SkyeWint's audio Reviews on Newgrounds

[footsteps]

Hi there!

The Good:
-Aw man, the piano sound is really nice, I like the syncopation in the bassline. The velocity layering really helps a lot for it.
-Overall melodic content in this is some of the best I've heard in a long time.
-The other instruments are really used to great effect in this piece. The opening at 3:12 is absolutely amazing.
-Good on you for trying to go in a different direction rather than JUST pushing to win.
-Oh yes, since I've been picking on you for transitions recently, I just thought I'd say: Good work on them here! (though the outro can still use some work)

The Not-So-Good:
-More realism in the piano please. <3 If it's going to solo, then having it be less quantized would be wonderful. For an idea on how, try listening to the piece "Drowning Into the Heavens" by MarkySpark on here. That has some fantastic realism along with even more excellent velocity changes.
-Not sure I like the raw white noise sweeps. Try adding a light phaser/flanger. There should be a good phaser in the Fruity Love Filter (can't be bothered to find the technical name while writing this review - you know what I'm talking about), subtle phaser and flanger settings. A chorus could also help.
-This is more of a personal thing, but it might have been nice to have some kind of background effect to really put me in the place for the footsteps. Where are the footsteps? Where is the snow? I can't really hear anything like this until the white noise.
-There's a lot of good melodic material, and I don't want you to cut down the length at all, but what would have been good is giving some kind of motif. It's all about the melody, right? There's not really much that's a clear motif here.
-Overall composition thing: The entire piece moves more like a single crescendo with a teeny-tiny decrescendo at the end - the ending still feels far more climactic than the first two minutes.

Overall: Score of 9/10. This is fantastic. Only some issues which keep me from putting it higher, as you can see. Good job!

johnfn responds:

Thanks for all the good points and the great review! I went in a different direction just for you~ (that's actually not true - I would have gone insane if I had done the same style again - but let's just say it's true).

> More realism in the piano please

This is funny because almost all the piano was played by me. However I did quantize it a lot, and adhered to the metronome pretty closely. I think what you really are asking for - judging by the piece you sent me - is rubato, like Step mentioned (let me know if I'm wrong, or there is something I'm missing). I'll definitely be keeping that in mind if I dive into more solo piano stuff in the future.

> Fruity Love Filter

Yeah, great idea. Though I use Ableton now ;-)

> some kind of background effect

This is a neat idea too. I felt like my last song was almost too story based so I wanted to ratchet that down a little.

> some sort of motif

Actually the intended motif was :24 - :29, shows up again at :44, :57, 1:31, and then at 4:38 (!). I took your critique from my last song to heart about motifs, I think you're right in that they're an easy way to tie the song together. But actually, even writing this out, I see the problem - it disappears for 3 minutes, lol. So I'll have to keep that in mind in the future...

> The entire piece moves more like a single crescendo

Is that bad? :P You might have to explain this to me more. I mean, a lot of great music functions as a single crescendo. The whole genre of post rock, for example haha.

Anyway thanks for the review! You have a really interesting way of listening to music and assigning scores.

[Expression of Freedom]

Hi. You asked! I think I might still be in judge-mode though, so the feedback might be a bit harsh again. Sorry. ^_^`

The Good:
-The introduction is good, I like the delays on the synth.
-I'm liking your pitch sliding in the synth that comes in at around 0:40. Reminds me a lot of a SNES game that nobody seems to have ever heard of - Brain Lord.
-Good sliding effect at 1:34.
-Liking the little break at 1:57, good little section without

The Not-So-Good:
-Okay, your mixing definitely does need work. I'd suggest letting the bass have more bass frequencies, as it's more in the lower mid right now as far as I can hear. I mean come on, this is drum and BASS, after all, not drum and mid!
-The drums are... eh. The kick feels like it needs a little bit more in the higher frequencies to give it an initial hit, and the snares are a bit loose. At the very least, they're drowning out the high hat that's panned to the left. Frequencies could be edited to let it breathe more.
-As I said in Skype, this is pretty clogged with mids overall. They can take a lot, but try expanding the spectrum, using panning and stereo separation a bit more to achieve a full stereo sound.
-Hm. For some reason at around 2:34, the bass sounds as if it's off-key. It could be an overtone from another instrument, but it also appears at about 2:44 when the bass plays again.
-Would be nice if the drums had some kind of fill or something to transition out of them at 0:59 and 1:56 rather than just a final kick, wouldn't it?
-I don't need to do anything more other than say "outro" for you to know what I mean, do I?

Overall: 's alright for a first attempt. Feels kinda unfinished, but it's definitely decent. I think you can do better, definitely. The mixing would be a solid first step (speaking of which, good job at having no clipping).

ChronoNomad responds:

I don't want it to look like I've ignored your review, which obviously I haven't since I've been working on this throughout the day and even gotten some fantastic help straight from you! Once I get those filter effects back in there and finalize an outro, I will definitely be replacing this with the new and improved version! Thank you so much for all of your assistance on this, Skye. It is truly a pleasure to watch you work. :D

[Wolftacular NGADM Round 3]

Hello.

The Good:
-Well, this is more cohesive than your second round piece. I particularly like the guitar in my left ear.
-I like the pizzicato arpeggios quite a bit. They're definitely well-done.
-No clipping in the mixing, which is a good thing.
-When the synths come in at about 4:30, that provides some much-needed variation, though the new feeling doesn't last long.

The Not-So-Good:
-That drumset is so weak, the kick and snare are almost completely buried under just the piano and guitar. Some compression would do wonders here, or just turning up the volume period.
-This definitely feels incomplete. While there are a few chordal motifs and ostinatos, there isn't really a specific motif for the entire piece tying it together as a main melody or main rhythm even.
-Alright, this is repeating quite a bit and barely changes the feel at all throughout the entire piece. It feels a lot like a pop song, actually. A lot of the individual phrases repeat note-for-note, which brings down the overall quality of a repeating phrase.

Overall: Score of 6.4/10. Some good ideas here, but not very good execution - it really does feel unfinished to me. Even if you had used an instrument other than voice to make a main melody, it would have been significantly better than it is now.

Wolftacular responds:

Pleased to hear about the good, ready to fight the not so good as always, albeit a little late.

The drumset thing, yeah, I definitely agree. It's one of those things I failed to notice because of listening to the song over and over. The guitar is also quite low in this mix.

I WOULD argue this second point, but yeah, it IS incomplete, so I guess I half agree. It's not that there isn't a motif, it's just not as sugar coated or obvious without a lead instrument.

I definitely will argue this last point. For starters, it sounds like you might be contradicting your previous point by saying that there's a lot of repetition in that these repetitions obviously mark the main rhythm. Disregarding this, though, I think all you should've criticized is that it follows a pop structure. If the song was cut down in half, keeping the ending and intro alike, and basically avoiding the repetition of the entire thing, there is barely any repetition at all. I'm even inclined to think you agree with me here, given that your conclusion states I had good "ideas", plural.

I worked with three different sections, each with their own feeling (which goes hand in hand with the missing lead). I can understand if you think the first [0:00-1:18] and second [1:18-1:58] sections sound similar. The only way I can think of explaining it is that they're sort of "neighbor" feelings. If you listen closely, though, the second section doesn't sound nearly as "happy" as the first section, and I doubt I need to compare the third section. Placing what I said earlier in repetition (lol), I think the only part I agree with about this last point is that the song follows a pop-oriented structure, and I'm not sure that's bad at all.

Overall, and like last time, I agree with your technical feedback, but not so much with the writing stuff. It could be that we simply differ in styles and taste, or the fact that I don't yet have the production expertise to bring everything that's in my head into my music, or both. Either way, I can't help but feel that 6.4 is maybe a little too low of a score for the things you pointed out, even assuming I agreed with them all, but that's just my opinion. You nearly failed me, and I handed most of my work in D: lol

Last, but not least, thank you for taking the time to listen and review my shit. Contest or not, judge or not, agree or not, I always appreciate it. Both your reviews specifically caught my attention, so thanks!

[Bajo el sol, sobre las rocas]

Hello.

The Good:
-Well, this is certainly unique. That intro is really sweet too, I love the playing of the guitar.
-Once again at 1:07 comes the sweet guitar which sounds really awesome, and the transition into it is also excellent.
-Good transition back to the main theme at 1:45.
-2:24 is pretty cool at first, good break.
-Cool transition at 3:09, it's well-done.

The Not-So-Good:
-The initial drums don't sound too interesting, constant four-on-the-floor kick with the same snares going on.
-The transition at 0:30 sounds good, but doesn't really lead to anything special. Wolftacular certainly got that down, the initial guitar sounds waaaaay better and more interesting. The second section also seems really repetitive and feels same-y the whole way through.
-Transition at 2:20 sounds extremely similar to the one at 1:07, just worse. :c
-Section at 2:24-3:08 drags on a little bit long, and after that... the same comparatively boring main theme.
-Ending is bleh. Not very good. Could be a lot better.

Overall: Score of 8.4/10. This is pretty good, I particularly liked the acoustic guitar why the heck did you only have it in two places and not have it be the main focus of the piece darnit. ;_; The main theme of the piece is just boring and uninspired in comparison.

InYourDreams responds:

I'm so sorry sir SkyeWintrest! :(... please don't send me to the dungeon! It's dark and scarry in there... T_T
Thanks a lot for the awesome feedback! I think that's the best part of this contest :). I'm learning a lot!
I completly undestand the things you don't like about this one. I don't know why I didn't stayed flamenco... I think because I just wanted to do something weird. Sometimes weird is good... but sometimes weird can suck balls aswell... Well, now it's out of my system... at least I hope so. O_O

[This is Not the End]

Hello. I'm sorry. This is the end. :(

The Good:
-Your melodies are very pleasant, I like them quite a bit.
-I like the change at 1:09, it feels very nice. Similar for 1:32.
-The clear theme is very nice, I'm liking this a lot after all the pieces lacking them last round.
-AN ENDING! A CONCLUSION! I am happy about this. :D

The Not-So-Good:
-When focusong on a solo instrument, realism and atmosphere are both EXTREMELY important. This took a severe hit on the realism front.
-The piano doesn't sound like it has much dynamic contrast or change in velocity layers. Even with a basic piano you can have more emotion simply by using dynamic contrast. Also, some tempo automation would do wonders for realism.
-Strings are buried behind the piano at about 0:25. Less reverb on the piano should fix this up. You can automate the reverb to decrease at that point if necessary.
-Transition at 1:38 is a bit sloppy in that it's too sudden, only two notes leading up to the abrupt switch.

Overall: Score of 7.8/10. The absolute biggest hit was the lack of realism in the piano, seeing as that's the instrument carrying pretty much the entire piece. Everything else is background, so that piano needs to have some serious emotion behind it.

ChronoNomad responds:

I really want to respond to this in full, but every single time I read that first line it makes me thoroughly disgusted. Whether you meant it to be sincere or sarcastic, it just comes off as being both unnecessary and offensive. Maybe you will understand if someone ever has the lack of decorum to use one of your song titles in such an unfortunate play on words. That being said, after having it done to me, I wouldn't wish it on anyone.

So we got off on a really bad foot in this review with poorly chosen and thoroughly unprofessional words. Moving on, it's nice to see that there were some things that you actually liked about my Round 3 submission. This is one time when I wish the bad news had come before the good, but it is what it is.

It basically seems like I am being penalized for my SoundFont piano more than anything else when you speak of 'realism.' Maybe this doesn't apply to all the judges, and if so I apologize, but I distinctly remember Step mentioning that instrument quality was not going to damage our scores. This is the best piano that I currently possess, and I put a lot of time and effort into my velocity dynamics, which are constantly changing throughout the entire song, so this basically just leaves me feeling frustrated. I suppose if I knew how to add tempo automation I would have done it by now, so at least that gives me a vague idea of what to look into, but the velocity dynamics are plainly there for anyone with ears to hear...especially where the melodies speed up and slow down.

For the strings that gets buried behind the piano, here I'm being penalized directly for using velocity controls and softening up that cello, so trying to be more dynamic is apparently a lose-lose proposition. Finally, you refer to the two-note transition at 1:38, one that I feel works perfectly well and sounds lovely, as being a bit sloppy. I just plain don't understand how the term applies, but it certainly sounds more like a personal nitpick than anything else. Nevertheless, I respect your opinion in this regard and will simply agree to disagree.

This has been, by far, the most difficult review that I have ever responded to. I think I've managed to work out most of my frustrations just by 'talking it out,' and I apologize for any discomfort this may have caused you. Losing to etherealwinds had less sting than reading this to be quite honest, so hopefully you won't begrudge me a bit of honest indignation. Thanks for (most of) the review. :)

[the traveller]

Hello. Longest review of all of them, I think.

The Good:
-I love your melodies, they're very peaceful.
-Dat panning in the harp is nice. ^_^ Thanks for that.
-At about 3:30, there's your classic strong techno-like sound which is cool. It really does sound like there's a train whistle there as well.
-I like the phaser introduction to 4:40 on the drums.
-The little filters on the drum fills are really sweet.
-The way you end the drums at 6:04 sounds REALLY cool.

The Not-So-Good:
-The original strings and reverse cymbal seem somewhat out-of-place. The strings feel very artificial with the exact same attack each time, and the reverse cymbal was VERY obviously intended for electronic music rather than this (compressed. It's definitely too loud). It's also something you seem to use in most of your music for climaxes.
-Transition at 1:02 is into something completely different, there could at least have been a transitional chord.
-At about 2 minutes in, the guitar is a bit too panned to the left.
-The 'acoustic' snare drum sounds extremely cheesy and artificial, it could have been done much better.
-Rhythmic transition at 2:54 is sudden and off-putting. Why did you switch to like, 5/4 from 3/4 and then go to 4/4 one measure later? This could have worked if it were in the middle of a full-on transition, but when it's in the middle of a section it's just awkward.
-Overall mixing until about 3:40 is kinda empty.
-There's some weird clicking sound starting at 4:04 which is weird.
-...cliffhanger ending made specifically to piss me off, eh? :v Well, some modest success there. It worked at first, but then that last guitar bit came in. Why. Why would you deliberately make your own ending worse?
-I don't want to play "Where's Waldo?" with the main theme of the piece.

Overall: Score of 8.4/10. Good enough sections, clear (if empty at first) mixing, nice story being told there. I would like at least one motif that's used through the piece, or a short break where you reiterate a previous idea. Also, transitions. >:( ...by the way, I'm curious. Why do you never use upper-case letters in your music titles?

johnfn responds:

Thank you for this fantastic review.

I was particularly interested to hear your review because you have a ton of nit picking and I definitely needed that for my attempt at orchestral (which I have essentially no experience in.) The stuff about the cymbal being an EDM cymbal is an excellent point (also yes I overuse it!), and the point about attacks is a good one too. It's something I haven't thought about, since I'm primarily a piano player.

2:54, yes I absolutely screwed this up. What's happening is essentially it's going from 3/4->4/4. I flat out ran out of time to fix it.

Good catch at 1:02. One of my ideas was that I would modulate into different sections, because that generally sounds nice, but yeah it didn't work as well it could have. Again, rushed.

It's kind of funny that you didn't like the end guitar, because quite a few other people did... eh, let's just compromise and say the whole ending is bad. =D

> Why do you never use upper-case letters in your music titles?

I'm not sure. A while ago when a song that I made without caps did really well, so that may have something to do with it. Also, capitalizing the titles of my songs seems more pretentious than doing lower case titles. On the other hand, I do have a few songs even recently that were capitalized. Who knows!

[Real Life Absurdities]

Hello.

The Good:
-...oh fuck this is probably the most original piece this round. All the effects are absolutely absurd, very fitting of the title.
-The combination of synths with the obviously soundfont-quality orchestral instruments are just absolutely hilarious. It's like you're saying "Oh, I know these instruments aren't good quality. I DON'T CARE I'LL USE THEM HOW I WANT :D"
-Composition is out of this world. It's hilarious and also absurd, making it fit the title almost perfectly. The harmonies are spectacular, and the overall format is wonderful as well.

The Not-So-Good:
-The drumline does get a tad bit boring when it's the same kick-snare-kick-snare pattern constantly with a few minor fills.
-There's a little bit of mixing mud, unfortunately. Some of the effects are drowned out, even panned. Some of the instruments are also a bit buried such as the piano on the right side at about 0:44.
-The little gliss on the trumpet at 1:00 is getting a bit TOO cheesy, unfortunately.

Overall: Score of 9.7/10. This is very near perfect, you're once again getting the highest score this round from me. Fix up your little issues, and you'll have your 10/10 from me. Then you will win 42 internets, because I NEVER EVER EVER give 10/10s in contests. Do it. Make what will be arguably the best song on NG.

steampianist responds:

Haha perfection is subjective and therefore imperfect :) im happy I got a 9.7 and that is enough for me

when I was composing I had one thought in my mind and thats the essence of chaos of how one thing can be multiple things. Your review is so contradicting from step. You say the production is a little muddy but step says its crystal clear thus becoming two things at once and I find this contradiction so pretty! Like a sunflower in the harsh winter. I have a thing for contradictions like the bible, politics and religion, yanderes,beauty, and life in fact all things in life is a harmonious contradiction its just like bach's fugue! Hehehe

... Errr just realized I sounded a lttile weird

Anyways thanks for the review your constructive criticisms is always valued

[Whiteout]

Hello.

The Good:
-Nice effect at the beginning and fading in of other instruments. The one in my left ear sounds as if it's actually coming out of the wind as part of the wind.
-No mixing issues I can hear.
-Main melodies and backgrounds are very nice, I like them quite a bit.

The Not-So-Good:
-While this does have a decent compositional format, it's honestly just... too short. There's not enough in there.
-The introduction of about 30 seconds is a tad long considering the piece in its entirety is a minute and a half long.
-You know I don't particularly like deliberately-lower-quality instruments, and if this is a stylistic choice whatever I won't take off for it.
-The bassline and drumline stay essentially the same for the entire piece.

Overall: Score of 6/10. This is basically just too short and has a repeating background for what there is, I'm not sure what else I can say.

SourJovis responds:

Thanks for your review again. Did you hear "L Kano's Fighting Show S2"? It's the second version of "Ling Kano's Fighting Show" that I made for NGADM13 round 2 but with much of the points you made in your comment changed. I think it's quite an improvement. Thank you again for the comments.

As for this song, I won't do that again. The "Not-So-Good" points explain why I didn't get a higher score than I did, but personally I don't think they would improve the song. As a matter of fact I'm quite happy with it as it is. The quality of the instruments, the shortness, the minimalistic accompaniment that stays largely the same throughout, all of that is part of the style and mood I wanted to achieve, so it stays that way.

All in all this song did much better than I expected I must say. I wanted to make some sort of an statement here, but I'm glad you still liked it that much. It only has 0.17 points lower than my entry for the first round, even though I spend the entire 2 weeks on that one, it was 3.13 times as long and I thought that one would do a lot better than it did.

Still not sure what would be the best song to get a high score in a competition. Neither do I know how much I should actually think about that, instead of just making music I feel like.