Vig
-
Posts
2,317 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Articles
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Vig
-
-
I don't see what's to spell out. the chord progression is the same as the original the whole way through. It's a very distinctive progression.
-
So you guys are way off. The chord progression is the same as the original the whole way through. This is fairly standard for jazz. Melody, solo over the head. The only reason you are having trouble hearing the original is because of the vastly altered groove. Do you really want to instantly reject songs that are in the jazz format? It's one thing when you are complaining that a song doesnt have >50% remixed material when the other material is unrelated, but there's never a point in this song when the original chords aren't used. By rejecting this track on the basis that it's "too original," you are setting a dangerous precedent.
That said, the distortion is way too bad to allow to pass as is. I'll say YES conditional on fixing the clipping.
-
The guitar and percussion sequencing is really well done.
My problems with this are first of all, the arrangement is very conservative. This is pretty straightforward.
The other problem I have is that this is too crowded most of the time, especially in the low-mids, say 250-1000 Hz. It's muddy! Adjust the EQ~
NO
-
Oh boy. I'm hearing some serious issues with the performance. Gotsta tune up that guitar. Furthermore, your playing is choppy. Gotta just drill it until your notes move smoothly. Just practice scales with a metronome as slow as you have to so that you can play each successive note one right after another without stuttering.
NO
-
Skipping the good for awhile, It seems this mix's biggest problem is sloppy execution, both in production and performance related areas. The piano in the intro is a bit too dark and understated. I'm having trouble forgiving the guitar samples. Sorry. Maybe other people won't care as much, but around the 1-minute mark, the right-channel solo guitar is awkwardly written. Same goes for the left guitar after 1:30. Really spastic and amelodic.
WTF is going on at 2:39? that's just painfully sloppy. Then you have a bunch of ideas aborting themselves left and right. This section of the song is really chill and the texture is great, but there's nothing going on compositionally. can you please inject a complete line? 3:40 there is some harmonic contrast between the pads and everything else.
OK. That said, Here's what's good: Your texture. You've got a million instruments playing at once sometimes, and other times very few. The tones you choose are great, and you obviously put a lot of effort into combining them and separating them in ways that are texturally interesting. Unfortunately that is leading to some choppiness in the individual parts. I think you should strive to keep the texture you have here, but do a little more to make some of the melodic lines smoother and more musical.
Really interesting.
NO
-
re: the piano at 1:46, it is indeed, rather back in the mix, but from what I can hear, the sequencing seems choppy at points. I'm not sure that it would sound better if it were closer up in the mix. With it understated, it functions as a bit of added texture in what is obviously a somewhat atmospheric dance mix. I like it the way it is. the akwardness of the piano sequence is confirmed around teh 4 minute mark.
The atmosphere and texture of this song are fantastic.
As for the arrangement leftism, I'm hearing the source all over the place, right off the bat in the groove, to the synth take on the piano line at :18, etc. I'm hearing it all the way through.
So while Larry is busy looking for his stopwatch:
YES
-
oh man, that intro is not a good way to start. Waaay mechanical and clumsy. The track sounds significantly more professional as soon as other stuff starts to happen.
I'm definitely hearing that the arrangement is a weak point. Your textures and individual phrases are really great. They sound polished, deep, wide, and tall. (volume, stereo, and frequency range, respectively). Your production is slick. I'm thinking this track could be much more captivating if you used these production chops and made the track a bit more creative compositionally.
This is close to the line for me, but gotsta go
NO
-
Right off the bat I'm noticing the stiffness of the sequence. Need some humanity in the rhythms and velocities.
Ah...it's a 4 on floor thing. What's here isn't bad, but it's certainly not revolutionary. The body of the track is fairly repetitive, which is superbad because the track is short. You really need to try adding a section or two to change the dynamics. There's just not enough here.
NO
-
The piano performance is emotive, and the synth leads add to the track immensely. The fakeout instrumentation is really creative. The track definitely moves in directions I did not expect. It remains somewhat subdued, and I'm pimpressed by how well you manage to fit the piano and synths into one cohesive feeling track. Good job. I think the transition back to the piano is a bit jarring, but good job overall.
YES
-
You're kidding, right? LoL!!~
[B]YES!:"!#
-
This is a great performance, and the production is pristine, but I can't pass this. There's just not enough arrangement. It's pretty much a cover with some performance embellishments. There are no compositional liberties taken. It's really just an instrumental adaptation. You clearly have talent, but we're looking for more arrangement.
Look forward to hearing more from you.
NO
-
The first segment didn't thrill me..not because of the recording, which I think is fine, but the performance was a bit sloppy. The second section makes up for it. The track keeps getting better. I'm surprised it manages not to succumb to the medleytits, but it comes across more like a rock epic, something like Paranoid Android, than a bunch of parts slapped together. Which is I guess what Paranoid Android is. I'll go with a
YES
-
That's a damn shame. I'll give it another listen, but unless I change my mind..
-
This track makes me feel like you've got a ton of potential. I love the sax performance, and the recording ain't bad either, although it's drowned in reverb. I think that's a tolerable creative choice in this context. There are a couple things holding this mix back. First of all, the overall level is too low. This is a fairly easy fix. The other thing though is that the piano and string performances are mechanical. Not only that, but you really could tinker with the EQ to make it sound a little better. I'd like to hear this reworked, cause the arrangement and sax are rockin.
NO
-
The first minute and a half of the track are really sparse. The track never gets too dense, but it's clearly a stylistic choice. But the beginning is a little too empty. Something's bugging me about the vocals..they almost sound mechanical...perhaps because you force out the syllables quickly and forcefully...hard to pinpoint. Maybe pixie knows what I'm talking about.
This is on the line for me, but I feel like it's a bit too sparse and stiff.
NO
-
Fantastic atmosphere, arrangement, etc. Great expression on the guitar. I'll admit the tuning bothers me. I think this is a great remix. My only real complaint is the tuning, but I can let it slide.
Fix the clipping and you're good.
YES (cond)
Translation: If clipping=fixed, then YES
If clipping /= fixed, then NO
-
I think this is pretty fantastic. Granted i'm only halfway through so far. Okay, my main criticism is that the dynamics are fairly flat. There's a ton of awesome stuff going on in the production and writing, but it's generally all at the same level after a certain point, such that it gets tiresome by the end. however, this is nothing to take it below the bar.
YES
-
Fantastic atmosphere, arrangement, etc. Great expression on the guitar. I'll admit the tuning bothers me. I think this is a great remix. My only real complaint is the tuning, but I can let it slide.
Fix the clipping and you're good.
YES (cond)
-
nik Flut, Blarnee Kwandol Fl000!!!~
-
I can't really say anything new. I think the concept is great, and the arrangement is pretty solid, but the sequencing is mechanical and the samples are rough. Shariq said it. I'd like to hear this again after some tinkering.
NO
-
Straightforward interpretation, inconsistent sequencing. The interpretation shows promise but lacks development. The horns towards the end are a good idea, but it never advances beyond a relatively clunky countermelodic line. Potential here, but it's an easy
NO
larry wut u thinkin bro?
-
meh. I'm hearing a very simple trance groove with a random melody pasted on. Very little going on structurally, the arrangement is way too simple. You need to relate the original more to your remix rather than just pasting the melody over some stock trance.
NO
-
Recording is pretty good, drums have got nooo punch, especially for a rock track. The low end is really boomy on my studio monitors, which means that on any other speakers, you aren't going to hear anythign else. Yeah, it's boomy.
Compositionally, the new material is great for the dynamics of the track and the solo is good. However, the cover aspects are a little bit of a drag because they are simply the original, but simplified harmonically, mainly because the bass doesn't separate from the guitar voice.
Lots of potential with this one, but please fix EQ, and maybe tweak arrangement.
NO
-
I don't mind that the first 2 minutes has no low end. The parts just arent there, and i think it works okay for the track. The mids do fill out at the point of crescendo, but it still could use some thickening in the low end. I'm with Zirc and Zyk on this one. Close, just beef out the bottom.
NO
OCR02712 - *YES* Super Metroid 'Shinesparks'
in Judges Decisions
Posted
Does no one on this panel listen to any jazz at all? You're not supposed to hear every chord explicitly voiced all the time because it gets harmonically and dynamically stale. To some extent, the melody is supposed to etch the chord progression in your mind so that during the solo you have a fuller context when the rhythm section plays incomplete or altered voicings.