Jump to content

Jivemaster

Members
  • Posts

    722
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

Everything posted by Jivemaster

  1. A strange package of a minimal lo-fi drum and crackly bubbly synths. The lo-fi works quite well for most parts, although the effect can be a bit too strong compared to others. Lead synths were a touch too loud, making things feel disconnected at times (like at 1:14 for example). As a fan of the lower quality vibe found throughout, I think some additional cohesion in the bit quality and mixing would go a long way in making the track feel more complete. I didn't have too much problem with source. Agree the track is a bit short for what is covered, some expansion to explore these ideas further is encouraged. Agree with Rexy that this feels like a tech demo. A good overall concept with some outstanding issues to address. NO
  2. Crisp drums. The source is certainly chaotic, and your mix builds on that in some good ... and not so good ways. The glassy atmospheric backing synths during the first portion (in particularly 0:36) clashed a bit with the rest of the instrumentation. I know this exists in the original, but I feel it's too strongly present here. There is quite a lot going on in that intro section. I enjoy the creativity here in updating some of the existing sections. The 1:26 section was a bit dissonant. In contrast, the 2:13 portion was quite good. The arrangement didn't stray too far from the original overall, I felt more originality could've been mixed in here. From a production standpoint, I found the highs were abrasive, and could've been smoothed out. Levels of some background parts were unbalanced compared to the rest of the mix. Drums and bass were audible throughout, which helped. I think this could really do with some tweaks in the busier sections to bring things more melodically into line, either via a rethink of the detuning of some of the synths, the patches used, or some of the notes themselves. A revisit of the mixing would help here as well. There is promise here, but I don't think it's quite ready yet. NO
  3. Good instrumentation and initial impressions, with interesting changes in pacing throughout the arrangement. Changes between sections occur quite often, which helps to maintain interest for a minimal ensemble. Some transitions felt ok (1:20, 1:30) while others felt more abrupt (like that at 1:53) due to the change in rhythm or timing. I feel more could have been done with these to make things more cohesive. As the mix progresses, the initial novelty of approach begins to taper off, as the mix maintains the same overall feel throughout. It left me feeling that more could have been done with this ensemble (changes in articulation, some licks/nuances in performance would have gone a long way here). Production wise, things are mostly clear as you'd expect from a mix with a fixed set of instruments, bass was perhaps a touch strong. Overall an enjoyable rendition and amalgamation of a number of classic tracks that feels more like a demo than finished piece. NO (please resub)
  4. Variation. I ask for this quite often, and your mix is one that needs a revisit of its arrangement on this basis. Across the duration, there is not much in the way of changes from the main established groove. 2:45 gives a bit more of a departure from the parts preceding it, but things soon return to the previous groove, with only minor layer dropping and some minor note shifting occurring. Furthermore, the first and second half of the mix share similar content - I would be rethinking the duration and/or approach taken here. Production quality is ok, although the lead is quite basic and would benefit from some tweaking over time, which could in part help your arrangement issue. I think what you've laid out here is a good start, but from the content presented, I don't think this warrants the current duration. NO
  5. Interesting take. Drums are a bit soft compared to the rest of the mix. The vocals add a level of character and originality. The performance is mostly ok during the verse sections, however the chorus-like vocal portion from 0:50 has some pitch issues which I recommend ironing out. As mentioned, the bass does stick out quite a lot, a bit boomy. Some timing discrepancies along the arrangement were slightly jarring. I am of the same opinion as my fellow judges here - this has the feel of a demo mix prior to retakes. I think this has potential, but you'll need to iron out the kinks. NO
  6. Good guitar tone. Some original licks dropped in here and there, however the mix mostly follows the progression of the original. This is a shame as the mix features a solid guitar playing performance. The mix seems to repeat (at least in part), this is where I would have explored some new territory. You layer the guitar channels well. Some low end could be tapered off on the guitars for extra clarity, but I didn't think it was a major issue compared to other tracks of this nature where nothing but guitar can be heard. The fade-out finish was a little disappointing. Taking this mix as it stands now, it's too cover-like for posting. I share the same enthusiasm as the others however when I say I'm looking forward to hearing more work from you, the skills you demonstrate here could quite easily translate to something postable. NO
  7. Agree with the others regarding this mix. Good execution and strong vocal performance. Production was mostly solid, although I found there was slight over compression on the master bus causing the mix to flap about on occasion. Agree that overt source usage is an issue here - apart from a strong first minute, the only clear source usage I could connect to was in the remaining 30 seconds. When it comes down to it, I would always advise leaning towards easily identifiable majority usage of source as it helps to get the mix over the line a lot easier. I think this really could make it with some more clear source integration, although I am unsure how challenging this would be to achieve. As it stands here, it's a NO
  8. The arrangement has some good ideas in places but transitions between sections feel somewhat disconnected from each other. Likewise, there are some good drop principles at play here that could be expanded upon to make them more effective. Some sections do tend to overstay their welcome. This is exacerbated by the lack of modulation in your synth sounds over time - a technique important for a mix relying on such a minimal sound set. Mixing wise things are quite dry, which when combined with the minimal soundest, makes some areas feel quite sparse. I wasn't as against your sounds as some of the others - basic sounds can work, but they need to be paired carefully and tweaked over time to maintain interest. Some good ideas exist here that should be expanded upon. NO
  9. Jumping straight in, your unpredictable genre choice works well here. You’ve added an interesting amount of movement over the original. The flute has a nice tone and does some great work with the lead portions. The section at 2:11 felt a bit too random time wise. The bass solo afterwards provided a nice break from the arrangement. By the time we hit the 3 minute mark, I feel ideas are beginning to rehash themselves and not bringing significant value to the arrangement. Despite swapping the lead duties between instruments quite regularly, we are not treated to any major departure from the main progression, nor is pacing altered in any way. Great ideas, great execution of those ideas in isolation, but somewhat repetitive throughout the course of the 4:32 duration. Source usage is not as strong as it should be, with good instrumentation distracting from the core requirement of overt source usage. As the others have mentioned - this is where the mix falls down, but things could be easily remedied with a revisit focusing on some tweaks to each section to strengthen the ties to the original source material. NO
  10. There is potential here. I thought things were mixed quite loud, requiring me to reduce my usual volume levels. I immediately notice some elements of the percussion are significantly louder than the rest of the mix, occasionally floating above everything else - making them sound out of place. Leads at times are significantly louder than everything else, and at other times they blend in with the background too much. This is confusing as there is a decent amount of spectral space between parts allowing for each instrument to be heard without the need to over emphasise volume. Arrangement wise, I think more could have been done here. There are some scattered original ideas, but we rarely get significant new interpretations of the source material. This along with the mixing issues and conflicting quality of some of the samples chosen make this difficult to pass. I recommend revisiting this to at least improve the mixing and strengthen the arrangement with more original interpretation. NO
  11. A somewhat predictable choice in going orchestral, but things are mostly done well. Panning appears to favour the left channel for the beginning of the piece, but eventually fills out from 0:36. Instrumentation is handled well, with each part feeling realistic for the most part. The main theme is shared amongst a number of leads, with emotive changes along the way. The arrangement transitions to each section quite often, maintaining interest throughout. The additional build-up near the end of the track leaves us with a climactic finish to the piece, which was a nice way to end things over revisiting previous material. Overall solid presentation here. YES
  12. Nice short, sweet take on the original. I’m not overly familiar with the Pokemon soundtrack. I agree with MindWanderer that the rendition is quite conservative, and your mix shares relatively similar pacing and arrangement to the original, although the additional instrumentation helps a lot with this issue. It has a anime end theme vibe. Production is mostly solid for a track of this nature, with decent mixing. Overall I’m ok with this one. While I would’ve liked to hear some further development and expansion on the ideas presented within the short duration, I feel this works as is. Let’s see what the others say. YES
  13. Well done. While the main melody is quite repetitive, the creative use of samples and dropping layers in/out gives this a similar style and feel to the original soundtrack. This would likely be my main criticism as well, in that your mix takes a lot of cues/inspiration from the original soundtrack, and while not necessarily a bad thing on its own, it would have been nice to hear some further creative exploration of the piece. That criticism aside, mixing is good, arrangement progression is good and mix duration frames the content appropriately. YES
  14. Agree with MindWanderer - your mix has a crowded feeling to it, which makes things overly chaotic for the listener. This is a shame because the arrangement has many good ideas, which (mixing aside) are executed quite well. There are some sections with too many simultaneous parts though, especially when we hit 1:54 - there is too much going on. The solo that follows at 2:15 however feels a bit better in comparison. Things end off ok. I like this mix, but the mixing needs a complete revisit. I recommend dialling the volume in from scratch for each channel in order of importance and using high and low pass filters to taper off frequencies on individual parts that don't need it, to open up your soundscape. Silencing some parts that aren't required wouldn't hurt either. I firmly believe if these tweaks were made to give each of these parts the breathing room they deserve, a more solid presentation would result. NO
  15. First time listening to this mix, so apologies if I cover some previous ground relating to the previous submission. I found the selection of instruments quite interesting, while odd in parts I think they worked together well. The synths during the intro portion threw me off completely as far as determining mix direction. A strange move but I'm down for different. There are some clicks during the intro portion which I believe may be the bass, I found this a little off-putting. The piano arp at 0:57 was quite robotic, with the piano in general needing some humanisation. On the arrangement side, 1:30 sounds like we're closing off, but the mix starts up again. Not sure how I feel about this approach for introducing the second section of the mix - it almost felt like two variations of the same mix were glued together one after the other. This hurt the arrangement side for me, as I didn't feel that things changed substantially or built up enough between the two halves to warrant both sections. Mixing is ok. There are some parts that are competing for the place of lead, particularly the piano and violin. The cymbals on the right side made the balance feel a bit off in the high end. I agree with MindWanderer that the ending is weak (the "ending" half way felt more like an ending). I think this is close. Some aspects could do with further work. The lack of humanisation in the piano parts made things feel quite rigid (and became more apparent as the piano persists through the majority of the mix). Mixing could be improved to better regulate supporting instruments to the background. Although there are some good ideas here, I thought the arrangement was lacking and missing direction. A tough one as this is a resub. I am open to revisiting the vote as necessary, but I feel this mix still needs refinement. NO
  16. Basic synths with stereo separation worked well. At 1:02 I was taken off guard by the direction of the arrangement. While I usually find the use of sound fx from the game a remix is based on to be cheap and often irritating, but here it works rhythmically to complement the arrangement as opposed to acting as cheap filler. The following transition where strings were introduced was a nice change. Percussion that is mixed throughout fits well, and helps to differentiate this from other minimal mixes. Creative take on the original. YES
  17. Solid attention to detail. Transitions between sections happen fairly regularly which push forward the arrangement steadily, increasing interest. Overall duration is a bit short – but leaving people wanting more is how to do it. Mixing is decent, with nice use of stereo space. Short, sweet. YES
  18. That bass takes up a lot of frequency, but seems to fit fairly well into the busy soundscape you have here, which is surprising. There is definitely a overall muffled feel here that Larry has mentioned, which sounds like a universal low pass filter being applied across the board. I initially took this as a stylistic choice to make the overall track feel more retro. If that's the case though, I probably wouldn't have applied this stylistic effect to absolutely everything. 2:15 is very full, and while it is a build-up, the drop is just as full, with not much breathing room between instruments by that point. This is a bit of a shame because the I found the arrangement here quite interesting, despite being somewhat repetitive. As a side note the end tail closes off fairly abruptly which I feel may be an unintentional rendering issue. There are nice ideas here, but I think a further mixing pass would greatly benefit the clarity of this mix, things are still a bit difficult to make out. NO
  19. I thought things started off ok - no major production issues from me (which I would expect from a solo piano mix). Piano could do with being a bit less stiff. As we hit the 1:17 mark, I found there wasn’t much in the way of personal interpretation of the original - apart from short licks at the end of each set of bars, things remain relatively similar right through to the conclusion. From my perspective, your mix has a good foundation here for some personalisation … and that kind of sums up how I feel where this is at currently - a starting point for something bigger. The repetitive nature of the original comes through too much here, and there’s a lot of potential to build this into something more substantial. I would like you to revisit this and see what you can come up with. NO
  20. Reminds me of something out of a Tarantino film. Guitar twang and all. The arrangement while fairly minimal, has a reasonable amount of changes. Some things repeat at little too much for my taste, but I think they change enough to maintain interest. The fade-out at the end could’ve been done differently, but I do like how things changed up for that final section. Production quality is ok here, mostly passable. I felt the percussion on the right ear was quite loud but things weren’t too off balance. I agree some of the percussion patterns were a repetitive and stiff at times, the lack of humanisation there detracted a bit from the overall presentation, but not so much to ruin the track overall. I think this gets the job done. It’s certainly a unique take on the original. YES
  21. Enjoyable rendition. Agree that things were mixed too quietly - not a major issue but the overall volume could've been bumped up a tad for this one. I appreciated the variance of instrument lead in each section, parts drifted in out making way for the next transition. The changes to the main melody early in the mix are subtle but add much needed originality. Things felt like they had wound up at the 2:20 mark but built up again, adding further original material. The attention to detail here IMO was quite good, natural changes in pace and velocity. Short, sweet and whimsical. YES
  22. Minimal and ambient. Initial panning of the percussion screws a bit with the mind, but things thankfully balance out as more elements are introduced over the first minute. A slight change of pace occurs at 2:01, where we have a slight break down and build-up section. The arrangement keeps a fairly similar feel and pace throughout, although the changes featured in some of the lead progression helps to make things feel different. I feel the mix could’ve stopped close to the 3:50 mark, as the sections introduced afterward don’t particularly add any major value to the arrangement. This worked against the mix, especially with it already being minimal in its presentation - it made the problem stand out more. The section at 4:48 which changed things up a bit could’ve shown up earlier in the mix to help close things out sooner. Production is ok, but I mostly expect that from a mix that keeps layers to a minimum. I thought the percussion initially being left panned would become irritating, but the counter percussion on the right hand side restored balance. The ambience of the lead was largely dominating, but I understand it was being used to fill the soundscape. I think arrangement variation and overall duration are an issue with this one. Willing to revisit and reconsider based on the other judges comments, but I find that the mix covers a lot of similar territory over its duration which makes things sound somewhat repetitive by the time we reach the mid point, leading me to say that the arrangement needs a revisit. NO
  23. Nice little buzzy bass line. The vocals seem to work well and harmonise nicely with each other. There is a bit of dissonance between the piano backing notes and the main vocal melody however, which I found a little jarring and became a persistent problem throughout most of the arrangement. Production wise, vocals are up front and centre, with backups mostly centred as well. This makes the centre of the mix quite crowded. Things are mostly easy to hear when where aren’t too many things happening, but clarity drops when things like SFX and strings drop in. The outro is relatively sudden and I feel it could’ve had more done to close things out. I think the dissonant disparity between the backing and vocals is something that doesn’t quite work here. Mixing could also do with a revisit for clarity in built up areas. I would like a revisit to see what can be improved. NO
  24. While I'm not an expert, I thought the opening choir was well done, with solid integration of the other elements as they come in over time. Mixing between parts is largely well done, with good use of the stereo space. Some parts could do with slightly more foreground/background separation. The progression is not rushed, although changes could do with occurring a little more quickly. I also feel things were played a little too safe at times, with a lot of the original's cue's being relied on. I would have liked to hear some further originality mixed through. These crits aside, I think this is well done, a softer paced rendition, maintaining the angst of the original. YES
  25. A great adaption of the original. The instrumentation here works well, the sparkly and distorted guitars have a nice tone. When the bass drops in just after the one minute mark, the full soundscape features a good mix of instruments, with some decent mixing. The individual parts do sometimes get drowned out though, especially in the solo section starting at 2:33. This is where the mix loses some points due to ineffective (crowded) mixing. I think some of the parts here weren't needed, and the section would've still retained the same impact if the unessential layers were dialled back in volume or completely removed. The rest of the track is mostly well done, although the drums do feel somewhat muffled. The arrangement while slow, progresses relatively well. There was a little too much build-up before the mix actually got going, but these portions were still interesting in their own way. YES
×
×
  • Create New...