This is an official NGAUC Review
My personal rating for your piece is as follows:
Production: 20/30 (Average)
Composition: 22/30 (Above Average)
Instrumentation: 10/15 (Average)
Originality: 9/10 (Great)
Interest: 10/15 (Average)
Giving a total of 71/100, or 3.5 stars.
Please view your rubric for comments-
https://s3.amazonaws.com/ngauc2016samulis/Finals/Daveisgr81.png
Super-detailed feedback, thank you!
This is an official NGAUC Review
My personal rating for your piece is as follows:
Production: 20/30 (Average)
Composition: 22/30 (Above Average)
Instrumentation: 12/15 (Above Average)
Originality: 10/10 (Incredible)
Interest: 10/15 (Average)
Giving a total of 74/100, or 3.5 stars. ('Average')
Please view your rubric for comments-
https://s3.amazonaws.com/ngauc2016samulis/Finals/AeronMusic.png
This is an official NGAUC Review
My personal rating for your piece is as follows:
Production: 20/30 (Average)
Composition: 16/30 (Average)
Instrumentation: 11/15 (Above Average)
Originality: 9/10 (Great)
Interest: 9/15 (Average)
Giving a total of 65/100, or 3.25 (rounded to 3.5) stars. ('Average')
Please view your rubric for comments-
https://s3.amazonaws.com/ngauc2016samulis/Finals/adieuwinter.png
This is an official NGAUC Review
My personal rating for your piece is as follows:
Production: 26/30
Composition: 25/30
Instrumentation: 13/15
Originality: 9/10
Interest: 13/15
Giving a total of 86/100, or 4.5 stars. ('Very Good')
Please view your rubric for comments-
https://s3.amazonaws.com/ngauc2016samulis/Finals/1f1n1ty.png
Hey, samulis! Could I have another one of those super detailed reviews please? :) Thanks!
Great work! Now we just got to get you playing all those instruments. ;D
So nice to just sit back and let a track wash over oneself. Don't be afraid to let things groove when they want to groove, to shape the work along ups and downs as it breathes. I feel highs and lows in pitch, but I feel like there could be more sense of dynamic and rhythmic contrast. Sometimes I start creating a piece and I think one part will be the climax, and it turns out it is actually a different part that really is the climax.
Never stop exploring, dude!
Haha thanks. Yeah I want to learn how to play the piano much better than I'm currently am. I wanted to let the track develope and have something to hang onto, like a middle section but that would have required me to completely redo the piano and strings section which the whole feel and mood of the track rested upon, perhaphs in future work I won't be so stuck on. I mostly used black keys when recording the piano section live on my keyboard as I am not very good at comping up and mixing white and black keys on the go.
Breakdown:
Production: 20/30 (Average)
Composition: 19/30 (Average)
Instrumentation: 9/15 (Average)
Originality: 9.5/10 (Great/Incredible)
Interest: 13/15 (Great)
Total: 70.5/100 (Average) or 3.5 stars.
=======
Comments:
Some really nice usage of musical textures, but another unfortunate track in terms of usage of the potential of the stereo field. Even just some more slight phaser stuff or stereo field manipulation with delay or stereo creation plugins.
I think the recorders/whistles could use some additional vibrato, ornaments (including better usage of short versus long/staccato versus legato performances), or falls to emphasize the motion of notes and phrases- add a little over a whole note to give some interest and color (like this: http://www.newgrounds.com/audio/listen/623625). You have a lot of great ideas, but they are poorly organized, with lines that often stack and conflict with each other, vying for attention, but not in a contrapuntal way of "conversation", but more just like two people playing unconscious of the other, like a bunch of people doing solos at once with no one actually listening and working around each other. Make sure your layers interact and work with each other, rather than against.
Additionally, elements like the whistles (piercing, sharp) contrast too strongly with the attitude of the piece at times, especially when used in their upper register or in very fast, spread out lines- I would almost rather have heard the whistles used almost like backing brass going over guide tone lines and the like than like melody instruments. When the new guitar tone (not very well in time) comes in around 1:05 or so, the flutes should back the heck out of its way. Instead, they keep going on with high, and now quite annoying attention-grabbing melody stuff.
Also in that region and much more of the song, more work could be done to emphasize the harmony and chord progression. Much of the confusion of the 1:05 section is because you have like, five instruments playing quick melodic-esque lines with non-chord tones, and nothing more than a pad and occasional low notes on guitar to extrapolate chords. A substantial bass, even sampled, and some nice comping of chords on piano, or sampled strings, would help greatly.
Overall the flutes themselves do not move around much in their ranges, rather maintaining in a particular octave or so with a lot of repeated notes that just get a bit annoying after a while. The flutes, excluding the low one, all have very sharp hard tones. I would have gone with a more mellow tone- perhaps recorded them with a LDC or a ribbon mic if possible, and turned off some of those high chiffy ends (either with an EQ or by different mic placement, away from the chiff or pointed towards the holes), or considered using a softer flute, like a fife or a transverse flute, which would better match the chill tone. Let's face it, you have these pretty, un-distorted guitar lines and a soft piano and you're going in with what is more or less the supersaw of the flute family.
I really enjoyed the tone and mixing of the guitars. At first I was a little concerned it would be too roomy, but it worked out decently well.
Another concern was the performances. While they are all quite nice, some of them are not quite in time with the others, especially during the early climax portion of the piece, around 1:05. There's rhythms all over the place and very little lining up. There are a lot of ways to work towards fixing this- for example, always recording using ASIO (when on windows) between your audio interface and recording program, and set the latency as low as you can without artifacts/issues. Use a click track when playing (be sure you have headphones that don't "bleed" a lot of sound when doing this). Practice playing to a click track (it's really weird at first, but becomes second nature soon). Even just like, tapping to a click or strumming to a click when just chilling out is a great way to help internalize a steady tempo. Musicians who do a lot of playing, particularly in soloistic settings, tend to play with the beat quite a bit, and that's something you don't want when recording multi-track by yourself because it's hard as balls between latency and ambiguous lines to keep stuff in sync as it becomes rhythmically complex.
My last major issue was the reverb- this piece is washed out like New York after Hurricane Sandy. Washing out a piece is ok as long as it is minimalistic, but once you get to 1:05, it definitely isn't minimalistic and just becomes a bath rather than a listening experience. It becomes very hard to distinguish lines as it all just starts to blur into a mess. I say all this because I used to do this with my mixes all the time too. Over time, I've learned that wetter is not necessarily better, and I've turned from adding reverb to in many cases working to mitigate it. I'm not advocating a totally dry mix, but more fitting usage of a shorter, tighter reverb would really give the playing and the composition a chance to shine- I often view excessive reverb as a ploy to hide mistakes, and I'd be damned if I haven't done it at least a dozen times for exactly that purpose.
This is a solid piece, but I feel its lack of organization and mixing issues keep it from really being something great.
Rubric:
https://s3.amazonaws.com/ngauc2015samulis/FinalRound/NyxTheShield.pdf
A couple of things. They are not flutes, they are recorders, the limited range is a "flaw" of the instrument itself, i dont think it's valid to criticize that. Even the lowers note are at like, C5.
Also, for timing issues. I really, really, really HATE constant tempos. For me it's something that ever happens in real life and when done in a recording sounds extremely fake and mechanic. Same for the use of a metronome. That's in my opinion. Also, i choose to make it messy at the 1:00 minute mark ebcause thats what i wanted to express in the track itself. A sense of confusion. I want to tell an story with my music. A constant and tiddy timing wouldnt have expressed what i wanted. There isn't any latency issues tough, i recorded the guitars first and the flutes over them with an USB mic with >10ms of delay with propietary ASIO drivers, any latency issues you think there might be were left in in purpose, as i said above.
This is the first complain i have ever heard of my reveerbs, it's my signature. I would still call a single acoustic guitar with 2 recorders and 1 guitar with chorus minimalist. I don't like dry mixes for acoustic instruments, i just have to make them sounds more wet.
What do you mean by stereo field manipulations? I don't see a single problem wit the way i layered mi isntrument, i have a guitar (double tracked) to 80% to each side (obv with one side with a bit more, 85% iirc to not make it mono), flutes at 45%, 50% and center respectively and an occasional piano that covers the entire field when is alone with the guitar. I really can't see a problem with the stereo field in this track.
Overall i though i would be less dissapointed with the scoresheet in hand because the i would get why i got scored so low for a track , in my opiinion, was so good but i just feel even more dissapointed because most of the "flaws" that you point are just stilystical choices of mine.
Breakdown:
Production: 19/30 (Average)
Composition: 27/30 (Great)
Instrumentation: 14/15 (Great)
Originality: 9/10 (Great)
Interest: 12.5/15 (Above Average/Great)
Total: 81.5/100 (Above Average) or 4 Stars
========
Comments:
A very well composed piece, like DSyk's other entries in the contest, but held back by the quality of the instruments in terms of production. As the samples used appear to be mostly if not entirely mono (although if they are EWQL SO, if my ears don't deceive me, that doesn't make much sense, as those are stereo... did you perchance try to pan the tracks or instruments yourself? You should never do that with EWQL SO, as all the mic positions come pre-panned for you) a lot more attention to mixing and careful use of reverb must be followed to create a work that is not too warm, bassy, or flat sounding, as this work unfortunately comes out rather intensely in all three. There is little "air" or "breath", rather ironically, in "breathe", and most of that breath comes from either the slight addition of room noise (to liven up the highs) or use of stereo samples. I think this piece would be vastly more emotionally appealing if it used stereo samples- there is a lot of interaction between lines that is left out when they are confined to their sides of the mix. For example, here's a piano piece with just one of the two mics (https://instaud.io/awH) versus both mics in stereo (https://instaud.io/7PB).
Compositionally, the piece is quite fabulous, and, I feel shows a very nice range of stylistic influences. I feel the quiet, gentle nature of the work does not make it boring, as so many works in that feel can. A good use of contrast, development, and form has made a solid work that is both an enjoyable listen (and re-listen) as well as a good example of refreshing and mature composition.
Rubric:
https://s3.amazonaws.com/ngauc2015samulis/FinalRound/DSykMusic.pdf
Thanks for your review Samulis! You were right about it being EWQL SO and it being panned. I never knew about this! This tip has pretty much changed the way I set this library up. THANK YOU!
Score Breakdown:
Production: 18/30 (Average)
Composition: 26/30 (Great)
Instrumentation: 12.5/15 (Above Average/Great)
Originality: 10/10 (Incredible)
Interest: 13.5/15 (Great)
Total Score: 80/100 (Above Average), or 4/5 stars
========
Comments:
Mixing average at best, starting off great, then a few mic'ing hiccups, and then a muddy mess at 2:02 with too many contrasting lines, too much reverb, and not enough attention to mix.
Inconsistent distance from mic leads to inconsistent dry/room tone mixture creating a somewhat unpleasant effect of too much room at some points (like first "... and I see", versus the tone of the end of the verse before that... totally different tone, far too much boxy room). Should experiment with additional mic techniques/placements and angles to capture a less roomy tone (probably closer or in a drier room), and perhaps explore the possibility of stereo mic'ing/additional monophonic mixing techniques in the future.
Composition is pleasant, lyrics are nice. Flow of piece is well done. The digital piano elements were unfortunately quite lack-luster, and stylistically clashed with the very live, rough, acoustic sound of the rest of the track. I recommend exploring the plethora of free and affordable sampled percussion and pianos online.
A good rule of thumb I've heard from innumerable sources is to try to keep the number of independently moving lines below four at any time, and to always have one line be the dominant line. It's very important to have ANY stuff intended to be background stuff NOT be primarily more active, louder, or interesting than what is intended to be foreground stuff. Always try to use guide tone lines (moving to the nearest chord tone between chords) for background elements for best results. If a background element has a lot of non-chord tones, it will sound more like a melody or a counter-melody, hence foreground or middleground. Too many elements in one portion of the mix and it gets crowded... something I struggle with daily with my own style of music.
If a line is rhythmically unique compared to the main comping pattern, it should be brief, preferably connect with the main comping pattern on several beats and be around common tones with the current chords. If it acts like it's doing its own thing, then people will hear it as such and it'll literally sound like it doesn't belong in the piece. I'm speaking mostly about the piano at 2:02 here.
Otherwise, a very nice piece, with good singing, playing, and solid structure.
Rubric:
https://s3.amazonaws.com/ngauc2015samulis/FinalRound/Ceevro.pdf
Wow! This is a wall of text worth considering! I thought I had my mic-placement pretty decent! And there are certainly some things I'm taking away from this with regards to composition...I'm thinking organic is the way to go for me, because I'm just not so good at controlling myself when I dive into the limitless possibility of synths. Things get crowded, as you said.
...And I'm really not a good pianist!
This is horrible. I hated every minute. Bad mixing. Bad mastering. Bad everything.
jk
I'm glad to see you got this out! Man, this thing was a rushed production for you, hahaha. Less than 100 hours? Skyewintrest? Can't be good! Really, this came out fantastic. Really nice contrast as always, great use of instruments and sounds.
Yeah, no kidding with regard to the rushed production. I still feel like it's one of my better pieces though, even with that rushed production.
...ironic that I submitted something technically dubstep for my first round piece two years in a row.
Ironically reminds me of the score to Age of Empires I... with a bit more dickery.
Orchestral music, weird instruments, and sample libraries just about sums it up.
Age 29, Male
Sample Library Dev
Berklee College of Music
New England
Joined on 1/3/10
End Times 
Pacifist 
Tidelocked 
Veva 
Ancient Voices - Ambient Piano & Strings 
A New Future 
Breathe 
Some of My Foolishness 
~SW~ Data Transfer 
Figuratively Figurative 
