Jump to content

Palpable

Contributors
  • Content Count

    2,986
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Palpable

  1. No problem with the direction of this mix, like Sir_NutS had, but he think he's spot on about the staticness of the arrangement. I also think the source song is pretty boring personally, and has the same problem as your mix. The groove is good, but I don't think it's interesting enough to carry a song for 3 minutes, despite a lot of effort on your part to include variations. Sometimes a mix needs micro variations (changes in notes, flourishes) and sometimes macro variations (new sections, dropouts), and I think more macro variations would be in order here. I don't think that issue alone i
  2. I really enjoyed this piece. The sparse original song gives you a small glimpse of a world, and their arrangement colors in what's past the border of the picture, letting you see more. It's not gonna win awards for risks, but minimal sources like the original pretty much beg for expansion/jam remixes in this vein, and I always love to hear them. The sax sounded a tiny bit thin for a lead instrument, like maybe the recording wasn't 100% clean, or maybe too much EQ was applied. With the reverb on it, it's fine I think. The soloing and distinctive touches really took this far and made up for any
  3. I'll go counter to the first two votes and say I was feeling this. I liked the delicate intro, leading into the heavier rock stuff. The transition worked and I thought the production was solid and the partwriting good. I liked hearing fills and bass flourishes here and there. Sometimes there could have been another part added to fill in some blank spaces, but there was enough there for me to enjoy the groove. I also thought the transition between the sources was fine. Maybe more of a transition could be added, but there was no key change or anything really egregiously bad. I would agree with t
  4. I do feel like the chord sequence sounds slightly off from what I would expect, like it was transcribed wrong, but in the world of remixing there isn't necessarily a problem with changing chords. It's a pretty crazy song so the strange chord clusters worked for me, and there was more than enough going on that I didn't think the chord repetition was a problem. I liked the switch in feel between the more normal piano sections and the crazier stuff. It took the melody a long way. The gliding synth lead also was a great choice here, and Usa's work was impeccable. I even liked the section Gario sin
  5. I think we're all hearing the same tuning issues here, but the severity of it is the only debate. I am a bit more lenient on live recordings, and everything that was off was constrained to the first 1:30. I think I fall most in line with Larry, that there's so much good here to outweigh the mistakes. I also agree with Dave that Melodyne might be the only thing needed to fix this if it's a multitrack setup. The 2:36 section is something that only works in live recording, something so simple that it banks on the charm and nuance of live instruments to keep the listener's attention. It's exa
  6. Interesting sub. In order of what comes up: Nemo samples: Was very limited so I think it's probably fine. Unless there is something specifically about Disney samples, this is not more sampling than other subs we have on the site. Production: I thought this was pretty solid but I was feeling DA's comment about the vocals maybe punching through too much. It sounded like they were placed really upfront in order to be heard against the backing track, which could afford to have some cut away. I don't think this is a big issue. Delivery: I think your voice is fine for this sub. Someti
  7. Production issues have been covered pretty well already, so I'll just say that I felt what they were saying. The violin in particular was problematic, but the harpsichord intro, the choir, sometimes some of the other strings just didn't even have enough realism. The arrangement is really epic, and the move to the synth solo was delightedly unexpected. I'd love to see you polish this up by humanizing some of the elements or finding stronger samples. May even be worth having someone handle that part of the production for you. NO (resubmit)
  8. I'm so used to weird stuff from Brent that this qualifies as positively normal! I liked the mood, heavy vibe and the dynamic shifts that the song goes through. I still thought the fadeout ending could have been stronger - it came just as a new section was starting, it seemed - but it was a strong arrangement, with good production. Makes for a YES. YES
  9. I wasn't really feeling the NOs on this until the sparse sections that Chimpa pointed out. When this drops down to one hand and not much is going on, you're hyper-aware that this is not a real instrument and it takes you out-of-the-moment. As far as arrangement, I don't think I could timestamp it easily but it sounded pretty connected to me. Lots of use of the chords and melody. Argh, I can see why this was a tough decision for everyone. I will admit that I skew a little lenient on solo piano production, and I think that is gonna push me towards the YESes. With a weaker arrangement, this
  10. I thought this was close already, and with a more conclusive ending, this has gone over the top for me. You kept exactly what I liked about this the first time and fixed up what didn't work. I think there's some extra polishing that could be done, and certainly live instruments rarely ever hurt, but this is postworthy for sure. YES
  11. This galloped along pleasantly, a good mix of original material and source material. I agree that it's a little hot for my tastes, sometimes a little shrill, but never too much. I think the FX are incorporated better than in most subs - they are used rather percussively here. All in all, great stuff. YES
  12. I liked the additions here. Nothing major, but enough to keep my interest through this time. I can't remember if that glide bass was in the mix last time, but I like how it's used in the second half. I definitely disagree with 2:17 sounding dissonant; in fact I think the 7th chords work really well there and it's one of the best sections in both versions. Ending isn't spectacular but it beats no ending. Yes, this is enough to push me to a YES. YES
  13. Interesting source and remix. Your arrangement is a true remix in that you took a lot of elements from the original and shifted them around. I liked a lot of the extra elements you added, and overall, I thought your song was quite hypnotic. This is some pretty old-school techno. From 1:09-2:09, I thought you got a little far from the original, but at 2:09, the bass/drum section from the original came in and you took that all the way to the end. In all, it seemed connected but still distinctive enough to stand apart from the original. Basically, the only question I have is: is the sampling
  14. I loved the song concept but I think the simplicity and lack of dynamics hurt this one rather than helped it. I was bored by the drum loop by the first minute, and it never changes. It's not atypical in rap to keep the drum loop the same for the whole song, but there's wasn't enough else there to make up for it. No bass, and the guitar didn't deviate much either. The chorus also sounds like a total cut-and-paste, with everything coming in at the same time each iteration (including the backing vocal being early at the same time each chorus). Production-wise, I thought it was fine. The guitar so
  15. I have to side with the NO votes here; the production problems with this sub only get more noticeable as the piece goes on. With better humanization (different instrument envelopes based on the situation) and better frequency balance (more highs), I think this would pass. Sir_NutS gave some detailed advice that I agree with. It's a beautiful arrangement with a lot of intricate partwriting, and it deserves a production as good. NO (resubmit)
  16. My vote is pretty much in line with Nutri's. I liked the approach quite a bit, but the details just barely made this a NO for me. The pan flute was probably the biggest problem. It shouldn't sound lo-fi, especially as the lead, and sometimes it comes across quite blocky. Other times, like with the quick runs, it sounds fine. The blocky string chords also made this sound more boring than it needed to, and took away some from the dynamics. I will disagree with Nutritious that the track was lacking dynamics on the whole. I thought with the swells and instruments coming in and out, there was enoug
  17. Right from the intro, I was loving this. I guess if I inspired it, that's no surprise! Melodic rock is a perfect genre for this song, and the partwriting sounds so natural, it's hard to believe most of it is not in the original. Chorus took it up to another level (though I didn't immediately realize the connection to the source - that chiming guitar), and I melted when I heard that sweet chorused guitar part added to the second verse. Despite not being a strong singer, Mike's vocals were a good fit both in the low-register verses and the higher-register chorus - his voice carried an honesty th
  18. I liked the atmosphere of the piece (similar to the original with some differences), but I'll be dead honest: it didn't sound very inspired to me. It has a very plodding feel without strong dynamics, and a lot of the added writing sounds pretty forced. Humanization would help the ploddingness as Deia pointed out, but I wanted a stronger direction and more interesting partwriting. The backing instrumentation under the first couple iterations of the violin is very basic, and the call-and-response section just didn't do enough to justify its length. The solo at the end was a good idea (live violi
  19. The additions here are pretty subtle but it's pretty interesting to hear some of the more amelodic elements adapted to guitar. Overall, I thought the arrangement was just interesting enough to work beyond a cover. The rhythm guitar was a little compressed and choppy. Did you use an acoustic pickup? I've noticed they can have that sound sometimes. I think a clean electric would probably sound a little better but it wasn't a dealbreaker. Count me in. YES
  20. I can always count on Max for a high-energy, enjoyable arrangement and this is no exception. I love the use of the orchestra here, and the solo section towards the end is pretty audacious (reminded me of a Tom Morello solo). I did notice some mixing issues here though. The intro (and its uses thereafter) get pretty crowded with the orchestra, brass, guitar, and drums all fighting for attention. I think a lower pitched snare would actually free up some room there, as well as sound better in the well-balanced non-orchestral sections. The strings are also a bit loud in the breakdown section; dyna
  21. Hmm, I thought you guys overstated the production issues, especially considering how mechanical some orchestral subs we get can be. There was a lot of velocity variance here, as well as different instrument articulations, so I thought the dynamics were quite good. There are certainly sections where it could be touched up, and I feel like what this track could REALLY use for realism is more rubato, but I thought this was not even close to a NO. The sounds themselves are very high-quality and well-balanced; the arrangement is excellent. I also thought the level of 'verb was ok. Rebecca is fast b
  22. I found myself agreeing with DA and Larry for the first three minutes, but that last minute added almost nothing new and I started to see why two judges had gone NO. I liked the addition of piano to the chorus around 3:00 and I thought the last minute needed some extra changes like that. Overall, it's very close for me. The production is great and I love the combination of instruments here, especially that subtle acoustic guitar. No concerns about the stiffness of the piano either; it seems to work well in this context. But I think I have to side with the NOs on this one. Please make some addi
  23. I'm listening to version 1 and baffling at my comments from last time. Did Tim fix the strings and drums as well, or just the panning? Either I had an off day back in December or Tim fixed a lot. Every issue I had was addressed here - it sounds great. I didn't even think the crowding was enough of an issue to reject it. Unfortunately, I must agree that the panning in Version 2 is too drastic. If the leads were centered, and everything brought in a little, I think it could work (and potentially sound better). Anyway-- YES (on version 1)
  24. Wow, the ocean is loud today. I think you can take it down a bit so that it isn't (literally) drowning the hand drums. I did like when the ocean filled in the empty space at 1:03 though. Speaking of the drums, they were very dry and sounded odd next to the ocean sounds. Adding some reverb there should make everything sound like the same space. You can even cut the reverb some when you take out the ocean noises, as if we are moving into the studio. I like the bells, but I love the guitar line you added. It compliments the source arp so nicely. The pan flute is the first big misstep. I'm su
  25. I almost always defer to Larry on source usage, but I don't count what he does here. The two-note melody is the same as the Doom track, but I don't think it's enough to count when the chords are so different. I never would have put it together because of how different it sounds. The melody is actually just those same two notes plus a few to connect them, but that's enough that I count those sections. I didn't hear the melody at 1:28-1:53.5 - it sounded like just the two notes, but played on the instrument that handles the melody later. Overall, what I would count is 0:37-0:52 and 2:21-3:31, wh
×
×
  • Create New...