Rozovian

Workshop Discussion

Recommended Posts

This is the thread for questions, opinions, concerns, complaints, suggestions, and discussion about the Workshop and everything going on here. We're starting fresh with a new, empty thread so we don't have to edit the previous thread. For those interested, here's a link to the old one.

This thread will not be stickied/pinned to the top of the board. We're trying to avoid having too many stickied topics from now on. This thread will climb to the top of the regular threads when there's something going on, and will disappear down the list of threads when it's not being used. Links to it will be found in the pinned threads.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rozovian, I have a question.

Whenever I try to give feedback on peoples work, I can't help but ask myself: What did the maker of the remix/cover intended or why did he do this or what does he want me to give feedback about specifically...
This, in my opinion from what I see, sometimes results in good feedback being given, but maybe not what the maker asked for, wanted or (yet) needed...

What do you think about the idea to let people post their work and give additional information, like what they wanted to achieve, what do they need feedback for, short description of their work or so?
Something like:
Thread         - [Insert titel]
[Link to remix/cover]
[Link to original]
Description    - Short description about 'makers' work
Goal              - The Goal/Intention
Feedback     - What do I need feedback for

===Example:
Thread - Super Mario Bros 64 DS- Psyche out!
Remix Here
Original Here
Description: I Liked this song and just wanted to cover it. OR I wanted to try something new with it like making it jazz. OR Competition whatever bla bla
Goal: I wanted to keep the contemplated, relaxed feel, but make it more groovy. OR I wanted to remix it into a menu background theme OR whatever..
Feedback: I like to know how to balans the mixing more. Does it need more reverb or something else or so...
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obviously I'm not Rozovian, but for another perspective, here's my take on it.

Even if someone has some idea of what kind of OCR-oriented feedback they want (such as specifically mixing), they might not be aware of other issues that are also important (such as an overly-conservative arrangement, or an overly-liberal arrangement).

  • I like the idea of adding a short description; it encourages people to actually spend time to say *something* about their track, and sometimes I see people post JUST the links and nothing else, and it feels like advertisement to me.
  • I would be fine with having the goals there, and I think that would help more people than not, but I personally don't really need explicitly stated goals to figure them out. Maybe it's just me. It still helps more of the time to have those goals there, sure.
  • It's fine and dandy to ask for specific feedback, and I'm aware you didn't imply the following, but I would not go so far as to suggest that being closed-minded towards feedback that was NOT requested is conducive to the ReMixer's learning. So, while I would support asking for specific feedback, I would also encourage being open-minded to all feedback, even if it was not asked for. It would be, again, because the ReMixer might need feedback on something they don't think they need help on. (Believe me, there are people out there every now and then who think they've got certain things down pat when they really don't, and then sometimes they deny the feedback they don't want because they didn't ask for it, or something crazy like that. :rolleyes:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"What do you think about the idea to let people post their work and give additional information, like what they wanted to achieve, what do they need feedback for, short description of their work or so?"

You mean we don't _let_ people do that already? :P

If someone wants some specific feedback, they're free to ask for that. I can add that to the How-to post. But I don't want to make it any more formal than necessary. If people just want to dump a link to track into a minimalistically titled thread, and see what response they, that's okay. If people want specific feedback on their drums humanization, frequency balance, arrangement, or whatever, they can just say so.  If they want to share what their plan was and what their own thoughts on the mix are, that's fine too. Freedom! But you're right in that it should be encouraged in the How-to post.

We're working on a post about tags and how to use them, too (to be added to the How-to thread). It's a related thing, and might help clear things up for some tracks, eg covers tagged as such vs. ocr-intended tracks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Rozovian said:

You mean we don't _let_ people do that already? :P

That's TOTALLY what I meant! xD:P

Yes, my proposal is a bit formal. From what I understand from your post, giving people their freedom on how they want to present their work has more priority(if that's the right word for it).
I'm curious about the how-to thread on tag-use. I'm also pretty new to that, so...

22 hours ago, timaeus222 said:

Even if someone has some idea of what kind of OCR-oriented feedback they want (such as specifically mixing), they might not be aware of other issues that are also important (such as an overly-conservative arrangement, or an overly-liberal arrangement).

True, I agree completely.

22 hours ago, timaeus222 said:

It's fine and dandy to ask for specific feedback, and I'm aware you didn't imply the following, but I would not go so far as to suggest that being closed-minded towards feedback that was NOT requested is conducive to the ReMixer's learning. So, while I would support asking for specific feedback, I would also encourage being open-minded to all feedback, even if it was not asked for. It would be, again, because the ReMixer might need feedback on something they don't think they need help on. (Believe me, there are people out there every now and then who think they've got certain things down pat when they really don't, and then sometimes they deny the feedback they don't want because they didn't ask for it, or something crazy like that. :rolleyes:)

True, I get your point of view. What I meant with the argument was feedback that the remixer is not ready for yet. Some are still beginners with recording or arranging/changing a song and receive feedback that's just to far above their current level.(Generally speaking, I can't think of an example right now).
But you are right about some remixers overestimating their skills, who are in need of some ego-crushing feedback(exaggerated hahaha)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, T- Ape said:

True, I get your point of view. What I meant with the argument was feedback that the remixer is not ready for yet. Some are still beginners with recording or arranging/changing a song and receive feedback that's just to far above their current level.(Generally speaking, I can't think of an example right now).

But you are right about some remixers overestimating their skills, who are in need of some ego-crushing feedback(exaggerated hahaha)

Ah yeah, I see what you mean. I try to give feedback that is appropriate to the skill of the ReMixer so that he/she can improve gradually (or at least I used to, haha). I should do that more often. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, T- Ape said:

True, I get your point of view. What I meant with the argument was feedback that the remixer is not ready for yet. Some are still beginners with recording or arranging/changing a song and receive feedback that's just to far above their current level.(Generally speaking, I can't think of an example right now).
But you are right about some remixers overestimating their skills, who are in need of some ego-crushing feedback(exaggerated hahaha)

Not to throw anyone under the bus but I honestly don't see the benefit of keeping feedback at the level of the remixer's skill level.  Outside of it being impractical to maintain such a thing even without broad generalizations, part of the benefit of receiving feedback on any forum is possibly coming across information that you had no idea existed, researching the new method or technique, and then making it a part of your unique process.  If this was learning an individual instrument it would be much easier to see the point of limiting the amount of information given but speaking just about the writing and production aspects of remixing, the more you are aware of the better.  You never know when that one piece of information is going to open everything up for someone so I don't see a point in restricting ANYTHING "based on skill level."

However I feel that there should be a logical order to how feedback is given and it should reflect the overall production process based on importance.  The broader parts of mixing and arranging (what gets you 80% or more of the way there) should be stressed the most if someone obviously isn't getting the basics.  So the flow of information for mixing feedback could look something like this.   Instrument volumes->Eq/Compression->Surgical EQ'ing->Delay/Reverb->Automation->Mastering suggestions. 

1. Instrument Volumes: Is the given remixer listening to the correct part of the instrument during initial balancing?  Do their ears seemed sufficiently trained to hear slight changes in volume? If not then they should know that they need to work on that before spending hours being distracted by processing that occurs further down the chain. 

2. EQ/Compression: Are the dynamics of each instrument working for or against what they are going for.  (somewhat open to interpretation) Is the remixer cutting freqs they need to be keeping or boosting those they shouldn't? Is the mix sonically organized correctly? (Multiband comp sweeps of commercial tracks can expose a lot)

3. Surgical Eq'ing.  Are two or more instruments clashing with each other?  Is there something preventing them from being spread across more octaves?  (ties into arranging)

4. Delay/Reverb.  Is the soundscape set up well enough so that there is an obvious foreground and background?

5. Automation:  never stressed enough on these forums IMO and it's the most significant part of making a dynamic mix.  

6. Mastering: kept to a minimum because that's what it should be if the mix is solid in the first place.

The point of this is to keep someone from hammering away on an incorrect part of the chain and wondering why nothing is working.  i.e. over eq'ing parts of a mix that was poorly setup in instrument volumes. Just some thoughts on the subject that i've had when commenting on the work of others.  For simplicity I kept it strictly production related but a flow of organized information like this really should pertain to all of the other aspects of this art.  Really though i think the mods (and timaeus) are doing a fine job as is. There is a lot that goes into remixing and it's impossible to cover it all in one or two paragraphs.  Given the limited contact between us all it's really up to the person posting their work to want to continue to figure things out based on the feedback given and not just post something they did for gratification.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11-2-2016 at 4:04 AM, Garpocalypse said:

Not to throw anyone under the bus but I honestly don't see the benefit of keeping feedback at the level of the remixer's skill level.  Outside of it being impractical to maintain such a thing even without broad generalizations, part of the benefit of receiving feedback on any forum is possibly coming across information that you had no idea existed, researching the new method or technique, and then making it a part of your unique process.  If this was learning an individual instrument it would be much easier to see the point of limiting the amount of information given but speaking just about the writing and production aspects of remixing, the more you are aware of the better.  You never know when that one piece of information is going to open everything up for someone so I don't see a point in restricting ANYTHING "based on skill level."

There are pro's on giving someone feedback on their level. To give an example and taking in account Timeaus and my view.
Scenario: Let's say I'm a world class pianist and I have to give feedback to one of my student. This student has learned the first part of fur elise by ear and knows the C major scale.

- As his teacher, to get him one level Higher, I would give him an exercise on playing the C major scale with more dynamic, staccato, or an arpeggio/interval. We could work on the F major and maybe start the second part of Fur elise which is in F major.
This would be a challenge for the student, since it's one level higher than his/her current level.

- Same scenario, but the student asks me to give him sheet music of let's say Chopin's Sonate No.2 in B flat minor. This would be way to much above his level. I would suggest him as his teacher to slow it down a little bit and first practice more scales, arpeggio's, maybe first do the Inventione in F - Bach, which might still be a bit too much, but is at a lot lower level than the Chopin piece.
This would be a challenge for the student, since it's asking him/her to reflect better on himself.

- Same scenario, but this student is clearly scared of failing at learning something new. With every mistake he/she stopped and says "I can't do it". To help this student in overcoming their fear, I as the teacher would suggest the E minor scale and we'll work on the Comptine D’un Autre été, L’Après-midi Yann Tiersen, which is another popular beginner's piece, but not that difficult to play.
This would be a challenge for the student, since he/she is facing their fear of failing.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am kinda bothered that the labeling system is gone... There used to be a labeling system where you knew what was a WIP, what was awaiting moderation, what was finished etc. This made it really easy to know which songs needed some feedback and which didn't. That kind of system would be great to have back in the workshop. I'm trying not to sound incredibly lazy, but I want to be as helpful as possible when I come here, so I'd like to really tackle the WIPs that need it and not so much the ones that are finished or already mod-approved. 

Though really I guess this is a criticism that can't be addressed by the mod team. So I don't know what the heck could be done apart from people adding (WIP) or whatnot to their thread titles. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Brandon Strader said:

I am kinda bothered that the labeling system is gone... There used to be a labeling system where you knew what was a WIP, what was awaiting moderation, what was finished etc. This made it really easy to know which songs needed some feedback and which didn't. That kind of system would be great to have back in the workshop. I'm trying not to sound incredibly lazy, but I want to be as helpful as possible when I come here, so I'd like to really tackle the WIPs that need it and not so much the ones that are finished or already mod-approved.

I've talked to Dave about this very thing, and from what I understand the lack of labeling is an artifact of the site switch to v6. When he's able to get to it he'll implement the tagging system again. Other things have taken priority though, unfortunately (Magfest, album releases, music releases, etc.), so it may be a little while. They are nice, though, and they make the whole eval process a lot easier, as well as making it easy to find WIPs, finished products, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Currently, there's a freeform prefix option. I'd very much like to see people use this to describe the state of their remix, but also taking some liberties with it so we know how it can be used. I see a few "wip", a few "finished", and one "doom" on the first page right now, and i know we've got at least one "eval" there too. I've been meaning to get to it. Maybe another mod will beat me to it. We'll see.

I have an in-progress post about how to use the tags, including the prefix, but I'm not sure it's done yet. I could add to the "how to" post that the prefix is for describing the state of the remix. In it, there's a list of recommended prefixes, including those labels from before. We're considering adding "cover" to the list of recommended prefixes, since that does help communicate something about the state of the mix and the kind of mix it is. More suggestions and ideas are welcome (and not just about tags, but about the remix board in general).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I comment on a mix, I don't remember when, either yesterday or the day before... but I can't even find the thread now.. Which I guess is a good thing, it's so active here.. but Dang, I can't find anything. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We've adjusted to the forum upgrade from a while back, we have new, fewer stickies, and a new evaluator. I'm bumping this to ask a few questions for you all:

What works well on the remix forum?

What doesn't?

What would you like to see changed?

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 to this topic...

×   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.