zircon

Whoa, mixing here really needs work.. everything sounds kinda muddy and dull, but then at spots like :26 and :31, the hit somehow overrides the entire mix causing massive pumping. That effect sounds really, really bad, especially when it's repeated over and over. Please watch your compression/limiting, normalize after you render, and use EQ to control the low end rumble of a lot of these instruments. This issue alone merits a NO. Otherwise, I agree with Larry that this is a fairly simple adaptation. Needs some more interesting writing and more melodic interpretation (variation). Change up rhythms more often. Add more percussion that isn't just massive hits and crashes on the downbeat, as that gets very old very quickly. Use our remixing & WIP forums for feedback - keep at it! NO

What are you talking about, I spit hot fire.

Remember that vocoding isn't specific to the voice. It can be used with any two sounds. You have one carrier, which is the sound being affected, and then one modulator which is providing a sort of spectral imprint (as several others have described here) based on the fundamental, other harmonics, and level of those harmonics. You can have drums as a modulator and a synth pad as a carrier, which will create a cool rhythmic pad effect, for example.

The opening piano is incredibly quiet... can barely hear it even on headphones. After that, I gotta agree with Larry. Sample quality is a major issue. Ultra mechanical sequencing of the snare, strings. No velocity editing, pitch bends, or detailed writing to cover up how fake many of the samples sound. Check the Guides & Tutorials forum and start by reading my guide to working with real instruments (also available on my website, zirconstudios.com) - then use the Remixing forum resources to look for new samples and/or tips on how to get the most out of what you have. Remember, more often than not, it's HOW you use the sounds, not what your sounds are. That aside, this is also dynamically not too interesting. It's basically all the same throughout. The texture doesn't change much, and the interpretation really simplifies the original and sort of takes away from several of the more interesting elements. The snare needs to be removed and rewritten entirely, and I think you could do more with harmonies and counter-melodies. The chords are very sparse as it is right now, especially compared to the original. Keep working at it, and definitely make use of our Workspace. NO

The opening panning is definitely WAY too extreme, and that string sample right off the bat sounds worse than the strings used in the original. The entire intro sounds very disjointed and generally not pleasant, between the random extreme panning, the harsh trance-like synths, mechanical piano, and (seemingly) random note sequences. This part alone merits a NO because it's so grating to listen to. The choice of sounds is really confusing - you have soft orchestral instruments, then edgy, annoying detuned trance/techno sounds.. please pick one style and stick with it. By 1:40 hardly anything has happened whatsoever. Some of the theme has been interpreted but it's so unenjoyable and sonically unpleasant, especially considering the pumping, over-compression production. There's no pause right before the beats come in at 2:11. If you're going to spend all this time building up to it I would make it more obvious that it's going to be coming in. And that being said, I think 2:11 is too much time for an intro that is fairly repetitive to begin with. Sections like 2:58 and 3:04 are really irritating. The overly bright strings get exposed at the first one, and at 3:04 there's the pitch bending synth. Please take that out entirely, it doesn't work at all. Then just to reiterate the compression issue, everything sounds a little too smooshed together and saturated here. It seems like you're going for more of an easy listening groove, but the end result is something like a big beat sound. I could go on but I'll sum up my vote. The production here is bad, the arrangement ideas are decent, so if you just focus on improving the sonic end of this I think you'll be a lot closer. Once you're done with that, then try tightening up the arrangement as per our suggestions (making things less sparse, etc.) NO

Killer, love it. Been waiting for this to be done forever.

OK, the difference between Montano and us is that (1) We give very prominent credit to the original composer. (2) We state, repeatedly, that we are doing arrangements/remixes... it's built right into the site name. (3) We don't profit from anything. Even with bands that are in the grey area of selling VGM arrangements w/o licensing (I won't name names), the artists make it VERY obvious that they are selling arrangements, and credit the source material. There's really no comparison.

The "Remixing" forum is not exclusively for remixing, it covers any aspects of writing, production, samples, synthesis, etc. Moved.

In an INCREDIBLE show of internet justice, the people at the label returned my email after investigation. They said the producers mentioned nothing about the melody coming from somewhere else and that they were not aware of this at all prior to my email. But the best part was the end of the email. They said, and I quote: "We're already busy clearing up the situation and stopped all physical exploitation. Thanks for letting us know." Things like this really restore my faith in the industry, even just a little bit. These guys were making money off the track and could have just said "we don't care" or simply not have responded at all. Consciences FTW. Oh, I forgot one last thing. OWNED

Thanks for the comments guys! Ellywu; I dunno what you're monitoring on but the kick and snare are already pretty enormous on mine.. hard to get them any louder, considering I've already used sidechaining as well as multiband compression. Derrit; Yeah, I might boost the square a bit, though the focus of that part is supposed to be the synth lead. JustChris; haven't heard that remix in particular, though I know the original. I might bring back the orch later, we'll see. It's very RAM intensive generally speaking. I haven't actually added anything more to this but I'd like to soon!

Very cool, stylistically... certainly not a genre we hear very often. Recording could use a bit of compression to level our the dynamics, a bit more high-end through out, and less bias towards the right channel which tends to be louder than the left by a decent margin. Not a HUGE deal but these are easy improvements. The performances in general were all good enough, maybe not perfect, but I didn't feel that was an issue, particularly in this sort of folk style. As short as this mix is, I think it's quite creative and certainly personalizes the source. There's a decent amount of variation, and the variation is creative to boot. I didn't think this was really that close to the original in terms of structure, mainly because of the varied dynamics in this mix. Plus, the harmonic structure is not quite the same either. Borderline, but I'm going with YES

The production here sounds a little off to me. The drums are really crisp and punchy, while the harp-like instrument is washed out with little high-end. I would turn down the highs on the drums, and in fact level out the whole kit a bit and bring it down to give more room to other instruments. Most of the sounds here are pretty well designed, but not really that consistent with eachother. The drumkit sounds like something you might hear in breakbeat music, but the tempo is too slow for that, and so it sounds too big for the style. The harp and the piano are soft and pulled back, but then there are pretty edgy synths here and there. Conceptually, you need to give more thought and planning to how the different parts work together towards some musical effect. Larry pretty much summed up my thoughts otherwise. Arrangement with regards to the source is fairly creative, though I think it might actually be TOO liberal. Directly using more melodies from the original "Tristram" could really help. However that wouldn't even really be the main issue here, because as Larry said, the way things are written now, the remix does drag. You need more dynamics to make it interesting and engaging. It usually feels sparse due to lack of instrumental layers. The ending is also very abrupt with the dry piano having no sort of release or reverb tail even. All in all, a good early effort, but as Larry said make use of our resources here to further refine and improve. NO

Larry I'd just point out that :03 is an organ, not a synth... and it doesn't sound too bad, IMO. It's dirty, but that's the point. The sequencing itself may be grating though in terms of that small interval it's playing Production definitely needs work. No question about it. The issue is, quite simply, overcompression. Everything is smooshed together dynamically and so the end result is you can barely tell the different parts from eachother, sax aside (and even that could stand out more). The drums as a result lack punch, the bass is muddy and buried, and if there's anything else it's almost impossible to really make out clearly. And from what I can tell you've got some very cool writing going on, so don't hide it!! Here's what I suggestion. Take off all compression/limiting on the master track. Put a plugin on the master track that does nothing but increase/reduce volume (like the "Gain" slider on the Parametric EQ-2) then turn everything down until nothing in the song makes the master volume meter go over 0. Now turn UP your speakers/headphones until the song sounds loud and full. This is where you should do your mix. Adjust volume levels carefully, apply EQ, and then once everything sounds perfectly balanced, THEN apply some compression and limiting on the master track and gradually reduce the volume of your headphones/speakers while making your mix louder. Listen some more and see if you missed anything. This is a solid method of working - while you should never monitor at high volumes for more than a short period of time, monitoring louder while turning down the mix volume allows you more "headroom" so you can listen to detail and make finer adjustments. Anyway, I just want to point out that all OTHER aspects of production seem to be good. The drum sequencing is great, as far as I can tell. The bass sounds pretty hot too, though it's hard to hear. So props on that. I didn't really have a problem with the sax panning, but some people might, so it wouldn't hurt to be slightly less extreme with that. With regards to arrangement, I thought you did a great job. The source is pretty simple, and not to sidetrack this vote too much, but frankly I never saw what was so great about this OST anyway. Pretty forgettable. So I give you a good deal of credit for really expanding this and turning it into a fun, energetic tune. Great balance of variation, direct connection to the source, and original material in the same style. Fix up those mix/master problems and I think you'll be all set. NO, resub

Hey Michael, glad to see you constantly active and remixing. Thanks again for your contributions to VotL. Before I get to arrangement, I think the recording here sounds better than your previous remixes, HOWEVER, on some of the louder notes I hear some clipping. Looking at the waveform definitely confirms it in multiple places. I'm hoping this is a mixing issue and you can just turn the volume down or apply an EQ + a bit of limiting (the lower notes are what tends to cause it.) Performance as always is wonderful. Unfortunately, I too go by the 50% rule, and I agree with Larry's overview of the arrangement. It seems nitpicky but we would be hypocritical if we made exceptions for some people and not others. This really is RIGHT on the border, IMO. The original sections would push it over if there were even just some hints of connection to the source melody & chord progression here and there. I have to say that this is a beautiful arrangement and the original material you added is great as well. I really do want to see this posted, and hope you would be willing to add just a LITTLE more "Rachel" material to put this over the bar. NO, resub

Volume is definitely low; please normalize at least, as this is 3.3db under. You could also do some MINOR compression/limiting to boost it another few db. The sample isn't really that problematic, but the issue is that the writing has a lot of the same notes, chords, and rhythms playing over and over. The left hand writing in particular is not very interesting as Palpable pointed out. The right hand tends to play the melody simplisticly with few (if any) embellishments like grace notes or unexpected voicings. In general, there aren't really any interesting arpeggios, runs, time signature changes, trills, or other expressive techniques used, all of which would be helpful. This is a capable piano adaptation of the themes but it isn't all that musically deep, and I think when you choose to use a solo instrument there's a higher bar for depth and expression. As it stands now, this piece does not hold my attention. In terms of the actual arrangement of the source tunes themselves, there's enough interpretation. That's not really a problem, but it's the actual musicality of it that I am concerned with. While you did vary the themes and add original material, the aforementioned lack of expression makes the arrangement come across as flat and somewhat repetitive. Listen to some of the more recent piano arrangements that have been posted, read their decision threads (if applicable) and use that to figure out better what we're looking for. NO

Intro is pretty rockin' in terms of the buildup. I was feeling like something HUGE was coming, but then at :29... what? What happened? Simplistic beats w/ basic jazz organ at :33? I was expecting something way heavier based on that intro. In fact the styles here are all over the place. 1:05 we're back to the dramatic orchestra, and then 1:12, its random guitar stabs with the bingo night organ. Overall I think the soundfield and the writing was simply not cohesive from a musical standpoint, even though I REALLY liked some sections, like 1:46 in particular. Why not just pick that mood and stay with it throughout? Don't go back to the lame organ. Production wise, the beats are almost non-existant, in the sense that the kick is very hard to hear, and the cymbals override almost everything. They're REALLY loud. Turn them way down, turn the kick way up. More varied percussion sequencing would be really nice, as the beat basically stays the same throughout. Closed hihat, more toms, different kick sequencing, more fills.. using any of these would be good. In the heavy sections like 1:46 and 2:56 things get a little too cluttered sonically. The guitar doesn't sit well in the mix. The orchestral stuff is good overall, well-executed, but again, I don't like that organ at all. Just because it was in the original doesn't mean you have to use it... and I strongly advise against it as it pulls down everything. The synth bass is also really weak compared to other elements. Guitars are well-performed and the tone is great, but again, mixing-wise, I wasn't really feeling it. Were they double tracked? Seemed kind of mono to me. The arrangement in general seemed fairly interpretive and well-done, but I believe the biggest problem is the lack of variety in the different sections of the mix. You approached everything the same way in terms of instrumentation, and as a result things FELT repetitive even if you were introducing new variations throughout. In other words, I'm in agreement with Larry. The combination of my issues w/ production and my somewhat lesser issues w/ the structure & arrangement results in a NO here, but I would like to see this resubmitted. The concept overall is pretty hot, I just think it needs another 20% to really hit our bar. NO, resub

Wow, absolutely terrible lyrics. Hard to even believe this is real; I actually feel dumber for even listening to the source. To an extent I wish the mixers didn't even include them in the remix because they're just that... bad. That being said, the mix is otherwise excellent. Top-notch production and performances, as we've come to expect from ilp0. Vocals are, uh, great, lyrics aside. Arrangement is creative, interpretive, and in a style we definitely don't hear often on OCR. Always cool to hear how ilp0 gets better with each new mix. I wish the source wasn't so banal, but YES

I just realized that the new HBFS remix is more of a mashup of a bunch of DP songs, not only the old HBFS, but Voyager and Around the World, the last of which I hadn't heard before. Not quite as cool as I initially thought.. again.. still a great track.

The production here strikes me as a little lo-fi.. kinda cheap sounding drums, general lack of high end (very obvious on a spectrum analyzer), piano doesn't sound great... the guitars sound fantastic though, inexplicably. Maybe you just need to upgrade your sample collection or go the extra mile with processing (EQ, distortion, compression, reverb, etc.) - or both. The closest mix I can think of for comparison is "Blue Balls". Similar approach, but that mix regularly made both melodic AND rhythmic variations to material from the source, as well as various minor embellishments and new writing to support the stuff from the source(s). While the production is solid enough, especially the most excellent guitar work, the arrangement is not up to par IMO. I'd love to hear a resub with more interpretive value. NO, resub The arrangement certainly strikes me as sticking very close to the originals. Aside from some basic added background riffs here and there, I wasn't hearing much interpretation at all. Some of the earlier transitiosn were a little rough, but as the mix went on they did get a bit more creative. The difference between this and Wicked Six is that Wicked Six at least had some interpretation in the form of added soloing. I was not hearing any notable additions here besides one or two background riffs on a synth here and there, the transitions, and the bit at the very end.

Lots to say... I'll start with production. I agree with Larry that this is quiet.. it isn't even normalized, which of course would help! Once you do that, consider using the free plugin "W1 Limiter" by George Yohng on your master track. Set the threshold to -2db or -3db. This combined with the normalization will make this sound better. The sample usage here, again as Larry pointed out, is not as good as it could be. I believe this is GPO, right? GPO is great, but has a very mellow sound. If you can, pick up soundfonts like "Squidfont Orchestra", "Cadenza II", and "Florestan Martellato". Many of the patches within these have higher fidelity recordings with more fullness. Layer them when necessary with your own sounds. I think this will be particularly helpful with your sustained and marcato strings. The percussion, aside from the orchestral chimes, sounds pretty weak. Very dry and small sounds, especially the tambourine. Maybe you need to bump up the reverb or reverb size that you're using on everything, or again, perhaps you just need new samples. Look at mixes by Darkesword, Unknown, and blizihizake as a reference for how powerful free samples can be when used properly. I like the writing overall. Pretty realistic. However there is too much reliance on the bass drum, tambourine, bongo and shaker pattern(s) used all throughout this mix. Besides layers dropping in and out, it all sounds very similar to me and while it serves capably to keep the beat it does almost nothing else of interest. Perhaps incorporating more percussive layers and varying the sequencing there more often would help. I would consider doing some rhythmic unison between the orchestra and percussion in at least a few sections, so the perc doesn't feel like a bunch of loops painted across the entire track. I did like the arrangement in general. The interpretation was creative and I feel that the source was treated well. However, I think the first half of the mix in general was more interesting, not only in terms of writing (eg. the syncopated string stabs were cool) but in terms of instruments used like that thing at :51 (very eloquently stated, I know.) I would encourage you to perhaps develop the second half even more with a larger variety of instruments. Guitar? More mallet percussion? Some other kind of harmony instrument playing a rapid pattern to keep things fresh? I think there are a lot of choices that would work. Overall, this is not quite at the bar yet in terms of production, and I feel that the arrangement aspect could also use some work. An improvement from your last sub, IMO, just keep working at it. MIDI orchestration is not easy. NO

Are you loading the same exact patch? How big is the sample, according to the Kompakt/Kontakt Player UI? You really should use DFD, honestly. It has NO impact on sound quality. It may create audio glitches at high polyphony and lots of tracks played in real time, but it absolutely doesn't affect quality at all on render (nor is the timbre changed aside from POSSIBLE glitching, though this will likely not be an issue w/ 3GB RAM and proper settings.)

Another fun fact: We are now only a little over two months behind in the queue. It's getting shorter every day. I'm definitely going to be putting in overtime to help get us towards real time. That would be a cool Christmas present for the OCR community.

Oof, yeah, some serious volume here. Of course, that suits the style perfectly, so I don't really have an issue. This mix kind of reminds me a little bit of Avenged Sevenfold overall in terms of style not only in the way the arrangement/performance is approached, but the sound choices and mixing/mastering as well. Very cool. Name is pretty lame though, imo I was hearing some nice personalizaton here and there, and I think the way Cid/Main Theme were integrated was reasonably creative. But then it was over. I expected that instead of ending it where it did, there would have been some killer solos, maybe some original chords with melody/harmony more heavily arranging stuff from the sources. If you listen to some metal remixes we have posted recently, particularly those from VotL, you will hear a lot of ways you can bump up the level of arrangement to meet our standards... you're not far at all, and like Larry, I would love to hear more. Very enjoyable in its current state, but please extend/expand it with just a little more arrangement of the source tunes, and resubmit! NO, Resubmit

The guy at Montano's label emailed me back and seemed at least partially concerned. He said he'd ask Montano about it AND asked me for the original tune, so I sent that to him.

The production in this mix, I think, is somewhat weak. Seems like there's a lot of high end, which makes it sound thin, and I feel like the bass range is way more important for electronic music in general. The beats at :13 were pretty basic and low energy, and the lead that comes in at :27 (choir???) isn't too pleasing to the ear IMO. There are continual layers of high end, sparkling synths but a lack of expansive reverb to fill out the rest of the frequencies on them, and again, no strong bass instruments either. I felt like 1:07 should have been where the mix picked up, but it didn't, just relying on the same simple beat. I would recommend selecting a totally new drumkit as I don't think this one works well at all. It's flimsy and low-powered. Once you switch to the four on the floor beat at 1:34 the kick is painfully small and weak. You can get a ton of nice dance samples at www.vipzone-samples.com, but if you need more help on this aspect, hit the Remxing forum on this site. The synths throughout aren't too bad, but most of them lack any "body", as I said before. You could do with adding a few more layers. The production really holds back the energy of this mix, and I think you get the idea, so let me just briefly touch on arrangement. Structurally this was pretty good, though the amount of time it took to get to the four on the floor section was excessive, though this might be a byproduct of the plodding beats prior. The actual interpretation of the source material seems good to me; admittedly I'm not a huge fan of that particular source track. Really refine your production here, and maybe tighten up the arrangement overall. Promising! NO