I was liking the visuals and I was following along with the song until I got distracted by a typo on your end. "That we walked in different places," should be "paces." My biggest gripe is that it seems you didn't do your due diligence in analyzing the song while animating. Based on the lyrics, it isn't about losing a lover through a death, but rather it is a mutual understanding that lovers eventually drift apart, i.e. merely a break-up.
well done. great execution in story telling
You really got me cracking up on this one!!!! LOLOLOL Fat Greg is great
Clever. Everything ties together pretty well-- nice uniformity.
The riddle was the easiest for me, because I hate anagrams and since the game is dark it didn't seem hard to come up with the answer when the mind is already there. Loved the last answer. I wouldn't have cared for the story so much if it wasn't for that reveal. I also liked hearing the reversed music. Thought it quite fitting when the writer was talking about how others called him/her devil.
I'm pleased to hear that the consistency is appreciated.
Yes, I was actually hoping a bit that the riddle would be given away by the mindset one was in. A bit of an experiment in one way.
The last answer is the first one I came up with; the whole game is based around that. I thought the idea so good that I just had to realize it in some way.
Heh, to be honest, I actually borrowed something from you for the sake of unifomrity. While I wrote some of the final, perhaps a bit more cold-hearted letters, I listened to "Return". But what I did was, I analyzed all the emotions in your track, and tried to revome those emotions from my writing, as that part is about loss just like your piece, but from a very different perspective. Thank you for that!
I've always had a thing for reverse music as well. Thanks a lot for playing and reviewing, Phonometrologist!!!
Before my wife kicks me off the computer, I wanted to say I enjoyed this thoroughly. It is sonically pleasing, and the ideas keep me interested throughout. This is an example of good layering by keeping it simple. Great piece!
Yes. From the first note/ drone in the beginning, I knew I was in for a ride. You have a cool blend of Philip Glass, Max Richter, and Trent Reznor going on here. The piano at 1:00 is what I assume everything can easily dig which is ironic because it's totally Philip Glass. The irony is how polarizing his music was in the beginning of his career and now his music has been so ingrained in modern music that it is considered safe. Moreover, If you kept it at this minimalistic piano, you probably would have scored more highly, but the fun in trying to merely win the hearts of people is fleeting. It's better to write for your own at the time. Even if you would have done things differently later on. I value the personal expression of one's music even if it's only for a short season in life.
The noise at 3:35 is something I'm fond of. It is meant to be an esoteric view on music, and sometimes having that amid harmony gives so plainly the dichotomy of what we composer's do in this world. I applaud this approach, but that was merely the artistic weight of the review.
As I look at the previous discussions to your mixing in this piece, I think the mixed responses on your mixing is due to how fluid the reasons may be. If you took your instruments and played them in isolation, you will find nothing wrong in terms of the sound in itself. It's not a matter of EQ, compression, reverb, distortion, etc, but rather in how many of the instruments have equal weight in terms of volume. Sure, EQ can be used as a tool to prevent frequencies from conflicting, but the issue is before that where one instrument doesn't just take the lead over the others. If you didn't want to give one instrument the reigns over all the others, you could automate the faders on each instrument highlighting only the most interesting parts each instrument may have. My theory is in the arrangement, though, I think the arrangement by itself could work. For example, the guitar that comes in at 1:59 is meant to give the piece some heaviness, but it's acting a bit shy at the moment. I hear the arpeggiated organ and other instruments panned at the same volume if not more than the guitar. But it is the guitar that draws our attention because it's so sonically different. Yes, but go by that with some conviction my man! The faders should have been automated as if you were soloing an instrument and then passing the torch to another instrument as the piece develops. You could do this suddenly, or slowly adjusting the faders where an instrument comes in and out without a listener consciously realizing this. Moreover, as other instruments comes in, it would distract the listener from noticing that you're slowly automating the volume down on a particular instrument to the point where it is no longer in the mix at all.
Another example is at 1:00 where obviously the piano is doing all the talking. Then at 1:30, the flute wants to say something but is being a little talked over by the piano. At 1:44 more instruments come in as support, and the flute has gained its confidence by playing in a higher register. At that point, the flute has the audience's attention so the piano isn't as important anymore. Too many talking heads will create the illusion of "too much reverb" by the way, and with too many instruments you will lose some people to the point where they might think you're trying too hard. They lose the train-of-thought as anyone would trying to eavesdrop a conversation amid a moving crowd of people. As the one famous Yoda has said, "Do or do not. There is no try." This piece just needs less competing instruments at the lead. That's my opinion, and even if it might help with this piece, you shouldn't apply every principle/guideline to every piece. Every rule is meant to be broken, but do it with conviction.
This one is very surprising! I first thought what a wonderful choir/part-writing you got going on in the beginning, and the electronic elements came in were a nice idea. Something quite different as I didn't expect it, but it makes sense. You have quite an ear for arrangements and a knack of what sounds pleasing. In terms of the structure, again, I find no fault in this as this really is well-rounded. Much respect-- quite impressed with the quality of your singing, structure, production, and composition! I can keep returning to this piece and continue finding something new upon each listen.
This is actually morbidly cute. I chuckled
Ah yeah... what a great nostalgic piece! Thank you
This is quite comforting. Simple but effective. Reminds me of the spacey graphics in a map of a late 90s/early 2000s video game.
Yeah. Occasionally I like when things are simple and clean (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B5rIpOmuD7U) ;)
I totally get where you're coming from! It also reminds me of the games Run & Run 3 here on the interwebs :)
newgrounds.com — Your #1 online entertainment & artist community! All your base are belong to us.