This piece is great! It is a small but realized world all of its own, and compared to a lot of the music that I hear it really has a unique vibe going on. It reminds me a LOT of ZipZipper and a little less of SteamPianist, but perhaps a little less insane than either of them.
We launch off with a little melody played on the music box, which is joined by some orchestral elements and gradually elevated until we get into the main section at around 1:30. I have to say, the chord choice at this section is just awesome. Your entire song has this totally fantasy-sounding vibe to it, like we are flying through another magical world. In fact, come to think of it, I could totally see this song in some Harry Potter soundtrack - it's got exactly that magical and wonder-filled vibe.
The little details that you put into the arrangement - the ticking clocks all over the place, for instance, add a lot. I'm also a fan of the choirs in the beginning of the piece. Yeah, the timing is slightly off, but you can fix this by bumping the pattern ever so slightly in the other direction in your DAW of choice.
Honestly, I really dig the section around 1:30. It's so nice that I wish that you would have stayed there a little longer and explored the melodic space a bit more. Perhaps a modulation into another recapitulation of that theme could have made this song better? Just a thought.
After the initial, magical 1:30 section, we move into another section based around speeding up the tempo. The composition here is, again, very strong. The chords somehow become even more awesome as you develop the piece. I really dig what happens around 2:20 - suddenly we have some cool sounding majors that add even more to the awesome vibe of this song. But as much as I like the chords, I feel like this section is overall somewhat unsatisfying. It's too short! Just when we're just about to really get into it, the song is over. This is incredibly disappointing! I can only imagine how good this song would be if you would have properly fleshed out that section.
The above is a good segue into my main critique about this piece as a whole: the arrangement is unsatisfying. I have to admit, the first few times I listened to this track, I didn't think it was special at all. Eventually, when I sat down and analyzed it, I realized it was much better than I was giving it credit for. The reason I didn't appreciate it initially was because of the arrangement.
A song that is arranged very well will very emphasize the best parts of the song - either by dynamics, by transitions, or something else. This song is the opposite - it hides all of its awesomeness because the transitions and dynamics do not emphasize the good bits of the song. We don't even realize that we're in the 1:30 climax until the climax is over because there's nothing in the arrangement that says "hey, this is a climactic moment!" This takes away a lot of the satisfaction of listening that this piece could otherwise have. It instead makes us disappointed because the good part is over before we could even realize it.
The funny thing is that my initial critique of this song was simply that it was too short and needed more development. As I think about it more though, I'm not sure how much of it is due to the length and how much of it is due to the arrangement not showcasing the development that is already there.
Anyways, arrangement issues aside, I think that in terms of composition and overall feel of a track, you more or less nailed this. Keep it up!
So when the scores for this track came out, I felt kind of bad, because I was the only outlier giving you a low score, when everyone else really seemed to love this piece. So I feel like I should do a good job justifying exactly what I think about this piece, because I don't want to be that kind of jerk. Well, I guess I'll still be a jerk, but at least you'll hopefully feel that my jerk-ness has some sort of justification.
This piece is pretty DANG good. Like everyone else has been saying, the production value is immaculate. It's orchestral with just a slight tinge of electronic to it - kind of reminded me of JacobCadmus' and SoundChris' song from Round 1, actually. The instruments sound awesome. The percussion is detailed as heck, and it fits perfectly in with the rest of the track. The mixing is darn near perfect as well, though there isn't any real bass to speak of, so you got off easy there. (Not that that's a bad thing. It's totally fine to have a track without much bass content if it works well with the mood, and I think that it works *very* well with the mood here.) You also have a great knack for introducing new instruments. This song is composed of a couple of different sections which fit together very naturally.
The thing is, this piece would work darn near perfectly as a background track for a video game. I think someone mentioned that this is great title screen music, and I'd say that's exactly what I could see from it - the title track of some sort of epic, mournful war game.
So why was I such an outlier? Let me see if I can explain.
I've mentioned this before, but the way that I score tracks is as standalone pieces of music. Particularly what this means is that songs that get higher scores from me are songs that I want to keep listening to. Songs that really jump out, that do something new or interesting. This usually boils down to mean that I like songs that are arranged in a compelling way and have strong melodies or beats, but none of that stuff is a requirement. The only requirement is a song that I want to listen to again.
There's nothing wrong with writing a really good opening menu track for a game and nailing the production, but it's also not really a track that I would be especially compelled by, or really have a strong desire to listen to over and over again. And it's hard for me to fault you for that, since it's not an opening menu track should make you want to keep coming back for it - but again, it doesn't really stand out in my mind either.
The arrangement for this track, for instance, is not particularly compelling. The energy stays at the same level for the entire track. Again, fine for a menu track, but it doesn't really make the song compelling to listen to. The melodic content is also not super compelling. Again, it's not offensive - it works very well to establish your mood, honestly, and I can tell just by listening to your melodies that you have a lot of compositional talent, because the details are . But it isn't doing anything that catches my interest, either.
So in the end I'm left with a song that ticks all the production boxes, but does not grab my attention. I hope that this review isn't too negative. I think that you are doing a LOT of things right here, and if you were to push your skills and work a bit harder on the arrangement and composition, then I think you would do fantastic.
Dang. Here's the thing. This piece is really nice, but it's so darn short that there almost isn't that much that I can say about it. Of what I heard, I liked it quite a bit, but there just isn't enough content here for me to feel totally satisfied - I feel like this isn't a total song. It needs more in the way of arrangement to really get there, and 1:30 is almost never enough.
But I do want to take a little bit to talk about what I liked here. First of all, you have a pretty darn good grip on composition. You kick off the song with some really nice ideas. For instance: That diminished chord at :25! Ah, it's rare to hear diminished chords, and this one works very well. And then the way that the major turns into a minor around :30. That's another thing I almost never hear (with the exception of IV -> iv). This whole section has a really nice progression. It has this sort of inevitable feel to it, like I'm gradually proceeding to my death and I have no choice in the matter. In that respect, I think that your choice of title pretty much nails the mood here.
After this section, which lasts a bit more than a minute, we go into a quick second section with another nice progression: vi -> V -> IV -> iii. This progression always stands out to me because it's the Greensleeves progression :) but it almost always sounds nice (especially if you were to change that iii into an III). The melodic content at this section is alright, but nothing spectacular or particularly gripping. I'd say that most of the emotional weight of this song is being carried by the chords. This is alright, since the chords are solid, but it's something you should be aware of.
If there's anything that I do want to complain about (outside the length, argh!), it would be that at points it seems like the velocities on the notes are unnatural. The big offender is the 3 note descending phrase that crops up a lot in the initial section. It often sounds a bit too hard and stands out to me.
I'm also not totally certain about the transition at 1:14. I think that there's probably a more graceful way to move into the second section rather than loud chords.
All in all, this is a really nice song, and it's clear that you have compositional chops and know how to use them. On the other hand, it's obvious that it's a bit of a rushed piece, simply because it's just begging for more development. I still gave you a good score, though, because I felt like your compositional abilities were strong, and I have a soft spot for that.
I feel kinda bad to dissapoint you because i have no background in music theory, i do everything by ear hahaha (I don't get that notation either :ccc i ofteen see it but i am not able to understand it hahaha)
I am planning to expand it in the future!!! Life is harsh and i am not able to compose for the time being, but as soon as i am free again i will tackle this piece again i am glad you liked it!
Alright, so I wasn't a judge for Round 1 (you already know this), but if I would have your song would have taken my highest score. Or at least tied for it. So I had VERY HIGH EXPECTATIONS. Which is never a good thing for musicians.
And the thing is, I feel like this very very similar to what you tried to do in your first round submission. It's got the same sort of staccato-esque main melody. It's got those obnoxious trap hi-hats (haha, I call them obnoxious, but they don't honestly bother me that much). It's got a solo. The arrangement is dang near exactly the same: build -> chorus -> breakdown/solo -> build -> chorus -> done. The only thing that's different is that you removed all the repetition. (Thank you!) Heck, it even has a very similar chord progression: the first song was based around IV-V-iv and this one has the same, just with a few extra chords to round off the phrase. IT EVEN HAS THE SAME MELODY AS THE FIRST SONG ... for about 3 seconds towards the end. (Actually, this was one of my favorite parts.)
I'm gonna imagine what you will say in response to this. Probably something like this:
"SO IF I DID EXACTLY THE SAME THING THEN WHY DID YOU NOT LOVE IT AS MUCH JOHN??"
Good question! Honestly, I don't really care all that much if your song is insanely unique compared to your past output. I just care if it's a good song. And to me, it seems like although you pretty much did what you did last time, you didn't actually recognize what made your last song so successful in the first place, which was that awesome solo that it had. The rest of the song was good, but the insane solo really elevated it to the next level. The solo in this song was only a few bars long and did not really do anything all that profound, so we're left with the less interesting pieces of your last song, which at best makes up just a good song.
The other change you added was these high range dubstep-esque noises, and honestly, I'm not too sold on them either. Especially in for example the :26 section, it feels like the song is constantly stopping and starting because everything else drops out when the noise hits, and then comes back in when it leaves. It's very jarring and messes with the momentum of the song. (I know this is a genre thing, and just to be clear, I have heard this done successfully before. It just doesn't work for me here, for some reason.) When you get into the more layered section immediately after, they work a bit better, but I have to admit that I still don't really like the timbre or the rhythm. They stand out sharply, but they don't really *add* anything, you know?
I'm going to try to read your mind again. Here we go:
"You just spent like 15 paragraphs criticizing my song. How did you even give it higher than a 0/10?"
Wow, your questions have a really good way of allowing me to segue between parts of my review! Anyways, my bad - my negative stuff has been disproportionate to how much I didn't like this song. Let me tell you about what I liked from this song:
* The solo. Of course I like the solo! (Step already said something about how it was a johnfn-esque solo... is this why I like it so much??) You did a great job. It has pitch bend. It has a great timbre. The note choice is awesome. For such a short solo, I think you ticked all the boxes here.
* The lead back in to the main song from the solo. You nailed this in Acceptance & Commitment and you did a really darn good job again here. Someone once pointed out that the build into the final chorus should always be the best part of the song. Well, I'd say that you pretty much nailed
* 1:45. "WHAT." lol. It fits and it makes me laugh.
* Subtle soundscape details. I love the noise that can occasionally be heard (e.g. 1:30) during the solo - sounds like a LFO slowly speeding up. Adds a good bit of interest to this section. I actually hear this in other places, eg :36, and I like it every time.
* The mix. Huh, somehow I got all the way down here and I didn't even mention the mix. The only possible critique I could find was that MAYBE the xylophone at 2:05 was a little too quiet. Other than that? I think you pretty much nailed it. All the instruments were leveled appropriately and I think that your mix helped the song be more successful.
* The call out to your previous song at 2:33. Great touch to finish off the song.
Anyway, you mentioned that you kind of phoned it in during this round, and I'd have to agree in terms of originality - but fortunately you phoning it in is STILL pretty darn good. Nice work here.
There isn't actually too much to say about this track.
I mean, the dang thing is so short! Not only that, but it has "WIP" right in the title. I know that the other judges have already done this, but I'm going to go and reprimand you again for turning in something that feels so obviously unfinished. This track basically has no sort of arrangement or progression to it at all. The energy level stays exactly the same throughout the entire track and almost nothing happens...
...And yet you'll notice that I actually still gave you a relatively high score. Why is that? Well, actually, I don't even know if I can boil it down into concrete factors, but in sum: your style is really awesome, and it really speaks to me. Let me just tell you some of the things that I like in this exceptionally short song:
The chord progression. It has a fantastic moody quality to it.
The lead that comes in around :34. The sound design is on point here, without being showy. The harsh vibrato doesn't always sit well with me, but other than that, the pitch bend and the flowy quality to it just nail the mood.
The spoken vocal sample. Short, but a perfect addition to the mood.
The subtle piano. How many times can I say the word "mood"? MOOD. SUCH GOOD MOOD.
The 4 note stutter at :47 and a few other places. Great way to add variation.
The 3 note riff that appears at :50 and maybe once or twice more. You really have a great knack for these little background ideas. You always add them very subtly - almost to the point where I wonder if you even know how good of an idea it is - but you do it so consistently that I have to assume that you do.
The mixing. The beats are mixed perfectly - nice job! (I don't say that too often.) Though perhaps there's a little too much reverb.
So what's bringing down this song? Aside from the obvious WIP nature of the track, which is easily the biggest detriment by far? I'd say my other big problem with it is that although the melodies set a mood very well, none of them are particularly compelling or evocative. I think I've heard you do more evocative melodies before, so it's not something out of your ability. It just seems like you ran out of time.
Anyway! Great, moody track. With more in the way of arrangement and a touch better melodies, there's not much that could stand in your way.
I find the matchup between you and SkyeWint to be particularly interesting, because you guys are such contrasts. Despite both falling into the realm of electronic music, in terms of individual approaches you guys are complete opposite ends of the spectrum. SkyeWint is all about the crystal clear production quality and detail work, and you're all about the composition.
So why don't we start by talking about the composition? The composition was really good. This is a good thing. For me, composition is a huge aspect of any track. Without a compelling melody the track is almost certainly not going to draw me in. And you certainly have a ton of good melodies. For instance, the melody that kicks in around :41 is really solid, with just the right amount of edge to it. I could say this about almost every single melody in this entire track - they are all very solid. One exception might be 1:50 - I don't think that your melodic style works very well with a slow section. You might actually want to change the chords at this point to something more suitable for the slowdown.
On the other hand, when 2:20 kicks in, it's pretty awesome - definitely getting that high octane feel. I think that 2:20 is actually the highlight in this piece for me. It was definitely the thing that made me realize that this piece was a serious contender. Though to be completely honest, at this point I begin to feel you have overplayed your III ending (example: 2:29-2:31). Ending on the III chord is awesome, but only the first couple of times you do it. After a certain point, it starts to become overplayed and expected. This is why varying chord progressions is a good idea! :) Anyway, I feel like this is a relatively minor complaint and that your compositional work is solid overall.
I think the great irony is that for pretty much all of my complaints, SkyeWint already pointed them out in his review, and you disagreed with him! This is why you should always at least consider the perspective of other musicians (especially when their area of expertise is different than yours). They often have a good idea of what you can improve on. Anywho, lecture over.
The mixing, for instance, was not very good. The truth is that your song has a really typical problem that almost every EDM producer goes through at some point in their life: too much reverb. This song is just bathed in reverb, and I think it really takes away from the whole piece. It drowns out the elements that should be clear. Some reverb is necessary, of course, but you have honestly gone a little too far here. I think if you remove some of the reverb on your different instruments, this song will clean up really nicely and become a lot better.
When all the elements kick in, e.g at a section like 2:40, the entire song sounds like it's being crushed under a really strong limiter or compressor. This is not how you want your song to sound.
Next thing - the sound design on that lead. Gah, that lead sound is just not very good. I mean, yeah, a lot of people mentioned the high frequency issue (including SkyeWint), but it's not even just that it's high frequency that bothers me (I'm a chiptune composer, I'm used to high frequencies). Honestly, it's just a really bad timbre. I'm sure you can find a better sounding lead than that.
Consider a section like :41. Honestly, I think the lead is a bit too quiet at this point. It's a lead, it should stand out!
Alright! I think that's all. All in all, I felt like between you and your competitor, you had a much more solid grasp on composition, and he had a much more solid grasp on production. This made it pretty darn hard to score your tracks competitively, but I felt like your skills balanced his out very nicely and vice versa, and that in the end I think that I wanted to listen to your track about as much as I wanted to listen to his, which is really the ultimate test of how good a song is. So I decided I'd give both of you the same score.
So, when I was scoring NGADM tracks, I realized 2 things almost immediately:
1. This was going to be my highest scoring track.
2. No other judge would even come close to agreeing with me.
So now I have to justify myself to make it look like I'm not insanely biased. Because, let's be honest, it's totally understandable that this isn't the highest scoring track. If I were to argue my point to any other judge, they'd say stuff like: the percussion is weak, the instrumental quality is low and fake sounding, the production value isn't very good. Why on earth would you score this track so high if it has so many flaws?
THE COMPOSITION, MAN. (This should be obvious by now.)
Most musicians just take a melody, drop it onto a chord progression and call it a day. (I find myself in that crowd often, unfortunately.) But not you. You drop a melody onto a chord progression, then you modulate it like 8 times, vary it like nuts every time, bring it through like 3 instrumental changes, to the point where it ALMOST doesn't even sound the same any more. Everyone else take note: THIS IS AWESOME.
Let me just go into a little more detail. The first time I really hear the main melody is at 0:56. (I hear hints of even in the intro - after a while, everything sounds like it - but I consider 0:56 to be the main expression of the melody.) When I first heard it, I thought it was pretty awesome and figured that was it. But no. After that, you immediately modulate it at 1:06 with a variation. Then you switch into piano at 1:17 and vary it so much that I can only really recognize the beginning couple of notes. Then you have a really quick but satisfying transition at 1:32 into yet ANOTHER modulation and ANOTHER variation on ANOTHER instrument. And yet we don't get tired of the melody - it's still just as interesting as it was at the beginning. HOW IS IT POSSIBLE?!? We move into the section at 1:50 to 1:55 which is fascinating because, in a very organic way, you've almost developed an entirely new theme through all the repetition. Then another very quick and awesome transition at 1:57 (with a few seconds of solo piano - note that the mixing here is a little shoddy, but we'll get back to that later). Finally you run out of modulations at 2:00.
...
LOL JK there's another one, and yet ANOTHER intriguing variation. Seriously, it blows my mind that you were able to do SO many equally interesting and expressive variations on a single theme. Then of course you have the 2:34 section where you modulate a hundred times in a row, just to blow my counter. Jerk.
So anyways, the reason I like this, aside from part of it where I just like modulations and theme variations because I'm a music geek, is because you have nailed the "having an interesting arrangement" part SO HARD. This song is ALWAYS doing something interesting. It's always switching up or between instruments in a way that I always half expect (the theme) and half don't (the variation). This is exactly what you want to do. Of course, it certainly helps that the main theme is catchy as heck.
Alright, so I clearly love the composition and arrangement of this track. What's the problem, then? Well... the other stuff. :P
First off, the production quality is a little low. Obviously, the instruments sound fairly fake at times. It's particularly obvious when the main melody comes in at 0:56 and the attack on every note is exactly the same. Furthermore, the mix is pretty weak at points. Consider the point at 1:57 - the piano should really stand alone there, but it's kinda covered up with reverb tails and stuff that shouldn't really be there, so it takes away some of the impact. Also direct your attention to 2:20 - the oboe (or whatever it is carrying the melody) is a touch too quiet. Second, the drums are too quiet. As you well know, the drums are ALWAYS too quiet.
While I'm talking about drums, I felt like you could have done a much better job on the percussion. The primary percussion through out the song is just a single snare getting hit CONSTANTLY, and the only other thing I really hear is cymbal crashes, which I think you overuse. I know you can do better than this. :P Percussion can add so much to a song! For comparison, check out a song like this - similar concept, but percussion is fantastic:
Particularly pay attention to 1:20 and how much the percussion adds to the track! It gives it so much more drive. Also pay attention to the more low key parts like 1:50 and how the muted percussion adds a really neat feel to the song.
I have a few small complaints about your melodies, like at points they get a little too long winded. One good example is the quick piano section at 1:20 - it goes on a couple of bars too long and I forget where it's trying to resolve too. It would have been more powerful if it resolved faster, I think.
Now maybe you're wondering why I gave this such a high score if I have so many problems with it. Well, in the end, the truth is that I *enjoy* listening to this song, so I'm not going to take off points to make it score less than other tracks that I enjoyed less. That would be missing the entire point of scoring tracks.
I told myself that I'd only score a song greater than 9.0 for the NGADM if I found it to be compulsively loopable - like, if I found myself wanting to listen to it even outside of the context of judging. Well, congrats on being the first member of this exclusive group ;-) Don't let it get to your head!
Dude, are you trying to compete with Step? In that case, you're actually doing quite well, because you've already left some seriously detailed and super long reviews. Great work!
I agree with pretty much everything you're bringing up here, but as I think it's only fair for the receiver of a review to reply thoroughly, I will proceed to do so and go more into detail, hehhe. Let's see what happens (Edit: Prepare yourself >:D).
To start off with, I was very surprised to see that this is the track that you gave the highest score. I was sure that you'd be the judge to take away the most points for production, and especially for the percussion. But I totally misjudged your judging (so funii), but am very happy to have been proven wrong!
It's okay if no other judge agrees with you fully on this point, because you're easily the one out of the judges that I am the most happy to hear enjoyed the track ;)
I think it's mostly about preferece, which aspect you decide is the most important to judge. And good production sure does help a track get that extra awesome sound!
But anyway... Time to begin :p
Melody.
I feel like I've always had a relatively good grasp on melodies in general. I mean, of course I've improved over the years and so, and I am striving to make both more complex and more simple stuff, but I've never had a period in which I didn't really realize what sounds good in terms of melodic value. I guess that is because I've always been around a lot of music. With that context in mind, I've become quite fast at making everything from modulations to variations to interesting chord choices and progressions. For tracks like this, I tend to try to either use the same chord progression (in whatever key I'm currently in, as that tends to change), with a variaion of the melody, or the same melody, but a variation of the chord progression, or both. I like this kind of less obvious repetition.
The solo piano verion of this track is actually one of my quickest works ever to be this good. I focused very little on left hand arrangement for the piano, as the rhythm pretty much IS the arrangement, and made all the compositional and melodic parts in about 3 hours, in one sitting. The reason I kept the intro as it is, is because that is what I started making this track with, and then I just kept going until I was done. I feel it would've been unfair to remake the intro after it sparked so many ideas in me :p
Alright. I actually would say that this track is built out of three parts. There's one rhythmic theme that is there 3 times (of course, with variations), kinda to lay a base for the rhythm and the track, and to have something to return to other than the main melod/y, -ies. Then, there are the main melodies, which are similar to eachother. I was actually afraid that people wouldn't realize just how tied together they were, but apparently my fears were unfounded.
The third aspect is the parts that are there just to fill in, and to get some variation other than variation, if you know what I mean. That is parts like the intro, 0:43-0:54 and 2:33-2:46, which are kind of unique for the track.
So I'd actually argue that the first time the main melody enters is at 0:25. The closest variation of this specific melody (a variation with the same chords but different yet similar melody) doesn't show up before the end of the track, at 2:57.
I would agree that 0:56 is the main expression of the melody. It's the most full one (what I mean is, it is pretty clearly defined, and stays rhythmically the same through the different chords). Other than that, it was the first melody I came up with during those three hours when I made the composition that I was happy with and knew that this would be a thing. Originally, this track was meant for the first round, but things would've gotten too complicated and rushed if we would've tried to work with it, so we saved it for here.
My own favorite variation of the melody from this track is probably at 1:33. It's the most free one, and it's the one that most easily sticks with me. Most of the different parts of this composition were inspired by several different JRPG battle themes, and while the 'main expression' was inspired by the battle theme from Final Fantasy X, I'd say that 1:33 was inspired by the battle theme from Final Fantasy XIII (one of the few really good tracks from the game). The main rhythmic parts that repeat were inspired by the battle theme from Final Fantasy VII. The intro is mostly inspired by Dancing Mad from FFVI, and there's some Clash on the Big Bridge (FFXII version) over the track as well, mostly in the snares and the marimba. Other than that, there is a lot of Kingdom Hearts hidden in miscellaneous aspects of the piece. So as you can see, I had quite a heavy list of inspirations for this track. Of course, there are some other (mainly retro) games that were part of my inspiration as well, but those are the main ones :p
As for 1:06, I wouldn't call it a variation. You're right in that there is a modulation there, but as it's the exact same intruments as before, and the same rhythm, I'd say it's tied together enough to be a part of the same main theme. But that's free for anyone to interpret how they like to :D
The variation at 1:17 with the flute and the piano is one of my firend's favorite parts. It uses different (and longer, such as B minor add 9 [but the 7 can be included if one wants to], and C# minor 7 and such) chords than some of the simpler parts of the track (though most of the chords in the entire track, now that I think about it, are rather complex chords). This gives it a bit of a separate mood from the rest of the composition, somehow. I'd say that this is even more prominent in the solo piano version :p
Interesting how we noticed that the basic melody from this particular part is actually not that rare XD
1:50 to 1:55 is indeed a bit different, though I still feel it's connected. Here, I actually used some pretty neat chord changes (again). The three chords from 1:48 to 1:55 are Badd9, D6, and C#7, which are only used in this particular way at this point in the composition.
2:00 is one of those spots where I take a short break from the main melody, and instead return to the rhythm I originally included at 0:20, but of course, with variations in the melodies. I have that same base running, but I also play like 3 different melodies on top of each other, while the marimba has some fun (and is actually moving its panning live, which would be very difficult to replicate in real life).
As for how I make every melody remind you of the earlier melodies, I'd say it's all hidden in the rhythm. I mean, part of it is in the melodies, of course, and part in the chords. But I'll see if I can do a montage here...
Yeah... By listening to those parts, one can actually hear exactly how the melodies mainly tie together. Another thing that unites them are those two cool notes that usually comes before that quick upwardsgoing thingey that I don't know how to explain. Come to think of it, I totally missed out on that same rhythmic melody going downwards instead! Now I made myself a bit disappointed... Those two first notes could go from down to up instead, and then that other thingey could go down, and then there's be another awesome melody... Oh well, maybe next time XD
I'm actually not happy with the volume balance at 2:33. Maybe I'll return to this track in 20 years when I actually know what I am doing?
But otherwise, yeah. What is it, 9 modulations in 11 seconds? I'm not even sure if that counts as modulations, but it sounds pretty cool. Actually, I made something similar in my pirate track earlier, but with different chords and a different rhythm. NO KEY CAN CONTAIN ME!
I try to return to the original key by the end of a track though, unless there's a storytelling reason for me not to. Of course, as this is a loop, I made something that leads back to the first chord at the end.
Arrangement.
I'd say that if you ignore the percussion, this is the part I spent the most time on. I tried using as many instruments as possible out of the ones that were available to me, as long as they fit the track. Thus, I couldn't really use clarinets and such, but different kinds of strings, and some horns and trumpets. And apart from the piano version, I actually added a lot of secondary melodies below the main ones, to keep this interesting to listen to several times. So when I didn't use the french horn as a main melody, I tried to have it do interesting things on another layer, like at 0:55 or 2:58. And at parts like 2:09, you can actually hear the entire backing track playing a separate melody from the main one if you focus on it. Other than that, there's the main rhythm that keeps everything together, as well as the piano at parts, a well hidden harp, a well hidden timpani (I only wanted it to give some extra power to the rhythm, so I kept it super silent but strong enough to make a difference), the marimba, as well as a few atmospheric effects that are just kinda there at two hidden parts, but don't take much room. The percussion, alas, is indeed severely suffering :(
That is the intrumental part of the arrangement. Other than that, it's the structure, but I've already gone over my thoughts about how I feel it works and goes.
"...production quality low."
=> HOW DARE YOU!!!
Jk, of course. I already knew I'd lose a lot of points due to this and the percussion. But given the time we had, and how overly complex I chose to make the track, we didn't have time to make dem0lecule's version much good.
As for humanization and such, I really didn't have time to do a full job of it. The attack is indeed the same for most of the trumpet hits at 0:56, and the same goes for many other intruments at many other parts. The velocities, I had time to vary the most, and for some of the solo strings, I did do a few things to make them less stale. But for the most part, I would've needed much more skill, but mostly, time to do this properly. It doesn't help that this track is divided between 7 different Cubase projects, due to several reasons either XD
As for the mix, I barely managed to make it work at all, so making it good is a whole new step. I should really practice by using less intruments to learn the basics, instead of by cramming 20 different ones together at the same time!
For 1:57, the problem is probably that I have the harp (the very backgroundish harp) from the earlier section here, as it plays all the way until 1:56, and I probably forgot to kill the volume of its remains, so to say...
The other intruments leave something in the air too, so you probably have a good point here :D
At 2:20, I intentionally made the solo viola (*cough* oboe *cough* such was the day when johnfn decided never to guess orchestral intruments again [I mean, I know the quality is not good, but dude...]) quieter, but maybe I shouldn't have. I did this because I wanted the backing track to grab some more attention here. Now if that is what you were talking about, it's a french horn, some trombone (basic brass) hits, as well as a few other things.
I actually think that 2:33 is worse in its balance though. It just feels like the track gets quieter for no reason when the percussion goes away. Should've done something about that...
Either way. I agree with everything about the percussion. There are 3 problems the way I see it. I don't have much in way of percussion vst's yet. I am really not good at using percussion yet. And I definitely didn't have time to use much else than the snare, the closed hi hat, the crashes and a gong. I should (and will) definitely do my best to improve on this in the future. I'll make sure to check that video (track) out as reference!!
As for 1:20, I see what you mean, even though I don't feel it is a huge issue. Especially not as my friend said that it's one of his favorite parts :p
Oh, I'm entirely out of characters, hahha XD
Man. This may well be the most awesome review I've ever gotten. It made me super happy, and it is constructive as well. Thanks a million johnfn!! Made my day both yesterday and today ;)
Alright, so you called me out over on the NGADM thread, so now I have to come over here and beat you u-- err -- justify my obscenely low score on your... HEY! Whatdyaa mean, "obscenely low score"? Just hear me out: I liked this song, and a 6.5 is not a low score! Consider that I scored in the range from 5 to 10 and the other judges mostly scored in the range from 7.5 to 10. Then my 6.5 is like a 8.25 from any other judge. That actually seems fairly reasonable, right? If this was just any old track, I'd give it an 8/10. I just had to scale my scores so I could give proper differentiation from all the excellent NGADM tracks.
So why don't we start by talking about the good stuff here? I love the Celtic-like theme that is going on here. I think that we have had the discussion about how Chrono Cross has the best OST of ALL TIME many times already, but, whatever, let's run those rounds again. The flute at :28 for instance is really giving me those sort of mystical vibes, and that's a very cool thing. The V-VI-vii progression certainly helps. No matter how many times I hear it, I will never think that it's overplayed.
I also like the subtle foreshadowing of the final 4 brass notes that you throw in in several different places. A couple of people mention that the brass in the ending comes out of nowhere, and to the degree that the brass is far too harsh at that point, I'd agree with them - BUT the fact that you set up the ending so nicely by throwing in little references to it all over the place helps that problem a little bit.
I also really like all the details that you put into this track. It seems like almost at any time there are 6 different things going on - some descending harp arpeggio, some bells, some strings... There is a lot to pay attention to here, which is something I always appreciate.
So, what problems did I have with this track? I think that a comparison to your competitor's track is actually quite illustrative here. In fact, you guys seem to have VERY similar styles - you both have fairly weak orchestral sounds* (since LSD didn't have dem0's rather extensive library catalog this time, I suppose), and production not really a focus for either of you, but you both make up for this weakness with strong composition. So why did I end up scoring your competitor higher than you? I'd say it boils down to about 60% arrangement, 40% composition.
A mile high view of the problem I have with this track looks like this: your melodies in this song end up relegated into the background, and the very flat (no change in energy) arrangement does not help accentuate anything. Now, I'm gonna spend a ton of time finding specific examples so you can get a clearer idea of what I'm talking about.
I'm going to draw some comparisons to "For Those Who Remain True," I hope you don't mind - I feel it's most instructive to point to things you've done successfully in the past, so you know what "right" sounds like.
For example, the piano melody that came in "For Those Who Remain True" at :11 is beautiful, it comes in immediately, and it stands out. This is exactly how great melodic content should be presented. In "What Lies Beyond," I have to admit I don't know what melody you want me to be paying attention to in the first 30 seconds. The flute at :15 is almost completely buried behind the strings, but the melody isn't really grabbing me. The flute at :28 seems like a possibility, and it's definitely not buried, but the melody (while better than the previous one) still isn't grabbing me. You should *never* confuse the attention of the listener. The focus of attention in the piece should almost always be obvious.**
By the time we get to :55, I'm lost again. The flute is buried under the strings and the horns and I can't find a melodic contour to grab onto. I'm drifting through the song, not knowing what I should be listening to, which is not the sort of listening experience you want your listener to have.
When I get to 1:30, I start wondering if maybe I should be paying attention to the melody on the bells? The bells are just too high pitched to really carry a good melody. At best you might use them as a response to a call and response. Melodies should usually be in the center - around the same frequency as vocals.
The other thing that I think you really nailed "For Those Who Remain True" was the arrangement - the way you executed transitions kept the song interesting. For instance, at 1:03 you bring in drums. Not only does this add more interest to the song, but it actually makes the melody sound better! That's the magic of a good arrangement - it improves the other aspects of a song. Then at 1:28 you did this neat thing where you modulated and swapped out some instruments in order to bring in a new section, and it's a super effective way of maintaining (heck, heightening) interest. These aren't groundbreaking techniques, but that's okay, because luckily arrangement doesn't have to be groundbreaking in order to be successful.
The problem I have with "What Lies Beyond" is that the amount of interest in the arrangement is pretty darn low. Again, you don't really have to do anything groundbreaking to fix this problem - just add a little energy here, do a little modulation and instrumentation there, just like you did in your other track. I understand maybe you wanted to avoid drums to keep the energy level down, but you could have done a whole lot by switching instrumentation every now and again, or going from a quieter instrumental solo part to a more fleshed out section.
Anyway, great song, ChronoNomad. Not your best, but that's fine, because your best songs are pretty darn awesome, and this one is not too far behind. Keep at it.
Score: 6.5
* Just to be clear, I hardly care at all about instrumental quality in the NGADM. I know I've complained about it in the past :) but my taste has shifted somewhat: I care less about instrumental fidelity and even more about composition/arrangement these days.
** This is one of those rules that, once you know your way around it well enough, you can start to break. But hold off until you really have it down.
I'm going to start out with the positives of this review, but at the end I will be saying my piece. I simply need to make my feelings known to you in an open and honest way, so that is what I will be doing. Accept my feelings for what they are. It's not hatred or disdain in the slightest, and I respect your musical opinion quite a bit. That said, I am disappointed with this singular scoring result. It has nothing to do with being knocked out of the competition, and anyone who is unprepared to lose at some point probably shouldn't even audition. This will ultimately change nothing as far as the contest itself goes, but it is for the benefit of closure for myself. I hope that you read my words thoughtfully, and I thank you for your time.
First off, you give some truly phenomenal feedback, and that is one of my favorite things about you. I have no idea why you use the pseudonym johnfn when you're name isn't actually John, but hey--to each his own. I am a ChronoNomad, after all. (; Once people know you as something, it's usually good to stick with that in order to avoid confusion if you can. Hey, I would love to swap naming convention stories with you someday!
Anyway, back to the critique! You make a lot of solid points here, and they're mostly things that I figured might end up damaging my score. To be honest, what you said about the brass at the end is one of the few positives I've gotten regarding that (as you probably know), and you seem to see my vision therein better than pretty much anyone else. For that, I thank you!
I actually did have kind of a hard time trying to figure out what I wanted to be the centerpiece of the music, and while I do have a clear focal point sometimes, at other times that gets admittedly quite blurry. But see, this is where our opinions differ a bit, I suppose. I don't believe that the music always has to have a single thing that rises above all the others, and when you tell me that I should *never* confuse my listeners, I long to rebel. That's what music is all about! Breaking the boundaries of what is expected, those norms, and making it one's own. And so I simply disagree on the grounds that music is expression, and expression in and of itself is very personal and as different as one snowflake to another. Or, in this case, one person's artistic vision and music sense to another's. And similarly, the listener's aesthetic is also intensely subjective. Anyway, that's my two cents on the "always" and "never" sort of debate. Because I'm not you, you're not me, and people aren't all the same. So I make music for me, which I'm sure is precisely what you do, as well.
I almost kind of feel like you're giving me a second review on "For the Ones Who Remain True" here much of the time, and while I can appreciate the parallels, it also kind of feels like a placation ploy. Forgive me if that's not the case at all, but I'm sure you can understand if I've steeped in a bit of cynicism and jadedness after all these years. All the world's a stage, and the people--merely insecure little players. If I may paraphrase The Bard.
You're right, it's not my best song. I am glad to hear that you do actually like my music, though. I'm sure it's not for everyone, what with varying tastes and whatnot, but to know that what I make appeals to some people is why I continue to share it publicly. I would have liked to have done more with it, changed things up a bit more, but there's still lots of pleasant nuance to enjoy. Ultimately, because this was spread over several project files due to size, going back and forth to change every little thing became an incredibly slow and tedious process. When I started having technical issues, I kind of freaked out since so many other folks had had to reinstall and so forth. So I guess what I'm saying is that, while I did indeed put a lot of myself into the song, I also kind of played it safe a bit. And so the music isn't as dynamic as it probably could be.
Okay, so here are my final thoughts, where I go back to your opening statements and explain my thoughts and feelings regarding the score. Take a deep breath and dive right in...
8.25 would indeed be quite reasonable, johnfn. 6.5, however, is not. I don't know why you chose to forego your usual voting sense (which I generally find to be quite good) here in the NGADM, but while some folks might be lauding you for it, I simply cannot. I'm sure that I'm not alone in this, though anyone who got something like an actual 8 or better from you probably isn't bothered. But to change what you usually do when you rate tracks makes absolutely no sense, and you are entirely correct when you jokingly say that it is an obscenely low score. Because it is.
I'm slowly getting over the sting, but the fact remains that it feels like an insult. And when I read your explanation, that actually makes me more frustrated. If you start with a baseline of 5, that means I actually earned a whopping 1.5 in addition to that, or three half-points. My opponents earned 4 on top of that baseline, or eight half-points. Since you were the only judge who recognized such a keen disparity, I got blitzed single-handedly...by you. My average was pushed below an 8...because of you. So ask yourself this question: if our roles were reversed, would you feel slighted?
I think if you're being honest, the answer would be a resounding yes.
Does that mean that I hate your guts over a score in the NGADM? Of course not! I'm disappointed in the judging, but there seems to be at least one or two reasons for this every single year. The problem is that there isn't some kind of system in place for this and each judge can simply act on his or her own with tons of leeway. I do have a few other issues with you becoming a judge in this round if I'm being completely honest, and I'm sure you can guess why that might be.
But that's it. I've said what I needed to say, gotten that burden off my chest, and now I can move forward from it. I apologize for any perceived harshness, but this has been weighing surprisingly heavily on me, and I required a catharsis. We're good. :)
Holllly crap. This song is a BEHEMOTH. I think I said something on your first round track like "I forgot just how good you are." Well, it seems like you've taken it on yourself to keep reminding me, and doing an even better job than before. This song just has it all - it's just full of really awesome stuff that I just want to gush about. So let's do that.
The chorus is catchy and awesome.
The riffing is heavy and in bizarre time signatures that I can't count (just kidding. I would be remiss in my duty as a judge if I couldn't count time signatures) with really intriguing syncopations that keep me on my toes. Actually, I think you normally just do 4/4, but the syncopation on the main riff REALLY throws off a casual listener. (Not that I'm casual! *ahem*)
The soloing is just NUTS. Zen is 100% accurate. I have no idea how you pulled this stuff off. Your soloing is the best I've heard in this round of the NGADM.
You do a really good job of breaking away from the really awesome heavy metal riffing to get into slightly lower energy sections. This song is really well varied - it has many different, interesting sections to it, and the transitions are generally pretty dang good as well.
So, clearly, I think this song is just awesome. Why did I give it a low score? Wait, what? 8.5 isn't a low score! HOW COME EVERYONE THINKS MY SCORE ARE LOW WHEN THEY AREN'T. 8.5 is the second highest score I gave! Geez.
So, the two things I'm going to throw out as suggestions to improve are actually things that you're already doing pretty darn well - I just think they're the 2 biggest things still holding you back. It's hard to give suggestions when you've practically nailed everything already.
The first thing is structural variation. Although you definitely did a better job than your opponent of varying up your song, there's still this problem where it's almost TOO MUCH METAL and I start to get fatigued by the end of the song. Most professional musicians that write songs break this up by adding vocals, which allows the attention to move to somewhere other than the insanely heavy guitar riffs. Aside from that, you could toss in an acoustic guitar section, or something really different, like piano or saxophone (?!?) or something. I think that variation away from the heavy metal would give this song a bit more depth.
The other thing is much more nebulous - I think that your melodies could be a little better. Mind you, they're ALREADY some of the best melodies of the NGADM, so it's probably a bit strange that I'm asking you to make them even better, but when you release a track this good, with so few flaws, I have to say stuff like this. Like, your main melody for your chorus is very good. The thing I'm not as sold on is your solos. Although they are insanely technically proficient (a fancy way to say INSANELY FAST NOTES WOW), they are not quite as emotive as they could be, or as your chorus is.
So, phew. That was an AWESOME song. Keep up the great work - not like you need me to tell you. One of my favorites from this round.
STOP HAVING SUCH HIGH EXPECTATIONS FOR ME IT DOESN'T HELP.
With that said, thanks for going into this in ridiculous depth. It really helped to shape the 3rd round track (Which unfortunately, didn't make it through but y'know). If I had longer than 2 weeks, I'd be more than happy to put a 30 second clean part in to help break it down and build it back up again, but creating those sections requires such ridiculous detail which I unfortunately don't have the time to do.
Alright, so I basically explained exactly what I think about your song over Skype, but, according to Step when I asked him "a Skype conversation doesn't count as a review you slacker get back to work slave *whip crack*"
;_;
So first off, this track is awesome. I grinned almost immediately when I heard it, because it sounds SO UNLIKE anything else in this round. The heavy emphasis on bizarre atmospheric touches, the weird panning noises, the 7/4, the drums... the DRUMS***... IN A WORLD WHERE ORCHESTRAL DOMINATES THE SOUNDSCAPE, ONE MAN... With this track and your last track I feel like you are really carving out a niche in the edm-scape, and that is pretty awesome. (Not that the "d" in edm really applies here, but who cares?)
My favorite part is around :50 when the bass comes in. Congrats, you actually managed to make a bass actually have sub content for once. </troll> The bass gets into this really natural 7/4 groove, and I was really surprised, because, uh, 7/4 and "natural" are not normally words (well, 7/4 isn't so much of a word as it is a fraction) that go together.
Then the melody comes in, and it just sounds really weird. The rhythm sounds really unnatural because of 7/4... obviously. However, 7/4 melodies don't *have* to sound really unnatural. Just look at Money by Pink Floyd, Solsbury Hill by Peter Gabriel, or - perhaps the best example, because it's an insane jam with a bunch of awesome synth work, just like your piece - the latter couple of minutes of The Cinema Show by Genesis. (Hey, Peter Gabriel was in Genesis too! That guy really liked 7/4.) Admittedly, this is a pretty high standard to hold yourself to. I think it's pretty important that these songs have a couple of silent gaps in the melody.
(And don't you tell me that the melody is supposed to sound unnatural. You're doing that thing that midi was talking about when he posted that thread about music reviews and criticism*. Go listen to Dael by Autechre. Actually, listen to it either way, because it's a great song, and it is kind of in the similar vein of your track. It's one heck of an unnatural song, wouldn't you agree? Sounds like it's made by robots or something, just like yours? But do their melodies sound rhythmically unnatural? No, that would be a cop out. You might find it interesting that I even like this song, because the melody is actually pretty boring. That's alright though, the melody isn't the focus. The focus would be the awesome beat. Now I'm getting way afield, though.)
At this point, you're probably like "OMG JOHN**, YOU'VE WRITTEN 50K WORDS ABOUT MY TRACK AND YOU HAVENT EVEN TALKED ABOUT THE 500 HOURS I SPENT ON SOUND DESIGN." You know what? You're right. The sound design is REALLY awesome here. I really like the pads (the chord choice is delightful btw), the freaking weird snares and hats (remind me of clicking insects gah), the noise that kicks in at :09 which gives such a creepy atmosphere, etc.
Uou know what else I didn't really mention? The production, obviously. Yeah, it's pretty dang top notch. For the category of "fitting the most stuff into a single song and still making it sound good", you might just take home the award. The bass is satisfyingly bassy, the melody sits on top satisfyingly, the drums are exactly as loud as they should be, and the track is never muddled.
I honestly didn't notice any problems at all..! Hax.
The arrangement is kinda by the numbers: build -> climax 1 -> break -> build -> climax 1 which is almost copied from climax 1 except that you varied the melody a little bit. That was a little problematic for me - I like to feel like the piece develops over time, ya know?
When I compare this to your competition, I'm at a bit of a loss. You guys have nearly perfectly complimentary styles - you absolutely nailed the production, sound design and had really interesting chord choice, but your melody was eh. His production and sound design were honestly pretty bad, but his melody was very solid.
And so it seems like I must have a huge bias towards melody over everything else if I gave you guys the same score, but honestly, I score based on how likely I am to keep coming back and listening to a song, and there are really only 2 things that will cause that to happen: a great melody, or a great beat. As awesome as the sound design or production quality is, it's not gonna get stuck in my head and or make me want to listen to the song again.
Multistage rant aside, this was an awesome song. Keep it up.
Score: 7.5
* You know I only harass you like this because I love you.
** I can't believe you still haven't figured out that john isn't my name.
*** Mostly the hats. SO MANY HATS
Clockwork Waltz ![[IV]Mokosz](https://img.ngfiles.com/defaults/icon-audio-smallest.png?f1707337412){kind=icon}
[IV]Mokosz 
No Hope in the Horizon 
Self as Context 
NGADM'15: Limitless 
Facing the Foe 
What Lies Beyond 
Zen 
~SW~ Thurm ins_wa_ 
