Harmony
-
Posts
1,081 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Articles
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Harmony
-
-
After the brief intentionally lo-fi harpsichord at the onset, I like the switch to a much richer sound for the rest of the intro. In general though, I’m not a fan of the intro through 0:57. In addition to being pretty conservative, the mixing is very odd with the piano awkwardly peeking through in spots, excessive reverb mushing things together, and a general sense of heavy clutter.
The percussion definitely opens up the soundfield. I absolutely love the dingy SFX and processing that are used to give us the most engaging element of this mix. Nice break at 2:15 which showcases some of the really cool percussive sounds.
The biggest issue for me is the clutter that remains from the intro. This mix isn’t “muddy” but background instruments aren’t clear at all. It’s just a wall of sound that might work briefly but not for the majority of a mix. It leaves little room for dynamic contrast, even in a mix like this that’s supposed to be loud and boisterous. As I said before, I think an excess of reverb might be one cause, but there are also lots of elements fighting for the same mid-low register. Even the leads don’t really stretch too far into the high regime. Additionally, having them soaked in reverb doesn’t help them to stand out much. The solo jumps out at me as it should though.
Don’t think that I don’t enjoy this mix. It’s a very intense take on the original and it is full of the sound that makes Mazedude such a revered remixer. I’m just a fan of clarity. You’ve made cacophony work to your musical advantage before ("Battling Organs", even "Mazedude’s Kitchen"), so I’m looking for that again.
NO (Please Resubmit)
-
The arrangement is indeed borderline but I can’t complain much when the two conservatively interpreted themes are blended so well. When the OoT theme is tailed onto the sad theme at 1:30 and 1:47…magic.
The performance is powerful and expressive, the piano sounds amazingly rich, and the production is top-notch. Great work Dhsu, Gray and everyone else involved.
YES
-
The Good…
- The guitar initially struck me as mechanical but it quickly grew on me. The riffs from 1:32-1:42 are nicely done and don’t take such an extended central role that their artificiality is greatly exposed.
- The Rhodes entering at 0:35 is beautiful as well as most of the piano that comes in later. There’s an odd harmonic bobble at 0:50 that doesn’t sit well with me but overall nice job.
- Nice chill beat. It certainly doesn’t take center stage but it’s a good backbone for the additive ideas in this mix.
The Bad…
- The pads are the most prominent element from the source used in this mix. Unfortunately, their adaptation here is very plain. The source tune is absolutely filled with wonderful harmonic melting and mashing of pads and oboe (source: 0:00-0:15, 1:36-1:52, etc). Much of that complexity is removed for this mix leaving the potentially engaging warm pads out in the cold. I enjoy the additions of the breathy pads at 0:58 for example but they only mirror, not harmonize with, the pads that are already there.
- The additions aren’t that significant. Although the beat is fine, it is unassumingly repetitive and thus really shouldn’t serve as a key addition. Remove the beat and we don’t have much to go with except for the simplified chord progressions of the original and sparse melodic bits here and there. A lot more can be done to make this more “ornate.”
…and the Vote.
Great vibe, but exchanging harmonic complexity for a chill groove requires more expansion than we have here. A resub for sure.
NO (Please Resubmit)
-
Oh heck yeah. Absolutely stellar work guys.
-
I’m definitely hearing lots of positive improvements in this latest version. Not the least of which is the bass that, although still a bit heavy and low, is clearer in quality and more interestingly sequenced. The percussion feels more cohesive and does a better job supporting the melodic elements as well. Unfortunately, there are still significant issues with this mix.
The balance between elements isn’t very appealing. I think the combination of the predominately low percussion and the rich bass are a bit much and still need to be scaled back, especially during 0:00-1:04. That would help fix the buried pizz during that section. There are points during 1:50-2:10 that get cluttered with bells, birds, horns and lead all fighting for nearly the same sonic space. There are similar issues from 2:53-3:34. The birds are actually ok but I’d work on panning the other instruments farther away from each other. I hear some harmonic clashes during those sections but they are minor enough that if everyone wasn’t so close together, it wouldn’t register with me.
There are still some instruments that are too thin and dry to mesh with the thick beat and gated pads. As Gray suggested, I’d beef up the delay+reverb on the guitar to give it more depth and help it fit more appropriately. Personally, I try to stay away from chorus on non-strummed guitar parts. If you don’t mind loosing some of the realism of the guitar part and you’d like to thicken it up (solo and rhythm work) you might try layering the guitar with an e. piano or something smooth and chromatic. The birds could go for some reverb.
The breakdown at 2:10 is pretty cool and I enjoy the delayed guitar that caps the section off starting at 2:32. I’m not a fan of the solo starting at 2:52 though. It’s too mechanical to fit the groove and doesn’t feel very realistic. Working on the guitar sound itself (processing and FX) would be the first step in improving the solo.
Compositionally this version is greatly improved over the last version. It doesn’t drag nearly as much and the end result is a much more memorable experience. I’d like to see the intro worked on. The gated pads are nice but there’s little development within the first minute or so. When the lead comes in at 1:04 it’s not nearly as satisfying as it could be had the build up been stronger.
Enjoyable, but there’s still work to be done here Paul, particularly on the mixing and production side of things. Keep working at it.
NO
-
Is the track really supposed to sound this cluttered?
Yeah I completely agree that this is cluttered but in the mix’s defense, that’s about like saying that a minimalist piece is sparse. In my limited experience, gabber is all about phat sounds, distorted kicks and weird SFX; just about what we have here. The arrangement is pretty conservative but as analoq said, the genre adaptation is well done so no gripes there.
Production quality is good. Panning keeps things separated as much as they can be, leads are clear and cut through the other elements, SFX sit in the back where they should, and I think excessive clutter is avoided for the most part. The exception comes at 2:17 when the Amen break is thrown under everything without dropping the snare fills. Way too many mid-range percussion things happening there. When the same break is layered under everything again at 2:50, the snare fills are left out which makes for a more effective cluttered sound.
Key changes keep things fresh, the break at 2:39 is hot, love the intro and this is short enough to not get annoying. I can see the NO vote, but I think this mix slides by without any major problems or without dipping below the bar. An enjoyable mix for me, and I’m sure fans of the genre would agree.
YES
-
Very nice stuff. Actually I could just about ctrl+c ctrl+v my vote on “J! Groove” here and be right on. This mix is a well produced, uber-groovy, yet conservative take on the theme that is very easy to enjoy. I agree that the bass is extremely thick and the percussion is repetitive but that lends to the portrayal of the genre. This is a straight out-of-the-box Casio Soundbank bossa nova groove that’s been given the flare of good production and quality samples. Combined with the Rhodes, the percussion and bass provide a rock-solid lounge vibe that stands well on its own, and is bolstered by the decently executed solos.
I think that the solid backing could have been more effectively used though. The lead piano at 0:31 is slightly mechanical and generally vanilla in its presentation. It’s not bad but more melodic and dynamic expression would jazz it up. The lead synth from 1:34-2:14 is great. It’s very expressive and not out of place with the more traditional acoustic elements. The close out with the hand percussion jam starting at 2:36 is a huge disappointment only because it is so short. The fade out wouldn’t bother me if the section was given some time to develop first. I’d love to hear it filled out with some interplay between the two prominent leads, or some original jam work, or a bass solo…something.
I hear the clipping but I’m not opposed to passing this as is.
In the end, this one’s easy on the ears and that’s what the people love. Great work guys.
YES
-
Now see, there's some great criticism. It acknowledges the goods, jabs at the bads, and has a good time doing both. Morselove, Morsehate, judgehate, an idle threat and a pseudo request to do the Secret of Mana version of "The Music Of My Groin". Everybody's happy.
Shael, you have my vote for OCR judge in '05.
-
Did this for fun one day...just a little treat for all my fans.
Oh snap Dhsu, that's one powerful bag! And I've been trying to play piano without one all these years. I'm going to hit the supermarket, in the meantime...
-
Yeah, I’m not hearing enough variation from the original submission for my decision to be changed. Most important for me, the lack of development remains. That’s cool though, don’t let the panel steal your sunshine, Sunshine. This is a really fun song and if you don’t want to change it, I think you should leave it just the way it is. As the late Bob Ross always said of art, "It's your little world."
NO
-
You know, I can pretty much let the reliance on the C64 source slide because I think it takes a big enough backseat in many sections. I’d much rather hear something other than repeated exact source in the background though. Even swapping the synths or some creative panning would make that part of your mix a lot more your own.
But since the source is there, I’m looking for it to lock very tightly with whatever additions are made. Reiterating what’s already been said, to a large degree I don’t think that this is happening. The percussion is underpowered behind the powerful rhythm guitars, the leads struggle to adequately cut through and make an impact at 1:54-2:33, and there is the general dullness of the track EQ. I would also suggest some more dramatic panning of elements away from the center, especially some of the leads.
Definitely good stuff here, but the mixing issues as well as the other issues mentioned above are hurting this track right now.
NO
-
My point was that meaning shouldn't be compromised for the sake of "poetic finesse", and indeed a part of poetic finesse is fine-tuning your devices to fit within the particular rhythm of your poem (or in this case, your song). If you've designed the line specifically to achieve that particular alliteration, then I as a listener think it is a poor choice.
As I said, however, I enjoy the song, and I will continue to listen to it.
Hehe, I was only kidding with my alliteration rebuttal there. I put absolutely zero thought into most of my remix lyrics so they are essentially whatever first comes to mind after thinking about the game, the mood and the genre. Glad you enjoy the song despite its jacked up lyrics
-
LOL, The intro bells have me thinking "I want my babyback, babayback, babyback, Chiliiiiii's, babyback ribs"
. Maybe it's just me. I'm all over this lo-fi vibe. The distorted synths that sound as though they are struggling to hold themselves together, just so they can finish this last song, the mono drums that live in the background, and the delightfully dry feel of everything work so well in Sam's hands. Ahh, and the orchestra of saxes, fun fun fun.
Sam, your percussion sequencing really is amazing but somehow your mixes always show so much restraint there, not allowing the percussion to overtake the all-important melody unless absolutely necessary. Here, I'm not even able to beg for more drumwork simply because of the beautiful control that the saxes and synths exercise over both the rhythm and the melody.
Yada, yada, praise, praise. No surprise that this mix is more of your usual great stuff. Congrats on the DP man.
-
The only thing that bothers my poetic senses, at least, is the use of the phrase "my Flammie". It seems like it might make more sense to say "my dragon".
I didn't notice it until you pointed it out, but I'll agree that written down it's a little iffy.
No, no, no. You guys are missing the very poetic palendromic alliteration:
Fly me my Flammie.
FMMF. C'mon, you don't get more poetic than that. Fly me my dragon!? That's crazy talk...stop talking crazy
but I've seen better songs, better SoM songs, and better impersonations of Joshua MorseThat's an insult to both Joshua Morse and myself.
-
I mean, sure I've got a huge Mana bias...
Absolutely nothin' wrong with that. You're certainly not alone
And thanks again everyone for the compliments.
-
Oh wow everyone, thanks for all of the compliments and criticisms
. And what an amazing write-up from Dave, thanks man! I’m glad to hear that this brings back memories for some and is a just a great listen for others. I've put a lot of work into this and the appreciation is GREATLY appreciated.A few clarifications are in order I suppose. Yep, part of the song is in 5/4 but at 2:31 it switches to a cool 6/8 for “Secret of the Arid Sands” and the second half of “Prophesy.” It briefly goes back to 5/4 for the outro (which I’m so glad that you guys are enjoying).
As for the source usage, the only significant stretch where I don’t explicitly use one of the sources is from 2:07-2:49, but even there if you’ve played the game you’ll recognize that the lyrics are directly referencing the game. I’ll say, SoM 85%, original %15. Meh, that’s alright Mustin, I still like Secret of Spram. I do enjoy infusing original solos and melodies into my mixes though and I think that B1itz Lunar’s comment did a good job of explaining what I was trying to do here.
Again, thanks OCR for the feedback so far and the feedback to come.
also, does anyone else think harmony sounds incredibly white when he sings?LOL, I also "talk white" if that has any meaning whatsoever.
-
I'll second the NO OVERRIDE. The chord progression seems to be the largest tie to the source material and at just over a minute, a much stronger connection to the source needs to be established for this to have a chance of passing.
The strings are actually pretty good James. Work this intro into a fully developed piece and you might have something nice on your hands.
-
http://www.snesmusic.org/spcsets/sd2.rsn - "Give Love its Rightful Time" (sd2-34.spc)
Nice storm sample for the intro; those can be hard to come by. I’m not sure about the dance intro though. The barebones beat at 0:22 is plain and exposed and although we get some hi-hat action and more storm SFX, things don’t get as interesting as they should until we get some strong melodic content at 0:49. The synth that enters there isn’t anything amazing but I like the way its wide panning and heavy reverb works in context. It meshes well with the thick kick/bass combo and adds some depth to the soundfield.
Interesting use of clutter when the breakbeat comes in over the storm from 1:37-1:59. I won’t fault this mix there but I think 1:59-2:26 could be a little clearer. The two lead synths aren’t panned away from each other and with the amount of reverb that’s floating around, sonic toes get stepped on.
The first two and a half minutes noodle around with the baseline and accompanying melodies from the source (an idea that isn’t bad initially but overstays its welcome) until the piano enters with the familiar lead at 2:27 to hopefully kick things into gear. Unfortunately it feels completely pasted over the other elements. Alone, the piano sample and performance sound great but together the processing isn’t quite right. It feels like the piano was mixed in a completely different environment. Lowering the volume on the piano track would be a first step in the right direction but hopefully some more specific suggestions will pop up in other votes. Once the piano sits better with the rest of the instruments, think about incorporating it in other sections. There’s potential there.
After the semi-successful piano section, the saw synth tries it’s hand at the main melody but 3:27-3:54 comes off as too much of a cover in my book. 3:55-4:08 seriously rocked though. I love the synths stacking to the brink of clutter then backing off, all while the bass and percussion break out of the standard dance mold. Best part of the source and best part of this mix IMO.
The breakdown at 4:10 needs a lot more punch too it. The flute is overshadowed by the synth strings, the hi-hats don’t contribute much, and the harmonies of the source are taken out. It sounds like you forgot to add a harmonizing lead at 4:16 which forced the lone flute to complete the bridge on its own, leaving that section relatively weak. 4:27-4:55 is essentially another cover leading to the outro.
The biggest problems here for me are the mixing of the piano section, and the coverish nature of major portions of this. Since the source is already an upbeat dance-ish mix, you guys are going to have to bring more amazing synth design, percussive sequencing and melodic interpretation to the table if you want to stick with the genre. Good work but there’s plenty of room for improvement.
NO
-
Nice. The composition is simple and effective, the arrangement is engaging and relatively creative and the performance is above the bar IMO. 2:02-2:08, 2:38-2:40 and 1:15-1:16 stand out as examples of some of the beautifully utilized chords in this piece.
That being said, I too hear a hint of the plunky, midi-like lackluster vibe that Larry, TO and Zircon mention. Would a darker longer reverb make this daring mix bold as well? Would making the tempo changes more frequent and more fluid help humanize things? Would scaling back the velocities on 1:25-1:31 help give the middle 4/4 section more dynamic variety? Maybe, but I don’t think that the improvements would be drastic at all, and that’s the best I have in terms of suggestions. The fact that I can’t pinpoint any sure-fire ways to fix the minor issues that I have with this mix leaves me leaning towards a passing grade here. Good performance and great arrangement get my vote.
YES
-
My goodness I enjoy this mix. Excellent work Phil. The theme is stripped to its bare essentials, melted and swirled into ambient magic (certainly reminiscent of Vig classics as Zircon mentioned), then brought back from the climax to a simple serene resolution. Needless to say that the arrangement is more than passable in my book.
Compositionally, I understand the claims that this is repetitive. The simple recurring strumming patterns and melodies team up with the waltz-time and limited number of instruments to make for a very static feel at times. There’s a lot going on though that makes up for compositional simplicity. The performance is absolutely nailed in the sense that the off-tempo strumming and picking add complexity rather than clutter, human variety rather than human mistakes. This is especially true in the acoustic sections. A small exception comes during the resolution (3:50-ish) where the guitars get somewhat muddled. I’m going to blame this on the light faster strumming. Way too much pick/string noise is picked up in the recording which clutters up the scene. It’s a common problem when you’re playing softly on an acoustic/electric with a piezo pickup, which typically gives pretty poor dynamics for quieter strumming. If this is the problem then how do you fix it? Mic your guitar. It’s not a big deal though.
Also adding to the compositional complexity is the rich guitar layering and subtle SFX that fill this piece out. The ocean SFX and the piano at 1:33 are wonderful. I’d love a higher quality ocean sample but I know how difficult that can be to find. I think that the hand percussion should be punched up a bit. It’s a potentially endless source of variety and accentuation that I don’t feel is being used as effectively as possible.
I agree with Sam that the return of the strumming patterns at 2:45 and 3:14 are lazily done. A slower fade in or possibly a fade from heavy to light reverb would work a lot more smoothly. The distorted section is generally well done though.
Great stuff Phil and I’ve really got no significant problems with this. Parts remind me of the CSNY song “Guinevere” with its 3 part guitar harmonies and minimalist composition. That’s a compliment indeed. This mix has got development, it’s got arrangement, it’s got good sound quality and it’s got my vote.
YES
-
The first thing that strikes me is the muddled EQ. There are a good amount of highs missing that would bring a lot of life to the higher notes and some excessive lows that take a lot of clarity and distinction from the lower notes. Finding a pleasant piano EQ for a given piece can be a lot of trial and error but in this case a good start would be a boost to the 2-13kHz range and slightly reduce the lowest frequencies, around 50-100Hz. Two suggestions. First, if you don’t do this already, compare the EQ of your mixes to similar OC ReMixes (e.g. Dhsu’s work). I’m not suggesting that you copy their sound but it’s sometimes helpful to have a benchmark. Secondly, find a good frequency spectrum analyzer (spectrogram/spectroscope) so that you can better visualize and tweak your mix to avoid poor EQ. They make it a lot more obvious when things are getting too muddy for example. Zircon might be able to point you in the right direction in terms of plugins.
Aside from this being a solo piano arrangement of a powerhouse rock/orchestral tune, the interpretation is pretty conservative. There are some melodic twists and turns here and there that make this more than just a genre adaptation though so I’m satisfied with the level of rearrangement.
The opening lines of this mix are a pleasantly simplistic introduction of the theme. The build at 1:00 is one of my favorite parts of this mix although I think a nice bit of variety could have been introduced by having the roll be in Ab rather than in A. This would break the monotony of the static A root note that continues from 0:54-1:58. Decent intro through 1:00 though.
I know you don’t want to hear this but the left hand significantly hurts this mix. It’s not overly complex from 1:08-2:09 (if fact I would say it’s a little too simple) but it is serviceable. It gets progressively cluttered though as lower registers are explored, sustain and reverb allow notes to excessively bleed together, and an overabundance of low frequencies prevents distinction. 2:10-2:25 is a major victim of this left hand clutter.
Another problem here is the execution of the genre adaptation. In an attempt to make up for the energetic activity of drums and distorted guitars from the source, many sections sound as though you’ve tried to pack the left hand with simplistic repetitive chords that don’t do the original justice (1:57-2:41, 3:15-3:32, 4:29-5:09). A better way to accomplish that is by successfully utilizing the amazing complexity possible with the piano. You have the right idea with a section like 3:39-4:14 where the left and right hands feel better connected and the left hand achieves a good level of complexity and variety. Practicing pulling all of the supportive and melodic possibilities of the left hand is a never-ending process, keep at it.
It’s worth a mention that the performance of some sections is a bit rigid, especially the right hand. 1:25-1:55, 2:16-2:23, and 4:14-4:25 come to mind. 4:41-5:10 is an interesting melodic shift but the right hand needs a lot of loosening up there (4:49 is a good example).
This mix is a good listen as usual Bev but the pesky left hand I’m afraid is dragging it down. The simplicity of the intro and outro is wonderful but that doesn’t translate well to the heart of this mix. I think working on improving the left hand complexity and the humanization of your performance will be the largest steps that you can take towards improving the overall quality of your submissions and your piano playing in general. I know you’ll keep working at it so whether this passes or not, I'll be looking forward to the next submission.
NO
-
I like the low bell-like synth in the extended intro that eventually morphs into the lead. There’s some fairly engaging melodic stuff happening through 1:32 but the supporting instrumentation is very weak. The subtle thin strings and the default hi-hat aren’t enough to serve as backup, even with a very active lead. After 1:32 the problem is amplified as everything drops out except the lead and we only have a thin beat/bass combo to push this track along. Not a bad effort in general but the final result is a sparse underdeveloped track.
The intro really shows promise and I think putting some of Zircon’s and Shna’s suggestions into action is your best bet right now. Make sure to hang out at the ReMixing forum for some help beefing up your sounds. Keep working at it.
NO
-
Sadly I agree that the level of interpretation here isn’t enough to pass. What a beautiful orchestration though. Everything from the placement of the instruments to the quality of the samples to the climactic builds and delicate bridges solidifies this as one of my favorite orchestral pieces to hit the panel since I’ve been here.
Great work Michael. Fill this piece out with greater melodic, rhythmic or stylistic variation from the original and this magical mix will easily get my YES.
NO
-
I’m really digging the ambiance of the intro through 1:07. Although a bit distracting, the circling drums are an interesting choice. When the groove hits it’s clear that this is a solid track with some quality sounds in play. The flute needs to be punched up a little, but it’s not too bad since it lets us focus on some of the other elements. The bass gets its share of funky riffs from 1:50-2:31 playing backup to the bongo/synth jam, and the left-panned high synth effects that dot the scene play against the soft pads very nicely. There’s a fair amount of reverb at work, and as personal preference I would want a little less, but it’s not bad at all.
The flute solo at 2:52 is decently humanized but it oddly starts to break it’s flow around 3:07. By the time it’s over, it has lost the energy that I think is necessary to carry us through to the synth solo which feels loud and out of place as a result. The synth does bring some life back into things though before we are dropped back down to a sparse extended chromatic rendition of the theme. Things start to drag at 3:35-4:15 and if fat needs to be cut, this is where I would look. The remainder of the mix is largely a revamped version of earlier sections. I think the e. piano solo at 4:16 has it’s shining moments but like it’s flute solo brother, loses steam at points as well. Nice reversed effects for the outro.
This mix has a lot of the same flavor as the original which in one sense is a great thing, but with sources that are as richly developed as this one, it’s very easy to stick too close and end up with a nice cover rather than a creative remix. Some of that is avoided here with creative solos and additive goodies, but in some instances the flute lead, the bass and the drums don’t fall too far from the source’s tree. Overall this mix is certainly conservative, but that’s not where I’m going to have to take off the most points.
As Larry mentions, much of this mix is pretty sparse and some elements are repetitive (percussion) or rigid. It’s ok that this goes for a simple smooth jazz approach but more variety wouldn’t hurt. Rather than pack this 5:31 mix with more instruments, I honestly think a better plan would be to tighten this mix up by cutting 3:35-4:15, cleaning up the flute solo and varying the percussion a bit. You might try throwing a bit of swing to the drums with some additional triplets or dotted notes to keep things from sounding too rigid.
Hey, you’ve got a nice solid groove here and I’m really borderline on this decision, but I think a little polish time would put this mix over the top. Do us all a favor and keep working on this one.
NO (Please Resubmit)
*NO* Fröhn 'Remastered Gabber Mix'
in Judges Decisions
Posted
Apparently we agree that the source is used well (unlike similar Liquid Neon subs), and the production is at least adequate. Then the only real issue to address is the generic synth design…and oh is it generic. I agree that there is nothing creative about it but that is not entirely relevant in this context. The creativity comes in the form of the synth’s use in the molding of the theme to this genre. As defaulty as they sound, they are effectively used to a specific musical end. Like analoq, I don’t see how this genre in the context of a remix could be pulled off much better. If this is true, and I’ll admit I’m no gabber/hardcore aficionado, then rejecting this mix for the reasons cited thus far would leave me wondering how this or mixes of similar genres could ever make it onto OCR.
As for the vox, I respect your opinion Gray but I think it’s inappropriate to condemn pitch shifted vocals or say that their era has passed. Very popular hip-hop producers like Kanye West and Timbaland have relied heavily on this technique for years with great success. Within the genre, it also seems to be a popular way of breaking up a potentially repetitive instrumental piece with rhythmic, energetic vocals. I generally like them, but their use is a matter of personal preference that shouldn’t be as large of a factor in votes on this and other subs as some members of the panel appear to have made it.
The concerns that have been brought up definitely push me towards a more borderline stance but I can’t find enough to warrant a NO. I find myself asking “what’s wrong with basic if it’s done well?”