example
-
- Narcissistic Messiah
- Topic Starter
- 4562 posts since 8 Apr, 2002 from https://soundcloud.com/remcoh
-
- Narcissistic Messiah
- Topic Starter
- 4562 posts since 8 Apr, 2002 from https://soundcloud.com/remcoh
-
- KVRist
- 331 posts since 4 Feb, 2012
I had already this one on SC and it struck me as contrast between the mechanical drums and much more "improv" on the leads.
Very wise choice of sounds, and gripping result.
Love this track!
Very wise choice of sounds, and gripping result.
Love this track!
-
- Narcissistic Messiah
- Topic Starter
- 4562 posts since 8 Apr, 2002 from https://soundcloud.com/remcoh
Woaaaah, thanks sooo much
On this one i tried to use dubstepisch
sounds and fitting them into an arangement
i would make in my "normal" stuff
Not too sure if it really worked but its an
Encouragement to have such a possitive audiance
Big hug!
On this one i tried to use dubstepisch
sounds and fitting them into an arangement
i would make in my "normal" stuff
Not too sure if it really worked but its an
Encouragement to have such a possitive audiance
Big hug!
-
- KVRAF
- 4784 posts since 2 Sep, 2005 from city of lights (nl)
Nice one Remmie, enjoyed this lovely tune 
Rekkerd.org the latest news on audio plugins, sample libraries & virtual instruments, synth presets & more.
Don't click here if you can't control yourself!
Don't click here if you can't control yourself!
-
- KVRAF
- 2086 posts since 11 Feb, 2003
This still has the Remmie style we all love, but with a dubby twist.
Like it very much, great production too!
Top five of my Remco favorites.
Like it very much, great production too!
Top five of my Remco favorites.
-
- KVRAF
- 7152 posts since 4 Apr, 2005 from here and there
Yeah! I can hear the wide dubbish streak but I won't consider it a crossover track since the footprint of your style is still stronger.
I like the bright synths sounds you always managed to put upfront
Nicely done
Cheers
I like the bright synths sounds you always managed to put upfront
Nicely done
Cheers
-
- Narcissistic Messiah
- Topic Starter
- 4562 posts since 8 Apr, 2002 from https://soundcloud.com/remcoh
Howdy, Thanks chaps!
The trick to upfront, is use jcm9000 or green machine or some other distorter of choice. AND: Like the depth in photographs and the sharpness of objects is determined by the blurriness of the background so is the sharpness and brightness of sounds emphasized by the blurriness of the background. We humans are pretty damn 0D:
"We can see less than 1% of the electromagnetic spectrum and hear less than 1% of the acoustic spectrum. As you read this, you are traveling at 220 kilometers per second across the galaxy. 90% of the cells in your body carry their own microbial DNA and are not "you". The atoms in your body are 99.9999999999999999% empty space and none of them are the ones you were born with, but they all originated in the belly of a star. Human beings have 46 chromosomes, 2 less than the common potato. The existence of the rainbow depends on the conical photoreceptors in your eyes; to animals without cones, the rainbow does not exist. So you don't just look at a rainbow, you create it. This is pretty amazing, especially considering that all the beautiful colors you sec represent less than 1% of the electromagnetic spectrum."
In addition to those facts (that I obviously stole from some digital internet alley) we think we know what we feel and hear, but our 21 senses trick us continuously. We measure things In 3D abstractions like high low wide narrow far near and loud and soft and dense and sparse etcetera and we are using subjective scales for that. Next to loud something soft sounds softer but next to extremely soft something regularly soft may me experienced loud. With that in mind using a limited set of methods you can create a dense or populated or width or transparent etcetera etcetera mix-out while it is actually not dense or populated or width or transparent etcetera etcetera
Does that make sense?
The trick to upfront, is use jcm9000 or green machine or some other distorter of choice. AND: Like the depth in photographs and the sharpness of objects is determined by the blurriness of the background so is the sharpness and brightness of sounds emphasized by the blurriness of the background. We humans are pretty damn 0D:
"We can see less than 1% of the electromagnetic spectrum and hear less than 1% of the acoustic spectrum. As you read this, you are traveling at 220 kilometers per second across the galaxy. 90% of the cells in your body carry their own microbial DNA and are not "you". The atoms in your body are 99.9999999999999999% empty space and none of them are the ones you were born with, but they all originated in the belly of a star. Human beings have 46 chromosomes, 2 less than the common potato. The existence of the rainbow depends on the conical photoreceptors in your eyes; to animals without cones, the rainbow does not exist. So you don't just look at a rainbow, you create it. This is pretty amazing, especially considering that all the beautiful colors you sec represent less than 1% of the electromagnetic spectrum."
In addition to those facts (that I obviously stole from some digital internet alley) we think we know what we feel and hear, but our 21 senses trick us continuously. We measure things In 3D abstractions like high low wide narrow far near and loud and soft and dense and sparse etcetera and we are using subjective scales for that. Next to loud something soft sounds softer but next to extremely soft something regularly soft may me experienced loud. With that in mind using a limited set of methods you can create a dense or populated or width or transparent etcetera etcetera mix-out while it is actually not dense or populated or width or transparent etcetera etcetera
Does that make sense?
