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
Alright, I just have to get this out of the way. About a year ago I wrote a song which I liked a lot, although I never made it into a full song. The reason I bring it up is that the main melody of that song has 8 notes that are, NOTE TO NOTE AND RHYTHMICALLY EXACTLY THE SAME as your main melody. It's a particularly bizarre experience to judge a track when the main theme is something that I also wrote. Do I award full points for LITERALLY BEING ME? Or 0 points for COPYING MY SUBCONSCIOUS?!?
I might actually be underrating this song because I've heard the melody already, so it doesn't have that novelty to it! Like I said... it's super weird.
Alright, let me settle down.
This is a really, really good track. The first thing that catches my attention is, obviously, the mix. It's just so darn well done. It makes me mad! Aside from some small nitpicks, which I'll get into eventually, the mix is insanely well done, and definitely the most satisfyingly full mix that I've heard this round on the NGADM. Way to go.
Not only does this song have a (generally) awesome mix, but it seems like it's just full of things for judges like me to geek out on. I'll just have a quick go at them, here we go.
The main piano theme. Again, this is the exact theme that I came up with once, so it's kind of weird for me to judge it, but yeah, I'm pretty sure it's good. :P
The transition at 1:05. Actually, that transition REALLY caught me aback the first time I listened to it, and I wasn't really totally sold on it, and I'm still not sure if I am (it doesn't really raise tension as you'd expect it to so much as it makes you go "what the heck is happening" - I think it would have been better if the guitar had a more clear ascent to the final note rather than going around in circles and then finally hitting it). I have to say though, I haven't heard anything quite so insane in a while, so that's something.
The 5/4 section. Every judge likes prime number time sigs over 4 that are greater than 3, and you musicians have apparently caught onto this secret in the second round of NGADM. Your 5/4 riffing is effortless.
The peak of the guitar solo at 3:08 (I actually wanted to hear it go up higher more, but this is still an awesome moment).
Anyways, so I clearly think that this song is awesome. So why the low score? Actually, 8.5 isn't a low score at all. It's the second highest score I gave! Why did you think it was a low score, anyways? Well, I should probably complain about some stuff, to give you a direction to improve. So here we go.
I do think that the mixing is off at points. Again, the mix is awesomely full, so that's definitely not where the problem - it's I think that the drums are too quiet. If you compare with professional tracks done in the same vein, I think you'll find that drums in this sort of driving orchestral rock hybrid track are much louder, to really give energy to the track. I would also expect the drums to be slightly bassier.
The mix does become a little cluttered at points, as well, just because there's so darn much stuff in it. Consider 2:00, where the guitar is kinda competing with the pad, and the midbass guitar seems to just be completely drowned out. Or at 2:32, where the first few notes of the piano are almost completely impossible to hear (this is minor, since we all know what those notes are by now, but still).
I also want to talk a little about transitions. I already kinda expressed my confusion over the transition at 1:05, which I think is kinda emblematic of my problems with transitions generally in this piece. A really good transition into an energetic part should be gearing you up to go HECK YEAH by the time that the next section kicks in. One of my favorite transitions is the one that starts at 3:02 in the song "The Good Life" by Weezer (listen to the whole song to get the full impact). It certainly doesn't hurt that the song is just generally amazing, but that transition back into the chorus is *so* good that even if Weezer had decided to make the final chorus a reprise of Humpty Dumpty it STILL would have been awesome, just by virtue of the incredible transition.
This is the kind of thing that I wanted from your track, especially the transition into the final chorus (which should always be the biggest hitting moment, since it's at the end of the song anyways!). I mean, just think of how awesome 2:53 in your track could have been with the right sort of transition.
Aside from the buildup transitions, I felt like some of the other transitions were a little weird as well, in a more minor way. For example, the transition at 1:31 (No, Microsoft Word, I did not misspell "1:31". That doesn't even make sense.) - that awesome midbass riffing just sorta... fades out? That's kind of disappointing. Similarly with 2:09, I felt like it was kind of a let down, since a modulation should usually be a BIG DEAL, but instead you just hit a couple of very quiet brass notes and then BOOM.
Anyways, I know I complained a lot here but, all in all, this was an awesome track. Well done, you guys. It was one of my favorites from the round.
Or maybe... YOU ARE A TIME TRAVELER AND STOLE THE MELODY FROM ME IN THE FUTURE! :O
It's a tad odd that we've written the same thing, haha.
I agree with you entirely on transitions, they weren't as good as they could have been for sure (we have a long list of excuses, time blah blah, also we are dads). I'm not certain I agree with the mix being cluttered, as it was mixed from a guitar driven point of view, but knowing something could be off is worth checking into, and we'll definitely pay close attention in the next track (YOU WILL ONLY HEAR DRUMS)
Also modulating is weird and hard sometimes, so it's easy to spend a lot of time on those tiny (but important) passages, which we didn't seem to have enough of this round. Admittedly, we skimped a bit on composing for the modulation, so your critique is well noted. Already I think we're off to a more sound theoretical start for the next track, and I'm hoping you'll be impressed. Thank you for the epic review!
Somewhat appropriately, the 2 biggest metal guys got paired off immediately. The judges must really hate metal or something. :) (I was not involved in the pairing process in any way. Don't judge me.)
Both you and your competitor pulled out pretty awesome tracks. This is a really solid track, and you should definitely be satisfied with the work that you did. You went in with the attitude that you were gonna get wrecked, but I think you did good. The main riffs are all very solid. It has many different sections and the changeups are generally delightful.
I want to draw your attention to the mix, however. Consider the section around 1:10, particularly the lead guitar. It's too quiet! I actually have to listen very closely in order to hear all the notes, which is definitely no good. (The lower notes are particularly bad.) It's the *lead*, it should be very prominent in the mix (behind only the drums, really). This happens quite often in the song - the lead is buried. Listen to 3:10 - you can barely even hear the lower 2-3 notes on the guitar line.
I also want to talk about the arrangement for a little bit. Except for a single very quick section around 2:50, this song is hardcore heavy metal without any breaks at all. This will fatigue any listener (particularly people who don't listen to all too much heavy metal). Breaks are absolutely necessary to ameliorate this fatigue. This kinda gets into what I wanted to say next, which is that I think that this song could use more variation of instrumentation. Commercial heavy metal tracks almost always feature singing, so that the focus can move from guitar to vocals (which keeps the listener invested), but they'll also try playing the guitar with different soloing styles, add acoustic guitar into the mix, etc, etc.
I don't mean to bash on the song too much, of course, because I liked it! I thought it had a bunch of interesting ideas both melodically and with respect to the arrangement. The ascending riffs around 1:10 are pretty cool, for instance, and were a pretty good selection for the main theme. My favorite part, though, is (and this should come as no surprise given what I said about the importance of breaks) the breakdown at 2:50 which introduces a sort of 5 + 5 + 5 + 1/4 meter which is played on top of the 4/4 meter. This is super cool. I just gotta love this sort of polyrhythmic stuff. I particularly like how the 2nd 5 starts on the off-beat, which gives it a different feeling from the previous 5 (even though it's the same notes!).
The transition back into heavy metal with the same polyrhythm idea is especially satisfying (this is why breaks are so great!) and the further transition back into the main theme is great too. Great way to end a great track.
> You're a lot kinder than johnfn when it comes to judging sound design, it seems. :P
YEP. I still don't like the sound design at all. That's my biggest complaint. Seriously, just write a chiptune song. I would be soo happy :>
Also, I want to take a comb to some of your melodies and tighten them up a little. Sometimes, particularly at the ends of little melodies, you use a few too many notes. It seems redundant, like you're over-explaining the melody. It might be a fun exercise for you to try to take off a couple of notes on the end of random melodies, to see if the point still gets across (or is improved).
This is one heck of a step up, though. The 1:30 transition and then the triplet section is so good :3 Kind of reminds me of Waterflame actually, he used triplets all over the place lolz.
Well... (tbh though there are lots of sounds here that i don't particularly like, either, especially that chordy synth at 1:51 :P)
=> chiptune =>
Okay, okay! Ironically, sound design is one of the things that scares me the most about chiptune though, since I can never get any of the tracks to sound chippy enough. :D
=> ends of melodies =>
Y'know, I've actually never thought of doing that before. :P Now that you mention it, it sounds like such a natural thing to do! I guess I really like sixteenth notes or something :D I am DEFINITELY doing this for my next few tracks.
=> Waterflame =>
Hoo man, that guy is one of my biggest inspirations (at the top of a long list including you, ofc). I'm honored to hear you say that! :D
Thanks for the review! And I hope you get your musical mojo back soon so you can go back to uploading ear candy into the Internet! :D
Facing the Foe 
What Lies Beyond 
Zen 
~SW~ Thurm ins_wa_ 
Unsung Hero 
Son of Beach (NGADM '15) 
Uplift 
Velcro 
~SW~ Data Transfer 
