orkybash

Members
  • Content Count

    485
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by orkybash

  1. Solo piano using just a soundfont, hmm? Sorry, but this doesn't work for me. I like where you're going with the arrangement, but when you synthesize a piano you lose the expression that a real player gives it, and in solo piano music that expression is much more important than it is in other types. Play with the velocity controller some (which you have at points, it could just use a little more work), especially in the beginning (I would suggest taking the intro a little slower than the rest of the song, too). Also, I noticed some clipping at points. It's not as bad as I've heard in other songs, but if you do nothing else to this before you re-submit, re-record it with slightly lower levels. NO, but it's almost there!
  2. Not too bad. It gets a little muddy around the middle and the drums sound a little thin sometimes, but for the most part it sounded good, held my interest, and was long enough to get it's point across without getting tiresome or ending befre it should have. I think it's good enough to go up! YES
  3. This mix sounds awesome, but as others have noted, it's too quite. You can change the volume of a file with any sound editor out there, including windows sound recorder. Please do so. NO, though I would very highly encourage a resubmit!
  4. Piano part is nothing special... sounds nice, but it doesn't go anywhere. Until... holy god, is that violin out of tune!!!!! *cringes* And yeah, the ending bugged me. A lot. This explains what's wrong with the piece. You can't seriously hope to finish a good piece of music in an entire evening. Save it (assuming your program can, and if it can't, go out and buy the commercial version of whatever you use!!!) Let it sit for a couple hours at least, preferably a couple of days. Come back to it with fresh ears, and you'll probably get some ideas that you can add to it, not to mention pick up on things that you could improve. Now that that's brought up, I honestly wonder how many people really do try to finish their music in one evening.... NO
  5. Well, I haven't heard it in context, so this sounds all good to me! Coulda gone with a little more bass, but I like the way this is put together overall so I'll forgive that. YES
  6. Kinda slow moving for my tastes, but that comes down to artistic choice, as it's excecuted very well for what it is. Methinks it's good enough to get over the bar. YES
  7. Copy and paste, my young padawan! Sounds pretty good. I'd suggest something a little more varried, and possibly stronger, in terms of the drum loop. But I think this shows enough quality to pass. YES
  8. Well, nice drum work, I suppose... and nice processing on the synths.... too bad the arrangement needs a lot of work. Playing the same melody over and over using different instruments is not variation, or at least not enough. Especially not when, for the majority of the song, that melody is ALL there is besides the drums. I'd love to hear this with some bass, and some synth backing, cause right now the melody line is really really lonely! Or it feels intimidated by the drums and needs support, however you want to think of it. But, enough of the bad analogies. Time to get down to business and vote NO.
  9. Sample quality's a little low, but this arrangement really shines through the sample problems. I would also suggest a deeper reverb to draw the elements together. Just something to keep in mind for next time, though, cause I think the arrangement alone here definitely deserve a YES.
  10. Sounds really good to my ears. The one thing I would suggest is to give the drums more of a presence in the mix, and maybe do some EQ work to crank up the bass a little. But, I can tell you were going for a more lighthearted trance feeling, and maybe that would get too far away from that. But I digress... overall, I enjoyed this enough to give it a YES.
  11. OK, That into went on for about twice as long as it should have, given that it only used three instruments and didn't have much in the way of melodic variation. Try having them switch off taking the melody, that will add some interest there. Later on, it picks up, for a while... then sinks into repetativeness again. Near the end of the song it starts sounding like a broken record. Change the key, change the instruments, add an original bridge, do a breakdown... anything to shake things up and keep it interesting! But for now... NO
  12. Compositionally speaking, this isn't bad, and I'd post it if we were just judging the arrangement quality. However, your samples (especially the drums) need loads of work, as the overall effect of the sound was a lot weaker than it should be for this kind of song. Good, but I think it could get better. NO
  13. Certainly doesn't sound familiar, but then again I've been away for several months, so *shrugs*. I'd cut the intro in half. It didn't hold my interest, and in fact left me wondering whether or not there would be any actual music in the MP3 I downloaded. Though I was glad when it finally broke out, to be honest I could have been more impressed. The main melody is too repetative, with rather weak instrumentation. In fact, I think I can safely say that the samples from the game do more to sell the remix than anything musical. They are put together rather well. However, I don't know about the other judges, but I for one don't think that sample collections have a place on OCR. NO
  14. First reaction: Oh please, not this song again! Go remix the Prelude or something! ^____^ j/k Second reaction: actually, this is pretty cool. Most original coverage of this song that I've heard so far. Ok... well, that warbly bass thing is pretty off-key, and sometimes the recording just sounds messy. I think better attention to detail panning-wise would help you out there. Ok... hmmm.... I'm gonna have to say NO here. It's a good start, but I was really expecting this to break out into something bigger. Instead, it turns out to be one of those songs that you think has an overly long intro until it just ends without going anywhere.
  15. I really like the idea here, but something about the execution leaves me very underwealmed. Now, I don't know the genre well enough to critique it well, but I'll give my observations anyway. It could use a lot more variation than you've given it, and a lot more harmonies to flesh it out. Once you get the instruments other than the banjo in, you can let the banjo do it's own thing in the background and let the fiddle and harmonica do the melody work. Drums could also use a little more interest. The break at 1:35 really didn't work for me, since the tempo change just came out of nowhere. I think it would be much more effective if you slowed it down more gradually, or kept the pace at what you have it set to for the rest of the song. NO
  16. Wow, you've got guitar skills... so why is it that the rhythm guitars are made up of those horrible synths? WHY!?!?!? OK, now that I've got that criticism out of the way, I must say that I really do like this mix. I'm liking this overall, even if the non-guitar-solo instruments sound a little too GM. So yeah. Nice guitar work, you get a yes, but if I were you I'd go looking for some better samples.
  17. Yeah, as others have said, this sounds too dry. Use of the pedal would help a lot here. Also, it ended a bit abruptly, it could have easily gone on for a while longer. NO I love this prelude arrangement, though, and I'd highly encourage a resubmit!
  18. As others said, there's no coherency here. The instruments don't work together, the different parts of the arrangement don't work together, and I'm just left wondering what exactly I listened to. Sorry, but this needs work. NO
  19. Very tight processing and mixing. that aspect of this song impressed me, at least. Unfortunately, I'm gonna have to go with Prot on this one. If it were half as long I'd say yes, but this is just repetative and drawn out. NO
  20. This is less than two minutes long, and it's already too repetative. Try lengthinig it, changing up the instrumentation and adding some new ideas in the middle of the mix. The key is to develop ideas, not flat-out repeat them! And while you're at it, the sample could use some work. especially this one going on in the background that doesn't sound like anything except a saw synth, and thus is pretty out of place in an orchestral arrangement. Maybe it's supposed to be some sort of string instrument or some sort of brass instrument, but the point is, I just can't tell. There you have it. Nice start, but it could use work. NO
  21. Not bad at all. In fact, I found myself enjoying this quite a bit. The reverb almost killed it for me, but I actually think the depth of reverb works about half the time in the song. The other half, well, isn't ideal, but I don't think it's bad enough to warrent a rejection. The song's repetative, yes, but I think that's a function of both the genre and the original, and the mixer did plenty to keep it fresh throughout. YES
  22. OK, this thing really really got on my nerves. The samples don't work together, the arrangement is really repetative, and as others mentioned, I hear funk samples contributing more to the remix than anything original. Definitely not OCR quality. NO
  23. Well, to be honest I expected worse, and found myself actually kind of getting into this. Unfortunately, it's fun, but it's not OC quality. As others have mentioned the brass section sample could use improvement, and I'll go ahead and say that that aspect of the arrangement is rather dry and uninteresting even if the sample sounded good. The song's got potential, but it's got a ways to go yet. NO