*NO* Super Mario 64 'Underwater Wonderland' *RESUB*

[Liontamer]

Original Decision: http://www.ocremix.org/forums/showthread.php?t=13594

* Your ReMixer name: Kautzman
* Your real name: Michael Kautzman
* Your email address: MKautzm@gmail.com
* Your website: N/A
* Your userid: 22695

* Name of game(s) arranged: N64 - Super Mario 64
* Name of individual song(s) arranged: Dire Dire Docks.
* Your own comments about the mix, for example the inspiration behind it, how it was made, etc.:

Since the last time you've seen this it has gone through a ton of changes and the production quality is quite a bit better.

Layering has been improved upon. Included a bit of panning to separate the melody lines from background. I've added a little more of something new and removed excessive repetition. Velocity has been normalized, something which should have been done from the get go and the piano has been sharpened. It's quite a bit better this time around and I look forward to your comments and opinions.

One thing that I noticed a few people mentioned was the lack of bass. I tried to strengthen the support by bringing out the moving synth line starting at 0:08 and articulate it more in places (But I made sure it never comes over the top of what needs to be heard). I've experimented with adding additional support and it seems to clutter it but that may be showing my lack of experience with the production of something like this.

Another aspect I worked on was being less conservative with the mix. A unique bridge was added and repetition was cut in it's favor. I messed around a bit with the drums to make things different, interesting and to put a bit of "spice" into the mess but the piece still remains relatively conservative (Same tempo, same ambiance etc.)

For the sake of easy reference, if it matters, the original I submitted last time can still be found here:

Enjoy, and once again, thanks for your time.

Michael Kautzman

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The production was definitely a lot better balanced, though the overall soundfield still sounded a bit too murky here, IMO. The delay overcompensated for the relatively sparse textures.

http://www.zophar.net/usf/sm64usf.rar - 09 "Dire, Dire Docks"

Still the same e-piano intro. Percussion was different, with some kicks now. CHz mentioned them being panned pretty hard to the left and not being a much better percussion choice, and I've gotta agree. They didn't adequately fill out the background at all and seemed out of place with the overall mood of the song. Switching up the kick rhythm at 1:16 was a good idea, but still a poor choice of sound.

"Huh?" at 2:05; that definitely came out of nowhere and didn't piece together well with the material that came before it. The interpretive take on the theme from 2:21-2:35 didn't harmonize well with the countermelody in the background.

The original countermelody from 2:36-2:51 was actually pretty good; definitely clicking there. The tone of the countermelody brought in at 3:14 still didn't fit the mood of the track to me, but the writing there was good at least. I wouldn't have ended the track with that synth leading the way. It sounds too syrupy, not really fitting in the watery, ambient mood you tried to retain by sticking to the feel of the source so closely.

It seems that the only effective harmonizations of your original ideas with the source tune came when you used the melody near-verbatim; however, it also made that melodic aspect of the arrangement boring. The verses were a little different just with how you repeated the partial melody before repeating with the full phrase, but the chorus was even more straightforward than that.

Quoting myself from last time: Melody stayed fairly close to the source, with you taking more of the focus on changing the background elements instead. Only thing going on with the melody was some grace notes; that's moving in the right direction, sure, but it's not substantive enough all things considered, mainly because the overall atmosphere here was so stylistically similar to the original. Tempo is basically the same, melody is basically the same.

I see how you tried to do more this time around, Michael, but I'm still left with the same overall impression. When you changed things up more substantively, the supporting elements tended to clash with the altered melodies. So you still have a ways to go in terms of experimenting and learning in order to get your part-writing and sound choices to be more cohesive when you take more creative liberties.

Definitely keep at it in the community. This was a marked improvement versus the previous submission, mostly on the production side, but some on the arrangement side as well. You nonetheless still have a ways to go, and this likely isn't going be the track that takes you there. I'd call this one a wrap and continue moving forward with new ideas as you use the resources here and on other sites to continue improving your game.

NO

[CHz]

The production is definitely better with this version, but you still have room for improvement. I was relieved to find that you iced the claps and mixed up the patterns, but the new perc is too weak. There's no real reason for that kick to be panned left for the entire mix, and it's especially annoying from 0:30 to 1:31 when there isn't a whole lot going on to drown it out.

Your sequencing's still mechanical, especially in the piano. In fact, the sequencing sounds worse in this version because the piano is out in front for a good portion of the mix. On the plus side of the production, this mix was a big improvement in terms of balancing the sounds. Especially at the end, the panning was a big help in keeping everything clear. EQ is another thing that can help so make sure that your sounds aren't all occupying the same frequencies and blending into each other.

The arrangement is improved from the old version, but you've still got a ways to go. There's interpretation to an extent, and then a ton of repetition of that material. The break at 2:05 was a good idea, but it didn't flow well from the previous material and the interpreted piano that comes in at 2:21 clashes with it fiercely. Try to make what you already have in the mix more interpretive instead of just adding more material.

This is a definite improvement over the last version, but you've still got some distance to cover. Use the ReMixing and WIP forums to get other comments and tips for how to step your stuff up to the next level.

NO

[Palpable]

Though I didn't hear the first version of this arrangement, Larry's reiterated quote sums a lot of it up for me. Using an e-piano/piano combination so close to the original really hurts this. On top of that, the melody and backing part follows the original closely for the first two minutes, with no drastic changes. Together, your song really doesn't have a unique voice; it sounds more like lost verses. On the positive, I did like the minor key section of the main melody, and the counter-melodies in the following parts. That's more the kind of stuff I was looking for.

You have a lot of room for improvement on the production side. Piano is very rigid. Experiment with using different note lengths and volumes to get a more humanized sound. Also, every instrument introduced seems louder than the previous ones; by the time the piano comes in, the original percussion (cool sound there, btw) is barely audible. Work on getting the instrument levels more even, and definitely apply some EQ to the e-piano, piano, and strings. Each of these instruments take up a bigger portion of the soundfield than they should. What may help is actually comparing the instrument levels and sounds to the original, as a starting point. Normally I would not suggest this because it will give you a similar sound to the original, but since this one is already so similar...

I'd recommend starting fresh on a new song, and using any changes you make to this just as practice. With such base similarities to the original, it would be a very tough song to pass. Hope to see you keep working at music though.

NO