Be a Supporter!

%u263C Fight On %u263C

Download this loop! Lights Expand Collapse

Credits & Info

Uploaded
Dec 15, 2008 | 9:13 PM EST
File Info
Loop
7.5 MB
4 min 5 sec
Score
3.72 / 5.00

Licensing Terms

Please contact me if you would like to use this in a project. We can discuss the details.

Score:
Rated 3.72 / 5 stars
Plays & Downloads:
990 Plays | 67 Downloads
Share Links:
Genres:
Easy Listening - Classical
Tags:
None

Author Comments

My best work to date...as it actually had focus ;).

First note to make: I can't figure out how to render/master this darn thing correctly so that it stops sounding so bad! (sound quality wise...I'm not calling my own song bad).

If anyone knows how to fix this, fill me in!

And theres a part towards the end that I iron'd out with mastering, but somehow it didn't stay...I just don't know how to use this thing right...

Oh well! It's the song that counts! (but seriously, if you know, give me a hint).

Reviews are my favorite, you can rate it if you want too..but mainly leave a review :).

EDIT: I figured out the mastering issue...

Reviews


AresdevAresdev

Rated 5 / 5 stars

Very NICE

I must be hearing the remastered version, because this sounds great. I think you are making huge leaps! Congrats on your baptismal! God Bless!


TheWisestMagi responds:

Haha, looks like you already saw the piece anyway =P. Thanks man, when I get my next piece done hopefully it will be a leap beyond this too ;). I'll have to keep up with you, seeing how we both only put out a song every few months =).

Thanks for the congratulatory remarks!
God Bless you too.


LacrimosaMuseLacrimosaMuse

Rated 4 / 5 stars

not bad

awesome song, truly. for your mastering problems, the help section in your program will likely give you the answers, or, if you wanna get really in-depth, pick up traxtor or sonar as a good program for mastering. or, if u have income or limewire, try getting a nice sony program like acid pro. these will help you be able to pan your audio tracks, add reverb/chorus and the like, and pretty much change half the aspects of the sound itself. Onto the music now...youve really got a good sense of instrumentation. there was definatly a wide variety of sounds that u harnessed quite well. the ending violin part around 3:00 really came out as good writing. some of the synth stuff, however, such as the synth/chimes part around 2:30. The chord progression worked for about 3 measures, but id reccomend changing the last measure's chord progression into something that flows a bit better, it sounds like your going from the tonic to the third, which doesnt really work in most anything besides eastern/middle eastern music. the part around 1:17 in the violins didnt seem to line up, but it sounded like that was more of a sound engine problem rather than writing, and that it would sound alot better if the instruments were clearer, but u might wanna look into it just to be safe. thats pretty much it, sorry if i got a bit repetative, its late and im somewhat drowsy. Keep up the good work


TheWisestMagi responds:

Haha, I figured out the mastering issue..I will be updating the song soon.

Turns out I was playing both the recorded/mastered version and the normal version over the top of eachother when I rendered the song. Oooops. Meaning 2 tracks are playing over one another...sometimes creating too much sound at once and sending my program into overdrive...hence the synthetic sounds...and the overly loud percussion at some points.

Thanks for the compliments! It means a bunch, as it seems you know a thing or two (or a thousand) about music yourself there!

By the chord progression comment, I can't tell if your referring to the bass or the ensemble..they are inverses of eachother. Also, do you mean after a full run of the chord progression make the next one different in entirety? You see, it is actually a four measure progression.

So, you do you mean, have 3 chord progressions, and then change the 4th measure of the 4th progression? Or are we talking about a specific part...sometimes I get confused sorry =P.

The part at 1:17 was probably due to the double render =P.

You weren't repetitive at all! Thank you for the consturctive feedback, I truly value it. I'll have to give a look at your stuff!

Regards,
~Bob