BlueEnvy

To make it more clear, I uploaded the kind of melodic revision I think would sound good for the 4th phrase:

Certainly it isn't easy, since it requires a mixture of creative imagination and rigor to uphold the source, but with perseverance you will become more skilled. Don't forget that others' criticism can only help make you aware of problems, and that ultimately you are the only real judge of your work and that only you can say what is good enough.

The source melody actually sounds more natural at this tempo so good choice to slow it down. On the other hand, the abrupt chord changes of the original stand out more because of reverb, especially at instances such as 1:10 and 3:34 where the previous section's harmonies bleed into the new one's. Nice intro with cool cosmic timbres, although the chord changes and tempo change at the end of it were very abrupt. Also, I agree with Penwald that 2:08 is rather bland; instead of playing a melody, the lead plays one rhythmic riff repeatedly until 3:06. It would sound better if the source melody joined in counterpoint with that riff at 2:39 rather than waiting until 3:06. Finally, I think the ending (4:03-) could have been improved a lot if the background harmony's dynamic was gradually tapered so that the oscillating semi-percussive sound gradually came into the foreground instead of starting in it the second it enters.

The main issue with this mix is that the arrangement is purely ornamental. The harmony, structure, and instrumentation of the music remains essentially the same but with varied instrumental lines. In the future, try to develop the source more - use it as a base from which to expand into new territory, so that the music represents both the original and something else altogether. You can think of it like a sculpture: the original is the clay that the remix is made of, yet when you look at it you don't see a pile of clay, you see a sculpture. The clay has been given a new shape and transcended its original form. If this analogy isn't clear to you I could give an example of a remix on the site which exemplifies it. Most of them to more or less extent embody it.

The arrangement in this mix is too conservative; you should work to manipulate the source more, since currently the structure is essentially the same. Some important things to watch out for based on the current WIP are: -Textural monotony: the same set of instruments play in every section and in the same roles (i.e. piano always playing melody.) Notice how in sections of the original such as 0:21 the guitar lead drops out and is replaced by strings + crystal-pad(or w/e) for variety. In your mix the piano plays the melody in both corresponding sections. -Using the piano for melody: the piano has a rather transparent sound, and doesn't always fit well as lead; I think a more dominant synth sound would be better suited here.

I third the "piano is not organic enough" crit (only for the solo in the beginning), and if you want a specific explanation of how to redo the dynamics I can definitely post one. The flute suffers from lack of articulation, so there are many times where it sounds weak and quiet when it should be more pronounced. It sounds like you need a flute sample with a variety of articulations instead of only one. In comparison to the other instruments, the synth has a somewhat thin timbral texture, and many of the drum sounds could be amp-ed. As for the arrangement, I have a few suggestions: first is that you ought to try resolving the suspension when the upbeat bass riff in the piano starts at 0:49, then switch back to the suspended chord like normal at 0:56. The music comes to somewhat of a standstill just before 0:49, and it will sound more natural if the suspension resolves, i.e. one bar before like this: (transposed) G+C+F(8th) - Bb(8th) - C(8th) - F(8th) - A+C+F(Xth(sustained, at least as a half note)) Second, the solos in general have a lot of room for improvement. The synth solo gets hung up on a sustained note at 1:46, and there is rhythmic and melodic stagnancy at 1:48-1:51, 1:56, and when the same lick as at 1:50 is repeated again at the end of its second half at 2:01. 1:56 can be easily remedied by changing the notes from triplets to 16ths. The electric piano solo suffers from the same problem as 1:48-1:51, with 2:24-2:36 repeating the same lick too many times. Finally, a couple things about the ending: I really like the surge at 2:50, but the strict rhythm of the piano leading up to it sounds bad given all the syncopation prior. The bass note at 2:55 should enter slightly earlier, just after the final note in the piano's rise at 2:54. Also, the ending is abrupt and sounds strange using a motif which occurs in the middle of a phrase in the original. It would be better for the synth to just sustain on the high note, but perhaps there is a better revision.

{Referring to the four major sections as A, B, A', and C and assuming the track is in a minor for convenience.} I love the original synth work you added over the source's background music in section A'; consider adding a fourth phrase, which would finish the melodic build up and help accelerate energy-wise into section C. Also, the last note in the 2nd phrase might sound better as a high g rather than low b. Instead of the fade-out of the synth before leading into section B, try leaving it at full dynamic, or at least diminuendo less, because it sounded strange for it to disappear completely. The fourth phrase in B has too much variation to serve as a smooth continuation of the melody. Something like (assuming the key were a minor) - d-16th -> e-16th -> g-16th -> a-16th -> g-16th -> a-16th -> d-16th -> d#-16th -> e-8.5th -> g-16th(+8th-rest) -> c-4.5th -> e-16th -> c-16th -> d-8th -> e/c-16th -> a-16th+4th *-> c-16th -> b-8th -> a-16th -> g-16th -> a-16th -> e-16th -> g-8.5th gliss^ -> a (alternate 1) *-> d-16th -> c-8th -> b-16th -> a-16th -> b-16th -> **e-16th -> g-8.5th gliss^ -> a (alternate 2) **-> 16th-rest -> e-8.5th gliss^ -> a - would sound better (hope you can read this notation; if not, I'll clarify.) I also like the idea of having a glissando into A', as it might better set up for the entrance of those synth lines, which you have doing quick downward glissandi. Section C seems the least organized, but perhaps that's because it was the least worked on so far. One thing to suggest is shortening the orchestral hits at the end, since they drag with how long their current duration is. Hope to hear a new draft or finished version soon!

Something I've noticed about your mixes Joshua is that the solos tend to compromise the otherwise tight organization in which the rest of the piece is held. They have good sections, but usually lose their energy and direction. For example, 1:54 is rather jolting since it comes after an abrupt pause, is an octave (of which there are none previously in the solo), is only one short note (as opposed to the fluid lines before it), is in a lower range, and breaks from all the syncopation, emphasizing the meter very strongly. Another moment is 2:03 where the energy from the rising line is lost due to sudden sustained notes whose rhythm is out of place. The guitar solo later has similar issues. So far your best solos have been in Samurai Discoteque and Higher than the Sun, which had really good rhythmic and melodic tension. Aside from that, this mix is still a pretty good translation of the original into a smooth jazz piece, and I include it along with other music of yours that I listen to while rollerblading.

The section that features piano about a third through is quite messy. There is no direction to the lines, and the three pianos (distinguished by volume and pan) fight for space and recognition. Their lines are often broken by each other, but not in a way that allows tension to be suspended and then picked up after each interjection; they wander rather aimlessly, rather than acting in a counterpoint with each other where each line can be traced audibly to move with purpose. Some articulations sound strange and I would consider at least resequencing if you decide not to revise the notes themselves. As a whole, there needs to be more direction. Since the harmony remains static throughout, you need to build energy in some other way. You might try buildling melodic lines in juxtaposition as the music progresses so that by the end there is a denser mass of frenetic energy. You could still use the delayed piano lick at the end, but crescendo towards it instead of meekly fading out. Another option is to manipulate harmony more, which could be more difficult, but equally redeeming. And I wouldn't say no to combining direction in both texture/melody and harmony.

1. This was definately not supposed to or should have sounded like baroque music. The organs also aren't the type of organs that are found in Bach's music. 2. Schoenberg does not define modern music. He created the twelve tone row, which was popular for a certain period of time but has since died out in popularity.

Just, wacky...In a good way. Mazedude has wonderful versatility, I didn't ever think he would come up with something this weird The simple pattern in the background gets a little tiring but there's still enough to listen to. Hey if Shnabubula likes it, then it must be good

The first half of this did nothing for me. Melody+Chords+Harp for the most part. I'm not saying the combination is bad, but with the wind fish melody and the chords you chose was rather boring. 1:34 to 1:35 with the horns was nice. The jazzy section was better, but didn't last very long. Overall quite nice & clean balancing of instruments, however sometimes slightly muddled. Strings have some weird attack issues as well at some points. As for realistic? No, but only a very small amount of orchestral remixes have sounded close to like a real orchestra. The ending would've been a lot more climatic if the forte piano notes were held longer before the last timpani hits.

I like the distorted drums, however, they fade in and out a little too much for me. Samples were for the most part good, with the exception of the flute. There's flute in that part of the original too I believe, and I think I would have changed to a different instrument/sound based on all the background and sound effects going on but its all personal choice. The arrangement was interesting, transitions were done well most of the time to get the effect of rapidly transforming into new things. The mix is rather centered around two chords a lot of the time, but with all the other changes it's tolerable. A nice rainbow of colors.

Dang Gray, this is great. It seems as of lately you have been working in lots of tempo changes to your music. I like it The transitions and tempo changes work well. The energy has great highs and lows. That sitar work (or whatever the specific instrument is) is really good, its great to hear it in a mix. Great job producing an epic mix, and paying more tribute to Mitsuda, which is always good blue

This is quite the mix. It's great how many different elements are thrown together. The main problem with having so many different sections featuring different musicians is that there are little/no real transitions into each section. More developed/smooth and longer transitioning would make this better. There are some ok switches, and I do recognize that there is the limit of 6 mb...so under that constraint I would say this was still pulled off fairly well. Fun arranging, there are lots of interesting ideas. I only wish more sense could be made of the song as a whole. blue