|
The start was a lot more sudden than I like; I think it's better to find at least one more-laid back track to begin with. However, full-on is pretty tough in this regard.
Not sure what the "typical name" for the particular lead sound is in full-on, but for my tastes, the mix contained far too much of it. An example can be found at the 2:30 mark in the very first song or at the 68 minute mark later on; that kind of fast, panning swishy synth that so many producers seem to use. I find those type of melodies a bit hectic and generic after a while, but that's personal preference of course.
I think in your next mix you would do better to introduce some variance and have tracks of all different kinds in there, because otherwise, full-on becomes far too monotonous. Not saying that my mix posted further up the thread is better than yours or some kind of model to follow, but you will notice that I started with some melodic, less hard-hitting stuff, had some transition in the way of Zen Mechanics, then moved into the harder Israeli stuff before finishing melodic again but trying to revive some of the energy with the last two tracks. In contrast, I found you used the same kind of tracks the whole way through and lacked flow as a result. That said, the melodic breaks around the 80 minute mark in the second last track were a good way to close out the set.
Mixing wise, I didn't have a problem. I think full-on can be quite hard to mix at times, as the bass lines will either work well with one another or clash horribly. I even found in my last mix that I got phasing in one case! Your transitions were pretty smooth and pleasing, though I think there is still room for improvement.
___________________
Mix archive | Melbourne club guide
|
