Donjonneau's audio Reviews on Newgrounds

[NGADM 2019 AUDITION]

Sounded like an audition with a slight lack of practice. I am really fond of real instrumentists, so I still aknowledge your strong bravery. You should practice your metronomical sense to prevent any instrument delay in between and keep the breath of your song unhalted. The solo of electric guitar is the masterpart of this song, as I can feel the symbiosis between you and your instrument. And don't forget to put more transitions so the breath of the song don't choke off.

Soundslave responds:

seems fair cheers, it was a bit rushed

[Rising Star]

Lacks colors. Lacks variety. The very end of the song is where something is really happening, but then again, I can sense some kind of fear of experimentation. Don't be afraid to take risks.

Edit 01: Before the in-depth stuff, I have to make you notice you also use samples.
Now. to help myself (and you too) going deeper in your soundtrack, I decided to decorticate it:

I- Intro (00:00:00 to 00:02:30) A perfect intro.
II- Verse A) 1 (00:32:30 to 00:56:30) You made a musical segment and duplicated it so it can last enough for a verse. The only variation is at the last 4 notes of both segments, so there's something that can be improved (you could take risks). Except that, it works fine.

III- Chorus 1 (00:56:30 to 01:08:30) The most awful, yet most important part of the song. It is less "lively" than the verse, so you should invert the "life" you put into chorus and verse to never loose the "breath" of the song. Just imagine that the song breath must blow calmly yet not too much for the verses, intensely at the chorus, calmly at the bridges and badass at the solos.

IV- Verse A) 2 I (01:08:30 to 01:20:30) It's the exact first half of Chorus 1.
V- Verse A) 2 II (01:20:30 to 01:32:30) It's the exact second half of Chorus 1, but you added some synth pad melody (it's called a melody filler) to make the repetition less boring. Even though, you still didn't save it from the monotony of the repetition (you could take risks).
VI- Bridge (01:32:30 to 01:56:30) A perfect Bridge to create a variation in the song.
V!!- Solo 1 (01:56:30 to 02:29:30) I give a 9/10 for this section. You truly show your tremolo, bending and dropping skills. The only thing I found less interesting was the long notes without effect that were put to fill the lack of creativity between your awesome parts. It's really a tiny default that you can legitimately underlook and keep going.

VIII- Solo 2 (02:29:30 to 02:41:30) That's a solo filler you should be worried about. Arpeggios-like solos can be really effective if you take more risks and keep it less repetitive, so I'm sure it could be so much worth improving. The whole solo part would gain a lot of power (you could take risks). I do create some of my arpeggios note-to-note to be sure I make its dynanism going crazier. Of course, it's not every composer that can seize it and I'm modest enough to admit I can get issues about it.

IX- Solo 3 (02:41:30 to 02:47:30) Your talent is back at this section! :) I smiled to it. You even composed something more intense for the other samples, so you blew it.
X- Chorus 2 A) (02:47:30 to 02:59:30) The counter-time rythm of the battery composition is great, but could be even more chaotic to really throw the song end in a powerful blast (you could take risks). The chorus main melody needs more legato in it's downs, so you could make it more intense, yet not too sostiphicated.
X!- Chorus 2 B) (02:59:30 to 03:10) The solo filler is too weak for that moment of the song. It must to blow everybody away (you could take risks).
XII- Conclusion 1 (03:10:30 to 03:16:30) The second best part. It's the necesary conclusion that concludes perfectly the song.
XIII- Conlusion 2 (03:16:30 to 03:17:00) You tried to make it a conclusion, like many American composers of the 20th Century. You could just remove it, since it's a short repetition of the same note for each used sample. It's exactly where you could make it a 4-notes crescendo.

CONCLUSION: You perfectly mastered the introduction, the bridge and Conclusion 1 and you almost perfectly mastered the solo. But... You messed up more or less all the other parts (the necessary ones, such as the verses and the chorus). I'm looking forward in your next creations / remakes and wish you to take me seriously (by the way, thanks for your critic on my submission for the competition).

SourJovis responds:

Thank you for taking time to listen and comment. Not sure what you mean though, because the words you use to express your feelings are abstract and can be interpreted many ways. Your not very specific. You say you sense "fear of experimentation". I've listened to your own song to get a better picture of what you like. Compared to your song this isn't experimental no. I'd say I'm not "afraid" to make an experimental song, I just didn't want to. I don't say this to demean your music, because there's nothing wrong with your style. It's just not what I was going for with this. I wanted to create a catchy thought out melody like you hear at the beginning of the song. I see you like the improvisation at the end of the song better. I don't think it's better than the beginning of the song. That part was simply the right moment for an improvisation.

Personally I like the way the song turned out, so I don't feel like changing it to please others, but maybe if you could be clearer and more specific with what you mean, I could do something with your advice.

Reply to Edit 01: Sure I'll take your opinions and advice seriously. Don't worry. I appreciate you took the time to write such an extensive review of my song to explain what you meant exactly. I appreciate that.and I will analyze your review to learn from it. I will think about what you said when I'll make a new song. I don't know how much of your advice I will use in the end because I think we have very different tastes and opinions about how music should be made or sound.

I'm happy you like the intro, the solo and the early part of the outro. A 9/10 for the solo, wow. Thanks for the compliment. I don't think that's deserved. I'd give it a 7/10 at most. I'm a bad soloist, but I made one because the song demanded it. It does the job, but it's nothing too special. I don't mind the long notes. They're intentional. I viewed this solo the way a bird flies. Alternating between gliding (long notes) and flapping (faster notes). Also the long notes become higher and higher, forming interesting harmonies in combination with the chords to create a sense of rising tension and going up, which fits the theme of this song of course.

Too bad you didn't like the verses. Those are still my favorite parts of the song. I don't mind repetition at all. In fact I think repetition is a very important part of creating memorable melodies. Neither do I mind the second verse is a repetition of the first one with different lyrics, additional instruments and a little variation in the drums and bass. Nor do I mind the drums and bass playing a constant rhythm. It's supposed to remind you of the auto accompaniment you hear on cheap old Casio keyboards. Simple yet with a catchy groove that supports the melody perfectly.

You say the first chorus is the worst part of the song. I agree with you on that. I don't actually hate it though. Also I didn't want to distract too much from the main melody I like so much. I think it helps to hold the listeners attention if you give them small breaks. The first chorus serves that function, as well as a subtle introduction of the melody of the chorus before it returns in full at the end of the song. I think it helps the lyrics and the melody are simple and easy to sing along with. That's called a hook, by the way, but I'm sure you knew that already.

I disagree with you the chorus should always be more lively than the verses (if that's what you said) This is usually the case, but every song is different and rules like “always this” or “never that” don't apply, because there's always (I know) a musician who will successfully break the rules and create something great and unique. Actually I think you even contradict yourself, because earlier you said I should take more risk, yet you say I fail at something because I didn't do what every other musician does. You can't fail without taking risks. (Neither can you win without taking risks.)

I like those repeating four notes at the ending. Sometimes times it's time to surprise the listener, and sometimes it's time to just give them what they expect. Like you mentioned it's a very overused ending, so in this case listeners expect it so badly it would be like cheating them if you didn't give it. It's so wrong it's right.

You said “Before the in-depth stuff, I have to make you notice you also use samples.”

Thanks, I hadn't noticed I've used samples haha... No, of course I had. How do you think I could I've made this song without noticing? What are you trying to say? However I think it's nice YOU have noticed I've used samples. Almost everyone uses samples, but I try to use samples that are very well known and easy to recognize, so I always like it if the listener discovers what samples I've used.

Samples I've used:

The first one is the ORCH5 orchestra hit from the Fairlight CMI which was a sampler released in 1979. Wikipedia has this to say about ORCH5: “The Fairlight CMI synthesizer included a sampled orchestra hit voice, which was later included in many sample libraries.[11] The voice was given the name ORCH5, and was possibly the first famous orchestra hit sample.[19] The sound was a low-resolution, eight-bit digital sample from a recording of Stravinsky's Firebird Suite[7] – specifically, the chord that opens the "Infernal Dance" section, pitched down a minor sixth and at a reduced speed.[20] It was sampled by David Vorhaus.[20] Music magazine The Wire suggests that the prototype sample is owned by Vivian Kubrick.[21] “. It's probably the most overused cliched orchestra hit in musical history, and in my opinion the best.

I've layered the orchestra hit with an impact hit labeled “Imp Slam 1” which is a default sample from the from the Propellerhead Reason Factory Soundbank. Unfortunately I can't find any information about that sample, so it's probably not as iconic as the ORCH5, but it's been around since very early versions of Reason (1.0 or 2.0 I think) so it must've been used a lot by now. At least it gives it more impact ;)

The third sample is the choir sound. Not sure where the original sample is from, but this is a re-sample.It's a micro sample of about 0,2 seconds that are looped and is heavily bit crushed, because it's processed by the snes sound chip (spc700). That's because this song was made for pixel day and because I just love the lo-fi, synthetic yet strangely human sound of snes choirs.

I've also used the default sounds of the Casio RZ-1 drum computer released in 1986 which is a sample based drum computer which processes it's samples very much the way the snes soundchip does. I love its recognizable lo-fi impactful sound.

Of course almost every musician uses samples, but I think part of my signature style is that I use old, lo-fi, cheesy, overused samples or instruments. I always process them very heavily myself to make them fit the mix better and to give them more character, but I still keep them recognizable and nostalgic.

Sorry if this reply is too long. I don't write this to defend myself or change your mind. I just like you to understand what was going on in my mind when I wrote this. Cheers.

[Aterr - Rain Legion]

That's a very decent piece of music. It's well recorded for what was recorded and for the soundbanks used. The big problem is that you didn't put any rythm-main-melody variety in a slow-rythm song, so I have the feeling it is too much repeating. Without this flaw, I would surely pu a five star, worry not.

Aterr responds:

Firstly, thank you for the feedback and for time spent on writing this. It means a lot to me! :)

And in general, I agree with you regarding the drum part of the melody.
I am now working on another thing, and don't have time to focus on this one right now. But be sure, I will do it right after current affairs :)