anosou
-
Posts
3,378 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Articles
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by anosou
-
-
Awesome. Awesome to the max.
-
Yeah, I can't find much source in this one. Sounds more inspired by than an arrangement of the source. Execution was decent but the whole track felt empty. The instruments lacked presence and body which brought the track down. So yeah, I can't sign off on this one... If we've got the wrong source, do tell
NO
-
kid virtuoso
Now, with that out of the way... I, much like Vinnie, enjoys counting the rests. We've argued about this before so I ain't going to waste time telling you WHY I do this but yeah, this definitely sounds like an arrangement of the source. The fact that you use the first two chords for huge parts of the track help glue it together. Even though I thought 2:46 was a bit out of place the rest of the track was put together nicely. Playing was good too.
Production was decent enough. I, yet again like Vinnie, thought it was a bit muddy and muffled. Also the piano, especially when solo like that, was thin and a bit fake. Otherwise though it sounds good.
Overall this is a good arrangement on the liberal side. I thought that it sounded cohesive and by my count the source is dominant too. Production could've been upped another notch but.. yeah, I think it's overall in good shape. I'm gonna go ahead and drop the big 'ol
YES(borderline)
-
Yeah, I really dig this. A bit distant but not so much that it hurts the track. Would've loved the cello to be less panned but that's personal preference. Nice interpretation of the source, 2:09-> in the piano was really clever. Even during the more solo-oriented pieces you at least use the chords and hint to the source. Playing was overall good but I thought the intro was a bit too loose, especially in the piano, but nothing major. Not bad, not bad at all. I dig.
YES
-
I was just looking for an excuse to post that pic again.
What pic? This pic?
-
Again, my vote WAS borderline AND conditional. I could've gone NO (resub) but I don't think that would help much because the remixer's taken so many tries at this without improving it by a enough mixing-wise.
The more I think about it, this line sums up why I should vote NO instead of (conditional). While I still don't agree completely with Jesse I'm glad he came and dropped the bomb here since it made me take one or a few extra listens. Sorry about the change of heart but if you can't fix up the production, it's better leaving it. Looking forward to your next sub!
NO
-
I'm 100% with Jesse here. Now, this doesn't happen often so be sure to screencap this.
The track is good and it's always nice to see someone tackle a newer source. Would've loved to see some more intricate instrumental sections where you could arrange the source even more but I'm cool with the arrangement as is. Performance (especially bass) could be tighter though. Vocal performance was good though!
The production is however very odd. The mix lacks bass, mainly because the bass sounds like it's been put through a tape recorder and the guitar lacks body. Most elements just sound very thin, distant and almost flimsy which makes the track unfocused when coupled with the loose performance. It also sounds like the acoustic guitar has been treated with a stereo imager a bit too much which adds to how distant it sounds. The final section is even more cluttered but the new guitar sound is more preferable than the one you used for the first part of the track IMO. The vocals could use some MINOR de-essing but that's not very important.
Sorry to say but this needs too much work for it to be a conditional in my opinion. Great take on a newer track but not quite there yet. Keep it up and resubmit it!
NO(resubmit)
EDIT August 11th:
Yeah, sounds much better now. Think the vocals aren't clear/loud enough and that it gets a bit cluttered around 3:32->. When it all comes down too it though, I'm down with this.
YES
-
Daniel e-mailed me earlier to talk VGM, great guy!
Anyway, I must say this is a hard decision. The arrangement is conservative at times and the few liberties taken was more about adding original sections than actually arranging the melody. I liked the piano outro a lot even though it was a bit "inspired by" at times. What would really make this shine is some more melodic interpretation and something to make the pacing seem less dragging.
Production was a bigger problem area than arrangement for me though. The track sounds distant, especially in the heavy section. It sounds strangely compressed and lacking in both brilliance and bass. The leads were also buried here. The piano lacked realism but it was nothing too serious.
Overall this is really close. Both arrangement and production are borderline on this one and in these cases you have to go with your gut. When it all comes down to it, I'm ok with this. The arrangement had a good balance between original and source, the production wasn't BAD and the performance was overall good. I'd expect more from your next submission, keep that in mind, but this works for me right here, right now.
YES(borderline)
-
I agree with Vinnie on this one. The production has some issues that's holding this track back. The track lacks brightness. Pretty much every element sounds filtered and beyond that they're also drenched in reverb. I feel that you're going for an atmospheric sound and that's cool but this is borderlining lo-fi. The drums actually sound like they're lossy and while that could work in itself it sounds like bad encoding when coupled with the other muffled instruments. The pan flute also has quite an awkward attack.
Arrangement took a few liberties. Decent enough expansion of the source but it lacked dynamic contrast. Vinnie pointed out that the drums just "enter" and I agree it sounds a bit odd. It's also a bit repetitive the way it's anchored to the arpeggio and the drums. Some more variation could really help this along the way.
Overall this shows promise but the production is really bringing it down. Brighten it up and try to clean up the problem areas and it'll be in much better shape. The arrangement is passable but I wouldn't mind some more variation and personalization. Good work but it needs a bit more of that good work!
NO(resubmit)
-
I don't really see where Larry and Jesse are coming from on this one. The samples are definitely not the worst I've heard, I thought they were quite nice and we've passed way worse IMO. More importantly the sequencing is well done and that's true for pretty much every element in this track. The production is crisp and clean. I thought the lack of "wall of sound" was pretty minor. The bass could be a little bassier and the backing elements could have some more meat to them but nothing really hurts the track.
The arrangement is terrific. Personalized, great part-writing and performance too. I said it before but I'll say it again, the sequencing is really well done here. These are some of the most varied drums I've heard in a while.
Yeah, this is an easy pass for me. You could probably make it sound even fuller production-wise but it's not holding the track back when the overall production is good and the arrangement's this rocking. Great stuff!
YES
-
Larry's breakdown (see below) made me think a lot about this.. It's always hard to judge a remix that arranges a source that's extremely simple or lacks a clear hook to rely on. The Halo sources are mostly about the chords and Flowers in Heaven is very barren. I'm still on the edge about counting the three note pattern used from 0:07 forward but the more I think of it I realize it's the second most distinct part of Flowers in Heaven since the goddamn track only has two elements! I also thought you could've used the melodic movement the top note does in A Walk in the Woods. Now you're using only the chords and not the melodic motif. Reduction is ok but in this case there's not much to reduce really... However, the more I listen to the source the more I accept this as ok source usage.
The production is good enough. I think it's a little distant and you probably could've mixed so that the distinct source connections would be more upfront. That way it'd cover the arrangement issues too. However the textures are strong and the piece is very dynamic, very moving.
So, I actually voted NO here before but I'm gonna change it. It takes a few listens to get this arrangement but that shouldn't keep it from the front page. Next time though, throw us a bone or something will ya?
YES(borderline)
-
It all boils down to arrangement vs. execution in this one. While I think the arrangement is terrific, I think the samples are weighing this down too much.. My main beef was with the opening section and the outro piano but even in the more busy sections the violins in the left ear had some iffy stuff (like 3:01 and the ending, that sounds unnatural).
Chris, this really is an awesome arrangement but I would really like you to fix up the production a little before I can sign off on this. You should be able to program some proper pedal-usage for the piano part in whatever application you're using. The woodwinds could use some work on the legato, the strings could be a LITTLE less panned to the left and the some more attention to the phrasing for the melodic strings (for example violas at 2:14).
I don't think this one needs much for me to comfortably pass it but do give it just a little more TLC when it comes to the production details and we'll be all set. Great track!
NO(resubmit)
-
HI ToN! WHAT'S UP MAN? LONG TIME NO SEE! Ok, much has been said but I'll reiterate what I thought was important.
Arrangement is very personal but sometimes leaves the source melody behind for a bit TOO long. Just a few more hints to the melody, perhaps in the other instruments, would help a lot. Varying up the core beat and instrumentation would also be really nice. Like Vinnie said, incorporate the piano a bit more perhaps?
Production suffered from flat sounds and an overall lo-fi feel. Some more high-end and some proper mastering would get this in much better shape. You might want to look into making the instruments move a bit more too to keep it from getting stale.
I think it's a good concept that shows a lot of promise but it needs some more polish to really shine. Great start though Dustin!
NO(resubmit)
-
Once again I'm late to the party. Everything's been covered but I'll re-hash the meat of it all. Track's pretty damn cool but it's basically a great cover. Production was overall good but a little bassy, could tone that down a bit and lift some of the high frequencies forward.
You've got the chops and you no doubt enjoy doing these awesome covers. No doubt in my mind you could make an awesome rocking arrangement too if you'd want that, I know I'd like to hear that. However, this track right here would need a lot more interpretation to pass.
NO
-
My brown colleagues have basically mentioned it all before I got to the party so I'll keep it short. The arrangement is close to the source while feeling disjointed, especially texture-wise. There were some interpretation during the end of the mix but it wasn't strong enough to hold the whole thing together. Textures were flat and production left a lot to be desired, including the very limp rock section.
There were some highlights and I actually digged the groove in the first section a lot but this would need a lot of work to pass. Do submit some newer stuff though because I can hear you guys have got the chops needed to make something awesome down the line!
NO
-
I have to side with Vinnie here. The chord progression in the source is so cookie cutter it could be pretty much anything. No one would listen to this track and say "man, cool arrangement of that Animal Crossing track!" even if they knew the track inside out. I think you could've used the main chord hook from the source in a better way. K.K. actually plays some notes after the initial two 8th notes you really could've used to connect it more to the source both melodically and using the rhythm. During 3:17-> you try to hint to the song melody in the rhythm guitar but I think it's too altered to count that.
Production is all around great, playing is super tight but I just can't sign off on the arrangement. Sounds great though, really looking forward to the Animal Crossing project. Between this and your other Animal Crossing sub I can get my dose of non-OCR style awesomeness for sure. I bet the other remixers involved are fantastic too.. damn you making me anxious..
but yeah, ANYWAYNO
-
This is how the source should've sounded. I do however agree with Larry that some more melodic interpretation would've been preferable. Actually, this is basically a cover. The melodies are intact and the only real personalization is in the soloing (using source chords) and occassional phrasing variation. Also the style (being repetitive by nature) doesn't lend itself to dynamic variation and I'm cool with that but you're basically just repeating the same stuff using the same structure as the source.
The production is ace though. Everything's clear and the guitars sounds great and warm.
Seriously though, if this was someone other than sixto or perhaps trance it would get shot down. Arrangement really needs to be expanded. It's a great, groovy track that's a FANTASTIC fit for the project but it's just too conservative for OCR.
NO
-
if you don't enter a private message recipient, it tells you that your recipient doesn't exist. this is no big deal. however, it's followed by the statement "Click Here to See the Members List" - no punctuation, lots of capitals. i realize this isn't a big deal, but everything else on this site is formatted so pretty
it'd be nice, actually, if that link was bolded rather than improperly capitalized. i didn't notice it the first time around
Says the man that writes everything in lower case
-
I love the new drop downs! They're really slick I do have some feedback though. It would be nice if the box could load say 20-30 pixels lower. As it is now, when you hover over a link, the drop down loads and the box is just high enough that it covers most of the other menu links to the left and right of it, meaning that you either have to move the mouse up to unload the box, or move it left/right along that 15-ish pixel row of menu that isn't covered by the dropdown.
Maybe its a little hard to understand what I'm saying so I took a screenshot: http://img19.yfrog.com/i/menukxo.jpg/ You can see the drop down box is covering most of the links around it. Lowering it just a bit would make a big difference.
That doesn't happen for me. Just saying.
-
Please try using it for a couple days before you draw conclusions; if there are rendering problems I do want to hear about that, but kneejerk reactions are never a good thing. Also, the larger menu items *are* links themselves.
MEGADROPDOWNS ARE AWESOME.
Seriously, they make my life much MUCH easier. Sidebar can go take a hike
-
Happy day of aging Andy! Keep on being ridiculously awesome on everything you try your hand at!
-
To be perfectly fair reduction is a viable arrangement technique. If you wanna go all theory I could argue that the simple harmony is reminiscent of medieval music where you used one note as an obvious anchor and then moved around it without sense of "chord" but only sense of "scale". Not saying it's the best example of it but I can't find something that really sounds BAD to my ears. Sure, 1:16 sounds a bit odd but it sounds more like a result of the bad piano sample and mixing. Same issue during the ending, no clarity in the different counter melodies. Also, the arrangement has additional strength in dynamics.
I mean, I see where you're coming from Jesse and no hate on that, but I don't think it's as bad as you think and that it could be passed if the production (mainly balance and piano sample) was polished to perfection.
Again, my vote WAS borderline AND conditional. I could've gone NO (resub) but I don't think that would help much because the remixer's taken so many tries at this without improving it by a enough mixing-wise.
-
I still think the production has some issues. Vocals need to be de-essed and piano is fakeish. Still, the arrangement is good and quite unique even though it's rather close to the source. The vocal performance is solid. I wish it wouldn't START with the piano because it's so exposed there. When it's in the background it isn't bad.
So I take it "the arrangement is good and quite unique" "The vocal performance is solid" and "when it's in the background it isn't bad" doesn't qualify as positive? The arrangement is close the source, I said that, but the bridge and the unique instrumentation (with lyrics) is good enough for me.
I agree this isn't the best remix out there but that's why I gave it a borderline YES, conditional on that someone else handles the production. I think that if the production was great it would outweigh the sometimes coverish arrangement and I made that pretty clear imo. The conditional is based on that he's resubmitted so many times I don't think he can do the production himselves, thus making it conditional on getting in someone else for the work.
I will edit my vote slightly to make this clearer.
-
As you might've realized from the write-up, I love this track. I really love this track.
Put your hands together for your new judge...
in Announcements
Posted
I know who OA is, I just don't care much for the guy.
(WOOOO, WELCOME TO OUR GANG OF LOVEABLE RASCALS!!!)