SkyeWint's audio Reviews on Newgrounds

[Martian Mummies (GD Cut)]

Hello! This is a review for the NGUAC competition.

I've gone over one or two general categories of issues specific to your song, and one section of things I think also deserve complimenting. I prefer being very direct with my critique, none of it is meant to offend. Thank you for your understanding!

Constructive Criticism:

- You have a couple things to work on with the mixing and sound design. First of all, the volume is definitely a bit too much. While instruments are audible through each other, they can be a tad muddy and actually lose detail from how overly loud everything is. Remember, there's only so much data a mp3 file can hold! (especially one at a lower quality like this) As TL also said in his review, the attack on the initial synth is a little much with the resonant filter envelope. A lot of other instruments can be a tad too much in terms of high frequencies like the bitmunched synth during 1:45, though this is also quite possibly due to overly intense volume. The same does apply for some of the lower bass instruments - remember that overly loud high treble & sub-bassy frequencies can be painful for listeners, especially those with audio outputs that favor certain frequencies. Try reducing all instruments by around -10dB, then limiting with a threshold of around -1.1dB.

- TL also comments on the arrangement of the piece, and I fully agree with him. Let's dig into WHY It's important, though. Music, stories, even visual art is founded on contrast and guiding the person experiencing the art through that experience. Visual art uses sharp lines, blurs, color contrast, angles, perspective... all of this to draw the observer's eye to intended areas. Stories and music, however, follow a different type of organization as they're experienced over longer spans of time. In stories, you typically follow the order of: Intro -> Rising Action -> Smaller Climax -> Break -> Rising Action -> Full Climax -> Falling Action -> Epilogue. Music can be structured the same way, with an introduction, build, climax, breakdown, build, climax, wind-down and outro. This is applied almost universally in pop genres, with variable length in sections, possibly a third climax, etc. However, there typically contrast between not just the individual sections, but also the same sections at different times. The later climax is also the most intense and/or emotional section of the piece. While you have contrast in the specific sounds used during the different sections, there isn't much of any contrast in harmony or dynamic intensity between these climaxes. To improve, I would highly recommend listening through a few pieces of music you find inspiring and see how they maintain interest over time through variation.

Compliments to the Composer:

- There are some really neat sounds in this track, especially the bass modulation. I particularly love sounds like 0:39 for how much they really break the sound up in a unique way. While the piece is loud, it does also tend to be mixed in such a way that individual instruments are all audible, something that gives you a very solid foundation to fix up the volume excess. I do also love attempts at fusion genres, so respect for that as well!

Final score: 5.5

J-XVII responds:

Okay

[Blood Surfing]

Hello! This is a review for the NGUAC competition.

I've gone over one or two general categories of issues specific to your song, and one section of things I think also deserve complimenting. I prefer being very direct with my critique, none of it is meant to offend. Thank you for your understanding!

Constructive Criticism:

- Dynamic variation is the first thing I'd like to discuss here. Right away, it's visibly obvious that this track doesn't have much variation in terms of dynamics. The volume and loudness is essentially the same through the entire piece after the introduction. There are a couple reasons why this is relevant, and it's not just about volume, but musical organization. Specifically, a wall of sound is particularly effective if it has a point of contrast. You seem to know this as you do have clearly differentiated sections showing variation. This is excellent, and it speaks directly to the point of having a bit of dynamic variance as well. The same sound can get boring, or even fatiguing - electronic music has breakdowns because of this, and many extremely intense metal epics still have breaks, such as in... this piece: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W8KjwP22x2s Notice how it's absolutely full of various flavors of "intense" until about 2 minutes in, where it takes a relative break... and a much more clear and long break from the intensity at around 5 minutes, to give the listener a chance to breathe and process what they had just experienced.

- Let's look at your mix as well. There's a clear lack of bass throughout the track. There's some bass in the kick, but this genre really relies on having a solid bass guitar to give weight to the more detailed chords rather than basing it on the kick as much. Even in brighter mixes like the example before, the kick is relatively subdued in terms of bass and combines with the bass guitar in lower mids and bass frequencies to give weight to chords.

Compliments to the Composer:

- Your riffs are simple but solid, the guitar tone is pretty tasteful even if it could use more bass, and you don't overuse reverb or anything. This is clearly a really solid foundation, and I think you can continue your development of this genre to reach the heights of PirateCrab or other newgrounds metal producers for certain. You got this!

Final score: 7.5

Introverse responds:

Thank you very much for such detailed feedback. It's rare to hear opinion which is longer than 2 sentances theese days. And it's especially rare to find people who actually understand different music genres quite well, so it was very interesting to read your feedback. Glad you took the time to listen. I'll try to improve as much as I can. Cheers!

[Incise ~ Starburst]

Hello! This is a review for the NGUAC competition.

I've gone over one or two general categories of issues specific to your song, and one section of things I think also deserve complimenting. I prefer being very direct with my critique, none of it is meant to offend. Thank you for your understanding!

Constructive Criticism:

- Hey, since you mentioned the mix in the description itself, I think I can immediately identify one of the things causing some difficulty - your saw wave plucks have a LOT of bass to them, and the bass in general is really boomy. Bass tends to be best applied with less stereo separation and/or reverb, and it seems you can tell this to some extent due to the intensity of the sidechaining. However, it would actually be quite a good idea to turn this bass down for a few reasons - first of all, this much bass will fill up your dB levels, but not your loudness or detail as much. In a musical waveform, only so much information can be apparent, and human sound perception focuses on the mids rather than the low bass frequencies - so enough low bass, and the relatively higher mid frequencies won't actually have the volume space to show their stuff. Honestly, the rest of your mix is relatively clean so this should help it out a LOT.

- So, something interesting I've found that might help out your drops is that syncopated drumlines like you have in the second drop actually tend to be LESS intense and climactic than the more steady four-on-the-floor beat you have in your first drop. The reason for this tends to be that a constant influx of energy DRIVES the music forward, found in the form of constant kick drum (and snare) impacts. By contrast, syncopated rhythms have pauses in the energy they impart to the music, and it becomes unsteady - which is a phenomenal sound, but doesn't really DRIVE a drop. It's very intense, but a really good point of comparison is this absolutely insane artist called Camellia. Give this track a listen and compare the earlier and later drops: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4HXCM3mmgto The shift at 2:35 moves to a steadier and less syncopated drumbeat, and it ends up being more intense... relative to the later one at 4:09 which is DEFINITELY more intense due to the arpeggios but also the constant 4-on-the-floor kicks. It might be at a fast pace in this song, but this principle absolutely applies all across different bpms!

Compliments to the Composer:

- I was a bit iffy on the chord progression at first but, you actually handled it really well. You have some really tasteful development of rhythms and great breakdowns with the thick plucks. This track is really satisfying, and I'd really love to hear more in this style, exploring syncopation and variation of ideas a bit more as well. That camellia track has some INCREDIBLE idea development and shows just how many things you can cram into one piece of music. (he has other incredible stuff too, definitely worth checking out for inspiration if you like it - they're not all quite that fast if you look at his earlier stuff!)

Final score: 8.3

Incise responds:

ah, a camellia lover as well

- i used a reese bass throughout the whole track, it could be the main cause of all the issues you pointed out. thanks for pointing it out!

- for the second bridge and drop, i tried to use the image of conflict as the baseline for the drumbeat, though i think my poor mixing didn't really convey the image nicely. your example and explanation were nice too, definitely expanded my understanding on syncopation and rhythm.

i'd really love to hear your thoughts on the harmonic structure of the track, if you're not too busy. i'm still learning and exploring new ideas on harmony, thank you for the thorough review! :)

[Protest]

Hello! This is a review for the NGUAC competition.

I've gone over one or two general categories of issues specific to your song, and one section of things I think also deserve complimenting. I prefer being very direct with my critique, none of it is meant to offend. Thank you for your understanding!

Constructive Criticism:

- I think I have the perfect piece to compare to this one for critique, and would mainly like to focus on variation as THE main thing to work on. Carpenter Brut's classic track from the same style, Turbo Killer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wy9r2qeouiQ First of all, let's look at dynamics and variation. In your track, you currently jump almost immediately into the intense section, much like Turbo Killer. However, the distinction is that rather than being an introduction like Turbo Killer uses, this is the intro to essentially your entire track's intensity without much variation. Similarly, Turbo Killer tends to trade between two sections: Melodic sections with relatively straight rhythm, and syncopated bass rhythm focused sections. There is also a second breakdown at 2:24 to give the listener a relative break before continuing back into the intense, climactic pieces. These breaks give the listener different types of experiences within the same consistent sound palette and mix. You have the consistency down, but it would be absolutely wonderful to have more variation rather than keeping the drums, choir, and supersaws all together. You do also use plucks at the very beginning, which sound like they'd be ripe for some breakdown sections!

Compliments to the Composer:

- Honestly, the fact that this reminds me so much of Carpenter Brut means you've nailed the genre really well. With some more variation and perhaps melodic material, it'll be great to hear some new fresh tracks in this style. Your chords are consistent, you have some decent rhythmic variation, the drums are tight... good job so far - let's push it higher!

Final score: 7.2

Immitis responds:

Looking at it now I totally agree that I should have put more variation in here. Carpenter Brut is definitely a big inspiration for my music. Thanks for the critique and the suggestions!

[E]

Hello! This is a review for the NGUAC competition.

I've gone over one or two general categories of issues specific to your song, and one section of things I think also deserve complimenting. I prefer being very direct with my critique, none of it is meant to offend. Thank you for your understanding!

Constructive Criticism:

- First of all, some mixing tips - your bass is SO far into the subs a lot of the time that it can be barely perceptible relative to the rest of the music. This also can sound very... weird and flabby with the rumbly texture of the waveform at 0:13 and 1:04. As TheDayGoes mentioned, the kick and bass don't quite fit together - and in dance music and electronic music with drops in general, having a good solid "basis" in the form of bass makes it much better (think of it like a building - the bass is literally the foundation, the mids are the structure on top of it, and the highs are typically the decoration and ambience). Low mids tend to be a good point for the 'growl' of basses to express, and the lower bass is more of the foundational notes for chords. If you look into how harmonics work for frequencies, you'll see why! Just be careful with making tracks too bassy, and use sidechaining to keep bass from muddying up your kick drums.

- In terms of composition, this seems to mostly be the same idea repeated twice, and in the second half the melody instrument switches to arpeggios. There is quite a bit more that can be done here - variation in the melody, more exploration in the sound design through the drops, trying a different drumbeat, using a different chord progression to recontextualize the existing melody... many methods would allow you to tweak the breakdown and second drop in order to help it remain interesting and engaging for listeners both times, without feeling like a complete repeat.

Compliments to the Composer:

- Your wobbly pad is quite nice, and the filter sweep opening it up for the drop is certainly effective. It's really useful as a way of bringing interest to the drop that doesn't exist as much beforehand. I think my favorite bit of sound design especially though are the very quiet echoing bells starting at 0:50 and showing up as especially audible in the outro. These are VERY lovely and have some wonderful harmonies, making me wonder why they didn't exist at a slightly higher volume or used as an instrument to provide some atmosphere through more of the piece. They have such a wonderful texture!

Final score: 5.5

GlaceonDash responds:

Good to know! And yeah, this kind of was rushed out

[Naux]

Hello! This is a review for the NGUAC competition.

I've gone over one or two general categories of issues specific to your song, and one section of things I think also deserve complimenting. I prefer being very direct with my critique, none of it is meant to offend. Thank you for your understanding!

Constructive Criticism:

- Let's start with the melody! You have chords and melody, but... they're a tad disconnected from one another, especially in the first section. A good way to check your melody for relatively simple ones is to check and make sure each major note of the melody (such as those on downbeats) is on a chord tone, with other notes used as embellishments and passing tones between them. This becomes less of an issue later in the piece... but the rhythm instead gets very disjointed starting at 1:18. There are some examples of pieces with very odd rhythms (such as this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v2GeYwvqPv4) but they also tend to revolve around this entirely, delaying and altering other aspects of the piece to fit around them. If you do plan to experiment quite this much with rhythm, I would highly recommend analyzing other pieces focused on experimental rhythm to see how they remain recognizeable and not overly disorienting.

- And let's move on to mixing! So, I see you already had a review mentioning the mixing of this track a bit - however I'd like to really dig into this in detail. There are actually a couple factors leading to different sections sounding very... different in terms of loudness. The first section has a lot of high peaks but is otherwise relatively empty, so it has spikes in loudness. The later sections, however, seem to be compressed quite strongly and also have very boomy bass (possibly with reverb). This actually results in the effective loudness being greater on a consistent basis compared to the individual loud drum hits in the first section. In either case... either too much compression or not enough, there needs to be more balance here - and importantly, there also needs to be less reverb and boom in the bass later. That can really mess up a mix and make it feel much louder than it otherwise would. It can also be rather straining on the ears.

Compliments to the Composer:

- Okay, seriously though, I do actually really like the first section outside of the melody. The later sections have some very neat sounds and can be quite intense (as I believe the intent was). The chords aren't bad either, and some of your drum loops like the one clearly audible around 2:00 are very nice and tasteful.

Final score: 5.5

Iosun responds:

hello, thanks for review! i have to say a few things in response to it
-the rhythm is disjointed on purpose, largely because it's part of my design philosophy of attempting to work mistakes i make into the final process. usually it doesnt work out but I think this one still worked as a decent bridge section. Chords are resampled from a friend, because this piece originally started in a sample flip challenge. they ended up really harsh and loud and I couldn't figure out how to work them in correctly without compressing them to hell, so I just rolled with it and did my best.

as for the mixing issues, that's a thing I noticed when exporting and didn't take the time to fix because I'm just not a very good mixer. there shouldn't be reverb on the bass, I don't know what you're hearing there, but I am running a layered bass so there might have been some overlap. i am not a mixing expert or even much of a mixing beginner, which means I end up with a lot of limiters and I think that's what you ended up hearing.

again thanks for review, i'm glad you spend so much time writing things that are helpful to new composers

[The Old Era]

Hello! This is a review for the NGUAC competition.

I've gone over one or two general categories of issues specific to your song, and one section of things I think also deserve complimenting. I prefer being very direct with my critique, none of it is meant to offend. Thank you for your understanding!

Constructive Criticism:

- Unlike many other tracks, I only have one substantial piece of criticism for you, on the topic of variation and sustaining interest. House music isn't really known for being particularly varied, but it DOES have some - in fact, the best tracks often have some variation (or at least lyrics to create "variation" even if it isn't in the music itself). While you actually have excellent dynamic variation and breakdowns, you keep quite a few things the same between pretty much every section of the piece... the chord progression, rhythm, and melody. The drops themselves are almost identical, with only a single addition of a countermelody in the second drop. All of this could generally work, with some minor tweaking such as stretching the progression, using a melody that varies over more than 8 measures, or having a couple minor harmony changes during breakdowns - however, the way that works would be best expressed with an example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGdDpMYS7sA In this track, there is MUCH more substantial variation in terms of the instrument types, textural depth, and modulation of those instruments. There is also more atmosphere rather than just reverb. All of these things will help keep your track engaging over its playtime. It may also be worth expanding beyond the conventional repetition of the genre to explore fresh territory!

Compliments to the Composer:

- Really, this is a solid, competently-made track. The mixing is clean, the melody is repetitive but solid, the drops have a good initial impact and maintain the intensity well, there are varied instruments and an enjoyable sound palette... I'm curious where you can explore and expand your music beyond its current quality and style as you have a great foundation to build from.

Final score: 9

Fumijena responds:

thanks for the feedback, i appreciate it !

[Gusty Garden Galaxy (Remix)]

Hello! This is a review for the NGUAC competition.

I've gone over one or two general categories of issues specific to your song, and one section of things I think also deserve complimenting. I prefer being very direct with my critique, none of it is meant to offend. Thank you for your understanding!

Constructive Criticism:

- Hey, love the original theme! Nice choice to remix. I think it might be worth your time to study why the original track made the choices it did in terms of writing. Just taking the opening for example, the first riff has very SHARP and clear initial impacts to each note, especially the final descent. After that, the melody has a very flowing, legato feel. In both cases, this is achieved firstly by having an articulation that fits the intent (snappy and sharp for the first riff, slower and less sharp for the second, with a stronger sustain) and also by varying the velocity of individual notes. The reason I specify this is that you seem to be going for a remake of the original in tone, character, and function - so applying your instruments appropriately is very important!

- Speaking of instruments, I'd like to also mention instrumentation quality here. It's certainly understandable to use many relatively simple sampled instruments for the theme as an independent producer, but the bell and pluck synth used can definitely be improved on in context. For example, the pluck at 1:08 doesn't blend particularly well with other instruments in the remix and is very thin in this isolated context. The bell and pluck also don't blend in the following section, the pluck in particular at 1:44. For the pluck, I would recommend using something with longer decay and a less sharp sound - a square or even a triangle wave may work quite a bit better as the basis. Flutes or other woodwinds might also work better for the notes this pluck plays. The bell isn't quite as bad, but it does still detract from the sound. Perhaps try an acoustic vibraphone or celeste instead, to fit in with the rest. Regardless of what instruments you use, keep in mind that the original melody and writing needs to be tweaked to better fit the sound you have.

Compliments to the Composer:

- This is actually pretty well-done, regardless of what I mentioned in the criticisms. I don't hear many mixing issues at all aside from small ones and you kept a lot of the feeling intact. In fact, it almost sounds like it could be a midi rendition of the original! The mix is also pretty well-balanced, and pretty much all of your active instruments are audible and noticeable at any given time, which is excellent. As a side note, however, please make sure you are submitting an original work if you make it to the next round, rather than a remix! I couldn't comment on the composition or melodic content very much since the majority sounds almost directly taken from the original.

Final score: 6.8

Fox4567 responds:

Thank you!!

[Terminus Eternity]

Hello! This is a review for the NGUAC competition.

I've gone over one or two general categories of issues specific to your song, and one section of things I think also deserve complimenting. I prefer being very direct with my critique, none of it is meant to offend. Thank you for your understanding!

Constructive Criticism:

- So, you have some really really neat sounds like the sampled echoey vocals and pan flute instrument - however, a lot of your other instruments are very basic and sound much like preset FL Studio instruments. I would highly recommend seeking some higher quality acoustic instruments and drums, as well as exploring synthesis (especially if this is intended to be synthwave!) in the form of supersaw or triangle-based pads, as they tend to fit synthwave music quite a bit. Learning the basis of synthesis techniques would also help tremendously in blending your instruments together to have a really tasteful sound palette.

- It's very easy to get stuck in the trap of repetitive chord progressions. Cyclical four-chord progressions are incredibly common in pop music genres, but they aren't something that should necessarily stay the exact same for an entire piece. In general, you may want to look into having some variance in your chord progression for "B" sections (even within climactic sections) and potentially for the breakdown/bridge. Even just having some substitution chords you can throw in place of an existing chord at regular intervals would help out in sections where you don't have a fully different progression. On a similar note, it may be worth checking your chord progression and harmonic lines and comparing them to other pieces of music. Writing down the midi from other pieces can help you analyze what makes harmonic lines work or not.

Compliments to the Composer:

- Honestly, I *really* love that vocal sample, and the pan flute reminds me of one I used when I was first making music, quite lovely. I should remember that they exist, haha. Otherwise, the organization of the piece is lovely and I appreciate that you do distinguish between the two separate climaxes of the track.

Final score: 4.5

FLAVOUR-STAR responds:

Some samples (electric guitar and acoustic guitar) were actually not high-quality samples. All the others were from Native Instruments, Massive, and Reaktor. It's true, I left everything default with the synthesizers because I'm not familiar with them. I really should learn the basics of synthesis techniques. Thanks for your constructive review.

[Essence]

Hello! This is a review for the NGUAC competition.

I've gone over one or two general categories of issues specific to your song, and one section of things I think also deserve complimenting. I prefer being very direct with my critique, none of it is meant to offend. Thank you for your understanding!

Constructive Criticism:

- Let's start with the composition here. Your chords stay same throughout the piece, without any variation - even in dance music, there tend to be secondary chord progressions during the breakdown and to continue the drops more effectively. However, even more than that, your melody is somewhat aimless. It seems to take the form of ABAC, but the B and C sections don't particularly 'conclude' anything. A couple ways that can improve your melodic writing are (1) writing out melodies from songs you like to get a feel for how they sound and (2) trying to SING your melodies. If it doesn't feel good to sing or especially even hum, it tends to not be as good since that can keep the track from being very memorable.

- Let's also look at your builds and drops. The drops you have are fairly simple and calm, not actually providing much contrast to previous sections. Especially notice how at 0:40, you have a build going up until 0:45 with a lovely drum fill, but after that doesn't change the sound palette much or dig into the sub-bass to make the sound bigger for listeners. Try filtering and removing bass as you go through transitions to make the drop more impactful, and add some sub-bass as well as using a larger background sound to really achieve an IMPACT. This also hooks the listener and helps them remember your piece, since they'll have a cathartic dopamine hit from the drop releasing tension built in the buildup.

Compliments to the Composer:

- Honestly, solid sound design and general arrangement here. Even if there isn't enough contrast, you have some lovely plucks and build into your drops, even with a breakdown later to provide space between the first and second drops. Really nice effort and a solid job, you have a good foundation to work on more music in the future!

Final score: 7

FirechompGD responds:

Thanks!!I will definitely keep making music,also I try to make it as less tracks as possible since I only use a mobile phone(since my daw only has 14 total tracks in general).i hope that I could try FL studio on pc someday..