Liontamer

I'm listening to the revised version, just noting. The backing piano sequencing for the first section & 3:04 was so mechanical, I can't think of any circumstance where this would be OK as is. When that finally went away in favor of the rock section, I finally understood the upside of this arrangement. The snare at 3:34 was extremely flimsy. I'd also need a source usage breakdown, so I'll have to come back to that. But the piano sequencing ALONE kills this dead. Do everything the others NOs said to get your parts working together more effectively and sounding more humanized & consistent. I hope to be able to add more substantial thoughts later, but this is an obvious NO-go, unfortunately. It has some promise though.

IMO, that's not a NO (resubmit), that sounds more like a YES (conditional) that you could live with as a YES if forced. Whether or not an improved version can be made shouldn't factor into the core YES vs. NO vote at all, otherwise one could also factor in what reason the artist has for not revising it. Should you stay NO if someone just decides OCR blows and they don't want to revise it but go YES if their project file simply got corrupted? Let's not go there. Besides, distilling your vote, it comes off as... That didn't really scream NO to me as your conclusion, so you either want to flip your vote to YES or further articulate the sum total of what's holding this back as a NO. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- The oboe lead at :47 was definitely too quiet, but if it were louder, the sequencing/timing flaws would have been more exposed. It was audible enough, but it needs to be louder to really work as the lead, IMO. Same with the organ at 1:51, that's too quiet as well. By better mixing the leads upfront, there could have been some nice lead tradeoffs, like the oboe & organ being the lead at :47 and 1:51 and the guitars really emoting loudly at 2:50. Everything's mixed in a compressed way where's nothing's truly dominant. I could live with it as is, but would love to hear this all tweaked and fixed. I could see how 3:32's section dragged out, but the length didn't bother me. The muddiness of it was a little annoying, but that was on purpose along with the lo-fi noises, so no beef here. The final section being so long really makes you pay attention to the way the gears changed. I thought it was a deliberate, risky move that worked nonetheless. The arrangement was creative, and although the dynamics were harmed by the awkward mixing, the execution was strong enough to get by. I'd prefer this was tweaked, if we can get this looked at further, but a "no mas" from Mike would mean I go YES. YES (conditional)

I relistened given Emu's crits, all very valid crits, but I'm fine with what was there. The drums were definitely the weakest point for me, even though the production on them was a bit better than some of Brandon's NO-level stuff. They weren't as exposed here. There's some production/clarity issues; good suggestions on handling the beeping. The overall strength of the interpretation and reasonable cohesiveness of the performances were good enough, on the seesaw of good vs. bad, to meaningfully outweigh the bad. It could be improved in a number of ways, and I imagine if Brandon continues to improve, he'll look back in 3 to 4 years and be able to distinguish what needs improvement, but what's here was solid enough, IMO.

The piano timing was too mechanical and plucky, making it sound extremely unrealistic, and the sound itself needs more body. You don't have much instrumentation going on, so the piano needs to sound rich and carry much of the soundscape. What's here for the moment is too flimsy. When OA says, "Vocal performance was pretty good," that's wrong and that's too generous. I'm not coming down on him (or you, Jude), but critically, most on the panel wouldn't agree with that. The lyrics matching the melody at every point needlessly exposes the shortcomings of your singing voice; the pitch and projection aren't great, and the syllables needing to match the melody restrict the flow, so there's no power or fluidity behind the singing. There's also no need to practically double the woodwind lead at 2:24 with your vocal timing. You shouldn't have stuck so closely to the melody at the expense of flow, but 2:24 was a perfect place to break out of that. Minor point, but you need a better pop shield, because your plosives are popping (e.g. "presence" at :40). Star Salzman once used something like a bubblegum wrapper wrapped over his cheap mic, if I remember correctly, so you don't need to break the bank. I'm glad there's a bit of delay on the vocals so they're not entirely unprocessed, but they're still pretty barren and exposed in this soundscape. The plucked strings at :48 and woodwind at 1:36 were both very rigidly timed as well. The plucked strings sounded a bit better because of the resonance, but the sequencing being so perfectly timed still stood out. Like the piano, the tone of those instruments was also very thin and sparse. Arrangement-wise, this had some interpretation, but most of the writing during the verses held too closely to the original, both the melody and the countermelody. Take some more creative, interpretive liberties with the source material. Dynamically, this song had basically 1 tempo and 1 gear, so the dynamic curve was mostly flat. 1:35's instrumental only section wasn't much of a dropoff and 2:32's return of the vocals was essentially a structural cut-and-paste from the first section. Even in a song that basically stays in 1 gear, you need more distinct contrast somewhere so that there's direction and progression in the composition. This track can't be salvaged at your current skill level, so I'm not sure why the other judges said "resubmit." Resubmits should be suggested when there's a decent chance the artist could improve something to a passable level. I'm not trying to demoralize you, I'm just trying to be honest and realistic. Your ideas have some creativity and merit, but the execution's nowhere near the level you need to pass, so we want to try and help you get there down the line. That said, it would be worth your time to get deeper feedback and production advice from the Music Composition & Production forums and the Post Your Game ReMixes! forum in our Workshop area. You can learn about inexpensive and free, legal ways to beef up your sample quality and achieve more realistic, fleshed out sounds. I hope you keep at it, and if you want to work with this mix further to see how much you can improve it, that's a worthy goal, but you still have a lot to learn on the fundamentals of putting it all together. NO

Pulling that back also helped downplay some of the mechanical timing flaws, as is was too perfect. At 2:35, the trumpets should have stayed at their original volume, since it was the lead and not competing with anything else major, but that's a minor thing. What's much more important is that the trumpet isn't trampling on the guitar any longer. Thanks for the fix! YES

Actually, that's a good catch. Maybe we can get Chris to take another pass at this, because there are minor clicks, pops, and distortions all over that percussion. There's not even a need to timestamp it, it's so pervasive. That's definitely a very legit issue. I'll go conditional on it as well. I could live it as a listener, but Emu's ultimately right that it's too messed up to let slide.

There's definitely a muddiness that needlessly obscures some of the details of the instrumentation. For example, the electric guitar strums or whatever that lead is at :17 ends up crowding out the drums and mallet percussion brought in at :33. The end result is really muddy. It may be the drums at :33 that are the culprit as well, like Emu's guessing at, but yeah, there's some production issues here. It may be purposeful to some extent, giving Chris the benefit of the doubt. It was nothing that was a dealbreaker to me, but the lack of clarity during the densest parts still drags the piece down a notch. Some EQ love would be welcome. Good catch by Deia on the baseline from the opening section of the source being used here as a melodic part of the arrangement; that was surprisingly easy to miss. Over 2 minutes of the arrangement explicitly used the source just watching the clock, so I didn't feel the need to stopwatch it, but I can do one if it's really necessary. Love the arrangement; well up to Chris's high standards and a pontentially risky combination of instruments to boot with the Morricone-inspired instrumentation. Aside from the production issues, this was an easy call. YES

You winning?

Hahaha, these stupid voiceovers definitely added to it. Once things kicked in at :56, the guitar performance should have been a little tighter and more expressive, but what's here was noticeably strong enough on both of those levels. I was cool overall with the production of the drums, though the machine gun drums from 1:37-1:51 sounded muddy and overcompressed. The production sounded a bit too lo-fi (not a huge deal), and was heavy on the compression, which was noticeable in how bleh the cymbals sounded during the beefiest sections. The beeping at 1:51-2:16 during the stage introduction theme just makes you think of a garbage truck backing up, not anything spacey. With the stage 1 theme at 2:37, the background sounded empty, and the skimpy drumwork didn't adequately fill things out. Luckily that only lasted until 2:49 when some good guitar chugsfilled that role nicely, followed by some doubled guitars. 3:29-3:41 had the same issue. I love the arranagement, but I'd honestly say one more production pass at this to reduce the overcompression would be a blessing for this. I could live with this being posted as is, and not make the perfect the enemy of the good, but if Brandon can take another final production stab at this, I think he'd find it holds up a lot better down the line. YES (borderline)

The arrangement felt somewhat repetitive, but was otherwise creative and solid. Nothing much else to say there other than cool approach and good work. The mix title though...uh... The brass writing was really cheesy and probably should have been pulled back. As is, the acoustic guitar felt like it was getting trampled on. It could only be appreciated after the dropoffs of the brass from 1:23-1:43 & 2:14-2:35. That needs to be tweaked before I could be comfortable seeing this posted, the balance isn't right. The timing of the strums during the choruses was a bit loose, but nothing dramatically negative. I agree that the fadeout ending was too sudden and abrupt, but it wasn't a dealbreaker. The sound effects were gratuitous, but oh well. Lots of "buts," as there were a lots of creative choices this could have done without. However, what's here does get the job done. YES (conditional on brass levels)

Deus Ex: Human Revolution ReMixing contest We're working on something that MAY be co-promoted with Eidos & Square Enix as a freely distributed tribute album, so I'm seeing who has the next couple of weeks to make something awesome. Just FYI, there's also a chance it is NOT official and co-promoted by Eidos/Squenix, so it's possible it's just released through OCR only. We're just trying to be transparent. The rules: Arrange any track(s) you want from the Deus Ex: Human Revolution soundtrack Listen: More source tunes here: http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=F8723BAE6F2F1B10 Entries should able to pass the OCR judges panel Arrangement must have instrumentation or moods inspired by Deus Ex series music (DX 1, 2 or 3 is fine) There are up to 5 spots available, depending on how many quality submissions are received We'll send you a physical copy of The Sound of Speed if you make it on the album (speedy hedgehog!) Deadline is 11:59 PM EST of Sunday, Nov. 27 "Icarus" is the main theme, so I imagine at least a couple people will tackle that, but anything is open to mix. Keep your Works-in-Progress private, please. PM me with your entry here on the forums, not this thread. If you have any questions, holler.

Formality. /shakes fist YES

Man, what drum samples are those? I hear them all the time, and I can't think of a time where that snare ever sounds anything but too soft and not befitting harder-sounding tracks. In any case that was basically the only problem. I never have a problem with medleys as long they have legit structure and flow, so this was all good. Absolutely excellent, personalized handling of this multitude of themes with some sweet transitions. The guitars could have wailed a bit more and been more expressive, but what was here was still strong enough. Pretty solid performances and just a strong as strong can be collab. VERY cool debut from Fernando and Claudio that should leave the people wanting more. They haven't even reached their potential yet, when you compare this to DoD's top guitarists. Further polish will come in time, but I like what I'm hearing so far, and sincerely hope there's more to come. YES

Yeah, I've heard Megadeth's version a ton, and the backing instrumentation's absolutely nothing like it. The backing writing here was more dynamic and progressive. On the production side, the drums consistently felt hollow as far as filling out the background, and this could sound more cohesive with some tweaks there. It wasn't a big deal given that everything else worked strongly, and the arrangement was creative. The arrangement clearly stuck with the melodies we know and love, but there was a ton of personalization in the supporting writing and, from that, the dynamics. Loved the soloing on top of the foundation of the source tune to keep the original song in play while doing your own thing. Nothing else to say other this rocks. Nice work, Chris! YES (conditional on distortion fixes)

Did you want me to change your forum name to Zylance? zylance, lowercase?

I was prepared to hate this, because the last version was, to put it bluntly, terrible. This version's intro caught my attention in a good way, and there was clearly a lot more thought and creativity put into this new cut. The synths & effect that started at 1:07 (lasting until 1:23) were pretty generic, but were surrounded by better sounds. At 1:40, I wasn't feeling the synthy backing; it was on the generic sounding side, but it was OK. The woodwind lead and syrupy instrumentation worked well in combination. Drums at 2:29 sounded a bit robotic, but were serviceable. This section until 2:57 could have used something extra in the background to provide better contrast with the brief percussion dropoff at 2:59, but it's not a major criticism. All that production nitpicking aside, what else can I say other than this is a great, meaningful improvement over the first version and what should have been sent the first time. You really explored a much larger sound palette with some stock but solid instruments, including a lot of great throwback sounds that evoked chiptune & MOD soundtracks, and you also employed much more substantial development and dynamics in the arrangement. You really showed something promising on this one, nice work! YES

Wow, the shrill lead at 3:13-3:31 & 4:15-4:34 was annoying as hell. The mixing still wasn't great during some of the densest parts, but the parts were cleaner and distinguishable for the most part. The overall balance was a HUGE improvement, and I could actually listen to this nearly all the way without something needlessly attacking my ears or sounding like mud. That said, those shrill synths were annoying. At the end of the day, I can live with them, as much as I think they mess up the piece when they're in play. The arrangement wasn't in question, and the variations of the source were handled very, very well. There's not too, too much to this theme, so to be able to get this much mileage and substance out of it was excellent. The track still felt a little long, but the positives are definitely outweighing the negatives now. 4th time's a charm, Michael. Your persistence and willingness to rethink some of the things that were hampering this really paid off, and you have a much more cohesive and capably produced arrangement. Definitely hope to hear more from you. YES

If the strings are sequenced, how do you have massive "performance flubs" at :24 and :29? It doesn't sound dissonant in a way that works, it's just sloppy. The piano sample sounds OK, but the sequencing was too mechanical and dragged this down. The drums were improved and don't sound as hollow as the first version, but the snare tone still had no bite, and the writing was still plain and metronome-ish. This really started falling apart at 2:41 - the bowed strings sounded needlessly out of tune in spots and the timing wasn't tight enough. The guitar chugs were serviceable but lacked energy, and the drums were anemic & empty. There was 0 synergy with the instrumentation, and it ended up tanking the piece. The arrangement concept was still fine as far as being creative, interpretive, and expansive. But the polish still isn't there. This was an improvement from the last version with the production, with better instrument choices, but it still needs its screws tightened even more, especially for the final section. NO

I had disabled his sig image, actually, but nonetheless it looks like it's all set.

Just throwing a quick note on here to co-sign with the rest of the Js. Definitely conservative, but there's enough personalization, additive writing and dynamic alterations to squeak by, per Nutri's call. Definitely branch out more in the future, like Fishy noted, but still a solid debut, Jeff. I DEFINITELY hope we hear more gold like this! YES It just makes me put a hex on the panel for rejecting AeroZ's super interpretive take.

The snare drum sounded flimsy and the background felt too sparse much of the time. The brass was also flat. The guitar performance, as usually for most of Brandon's stuff is solid enough, like the GoW piece from Heroes vs. Villains, but still lacks the expressiveness I've heard from tighter, more polished performers. HOWEVER, the arrangement though was solid, with a lot of energetic writing and solid enough dynamics with the performance. The bowed string articulations were solid and mixed well so that any lack of realism in the sound wasn't greatly exposed. Cool ideas bookending it with the organic/nature sounds opening and the acoustic close, both of which were small details but pulled off nicely. I'm still waiting for that blowaway electric guitar performance, but the improvement should hopefully come with more practice, so I'm looking forward to hearing that potential be realized. That said, keep it up! YES

We definitely have plenty of solo piano pieces, as you've figured out, so fire away!

Just throwing an opinion way after the fact on this. Nothing else to say other than great jorb! [sic] Loving the creativity and dynamics of this one, without a doubt. Agreed with OA completely in feeling that the production and sound should have sounded even more aggressive, but that's not to take away from the excellent ideas and nice execution here. Definitely a side of Rozo's work I'd never heard before, and very cool stuff! YES

Hahahaha! I bow down to http://gunshowcomic.com/463 for, indeed, making the case better than I could.

This is copy-pasta'ed from the page, and is more of a traditional remix contest where you manipulate the original audio. NOTE: Entries have to be video responses to the YouTube video mentioned: http://youtu.be/ls-GPW-6hMs. The YouTube does NOT need actual video to go with it (it can use a still image or several images), but the entry must be made as a YouTube video response. http://www.dogearrecords.com/Earthbound_Papas/arrange_eng.html Remix/Arrange "Metal Hypnotized" from EARTHBOUND PAPAS"Octave Theory" EARTHBOUND PAPAS "Metal Hypnotized" (The original version performed by EARTHBOUND PAPAS) Try any kinds of arrangements! -> You could play an instrument with members (or even replace one or two of them!), make your own lyrics and sing along to it, or use your DTM skill to put your own spin to it! You can participate alone, with your friends, or your band members! Use EARTHBOUDN PAPAS members' separate sound data! -> You could use EARTHBOUND PAPAS member's separate sound data. 　Please download them from the link down below! : http://pub.idisk-just.com/fview/fXTRrRNM-3tKjVz8ft9rKveugWzHrD-tlRgLdHlaeSDFgbW_eg8v2KAlZ1Bc-o_NYZXOTPBz7Pw-h4mBzB7JFw File Name: MetalHypnotized_material_wavefiles.zip * There are wav files of each instruments played by EARTHBOUND PAPAS members. * All the wav files starts at the same time. * Using the wav files outside of this remix/arrange contest or in public and secondary media is prohibited. No movie/picture required! -> Even though You Tube is famous with its movies, it's not necessary to have\ pictures or movies to participate the contest! EARTHBOUND PAPAS will listen to your track! The winner will be on EARTHBOUND PAPAS' next album as a guest performer! * The details on being a guest performer will be announced to the winner after the contest is over. Dog Ear Records will send a message to the winner's YouTube account. Please check your YouTube message box on the day of the announcement. Join the contest [ from Oct. 26th, 2011 - Jan. 31st, 2012 ] The winner will be announced on [ Feb. 14th, 2012 ] We are looking forward to hearing your remix! [[ How to join the contest ]] Please post your remix/arrangement as a Video Response on YouTube. [ What's YouTube Video Response ] A video response is a video created as a reply to another user's video on YouTube. [ How to Post a Video Response on Youtube ] Please check the URL below for the details: http://www.google.com/support/youtube/bin/answer.py?hl=ja&answer=57931 The video you need to response to for joining the contest is below: http://youtu.be/ls-GPW-6hMs Name your remix/arrange title as your Video Response title. Read the notes below before you post the video. After submitting your video, Dog Ear Records will check and confirm your video and it will appear as a Video Response. It means, you have entered the contest! [ NOTES ] * To apply/join the EARTHBOUND PAPAS remix/arrange contest, you need to submit your tracks as a YouTube video response. * To post as a Video Response on YouTube, your YouTube account is required. * You will be responsible for registering and using your YouTube account. * The numbers of works you submit to the contest is not limited. * Please do not use Nobuo Uematsu's melodies/tracks other than "Metal Hypnotized"/ * Using any kind of pictured, movies, or music that are violating copyrights is prohibited. ( The wav files we provide on this page are allowed to use.) * Using EARTHBOUND PAPAS members' wav files outside of this remix/arrange contest or in public and secondary media is prohibited. * Please refrain from applying your work that has been published somewhere previously. ©&(P) 2011 Dog Ear Records Co.,Ltd.