SkyeWint's audio Reviews on Newgrounds

[Origin (Cover)]

Hello.

The Good:
-Your pads are very nice, so is the high-hat.
-Nice little distorted guitar sound for some flavor.

The Not-So-Good:
-The bass is very far back in the mix, as are the kick and snare.
-The lead instruments aren't very 'leading', they're a lot more background-sounding. Try using a more 'piercing' instrument for more leads, like you did toward the end.
-The composition of this seems to pretty much mimic the original completely.
-Transitions and outro could use some work.

Overall: Score of 6/10. Seems to almost be a copy of the original with a few different instruments (but generally the same type of instruments) and an emptier mix.

K-Pone responds:

Yes, that's true, it seems to be a copy of the original, but it is not. I did almost everything by ear, as you may hear on some parts if you play the original along with the cover. Anyway, constructive criticism is always good. Thanks for the review!

[Circus To My Vanity]

Hello.

The Good:
-Very nice mixing for pretty much the entire thing.
-This is definitely one of the most odd pieces in the contest. I also applaud your generally non-repetitive song for being five and a half minutes long. That's pretty impressive!
-There are some good sections which aren't in the original and make sense with the style.
-The drums are pretty nice, though I wish the kick were stronger and less "blobby". ...yeah, that probably should have gone in the not-so-good section.
-Nice panning on the... mandolin? at about 3:07.
-Great reversed effects at 3:18 and onward.
-Some really nice atmosphere at about

The Not-So-Good:
-Many of your transitions aren't really that good. It seems more like you're just switching between ideas when you get bored with the last one without trying to make it flow.
-I wish the parts where you remixed the original song weren't quite so cut-and-paste-like. They seem extraordinarily similar, mainly with instruments replaced.
-Random stops at 3:59, 4:02, 4:06, and 4:10. Don't sound really nice.
-4:15-4:28 has really nice atmosphere, but it really feels like that should have been the end. When it picks up it seems more like a time-increaser, especially since it just goes back into the beginning. I understand the compositional formatting you did there, along with making a nice finale, but you had a great end. The end you finally did sounded EXTREMELY uninspired.

Overall: Score of 9/10. Some really nice stuff here. Main problems were transitions and the copypasta that was occasionally used.

ZipZipper responds:

Hahahaha you got me. The original was like copypasta in some ways and I was really really focused on following the original, probably too much, but I agree...well everything except the random stops comment. Also, you have an unfinished statement "some really nice atmosphere at about ???" but that's ok what's done is doneee

[Volatile {Dj-Abbic}]

House? Doesn't sound like it at first...

The Good:
-That's a sweet intro, I really like it. The buildup to the part with the reversed kick is sweeeeet.
-When 1:01 hits, it sounds really nice.
-At about 2:08, yay the strings are back. Great idea with the pitch sliding of them too!
-You say all the synths are made in Sytrus? That makes it pretty darn impressive, actually.
-The buildup at about 2:48 is pretty darn awesome.
-The outro is better than a lot I've heard with house. Thank you so much for putting in the effort to make one - that's somewhat rare, it seems.

The Not-So-Good:
-0:31 what happened to my cellos? :( Also, the snare run gets almost annoying due to how quantized it is.
-After 1:01, there's not really that much going on if I'm going to be honest. I noticed that you said this was influenced by "complextro", and I have to say - this doesn't sound very complex... Fairly basic without many different melodic or harmonic ideas.
-Transition at 1:45 is somewhat disappointing, there's this buildup and then it just instantly cuts to minimalistic sound.
-Unfortunately, the transition at about 2:48 has one flaw... the way it lets things just stay up in the air is a tad disappointing though and makes it lose some tension that shouldn't be lost.
-At 2:59 and 3:13, what in the heck did you do to the drums? Granted, it's nice that you tried something different, but it doesn't really work. Sounds more awkward than cool. :<
-Repetition is hitting this track pretty hard, but ironically a lack of consistency is also hitting it. The overall sound of it is very constant, repeatable, boring-ish. However, it sounds like the second major part after the breakdown is different with the melodies and some of the ideas that were in the first part before the breakdown.

Overall: It's definitely house. Better house than what I've heard - if you want to make it better generic house, I'd suggest having a bit more complexity in the melody, a bit more compositional formatting, and some more atmosphere to tease the ears with. If you want to make it more original, try having more orchestral instruments in it, or experimental instruments. Also try to have different sections which might not normally be in house. Remember too that fluid transitions are important!

-Review Request Club-

DjAbbic responds:

Hi, thanks a lot for the detailed review.

I'd just like to point out that while complextro is slightly melodic, it is a lot more focused on groove, which is where the complexity is supposed to be and is what I have aimed for here. As for your other concerns (and compliments!), I have noted them. It is great to get multiple opinions, especially because I rather liked my transitions and drum pauses.

And I do get what you mean by this track being repetitive and inconsistent. It was, after all, an experimental (as are the rest of my tracks) and I'm just aiming to improve my sound quality and sound design for now.

And I do try to make my transitions fluid, although it may not seem like it here :)

Once again, thank you a lot for the detailed review.

[gRave]

Hohkay. Initiating review.

The Good:
-Nice synth in the intro.
-Your drum pattern is alright.
-This has surprisingly good mixing for a first audio submission.

The Not-So-Good:
-The part coming in at about 0:14 seems to be in a completely different key from the first instrument.
-0:42 - more random keys.
-Okay, I don't need to comment on each new part - none of the melodic parts are in the same key. The part at 0:14 is also drowned out about halfway through.
-This is also extremely repetitive, it barely changes at all. The same pattern that there was in the beginning goes throughout the whole thing.

Overall: This is... eh. It's alright, I suppose. The main two issues with it are (A) repetition and (B) off-key notes galore. I'd suggest looking up some music theory and attempting a few scales. Otherwise, it's good. Good luck in the future!

-Review Request Club-

MysteriousPiF responds:

Thanks for the review sir!

Working on the key change issues

Thanks!

[Mirror Note]

Well now. This is a bit... creepy. Nothing better to do than review it though, I suppose!

The Good:
-The instruments are very nice, I like the panning.
-Those guitars sound really awesome.
-The mixing is pretty clear.
-I like the little ornaments you sometimes had.

The Not-So-Good: I'm going to be picking at the composition a lot here...
-The chords don't really change much at all until 1:42.
-There's a lot of off-key-ness in the strings, which is partially why it's creepy, but sounds almost "sloppy", as if you hand slipped and wrote in the wrong note but you didn't bother to change it.
-Once it reaches about 3:19, I don't like the deep bass hit. It doesn't seem very good quality, and has a bit too deep of bass. Generally, deep bass hits are better for impacts.
-I feel like the constant quarter notes could have been varied a bit more. It's almost like the constant 4/4 bass drum of techno, just more classical-sounding.
-Some of your orchestral instruments sound very obviously like soundfonts/synths. This is primarily because of the way the samples repeat - try adding a subtle phaser or flanger to them, that'll vary the note a bit more.
-The organization of the piece didn't really make me think "Oh, I remember this. That's nice!" in a natural manner. Try having more of a recognizeable theme that people can go to. Most people aren't going to be able to recognize a theme that's really subtle. If you have something that's more clearly defined and "catchy", most people will like the piece a lot more.

Overall: Sorry this isn't as in-depth of a review as I'd like. I'm fairly distracted by real-life events at the moment. :< I liked the piece, but didn't really find it as engaging as some of your other ones, mainly because of the lack of a strong theme or catchy element.

Good luck in the contest!

DivoFST responds:

Thanks for the detailed comment Skye :)
Yeah the chords an overall instruments do prett much the same until 1:42 and i simply change some things around them like adding the brass playing the 3rds and latter adding guitar, at the time i thought that would be enough to make that section fresh but i was wrong, the creepiness in the strings is a result of me listening to the song so many times i lost notion of what actually sounded good and what didnt.
I agree the bass is not very good but was the best i had.
The quarter notes are a terrible mistake as well and seem lazy i admit..
Ill do my best to make my soundfont sound more realistic and also try to use the recognizable theme from now forward.
Again thanks for the comment and mainly for the help youve been giving me these past few days :D

[Envy]

Hmm. Envy? Interesting name for a song - reminds me of the artist Envy.

The Good:
-Some pretty sweet sounds, I like the bass in the instrument at the beginning.
-I really love the sound that comes in at 0:52.
-Fairly decent mixing until about 2:04. I'll talk about 2:04 later.
-Drums are pretty good samples. I really love the reversed cymbal.

The Not-So-Good:
-I disagree with Dogmaticmindset about the vocals. To me, they sound like a pretty low-quality recording, and not implemented as well as they could be. Noise removal could possibly help the quality of them, but their lack of presence in the mix is rather disappointing - I can't really hear what's being said.
-It honestly could use a harder-hitting and stronger bassline. As it is, there's not a ton of power behind it.
-The pluck that comes in at 2:04 is really messing up the mix. It's a bit too strong in the bass, I think. It's also fairly detuned, which causes some problems.
-Bit more variation would be nice. As it is, it does get a bit boring and doesn't seem to really have a "point", if you know what I mean.

Overall: Not bad, not really good either. Could use some better mixing as well as more variation. The bass is mainly the problem - a stronger bassline would be good, as well as using some highpass filters to cut out more of the bass in the other instruments. Hopefully this is helpful to you.

-Review Request Club-
-Swint-

Faizyr responds:

if the bass were stronger, my speakers and yours will be broken, i have to keep it too a certain point or else well no more working speakers for you : / and if u heard music thats even harder means they did a pretty bad job on the limit of it.But yeah its helpful info, thanks!

[Project 24]

Whoooo! Videogaming!

The Good:
-Okay, this is a pretty catchy tune coming in at about 0:09.
-The deep bass element coming in at 0:14 is pretty darn sweet.
-Drumline is pretty darn awesome, too bad the tune goes away then.
-You definitely knew when you didn't have enough material to continue it and stopped it there.
-I like the chopped pad thing that comes in with the first break.
-The harpsichord-type instrument plays some really nice arpeggios and chords.

The Not-So-Good:
-The deep bass during the drumset is just way too much. It pushes everything waaaaay back in the mix. The drumset itself might also be a culprit, but the deep bass also causes some mixing issues between the drum breaks. Try some more EQing and compression until the elements are more balanced.
-It's a bit short, I'd have liked it to be longer, even for a video game. :<
-If it's this short and you decide to have it loop... Make sure it loops properly! As it is, it loops in a way that's just "oh, this is definitely the beginning". The best loops sound like the song just continues without looping.

Overall: Pretty nice ideas, I like the instruments and composition for the most part - but the mixing REALLY kills this. Otherwise I'd have probably given it a 4/5. Good effort though, with just a little more effort in the mixing it'd be a piece I'd definitely want in a game!

Rinileki14 responds:

Thanks, the first time it plays through, it won't loop correctly. After that, it'll loop perfectly every time it goes back to the beginning. Thanks for the break-down of good and bad! :D

[Public Flow - [drad]]

Hm. Interesting - not really my kind of music, but that doesn't mean I can't critique it.

WARNING: I may come across as a bit harsh.

The Good:
-Some good instrument sounds.
-Mixing is generally okay.
-Intro is decent at first.

The Not-So-Good:
-Awkward transitions.
-A LOT of off-key sections - music theory and harmony would go a long way in helping this.
-Drum sounds are pretty bad, you might want to look up some better drum packs.
-A lot of the bass sound seems to be in the pad, which makes it muddy.
-Outro isn't very good.

Overall: I REALLY don't have much to say about this other than - please, please, PLEASE look up some music theory. Another good idea might be to check some other songs that you like a lot and attempt to model your music after them. I'm giving a half-star because there is a little bit of effort obvious in this, but it honestly doesn't seem like you tried to do much with this - more something that was slapped together in about 20 minutes.

DRadDaDanDawg responds:

Yeah I'm just starting some music theory classes, haven't got to composition yet, and yeah I didn't spend the longest time on this, but a couple hours a day for a little more than a week.

Thanks for the review :) I'll try looking up samples for drum kits from now on too

-edit - (oh right I also didn't pay attention to the patterns and techniques of this style enough before this piece, so HOPEFULLY I do it better next song.)