Jump to content

Jillian Aversa

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Jillian Aversa

  1. Ah, how did I miss this? Happy (belated) birthday, Jordan! ^-^
  2. That is EXACTLY what I thought when I saw that pic. It looks like Doug! P.S. Happy birthday, Stevoooooooooooooooooo!
  3. Hey soc, yes! It's legit this time, haha. I'm switching hosting providers soon because of a website redesign, so I had to move the list of email addresses.

  4. Hey soc, yes! It's legit this time, haha. I'm switching host providers soon because of a website redesign, so I had to move the list of email addresses.

  5. I'm truly happy for you, Jeremy, but... NoooooooOOOOOOOOOOOOoooooooooo! Don't leave us! :cry: :cry:
  6. Yeah, this is borderline too close to the orignal, but the fact that your production is actually good - not just passable - pushes me over the edge. The bass is just awesome! I do understand dear husband's point of view on the lack of dynamics; it's pretty consistent throughout. The ending is also a bit of a copout, true. But I dunno, neither of those things bother me enough to give this a NO. I would just keep all these comments in mind if/when you work on your next mix so you can keep improving. Especially if you're more careful about balancing source with arrangement, I think you'll have direct post potential in the future. YES
  7. Nice playing! This is definitely a creative concept and arrangement, but I have to echo what the others said about your transitions. It really does sound like two completely different songs. The lead guitar sounds too distant to me in the first "song," and the chip elements are mixed quite loudly in comparison at first (not when the melody is playing counterpoint with the guitar and afterwards). And yeah, the lack of reverb makes them stick out as well. The second transition is a little abrupt, but okay by me. I like what you did with the last third of the song, but it still would be nice if you plugged the source in somehow... I feel like going out on a completely original section isn't doing the original composition justice, since first and foremost you want it to be remembered as a remix or tribute. (Right? ^-^) Nice, but still a little rough around the edges. Keep at it! NO (please resub)
  8. More detailed source breakdown is in my above post!
  9. Happy Birthday to one cool dude! Thank you for everything you do for OCR!
  10. http://www.sonic-elements.com/images/june_mermaid.png OooOOOOoooooh, purdy culerz... We R juggez, dur! :B (hehe jk) -------- Okay, here's a more detailed source breakdown: The chords are not all that different at first; instead of A and A#, they are A A# G or A G A# as was pointed out in the submission letter. At 0:24 when the soft cymbal taps first come in, you can hear how the original source melody would fit over what they have, but they leave in only hints of it with the piano. 0:41 is when the arranged melody first comes in, which you can compare in the linked png: it starts off with an added A, then the pitches are pretty much the same but the rhythm is augmented and diminished here and there to vary it up. So far, I would say this is close enough to the original for one to hear the connection pretty easily. The second half of the source melody (0:25-0:53 in the original, then 1:17-1:30) is omitted in the remix, however. To me, that seems like a bit of an oversight. Then at 1:52 in the remix, the section that corresponds to 1:31-2:06 in the original begins. I'm not sure if this is what they were referring to as the "breakdown," or if they meant the part from 2:25-3:04. Both seem loosely based on 1:31-2:06 in the source, but I don't hear the G > A > D arpeggiated motifs in either part; the arpeggios are completely different, although there are G and A chords in there. Definitely a very different vibe overall, and a significant departure from the original. At 3:05, the variation on the first half of the original melody comes back in until the end. -------- So yeah, overall I'm thinking the arrangement is too liberal after all. If they had done something with the source melody from 0:25-0:53 in the original, that could have made up for the substantial departure on the other section with the G > A > D arpeggios. But when you combine both of those things, you basically end up with only a third of the source present in the remix - and I just don't think that's enough. Production comments: - The drums sound weird in this, like... tinny in that 80s kind of way, but not quite. The pattern is also rather slow and uninteresting. - There is a weird sudden increase in volume at 2:00. It jerks up in the middle of a held D in the strings. Did somebody miss an automation point there? - The panning in the percussion makes me feel unsettled, having the kicks in one ear and the snare in the other. It's too unbalanced IMO. - Bass could be louder as well. On the plus side... I like the instrumentation used overall, aside from the awkward drums. The intro is pretty mysterious and cool, and I do get a similar mood from the source and arrangement. NO (resub if you're passionate about working this one out)
  11. The whole thing really reminds me of Moby, actually. (Oh, ha! That's what Palp was referring to... I never knew the name of the song.) Strings are definitely way too bright; it's a little overwhelming. When the beats come in, that helps a lot with the overall EQ balance, but I still think you should tone down the strings and boost the mid range. The slow motion part seems awkwardly executed as DA pointed out. It happens quite out of the blue, out of ryhthm, and then you end on a completely different note with the solo piano section. I don't get it... What happened to the song? I feel cheated. A piano solo isn't necessarily bad conceptually, but it would work better if you transitioned back into something akin to the groove you already had going. The jazziness of it also felt a little out of place, but perhaps it wouldn't if it weren't so punchy. Whether you play it in yourself or sequence the notes, you've gotta try to smooth that out. I honestly don't mind all the piano noodling because it works well for the chillout "Porcelain" vibe, assuming that's what you're going for. But the arrangement still needs to go somewhere, and not where it... went... I'm sure you can think of something more fitting! Maybe tighten the intro, too, while you're at it. I think you've gotten a good number of suggestions in here to help out. Please don't give up on this - I think it has excellent potential! NO (resubmit!)
  12. Woah, yeah, the lower sections definitely sound weird. This is overcompressed; you can hear the pumping. Verdegrand: your playing is great, and it certainly qualifies as a solid piano transcription, but yeah... I hardly heard any original writing in this at all. I wouldn't call it an arrangement yet, at least not in the OCReMix sense of the word. Why don't you play around with it some more? If you're not sure where to start, take a look (or listen ) at the Mozart variations on Twinkle Twinkle Little Star. Perfect example for a piano piece like this; maybe you'll get inspired! Vinnie: no, you're not getting too old for this. Don't worry. ^_~ NO (Resubmit!)
  13. Very beautiful. I love it, really, but this is an easy NO for me. There just isn't enough original interpretation. Keep working on it! (And bring up that choir! It's almost inaudible.)
  14. Ouch, there is some sort of shimmer effect at a reaaaallly high frequency, and it actually hurts my ears in headphones. o_O I agree about the crowded low range here (with the exception of that shimmer effect, obviously). It could have definitely been filled out more. But whatever, production's still pretty solid overall. I don't mind the lack of extra effects - cool arrangement, cool concept. This isn't the sort of song I'd listen to for fun, but I'm sure the Pokemon fans would appreciate it more. YES
  15. I can't tell whether that was intentional or not? Actually, for me the medleyitis isn't so much of a concern. I think there is decent variation and the transitions sound pretty organic. Could there be more original interpretation still? Yes, and it would definitely help. What nags me the most is the lack of "bite" in the production, as Vinnie put it. It really does suck the life out of the song. I want to feel surrounded, up close, gritty, get that blood pumping...! The synths and lead guitar could definitely cut through more, and I'd love to hear more booming bass. (Plus the snare, which everyone has already pointed out.) This is very close, but I think the track could use just a little more love. NO (but definitely resubmit!)
  16. The intro does drag a bit - and not because of length, but it just doesn't sound as tight as it could. Still, once the rhythm picks up it's definitely quite enjoyable. Production is clean, arrangement is good (if not a little brief). Sure, it's not Neskavartetten, but we can't expect every jazz, rock, or dance remix to be on par with the "cream of the crop" artists here. I think this track is solid, and I think Alex shows a lot of potential. He played all the parts himself - that's gotta count for something! ^_~ Let's plant this seed and watch it grow... YES
  17. With such heart pumping original source material, it's cool to here a more laid back take on things. This is definitely a pleasant arrangement with pleasant instrumentation - violin, acoustic guitar, gentle vocals... It gels well. Purdy vocal harmony! I think some of that was your original creation? There are some sparse sections, but when the guitar comes in that helps quite a bit. The only thing that really sticks out for me is the drum pattern: it's just so basic and boring! I know you wouldn't want to go crazy since that would detract from the relaxed feel of the piece, but some variation here and there could have spiced things up a lot. What I would have especially loved to hear are bongos or some other similar kind of hand percussion in addition to (or instead of) what you already have. Not only would that help fill in the gaps, but it could bring in an extra organic element to help tie the percussion together with the rest of the track. I hear clipping at 1:13 on: "said I'm SOOORRRYYY." Assuming this gets passed, can we give Amy a chance to fix that one bug? Anyhow, I'm definitely cool with YESing this as is... but I'll admit that part of me hopes Amy will snazz this up further at some point, just because I think it'd be nice. (I could totally imagine Brandon "Harmony" Bush or Doug "DrumUltimA" Perry on bongos!)
  18. I'm a sucker for ambience, so the howling wind in the intro got me excited. Then the shaker came in at 0:38, and it was mixed really loudly compared to the tabla stuff, which should have been the more predominant instrument. Groove was pretty cool, though. Snare: need I repeat? The choir at 1:41 sounded very MIDI... so much so that it doesn't even feel like an upgrade from the limited samples Kikuta had to work with. DnB section starting at 2:36 with the whispers was cool in terms of atmosphere, but the percussion sounded crunchy and mildly distorted - I guess you could justify it as a stylistic choice, but it seemed off to me. And then we had the real distortion at 4:25, which was just kind of annoying. Then it ended, and I was like, "...wha?" I know you picked a challenging source to tackle given how minimal it is to begin with, but as CHz said, there's evolving ambience and then there's random stuff, and I think this fell too much into the latter category. I wish I had some concrete advice on how you could solidify the arrangement, but it's tough with this source... Maybe take a closer look at the DnB idea, and flesh that out more so it's less literal ambience? NO (resub)
  19. Okay, sorry to perpetuate this evaluation even further, but I have to say that I'm in the "not feeling it" camp here. :/ On the production end, we have a cluttered soundscape - and even with the panning used, it feels flat and one dimensional. The generic boom-tss beats get tiring quickly, the kick is muddy and muffled, and it all sounds kind of lo-fi. I also found the breakdown at 2:50 a little ear-piercing on the high frequencies. (Is that just me?) As for arrangement, I do think you had some good variations on the main melody. But when it was over, I was a little surprised to see that the song had actually lasted over four minutes. I never felt an overall arch of ideas; it just seemed sort of aimless and meandering. I do see that you were going for a "bring it" moment at 2:23, but I don't think there was enough dynamic contrast to pull it off. Have fun! Take chances! Think about what makes your style unique, instead of regurgitating the same old things we've heard countless time in early techno songs. I don't know... I think it would be kind of a shame to pass this mix as is because the reception would be underwhelming. I disagree with some others that this just barely passes the bar, because there's no real originality showcased here. There is enough merit to the arrangement that you could take it further, learn a lot in the process, and resubmit. I suggest you do! ^-^ NO (resub)
  20. Whee, had so much fun! It was great to see you all. I'll upload pics to Facebook soon and post a link. Yeah, I think next time we should make sure to ask for volunteers who think they really know their stuff with video game music, since they're supposed to represent the whole team. Or we can figure out some other way to do it...
  21. Nah, that's fine! We'll bring all those.
  22. As in plates, cups, and utensils? Or just the utensils? (Sorry, don't know exactly what qualifies as plasticware!)
  23. We can bring hot dog buns. And do you need any plastic cups, plates, and/or utensils? If you've already got that covered, we could bring the burger buns as well.
  • Create New...