Palpable Posted April 7, 2015 Share Posted April 7, 2015 (edited) Hi there! I would like to submit my remix of "Streets" by Graeme Norgate. You can download it from my SoundCloud page here: Remixer name - Analogstik Real name - John Montoya Email - Website - http://analogstikmusic.com User ID - 53088 Game title - TimeSplitters 2 Name of original song - Streets Name of original composer - Graeme Norgate Link to the original soundtrack: http://graemenorgate.bandcamp.com/album/timesplitters-2-ost About Graeme Norgate - (From Wikipedia) "Graeme Norgate (born 20 March 1971) is an English video game music composer who has composed music for a variety of video games developed by Rare. His first project at Rare was writing music for the Game Boy game, Donkey Kong Land. He also contributed to the soundtracks of Blast Corps and GoldenEye 007. Graeme was later an employee of Free Radical Design, the company was eventually bought out by Crytek and renamed to Crytek UK; Norgate retained the position of audio director after the company's buyout. Originally working at a bank before joining Rare in 1994, Norgate worked on the music of such games as GoldenEye 007 and Blast Corps. A friend of fellow Rare composer Robin Beanland, the two worked on the original soundtrack to Killer Instinct in the 1990s. He also composed music (but was not fully credited)[citation needed] for other Rareware games such as Diddy Kong Racing, Jet Force Gemini, and Perfect Dark. Norgate played synthesizer and programmed drums for the bands 'FWNT' and 'The Catch' between 1991 and 1992. He also works under the alias of Virez when remixing, he has remixed several songs for bands such as Sigue Sigue Sputnik, Goteki, Code 64, Seize and Illumina." Graeme's website: http://www.graemenorgate.com/ Some fun information - Graeme Norgate himself even praised this remix. At the time, I was going by the handle "8bit Riot". http://gyazo.com/f7949fbe9f9cb1bbb33aec52457f974d -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Edited April 22, 2015 by Liontamer closed decision Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Palpable Posted April 7, 2015 Author Share Posted April 7, 2015 I don't like to reject songs without having a good explanation, but here I struggle a little bit. The original song isn't really that melodic, mostly built around a simple riff. There's not much focus, it's more of a background track. Analogstik keeps the same spirit in his remix, keeping the riff but changing the other things around it. Honestly, it's pretty well put-together. Production is solid if generic, details pop in and out, song changes up several times. 1:09-2:44 is probably the best place to describe the problem I have. What changes in this section is subtle bg instruments and filtering on the lead instrument. It gets pretty tiring - this section could be cut in half easily. Other sections are a little more distinguished, but still not far from it. So while your song has a good flow and solid production, it's really just lacking ideas. Not necessarily arrangement ideas, just something new to capture attention. Maybe others can articulate it better. NO (resubmit) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chimpazilla Posted April 8, 2015 Share Posted April 8, 2015 (edited) This is a tough one, Vinnie is right it is a well produced track. I find it very conservative and similar to the original, but there are fun additions made. The problem is sheer repetitiveness of the arrangement. The original is clearly background music, and this mix doesn't do that much to make it other than upgraded background music. I'm having a hard time thinking of suggestions on how to fix this track up for OCR, it's pretty complete as it is but I'm not sure if it fits our standards due to it's repetitive nature. I'm going to withhold my vote for now. edit 4-20-15: Listening again. This is a very well put together track! But it is still just background music, it is essentially leadless for the majority of it. As I'm listening I hear untapped potential to write some wild soloing right over the top of what is here! WOW that could be so cool: varied lead writing and timbres to really distinguish the sections and remove the repetitiveness. But in this form, it doesn't feel complete without more meaningful leadwork. I totally understand if you feel this track is done... but, it could be fun to add leads? I'd love to hear this one again with leeeeeeeads! NO (resubmit) Edited April 21, 2015 by Chimpazilla Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emunator Posted April 22, 2015 Share Posted April 22, 2015 This is an extremely competent mix with solid production and sound design, but I found myself mentally checked out of your arrangement about halfway through. When you drill in and pay close attention, there's a lot of subtle detail work that makes this a substantial improvement on the original track, but I agree with Palpable... while it works exceptionally well in the context of background music, as a standalone arrangement I just don't think there's enough variation or attention-grabbing ideas. I can't find much fault your effort on the track, it sounds like you achieved what you set out to do and the co-sign from the original composer is always a plus, but at the same time I don't think this really satisfies the criteria for what we're looking for on OCR. Sorry! Would love to see something more from you in the future. NO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liontamer Posted April 22, 2015 Share Posted April 22, 2015 Since Palpable and the others expressed some inability to isolate the issues, I'll just chime in an extra vote. I think this is pretty far along in the right direction that, IMO, we're looking for as far as personalizing this arrangement. The groove of the original is retained, but all of the instrumentation ideas are yours, and the backing writing around the melody, and the melodic textures all evolve, so that's all positive. I definitely agreed with trimming the fat by reducing 1:36-2:44, especially because you just end up continuing that melody from 2:45-3:39. The subtle variations are there, but that repetitive melody does plod after two straight minutes. Also, while not a dealbreaker, the soundscape got cluttered during the fullest parts (e.g. 1:22-1:50, 1:56-2:44, 3:25-3:39). Anything you can do to reduce some of the muddyness would help. IMO, this is pretty solid so far, John, and if you're open to some further tweaks to clean up the soundscape and reduce some potential plodding writing, this would be a great addition! NO (resubmit) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts