[Palpable]

Contact Information

• cilrag
• James D Sheehan
• http://blaybiehika.blogspot.com/
• 29438

Submission Information

• Streets Of Rage
• Go Straight
• I tryed and this place is luv.

probly gonna piss off a judge and this'll probly get a slim chance of bein accepted.

I'd like to change my title to streetcakes4lyfe.. the orignal title to the song and just adding 4lyfe is a lame title. no passion what so ever.

and another thing
Your own comments about the mix, for example the inspiration behind it, how it was made, etc.

jeez well heres a lil more effort .

luved this site back in highschool.
well i recently had an urge to remake gostraight and for being this my first submission here,
i just did whatever i could do to makit stay true and added a lil of my wee flavor in toit. and yeah i know the
strings I added are cheap assssss hell.

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

http://www.zophar.net/download_file/8458 - "Go Straight"

Hard to make a call on this one. The source is pretty repetitive to begin with and I think that rubs off here, but there's a fair attention to detail in this. The production sounds a little empty but the instruments used sound good. I'm leaning NO but I could use help getting my own thoughts together.

EDIT (10/30): Yeah, I think OA called this one pretty well. The repetitiveness of the source makes this sound a little repetitive, and IMO it would have been better to have more sections that get away from the main riff, and use the bass or backing synths instead. The mixing also sounds off to me, a little crowded in the lower ranges, some elements distant. Still hard for me to articulate the issues there, it might just be a bunch of small issues put together. I do like your attention to detail and the instruments you chose, and this is a good resub candidate.

NO (resubmit)

[OA]

i think the repetition hurts this one- the production is pretty good, but some mixing aspects seem off. Minor stuff, like the volume of the tambourine and some of the synths, but really the main issue is the arrangement drags. I think it needs some breaking up somehow, so it doesn't just feel like the same short loop over and over with minor variations.

No hate, but i think this needs a bit of a second source, or a more varied arrangement to pass the bar. Definite candidate for a resub.

no

[big giant circles]

I dunno man, I think this is pretty stellar so far. Excellent groove up to 1:00, then a very welcome breakdown for a bit. Then it comes back and gets to the 1:30 section for another breakdown, doing the kind of call-and-answer thing, so that's definitely not too repetitive. Then the drums drop back in at 1:44, and the progression is changed, and the track grooves out until about 2:14, I don't think that's too repetitve. Then lots of changeups in the next 15 seconds. Anyway, this is definitely a groove track, but it's got really GREAT energy, and it's awesome considering the source it's derived from.

Production isn't flawless, but it's not bad either. Nothing there that warrants rejection, IMO.

I don't think we should expect cilrag (is that intentionally "garlic" spelled backwards?) to have to incorporate another melody from somewhere just to justify his choice of source. I think y'all should consider revisiting this one.

IMO, this is a YES, but see below.

[zircon]

I actually like the overall flavor of this - the mix of intense breaks with acid synths and a high level of energy. However, the production definitely needs some work overall, and there are some choices in the arrangement that I think are somewhat questionable. Some concerns:

* The whole thing is overcompressed. This is especially apparent in sections like 1:47 and there's no way we can post this as-is.
* All of the instruments including the drums need some EQ rolloff in the low-end - you can hear how much bass energy there is throughout the song, but it's causing a lot of pumping.
* The transition at :27-28 is really weak and doesn't connect much to the section before or after.
* Some of the synths are too low, which causes them to be muddy simply by virtue of the fact that they're playing low notes, for example the syncopated stabs at 1:15.
* The balance is way off. At 1:47 the bass is far louder than the lead elements - you can barely hear anything.
* The section at 2:54 has clashing notes.
* The interpretation is solid, but somewhat repetitive, as it's pretty much just the same pattern over and over again with some chord changes in the background. I would have liked to hear more changes to the melody and more original material in the lead(s).

Definitely a good effort, but at the very least the production needs to be seriously polished before we can talk about passing this.

NO

Jimmy, you need to clean out your ears.... even if you like the idea of this, the production is a definite NO :P

[big giant circles]

Fair enough, but I still don't think it's horrible. Not perfect, but I was willing to let the flaws slide.

However, in the interest of keeping things moving, I relistened, and I think Andy's given you some solid advice on certain aspects to touch up. In particular, it is pretty over-compressed. You should probably throw some FreeG Stereo on that thing and get your peaks under 0.0 for starters.

I do want to make it clear that I don't need a complete reworking at all, just tweak the mixing and turn the master down a bit so it's not so compressed. I'm pretty cool with the arrangent. And I liked the volume of the drums--thought it sounded much more driving and energetic.

Don't mean to sound like a flip-flop with my vote, but I think it may be an uphill struggle anyway, so if you can tweak these things, PM any of us 4 and we'll get it back to the panel quickly.

RESUBMIT