Jump to content

DragonAvenger

Contributors
  • Posts

    4,506
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

Everything posted by DragonAvenger

  1. Digging the arrangement overall, really chill take on the source. Listened to this a couple times and I am going to have to be on the NO side here for the production (though it's close!). Everything feels like it's muffled, and it's swimming a bit too hard in reverb. Also hearing a tiny bit of clipping in the bell run at the end. Hope you can clear this one up though, sorry to send it back to your again. NO (resubmit)
  2. Not gonna say anything new here: I'm good with it as is. Excellent arrangement, a pleasure to listen to! YES
  3. Aside from the usual quiet overall volume I agree that this is just fine for the production aspect. The arrangement is a bit tougher due to there being not much to work with, but I do think the bridges and original sections do a good job of keeping with the original feel and also come back to the source quick enough. I also *think* that 1:18 is referencing another Zelda track I can't think of off the top of my head. I'm good with this! YES
  4. Joining the train that is on the "Would be a nice fix but isn't super necessary in the end" train. The track is nice and bubbly and extends the original without overstating. I'm on board YES
  5. What a fun take on this track, which was already eclectic in it's own right! Really enjoyed the use of percussion and sound effects to really seal the 'industrial' feel mixed with the more organic instruments. I don't have anything to mention that wasn't already brought up, but I am glad you are working on bringing the volume up overall. I'm on the YES (borderline) side of the coin here, but keep practicing with that mastering/compression!
  6. This is a tough one. Definitely going to agree on the overall volume like others have mentioned. I also agree that the pronunciation doesn't bother me too much, but Brad really has some great tips on how to improve singing technique overall (some of which I need to do more myself!), so do take those tips to heart as they will help improve your tone regardless of what you are singing. Something I was somewhat surprised didn't come up before was the arrangement and straying from the source material. Most of the time I really enjoyed the variations you added, but towards the end especially I felt like you were shifting too far away from the melody for too long without an "anchor" to pull you back in. I'd say that it doesn't go too far in the end, but I'd argue it is close in terms of our arrangement standards. It's especially more pronounced due to how minimalistic the track is, where a backing chord progression might help keep the arrangement grounded in the original. In the end I do think the arrangement works, but I'd consider coming back to the melodies a little sooner at times in the future. I think the volume is the biggest issue here, and I'd like to see that get fixed up here. NO (resubmit) 7/1/20 - Is loudened, we good. YES
  7. Gotta admit that this one is still pretty close for me. Without restating what the others have mentioned, the biggest issues to me are the bass and the overall loudness of the drums. I think if it came down to just the drums I'd be cool with it, but the lack of low end is really hurting the track overall. Sorry to toss this back to you but I do think it's really close! NO (resubmit, please)
  8. Not much to add here that wasn't already mentioned. I really like the melodic variations throughout; decidedly different but definitely recognizable at the core. The track overall feels pretty chill despite the beats and the energy in the saw, it's a good combination. Nice work. YES
  9. I'm with Brad on this one; there's a lot of repetition here, and while there are subtle changes going on,I don't think they add up to the whole of feeling like there is enough freshness throughout. The wrong notes are also bugging me and it would be good to get those fixed up. I'd love for you to look into the repeated sections and do more with them. Harmonies or counter-melodies would work well in the track, or some more drastic melodic changes. Good luck with the rest of the vote. NO (resubmit)
  10. What a strange source for sure. I definitely think you turned up the creepy feeling for this, and the track definitely reminds me of my old music college days with experimental tracks. I'm having little issue hearing the source as it goes through with the two-three note motif. I'm on the fence here though. I'm agreed with the others that this needs to be boosted in volume, but I'm not sure if the stiff woodwinds are a little too much. I think in the end the stiffness works for the overall creepy, robotic feel of the track, though I do think it is close to the edge of needing some more humanization. Volume for sure, though! YES (conditional on volume) Edit: YES after edits!
  11. Groovy track and definitely a fun take on the original and era it came from. I can see what MW is saying about clutter, though I didn't feel like I couldn't pick out what was going on at any point. That being said, working on more clarity in the future certainly wouldn't hurt. The source is definitely present, and the vocals fit the feel (though I couldn't tell you what they're saying). Nitpicking here because I can, I would have liked a touch more variation in the drums. Just some fills to emphasize parts more through out. They're fine as I'd, just something to take them to the next level. YES
  12. Definitely a chill take on an already chill theme. First thing I noticed was that the soundcape overall is on the thinner side. There's not much in the way of instrumentation, which isn't necessarily a bad thing. I do think Larry's right that the drums overall are a big factor that is not holding up here. The beats are generally pretty simplistic, and the sounds are very thin overall. I think they could use an over haul to get some more body. There's the mention by the others about reverb versus lack thereof, and it's another good aspect to look at. I think your best bet might be trying to meet somewhere in the middle; bring up the dry instruments first and if the sound gets too wet try bringing the levels down until you get that balance. While I think this needs another look,I do think this is pretty close. Hope to hear it again. NO (resubmit)
  13. I’m going to start by definitely agreeing that the track overall could be a little louder in volume. Definitely had to crank it up, especially after comparing it to the source track. I felt that a lot of the playing felt stiff, and I still haven’t decided if it was intentional or not. I’d love to hear the accordion especially have a little more life and dynamics overall in this, along with the lead guitar. I also felt like the accordion was overpowering the guitar in a few instances. The biggest mention is during the guitar solo around 2:40. The accordion comes in with a small response, but overtakes the guitar entirely. I’d look a little at the balance and maybe the planning to see if those two could be separated more and have their own space. The arrangement is both cute and sweet. It’s a really fun take on a relaxed original piece. The choice of instruments fits well, and the parts overall compliment each other well. I don’t think it’s where it needs to be yet, but it has some good promise. NO (resubmit)
  14. Brad has said anything I was going to say and more here, I am right in line with his vote. To me the background really just isn't adding anything to the track arrangement-wise. The atmosphere is great, but the singing and the background could be two separate things just happening together. Brad also has some really fantastic advice for getting more clarity and support in your voice. Using that belly breath to push those vocals will really help especially in the higher areas, and overall will help you rise over the background. I like the concept you have here but I need more connection between the background and the vocals for me to be on board with this. NO (resubmit)
  15. I don't really see this as too different from something like Rhymes With Elixir, where the source isn't the main focus of the mix but I'd obviously there. No issues to me on source usage. Aside from that the piano playing is gorgeous as usual. Loving the energetic vibe throughout and the improvising feels natural towards the original motif and the piece as a whole. I'm feeling it. YES https://ocremix.org/remix/OCR01999
  16. Agreed with most here that the arrangement is both nice and a fun surprise when 0:52 comes in. Really chill and relaxed. Also going to agree that the personalization really works nicely, though is a little conservative at times. The buzzing/clipping does need to be addressed, and I think that Larry's right that this is going to be a little bit longer of a fix than a conditional. Hope to hear this (and others!) again! NO (resubmit)
  17. Yup, the others have this knocked out. The piece is gorgeous, and I can't wait for this to hit the front page, but that panning has to be addressed! (And that pop at 2:02) NO (resubmit, please)
  18. I think I'm mostly on board here with what Brad is saying here. There's a lot of interesting color choices, and I personally find a lot of the separate sections to be interesting takes overall, but there are some strange choices that aren't working out great. There's definitely a lot of reverb that I'd muddying things up, along with a prominent choice of the synth guitar. I'd like both of these things to be addressed. I'd also like to bring up the weird transition at 1:48. It's a really jarring slowdown that really had no lead up and doesn't really tie the two sections. Maybe lengthening the slow down of the tempo could help, but I think it might just need a re-write to transition better. Not quite there for me yet. NO (resubmit)
  19. Not really much here to add, more whether I find issue with the samey-ness. Took a few listens but I think I'm on board with Sir Nuts the most here; there's just enough in regard to changeups that I think this squeaks by. Really love the energy though and I look forward to hearing more from you. YES (borderline)
  20. Gotta essentially agree with what the other judges have already pointed out. I'd like to note that it took me more than one listen through to notice some of the subtle changes you made in the parts to keep things varied. I do wonder if some of that will be lost to listeners. I generally think you could do a little more in that regard in the future to make your changes and style more recognizable. My biggest issue definitely stems from the volume of the track, and this is definitely chugging throughout. I think in the end this doesn't outweigh the arrangement but only do think it is on the close side. Good luck on the rest of the vote. YES (borderline)
  21. I'm surprised that the only person who mentioned some wrong notes was Nutritious, as that was the first thing I noticed on my first listen through. Specifically the :57 section though there's a couple of other areas that has me questioning if there were intentional dissonance or not. The other areas I wasn't super bothered with but I'd really like to see the :57 section addressed; it definitely made me raise an eyebrow. Aside from that I noticed that there is a lot of instruments occupying the same space, which definitely comes up as an issue when the sections start to get busier. I don't know if it might be worth exploring octaves to see if you can separate the space a little more or to consider what the others have suggested. The choir has already been mentioned but I'll echo that it sounds both stiff at times and also muddy when it is more active. It also feels strange that there's one section where they have the front line specially but only are they're for maybe 5 seconds (3:08). Felt strange that they never return, though that is also where they are least clear. The ending also just kinda dribbles off, which can work in the right context. I'd maybe consider using the ~4:10 section as an ending for that purpose; slow down and use the oboe/glock/drums/choir to fade to a stopping point. Some good ideas as always but this one isn't where it needs to be yet. NO (resubmit)
  22. I can see what pretty much everyone is saying here, but in the end I think the issues don't add up enough to have to revisit. That being said, I think there's a lot of really good advice to look at for future mixes. YES (borderline)
  23. This sounds fantastic, and it's straight up whether or not it's too far from the source at times. Had to do a few listens through and A-B to get a feel of how you adjusted things, but I think there's enough of the melodies throughout that this stays recognizable. Quality work here, love the chugs and the overall dark and depressive feel this has. YES
  24. ReMixer name - mikedm92 Real name - Michael Markie Website - https://www.markiemusic.com/ Game arranged - Quake Name of arrangement - Slipgate Name of song arranged - Quake Theme Misc sounds used: Screams from original track, Quad Damage power up sound Additional information - Composed by Trent Reznor of Nine Inch Nails, game on DOS/Windows PC Link to the original - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mv5Jvr2Fp48 Your own comments - I wanted to take the iconic grungy-industrial soundtrack of Quake and put a modern metal spin on it, with more upfront chugging electric guitar and acoustic drums, while still retaining the dark atmosphere that the soundtrack is known for. I achieved the classic NIN guitar sound in the intro and interlude by removing the guitar cabinet from the equation, leaving the raw amp tone unmolded by the specific frequency shaping that cabinet speakers are known for.
  25. The playing is definitely emotive here, though it is a bit difficult to get past the plodding pace here. I think the developments that do happen take a very long time simply due to the tempo, which makes it a difficult listen. I wouldn't have minded having a slower section to start or somewhere in the middle if it was used as a tempo change or emphasis, but as is it really starts to drag very quickly. The other big issue that I think is contributing to this is the fact that the first ostinato pattern that starts the arrangement continues throughout the entire mix unchanging. After a while that was the only part I could focus on, and it became distracting. I think having some sort of change or drop out of that section would make a huge difference. I was personally fine with the piano sounds as is, but they might be a little fakey for some of the other judges, I'm curious what they will think. For me this is close, but the plodding and the repetitive background are not doing it for me. Good luck! NO (resubmit)
×
×
  • Create New...