Jump to content

prophetik music

Contributors
  • Posts

    8,009
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    33

1 Follower

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
  • Steam ID
    prophetikmusic

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

21,160 profile views

prophetik music's Achievements

  1. there's my last vote (i voted on the original as well). let's see where this is. i agree that the main lead in most of the track is super blah - there's some fun sweeping synths in the background, and then the lead's just this boring hornet that doesn't really do much. i also agree that everything needs to be turned down a lot since the compressor's constantly engaged. 2:07's noodly bit is just a bit too much out of time. the hats throughout are a bit too loud which obviates anything else in that space. there's some really great stuff here! the 303 that's going during the first break around 1:00 sounds great, and there's some variety in the background which is great. i still like the arrangement and the ending sounds good. i think the drums sound a lot better overall (although the hats are essentially just static, probably due to FL's multiband pegging out on them since they're too loud), but the heavy compression used to 'fix' peaking is causing it to be pretty tiresome on the ears. turning down most of the instruments by the same amount, addressing that really blah hornet lead, and ensuring that it's not compression city will probably be enough for a yes from me. NO
  2. couple of classic tracks here. liz sounds fantastic in the intro here. i love the palm-muted guitar as well. there's some aggressively panned bells in the right ear that's a little strong around 1:30, but i think the occasional harmonies are just so well-done. the ritard going into 1:49 is really delicately handled too. 1:50's shift is great. liz's stylistic shift really fits the funk going on behind her. the band's a big loud around her when everyone's going, but overall the sound is pretty great. the whole section from 2:35 through about 2:55 has a bunch of gating on everything as well that sounds great to provide contrast. the transition to Still Alive was pretty sudden overall and not super prepared, but it's not bad, just unexpected and a bit of a tangent shift. i liked the build through this section, and at 5:00 it sounds pretty awesome with the vocals in the left ear, although the track is noticeably heavier in that ear until the end of the track. the extended chord at the end is dope and a great creative way to end the track. overall this is a great performance, and it's a really fun arrangement. i felt the snare and the kick are a bit head-heavy (notably the snare doesn't have much pop and the kick's head is pretty high), which i'm guessing was intentional, but i felt it kinda clogged the middle a bit as a result. my other complaint is that the panning in this track overall is pretty significant. the bari sax is heavy in the left ear throughout, the bells when they're playing are heavy in the right ear, and the high voice is heavy in the left ear at the end. there's significant differences in the RMS between the two ears for most of the track. if i have a suggestion for future tracks, the panning on this track could easily be cut back by half and it'd still do what it's supposed to do. ultimately the arrangement and performance pulls it up for me. like i said earlier, liz's vocals are delightful and well handled, and the band's overall sound and tight performance is great. my mastering complaints aren't enough to keep this off the front page. looking forward to more submissions from such a talented group of musicians. YES edit 11/15: same as MW, i didn't recognize the references but they break the standards. a sad NO for this one from me.
  3. i didn't vote on the original, so i'm coming in clean. it's so mushy. the opening 25 seconds are some fun chippy stuff over a bucket of guacamole. it seriously sounds like the bass is next door and it's being recorded through the wall. the chips have some really fun performance parts, and there's some really fun ideas with the arrangement chirping up here and there. but the guitars are very lossy (and panned pretty far left), and the bass is just very low-heavy. the drums suffer a lot because you can't hear the kick or head impacts hardly at all, and the high end seems to be pretty cut out. i'm echoing the others here. this needs to be brighter by a lot. some serious notching to shelf in your different non-chip instruments will help a lot too so there's not so much in the same area. NO
  4. track is very short, about 2:05 in total. opening is marcato strings, flowing into the melody in winds with harmonies in the strings. the background is pretty static. there are some crunchy notes in here (the quintal harmony in the brass (?) at 0:29, the ascending harmony has a wrong note in it right after that as well), and it's fairly simple backgrounds. there's a significant tonal shift and a really fun/funky breakdown of the background at about 0:54. it's much less blocks-of-sound here but i like a lot of the interesting sound design going on here, especially the sliding plectral instrument. this kinda just keeps repeating, though - at 1:27 i expected something to happen, and it kinda just keeps grooving along. there's a bit more at 1:44, but it feels just layered on top and not properly balanced into the rest of the mix. then the track ends with a flourish. from a mastering perspective, the middle has a much lower RMS than the rest of the track and it felt pretty light. also whatever instrument comes in at 1:44 is not really fit into the soundscape, but just put on top of it, so it sounds very crowded suddenly. this is a tale of two halves. the orchestral opening is pretty boring, honestly, and the non-chord tones don't sound intentional. the melody's very static and plodding with no real humanization in there, so it sounds pretty fake. the second part, with the drumkit and stuttered guitar parts, is way more cool and does some fun stuff. it definitely sounds underdeveloped though - even going through the melodic content again at 1:27 and then doing your section from 1:45ish out would have added enough content that i'd call it good. but as is, it's a tech demo that's barely two minutes long. this needs more content, and more attention to the orchestral opening section and the last 20 seconds. NO
  5. high rms and pretty loud mastering overall right off the bat. melody is apparent right from the beginning. there's some playiing with the B theme to mix it up (and some interesting chord choices to make it work). the A theme comes back pretty quickly and we get a little expansion with new instrumentation. there's a switch to triple meter right where it was starting to get a little static at 1:06, and some FF7 battle theme-esque riffs with a distorted synth. there's a bit of a break at about 1:48 and it comes back to duple for a recap that's very similar in instrumentation to the opening A/B section. this is honestly a pretty decent attempt using a not-DAW to make music. the mastering is pretty blown out, there's some funky notes in a few places (you settle on some non-chord tones around 0:26-0:30, and there's a reliance on a b7 between 2:06-2:14 that sounds odd), and the static nature of the synths throughout starts to get repetitive pretty quickly. i don't know what kind of flexibility you have in the app you're using, but if you're able to make it sound not so over-compressed and mix up your synth usage a bit more so it doesn't feel copy/paste from section to section, you'd have a pretty fun little track on your hands i think. right now i think there's too much repetitive texture usage and it's too blown out to consider. NO
  6. a quick intro leads into the first source track. the band sound is solid and i like the organ work. there's good variety in the groove and it's well-performed. clear transition at 1:25 into the next track, and again it's well-handled. i like the technical approach to the melodic content. the breakdown at 2:33 and subsequent slow build is great. especially around 4:00 i really started to groove with it. the last track at about 4:25 doesn't even really sound like a new track, it's just natural progression. the last minute's octave melodic parts are just great. ending was a tiny bit weak after such aggressive riffs but it's not a problem. i'm really impressed. never lost the melody, never thought the approach was overly cover-ish or too disparate from the original, and the band sounds great. excellent job. easy vote. YES
  7. the opening is pretty rough. the snare sample is super electric and sounds pretty weird being machine-gunned like it is. the bass has a fun tone but it's panned and also has a ton of sub-bass, which makes it sound muddy (and it'll sound worse on a big-sub system). the kick is also panned oddly and is mostly beater sound without any bass, which is an odd sound. the pitch-shifting of the snares is an interesting idea, but not shifting the formants as well makes them sound kinda odd when they get farther from their natural pitch. at 0:41, there's some of the melodic content coming in. the synth work here still features too much bass, but i liked the block chords idea (they're still a little spare and an octave too low IMO). the lead synth is a fun tone and clearly delineates the melodic content, so that's good. there's an obvious loop point, and we go through the build-up to the melody again, which comes in at 2:20. i did like the glide synth for the arp, and that was a neat change, but other than that it felt pretty much the same as the first time through the same material with no break in between. at 2:55, there's a synth-only part that noodles around some bits of melody that builds back up into the rest of the groove. it was a nice break from the original idea, but i started to get tired of the lead at this point. the song noodled some more around the initial riff of the melodic content and then sorta ended. overall this one needs a lot of workshopping from the synth and instrument choice side, i think. the drums sound strange - they feel like they're in an electronic song but you're using them in a classical fashion, and it doesn't do them any favors i don't think. the synths are mostly static throughout - some shifting timbres and new instruments part-way through would help relieve some of the oppressiveness of the repetition. beyond that, i'd think hard about putting a hard EQ on most of your synths so they don't sound so muddy and bleed into sub-bass range. this one isn't there yet. NO
  8. hey bloominglate! you're right in that staff have lives too, and stuff happens or doesn't happen in those lives occasionally 😃 we're still voting away busily over here! and dave keeps going through his checklist of site updates when he has time.
  9. classic tune here. also, you went with polygonjohn instead of polyjohn? missed opportunity filtered drums and some sfx start this track off, along a very bass-heavy bass and some quiet bells. the melody comes in at 0:35 with some nicely-sequenced gliding synth. this does a nice job sitting back on the beat which fits the background well. there's a silence break at 1:22, and a fade-out for the last 25 seconds of the song featuring a bit of noodling on the A section of the melody. aaaaaaaand...that's it. the melodic content takes up less than a minute by itself. so this isn't going to pass since there's nowhere near enough development here to call it. things that i liked included the general vibe of the drumloop (more creativity and fill use there would help a lot as the track's duration progresses past where it is now), the automation on the melody (i'm a sucker for glides), and the approach overall of a more relaxed version of the original track. i did not care for how bass-heavy this is. there's a lot of overlap between the bass synth and the chorded bell tones - those need to be squared off with an EQ so there's not so much mud in the low end. adding a bit more highs overall to both instruments would actually help i think - it's very low/low-mid focused, and while that can help it feel relaxed it also makes it harder to tell what's what. i also don't understand not including the B section of the melody on a track that is so short. even just a single run-through of that bit would have helped lengthen the track by 20 or 30 seconds, which is approaching what i'd consider the minimum. on the topic of arrangement, this definitely feels like a demo. mixing it up in instrumentation, chords, or style with a second run-through of the (entire) melody would add a lot to the track and help wrap it up into less of a demo and more of a finished duration. overall this is too short to really consider. there's some really nice ideas but it needs more content. NO
  10. some interesting instrumentation to start this one off, with some equally interesting sound design choices. there's a fun groove though once everything comes in at 0:14. i like the synth bass's attention to articulation and the really nice automation on the guitar. the percussion is fun as well although i'd like to hear more consistent fills around transition points. speaking of that, the overall track just keeps evolving which is really neat. there's some downtempo break sections, there's some fun string pizz stuff and a flexible flute, and some fun harmon-muted trumpet with some backing organ that's real understated and nice. there's another not-transition at 2:54 to a pretty robotic section driven by what's supposed to be like an upright bass but just comes across as feeling too automated (i have the same gripe for the earlier part that featured this, but it wasn't as obvious there due to more going on, but it's sounding really similar outside of the percussion), and then a pretty nice ritard into a very chill ending. from an arrangement perspective. the opening section is clearly derived from the chords in the intro of the original, and the initial slide guitar around 0:35 is definitely a dressed-up version of the original's melody for the first section. that initial ascending and descending riff shows up in several other instruments throughout as well. overall there's some filler and groove sections but i think that there's enough here to call it enough source. i will say that i didn't like the walking bass sections at all, and thought not only did they sound extremely similar in the bass and strings but also the bass just sounded bad. there's so much rhythmic variation and articulation used throughout the rest of the track that a bunch of eighth notes strung together (in non-idiomatic ways, i feel) with no flips or occasional rhythmic variation sounds weird. overall though this one hits enough points to pass. i like the percussion throughout, i like the variety in lead instruments, and i like the attention to detail most of the time. this has a great vibe. YES
  11. starts off real peaceful with some pretty piano and strings. from there the flute and strings pick up the main melodic section over some rhythmic strings. this is fairly straightforward writing but it's competent and sounds nice. there's a break for the piano at about 1:04, and this is really well played/sequenced again. we get back into the full group at 1:47, and the arrangement is again in the flute and then strings. this is very similar to the earlier section from 0:25-1:04, nearly copy/paste territory. there's a fun brass chorale at 2:32, and some string ensemble work to follow that up. the solo violin isn't great quality but it's passable. a light flourish in the bells and we're done. this feels very pokemon, which is pretty nice. the copy/paste section though is pretty egregious. the intro, piano solo section, and ensemble section at the end is really nice, however, and throughout the ensemble writing is pretty solid. this could probably go either way for me, but some more creativity in that second copy/paste section and this is an easy pass in my book. NO
  12. ooh, love the rhodes right at the beginning. there's a nice clear soundscape at the beginning. snare's a touch loud but it isn't overpowering. melody comes in at 0:27 and it's got a lot of personalization. the synth choice is a bit squishy and hard to hear with so many notes. there's a genre switch at 0:56 as a b-section with a more traditional jazz groove in keeping with the original, and then it goes back to the funkier layout. next section features some original solo content, but it does feel pretty inspired by the original melody. this goes back to the melody with a lighter background for a bit before going back to where it was. around here i noticed that the drums have mostly sat on the same groove for the entire song, but the personalization in the fills and the ride groove they shift to during the jazzier sections helped out. there's some more leaning on the buzzy synth's riff and then it closes up. this is a nicely-handled track in my opinion. there's some nice personalization, the solo's great, the instrumentation compliments it well, and it's well-mastered. this one's easy for me. YES
  13. yeah, the lack of room verb or body on the piano is really obvious right off the bat. there's some wrong notes in it too that can't be attributed to the style - like the second note at 0:34. this kind of burlesque playing loves purposefully incorrect notes but they've gotta be leaned into. clashing notes in the background are just wrong, not quirky. i'm at 1:20 and i still can't shake that this is the background and half the instruments are missing. i like the idea of an approach that's less a large ensemble and more a small group, but it feels very empty throughout. the ending is odd. it sounds like the instruments start to fade out, but there's a clearly defined ending that actually wraps it pretty good. i don't know if the dynamic shifts are intentional. there's some interesting ideas that can come from small-ensemble work like this, but this still feels very disjointed and like it's missing too much to string it together. a key component of small ensemble writing is that all parts need to be equal contributors, or at least roughly equal, and that doesn't feel like the case here. as a result it sounds like piano and random sfx instead. the keys sound odd, but the arrangement needs more to tie it together beyond the (admittedly pretty good outside of the unsupported wrong notes) piano writing. NO
  14. what an interesting original. i haven't heard of this one. there's some really great stuff going on here. the original's very atmospheric, and the way that you approached this aspect and made it your own is really fun. there's some fun fm-ish bells in here, lots of swelling synths, some heavily filtered percussion in the intro, and then it fleshes out into a really fun half-synthwave feel. the concatenation of a half-time beat and 16th notes in the synths is really interesting. the piano that comes in at 2:17 is also great, it's very metallic and feels like it fits this future-retro spacey feel really well. the track develops really slowly but it doesn't feel like it's dragging. there's a break at 3:12, and the synth work here continues to be pretty nuanced and interesting. this feeds up into a heavily sfx'd version of the texture of the first section. the electro synth-guitar does a nice job singing out over the top of all of the chaos under it. the ending is sudden but not problematic. this sounds great and brings to light a great original. excellent work. YES
  15. this really is heavily limited. it's notable right off the bat and makes my ears tired very quickly. the intro is interesting, and i like the groove. the melody intro is also interesting, and it's clear what track this is from right away. i liked the use of stereo in this section especially. there was little personalization but playing with the stereo effects were neat. the break at 1:36 was needed and well-timed. the second melody coming in at 1:45 was a lot more rigid and i felt this wasn't as well handled. there's not as much creativity in the background here and the melody is just kinda played through. 2:36 brought in some stuttered kicks to fit into the melody, and i didn't like this either. for a track that was very predicated on groove, it felt very offputting. there's a recap of the first melody and then an outro. the mastering here really was difficult. it's extremely bass-heavy and the mastering feels like it was just a matter of applying a limiter and leaving it at that. the melody is easily audible throughout, so it's volumized at least passably well, but i felt like the bass was straight-up oppressive. on a bass-heavy system like a car this will sound like mud for nearly the entire track. i like the feel a lot, but given how conservative the arrangement was (the melody lines could have been dropped into the sequencer from a midi and i wouldn't know the difference) and how messy the lower EQ is, i think this needs another pass. NO
×
×
  • Create New...