Solarcoil 3.0

[Draconiator]

I tagged it Mod Review because I'd like an opinion on it before I resub it. The final buildup is still missing something though I can't put my finger on it....

http://tindeck.com/listen/clej

Two sources are Solar Man (MM9)

Spring Man (MM7)

[Gario]

Ooo, sexy remix.

Alright, so I've read through the previous 'RESUB' evaluation and gave this a whirl. I think it has a good chance to pass as is, but there are a few points that they might hang you up in this, still.

That main lead you use is great in the beginning, but as the track goes on it just sounds worn down and overused. I think you can get away with using the same synth, but as the track progresses change the filters it runs through, allow the highs to come out from time to time, do something to make it sound different as the track progresses. It's great once, it'd be great to return to later in the track, but as the only sustainable melodic line it just doesn't hold up that well over that period of time.

I like the extra disco elements. They sounded sex.

Toward the middle the track starts to drag. I know you add some really great flourishes to it this time around, but it doesn't feel like enough to keep me going over what is essentially is the same material again. If you stick to similar chord progressions, really cut lose with the melody - it's been played enough in the track where people will still recognize the source, even if what you present is very, very liberal. If you want the melody to stay where it is, have more fun with the harmonies, or truncate the arrangement a bit - people already got the idea the first time around. Essentially, it's a great idea, awesome merging of the sources, in fact - but twice is too much, here. Do something more radical here and people will enjoy it more.

I'm leaning on them giving this a borderline pass, as it is. I'd like to see this be a surefire, no-brainer pass. I hope this helps get this one through, since it really deserves to be up on the front page. Good luck, man.

[Modus]

This is seriously sweet with a nice, chill electronic vibe, but the low lead that comes in later sounds strange to me. It just sounds overpowering and a bit overly dopey. For me, it wears out its welcome after a while.

We'll see what the mods say though.

[WillRock]

MOD REVIEW

Ok I remember this from the GRMRB Kinda weird I can't hear any spring man, can you give me a source breakdown? I'm not hearing much source but a fair bit of seemingly original content compared to my main man gario over here.

I'm hearing plenty of solar man. Production is pretty cool, but there are a few nitpicks. One, seems there is a lot of bass here, which is ironic as the kick is pretty low in the mix, seems to have more of a thump, which is fine but it needs more presence right now. I also have an issue with your lead, the sound is slightly generic (that can be fixed with filter automation) and the fact its a whole octave lower than it should be imo. If I was you, if not for the first half, the second half, I'd put in a fairly prominent polysynth to fill out the sound some more, and add a new lead, but make it fairly higher pitched than the one you've got now. That would solve the dynamic and timbre issues, which is why gario says it starts to plod once it reaches the middle, there is little to no variation in sound design and dynamics throughout. I'd consider throwing in a nice little breakdown as well to help keep things interesting.

Seems like a pretty cool base right now, but I don't think this is quite there. Its close, but I'd end up going borderline no if I was a judge. Source usuage probably wouldn't tip me over either, but you've got plenty of source to work with here as well which you can use (i'm fairly sure you haven't used every part of the sources here )

Good luck man, keep working at it, its a cool mix, just needs some TLC to push it over the edge

[Liontamer]

Compared to the first version, the new lead at :45 has a less default-type sound, but the way the note changes slur so heavily undermines the melody.

At 1:17, this could stand some sort of switchup for the lead sound in order to keep things fresh. Or keep 1:17 the same and change the :45 lead. I'm gonna keep saying it until something else comes along, but that same main lead going for pretty much all the 4+ minutes got old. It's old. Get away from it. Maybe alternate between some more like what you had in v1, only somewhat more more expressive. At least then you could have some actual sonic variation with these leads.

The new stuff added at 2:01 compared to the last version doesn't work. The orch stabs were super tacky and didn't have any synergy with your other sounds. IMO, I don't think they work at all, but if you really must have them in there, experiment with pushing them a lot more in the background rather than upfront, to accent the more important foreground writing.

The structure (basically A-B-A-B-C- was still pretty repetitive without creative enough dynamic contrast, so I have the same criticism as last time. It just seems like after 2:01, you have the exact same textures, the exact same lead, the exact same groove, exact same arrangement of the source material being repeated wholesale. But now there's needless orch stabs, lead doubling and tons of grace notes being added to create differences for the sake of verse 2 not being exactly the same, yet it doesn't have any flow. IMO, this just overcomplicated things without actually improving it, and it's something a lot of developing artists are guilty of when they feel locked into a certain structure.

Not feeling the key change at 3:33 either, and the chorus at 3:48 basically gets the same crits as 2:01 (just added notes & effects over basically the same groove, same instruments, same arrangement ideas being repeated a third time.)

I still really like the core ideas here, so I hate to come out and seem like "EVERYTHING IS WRONG" when this base sounds pretty cool. I love the bassline, and the opening 45 seconds sounds cool as hell. I love the crystalline countermelody at 1:15 as I've said before and the bubbly support notes (e.g. most audible at 3:48). I like the arrangement ideas, they just end up sounding too repetitive in the long run because it's the same sounds, tempo, beats, writing with little real evolution past 2:01. Structurally, you could probably just go buildup-A-B-C-B-wind down and cut some of the fat out of this instead of letting it drag for the 5 minutes.

But you need more variation with your lead sounds and the core groove. Instead of slapping new coats of paint on the same ol' leads and melody via effects, doubling and grace notes, change the actual lead itself and think of other new melodic variations or integrate other areas of the source.

If it's just too frustrating and the constant tinkering makes you feel like this track is getting away from what you want it to be, Justin, then forget about working on it further. But if you think you can actually develop this more, then move away from this v3 and start back at square two. I think you can, otherwise I wouldn't have spent half an hour of my limited time to listen to this. I still like the potential here.

[Draconiator]

Compared to the first version, the new lead at :45 has a less default-type sound, but the way the note changes slur so heavily undermines the melody.

At 1:17, this could stand some sort of switchup for the lead sound in order to keep things fresh. Or keep 1:17 the same and change the :45 lead. I'm gonna keep saying it until something else comes along, but that same main lead going for pretty much all the 4+ minutes got old. It's old. Get away from it. Maybe alternate between some more like what you had in v1, only somewhat more more expressive. At least then you could have some actual sonic variation with these leads.

The new stuff added at 2:01 compared to the last version doesn't work. The orch stabs were super tacky and didn't have any synergy with your other sounds. IMO, I don't think they work at all, but if you really must have them in there, experiment with pushing them a lot more in the background rather than upfront, to accent the more important foreground writing.

The structure (basically A-B-A-B-C- was still pretty repetitive without creative enough dynamic contrast, so I have the same criticism as last time. It just seems like after 2:01, you have the exact same textures, the exact same lead, the exact same groove, exact same arrangement of the source material being repeated wholesale. But now there's needless orch stabs, lead doubling and tons of grace notes being added to create differences for the sake of verse 2 not being exactly the same, yet it doesn't have any flow. IMO, this just overcomplicated things without actually improving it, and it's something a lot of developing artists are guilty of when they feel locked into a certain structure.

Not feeling the key change at 3:33 either, and the chorus at 3:48 basically gets the same crits as 2:01 (just added notes & effects over basically the same groove, same instruments, same arrangement ideas being repeated a third time.)

I still really like the core ideas here, so I hate to come out and seem like "EVERYTHING IS WRONG" when this base sounds pretty cool. I love the bassline, and the opening 45 seconds sounds cool as hell. I love the crystalline countermelody at 1:15 as I've said before and the bubbly support notes (e.g. most audible at 3:48). I like the arrangement ideas, they just end up sounding too repetitive in the long run because it's the same sounds, tempo, beats, writing with little real evolution past 2:01. Structurally, you could probably just go buildup-A-B-C-B-wind down and cut some of the fat out of this instead of letting it drag for the 5 minutes.

But you need more variation with your lead sounds and the core groove. Instead of slapping new coats of paint on the same ol' leads and melody via effects, doubling and grace notes, change the actual lead itself and think of other new melodic variations or integrate other areas of the source.

If it's just too frustrating and the constant tinkering makes you feel like this track is getting away from what you want it to be, Justin, then forget about working on it further. But if you think you can actually develop this more, then move away from this v3 and start back at square two. I think you can, otherwise I wouldn't have spent half an hour of my limited time to listen to this. I still like the potential here.

I LOVE THAT IDEA. Gonna take a bit of retooling but I'm gonna try that.

[Monobrow]

I'm gonna add to this. I think Larry's right about changing up with another instrument. But I don't necessarily agree with a change by 1:17... You do some cool things with it for that solo that are very charming. It's just what comes after it that might make it lose its appeal.

Whichever you do, by 2:02 though, you definitely need another lead. I think you shouldn't necessarily cut out that very strange lead you already have altogether... But let it take the back seat. Just, get another synth in there to take over the melody, preferably something lighter, even an octave higher... But at the forefront, most importantly. And also, for double bonus, write for it in a different style than your main synth... Give it it's own personality. Though the writing you already have there just might generally sound better when you use a different synth anyway.

You want two separate synths, established w/ personalities, but complimenting each other.

Anyway, after it's established itself, duet your weird low synth with it for the second verse. You already seem to do that in parts, cut it in and out, and let them build around each other. You have so much room for it IMO, and a lot of room to be selective. That really is the key to a melody so exposed in front of that background.

3:03 would IMO be the perfect place to bring back your weird synth in the forefront, I wouldn't be so tired of it if it had passed the ball for an entire minute to something else. You already do this, but it falls flat because of the previous sections. I think once you work out the previous 3 minutes, you might know what better to do for a more dynamic feel.

Basically this song is very much a duet. You're gonna have to be intimate. While one instrument plays the lead, don't be afraid to have some accompany maybe even playing some scales/arpeggiation. Don't be afraid to contrast the kind of sluggish nature (in a good way) of this mix with some faster progressions.

As for the rest of the song, your soundscape sounds great in my headphones. No problems with it.

Good luck!