*NO* Jazz Jackrabbit 'JDHD'

[Gario]

Your ReMixer name: metamorphosis
Your real name: Matt Bentley
Your email address: 
Your website: soulstudios.co.nz
Your userid: 20560

Name of game(s) arranged: Jazz Jackrabbit
Name of arrangement: JDHD
Name of individual song(s) arranged: Tubelectric
Your own comments about the mix, for example the inspiration behind it, how it was made, etc: I've wanted to remix this for about 6 years, but never found the time. One of the biggest challenages has been maintaining it's 'edge' (which is more metal than synth) - highly dependent on the original sounds - while updating it. In doing so I sometimes blended some of the original samples in moderation, as nothing else quite cut through in the same bombastic spiral that the original demonstrates. Other remixes of this tune tend to mistake the aesthetic for an electronica one due to the electronic samples; it couldn't be further from electronica.

Cheers.

 

 

Edited April 6, 2017 by Liontamer
closed decision

[Gario]

Ah, Tubelectric. Seems to be the track of choice whenever I see someone remixing Jazz Jackrabbit 2, though to be fair it IS a pretty rockin' tune, there. This arrangement has a pretty cool sense of pacing, building to something that blasts your face, which it eventually does. However, it pulls back for a good portion of the track in order to explore the more melodic portions with some violin playin', which is honestly the best part of the arrangement. Great performances, there, and it really pulls something unexpectedly soulful from this source.

The faster, metal portions are a bit messy, though, with that crowded high end (the synth, guitar and hats all take that same sonic space). A low pass on any one of those elements would help clean up the busier portions considerably. The synth (especially at 0:54) is very piercing, to boot (to the point of causing pain), so a low pass on that synth would just be a good idea overall. There's some really weird counterpoint going down at 1:04 with that backing instrument, as well - it's like the backing part is playing in a major key while the front synth is playing it in minor, which just causes all sorts of clashing. Fortunately it's not a long part so it doesn't ruin the entire track, but it would be nice to hear it fixed.

I like this quite a bit, but I'm leaning on sending this back for some TLC - the messy high end, the strange part at 1:04 and the piercing at 0:54 are enough for me to feel it would benefit from a bit of fine tuning. Hopefully you get it, fix it up and send us a revised version, though, because when it's good it's really good.

NO

[MindWanderer]

I can't argue with any of Gario's crits.  I didn't feel the issue with the counterpoint at 1:04 was a big deal--it took me a couple of listens to hear it at all, since it's quite quiet and brief--but he's completely right about the balance and the piercing synth.  The SFX starting around 3:25 are also in that discomfort zone for me.

In addition, I heard clipping in a dozen or so places throughout the mix.  The static at 1:27-1:31 sounds like a severe rendering error, even though it's clearly deliberate because of the way it ends.

I'm also not sold on the change to the slow piano+violin section at 1:48-3:18.  It's so dramatically different, so long, and comes with its own introduction, it doesn't really work as a breakdown, but rather sounds like a different remix stuck in the middle.  The transitions themselves are fine, especially the one coming out of that section, but I don't feel like that section belongs in the same remix at all.  I think the general concept could work, perhaps if you cut out most or all of 1:53-2:23 and made some changes to the backing to make it feel like part of the same song.

There are a lot of individual elements that I do like, but I don't think it's just the production that's bringing this down, but that the arrangement could use another look-over as well.

NO

[Chimpazilla]

14 minutes ago, MindWanderer said:

I can't argue with any of Gario's crits.  I didn't feel the issue with the counterpoint at 1:04 was a big deal--it took me a couple of listens to hear it at all, since it's quite quiet and brief--but he's completely right about the balance and the piercing synth.  The SFX starting around 3:25 are also in that discomfort zone for me.

In addition, I heard clipping in a dozen or so places throughout the mix.  The static at 1:27-1:31 sounds like a severe rendering error, even though it's clearly deliberate because of the way it ends.

I'm also not sold on the change to the slow piano+violin section at 1:48-3:18.  It's so dramatically different, so long, and comes with its own introduction, it doesn't really work as a breakdown, but rather sounds like a different remix stuck in the middle.  The transitions themselves are fine, especially the one coming out of that section, but I don't feel like that section belongs in the same remix at all.  I think the general concept could work, perhaps if you cut out most or all of 1:53-2:23 and made some changes to the backing to make it feel like part of the same song.

There are a lot of individual elements that I do like, but I don't think it's just the production that's bringing this down, but that the arrangement could use another look-over as well.

NO

Although I agree with both of my fellow judges here, I think MW's vote sums up my feelings best.  Wow, I really think something went wrong on render here, I hear so many glitches and not the cool groovy kind.  I love the concept, but wow, piercing frequencies, mid-heavy eq, and rendering errors all around.  Needs work.

NO