Journey To Silius - Stage 2 Trance

[neurogen]

i wish to no longer be affiliated with OC remix.

i joined the chatroom

and got attacked, then when i try to respond to it, i got rediculed.

i am already sad and i cannot take this aswell.

if a moderator would talk to me it would feel better so i can show what persons did what. i have screenshot of everything.

Edited October 26, 2013 by neurogen

[neurogen]

aww 33 ppl listen noone say anything? i will take it as noone like it

aww ok then thnx anyway:sad:

[neurogen]

one last desperate try.. mod review..

[Chimpazilla]

Take it easy, tiger. First of all, no one wants to have to download a track just to give it a quick listen. You should upload your track to Soundcloud or Tindeck or Box, or some place where people can just click and listen. (making the link downloadable is always a good idea, too) Youtube is fine, but the quality is a little lower, as you know.

So after a quick listen, your track sounds pretty good! Good trancey stuff, lots of fun little arps here. You've got some really good sounds going through most of this, and some really good modulation. Lots of good ear candy. Mixing is good. I like the vocal additions.

The arrangement is close enough to the source to be considered a cover. Are you hoping to submit to OCR? If so, you should concentrate on trying to add some more unique soloing and arrangement ideas, to make it different enough from the source (but not completely original, ReMixes must contain at least 50% recognizable source).

If you're thinking of submitting to OCR, here are the submission standards to help you out.

Also, "mod review" is supposed to be used as one final set of ears to listen to your track before you submit it to OCR, so ideally you would wait until you've gotten some more advice first, and after you really think it's ready for OCR. Sometimes it takes awhile for people to review your track, but they will, and they are more likely to listen to your stuff if you make it easy for them to do so, and if you're really nice about it.

Nice start, sounds good! Let's hear it develop!

[Eino Keskitalo]

Hmm, this was pretty nice to listen to for the most part. The source is obviously pretty good. When the soundscape was more filled up, the overall sound was very good, I thought it was mixed quite well, the balance was good and the sounds worked well together.

There were, however, stretches where the soundscape felt empty. I thought it was pretty sparse up until 1:15 where the first proper bass line comes in, but I was actually really drawn in with how good and full that part sounded.

The other thing is that some of your sounds are a bit generic, or static. Many lead lines could have used some vibrato or maybe more filter automation especially in the longer tail notes. I also wasn't very fond of the "bubbly" synth line introduced at 0:13, it could really benefit from kind of smoothing it into the mix with some sort of effect or filter automation. Then again many other sounds work just fine, like they were worked into the overall sound better and more creatively, or just fit better.

Bottom line this is a good start, with some very good sections/sounds, rest of it needing to be brought to the same level.

--Eino

[Chimpazilla]

The other thing is that some of your sounds are a bit generic, or static. Many lead lines could have used some vibrato or maybe more filter automation especially in the longer tail notes.

This is true too. I was going to say that in my post, but I thought I'd save that comment for after he did some more unique writing! Comment has merit, though.

[timaeus222]

...

ReMixes must contain at least 50% recognizable source).

...

Also, "mod review" is supposed to be used as one final set of ears to listen to your track before you submit it to OCR, so ideally you would wait until you've gotten some more advice first, and after you really think it's ready for OCR. Sometimes it takes awhile for people to review your track, but they will, and they are more likely to listen to your stuff if you make it easy for them to do so, and if you're really nice about it.

...!

I just want to clarify that ReMixes don't have to contain at least 50% recognizable source; it's not a hard-and-fast rule, just a guideline. Depending on the circumstances, a borderline source usage can be accepted. For example, 48% source with sound design that is reminiscent of the original's soundscape could add a little bit more source "usage" and make the arrangement lean more towards enough source usage in the end.

Mod Reviews should be asked for when you're very happy with the feedback you got from the general forum-goers and want higher "level" feedback (really, "level" just means experience, not better than/worse than). You can set your topic to mod review, but if you don't PM a mod directly, it's not the mod's fault that he (all the mods are guys it seems) didn't give your remix a mod review. The topic can get lost, and your mod review might just not happen.

If you want people to review your track, when you're new, it especially helps to either try giving feedback to other people first or ask someone whom you've seen give lots of feedback to others recently.

Okay, gonna give my feedback:

Textures sound pretty sparse until 1:18. The intro PWM pad is a bit static; the filter cutoff goes up too quickly and just levels off for the entire note length, which makes it sound longer than it actually is. The first arp is OK, but the bitcrushed 3o3 arp is very mechanical, especially at 0:14 with the fast notes, but at other places too; it needs velocity variation or a more drastic LFO depth to give more of a sense of dynamics. Overall, the song up until 1:18 has lots of very exposed and somewhat dry sounds IMO. Yes, you have delay, but a small amount of reverb would help blend timbres more smoothly.

1:18 starts acquiring a fuller texture, though the dryness of many of the sounds leaves a good portion of that section sparse again when only a few instruments are playing. The lead at 2:00 is most negatively affected by its dryness. Some of the sounds you're using don't really need the extra reverb, just the ones you don't want so far in front. If you put reverb on the lead and simply lower the volume of some other things very very slightly, those dry sounds could be compensated by the lead's reverb. It's not quite the same idea as putting all the instruments in the same room, but it's close, and it's a safer way (than reverbing everything) for a person of your experience to add reverb without muddying things up too much.

The last thing I notice is that the drums are very weak and repetitive, and the snares are very quiet. The snares are especially quiet at 1:58, for example, and the kick is very dull-sounding (dull means not much treble, it doesn't mean boring in this context). The drum patterns can change more to maintain interest, and I'd guess that you have less than 10 patterns throughout the whole song. It's not about the number, but about the effective means of variation. If the drums are easy likeable, then the repetition is less of a bad thing, but if the drums are not well processed, the repetition does get to be too much. From what I can surmise, I'd say the specifics of drum compression may not be entirely accessible at the moment, so unless you do want me to write out some advice on drum compression, I'll just not and point you to trying out drum compression plugins on your own time. Some examples include The Glue by Cytomic, D2 by de la Mancha, and BLOCKFISH by digitalfishphones (from the Fish Fillets package). Only The Glue is commercial of those 3.

Overall, many instruments can have a touch of reverb, some major instruments need reverb to sit in the mix, repetition can be lessened, and (mainly) the snare can be louder. This is not quite at the OCR bar yet if that is in fact your goal, but it's getting there. It's listenable and not grating, which both mean great things.

Edited October 25, 2013 by timaeus222

[Chimpazilla]

Yikes Timaeus! Let's just find out what he plans to do with this mix first, if he is even shooting for OCR submission at all. Then we can barrage him with ProTips!

Welcome to OCR, neurogen!

[timaeus222]

Yikes Timaeus! Let's just find out what he plans to do with this mix first, if he is even shooting for OCR submission at all. Then we can barrage him with ProTips!

Welcome to OCR, neurogen!

Welllllllll he *was* wanting a mod review and saying and . : D

[neurogen]

So after a quick listen, your track sounds pretty good! Good trancey stuff, lots of fun little arps here. You've got some really good sounds going through most of this, and some really good modulation. Lots of good ear candy. Mixing is good. I like the vocal additions.

The arrangement is close enough to the source to be considered a cover. Are you hoping to submit to OCR? If so, you should concentrate on trying to add some more unique soloing and arrangement ideas, to make it different enough from the source (but not completely original, ReMixes must contain at least 50% recognizable source).

If you're thinking of submitting to OCR, here are the submission standards to help you out.

Nice start, sounds good! Let's hear it develop!

Thank you very much for your time. Your feedback is appreciated and I agree the most part of the arrangement is lacking quite a bit. I will go back to the writingboard. Good feedback.

Hmm, this was pretty nice to listen to for the most part. The source is obviously pretty good. When the soundscape was more filled up, the overall sound was very good, I thought it was mixed quite well, the balance was good and the sounds worked well together.

There were, however, stretches where the soundscape felt empty. I thought it was pretty sparse up until 1:15 where the first proper bass line comes in, but I was actually really drawn in with how good and full that part sounded.

The other thing is that some of your sounds are a bit generic, or static. Many lead lines could have used some vibrato or maybe more filter automation especially in the longer tail notes. I also wasn't very fond of the "bubbly" synth line introduced at 0:13, it could really benefit from kind of smoothing it into the mix with some sort of effect or filter automation. Then again many other sounds work just fine, like they were worked into the overall sound better and more creatively, or just fit better.

Bottom line this is a good start, with some very good sections/sounds, rest of it needing to be brought to the same level.

--Eino

Thank you very much for the feedback. I take it, agree with it, and feel I now have concrete things to work on. You gave me a great idea for the long tailed notes. I will try and chop them up to make it more interesting than just a long note, and I'll also try some pitch-bending. Thanks for the inspiration.

Its a nice set of ears you got there, and the forum is glad to have you!

Okay, gonna give my feedback:

Textures sound pretty sparse until 1:18. The intro PWM pad is a bit static; the filter cutoff goes up too quickly and just levels off for the entire note length, which makes it sound longer than it actually is. The first arp is OK, but the bitcrushed 3o3 arp is very mechanical, especially at 0:14 with the fast notes, but at other places too; it needs velocity variation or a more drastic LFO depth to give more of a sense of dynamics. Overall, the song up until 1:18 has lots of very exposed and somewhat dry sounds IMO. Yes, you have delay, but a small amount of reverb would help blend timbres more smoothly.

1:18 starts acquiring a fuller texture, though the dryness of many of the sounds leaves a good portion of that section sparse again when only a few instruments are playing. The lead at 2:00 is most negatively affected by its dryness. Some of the sounds you're using don't really need the extra reverb, just the ones you don't want so far in front. If you put reverb on the lead and simply lower the volume of some other things very very slightly, those dry sounds could be compensated by the lead's reverb. It's not quite the same idea as putting all the instruments in the same room, but it's close, and it's a safer way (than reverbing everything) for a person of your experience to add reverb without muddying things up too much.

The last thing I notice is that the drums are very weak and repetitive, and the snares are very quiet. The snares are especially quiet at 1:58, for example, and the kick is very dull-sounding (dull means not much treble, it doesn't mean boring in this context). The drum patterns can change more to maintain interest, and I'd guess that you have less than 10 patterns throughout the whole song. It's not about the number, but about the effective means of variation. If the drums are easy likeable, then the repetition is less of a bad thing, but if the drums are not well processed, the repetition does get to be too much. From what I can surmise, I'd say the specifics of drum compression may not be entirely accessible at the moment, so unless you do want me to write out some advice on drum compression, I'll just not and point you to trying out drum compression plugins on your own time. Some examples include The Glue by Cytomic, D2 by de la Mancha, and BLOCKFISH by digitalfishphones (from the Fish Fillets package). Only The Glue is commercial of those 3.

Overall, many instruments can have a touch of reverb, some major instruments need reverb to sit in the mix, repetition can be lessened, and (mainly) the snare can be louder. This is not quite at the OCR bar yet if that is in fact your goal, but it's getting there. It's listenable and not grating, which both mean great things.

Impressive feedback.

While my already deflated and small ego was shrunk to that the size of a small pea (), it is greatly appreciated.

I will respond to two things and one is regarding the drums and compression.

I actually, even though it might not sound it, use alot of compression. (Well, not more than one compressor per channel). It is the main reason that I am able to push the mastering to -7db average RMS without it sounding like a garbled distorted mess.

I use for the most part, Waves RComp. As for kickdrum I divide it into three channels. One for low ends, one mid, one high. Each channel are then EQd and compressed seperately. The rest of the drums are hihats, some congas, and a snare. They are all on seperate channels with effects, RComp, and at the end a limiter.

The reason I am replying to this is because there might have been confusion about the drums, I noticed you said for example Snares in plural, but there is only one snare and it starts towards the end climax, and yes the volume of it is very low I totally agree. The patterns I agree with are very stale and perhaps a bit boring.

The other thing I wanted to reply to was the reverb. I do use a small bit of reverb on everything. Sometimes I tend to mix it a bit dry though, but there is indeed some bit of reverb on almost everything to try and tie the sounds together. I will definately take your feedback regarding it sounding to dry on some parts.

All in all, your feedback was greatly appreciated and I have now many things to work on. Thank you very much.

[neurogen]

Welcome to OCR, neurogen!

Thank you!

Quite a bit of a welcome I must say! Extremely positively suprised and happy about the response so far. I was afraid at first that thread stayed quiet for over a week. I guess I was a bit impatient!

Welllllllll he *was* wanting a mod review and saying and . : D

Thats right, and retrospectively Im very glad I did, because I got so great feedback from it.

[Rozovian]

Thats right, and retrospectively Im very glad I did, because I got so great feedback from it.

Just not from any mods. Yet.

Looking at the feedback you've received so far, I think you've got some things you can work on. I didn't see anyone covering source usage, it's mostly been production crits. I'll have a listen this weekend, if no other mods beat me to it.

[Chimpazilla]

The arrangement is close enough to the source to be considered a cover. Are you hoping to submit to OCR? If so, you should concentrate on trying to add some more unique soloing and arrangement ideas, to make it different enough from the source (but not completely original, ReMixes must contain at least 50% recognizable source).

I "covered" that already Rozo, haha!

neurogen, please don't feel intimidated by Timaeus222... he tends to give very detailed feedback which can be very helpful, but this can be overwhelming if you're not used to his feedback style, haha! Take from it only what you find useful, but please know that your track already sounds quite good. I'm looking forward to hearing this again!

[neurogen]

I "covered" that already Rozo, haha!

neurogen, please don't feel intimidated by Timaeus222... he tends to give very detailed feedback which can be very helpful, but this can be overwhelming if you're not used to his feedback style, haha! Take from it only what you find useful, but please know that your track already sounds quite good. I'm looking forward to hearing this again!

Not a problem! I thought it was very good feedback hehe. It was a bit ego-shrinking when he assumed I didnt have alot of experience and knowledge about music production, but that is okay Im not offended I dont really spend that much time on musicproduction that I would like.. so even though I have been around playing with production since ReBirth in 1998, I havent spend much time with it. So I both have experience, at the same time I have very little experience.

And thank you for your backpat, very nice of you

Edited October 25, 2013 by neurogen

[WillRock]

I just want to clarify that ReMixes don't have to contain at least 50% recognizable source; it's not a hard-and-fast rule, just a guideline. Depending on the circumstances, a borderline source usage can be accepted. For example, 48% source with sound design that is reminiscent of the original's soundscape could add a little bit more source "usage" and make the arrangement lean more towards enough source usage in the end.

I'd just like to point out here that some judges stopwatch tracks to the 50% VERY rigidly, so make sure that it is over 50%. Not 48%. And thats a minimum. I'd shoot for 50% if you want a good chance with source usage

[timaeus222]

I'd just like to point out here that some judges stopwatch tracks to the 50% VERY rigidly, so make sure that it is over 50%. Not 48%. And thats a minimum. I'd shoot for 50% if you want a good chance with source usage

*coughLarrycough*

But yes, I'd second that >50% is still a good idea to aim for. 48% is a bit more risky and is more of a case-by-case thing.

[neurogen]

hmm seems im having troubles posting...

trying again.. seems to work now.

Im curious to know how that is measured. And how it is even possible to measure to the point where you can distinguish from 48% to 50%.

Do you count the notes in a bar, and then compare to the original and see if at least 50% of the notes match?

Im not sure I get it, and on the "Submission Standards" page there was no mention of any of this.

Just that

"The amount of arranged source material must be substantial enough to be recognized."

thanks

[Chimpazilla]

Im curious to know how that is measured. And how it is even possible to measure to the point where you can distinguish from 48% to 50%.

Do you count the notes in a bar, and then compare to the original and see if at least 50% of the notes match?

Im not sure I get it, and on the "Submission Standards" page there was no mention of any of this.

Just that

"The amount of arranged source material must be substantial enough to be recognized."

thanks

Your track is nearly 100% source now. Maybe just make one or two sections a bit more original, new solo or something, or rearrange the parts a tiny bit... don't go crazy, just, personalize it somewhat. 50% recognizable source is the minimum, but 75% source is an even better number. 100% is too much.

You can alter the rhythm or cadence or time signature too, and still claim source, while still making it your own. I know it's a bit confusing... it's not an exact science, and yet it is... just do some minor stuff to your arrangement and let us hear it again!

edit: 100% use of source is fine, just needs to be personalized, cannot be a direct cover.

Edited October 26, 2013 by Chimpazilla

[timaeus222]

hmm seems im having troubles posting...

trying again.. seems to work now.

Im curious to know how that is measured. And how it is even possible to measure to the point where you can distinguish from 48% to 50%.

Do you count the notes in a bar, and then compare to the original and see if at least 50% of the notes match?

Im not sure I get it, and on the "Submission Standards" page there was no mention of any of this.

Just that

"The amount of arranged source material must be substantial enough to be recognized."

thanks

It's still case-by-case, but as a general rule, count all the seconds where your remix uses any part of the source, and long held notes belonging to one part of the source may not count for as much unless the source has a long note like that too (like a more progressive source track with long held chords). Do this for all other source tune section usages and then divide by the number of seconds in the remix. Some judges might differ in opinion as to how well the source connections are made, and that could go either way.

i.e. if you took Section "A" in a source tune which lasts 16 seconds, and you used that entire section in your remix for 25 seconds. Let's say that the last note in section "A" is only 2 seconds long, but you let the same note in your remix (of the same tempo) go for 4 seconds rather than 2. The last two seconds may not count since more source usage could plausibly be added as countermelody on top of those two extra seconds of the held note, like an arp or something. If your entire remix was 150 seconds, then it's not (25/150)% of the entire source usage, it's (23/150)%.

Edited October 25, 2013 by timaeus222

[Liontamer]

100% is too much.

No, it's not. As long as the arrangement displays enough interpretation, it can follow the structure of the original song to a T. I know you meant to convey that, but that wasn't clear based on the sentence I quoted.

[Chimpazilla]

No, it's not. As long as the arrangement displays enough interpretation, it can follow the structure of the original song to a T. I know you meant to convey that, but that wasn't clear based on the sentence I quoted.

Ugh, you're right... *facepalm*

Let me rephrase that. *ahem*

1. Feel free to use 100% of the source. This is a fine idea in fact! Arrange it in whatever order you want... it just has to be personalized. Change the style, instrumentation, transitions, time signature, add fun unique solos, or countermelodies, or something. Make sure it's just a little bit different from the actual source song.

2. Your track can NOT be a direct cover of the source song.

Edited October 26, 2013 by Chimpazilla

[neurogen]

okay so yeah.. basically the remix I submit must be a.. remix..

And at the other side of the spectrum, it cannot be a unique song, with a few notes taken from the source either.

got it.

[Chimpazilla]

Haha neurogen, have we confused you sufficiently yet?

Maybe some examples will help. Let's take "Zelda's Lullaby" as the example source song.

1. You could play the whole song verbatim with the same arrangement as the source, but in reggae style, and in 4/4.

2. You could swap the first and second halves of the arrangement, play them in reverse order, in a more electronica style, but still downtempo. Make some unique transitions.

3. You could make an entire remix out of just the first 8 notes of the source. This is more difficult to do but can be done, and you might even need to provide us a source-breakdown so you can show us all the places you used those notes. You could use the motif as melody sometimes, countermelody other times, backing arps or chord structure or whatever, as long as it is recognizable. (I remixed the six-note "Requiem of Spirit" source and managed to make a 4 minute mix out of it, that passed the panel)

4. You could mix in another Zelda source, say "Song of Storms." Make a remix that includes both sources. One source becomes the verse, and the other the chorus, or use one source as melody and the other as countermelody, or whatever, but BE CAREFUL HERE... it just can NOT sound like a MEDLEY... they have to blend and form a cohesive new song with good flow (not a bit of one song, then a bit of another, then yet another and then done). You can use as many sources as you want (preferably from the same game), 2-3 is a good number, more can be confusing, and again if you do this, please give us your source-breakdown writeup.

These are just a few ways you can make an OCReMix! Did I leave anything out, anyone wanna add more examples?

In your case neurogen, with your track, I'm thinking just a little bit of unique soloing in one or two of the verse or chorus sections might do the job. You already added some cool countermelodies and arps and stuff, so it won't take much. For an example, the part in your track that begins at 1:57, that synth and the writing are a little plain... that part could become some kind of wicked solo! Just an idea. But let's see what you come up with! Also, name that track something cool.

Honestly, you clearly have potential here. Hence all this attention.

(also, wow you got it to -7db RMS? That's impressive because it sounds really clean!)

[neurogen]

Haha neurogen, have we confused you sufficiently yet?

Maybe some examples will help. Let's take "Zelda's Lullaby" as the example source song.

1. You could play the whole song verbatim with the same arrangement as the source, but in reggae style, and in 4/4.

2. You could swap the first and second halves of the arrangement, play them in reverse order, in a more electronica style, but still downtempo. Make some unique transitions.

3. You could make an entire remix out of just the first 8 notes of the source. This is more difficult to do but can be done, and you might even need to provide us a source-breakdown so you can show us all the places you used those notes. You could use the motif as melody sometimes, countermelody other times, backing arps or chord structure or whatever, as long as it is recognizable. (I remixed the six-note "Requiem of Spirit" source and managed to make a 4 minute mix out of it, that passed the panel)

4. You could mix in another Zelda source, say "Song of Storms." Make a remix that includes both sources. One source becomes the verse, and the other the chorus, or use one source as melody and the other as countermelody, or whatever, but BE CAREFUL HERE... it just can NOT sound like a MEDLEY... they have to blend and form a cohesive new song with good flow (not a bit of one song, then a bit of another, then yet another and then done). You can use as many sources as you want (preferably from the same game), 2-3 is a good number, more can be confusing, and again if you do this, please give us your source-breakdown writeup.

These are just a few ways you can make an OCReMix! Did I leave anything out, anyone wanna add more examples?

I think I got it!! Thank you very much for the very good examples/suggestions. Duly noted.

In your case neurogen, with your track, I'm thinking just a little bit of unique soloing in one or two of the verse or chorus sections might do the job. You already added some cool countermelodies and arps and stuff, so it won't take much. For an example, the part in your track that begins at 1:57, that synth and the writing are a little plain... that part could become some kind of wicked solo! Just an idea. But let's see what you come up with! Also, name that track something cool.

Honestly, you clearly have potential here. Hence all this attention.

(also, wow you got it to -7db RMS? That's impressive because it sounds really clean!)

Thank you, I think I might be falling for you lol.

I have some very nice ideas now thanks to this wonderful feedback I got here. I shall return with hopefully a nice track.

Btw I am calling the track Dreams Unfold as of right now, it might change though but probably Im gonna stick to it, I think the sample at the end of the song works well.

((PS. My favorite artist here and thus huge inspiration is Disco Dan. Especially Braving Tal Tal hights and Megaman 3 intro))

Edited October 26, 2013 by neurogen

[neurogen]

May I ask you a question, you who listened to it.

While Ive taken in your feedback I noticed noone mentioned anything about the mixing in that of basic bass-mid-treble stuff.

How does it sound? To me it sounds

A. Too loud.

B. Too much sub-bass(0-70hz) not enough mid-bass(70-200hz)

C. Not enough high-mid (2k-8khz)

D. Too much treble on hihat (16k-18khz)

Im asking if this is correct and what is your opinion. Because I tend to get stuck on the general mixing instead of being creative with the actual writing. Which is a huge pet-peeve of mine..

ps. I do hope you did download the MP3 and not listening on youtube

Edited October 26, 2013 by neurogen