Sign in to follow this  
DragonAvenger

*NO* Xenoblade Chronicles 'Surfing with Zanza' *RESUB*

6 posts in this topic

Original decision

Hi,

 
Here's the resubmission of the song. I've remixed it as per the feedback and tackled some nits while at it. 
 
Contact Information
  • Remixer Username: Furorezu
  • Real Name: Daniel Florez
  • Preferred E-mail: 
  • User ID: 33297
------------------
Edited by Liontamer
closed decision

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice job taking the judges' crits to heart!  It's a much warmer, fuller soundscape than the first iteration, and a vast improvement in that regard.

That said, there's definitely still room for improvement.  The lead guitar is very wet, and not only is it inconsistent with the sounds of the other instruments, it's causing muddiness in the busier sections.

It's also still more stale than I'd like it to be.  That long end section (2:17-3:26) does have a few new elements in it, but the bulk of it is still the same drum loop, the same bass, the same lead tone and style.  It also exactly echoes the style of 0:38-1:42, which makes for over two minutes of basically the same set of sounds in a four-minute arrangement.  It's fatiguing to say the least.

I wouldn't be unhappy if this passed, and I think there's a good case to be made for it.  But I feel like it's arranged too statically overall right now.  The reverb on the lead could stand to be turned down, but it's the lack of dynamic content that's really bringing it down for me.

NO (borderline, resubmit)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mindwanderer isn't kidding here - you certainly took the suggestions to heart, and honestly it's all the better for it. The mixing is improved considerably, the bass is definitely more noticeable, and the stacking distortion is less an issue than it was when I first checked this out. It perhaps overcorrected to being a touch bass heavy (with the lead guitar being put in the back of the mix a little too much), but overall the balance is still far better.

The 2:47 - 3:27 still feels too long for me. I don't hear too many changes to that section (other than the overall quality improvement in the production), which seems like a missed opportunity. It doesn't wreck the arrangement on it's own, per se, but it could've been much better with either some cutting or more salient changes. Also, while it doesn't bother me as much as MW, the wet distortion does still cause some issue with muddiness, even though it's improved considerably. I'd say it's mistaken to consider the wetness itself a mistake (as that's inherent to the whole 'surf music' genre), but you still need to be careful when writing music for that genre to keep the production clean.

I could still see this being improved as far as the mixing is concerned, too (could use a little less bass, a little more lead guitar in the front), but I'd like to see this put up regardless; my issues are not deal-breaking. It's still a pretty cool representation of a genre that's under-represented on here, and I believe the overall quality hits the bar, even if it's pretty close.

YES

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've only heard this version, so this is all new to me. I think right off I'm noticing what both the gentlemen above are saying. The sounds overall are pretty warm, and overall it sounds pretty clean, though there is a bit of muddiness in the more busy sections. I also feel like the drums feel a little on the weak side overall, with the kick specifically needing a bit of a boost. That might be a product of the bass being a little on the strong side and the lead being a little on the weak side, as well.

Listening in a vacuum, I do agree that there's a lot of the same sounds throughout the track that don't change up much. I would have loved some more variety in both the instrumental changes as well as the backing section to break things up a bit more. If I were to describe the track as-is, I would say it's a lot of noodley guitar. A little more direction in the arrangement might focus things as well. 

I think this is close, but with both the levels and the arrangement needing a little boost it's not quite there yet. If the arrangement stayed as-is I think I'd still be good to pass it if the production side gets fixed up, but I would love to hear some touch ups to both!

NO (resubmit)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've only heard this version, so I'm coming in with fresh ears.

On 7/18/2017 at 2:33 PM, MindWanderer said:

That long end section (2:17-3:26) does have a few new elements in it, but the bulk of it is still the same drum loop, the same bass, the same lead tone and style.  It also exactly echoes the style of 0:38-1:42, which makes for over two minutes of basically the same set of sounds in a four-minute arrangement.  It's fatiguing to say the least.

Yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeep.

The core drum pattern just droned on and the arrangement -- which I was going to pass until I got to this section -- became very dynamically flat. Production-wise, I didn't have any major issues; the other Js are correct on what could still be addressed, but that would all be in the "nice-to-have" category.

Vary up the stale, repetitive backing of the 2:17-3:16 section and you're in business. Nice work so far, Daniel, so definitely stay with this one!

NO (resubmit)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh man.... the mixing is 100% improved, awesome job.  Everything I asked for got fixed.  There is still room for improvement as others have pointed out but this production gets the job done for me, it fits the genre well enough now.  The arrangement is quite static though, and hearing it again this much later is making that more clear for me.  The creativity of the idea and the wonderful performances push me really close to a yes, but ultimately that long section from 2:17-3:16 does sound too static in terms of arrangement and chord progression, even with all that soloing.  It's a very cool interpretation of the source tune, but doesn't work as well as it needs to as a standalone arrangement for OCR.  

NO (borderline)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this