Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won



About MindWanderer

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Location

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Artist Settings

  • Collaboration Status
    2. Maybe; Depends on Circumstances
  • Software - Digital Audio Workstation (DAW)


  • Twitter Username
  • Steam ID

Recent Profile Visitors

11,167 profile views
  1. I've been thinking about this one for a long time as well, for exactly the same concern proph had. There are some extra bells and whistles here--literally bells in some cases--but adding chimes and a vox pad don't substantially change the nature of the arrangement. It's very pretty, but is it transformative? I'm hard-pressed to argue that it is. The production is one of Rebecca's best but it's just too conservative. NO (borderline)
  2. I'm basically in agreement. It's simple but it's much more vibrant than the original, with a lot of subtle complexity thrown in. If anything it gets maybe a little too frenetic for such a mellow melody. The mastery seems fine, but I've been listening to several much-too-quiet arrangements of yours lately, compared to which this is a vast improvement. Just needs those last 15 seconds trimmed off. Edit 5/26: And done. YES
  3. It won't be as big as I had planned, but I have 6 completed tracks, enough for an OCR-I. Just waiting on one more that needs a rapper; I've been looking but haven't been able to find one. Once that gets resolved, one way or another, I think we can wrap this up.
  4. I like the idea, swingy synthwave. The original writing is actually pretty good. But there are some issues that keep this from shining. First, the sound design. The opening bass with the LFO tuning is too much. A little bit of a warble can be OK, but this is going in and out of key too drastically. The 808 kicks are a critical part of synthwave, and these are thin and used sparingly. The soundscape is pretty minimal throughout. You have lead, bass, rhythm, and percussion, and that's it. You have very little in the mids other than the meaty bass, which is dominating the spectru
  5. It's an interesting take, for sure. I've had to listen to it a number of times to try to evaluate it, and it's kind of grown on me. But it's a bit of a mess. The main concern I had with it is clutter. There are a lot of gritty synths occupying the mids, and in the busier sections there's a lot of mud. Take 0:44-0:58, for example. There's what sound like 3 different gritty saws there, all competing with each other as well as the percussion (which is itself gritty, being a combined hat and kick, and is causing pumping). There's a lot going on and it's turning to mush. Even in les
  6. Straightforward but effective. A lot of it is pretty conservative structurally, but the composition is a bit more than that, especially in the second half. The Ballad of the Wind Fish cameo worked really nicely. The bass line is a bit repetitive, but does get switched up a little from time to time. I'm on board. YES
  7. It's a fun disco beat, but it doesn't go much beyond that. The same beats persist through the whole arrangement, and it's very repetitive besides that: it consists mostly of two identical loops of the source, and then a breakdown of the same which drops parts and fades out. I like the meaty kicks, but most of the other synths are thin and vanilla, especially the leads, which are quiet besides. Thanks for submitting, but I think we need something more engaging, both in terms of structure and sound design. NO
  8. Lovely retro synth choices, especially the bass, and I love the harmonies in the middle section. It took me a couple of listens to notice the problematic descending quad that prophetik was talking about. It does drown out the other accompaniment a bit, but it's a very minor issue. If anything, I felt the exact opposite was more of an issue--that the bass is a bit loud everywhere else. But it's such a juicy bass that it's hard to complain about. It does pump a bit in 1:06-1:26, but that's minor as well. Very nice overall. YES
  9. I started off liking this, it's an original approach that I wasn't expecting. However, the vanilla synths, repetitive beat, and busy sections with conflicting notes bring it down. It's also mastered pretty quietly. The overall structure and approach are neat, but it needs some more variation, some more attention to the sound design, and a pass for clashing notes, especially involving notes with long tails, like those chimes. NO
  10. Nice take on a neglected source. I like the Daft Punk-ish dark electronica approach. Why... why is there a hard limiter at -3dB? That's a very strange choice. The result is that the mix quiet but still slightly overcompressed. You probably want a soft knee there and a hard limit just below 0 dB. From 0:45-1:20 there's a gritty, wide-spectrum bass pad that's overlapping the melody and muffling it. Also 3:03-3:14 and 3:18-3:50 have a gritty arp in the mids that's squashing everything but the lead--the kick and bass in particular are vanishing almost completely. This is really
  11. There are some interesting ideas here, and it's a nice groove, but it's exceptionally static. The percussion and arp are nearly unchanged for the entire duration, and each section loops about twice as many times as they need to. This is nearly six minutes' worth of about 2 minutes' worth of ideas. And then it fades out, too. There are also several clashing notes, so watch your harmonies. You have the right general idea, with the transformation of the melody and the changes in lead textures. I've heard worse debut efforts, so keep working at it! But this isn't there yet. NO
  12. Very nice! Lovely orchestration, great pacing (although the transition at 1:34 is a smidge abrupt). Straightforward but lush and highly effective. My one criticism is that it's mastered too quietly, even for orchestral. You have over 2 dB of headroom, and you should probably squeeze in a little bit of compression on top of that. YES/Conditional (on volume) Edit 6/17: Seems fine to me now. YES
  13. I don't remember exactly what white noise layers were in the last submission, but this one opens up with a really grating bitcrushed static sweep. It sounds terrible, frankly. Reviewing the comments from the previous submission, I still agree with all of it. The white noise is too loud, and your leads are frequently covered up by other layers, especially in the section LionTamer mentioned. I'm definitely picking up what you're putting down--a sort of Daft Punk take, which is very cool--but the production issues from before still stand. NO (resubmit)
  14. I certainly wasn't expecting vocals. I've never quite heard a vocal take like this, where the lead sometimes has lyrics and then--in the middle of a phrase--switches to an instrument. And sometimes it's just "la la la," seemingly at random. The impression that it gives is that you just ran out of ideas for lyrics and filled in the rest with instruments or "la la la"'s. I don't think it works at all. It sounds confusing at best, if not lazy. Then let's talk about that ending. Nearly the entire second half--about two minutes--just trails off. There's occasional melody, and some other
  15. There are a few different styles here, so I'll address each one in turn. 0:21-1:03 has a single high-pitched lead and a medium-pitched accompaniment. No bass, just percussion. This is okay for a few seconds as a breakdown, but it's serving as the main melodic core, and it's too minimal for that. 2:29-3:12 repeats this section with a mid-low saw arp that's sort of a bass, but not really; it's still pretty thin but better, easily the best-done part of the mix. 1:04-1:25 is an okay bridge--just one synth, the percussion, and the VFX, but for a brief section and a lead into the ne
  • Create New...