OCR01767 - *YES* Star Fox 'Barrel Roll' *RESUB*
Posted 22 June 2008 - 02:35 AM
Original Decision: http://www.ocremix.o...ead.php?t=10857
PrototypeRaptor, aka Jonathan Paulsen, reporting for abuse again... alright, so I've gone back and revamped my old remix of Star Fox's "Corneria" theme.
This theme is one of those songs that is just stuck in your head as a kid...and I've wanted to remix it FOREVER.
It's a good thing that it got shot down last time, as I don't think it did the original justice; I've gone back and re-mixed everything, added new melodies, new countermelodies, etc.
Hopefully those of you who didn't like the lack of actual arrangement of music from the game will be a bit happier this time around...pretty much everything is based on or around the chords/melodies of the original.
I've also acquired new speakers since last time. (mixing on logitechs FTL) so hopefully it sounds less like "mud men from the swamps of sludge" and more like "star-fox-is-a-bad-ass-game-I-want-to-play-it-now."
Also, I don't know how my other submission is going (endless skies) but I'm pretty sure that I wouldn't want it on the site for my reputation purposes... please take it off the list for the time being. Perhaps another resub is in order?
That's all I got... hopefully everything flies well this time! (get it? haha arwing jokes...I'm so pathetic...
Thanks for your time,
PrototypeRaptor (Jonathan Paulsen)
Posted 23 June 2008 - 03:22 PM
Production is spot-on except for a couple places. I think the game dialogue is a little loud, and the strings that enter at 3:26 cover up a lot of soundfield but they aren't there that long. Minor stuff.
My real problem with the last version was the liberalness. Here's my new breakdown:
0:13-0:42 heavily modified version of the opening riff
0:43-1:10 modified version of the opening riff
1:11-2:10 pulls from chorus riff
3:48-5:28 pulls from chorus riff
5:36-6:04 heavily modified version of the opening riff
Though I didn't write out my breakdown last time, the parts I weren't feeling were the heavily modified versions of the opening riff. It altered the riff past the point of being recognized IMO. In this version, even taking those out you're at just a little over 50%. I think that combined with the much improved arrangement and production makes this a solid YES for me. Thanks for coming back to this one, Jonathan.
Posted 28 June 2008 - 10:02 PM
This sounds really good to me. Obvious attention to details and automation on the synths, and the drums sound great, especially the middle section. Those are some awesome beats right there. I can't think of any criticism for the production at all, so thats nice.
On the arrangement side, we're pushing 6 minutes but the comparatively short source riff has been used creatively for most of the remix. Vinnie's breakdown is spot on. It sounds liberal, but the majority of the time there is some recognizable source tune right there, and its been expanded into new ideas. The original writing ties the other sections together really well; I especially enjoyed the part at 2:52, some lovely evil chords there that contrast the source nicely. I think this is a fairly easy pass despite the liberalism, and will probably be a classic.
Posted 29 June 2008 - 01:24 AM
I still felt the modified melody at :13 sounded Star Fox-esque, but changed the Corneria melody too much, so I wasn't counting it. Didn't matter though, as the arrangement was much more overtly tied to the source this time around.
The "Do A Barrell Roll" voice clips with the effects (starting at 1:10) felt pretty tacky, honestly. But I'm sure some people will love it. I liked the first usage of it, but felt it was cheesy afterwards.
The bread-and-butter synths of the chorus at 1:42 still sounded plain in a bad way, but the rhythmic changes were OK.
I thought the writing of the original section from 2:10 didn't quite work and felt out of place. Thematically, it could have pieced together better with the beginning and the end. I liked lots of new instrumentation ideas being introduced, but to me the flow wasn't there. The strings used from 3:26-3:33 and 3:46-4:02 were definitely muddy and overbearing; the sequencing was also pretty mechanical and didn't sound good at all. The synth from 3:39-3:46 was overbearing as well.
Went back into the source at 3:47, and I just felt the textures got too messy from 4:15, not helped by the synth with the liberal melody (4:15-4:29) being loud while sounding fairly amelodic compared to the other sounds. Went back into the stuttured chorus at 4:32, which still felt like a kind of basic approach, but was still OK, especially bolstered by some nice-sounding piano from 5:02-5:29.
Strangely enough (and I'd need to hear this in execution to be sure), but I would have LOVED the synth at 5:42 to handle the liberally arranged melody instead of that saw-like sound. Where was that the whole time???
I just can't get behind this one all the way. The production still leaves something to be desired. The smaller issues pointed out (string sequencing, sound balance, bland electrosynths) added up, plus the writing & instrumentation in the original section in the middle just didn't feel cohesive at all. Hate to be a blocker, Jon, but this was just not ready yet. I'm not pushing for perfection, and there are good things going on there, but I seriously think this could use more polish.
Posted 01 July 2008 - 01:31 AM
it still kicks my ass. the arrangement is distinctly better this time around and i don't see any problem with the original section... it's tripped out. the funky voice saying "barrel roll" is a little awkward but otherwise, this thing is spot on.
like i said before... starfox and trance fans will dig this.
still a YES
Posted 03 July 2008 - 01:59 AM
I really actually liked the vocoded snippets--thought they were actually pretty unique in their own rights, and we don't hear a lot of vocoded stuff around here. Since Vinnie's pretty thoroughly broken down the arrangement, I can't say I have any qualms there. I'm with Zyko again here. Fans will enjoy this one. Here's to another YES on a trance mix, haterz.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users