff delay, and the drum kit is loud, dry and up-front. This soundscape stays exactly the same until 2:24 when a plucked instrument joins in which is welcomed, but it seems to only be adding further noodling to the arrangement. The bass is just playing the same thing again and again and again, same for the drums. The piano and this pluck are just noodling away and not giving me anything motif-like to latch on to. Everything is playing at around the same energy level and it just sounds frenetic and lacks any kind of structure. I'm five minutes in and nothing interesting has happened and I am wishing it was over already. Seven minutes of this? The pluck drops out at 6:26, with no resolution to its writing pattern, it just stops cold. Ok at the seven-minute mark here is the strangest outro I have ever heard. The drums and piano stop abruptly and the bass pattern continues alone for a quick fadeout. That was straight-up obnoxious, sorry to be so blunt. Nice little noodle, good vibe, but goes on way too long without providing anything interesting. Mixing is inconsistent and disconnected. Seems like a good concept wip for a more detailed arrangement, but surely not ready to stand alone on OCR. NO
  7. I love this concept! I love the chords immediately. The crackle effect though, it is a very short loop that repeats over and over perfectly timed to the grid so it sounds completely unnatural. Was this intentional? To me it just sounds bad. For a lo-fi track, if you're going to have crackle going over most or all of it, it has to be super subtle and has to sound real. I'm loving this vibe, but the arrangement is under-developed at this point and it sounds repetitive. The drum groove almost never changes, giving the piece a very static energy dynamic. The arrangement needs a few more writing ideas and arrangement variations, perhaps some new and different instruments as it moves along. There is no outro or any kind of resolution to the ideas, and even the little wind chime and sfx at the end is cut off too early. I like the vocal, coin and bird sfx although they are too loud and up-front. Overall mixing and mastering are adequate. NO (resubmit)
  8. This is definitely an improvement, but as Larry said it still sounds very stiff and blocky. I still hear a lot of disharmony. Examples are 0:53-1:06, and again at 2:00-2:10 and again at 3:06-3::15. I don't hear the bass super well because it is mixed quietly, but when I really focus on it, I often hear the bass playing very randomly and not in tune with the rest of the instruments. Quite often, the bass is playing a pattern that is too fast and chaotic to be supportive to all the busy writing on top of it. 1:21-1:49 is a good example of what I am saying. Also as Larry said, the percussion does change now and then, which is good, but it isn't quite enough because the energy level of the track stays roughly the same all the way through. I don't think this snare sample is very good, it is very heavy and overly snappy and it dominates the drum groove all the way through. Perhaps changing the snare sound for something softer in the softer sections would help. The hats all hit at the same velocity every time they are playing a fast pattern, which sounds unnatural. The writing in the track is verbatim to the source writing although a few instrument changes occur throughout the piece. Essentially this arrangement is just three playthroughs of the source tune. The Bowser laughing at the end is a cool choice! But yeah, I agree with Larry that it sounds too exposed, and it is obvious that it repeats over and over. Some kind of morphing effect over the laughing would be very cool. And just as with the previous version, the render cuts off before the track and all its reverb/effects are finished ringing out. Lots of improvements on this version! Still not quite there, though. NO
  9. Michael Hudak and BotW? That's already a "yes please" from me before hearing it. Wow, I love the lush and intricate soundscape and the slowed-down motif. This arrangement captures the dragon them so well. I agree with Larry about the moods captured: sadness, quirkiness, solitude and loss, but also a sense of bittersweet freedom. I feel like I am floating in the sky while listening to this. BotW and also TotK are all about the magical, emotional feel of solitary exploration of the vast realm of Hyrule, and this mix captures that feeling to perfection. YES
  10. Ooooooooooooo. This is some truly excellent psytrance! Tons of variation in writing, sounds, energy, beat, vibe, transitions, breakdowns and drops. Mixing and mastering are top notch. The arrangement of the two themes is seamless and creative. But does it pass the stopwatch test, that would be the only issue. Psy by its nature does not have a lot of motif, and the motif tends to be on the subtle side. Assuming there's enough source, super easy pass from me. Really nicely done track, I'm digging it. My timestamp attempt: 0:42-1:09 I don't recognize this, is it Terra, altered? 1:12-1:27 Terra 1:27-1:33 Under 1:40-2:07 Under (filtered in) 2:17-2:36 Under/Terra call and response (so well done!) 2:49-2:53 Under 2:56-3:00 Under 3:15-3:19 Terra (first three notes of the motif, and then reversed) 3:30-3:57 Terra (final part of source) 3:57-3:58 Terra 4:04-4:05 Terra 4:07-4:08 Terra 4:09-4:37 Terra Total source use in the remix is 164 seconds, if that first part can be identified. Track is 306 seconds long (which includes silence at the beginning, and drums/bass-only outro). So 54% source, if that first part can be identified. Can another J identify the source from 0:42-1:09? YES (if enough source)
  11. Was it the room-correcting software left on during render? I have made that mistake myself. (In fact that mistake is SO easy to make that I decided to ditch the room-correcting software and apply treatments to the room and re-calibrate my ears instead.) Low end still sounds a little anemic to me, but this is much mo betta. I still think a little touch of multiband compression below 125Hz would be super nice, but this gets the job done. I still love the track! YES
  12. The master is driven hard indeed, and the track does not have a lot of dynamic range as a result, but I don't hear any overcompression artifacts. But still, -8db RMS is fairly heavy-handed on the mastering side these days now that we've realized the futility of fighting the Loudness Wars. For a three minute track, I feel like the intro goes on too long before the lead motif begins (0:00-1:02). The intro is a very slow build, with elements being added one at a time. The guitar that starts at 0:15 sounds very fake and stiffly sequenced (although I love the reverse transition!). The vox starting at 0:23 sounds weak; I get the gimmick but it is more comedic than cool. At 0:30, the sound playing the arp is very vanilla with no effects on it and isn't doing anything too interesting. At 1:01, there is a combination lead consisting of steel drums and a flute, and both of them sound stiff and fake. 1:33 is the bridge section of the source tune, and in the remix, a similar string patch is used to the string patch in the source. I feel like this string patch (and also the one in the source) are too slow in their attacks to keep up with the fast writing and it ends up sounding awkward. This could be fixed easily by layering something with a faster attack right over the strings. There is a ton of creativity in this arrangement, lots of instrument changes, sfx, filter transitions and additional ideas as the piece moves along, full credit is given for that! I love the bassline throughout the track, super creative writing for that bassline. I wish the bass sound had quite a bit more beef to it though. I also wish there was a section with the lead writing personalized, or a lead solo, or something to break up the verbatim source-tune motif writing. My favorite part of the track is the lead starting at 1:56, finally a lead that has a bit of movement to it! It needs to be louder, stick up front a little more and perhaps have some light reverb on it. Most of the instruments in the mix sound like they are very dry. You've actually done a very good job placing the various elements in the soundscape, with some things more center-focused and other things like arps sitting widely in the stereo field. Excellent work on that! Careful with autopanning though, as it can make some people dizzy especially on headphones; keep autopanning instruments from panning too widely and/or too fast. The ending is abrupt, short, and disappointing, but not dealbreaker. Wes is correct about sidechaining. I can't tell what if anything in the mix has sidechaining on it, perhaps the bass does? I can't tell, but he's right that sidechaining most of your elements in varying amounts throughout a track like this will let your kick punch through well, and will give the entire arrangement much more groove. If you're going to do this, the bass should get the largest gain reduction (somewhere between 6-10ish db GR), then plucks and leads and even percussion loops should get less gain reduction (like 3-6ish db of GR, in varied amounts so it isn't all the same), all with a very fast attack and release setting. Sidechaining like this will also allow more overall headroom for doing a clean mastering job, as it stops things from competing for volume and frequency whenever the kick hits. All of that said, sidechaining (or lack thereof) is not dealbreaking my vote on this mix. Just like with Wes's vote though, my vote reads like "death by a thousand cuts." I want to emphasize that there is a LOT to love about this arrangement! So much creativity going on here, and it is a fun, upbeat arrangement. For me though, the cheap/vanilla sounds, stiff sequencing and lack of reverb and/or other effects (delays, filter movement on the leads, etc.) is killing it for me and making the arrangement lack finesse. These sounds, sequencing and effects would have gotten the job done back in the day, but not in 2023. I hope you will work on this more though, I'd love to hear it again with improvements made! NO (resubmit)
  13. That is exactly what I'm saying, Gario! Ironically, additional sidechaining will help clear up any unintentional master pumping. That two-octave lead is the worst offender, to my ears anyway (plus it's loud).
  14. I love the heavy kick and deep sidechaining on the bass right away, but when the first lead comes in at 0:13, I can barely hear the kick anymore. That lead (or, two leads, one an octave higher than the other) is way too loud and has zero sidechaining (or, not very much sidechaining) so it is just dominating the soundscape, drowning out the percussion and backing arps. At 0:41 there is an additional lead sound added, that one is nicely wide and heavily sidechained so that's good, but overall the combined lead is too loud and feels pasted on top of the soundscape instead of nestled into it. It is actually a bit fatiguing to listen to in this condition. It doesn't help that all the leads used are very heavy in the high-mids. The piano breakdown is lovely, although it feels almost too sparse following such a busy section before it. I wish the breakdown had just one or two extra elements in it like maybe a percussion loop to keep it attached to the rest of the material. Not a dealbreaker, just a comment. I wish a few more varied timbres had been used to keep this mix interesting, as the writing is on the repetitive side. An instrument changeup, primarily for the lead, would have helped. This is very borderline for me and I'm actually fine if it passes as is, but I feel that the leads are just too loud and too dominant, and that one lead (or the two-octave layered lead I mentioned) needs a touch of sidechaining (or, more if there is some now) to tuck it into the mix better than this. The mastering sounds fine to me, my issue is mostly with the volume balance of the leads and the level of sidechaining of the leads. So, the other votes are saying "too much sidechaining" and here I am asking for more sidechaining. I honestly think that what Gario is hearing as a "static mass of pulsing sound" is not from master overcompression but from too-loud and under-sidechained leads! Call me crazy, but that's how I hear this! NO (resubmit, borderline)
  15. I am very familiar with this source, being a diehard Zelda fan myself, and having played thousands of hours of BotW and now TotK, in both of which this song is featured. Both games contain a lot of sources that are quite ambient, and this source is no exception, but it does have just enough motif to make it easily workable to remix. What an interesting take on this source! So many unique sounds in this remix, is that throat singing? Holy cow I love it. The throat singing is loud and surprising but it gives me chills. The instruments used in this arrangement are so cool, what an interesting vibe, so many different feels all in one package. It still feels deeply spiritual and floaty, yet groovy. I love the unique off-timed drum groove. Mixing and mastering are fine, although the master is on the loud side but extremely clean. Great mix of distorted and clean sounds, providing excellent contrast throughout the arrangement. Plenty of source in the arrangement; that arp is almost always audible, and the lead motif is played beautifully with lovely and appropriate instruments. I really like the personalization of the writing that starts at 1:49. I'm really enjoying this! YES
  16. The mixing and balancing work well enough, although the overall master is on the quiet side. I am hearing tons of harmonic dissonance though, throughout the piece there are areas where notes seem to clash, at least to my ears. The drum sequence does not change once established, the level of energy stays mostly the same, the writing seems to be mostly copy and paste, and the instruments are the same all the way through, giving the piece a repetitive feel. Is there more to the track, because this render cuts off very abruptly at 3:19, with no type of cooldown or outro, it just cuts off cold. More work to do on this one in terms of writing, removing disharmonies, adding variation and interest to the arrangement, and rendering the entire track including any outro. I do like this concept though! NO
  17. Drums are very weak, especially the kick as Brad noted. I'm not sure I understand what is being portrayed in the first minute, I cannot connect it to the source tune. The guitar is super loud and dry when it comes in. The mixing needs a lot of work and mastering seems nonexistent. I can't recognize the source material at all; I would need to see a source-use breakdown before I could really comment on that, but I don't hear it in a cursory listen. This arrangement comes off as extremely loose and noodley. This concept could work, but it needs to be mixed much better than this, and the source connections would need to be more apparent. Edit 11/9/23: Listening again with Promise source. I finally hear the motif from the Promise source, starting at 2:16, played suuuuuper quietly on a piano or plucked instrument way in the background. The motif lasts from 2:16-2:48. After that, from 2:48-3:20 I hear the arp pattern from Promise(reprise). From 3:20-3:52 I think we are back to Promise. From 3:56 to we are back to the section 2:16-2:48 but without the source arp, so I don't think we can count that as source. After that, all the way to the end, I don't hear any more source. So if the source has truly been deconstructed and put back together, it has been done very stealthily. I still think the drums sound weak, and the arrangement is very noodley and not mixed well. Still a NO
  18. All the changes I asked for in the first round of voting have been made, and Brad did a great job helping, but I sadly have to agree with MW and Wes that the first minute of this track blows the whole deal. The rest of the track works great and sounds amazing. But the vocal in that first minute sounds so forced and so awkward and unnatural, and no amount of pitch correction or mixing is going to fix that. I don't know what to suggest, but it just doesn't work. I'm really sorry. Perhaps MW's and Wes's suggestions can be put to use. I suspect there will be listeners who cannot get through that first minute to get to the remainder of the track, which is a shame. Wes explained the situation perfectly, in my opinion. NO
  19. "Default FL Keys" yep, sadly it sounds like that, super mechanical, tinny and expressionless. The intro goes on too long without adding anything else to build up to the next section. Kick sounds great when it enters, but the piano playing those blocked chords is too simplistic. The bass sounds good but it is hard to hear over the arp and piano, and it is struggling to play the lower registers clearly. This section goes on way too long. At the 2:00 point I am really hoping to hear something else besides the arp and blocked piano chords. You have entire LONG sections that, once established, do not do ANYTHING else. At 3:00 there's kick and clap, and really good sidechaining on the bass. But it's the same exact arp and piano chords. At least changing the patch playing the arp would have helped here. This is another LONG section that, once established, continues without any change, nothing new to add interest. At 4:00 there is a new element added, and long overdue. I like this pad-like element, but it sure would be nice to add another element that could play over the top of it like a proper lead, because thus far there has not been a lead of any kind. This would be an opportunity to do some soloing or even add a motif or melody from another source, optimally from the same game or franchise but could be from another game or franchise, or could be something original that you write. The ending cuts off before the final note finishes playing. This track is twice as long as it needs to be to convey the ideas, each section needs to be cut in half unless you have something super interesting happening during that section. At present there is nothing interesting happening during any of those long sections. The same arp and piano plays all the way through and both of those sounds become stale in the first minute. This is a good layout for a track but it isn't complete. It needs to have many more unique ideas to keep the listener engaged. Sometimes even with good writing ideas, it can be clear as you're working with it that a section is too long and needs to be cut in half, so you may need to do that while thinking of ways to add interest to each section. Great start, just needs more (ideas) but also less (length). NO
  20. I like that triplet groove! I also hear no sidechaining, which is a shame because the mix lacks groove as a result. I really like the synth choices. I believe it sounds more muddled than it would otherwise due to the lack of sidechaining. Although it IS a dense mix with a lot going on in similar frequency ranges. Sidechaining all of your elements, in varying/gentle amounts (heaviest on bass, next heaviest on pads, but you can also sidechain plucks and leads, I even sidechain my percussion loops lightly for mixing clarity), will glue this soundscape together, it will allow your drums to be heard better, and will add 100% more groove to the feel of the piece. The writing is repetitive, which is a shame for such a short mix. You're dropping an outro on us, just as my mind was wanting to hear a proper drumless breakdown, followed by a buildup and one more huge section before a proper outro. This feels like half a song, to me. The render cuts off before the final sfx has finished playing, that needs to be fixed. All that said, I DIG this so far, it just doesn't sound complete! Please do some strategic sidechaining, you'll be amazed at how much groovier it will be. And if you can extend the song, while not repeating anything wholesale, that would be excellent. Changing out some sounds as the track moves along would also go a long way toward breaking up the repetitive feel. I hope to hear this back! NO (please resubmit)
  21. That initial chippy synth has some autopan on it that is disorienting to me right away, it is so wide and the rate is super fast. The drums, bassline and backing synths are very rigidly timed. I hear that off-key chord Larry mentioned. I think both Brad and Larry covered most of what I would also say about this track: the sounds are simplistic and robotically timed, and the writing is repetitive. The drums are stiff other than the drumrolls which are actually quite good. Most of your elements are sitting in the dead center of the soundscape so much that I actually checked it in mono, and I can't tell that much of a difference other than that auopanned synth and some reverb here and there. That's a missed opportunity to utilize more of the soundscape to make a 3D mix. Intro and outro are pretty much bookends. The solo is a very nice touch, you'd do well to add even more writing personalization throughout the piece. I feel like you have a solid start here and you may want to drop this into our workshop forum for further feedback and advice. NO
  22. Wait just a second, let me grab my brain from off the floor, it fell out just for a sec..... Alrighty. WOW. Insane sources, yes. Stupid amounts of detail in this remix. Awesome arrangement. I agree with the dudes that the drums are louder than the rest of the soundscape so they obliterate it now and again, and sometimes the mix is so crowded that, well, my brain falls on the floor. Still, YES
  23. The arrangement works, and I appreciate the dedication to the FM concept in the soundscape, but I'm afraid I agree with my peers. The problem for me is that EVERY element is getting the same kind of distortion, pitch bending, LFO action, so it sounds like a wall of these effects rather than something cool, as it would sound if only strategic elements got these effects, and not every element. There can be no contrast in a soundscape where everything sounds so similar, and it is fatiguing to listen to. It is very difficult to mix something like this in a way that each element is audible. It is all mushing together into a wall of unpleasant sound as they compete to be heard in the same frequency ranges. The mastering is also odd, it is super loud while having a fairly low peak ceiling of -1.5 Props for the ideas here! I recommend scaling back on the effects, and let a few non-effected things come through, for sonic contrast. NO
  24. MW is right, wow everything is dry. I don't usually care for animated gifs but that one conveys the feeling well. Other than that, I feel like the samples are used well enough, other than the high strings sounding impossible during the faster runs (i.e. 1:55-1:59), and mostly when they are exposed. Although not perfect, there's nothing dealbreaker for me with the samples. I agree with Larry that when the drums first come in at 0:42, I'm blasted straight to the 70s by both the tone of the drums and the writing and rolls. The kit really does not go well with the rest of the instrumentation. The arrangement is a winner, I love it. I really like the gentle piano outro. Mixing and mastering are adequate. YES
  25. That's a huge sound right away, drums and everything. Some kind of drumless buildup would introduce the material better I think, it can be short but just a buildup to the drums. When the drums come in they sound very quiet and tame. I don't hear any sidechaining on any element, so the drums aren't cutting through, and the musical elements don't have any groove with the drum patterns. I like the instruments and sounds used here generally, but this lack of groove makes the soundscape very flat. Oh I like the sirens! Almost every element used in this arrangement is sitting in the same frequency range. Without sufficient mixing and effects (stereo placement, EQing to allow fundamentals to come through, strategic reverb to place things forward or back), everything is competing to be up front, making this a wall of sound. The bass sounds lovely and low, but I can barely hear it. Larry and Brad both nailed it that the leads are competing in writing, which is exacerbated by the flat mixing. There should only ever be one primary element playing lead at any one time, and other elements (backing chords, arps, or countermelodies) will need to be strategically placed further back in the soundscape. Elements can take turns being the more up-front element/lead, but when you have multiple up-front elements, it causes a cluttered overly-busy soundscape that is hard for the listener to follow. I agree with my fellow Js that there are too many unpleasant mid-highs and highs in the mix overall. It's fine to have one or two elements with distortion on them, so they stand out, in the context of the entire mixing process. But when everything feels too crispy, the whole mix becomes uncomfortable to listen to. Whether this occurred during mixing or mastering, it needs to be dialed back quite a bit. That ending does not work. The reverb tails are so long that when the chord changes it clashes with the previous chord that is still playing, and it becomes a disharmonious wall of sonic mush. This concept could work, but the reverb from the next-to-last chord would need to be almost completely finished before that final chord plays, to avoid the disharmony. A safer bet would be to have your final chord be something that fits with the key of the preceding chords and writing. The arrangement is great, very creative combination of these two themes! The issues are almost entirely with mixing. I think you've gotten some great advice in this thread, and I hope to hear this again with the improvements made! NO (please resubmit)
×
×
  • Create New...