[DarkeSword]

LT Edit - Original Decision: http://www.ocremix.org/forums/showthread.php?t=2811

Originally Posted by nobodygetshurt

hi darkesword,

i'm resubmitting the song i submitted over a year ago.
i've polished the vocals, and tried to get the best levels i could with something this complicated. here's the info:

remixer name: Neil Benjamin (also real name)
email: nobodygetshurt@gmail.com
website: www.nobodygetshurt.vze.com
remix name: Tragedy of a Bullet
game: Max Payne
song remixed: Max Payne Theme

additional info: in a game where you kill people by the hundreds, i wanted to focus on the grief that follows a single gunshot. hence the name.

[Liontamer]

Max Payne - (02) "Max Payne Theme"

The bitrate is too high at 208kbps VBR, so it would have to be reduced to 192kbps or below if it were accepted. The extended intro's based off of 1:30-2:18 of the original, starting at 1:18. Sounded like original stuff up until then. Transitions into the familiar melody of the source at 2:11.

I was feeling this last time around, and still like it today. The instrumentation is decidedly minimal, but what little is there is good from 2:40-onward. It was called cheap last time, but didn't create a poor-sounding texture IMO. From about 2:11-2:40 though, things were too empty. Cool stuff like the backing string and piano plucks are still barely audible in comparison to the vocals. More (or LOUDER) instrumentation could be added to the picture to flesh out the background further without disturbing the overall vibe of the song, a very reasonable criticism from last time around.

I thought the mutitracked vocals were solid. Others felt they were too rough-sounding last time, but I thought they came together well enough on both occasions. The vocal swell at 3:09 was a but much, but overall it's an unorthodox performance style that I can't recall hearing many times in the community, and one that's executed well enough despite having room for improvement.

If this doesn't make it again, one reason is because the backing instrumentation is too spartan again. The vocals I had no huge issue with. I thought the concept was good, the arrangement was interpretive, and the execution was good enough. Nonetheless, Neil, you're probably gonna get nailed with the same issues here that were present the last time around, and they were reasonable criticisms the last time around.

YES (borderline)

[pixietricks]

Very Radiohead. I love, love, LOVE this arrangement. Actually, the vocals remind of the lead singer from Milton Nascimento, too. I can't tell how much the singing has improved since your last submission because the link has been removed, but there isn't a lot here that really bothers me. I'll point out a few things just for good measure, though:

- 0:26 bass part has some major note scooping, and not in a good way.
- 0:40 scooping in the high tenor makes your entrance late compared to the other parts.
- 0:53-0:58 same high tenor part seems off rhythm with everything else. If you're going for intentional syncopation, it needs more intent and accuracy.
- 1:08-1:18 bass part is slightly out of tune in spots.
- 1:49-2:00 second highest tenor part sounds strained and slightly flat.

The minimalistic backing texture rocks my socks. As soon as that entered, the vocals really fit into place. I dig your voice! May not be everyone's cup of tea, but it certainly works for the style. It takes guts to submit a heavily a capella remix, and I applaud you for that... If this for some reason does not pass, I'd suggest you hook up with someone a little more trained. (The problem is... too much training would detract from the style. So hopefully it won't come to that!)

YES

[Liontamer]

Source: http://gh.ffshrine.org/song/710/3

[JJT]

This will make a nice addition to the site! Reminds me especially of Thom Yorke's solo album, The Eraser.

Very ambitious in a non-polished sort of way. Not only that, but you pull it off well. Thanks for the resub!

YES

[Malcos]

This is quite an original sub and will bring some diversity to the site. I'm in agreement with the comments already made, namely that the sparse background lends itself to the style of this piece. The mostly accapella style is quite gutsy and is pulled off well. It doesn't sound too polished, and that actually makes the piece more effective imo.

YES

[zircon]

I definitely was not feeling the intro which felt really unpolished & overly minimal. The voices seemed poorly mixed in that the low note tends to overpower the others. By leaving them almost completely exposed it really calls attention to even slight problems with your delivery that would be otherwise not noticeable. Also the arrangement is not very creative... it's very close to the original progression. The bits of SFX here and there help but I would have liked more of them. At 2:00 more instruments come in but I disagree with Larry that they got the job done. Things still felt too minimal. Plus, the additions took place mostly in the low range which made it somewhat muddy. I also noticed the beat feels consistently out of sync (in a bad way), and is uninteresting in terms of sequencing and samples. You would be better off tightening up the rhythm on it or just not using anything.

I don't feel this is at our bar at all. The arrangement is not that interpretive. I could overlook the extremely minimal instrumentation and the production issues if the voice stuff was really fantastic and took the original to a whole new level. But I don't feel that it does. Additionally I do not think the vocal performance is strong enough to merit being incredibly exposed the whole mix. If the surrounding elements of the mix were denser this would not be a problem, but it's the overwhelming focus of the mix.

I do think this is a creative mix. It's pretty brave, and unique in the approach, but brave and unique don't necessarily make up for weaknesses in the fundamentals of arrangement & production. I am a fan of your stuff Neil and I would love to hear more from you, perhaps a more expanded version of this track.

NO

[big giant circles]

Dang. I'm kind of mixed up on this one. Torn by good arguments from both the YES and NO reasoning I've read.

Absolute first impressions (I try to just simply see how I feel about a mix before I read any of the other J comments), I was kind of like "Hmmm, this is interesting, but bears obvious technical flaws as well as being subjected to the usual obstacles a real live actual human (in this case vocal) performance presents."

I usually try to familiarize myself with source material first, but I was kind of lazy in this case and just looped the remix a few times. After a few listens, I read my fellow J votes to see what the general consensus was. I definitely agree that this mix would add some diversity to the stylistic tendencies of a good deal of remixes. That being said, I can't in good conscience pass this just for that reason. THAT being said, I don't exactly dig on this particular style, so it's harder for me to analyze this without any bias or personal preference rub off on the vote. Obviously, I'm not the most knowledgeable person when it comes to vocal analysis. I do, however, think I have a decent grasp on intonation, and I think that's one of the biggest flaws in the mix. I'll say that I won't ever require a vocal performance to be completely dead-on pitch, but I will ask that it be close enough. I'm not going to break it down too much, but your overall singing is waaaaay flat. I'm not sure if it is mainly due to the scooping or not, but I wasn't digging it.

I'm gonna have to back my bro zircon on this one. This is a very brave mix, and definitely very creative. Really nice to see some innovative stuff being submitted around here. However, I don't think the minimalist approach works here either, especially with the aforementioned intonation issue. Andy's also (arguably) right about the level of interpretation. I kind of had the same issue with the icy peaks mix. The arrangement is very very similar--really the only major additions are the level of harmonic support. The source places more emphasis on the melody with the bassline as the main source of chord emphasis, whereas the remix elaborates more on the rest of the chord. And yeah, what the heck is the deal with 3:09? That just sounded terrible, whatever it was.

Anyway, this isn't a terrible song, and while this certainly isn't my cup of tea, I feel I'm justified in the quirks I've presented, and don't feel that bias has had any impact on my vote. This is extremely unique and creative, but lacks the OCR bar based on the vocal intonation, the minimalist instrumentation which overly exposes the vocal flaws which could have been suppressed to an acceptable point with further expansion on accompanyment, and the lack of deviation from source material.

I think this with a little more work could sit pretty on the front page, but not at the moment.

NO

[The Orichalcon]

What a refreshingly human mix. The vocals aren't perfect, which in itself makes them perfect.

If there's any fault, it's that the mix built itself up too much around 3:09, I would've kept it simple and chill right to the end.

Let noone say we don't let uniquely creative mixes pass.

YES

[Vig]

hahaha, you really do sound like thom yorke (SP)

The drums are sparse in a sloppy sort of way, as is the piano. the reverse effects work well. The arrangement definitely could have been beefed up in sections, but the vocals work really well for me, so it's good enough.


YES