Liontamer Posted April 19, 2023 Share Posted April 19, 2023 (edited) 1st RESUB Original Decision Hi once again! So I did the forum evaluation process, and received a completed, so here is the resub. I'm going to share some things I have learned personally recently, so people get to read it in case it does pass the panel. I hope this doesn't violate any website etiquette. I have been using Caustic 3 and Caustic Mastering on my mid range cell phone, mainly because with work and a young child at home, time to sit in front of my PC for any period of time is very hard to come by...but I think all of the production rules apply:) There are tutorial videos on YouTube made by the producer of the app that are great. The one that I think helped me a lot was the video on the merge to rack function. Caustic 3 has limited effect slots per channel, but you can use the merge function to create a PCM instrument with those effects applied...and then apply effects to the resulting patch. You can also merge multiple channels/instruments to create a patch that perhaps has different properties and instruments for low vs high pitch, or left vs right channel. The other tuts are great....although the app is no longer updated. Another thing I learned was about my headphones, lol. The headphones are Bluetooth, but have a wired aux connection. I had always used the aux input, assuming that would give me a more accurate take on the sound. Well, my cable stopped working one day recently, so I hooked it up through Bluetooth...and I finally heard what the judges and evaluators have been saying about denseness. I wonder if this anecdote will help anyone else. Thanks again, as always, for the time and consideration taken! Audiomancer Original https://youtu.be/b56sxPRukTY Remix, it's also in the submit your music forum Edited April 21, 2023 by Liontamer closed decision Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liontamer Posted April 19, 2023 Author Share Posted April 19, 2023 Haven't voted on either previous version, so I'm coming in cold, but I like the short and catchy 50-second source tune. Early 2000s throwback sound palette notwithstanding, which Hemo caught onto, this would have definitely passed in ye olden days. Let's see if it holds up for the current bar. The track had some liberal turns, but from what I could make out, there was enough direct source usage. Since the track was 2:41-long, I needed to make out the source tune being overtly referenced for at least 80.5 of the piece. :01.5-:06 (same beat rhythm as source's opening, but different notes), :08.5-:13, :15-:21.25, :22.5-:28, :31.5-:38, :43.75-:49.5, :51-:56, 1:22.5-1:28, 1:31.75-1:36.75 (same beats as source's opening), 1:42-2:05, 2:25.5-2:36.5 = 82.5 seconds or 51.24% overt source usage The more musically adept Js may pick up on way more. I just wanted to be sure the source tune usage was dominant in spite of the arrangement taking some twists. Opening based on the source's countermelody, though more the rhythms than the notes, but there's the melody at :15. Right when the beats come in at :01, the mixing's not quite on point; the kick's too upfront and the beats feel droning and plain aside from the fills; applying some of the fill-type writing during the main beats could spice those up, as right now the boom-tss of the core kick and beats feels bland and metronomish. Changeup at :31 with the beats dropping. When the beats came back at :44, it crystallized that something felt stilted about the timing and the beat pattern feels plain despite the rhythms being a little swung; it could be everything (except the kick) not having punch to it. The lead and countermelodic line at :58-1:11 were alright, then I liked the instrumentation (and stereo field play) more from 1:12-1:20 and would have liked to have heard more of that. :58-1:12's could be loosely based on :37 of the source, though I can't really tell at all; a great idea would be adding in another part to play the bassy countermelody from :36-:51 of the source as a supporting line, which would be a non-invasive but direct way to call back the original song without going off the rails through this interpretation. Then 1:22-1:42, I can't tell where that derives from the source either. 2:05's section also seemed loosely derived from :37 of the source. At 1:22 the beats return, and I still felt the beat-writing was meant to be energetic, but the patterns felt bland aside from the fills. Nice melodic lines from 1:42-1:50 as well, which reminded me of djp's Phantasy Star IV mix "Millenial". IMO, those sounds are working more than the electrosynths, but the overall package is alright. Really nice fakeout ending at 2:16 before closing it out with the 2:25 section. I like the arrangement in general, but I'm gonna be annoying and ask for a spice-up of the percussion during the main verses; some sort of rhythmic or instrumental variations could make that part pop more. Right now, the main verses seem stagnant despite all the other energy around them, and that's caused by the beat-writing. Good luck with the rest of the vote though; other Js may have more instrumentation- or production-based critiques, though I felt this was well in the right direction. NO (resubmit) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MindWanderer Posted April 21, 2023 Share Posted April 21, 2023 First of all, hats off for sticking to your guns and trying to pull off a remix using only Caustic. I'm all about low barriers to entry, and a cheap phone DAW is about as low as it gets. Unfortunately, it's still clearly very difficult to achieve. The synths still sound antique, the worst of which are the drums, which are also too loud. The snares in particular sit on top of everything, and Larry's right about the kicks as well. There are also some weird artifacts in the triangle wave that I'm wondering might be a result of that merge function. I don't have any problems with the structure, and I didn't think source usage was in doubt for a moment. (Larry only got down to 51% through aggressively shaving out rests.) But the balance and textures are still not up to 2020s standards. NO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chimpazilla Posted April 21, 2023 Share Posted April 21, 2023 Ok I'm confused, this was produced on a desktop DAW and not on a phone app? The January resub mentions a "real DAW" but doesn't say which one. Is it the desktop version of Caustic 3, because it sounds mostly the same to me if I am remembering the original correctly. I think MW explained the situation very well. I agree with him on every point. Although this version is improved over the original submission, it still sounds very dated due to the phone software being used. The synths sound late 90s early 2000s to me. The drums are weak and the wide-panned snare is distracting. I still really like this arrangement! But I think this would sound so much better done on a proper DAW with real synths. A bit more synth variation wouldn't hurt either. The arrangement itself works just fine and I still think it is very impressive to create such an arrangement on a phone app and headphones. Are they at least real headphones and not ear buds? I hope you can update the sounds because I'd like to hear this arrangement again. NO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts