Troisnyx's audio Reviews on Newgrounds

[Epilogue]

Is it just me or is there no volume automation for the guitar? It sounds kinda.... bland.

The intro builds up, and then the whole piece remains at the same level of tension until like, the very end, and then resolves. There's no climax, not that I can hear throughout this piece. It's the same chord progression all throughout -- which can sometimes work well in some pieces, but it doesn't here. I find that there's a gap that needs to be bridged. Something is missing. Some oomph.

Those strings that you put in there are quite atmospheric, but I feel like they're darting a bit all over the place. Listening to this piece, altogether, I find that there's nothing that strikes me as memorable about it. Unless you were meaning to convey the feeling of boredom, in which case: well done.

2.5/5.

pit80 responds:

YEah, actually guitar not real..That why :). I was testing some guitar instrument . Of course it's can't be perfect sound (like real guitar).
But too diffclt to make sound like real guitar. I'm still practice :)
Thanks for comment!

[Deteriorate {Dj-Abbic}]

This is a NGAUC Finals review. Apologies for the massive delay in reviewing...

I do not know what kind of time restraints you had, but for the presumably little time you had, your production skills are marvellous. Everything is mixed well and has its place, and is nicely balanced and audible. Am I right in guessing that you took a different approach to most and concentrated on the production side, where most people would have concentrated on composition? -- many other listeners and judges would appreciate you for this. I do. ^_^

Let's take it chronologically:

0:00 - 1:20: You have a good sense of buildup, but I find that the four-chord sequence that is repeated here gets a tad tiring. You start off with a nearly-acoustic feel, and it gradually progresses to electronica. Your instrumentation is nice and your bass is playful, but there are some things I'll need to mention a little later.

1:21 - 1:58: Drop, and then growly basses. That was a very nice drop, and the wobbles are nice to listen to -- but they repeat. Bit of a synth buildup would have been appreciated here, in anticipation to 1:59? It does not need to be standoffish or evident; a subtle one would've been enough.

1:59 onwards: There's a bit more of an evident melody in there. There are some bits that do clash, and are hard on the ears.

2:20: I can tell the piece is winding down. There is a dampening of a lot of sounds. I guess it's a good thing.

2:39: Back to the melody we first heard. I would have really, really appreciated if there were little fragments or hints of this melody cleverly hidden in the rest of the piece, because it felt very A -- > B in structure, like the first idea was used, thrown away, and then used again.

Ending: The fadeout feels a bit of a letdown. A more definitive ending would have been appreciated. I understand this is one of the reasons you weren't particularly happy with this piece.

Much of the piece suffers from these --

1) The bass, while playful, follows the melody or the top line in octaves. You know your chords; you'd want the bass and the melody to have some degree of independence from each other without them clashing.

2) On the subject of clashing: there are a few parts, like 2:07, where I hear parts that clash with each other -- for instance, the bass and the synth melody, creating dissonance that ought not to be there.

3) There needs to be some sort of variation. There are two very distinct four-chord sequences, and they need to be anything *but* four-chord sequences. Or if they did stay as four-chord sequences, they ought to have been built up on. Say, buildup to some sort of climax. Because I felt that the repetition did not justify what I was listening to: I heard a beginning, I heard rising tension (but not a climax -- and no, the drop didn't do it for me, I'm afraid), falling tension, and then an ending which was nearly similar to that of the beginning.

The good bits, all in all were:

1) Good instrumentation.

2) Excellent mixing.

3) Knowing how to be playful with your instruments, even with the repetition. Knowing not to stick to trite playing techniques, if you get what I mean.

I'm not too fazed about the ten seconds of silence at the end -- we all make that mistake from time to time.

In spite of the flaws of this piece, I want to emphasise its strengths -- and I want to commend you, above all, for going out of your comfort zone, attempting something different. The outcome doesn't matter; the fact that you've attempted something different already makes you confident, a winner in my eyes. Take this time to iron out the flaws, and never cease in attempting new things -- if you didn't surprise yourself this time, you might very well surprise yourself and others the next. I am confident about it.

Keep up the good work! Also, pardon me for a relatively incoherent review..... I find that words aren't sufficient to express what's good or what's lacking.

6.9/10.

DjAbbic responds:

A review of this length is worth the delay :)

You would be correct in your guess. I did focus on production over composition. I have always taken that approach and, although it does take away a bit from the creative side of things, I feel like quality takes precedence over creativity. Besides, I don't make music to be creative - I make music I like and the music I like just so happens to not require too much creativity :).

I agree completely with your comments about the reptitiveness of this. I tried to vary it a bit by changing the way the sequences end but that was obviously not enough.

I also understand there is a lack of climax. However, a climax is something that I don't usually incorporate into my music because I tend to dislike it when only a small part of the piece is climatic and everything else serves as a build-up.

Although I'm not satisfied with this piece as it currently is, I am generally happy with the way my experimentation turned out and I'm glad you think so too.

Thanks a lot for the very detailed review, it wasn't incoherent in the slightest (this reply on the other hand...:p) and thanks for taking your time to participate in judging! It was a good experience for myself and I'm sure everyone else felt the same.

[Chere Modesto]

This is a NGAUC Finals Review. I apologise for the massive delay in reviewing, but well, here it is.

The foundation of this piece is somewhat nailed well -- the drums have a punch about them, but in some parts like 3:24 they need more punch -- there, they sound not as expressive as they could be. Imagine a drummer on the kit (which, by itself, sounds sweet) -- at 3:00 there's a lot of energy; he'd be flailing away at it! On that note, the cymbals need some brightness.

The bass is playful, and could do with a little turning up. I like how you change the bass instrument: first it was the piano, then (was it some plucked bass?) then it turned out to be some 8-bit synth. And credit to you on this one: you have great instrument variety, your choice of them is rather quirky I think, and you give different vibes about this piece.

I read in the description about your idea to write a song in Morse code -- and I think it very clever. And understandably, you don't want to do too much instrument layering in the back for fear that the actual Morse would be overshadowed. (But I think your mixing mostly solid; I believe you could still pull it off even if you did layer more instruments.)

Which leads me to some points for improvement, at least from what I'm listening:

First, what seems to me as an abrupt change of atmosphere. Someone remarked that the beginning of your piece sounds like an atmosphere for dog food (or an atmosphere with a bounding dog in it!). Then comes the 8-bit section at around 1:18, which could have been transitioned into a little better -- the melodies came sudden, and so did the 2X tempo change. Now transitioning *out* of this into the melody we first heard, towards the end.... that wasn't as abrupt -- it was far more gradual, and far easier on the ears.

Then, the way the melody progresses. You have nice chords, and a nice bass line -- but the melody seems to be darting all over the place sometimes. This is Morse and you have absolute freedom with what pitch you're going to put it in.... In the beginning and towards the end, it is singable and memorable. Around 2:00 to 3:00 you have this really jazzy feel, and everything fits, but right before that: there's a part that, when I listened to it, gave me a "what the heck?" moment (I think it's 1:18 onwards). Which leads me to correlation with the lyrics. Because of that 'what the heck' moment, part of the song sounded like the Morse was being set to unfitting music.

Is there an atmosphere you're aiming to create with lyrics like these? Ideally, unless the song calls for it, pick one atmosphere, and stick with it -- you can't go wrong.

All this aside, I think it's quite clever what you've done here. Very good effort on your part.

7/10.

LunacyEcho responds:

Thanks for such an in-depth review! May I also congratulate you on your work in the NGADM and hope you continue to make music for a long time?

=> drums =>

I think one of the major mistakes I made for this song was that I drowned the drums in reverb. :D Also, all the different drums (cymbals, snares, toms) are all in one track on my software, so it's kind of hard to do something like single out the cymbals and edit those alone. :/

=> bass =>

Yup! piano => heavily distorted elec. bass => synth/elec. bass => piano

=> mixing =>

I'm glad you think that! Based on tons of recent feedback, I need to work a lot on my mixing, and it was something I tried hard to work on here.

=> abrupt change =>

Yup. When I upload a piece, I generally try and pinpoint the one aspect about it that would be criticized the most. This time, I knew it was the transitions. :)

=> melody darting all over the place =>

That entire melodic section was written from 1-3 AM. I guess it reflected my mind state at the moment, but wasn't really a very cohesive listen. :D

=> atmosphere =>

Not really. Halfway through production, I thought "hey! I've always wanted to do a Morse code song and the judges might appreciate an interesting gimmick" so I built the rhythms into the bluesy part. For the lyrics, I chose something I thought represented an underdogs competition well, without real thought to how it fit in with the atmosphere. :D I don't really do lyrical stuff, so I guess I chose pretty badly.

Thanks for the awesome review and huge thanks for all the work you've done for the competition!

[The Cosmic Prelude]

This is a NGAUC Finals review. I apologise for the massive delay in reviewing -- but I have this piece on loop as I am reviewing it.

The piece starts off with its foundations nailed: deep, growling bass, and then other instruments coming in progressively. I do indeed feel like I'm watching a Star Trek opening credits scene (bar Enterprise; I'm talking about those orchestral or awe-inspiring themes). This is one I can listen to over and over again, and you've nailed the atmosphere beautifully. There is no bombasticism, only simple majesty. I have no complaints with your mixing either: you seem to have given every instrument its proper place and loudness (or softness). I can't say "instrument," really, but more "range of frequencies," since all of them seem to be synths. You musicians know what I mean! o.O

Your chords inspire awe and wonder, and your melody is easily recognisable. Now I know I could recognise chord progressions from places (but that's what we all do) and we pick out those that we think would be best suited for space, emotion, etc. Parts of it seem to evoke Band of Brothers, From the Earth to the Moon...

There is so much good in this piece, so much beauty, that I do honestly wish I could neglect that which needs improvement in this piece. But well, let's move on to that:

Much of what this piece is lacking is variation. It doesn't need to be great: subtle buildup, subtle tension and release, like the gradual fading in and fading out of a starry-sounding synth, for example. I could imagine this subtle tension and release to evoke the transitory nature of even the cosmos -- something so beautiful like this is still not eternal, and such a reference to it can be very sobering. If it isn't a synth that does this, maybe strings? Still keep the slowness and majesty of this piece, but in doing so, inspire a blood rush of sorts. I'm not sure how well I expressed this, but I hope you get the gist of what I'm saying. *blush*

At the moment, there is very little tension and release -- the atmosphere is one and the same for the most part. Instrument layering can really help, and so can dynamics. There's also a teeny bit of loud-soft about this piece -- which I think needs to be built upon. What I'm getting is a constant mezzo forte -- which is good for a start -- but forte? fortissimo? The passion in this piece is evident to me, but it can be made much more apparent.

The ending seemed a bit careless to my ears (I felt the F chord could be dragged, while the rest of it could be softened) -- the ending can make or break a moment of majesty. This is a matter of nitpicking, I should think.

These are the kinks I've managed to pick out about this piece. It is otherwise beautiful, majestic, calming and successfully creates a visual picture in my heart and mind. Much passion went into this and I do not doubt that you're on to great things. If ever you do revisit the Cosmic Prelude, please do: I look forward to hearing it from you once again.

8.2/10.

Bardash responds:

Sorry for disappearing, but life got rather busy for a bit. Thank you again for your amazing insight and knowledge. I truly appreciate your comments.

[Hallelujah (cover)]

Your voice is soulful, and I can hear it in the way you speak. It has the quality of a trying person in it, and a gift is best given with the "raw" quality of the vocals and playing, so to speak -- which is what you do here. That guitar is expression-filled. Here, too, I hear the range of your voice -- you seem to be a baritone, but you nail the tenor and basso profondo ranges quite well too, a trait which very few male vocalists have altogether.

I do not doubt that your cover will be appreciated by your uncle, and anyone else who appreciates the song -- flaws and otherwise. The song itself is something to make you think on what, how and why -- and I say this as a religious person. I do not claim to know why you picked this, but I commend you on this performance.

4.5/5.

Ceevro responds:

Well, I'm not a religious person at all, which is one reason spirituality is such a difficult topic of me. I agree that the song is there to make one think, both on the futility and beauty of life itself. Yeah, this sort of performance is by far best done 'raw,' warts and all, so to speak.

On range...well...that's one reason a song like this is so intimidating. The melody is simple, but the dynamics are huge, and well...I can belt it out louder an octave higher. However, going as low as Leonard Cohen...I can get that low, but I don't have the control to sustain it well.

Thank you for the kind review!

[You Know Nothing]

This is a NGAUC review.

The beginning sounded almost Bond-like. Good hook! Wonderful chords, and the melody is singable too. You play with time signatures as well.... in the intro, I can't tell sometimes whether I heard 2, 3 or 4 beats to the measure or more -- but you always bring it back so well.

Your bass and percussion are solid, and you have a good sense of buildup. You don't let the bassy sections drag on too long -- instead going straight to where it matters, the hook.

2:33 is another example of playing with time. That drop is nice.

You switch things up so well that you manage to keep the whole piece interesting -- it sounds playful, warm (but not unduly so), whimsical, but heavy stepping in some sections (as it ought to). While I will admit this hasn't completely blown me away, this is a good dance track -- the kind I haven't heard in a long while!

7/10.

Voltus responds:

Thanks for your Review!

[1000 Laughin' Corpses]

This is a NGAUC review.

I get the feel of being in a graveyard, from the intro.... but not just any graveyard, rather, one where people are mutilated and buried. And then the corpses in question somehow become reanimated and chase after you.... long story short, anime zombie fare.

Then the DNB part comes in, and it serves more as atmosphere than anything else.

2:26 marked a welcome change in atmosphere. Before that, I was screaming inside, hoping for some sort of variation somewhere, something that would inspire even greater chills.

2:45 was a repeat of before 2:26, and while I can hear more wobbles, I would have loved even greater chills down the spine. If you're not one for melodies and chords, I would have appreciated more fitting FX: chains, skewers impaling the bodies of the dead, entrails pouring out, screams! Something that really screams "blood-curdling, cold-blooded and horrific." It did nail the horror theme, but not by very much: I would have loved for the tension and the fright to mount with each passing section. The intro was the scariest thing there, but that was it. Much more expression is needed.

I have no complaints with the mixing.

6/10.

Stapless responds:

thank you for your thoughts on the track. :)

[Stories of the Battlefield]

This is a NGAUC review.

I can hear just the kind of feel you are going for here -- up till (?) it sounds like the mystical themes that can be heard in the soundtracks to The Lord of the Rings, Xenoblade Chronicles, and various RPGs in general. You have a good sense of tonality: you have playful melodies, and the background somehow fits. It is atmospheric. I can sometimes hear parts getting progressively louder to inspire greater tension, say close to 2:20, with the percussions.

It is musically outstanding, but completely lacking in the way of production -- explanation below.

First, volume. Imagine you're playing each instrument physically. That's your objective when sequencing music. Right now, it sounds like nearly every note on the harp especially (but on other instruments too) is being played at the same exact volume. It makes it sound like a 1980s or 1990s MIDI....... you want to give it a human touch to make it touch hearts.

So what do you do? Two things. 1) Adjust each individual note volume, in the same manner that you would hear a harp (or something else) being played. 2) Make use of volume envelopes. The introduction, for instance, I could tell, was meant to be soft and gentle, and even was coupled with a gentle breeze to boot. The purpose of volume envelopes is so that you could direct, *in relation to the whole piece,* how loud or soft an instrument should be. Soft intro, but slowly building up to the climax! -- and then gently finishing.

Then, reverberation. This is important if you want your piece to sound like it's being played in a natural setting. I'm not sure what DAW you use, but there should be a reverb plugin somewhere. Now, you don't want it to sound *too wet* -- for otherwise, you can't hear anything that's being played all too well. You want to give it the right balance. Imagine you're in a concert hall, or a church, or a large community hall. There will be hard and soft surfaces. Sound will plink off the walls. Try to imagine what it would sound like.

Finally, equalisation. Again, I don't know what DAW you use, but there should be an EQ plugin somewhere.

The purpose of it is to bring the natural frequencies of each instrument out, so that everything has its proper place. The basses sounded a bit muddled here, and so did the wind effect you put in the beginning of the piece, for instance. And then you had a whole lot of background instruments whose melodies I couldn't make out. I'll give you an example of how it ought to be used --

Basses, for instance. If you'd like to make them stand out. Their natural frequencies are around below 100Hz, although you'd like to take that slightly lower. So bring those frequencies out. Then a harp..... it's higher, so you'd expect it to be a few KHz.

Well, I hope this helps. The ideas are just stunning in this piece, and I can already imagine what it could be, after having listened to it. Mixing needs a lot of improvement.

6/10.

Sovarozum responds:

thanks for the input :D|

I do have one question though. What did you use to listen to this?

[The_Imaginary_Sword]

This is a NGAUC review.

Right off the bat, I hear choirs... which could sound wider, wetter and more humanised. They sound like Vocaloids without any volume changes........

Your instrumentation is good, and not out of place. Your chords and sense of tonality are alright. I can see the vision of what you are trying to compose.

But your mixing and lack of volume control throw the whole thing out of balance.

Now imagine this being performed in a room. You wouldn't have the instruments playing at the same volume with each note, would you? You'd vary each note's volume in the piano roll, to achieve the desired effect. Then, you'd add the necessary reverberation, to make it sound like it's been played in a natural setting. For the choirs in particular, you'd imagine the conductor would instruct them to go loud and soft in some places.

Then come the uses of volume envelopes. Some parts in the song would be soft early on, and then getting progressively louder. Tempo envelopes also could be used to that effect, for instance with the choirs, if you want them to sound solemn.

Mixing is also about recognising the frequencies of each individual instrument, and making sure they do not overlap (so that they don't get 'swallowed'.) For instance, your drums are barely audible, and sometimes other instruments tend to overlap (strings and vocals, etc.). Then this is where equalisation comes in. Give each instrument its best frequency range (for instance, basses about 50Hz, drums about 100 Hz or slightly higher, and so on and so forth) until each can be clearly heard.

I feel painfully for this piece because I can imagine its epicness already. I can hear the final result in my head. But it sounds heavily automated, very much like the humanisation work isn't done.

4/10.

Possibly responds:

Ouch :)

Thanks for taking the time to review.

Yeah, I was trying to treat them as 'phantasmagoric instruments' so for me there was to be a certain sense of the timbre as a whole with individual instruments emerging from the depths only to subside.

I will take on board your points about the volume and mixing etc and your more general points as well - I have to admit, that in terms of the volume, specifically the choirs I had deliberately curbed the variance in volume as it just wasn't working as points of emphasis, I found the more subtle changes worked better for me, but I take your point that it's not quite there for you. It's only the second time I have used them, and this is better than the first at any rate.

The drums as well, I kind of just wanted them there, accenting but not dominating. I'll come back and take a more objective look down the line perhaps.

The actual title I was working with was 'minds, like hearts, break' but I didn't use it for fear of my pretensions being too much on show, but perhaps if I had used it, that would have placed more of a limit on your feeling painfully for a particular brand of epic.

I only used automation a couple of times - but I think this was more related to an artificiality you heard which I will definitely consider in future.

I wouldn't make any claims to being fantastic or perfect in any particular regard - but some of the flaws you mention were stylistic choices, rightly or wrongly.

Anyway, thanks again for the review, I'll certainly bear it in mind in future.

Cheers!

[Tavern theme]

This is a NGAUC review.

Oh gosh, I love this. Jazz, when done well, has been known to bring the best out of a composer -- chords, melodies, flourishes, rhythm. And you have NAILED ALL OF THEM! You've put a smile on my face. The foundations have been nailed out -- the drums are crisp, the bass plays quite a bit, the chords do vary (they are not as repetitive as in many submissions I've come across), the melody is singable.......

Mixing is tastefully done; the strings (?) here are a bit too wet for my taste, but everything else has its proper place.

Another slight complaint is that the loop point is a tad iffy.

If I ever have a suggestion, it'd be perhaps that you vary feel of it just a *little bit* -- hi-hats, more syncopation on the drums (e.g., kicks and snares coming in on offbeats) -- and just a little tasteful syncopation on the other instruments. While it will be in keeping with the atmosphere you have here, it is a wonderful way to tell people there's a bit of a dynamic change about the piece. Then resolve back to your main theme. It feels like A-B-A to my ears, the way the song structure goes -- what about A-B-A-C-A? Switch things up a little.

Overall well done. Props to you.

8.7/10.

Jernemies responds:

Hey, thanks for the detailed rev :)
Glad you liked it, points noted. The loop might not the THAT fluent, because I didn't carry on the decay of the instruments in the end to the beginning.