Sign in to follow this  
Insanctuary

wip Earthbound Remix: Zombie Paper

Recommended Posts

Alright, this is the last philosophically, passionately, practically driven response - everything from this point on will be strictly relevant to the contents of the Workshop. ;)

Actually, I'm doing my job pretty well, which is specifically to judge a track early before it gets sent into the panel. The liberal issue that I'm pointing out wouldn't be noticed outside of the site because it's specifically something that has to do with site policies.

I am whole-heartedly compliant to the regulations. I do not have any lick of reason to burn any bridge, however I will stand for how I present myself before those whom attempt to define "burning bridges". Tell me, Gario. If people cut ties with me because I am an honest fellow, should I turn to lies and tell everyone what they want to hear, just so I don't "burn bridges"? I'd rather live alone than live as something I am not. Furthermore, I seem to get all the flack, while trolls are so much elusive to the general population - I guess I'm that difficult to ignore?

As mentioned previously, a lot of people can't specifically hear something that sounds like the source material, which isn't an issue unless you plan on submitting this to OCR, in which case I can promise that it'd be rejected on that ground.

I have mentioned plenty of times how no one here hasn't found the resembling elements between the original and the remix, whereas everyone else I shared it with got it without me having to point it out for them. It really baffles me how that is so.

I hear the consistent connections with the alternating bell motif that you mentioned. The issue with making a connection with such a small element, though, is that it's a very common element in a whole lot of music. Unfortunately, basing something on a theme like that doesn't distinguish it from being based on something like, for example, the famous Jaws sequence (it has that same motif). Of course you didn't base your song off of that, but there is literally no context within the piece to actually make it sound like it's specifically from Earthbound. Ironically, those "laughable bass sounds" you mention are the recognizable elements of that source - without them the source isn't recognizable as Earthbound's "Zombie Paper".

That's the thing, many instruments and sounds are reused throughout time inadvertently due to the threshold between the mind composing something unique to that which is common being ridiculously large; and to journey further away from the "common" area of the spectrum, it will require a reflective amount of thought.

Again, this is specifically a submission requirement - on it's own, that isn't an issue. On it's own, it's a cool piece that is inspired by Earthbound. If you wanted to submit then it'd be rejected on those grounds guaranteed - if you don't plan on submitting this to the site then don't worry about being liberal, as that's not an issue otherwise. I understand, the connection that you're trying to make is an emotional one - that is, your story and how that actually ties into the setting of the game. I do get it. Without an explanation, though, listeners wouldn't make that connection on their own, so to make up for that musicians on this site reference the source in a recognizable manner. Without enough recognizable source, people will not make the connections on their own that you want them to.

This, I agree with 100%. My music is already intrisically unique and chaotic, so I am curious how I am going to work around my difficulties in connecting with people that aren't even nearly as defined as I am in anything they do and say. So many people are still using the primitive areas of their brain, whilst unaware of the practical areas of their brain. So they don't really think much of anything, they just "do", "expect" and "complain" throughout some wicked gang-mentality - do not get me wrong, I am extremely optimistic toward human development, but I am also extremely aware of the current human development. In fact, a few months ago, I wrote perhaps 5 pages worth of literature to sum up humanity; I am obsessively passionate about the way a human interacts with the world. ;) Not obsessive enough to become a mad genius that uses people as guinea pigs, but you know...

I agree that it would be very hard to incorporate such silliness into a remix like this, like you said - I think most people would agree that this track would be very difficult to remix for that reason, in fact.

In my honest opinion - yes, it is finally an "opinion" coming from me. I blew the original out of the current universe; I presented the remix in a manner that takes massive amounts of talent; I took a fartsy bass, then I took it's-so-bad-it's-good bells, and I incorporated 40 seconds of nonsense into an 8 minute-long dream work. Then there are things very few people understand in my musical compositions; my music isn't normal, it's an illusion. I spend more of my time designing the illusion, than I do designing the song. How the illusion works is profound; I take many different sounds to create a sound that doesn't actually exist - if I were to, say, remove a sound or two, the illusion will disappear. I'm not talking about placing sounds in the high frequencies, mid frequencies, and low frequencies, no, I am talking about advanced music design that creates patterns that nobody could ever copy - not even myself - simply because the sounds do not exist. My music is "Ghost Music". I compose with mainly "default" instruments, which is something you may not believe, but it's absolutely true. I rely more on effects, than instruments. Lastly, I cannot read music; I compose everything by ear. When you combine everything, you will come to the conclusion that I'm some sort of "Musically Blind Weaver of Ghost Music". Regardless of all of this, I am well aware that people simply do not care about my unique traits, but I'm simply sharing the details of what I really do to create these atmospheres. On a special note, "I" do not compose music; my "inner genius" does. I don't remember much of anything; my music simply is just "there".

That's all I'm suggesting, and I think Timeaus222 wouldn't mind if that's all you did - toning it down a little is pretty much all you need to do, in that case, to make it not pierce anymore.

I'm definately for tweaks. I simply cannot remove anything, really. My design is masterful, but I will certainly adjust the EQ towards a user-friendly environment. ;)

That is fine, I understand that; I didn't want you to add a bunch of things to keep it bouncing. Going to near silence for that long of a period takes the listener out of your story, though - it's like a movie that wants to insert peace from chaos in the movie by adding a black screen for a solid five minutes (probably more, if we're going to make this relative to the length of an average movie). You lose the audiences attention, and they lose track of what the story was in the first place.

I'm not going to change, or add any notes. As frivolous as that atmosphere is, it's one of my finest additions, as I never been able to create something so magnificently detailed. It really feels like the protagonist is lost in a fog-filled forest of creatures, then when the second half comes in(the latter half of the song compensates more than enough for the 1 minute ambience), it is a hybrid of climax/build up that lasts for 4 whole minutes. If you recall correctly, Threed is close to a forest.

I don't suggest making that portion louder, or adding more elements to it; as you said you wanted it to be peace within chaos (and believe it or not, that's technically good form, too). I did suggest adding some slight movement within the instrument that you already have, like having a semitone movement in one of the notes in that harmony, or something. That will keep the peace while keeping the audience engaged better with the story.
Though I answered these above, here's a recap - being too liberal is not an issue at all unless you plan on submitting to the site. The long silence, rather than creating a break from the chaos, has the tendency to disengage the listener if there is too little for the listener to hold over that time, which is the opposite reaction that you'd want from your listeners if you're trying to get them engaged in a story.

I'm not changing it. If you observe people that listen to songs, you'll see that nearly with every song, people are disengaged from the majority of it anyways, while liking a specific part they like mainly in conjunction with the rest of the song - without that part they personally enjoy, they wouldn't even touch the song. And besides, good luck pleasing someone that has ADHD.

Actually, "Profesional" means that one gets paid for what they do, while "Amateur" means that the person does not get paid for his/her work. That's it - if you've ever been paid for your work then you're a professional. Otherwise, like most members in this community you are an amateur, which isn't a negative thing at all. If that hobo gets change thrown at him for his dances, believe it or not that means that he's a "professional". It doesn't necessarily mean that he's good, just that he gets paid for his work.

Actually, that is all true and all, but like the term "racist", it's used in ways that are definitively obscure. I'm referring to the naive use of the term. The "I have authorized skills, you don't." vibe people use it for.

The more you know.

I was just talking to my girlfriend about this phrase, because she'd used it last night. I was telling her how the phrase isn't even complete, lol. Now you're using it. The coincidence!

Being clear and concise are virtues; over-fabrication and needlessly compounding one's messages creates only confusion. The only reason one would need to confound others would be because they feel the content of their messages doesn't stand on it's own merit.

Expressing oneself in a short and clear manner is something that will help you in all walks of life - show that the content of your posts hold on their own merit and practice concise writing here.

I am clear, I am concise. I do not fabricate anything nor do I compound my messages with fluff. This is my passion communicating through defined characteristics. It's not my fault that I didn't spend my childhood with drugs, sex, dwelling, compensating, manipulating, being pretentious, creating illusions of security and happiness for my little feelings. I suffered, and that's the way I learned and became strong. I have happiness, but I do not rest it on the bow of my life's ship, or else, I could only expect to be capsized.

Were you just joking?

Yes, I was. Is my humour masked that well? I should be a dead-pan-comedian...

You should be able to see that there are levels of skill that you have not tapped. You need to be less self-satisfied in order to grow as an artist. (a sad truth)

Alright, yes, there are songs that are better than my songs in terms of definition, I agree with this. I would say that I am better than Aphex Twin, while I am still behind, say, Solar Fields, or Telafon Tel Aviv in terms of quality for the latter two. When it comes to my designs, they are quite masterful, and so, I really only need sounds that aren't "default", to bring out the life of my designs. However, I fear that the more realistic I travel into the instrumental realm, the less "dreamy" my music will be. I've tried using real instruments before, but they simply weren't my style. I am a man of chaos and distortion - I just am.

All I can do is expand myself by exploring the wing-span of time.

Edited by Insanctuary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am whole-heartedly compliant to the regulations. I do not have any lick of reason to burn any bridge, however I will stand for how I present myself before those whom attempt to define "burning bridges". Tell me, Gario. If people cut ties with me because I am an honest fellow, should I turn to lies and tell everyone what they want to hear, just so I don't "burn bridges"? I'd rather live alone than live as something I am not. Furthermore, I seem to get all the flack, while trolls are so much elusive to the general population - I guess I'm that difficult to ignore?

Well, no one is trolling you, so don't dwell on that too much. The site policies only apply to submissions, anyhow (you're not breaking forum rules, yet), so as of yet you're not "breaking rules" by defying them - I'm just heading you off from disappointment if you ever decide to submit. Again, that's my job.

I'm not going to change, or add any notes.

That's fine - it's a suggestion, as Willrock pointed out, as well as the reasoning behind my suggestion.

I am clear, I am concise. I do not fabricate anything nor do I compound my messages with fluff. This is my passion communicating through defined characteristics. It's not my fault that I didn't spend my childhood with drugs, sex, dwelling, compensating, manipulating, being pretentious, creating illusions of security and happiness for my little feelings. I suffered, and that's the way I learned and became strong. I have happiness, but I do not rest it on the bow of my life's ship, or else, I could only expect to be capsized.

No, if you were concise that entire paragraph would've been reduced to "I'm clear and concise". You would have lost very little meaning if you cut the rest of the paragraph out (as well as not accidentally imply that others in here spent their childhoods with sex, drugs and all that jazz). Concise means to say as much as you can in as few words as possible - you only have half of that down. Learn the other half and you can express more with the space and time given.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, no one is trolling you, so don't dwell on that too much. The site policies only apply to submissions, anyhow (you're not breaking forum rules, yet), so as of yet you're not "breaking rules" by defying them - I'm just heading you off from disappointment if you ever decide to submit. Again, that's my job.

No, no. I was stating that in general; overall. I wasn't stating strictly the time I was here.

No, if you were concise that entire paragraph would've been reduced to "I'm clear and concise". You would have lost very little meaning if you cut the rest of the paragraph out (as well as not accidentally imply that others in here spent their childhoods with sex, drugs and all that jazz). Concise means to say as much as you can in as few words as possible - you only have half of that down. Learn the other half and you can express more with the space and time given.

Like how you could've said, "No, you weren't concise. All you should've stated was that you were concise." It's hard to be "conveniently" concise for "others" when you're "passionate" whilst you have observed a smorgasbord of details that your average person refuses to pay attention to. You, too, are a passionate person, and so you can be the conscious example of why my posts are concise, but not "conveniently" concise. Furthermore, I see plenty of people who state an idea in one sentence, but I'm sure you - like me - cannot help but notice many holes in that sentence - even if it was "concise" to others.

Okay, now I am going to stop with the deep responses. Do not respond to anything of my responses that is off-topic; only respond to what is on-topic. Treat this thread's integrity like you treat your ----'s at night.

Gario, if I balance out the sounds, but keep the rest the same, how much hope do you have for it then?

Actually, where is Tim? I want Tim to be my ow-my-ears-hurt radar, so I can lower the pitches where they need to be lowered. I don't want to turn down pitches where they are perfectly fine.

Edited by Insanctuary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Okay, now I am going to stop with the deep responses. Do not respond to anything of my responses that is off-topic; only respond to what is on-topic. Treat this thread's integrity like you treat your ----'s at night.

Really? Come on, just act like a normal person, please. It's not too much to ask you to speak in a modern, mature way, is it? You asked me to be mature, and I've yet to veer from a mature composure. Concise wording is a great way to express yourself. That way you don't have to use tl;dr: =)

That said, here are the things I did like about this remix:

- The LFO-rate-changing wobbles are a nice contribution, though I already said that.

- The pads you had in the breakdown section were good. They were sufficient for that purpose. However, objectively, it is the case that the low cut on your reverb on your pad is too low, and it creates slightly too much muddiness that preferentially should be lessened.

- Miscellaneous glitching effects that I'd rather not time-stamp because they're in many places, and I'm assuming you know what I'm talking about since you wrote this remix.

Nitpicks:

- The resonance at 1:04 does indeed bother me, and whether or not it bothers other people, I hear it. It's near 16000Hz, and it would please one more person if you looked into it.

- The sub bass might be too loud, and it might not be. Do still look into it and then decide later.

- The long fade, like I and Gario have said in some wording, disrupt the pacing and would make it difficult for it to pass the OCR judge panel if you were to submit. If you don't plan to submit this, then you can do whatever you want with the arrangement.

It does not mean, though, that what I did not mention is out of the question for examination. Please look into your track as if you weren't you (i.e. in an objective way), and see if there's anything you should fix, because everyone has room for improvement. You even said so yourself that there were certain music artists and groups that were better than you, so it's not a bad thing that I am suggesting that you just take a look.

Edited by timaeus222

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gario, if I balance out the sounds, but keep the rest the same, how much hope do you have for it then?

Hope for what? As far as it goes, balance out the tracks and the piece will be fine. If you hope to be posted as an OCR submission then I don't see it passing through the panels due to a lack of significant representation of the source.

Edited by Gario

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I was. Is my humour masked that well? I should be a dead-pan-comedian...

Alright man, I apologize. Here are some of my comments on the mix:

The drop near the 1 minute mark has some nice percussion, and I think the pulsing subbass is a cool idea. IMO, it could be mixed with more finesse. Right now it is eliminating all of the dynamic range in that section (which I grant may be intentional).

I like how you let things simmer in the middle. the distant sounding ambience that fades into nothing is sweet. I think the way you fade the percussion back in is less cool. I would have liked to hear something more creative there.

The second half of the piece continues and develops the groovy/mournful feel and I think it is quite good. There is also some clever stuff happening with the percussion. It is here especially that I wish you controlled that subbass a little more so all of those cool little details could be brought out of the mix some more.

Overall I say nice work and good on you for using such unusual sound-design and form. The production quality is the main thing about the piece that bothers me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Really? Come on, just act like a normal person, please.

I don't know what a normal person is, therefore I am normal in your eyes - or I should be atleast.

- The resonance at 1:04 does indeed bother me, and whether or not it bothers other .

I'm wearing headphones, at 60% volume, the pitches are low - likewise, I have listened to the song on other electronics (I do make sure things are fine on the technical side, myself), and the high pitches are brought out more than the rest of the song.

I will turn it down, reupload it to SC, and you can tell me if it's fixed or not. I am not fixing anything else. Being muddy doesn't hurt anyone. Besides, who doesn't like girls wrestling in mud? ;)

Alright man, I apologize. Here are some of my comments on the mix:

The drop near the 1 minute mark has some nice percussion, and I think the pulsing subbass is a cool idea. IMO, it could be mixed with more finesse. Right now it is eliminating all of the dynamic range in that section (which I grant may be intentional).

I like how you let things simmer in the middle. the distant sounding ambience that fades into nothing is sweet. I think the way you fade the percussion back in is less cool. I would have liked to hear something more creative there.

The second half of the piece continues and develops the groovy/mournful feel and I think it is quite good. There is also some clever stuff happening with the percussion. It is here especially that I wish you controlled that subbass a little more so all of those cool little details could be brought out of the mix some more.

Overall I say nice work and good on you for using such unusual sound-design and form. The production quality is the main thing about the piece that bothers me.

Mhmm... Clem said something intuitive that will change my mind about only fixing the high pitched sounds. I will see what I can do to make the bass at the second half of the song breathe more with the instruments; I do agree that this may be "excessively" muddy.

However, I thoroughly do not agree with how you disliked my fade in. It's one of my finest transitions, yet. It's ethnic, and I don't think anyone here has any idea how much of a monster music is for people whom compose by ear when you are screwing with pitches to create foreign sounds - and maintaining that foreign sound. The fact of the matter is, this is untrue: fade in > climax - this is true: fade in > build up. In fact, this part of the song is where one of my most critical listeners told me I should send it to someone whom goes by "Spacemind".

Hope for what? As far as it goes, balance out the tracks and the piece will be fine. If you hope to be posted as an OCR submission then I don't see it passing through the panels due to a lack of significant representation of the source.

Here's my significance:

- The song never has been truly remixed by anyone except me.

- It's 40 seconds of bells and bass creating a joke atmosphere.

- Throughout the 40 seconds is simply that, thus the song itself has no significance.

- I didn't make a 3 minute, or 4 minute, or even 5 minutes - but 8 minutes of awesome incorporation of the original song's sounds.

- My song has a more evolved bass, it's atmospheric, it also contains the bells. The atmosphere it contains creates the same as the original for a while, then it unfolds into 7 minutes of a story which also relates to Earthbound.

- I elaborated thoroughly how I incorporated the song, the sounds and the game into a story.

What more do you want from me?! Have I not pleased you enough, father?!

Do you want... more... fart sounds, father...?

Edited by Insanctuary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm wearing headphones, at 60% volume, the pitches are low - likewise, I have listened to the song on other electronics (I do make sure things are fine on the technical side, myself), and the high pitches are brought out more than the rest of the song.

I will turn it down, reupload it to SC, and you can tell me if it's fixed or not. I am not fixing anything else. Being muddy doesn't hurt anyone.

Thanks. Btw, this is some writing that I'd love to see more of---open-mindedness! ;)

Mhmm... Clem said something intuitive that will change my mind about only fixing the high ptiched sounds. I will see what I can do to make the bass at the second half of the song breathe more with the instruments; I do agree that this may be "excessively" muddy.
And my second thanks for changing your mind about the muddiness. As it turns out, I'm not the only one who mentioned it. =) Also, Clem is awesome; he wrote one of my favorite OC ReMixes: "Eternal Descent". You ought to check it out sometime, it's so fun to listen to that.
However, I thoroughly do not agree with how you disliked my fade in. It's one of my finest transitions, yet. It's ethnic, and I don't think anyone here has any idea how much of a monster music is for people whom compose by ear when you are screwing with pitches to create foreign sounds - and maintaining that foreign sound.
Even though composing by ear is hard, people here compose at all sorts of skills and abilities. Many compose by ear here, including me. Some are better than you, some aren't, but I'm sure you recognize that by now. Please assume that we know what we observe, and if we're mistaken, please try to say it in a nice way, thanks. Edited by timaeus222

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks. Btw, this is some writing that I'd love to see more of---open-mindedness! ;)

And my second thanks for changing your mind about the muddiness. As it turns out, I'm not the only one who mentioned it. =) Also, Clem is awesome; he wrote one of my favorite OC ReMixes: "Eternal Descent". You ought to check it out sometime, it's so fun to listen to that.

Even though composing by ear is hard, people here compose at all sorts of skills and abilities. Many compose by ear here, including me. Some are better than you, some aren't, but I'm sure you recognize that by now. Please assume that we know what we observe, and if we're mistaken, please try to say it in a nice way, thanks.

Someone doesn't know what open-mindedness is... ;)

I'm not changing my mind about the whole muddiness; I'm changing my mind about the latter half of the song's muddiness.

If you noticed, I am the only one here whom hasn't impartially thrown around the word, "better"; people being "better" than me is a subjective phrase that is based on my personal expectations of what they do and what I do.

Simply stop using that word, lol. We all do what we do. If there's room for improvement, cool.

It's that simple.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
- Throughout the 40 seconds is simply that, thus the song itself has no significance.
The motto here is "ocremix.org is dedicated to the appreciation and promotion of video game music as an art form." If you want to "truly remix this source", as you say, pretend this source is the best source in the world, and then treat it that way; you'll create an even better remix than if you were to have little respect for the source. I'm not saying you don't have respect for Earthbound, but I'm suggesting you should have respect for the source you use.
Someone doesn't know what open-mindedness is... ;)

Oh trust me, I know open-mindedness when I see it. Otherwise I wouldn't have said it just then. It was a compliment, nothing wrong with that. The comment I quoted was, let's say, 98% open-mindedness because you had the sentences "I am not fixing anything else. Being muddy doesn't hurt anyone.". That's good enough for me.

I'm not changing my mind about the whole muddiness; I'm changing my mind about the latter half of the song's muddiness.
It turns out that you use, presumably, the same sub bass instrument throughout, so if it happens to be the case the sub bass has differently sequenced velocities, or is different in some way in the second half, then that's fine. The second half would then be different.
If you noticed, I am the only one here whom hasn't impartially thrown around the word, "better"; people being "better" than me is a subjective phrase that is based on my personal expectations of what they do and what I do.

Simply stop using that word, lol. We all do what we do. If there's room for improvement, cool.

It's that simple.

You did use the word "better", technically; Here it is, for kicks:
I would say that I am better than Aphex Twin
Besides, it's not about the word you used, it's about the wording of your statements as a whole. The way you word your sentences comes across less humble than you intended. Remember that we can't detect your vocal intonation, your facial expression, or your vocal inflections from our computer. If you refine your wording, it will do lots of good for you. Edited by timaeus222

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

However, I thoroughly do not agree with how you disliked my fade in. It's one of my finest transitions, yet. It's ethnic, and I don't think anyone here has any idea how much of a monster music is for people whom compose by ear when you are screwing with pitches to create foreign sounds - and maintaining that foreign sound. The fact of the matter is, this is untrue: fade in > climax - this is true: fade in > build up. In fact, this part of the song is where one of my most critical listeners told me I should send it to someone whom goes by "Spacemind".

That's cool man. That was just my first impression.

Listening back I can hear the detail you put into it. I'm really only bothered by the first instant of it. Hearing percussion just "fade in" like that makes me think of a drummer rolling from a distance onto the stage on his own mini-stage with wheels.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that quick fade ins like that sound kind of unnatural to me. But this is a really nitpicky thing.

"Also, Clem is awesome; he wrote one of my favorite OC ReMixes: "Eternal Descent". You ought to check it out sometime, it's so fun to listen to that."

Thanks for the kind words :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The motto here is "ocremix.org is dedicated to the appreciation and promotion of video game music as an art form." If you want to "truly remix this source", as you say, pretend this source is the best source in the world, and then treat it that way; you'll create an even better remix than if you were to have little respect for the source. I'm not saying you don't have respect for Earthbound, but I'm suggesting you should have respect for the source you use.

Oh trust me, I know open-mindedness when I see it. Otherwise I wouldn't have said it just then. It was a compliment, nothing wrong with that. The comment I quoted was, let's say, 98% open-mindedness because you had the sentences "I am not fixing anything else. Being muddy doesn't hurt anyone.". That's good enough for me.

It turns out that you use, presumably, the same sub bass instrument throughout, so if it happens to be the case the sub bass has differently sequenced velocities, or is different in some way in the second half, then that's fine. The second half would then be different.

You did use the word "better", technically; Here it is, for kicks:

Besides, it's not about the word you used, it's about the wording of your statements as a whole. The way you word your sentences comes across less humble than you intended. Remember that we can't detect your vocal intonation, your facial expression, or your vocal inflections from our computer. If you refine your wording, it will do lots of good for you.

I have "Zombie Paper" favorited. It's a niche song that deserves more love. It's an adorable atmosphere. Very memorable for something so simple. It's a godsend amongst songs. Why else did I write this remix?

The thing is, you cannot say one is not open-minded, but then turn around to say they are. That's pregnant-wife-that-is-PMS'ing syndrome.

I fixed the high pitched sounds - I think. You are the best judge for that, it seems.

I'm wording everything correctly, but it may be somewhat complex in form. I do not simplify anything, because why would I do that? So many people in this world are so simple, but they try to be complex, but when my sentences are too complex, they want it to be simple. If they can't make up their mind; I'll make it up for them, myself.

I have shown no signs of attacking people for not understanding me at first; I will discuss and explain to my heart's content if need be.

That's cool man. That was just my first impression.

Listening back I can hear the detail you put into it. I'm really only bothered by the first instant of it. Hearing percussion just "fade in" like that makes me think of a drummer rolling from a distance onto the stage on his own mini-stage with wheels.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that quick fade ins like that sound kind of unnatural to me. But this is a really nitpicky thing.

I laughed at your way of expressing how you feel here, very nice images.

However, I do not think of it in the same way as you do; I think of it as a drummer bringing all of his drummer friends, turning out all of the lights, everyone goes quiet, the curtains go down, and small lights are flickering behind the curtains, then when people start hearing the music roll back in, everyone starts cheering, the curtains rise; lightning, smoke, and all sorts of awesome stuff is going on for 4 minutes.

Edited by Insanctuary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The thing is, you cannot say one is not open-minded, but then turn around to say they are. That's pregnant-wife-that-is-PMS'ing syndrome.

I didn't say you as a person weren't open-minded; I said the words you wrote portrayed you as closed-minded, until that one moment where you had, in my opinion, the most open-minded wording of all the times you posted here.

I fixed the high pitched sounds - I think. You are the best judge for that, it seems.
There, at 1:04 in particular, the high resonance is fixed to a sufficient extent.
I'm wording everything correctly, but it may be somewhat complex in form. I do not simplify anything, because why would I do that? So many people in this world are so simple, but they try to be complex, but when my sentences are too complex, they want it to be simple. If they can't make up their mind; I'll make it up for them, myself.
Your wording is technically correct, but what I had read resembled the grammatical habits in the era when Old English was common. For example, some words you used were: hitherto, jest, etc. The style of your writing was somewhat Shakespearean or Mary Shelley-esque, to me, and that kind of wording is described as "flowery language". Gario was asking you to be concise at one point, and this is what he was referring to. It's not too complex for me to understand, but it's a bit of a hassle to reinterpret your wording into modern English and to rewrite your sentences in our heads.

As for my critiques that I can give, now that the muddiness is lessened:

A 1 minute introduction would normally be too long without too much action, but in the case of this track, since it's 8.5 minutes long, it ends up being a reasonable length. However, in order to hook the listener right away, it would only help you if you add what's called "ear candy". In other words, you could do some sort of automation, whether it's acting as an envelope on a filter, or it's adjusting the mix level on a distortion plugin, or something else of your choice. What I hear in the intro consists of a phaser effect on... something quiet. I'm not going to try to describe it exactly, but you understand when I say phaser. It's simply oscillating until 0:35 with little movement in the timbre, so perhaps you could automate the LFO rate (it might also be called the Sweep Frequency) like you did on the "drum wobble" later on. Anything to make it less static would help enhance interest. You could also make the dry signal of the intro louder, as I could barely tell it was there the first time through (probably because of ambient noise). It sounds vaguely orchestral.

I like the scattered bitcrushed panning SFX and the glitched panning drums. At 0:57, I can kind of hear the ambient bell lead, but if you could raise the volume some more, then, assuming that's what Gario was referring to when he noticed source usage, it would be more evident. Right now, it sounds like it's buried under everything else, or just getting lost spatially. The breakdown section might or might not have been adjusted, but either way it seems to sound better than before.

At 3:25, by way of personal taste I skipped to 4:05 because it's a long fade into silence with mostly sustained notes from the drone (official term for a low bassy pad sound which has nothing to do with boredom).

5:14 is where the bass mixing gets risky. You bring in a low drone there to play along with the sub bass, but as long as you high pass the drone above where the sub bass ends in frequency, then it should be fine. I can still vaguely hear the ambient bell lead, but only slightly. I think if you bring it up in volume and not velocities, it should be better everywhere, assuming your velocities are consistent.

Resonances at 6:30 are reasonable as they are an intentional part of the audible area in a sound.

At this point, about 7 minutes through, the drums do seem to be repetitive, regardless of the fact that you did a good amount of glitching on them to add variation. If you go back through and add some progressive variation on it, it will lessen the repetition. I didn't have a problem with them, but it should help such that less people will have a problem with it.

Edited by timaeus222

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I didn't say you as a person weren't open-minded; I said the words you wrote portrayed you as closed-minded, until that one moment where you had, in my opinion, the most open-minded wording of all the times you posted here.

I'm a complex man, but my words are simple? I'm a confused complex man.

There, at 1:04 in particular, the high resonance is fixed to a sufficient extent.

Great, I fixed it? ;)

Your wording is technically correct, but what I had read resembled the grammatical habits in the era when Old English was common. For example, some words you used were: hitherto, jest, etc. The style of your writing was somewhat Shakespearean or Mary Shelley-esque, to me, and that kind of wording is described as "flowery language". Gario was asking you to be concise at one point, and this is what he was referring to. It's not too complex for me to understand, but it's a bit of a hassle to reinterpret your wording into modern English and to rewrite your sentences in our heads.

It's funny how it's called "flowery language", when it hurts people the most, lol.

A 1 minute introduction would normally be too long without too much action, but in the case of this track, since it's 8.5 minutes long, it ends up being a reasonable length. However, in order to hook the listener right away, it would only help you if you add what's called "ear candy". In other words, you could do some sort of automation, whether it's acting as an envelope on a filter, or it's adjusting the mix level on a distortion plugin, or something else of your choice. What I hear in the intro consists of a phaser effect on... something quiet. I'm not going to try to describe it exactly, but you understand when I say phaser. It's simply oscillating until 0:35 with little movement in the timbre, so perhaps you could automate the LFO rate (it might also be called the Sweep Frequency) like you did on the "drum wobble" later on. Anything to make it less static would help enhance interest. You could also make the dry signal of the intro louder, as I could barely tell it was there the first time through (probably because of ambient noise). It sounds vaguely orchestral.

I wanted a relaxing, quiet introduction to "surprise" people as the song gets heavier, even more heavier, then allow it to reach its finest weight in the latter half. I'm not changing anything, as it is the "true" melody. This is a nitpicky issue of yours, as much as I respect it, I am not at all convinced to resort to it.

I like the scattered bitcrushed panning SFX and the glitched panning drums. At 0:57, I can kind of hear the ambient bell lead, but if you could raise the volume some more, then, assuming that's what Gario was referring to when he noticed source usage, it would be more evident. Right now, it sounds like it's buried under everything else, or just getting lost spatially. The breakdown section might or might not have been adjusted, but either way it seems to sound better than before.

I killed the ear murderers, I cured most of the mud for user-friendly purposes. One thing I am never going to change is my manipulation of sound between what is ambient to what is chaotic. I thought the introduction was brilliant as is, for it is nothing great, but frivolously wonderful, like instead of having musical sex; you're having a musical kiss, and sometimes a kiss is all that you need, or that the kiss can lead to something much greater. I put a lot of thought into my music productions, and I simply cannot agree with your nitpicky suggestions.

At 3:25, by way of personal taste I skipped to 4:05 because it's a long fade into silence with mostly sustained notes from the drone (official term for a low bassy pad sound which has nothing to do with boredom).

It's 1 minute, which is 1/8, you act like 1/8 is a big deal. I could've spammed a whole bunch of crap pads throughout the 8 minutes and called it "music", but instead I combined nearly every element imaginable that isn't genre-related into the mix for a flexible, everchanging environment to get lost in. So say some people enjoy the ambience, like what Clem stated, or others may enjoy the louder areas... therefore again, my music is about addressing as many feelings and emotions without screwing it up. This is a very difficult move. If different people like different areas, while covering the song as a whole, I did my job as a musician, but definately have the mind to improve further.

5:14 is where the bass mixing gets risky. You bring in a low drone there to play along with the sub bass, but as long as you high pass the drone above where the sub bass ends in frequency, then it should be fine. I can still vaguely hear the ambient bell lead, but only slightly. I think if you bring it up in volume and not velocities, it should be better everywhere, assuming your velocities are consistent.

It's called a foreground and a background. The sounds are supposed to be in the back, since they were in the front for the former half of the song. And besides, a lot of the sounds I used aren't there for melodic reasons, but for atmospheric reasons, I cannot bring most of it out anyways because some sounds are better left alone on one note. I found uses for the high piercing sounds, but you - of all people - should be happy that they are now in the background, lol.

Resonances at 6:30 are reasonable as they are an intentional part of the audible area in a sound.

Resonances are fine, but ambience isn't? ;c

At this point, about 7 minutes through, the drums do seem to be repetitive, regardless of the fact that you did a good amount of glitching on them to add variation. If you go back through and add some progressive variation on it, it will lessen the repetition. I didn't have a problem with them, but it should help such that less people will have a problem with it.

Haha, those drums aren't repetitive if you understand this remix isn't a "song", but a story; it's also not melodic, but atmospheric. The original was an "atmosphere", so atmospheres require atmospheric instruments to be repetitive, but reasonably motivational to where everything can breathe without staling out. I amped up everything throughout the 4~8 minutes; the drums were great in their repetitive state. I'm not disagreeing with you here, but I see purpose in them, while you don't necessarily.

Thank you for your criticism. While I couldn't agree with much of it, since it was nitpicky, I really do enjoy the discussions we have. ;)

Edited by Insanctuary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I wanted a relaxing, quiet introduction to "surprise" people as the song gets heavier, more heavier, and reaches it's finest weight in the latter half. I'm not changing anything, as it is the "true" melody. This is a nitpicky issue of yours, as much as I respect it, I am not at all convinced to resort to it.

That's fine, I just figured I should bring that up.

I killed the ear murderers, I cured most of the mud for user-friendly purposes. One thing I am never going to change is my manipulation of sound between what is ambient to what is chaotic. I thought the introduction was brilliant as is, for it is nothing great, but frivolously wonderful, like instead of having musical sex; you're having a musical kiss, and sometimes a kiss is all that you need, or that the kiss can lead to something much greater. I put a lot of thought into my music productions, and I simply cannot agree with your nitpicky suggestions.
This isn't as nitpicky as my other suggestions, as when one of the most obvious connections to the source is somewhat in the background. Most music I hear has the lead element more upfront than this, and while that may seem subjective, it's merely for the aspect of consistency.

It's 1 minute, which is 1/8, you act like 1/8 is a big deal. I could've spammed a whole bunch of crap pads throughout the 8 minutes and called it "music", but instead I combined nearly every element imaginable that isn't genre-related into the mix for a flexible, everchanging environment to get lost in. So say some people enjoy the ambience, like what Clem stated, or others may enjoy the louder areas, so again, my music is about addressing as many feelings and emotions without screwing it up. This is a very difficult move. If different people like different areas, while covering the song as a whole, I did my job as a musician, but definately have the mind to improve further.
I've been participating in a remixing competition at OCR for about 5 weeks now, and at one point, length was brought up. Three or so people said "30 seconds is a long time". It sounds arbitrary, but I agree with it in the general case. Sitting for 30 seconds listening to a song could be the equivalent of sitting through an entire commercial. 1 minute is perhaps like half an infomercial. Now, you have more perspective with length. :)

It's called a foreground and a background. The sounds are supposed to be in the back, since they were in the front for the former half of the song. And besides, a lot of the sounds I used aren't there for melodic reasons, but atmosphere, I cannot bring most of it out anyways because some sounds are better left alone on one note.
Precisely, that's how I feel. When I mentioned the bell lead, I figured since it was the only melodic element in the piece, it should be a little more upfront, but if you want to leave it in the background like that, it's okay. Not a big deal.

Resonances are fine, but ambience isn't? ;c
Ambiences are fun. Like
(most evident in the intro), or this (referring to 2:02), so I love ambiences as you can see.
Haha, those drums aren't repetitive if you understand this remix isn't a "song", but a story; it's also not melodic, but atmospheric. The original was an "atmosphere", so atmosphere's require atmospheric instruments to be repetitive, but reasonably motivational to where everything can breathe without staling out. I amped up everything throughout the 4~8 minutes; the drums were great in their repetitive state. I'm not disagreeing with you here, but I see purpose in them, while you don't necessarily.

Thank you for your criticism, while I couldn't agree with much of it, since it was nitpicky, I really do enjoy the discussions we have. ;)

Isn't a song capable of portraying a story as well as being a song? 'o' A story is usually progressive, so if your song reflected that, it would be even more applicable to the tracing of a story. Plus, I did say "I don't have a problem with [the repetition of the drum rhythms]."

Also, I edited my previous post earlier, but since you didn't see it, I moved it here:

I've decided to synthesize a little example on thin bands of resonance. This is an FM sub bass centered at 64Hz that automates up in frequency until an awkward resonance appears at exactly 15000Hz. Then, it reaches a point where the frequency is so high that it just sounds like digital noise. Afterwards it's automated back down to a sub bass. This is most similar to what I was referring to earlier. I just thought I'd get you familiar on the topic so you're more aware of it in the future.

Edited by timaeus222

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's fine, I just figured I should bring that up.

Yes, if that's how you feel, then express yourself. There are boundaries, so don't be sending me PM's telling me how I am your internet crush. ;)

This isn't as nitpicky as my other suggestions, as when one of the most obvious connections to the source is somewhat in the background. Most music I hear has the lead element more upfront than this, and while that may seem subjective, it's merely for the aspect of consistency.

Listening to the original, yes they are in the foreground, but when you realise how much more I added into my song compared to that song, you'll understand why I kept it "minimalistic". If anything, the atmosphere is the "lead element". Without that "atmosphere", there's no "song", thus there is no "remix".

I've been participating in a remixing competition at OCR for about 5 weeks now, and at one point, length was brought up. Three or so people said "30 seconds is a long time". It sounds arbitrary, but I agree with it in the general case. Sitting for 30 seconds listening to a song could be the equivalent of sitting through an entire commercial. 1 minute is perhaps like half an infomercial. Now, you have more perspective with length. :)

I'm a musically inept newb that is only big in their own world. It's so much easier to sit at the throne in your head, than it is infront of millions of individuals. As someone who gained much wisdom from silence, I thoroughly enjoy a small break in the midst of calmness and chaos.

Precisely, that's how I feel. When I mentioned the bell lead, I figured since it was the only melodic element in the piece, it should be a little more upfront, but if you want to leave it in the background like that, it's okay. Not a big deal.

I honestly think the song is perfect in design right now. Sure I may look over things, but right now, I am not seeing anything absurd like the high pitches and the latter half muddyness.

Ambiences are fun. Like
(most evident in the intro), or this (referring to 2:02), so I love ambiences as you can see.

You do know that the 1 minute is ambience, right? Here's something you will enjoy reading, as small as it is. That atmosphere wasn't made with a pad or a drone; it was made with a default violin string with tons of effects! It's awesome, I have to say. I am baffled how realistic it sounds.

Isn't a song capable of portraying a story as well as being a song? 'o' A story is usually progressive, so if your song reflected that, it would be even more applicable to the tracing of a story. Plus, I did say "I don't have a problem with [the repetition of the drum rhythms]."

You have to take my unique style into consideration. The same way judges should understand how much more depth lies within a talented circus performer compared to a talented singer.

Also, I edited my previous post earlier, but since you didn't see it, I moved it here:

I've decided to synthesize a little example on thin bands of resonance. This is an FM sub bass centered at 64Hz that automates up in frequency until an awkward resonance appears at exactly 15000Hz. Then, it reaches a point where the frequency is so high that it just sounds like digital noise. Afterwards it's automated back down to a sub bass. This is most similar to what I was referring to earlier. I just thought I'd get you familiar on the topic so you're more aware of it in the future.

I like how you have the will to assist me further even while knowing our differences. That, I can admire greatly. ;)

Edited by Insanctuary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You do know that the 1 minute is ambience, right? Here's something you will enjoy reading, as small as it is. That atmosphere wasn't made with a pad or a drone; it was made with a default violin string with tons of effects! It's awesome, I have to say. I am baffled how realistic it sounds.

Yep, ambience can still be the existence of pad-like sounds or simply a calm atmosphere. I just find the presence of evolving pads or otherwise dynamically changing atmospheric elements an improvement from a mere atmosphere by itself created by one sound with a colossal reverb.

The realism of sounds, though, is another story. We both understand that the concept of hearing realism depends on the listener's experience with and the usage of the instrument in question. If a violin were to be sequenced as a lead violin sound, for example, upfront in a mix with tasteful "airiness" (to emulate a real recording of a violin in a treated room), proper reverb (to make it fit spatially into the context of the mix), delay (to further emulate the perceived room), saturation (to optionally emulate analog tape recordings' "sparkle and sheen"), etc., then it needs all those humanistic nuances with such methods as volume automation (to create a sort of humanized volume swelling), keyswitches for articulations (nobody plays just sustains on a violin), natural velocities (no human plays violins flatly, even if they aren't good), and feasible phrasing (even a professional can't play scales at 240+ BPM).

In your case, I couldn't tell it was a violin because of the effects you used, so it didn't matter whether it sounded real or fake. However, I personally think it just sounded good or fitting in general, rather than realistic, as it didn't seem to be your intention to make it realistic.

Edited by timaeus222

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yep, ambience can still be the existence of pad-like sounds or simply a calm atmosphere. I just find the presence of evolving pads or otherwise dynamically changing atmospheric elements an improvement from a mere atmosphere by itself created by one sound with a colossal reverb.

The realism of sounds, though, is another story.

In your case, I couldn't tell it was a violin because of the effects you used, so it didn't matter whether it sounded real or fake. However, I personally think it just sounded good or fitting in general, rather than realistic, as it didn't seem to be your intention to make it realistic.

Well said. ;)

I'm a bit curious how this track could have the slightest chance of being added to the OCRemix treasury. I am willing to do more changes, if they are absolutely necessary.

By the way, I find it ironic you have Kirby for your avi, hence Kirby sucks, but you do not. ^-~ (I like Kirby as a character, a very fluent and memorable fellow.)

Edited by Insanctuary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
By the way, I find it ironic you have Kirby for your avi, hence Kirby sucks, but you do not. ^-~ (I like Kirby as a character, a very fluent and memorable fellow.)

Yup, I just used Kirby because its face illustrates my passion for music. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yup, I just used Kirby because its face illustrates my passion for music. :D

Ahh.

Do you think my song is OCRemix material? Gario gave me his conclusion; I want to read yours.

I also want to read from you, or him, or anyone else for that matter on how to improve it enough to be OCRemix material.

I really think it was cleaned up quite well, so the discussion was greatly constructive.

Edited by Insanctuary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Do you think my song is OCRemix material? Gario gave me his conclusion; I want to read yours.

I also want to read from you, or him, or anyone else for that matter on how to improve it enough to be OCRemix material.

I really think it was cleaned up quite well, so the discussion was greatly constructive.

Production-wise, it would be ready. Arrangement-wise, it falls into the description Gario had given you because the bell lead which represents the source usage the most is a little too far back spatially to be immediately audible due to its volume and possibly its reverb, and the long fade would, to a good portion of listeners, be "a disruption of the pacing". You can say people "don't get it", but that's how they, and the judges, would most likely perceive the fade.

Perhaps the source is just difficult to arrange in this particular style. If you want some inspiration for remixing a source that is very minimalistic, here's an example of a remix of a 6 second source.

, lol. Edited by timaeus222

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well done, ol' chaps! :tomatoface:Since I have failed for once, I will now throw a tomato at my face inter-dimensionally.

I was trolling about the song being a "remix". It would be absurd if I was lying about trolling, but the track I "remixed" was full of crap. It was a joke; I do hope some people got a laugh out of it. :razz: I'm surprised I was taken seriously after the first post being filled with satire and sarcasm. ;)

You guys are great and genuinely intelligent. I admire that outside of my trolling shenanigans.

With that, I will take my leave.

Farewell everyone!

Before I go, I do have one last thing to share with you guys: http://soundcloud.com/insanctuary/go-fog-yourself

I remixed the Jaws Theme. Do you think OCRemix will upload it to their channel of nostalgic treasuries?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, well if you don't mind this is going to be moved to originals, then. If it's not a remix then it doesn't belong in here, unfortunately.

I would like to hear an honest remix from you sometime, though - you do have the chops to get something good produced.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this