Jump to content

Hemophiliac

Contributors
  • Posts

    792
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

Everything posted by Hemophiliac

  1. [This is an automatically generated message] I've reviewed your remix and have returned it to Work-in-Progress status, indicating that I think there are some things you still need to work on. After you work on your track and feel that it's ready for submission to OCR, please change the prefix back to Ready for Review and someone will review it again. Good luck!
  2. Congratulations on your first remix and welcome to the forums. Evaluation: I want to start out with the arrangement, the original is about 0:17 seconds long before the loop. You've managed to develop it a little bit using orchestration, which is what the original does passing the melody from different parts. That's a good way to write for an orchestra. From 0:08-0:16 the adding of each part brings a nice crescendo to a fuller moment when everything plays together. 1:02-1:10 is a nice interpretation and new material to bring us back around the melody. 1:23-1:33 and 1:46-1:50 more good interpretation and act as good bridges to get to the next part. 1:54-2:00 I like how you trade the melody back and forth between the trumpets and trombone sections. Having the strings play occasional pizzicato arpeggios is a nice addition that helps fill out the top end some. The snare part writing is very good and very fitting of the style you're going for here. The production is where some issues arise. 1:18-1:24 and 2:08-end the lead trumpet has a strange phasing/chorusing effect on it and feels out of place for an orchestral track. Much of the supporting parts feel buried underneath the much louder leads and need to be balanced up when compared to the lead trumpets. I know getting realistic samples of real instruments can be difficult, but there are things you can do to help even though they may not be the highest quality samples. Adding some humanization to where the notes land on the beat as well as varying up the velocities/loudness of the notes will help with that. This is a great first remix with a lot of potential for even more. It's not quite ready for submission as is. The arrangement is solid and I found it to be the strongest part of the piece. Work on the humanization and the realism of the samples and you could be on your way.
  3. [This is an automatically generated message] I've reviewed your remix and have set it to Completed status, indicating that I think your remix is ready to be submitted to the Judges Panel. Congratulations! If you feel like you still need to work on your track and want more feedback, you can change the prefix back to Work-in-Progress and we'll go through the review process again. If you decide to submit your track, please change the prefix to Submitted after sending your email. Thank you!
  4. Evaluation: Well well well, this is a rad track. I did go back and find the judge's decision to see more about what they were saying despite not have hearing the previous version. Here is my breakdown on source usage: 0:01-0:46 source 0:47-0:54 source 0:55-1:25 multiple sources 1:26-2:33 multiple sources with variation and additions on each repeat 2:38-2:41 source interpretation **2:42-3:19 original material inspired by sources** 3:20-4:03 interpreted source 4:04-4:11 original build 4:12-4:26 source 4:27-4:36 source 276 seconds total 183 seconds of source without interpretation 229 seconds with interpretation This should be enough usage to get you over that hump that was mentioned previously. I do notice that things return or loop a few times, but you do vary up each return so that it's not the exact same thing playing again (which is good). I.e. Adding a different instrument, rhythm, or melodic variation. You manage to keep the arrangement fresh and it changes right when it needs to, especially with a 10 second source to utilize. Production is solid throughout. My only nitpick is 2:27-2:33 gets a bit too busy to really be clear with all of the parts going on at the same time. Considering it was just a quick spot of that it's not a deal breaker for me, just would like to point it out as it could lead to issues if there was more. Overall, very nice track. I dug this quite a bit, and would love to see this passing. Good luck on your resub!
  5. Can you please link the original source? I've been searching for it and keep finding covers or versions from the other games. I hear that it's Stones from the series but if you can please link me to the original source I can give you more accurate feedback.
  6. [This is an automatically generated message] I've reviewed your remix and have returned it to Work-in-Progress status, indicating that I think there are some things you still need to work on. After you work on your track and feel that it's ready for submission to OCR, please change the prefix back to Ready for Review and someone will review it again. Good luck!
  7. Evaluation: For starters, let me just start out by saying welcome to the community. You have very solid production values here, samples executed cleanly and mixed down well. 0:12 was that Megaman X buster charging sound effect?? I like how your beat and the bassline work together to be a cohesive unit. 1:15 is exactly where you should be going with this, excellent mini-solo and interpretation on the theme. So what's the problem? The length of the track. There's a lot to work with in the original that can be developed or expanded upon. While we do get some cool solo at 1:11-1:33, I don't feel that it's enough for a piece that's only 1:56 and is very stylistically similar to the original. You even use the orchestral hits just like in the original. In the submission standards it says section 1. Format: What could work is if you really expand out some more interpretation on the themes and ideas from the original to help extend the length more and show even more of your own take on it. It's a solid start thus far, and I look forward to seeing what you can do with it. Work on those things and check back in.
  8. [This is an automatically generated message] I've reviewed your remix and have set it to Completed status, indicating that I think your remix is ready to be submitted to the Judges Panel. Congratulations! If you feel like you still need to work on your track and want more feedback, you can change the prefix back to Work-in-Progress and we'll go through the review process again. If you decide to submit your track, please change the prefix to Submitted after sending your email. Thank you!
  9. Evaluation: I hear both sources used, and some interpretation on both with a little bit of originality thrown into this. Big checkmark! Your calmer B sections both come at lovely times. Tempted to see what happens when you really let loose and shred some crazy solos. Things I loved were the pads at the beginning and the huge 80s tom fill to get us to the source at 0:33. My only minor gripes are high end buzzing which can be tamed. Sounds like it's coming from a lead synth that's panned on the right side. The snare could use some variation in the velocities to help with it sounding more real and less sequenced (I'm guilty of this too). 0:45 glitch pause for the fill is awkward and doesn't quite work for me. Whenever you have the pads/strings going, you could really take this to the next level with some automation on them to get them to crescendo/decrescendo. Fix up those minor things and I think you're good to go. Big improvements from your previous track, nice work.
  10. [This is an automatically generated message] I've reviewed your remix and have returned it to Work-in-Progress status, indicating that I think there are some things you still need to work on. After you work on your track and feel that it's ready for submission to OCR, please change the prefix back to Ready for Review and someone will review it again. Good luck!
  11. Evaluation: Subtle development throughout in the bass and drums to the end of the song help keep it moving forward. Nice drum fills as well. Cool to see some live performance done as well. I would like to direct you to the submission standards https://ocremix.org/info/Submission_Standards_and_Instructions Under section 4. Arrangement, 2. Arrangements must be substantial and original. Aside from the bass and drums, the it's nearly the same as the original piece. You want to add something of your own to the arrangement, such has a new or modifying chord progression, adding solos, or changing genre or tempos. There are so many possibilities. The laid back approach you've given to the arrangement could work if you add some more of your own spin to the track. Maybe modify the melody or add a "B section" where you solo over the chord progression. In it's current state, I don't see this passing if submitted. With development it could turn into something nice and chill.
  12. Evaluation: This is a fun, quirky little arrangement. Very clean execution on your production, reminds me a lot of Sixto's (Juan Medrano) early work. 0:32 lead synth that comes in is very bright, cutting some of the high frequencies with EQ could make that lead more rounded and less grating on the ears. Not a deal breaker, but you might get nitpicked on this. Also try getting some vibrato on mod wheel or automating the vibrato on the lead synth for the longer notes. 1:41, say what...detour outta nowhere lol, and back to normal at 1:44. Interesting bridge choice, and honestly confusing considering the rest of the track doesn't sound like this at all. If you want to do a complete feel change, i'd lean into it more and extend the section so that it isn't just a head scratcher. You could have easily just extended out the feel of the previous section where you dropped the bass from 1:27-1:40, which works very well as a lovely "B" section. Not saying it doesn't work as a transition, it's just compositionally a weird choice. Which brings me to my next point... 2:01 total length, very short. While this does meet the site standards for length "Between 2 and 7 minutes in length", it does leave the listener wanting a bit more. While my comments are mostly nitpicks, I do feel there is room for growth and the added quirks are added character. I know you're new to the community and I look forward to seeing more from you. Good luck if you've already submitted.
  13. When writing for acoustic instruments the arrangement will dictate the "mud". You can get away with perfect 5ths and octaves in the very low ranges, it's when you start writing harmonic intervals closer than a 5th that it can get muddy. If you want sonic clarity you just have to avoid writing close harmony in the low ranges. Considering that a violin can only play as low as G3 (on normal tuning), it's not getting into the ranges where close harmony with the cello will get very muddy. The intervals will still sound like separate instruments and not just mud. This chart has some suggestion for ranges on intervals where they can be still distinguished as two separate notes. I do find it helpful when writing for live performance, and it can also apply to writing in other genres as well, it's just a suggestion anyways. Write as though you were thinking about actual performance, not just for a DAW to playback. While this sounds better, I do think the arrangement may still be too conservative and close to the original. Good luck on your submission.
  14. Piano trio is a lovely take for a remix. The performances generated for the strings are lovely and well executed, however; they are produced very dry. They need reverb. I expect that there will be an issue with the track passing if you already submitted it due to that. I think that the overall structure may be too close to the original for the site standards despite new part writing for the violin and cello. Despite my gripes I did enjoy this and getting the modelled strings to sound good is tough, they just need reverb for added realism.
  15. Review: Solid, very clean. New bass parts work well. Nice prominent drumming. A few minor gripes: 0:46 the ride/hat there is very similar in velocity with each hit, feels mechanical. Also stands out a lot in the mix, you could just take a little of the brightness away with some EQ on the top end (but not a deal breaker for me). Double pedal is very clean and love to hear it. I'd change this to done, but I'd leave that up to you on making any changes with the hats/cymbols. Nice work.
  16. [This is an automatically generated message] I've reviewed your remix and have returned it to Work-in-Progress status, indicating that I think there are some things you still need to work on. After you work on your track and feel that it's ready for submission to OCR, please change the prefix back to Ready for Review and someone will review it again. Good luck!
  17. Evaluation: Welcome to the forums, and thank you for posting your track for review. First off I would like to direct your attention to the following link: https://ocremix.org/info/Submission_Standards_and_Instructions Please review this carefully to understand the submission standards. One section I would like to emphasize is under section 4: "Taking the original game audio and simply adding drum loops or using an existing MIDI file and assigning new instruments does not qualify as substantial or original arrangement." So the original is in the backing here with a new beat and piano added on top. Consider making it your own track rather than something you're adding to. With regards to the production; the kick drum is much too loud compared to the rest of the track. The piano is barely noticeable and is very mechanical with little to no humanization. When played together with the beat there's even some clipping. While this would not pass the panel now, you could develop it into something more. You did chop up the source and changed tempo, that's definitely something you could build upon. There can always be more Megaman 4 remixes around.
  18. [This is an automatically generated message] I've reviewed your remix and have returned it to Work-in-Progress status, indicating that I think there are some things you still need to work on. After you work on your track and feel that it's ready for submission to OCR, please change the prefix back to Ready for Review and someone will review it again. Good luck!
  19. Evaluation: Revisions for version posted on 1/21/22 I'm so happy you worked on this and improved what was mentioned. It's a gain for sure. So much clarity was added in the sections I mentioned from before, it really helped. And thank you for making it downloadable now, I was able to take a look at this with a spectrum analyzer and see a few problem areas. 0:54 when you bring in the hihats and metallic sounds you're getting a lot of high end frequencies in the 7,900-12,000Hz range (they get as hot as 9.5 db!) They are too forward in the mix. To my ear it sounds like the hihats that are panned to the right that are the culprit here. The same thought applies to the crash type hits at 1:12. The snare is clipping. 2:15 when the new bass part comes in to accompany the source again it's a nice addition from the previous version. However, 2:41 when you use that pattern again I'm a bit thrown off by the "skips"(2:42, 2:45, 2:47 for example) in the rhythm. To my taste I don't necessarily like it, but it's a creative decision. 3:45 return to the opening theme again so now I hear those 3 source sections that I mentioned from my previous review as A B A because of the bass pattern addition to the second repeat. Improvement! Good job. The judges will take issue with how the various sections have been copied and pasted. I did mention this in my previous review. You did add the bass to help in the second return of the source melody at 2:15. I suggest maybe on the third time you add a variation to the melody to make it a little different (that could be with the rhythm, pitches, embellishments, or even effects). Anything can help it to not sound like it's been copied and pasted. This was a big step forward and a lot of improvement was made, if you address these things you will be ready for submission.
  20. [This is an automatically generated message] I've reviewed your remix and have returned it to Work-in-Progress status, indicating that I think there are some things you still need to work on. After you work on your track and feel that it's ready for submission to OCR, please change the prefix back to Ready for Review and someone will review it again. Good luck!
  21. Evaluation: Your production is great and the additions you added on top were awesome and fun. It's great that you got 2:24 out of a 7 second source. While you have added a substantial amount of new material to a very short source, this unfortunately would not fly (pun intended). Please review the submission standards: https://ocremix.org/info/Submission_Standards_and_Instructions Under section 4: Arrangement "Taking the original game audio and simply adding drum loops or using an existing MIDI file and assigning new instruments does not qualify as substantial or original arrangement." I'm hearing the original source audio being used directly in the arrangement. Chopping up the original source to arrange it in various ways may seem fitting, however; it would not pass considering the above statement in the submissions standards.
  22. Evaluation: So you say you primarily used analog synthesizers to put this together, that's rad! The way you morph and evolve each synth element from beginning to end is quite beautiful and well executed. With that said the arrangement itself is where I take issue. This is mostly the original source with slick analog work. You need to add some of your own flavors and spices to the arrangement to make it unique and your own. That could be a new section, or embellishments to the melody, or new other parts/countermelodies. A few specific notes: 1:19-1:38 with the filter on the drums here, the compression on the kick pumps too hard compared to the rest of the track. Everywhere else it's fine but here in this short section it's different. 2:01 super smooth base slide, liked this a lot. 2:13 THIS! The upper arp gliss that you added on top of everything is great. More original stuff like this is what we need to make this your own. 2:25 drum fill ending into fade out is very unfilfilling especially for a track that's only 2:48 long. In it's current state, I can't see this passing. Production is fine, it's the arrangement that needs work as indicated above. This could be a very awesome track with some work on the arrangement, and the synth work is very nice.
  23. [This is an automatically generated message] I've reviewed your remix and have returned it to Work-in-Progress status, indicating that I think there are some things you still need to work on. After you work on your track and feel that it's ready for submission to OCR, please change the prefix back to Ready for Review and someone will review it again. Good luck!
  24. Evaluation: First off, nice track name I do like that there is an element from the original that you chose to focus on and use throughout the arrangement, the arppegio that starts at 0:09. You use and morph that motif in various ways throughout the track. Lots of late 90s, early 2000s detuned super-saw type synth leads here. The detuning used to make the super-saw lead is making it less clear than it could be. Some detuning is good, but too much makes it less clear and is taking away from the strength of the lead. If you made the patch I wouldn't go more than +/- 10 cents when fine tuning the pitch on the oscillators. This will also help with clarity and help to declutter. The sections where you have a lot of drill type effects, while they sound cool; gets very busy and cluttered. Not only is it cluttered in the amount of stuff going on but also the high frequencies. This is especially the case for the sections: 0:55-1:20, 1:49-2:15, and 3:18-4:00. So my main issue with the track is the amount of repeated sections. Where we do get the source melody in it's full glory they are short, and each one is reused with not much alterations to the previous time we heard them, like a copy + paste. 1:20 - 1:30, 2:14 - 2:24, 4:02 - 4:11 should have some variation to them so they are not a direct copy and paste. 2:24 - 2:59 Long ostinato section where everything drops out and it's only the gated backing synth and drums. It's good to have sections like this that have less going on and allows for a contrast, however; this was too many repeats before the next element is introduced. The gated synth pattern gets old very fast for a section that lasts this long. You could possibly reduce this by about 15 seconds and still have the same effect. 4:12-4:48 (end) A very long fade out ending, you could easily cut at least 15 seconds of fade out so we aren't just being mercilessly pounded by that same pattern. This is also a copy and paste of the 2:24-2:59 section but with more adding one more element to it while it fades out. In summary, in it's current state I can't see this passing the panel. Add some variations to the repeated sections so they are not identical, shorten the long fade out, and declutter the busy sections. This could be a very strong track with some tinkering, and I enjoyed it.
  25. I'm interested! Keep me in the loop on this please.
×
×
  • Create New...