prophetik music

Contributors
  • Content Count

    7,741
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    30

1 Follower

About prophetik music

  • Rank
    Judge, Chronopolis/Thieves of Fate/Threshold of a Dream Director

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Rochester, NY

Converted

  • Biography
    i like ultimate frisbee, pizza, playing games, and my wife and children.
  • Real Name
    Bradley Burr
  • Occupation
    IT
  • Xbox Live Gamertag
    prophetofsax

Artist Settings

  • Collaboration Status
    2. Maybe; Depends on Circumstances
  • Software - Digital Audio Workstation (DAW)
    FL Studio
  • Composition & Production Skills
    Arrangement & Orchestration
    Synthesis & Sound Design

Recent Profile Visitors

14,998 profile views
  1. i remember this one from the album. i believe simultaneously that i thought this was a fun listen and that it had some real problems in the mastering department, and MW hit them on the head. even i think it's cluttered, and i think it's way too long as well. that lead at 2:42 is so surprising because there's a lot of pretty interesting sounds that i've heard up to this point, and then you bring in something that sounds like the actual VST didn't load, and double down on it at 3:09. it just is so much louder than everything else, and it demolishes some really fun sound design behind it. i think that this needs to be a few minutes shorter, and it needs to have some of the mid-level noise removed and the rest slotted in better so it doesn't sound so muddled. some simple updates and this will be a much more cohesive and coordinated track. NO
  2. the addition of classic battle mode allayed the one real fear i had about this release. i'm not preordering it, but i'm certainly willing to pay full price after it's out if the reviews aren't a mess.
  3. so, that's the gist of my original NO vote. let's see how this has been updated. i need to admit - it's nice to see that so many of my initial criticisms were taken to heart! you clearly adjusted the headroom, you reduced the beginning, gave it more of an ending, focused on bringing out the high end in the drums...all major points i brought up. i like the ending and the beginning a lot more now, which essentially addressed my major concerns on the arrangement side, so that's great to see. the production is still sub-par. the kit still sounds like it isn't real, but now it sounds like there's a highpass on it, cutting out all mids whatsoever. the snare is essentially a hat due to there being zero head sound, and the toms sound filtered as well. i don't hear a kick at all outside of some sub-freqs that are speaking - no beater sound whatsoever until 1:40 - and that lack really hurts the overall sound since there's nothing anchoring it. beyond that, the bass is much less quack-y, now, which is great - but it's almost unable to be heard since it's so far in the back. it needs more presence in the upper frequencies - or some adjustment to the EQ - to really speak where it is now. the whole thing is turbo-scooped too - there's nothing in the mids, it seems. there's also still what sounds like some level of distortion due to high signal at 1:30-1:31, which looks roughly like what i called out at 1:45 last time around. i definitely think this is closer. i think if you're able to square up those drums so they sound more like a dance kit and less like the drums you use in an intro before the real kit comes in, it'll fix the issue it has right now where the EQ is really mid-lacking. cleaning up that and that spot of peaking at 1:30 will really make for a much stronger overall track. NO
  4. i agree with rexy that the source fits this style really well. the original was already kind of doing that funk-house style, with a really present kit and a bop band behind it, and this definitely takes it farther down the euro road with the chord extensions you're hinting at in the guitar, combined with the acoustic bass and disco vibe. i also agree that there's just way too much sampled content in here. it's so busy, and that's saying something coming from me! the sampled sections clearly aren't in the same level of swing so there's conflicting off-beats, and the sampled content drags the overall fidelity of the track. i did like what the bass was playing, and felt that helped move it along. i'd recommend some space in there to let the instrument 'breathe' a bit. your groove got pretty dry pretty quick when it essentially played the same pattern for three minutes, so starting somewhere less full of notes and expanding throughout the track will help quite a bit, i think. lastly, while i really liked what the acoustic guitar was playing, it was so choppy due to whatever slicer you used to adjust the tempo that it sounds really disjointed. i really wanted it to speak cleaner and it just wouldn't. speaking of mastering, i found the kit as a whole to sound like it was in an entirely different soundscape than the rest of the track. it was very present and wide (the shaker in the right ear was really irritating maybe halfway through), and the continued shifting of the rest of the track's level of fidelity as compared to the static drums was really distracting. you can definitely do some work to volumize the rest of the instruments to level them out. there's definitely some fun moments in here. i'd love to hear more of the EP solo at 2:00, and i enjoyed the panned EP solos before that. i also overall enjoyed the presentation of the melody, and while more variation there would have been good, it was fun. i just can't however get past the constant sampling and lackluster mastering. part of french house is that the mastering really sparkles, which helps the common phaser effects and sampled old disco track bits shine through in spite of their age. i don't get that feeling here and it really makes for a track that isn't where it needs to be to pass. NO
  5. ok, i love your concept. super creative idea and i like the touches of how it influenced your remixing (like the sweeper wave you've got throughout). i also like that you just went for some interesting ways to keep it different, like bringing in the dance piano and going HAM on it in the second half (especially from 3:39 onward). i think that you ran into some limitations of the synth in that section in the piano since there's some machine-gun effect going on there, but it's still fun. i found the drum fills notably to be pretty similar throughout, which was offputting when there wasn't consistently a cymbal crash or some other beat-1 terminator at the end (like 3:25). that emphasized the drum-machine aspect of your sound software. working around that somehow would have been a positive. from the mastering side, the track was cranked pretty hard (i saw it clipping by nearly 1.5db in some places). i did like the meaty kick throughout. there was definitely some weird balance however. the keys really dominated when they came in in stacked chords at 3:40, for example, and through most of the middle of the track, the middle synths are louder than the melodic content. this is, honestly, a pretty good job considering the software limitations. if it's possible to export stems of this, having someone on a real machine (or even yourself!) mastering this in a DAW that allows for more flexibility would be a huge win. there's a few times i really wasn't into the arrangement here or there, but really the main thing influencing my vote is the mastering. i'd say that this is pretty close as-is, and a bit of attention to the details in the arrangement and mastering will really make for a great, fun, front-page track. NO
  6. oh, wow, this is really a powerful take on this track. there's so much energy and drive coming from this. i really like your choices of orchestration to keep that energy driving forward. it's too bad it's so short - when you trim out silences, it's about 1:37 long, which isn't unprecedented but it's also highly uncommon. here's the relevant part of the standards: with that in mind, i don't think this is long enough to convey the arrangement. here's why: the arrangement is - incredibly, considering the length of the entire track - repetitive. there's 30 seconds of the initial kick lead to the horn riffs, ~15 seconds of essentially an orchestral crescendo, and then we're back to the kick lead into either horn rips or choir punches. there's also about 20 seconds of the chord progression at the end as an outro that's not really tied into the original track at all from what i can hear in terms of orchestration - it uses an organ but it's a different stop from the sound of it, and it isn't effected the same way. i'm not saying that it's not represented interestingly enough, though! the overall package is exciting and entertaining. i agree with rexy that it's fairly robotic, and there's some volumization that could be done to it to balance it more, but it's a fun listen and i like it. my problem is that it's just so short and yet it goes absolutely nowhere. ultimately - this is too short to really showcase an arrangement. i agree that if it was 3 minutes of this it'd get annoying a minute into it, but realistically you just aren't showing enough material to determine if it's actually an arrangement or not here. it needs more content. NO
  7. from a production standpoint, i had to go through several sets of audio options before i found something that actually voiced your sub-bass tones properly. while that's fun, i feel like there's a lot missing in this track without those tones (it's even more empty without them), so having something that the majority of audio options can't represent is a problem in my book. beyond that, i'd argue that the main body of the track is undercompressed, in that the kick caused the mix to go 1.2db over every time it hits. adding some compression without losing the pretty nice dynamics and soundscape that you lay out is a must. i definitely don't feel that the kick is too loud, but there's room to adjust the balance so that it doesn't cause distortion. further compression, as you'd see in youtube or other media, would only emphasize this distortion more. from an arrangement perspective, i really liked the idea of ignoring the melody entirely, as the arpeggio is a clear and representative part of the source. the track's immediately recognizable, although i wouldn't complain if there was some melodic material in there. i agree with rexy though that it simply doesn't do anything. it's fun to hear it fade in and out, but there needs to be some level of transformation in order to call it 'arrangement'. i don't see that here. there is a conflicting note at 1:28 that's super distracting as well. i can't tell if it's the sub-bass playing two notes simultaneously, or just a result of the stutter synth being low, but it's obnoxious with the bass turned up (to hear those low tones in the first place). ultimately, although the track is fun to listen to, there's some issues on both the production and arrangement side that cause this to miss muster. i don't think it'd be difficult to add in some more melodic content in an arranged fashion to make this more your own, or to fix the mastering so it doesn't peak constantly, and that'll make a better track overall as a result. NO
  8. ima start you off with this: son you shut your mouth or so help me! what a silly fun opening. i definitely feel the talk-show band feel. i love the goofy sfx you throw in there as well. i enjoy the big drum sound and the really in-your-face bass sound - i can't believe that any part of that bass is boo bass, but at least it's thematically relevant. my complaint, as it is, is that it's real, real short. it's essentially through the melody twice with some goofball noise effects thrown in before each time through. from an arrangement perspective, too, while there's some interesting application, it's essentially note-for-note with the original. i think we just can't count this on that perspective. there really needs to be more transformation applied to this, be it via some changes to the melody line, altered chords, time sigs...anything to say it's yours and not just koji with drums. i can't count the sound effects and other weirdo stuff that gives this track charm, either, because they're not source material unfortunately. unfortunately, while this is an entertaining track, i can't vote for it. the arrangement is essentially nonexistent. another take on the lead guitars changing around some of the melodic line, or some more creativity in how you're adapting this track, and this is a quick yes vote from me. NO
  9. i struggled for a few listens to really get the hang of the five-bar 4/4 phrase you're using. for judge reference, here's what it is. note just how janky this is. this is for two main reasons: you're still using the leading motion in the baseline (G-A-Bb, Bb-C), but you're using them in uncomfortable places. the nature of leading motion is to move TO somewhere, and having it at the beginning or middle of a bar is very disconcerting from an ear perspective. you start by reinforcing the beat, to a point, but then you essentially don't have a downbeat for the last half. the first 12 beats are on-beat, and everything after that is on the upbeat. either of these by themselves would be fine, but this sounds super weird in context - it essentially feels like you drop a half-beat in the middle of it somewhere. i don't even care about the 5-bar phrases, like rexy mentioned. the offbeats sound straight-up wrong, and it prevents me from sitting into the groove. it's exacerbated at 0:54 when you bring in the higher synth - which is still in 3/4! - layered on top of your five-bar 4/4 phrase. this is real strange too because 5-bar phrases of 4/4 will only rarely sync up with a repeated 3-beat phrase. and this is exacerbated even further because you don't make enough distinction between each 5-bar instance. so it's impossible to hear where you 'are' in each phrase. essentially it sounds really confused the entire time, like it's limping or something. and it's real difficult to listen to as a result. this doesn't take into account that the arrangement is simple if not too little. there's not enough personalization to the melody to really call it more than dumping in the theme on top of the backgrounds as it was in the original. beyond that, i found the soundscape repetitive at best, as there's essentially four or five synths used for the entire track with what sounded like two fills - one with snares and one with a ride hit. when the kick comes in for real and isn't being low-passed, the kick sounds ok but the drums as a whole don't sound quite as punchy as i'd expect. i think some of that comes from how much presence the bass instrument has - i really think dialing that back a touch and notching the kick in better into the low end would make a big difference. i really wasn't feeling this one. the arrangement was lackluster, the 5-bar background really turned me off (if that wasn't obvious), and the soundscape got really tired pretty quickly. my suggestion is to tear this back to the bolts and find a fresh and clear way to reinforce your odd phrase length, since that's the real unique thing about this arrangement. once you've got that, you can build up a background that fits that (rather than just repeats the same thing over and over). until this, this doesn't reach the bar. NO
  10. this track has so much more identity to it now compared to before. the removal of some of the repetition and addition of more character in the background and percussion is great. an example of how you've reinforced this from start to finish is the consistent use of acciaccatura in the melody line (this is the accented delayed stepwise motion at the end of each phrase). using it throughout and then echoing it in the inverse in the rhythm of that great arpeggio synth that sneaks in around 3:30ish is a great payoff moment. i don't know if you did it on purpose but they dovetail really well together and i love that. this one's easy. YES
  11. i haven't had a chance to play nier automata but it's on the list for sure - it looks really interesting.
  12. i really like the big whooshy pads and arp at the beginning, and the drums at 0:45 set a really nice mood here. i noticed that the drums repeat early, but i figured you're setting a groove that you'll work with later... ...and then, like, nothing changed for three minutes. as rexy said, you essentially are covering the source. there's some fun synth work on the melody, and there's some great tooling with the transitions from section to section, but it's a cover - and a repetitious one, because the drums are the same the whole time! it's particularly troublesome to hear this when there's such a great soundscape developed that just isn't getting used. you did a great job making a track that sounds great and has a lot of body to the soundscape. from a suggestion standpoint, there's a lot of straightforward ways to add arrangement in a functional way. varying the chord structure is a common and easy one, but even adding your own characterization to the melody (so it's not the exact same rhythm and notes as the original) would help a ton. original sections, a solo section, some exploratory work into the melodic progression...anything to give it something new, to put your stamp on it. ultimately, the lack of true arrangement means that there's just not enough here to call front page material. NO
  13. i'll take you one step farther, rexy - the arrangement isn't underwhelming, it's...kind of boring. it's essentially a playthrough of both tracks, and then it ends (with less than 2:30 of real content). i'd argue that the orchestration isn't even particularly grabbing, either - it's a lot of tutti on the melody with a single bassline/background part, and that's about it. there's a little sustained pad backgrounds in the 1:00 area and that's about it. even the more energetic Hidden Village section is really tedious-sounding thanks to that really poorly-used harpsichord (of all the clavicymbalum family of instruments, the harpsichord relies on the pedal the most for it's unique sound!), and it just has machine-gun quality that set my teeth on edge right away. i might sound like i think it's terrible, and that's not the case. the sweeping strings on the melody are very evocative in the first half, and there's some interesting percussion which definitely would benefit from some reduction of boom/sustain on them (eq does wonders to orchestral toms!). but the arrangement is just very uninspired, and the use of samples doesn't help much. NO
  14. what an elegant arrangement, jerome. i fully expected to go into this complaining about too much source and not enough arrangement with that murderer's row of soundtracks, but this was delightful! there's a ton of really beautiful arrangement here, with some really pleasant nuance in how you've applied it to an intentionally sparse soundscape. i hear elements of klaus badelt (first pirates movie soundtrack) and some of zimmer's earlier stuff like atlantis in how you've applied instrumentation. 1:15 is stellar from a scoring standpoint and pleasing from an application standpoint. going from that, i do feel that there's a few parts that are too sparse and are calling for both more scoring background and better samples. 2:09 is screaming for a meaty full-orchestra background to a better brass sample, and so is 2:42. the consistent shift in ensemble is great, though, and it continues to showcase an eye for ear-catching timbres. great work through and through. i'm gonna call out MW and say that there's zero dissonance that isn't intentional and well-placed. the section at 3:25 is clumsy in the melody, but the bassline walking up is an intentional decision to add some stress to an active melody that otherwise is going nowhere. i also didn't feel that there were any awkward key changes - i found the shift at 2:25 to be a refreshing break from a style that would quickly get tiresome if repeated (also, it's the same key!), and 2:47 was strong but actually pretty well executed i thought. that said, i can see why that one would be polarizing since it's a dramatic shift in style that maybe needed a measure or two more of breathing room to make more sense. the mastering on this is poor at best, unfortunately. the panning issue and EQ issues are notable even on a soundbar. i'm guessing your headphones don't have much bass response - or, more likely, that you're using studio monitors without a sub - and it shows. imo this really holds the track back to the point that i don't consider it passable, but i do also consider it to be by far the easiest thing to fix! you've got the hard parts down. if this comes back with less aggressive panning and more sane EQing it's an instapass in my book. NO