Chimpazilla
-
Posts
3,206 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
6
Content Type
Articles
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Chimpazilla
-
-
Double-rubber-stamping. I like the arrangement and the trance style, plenty of personalization, but the vanilla-sounding synths and underwhelming mixing are tanking this. In 2021 the production bar is higher than this. It's an awesome start but needs modernization. I'd love to hear this again using much more interesting sound design.
NO
-
On 4/17/2021 at 10:41 AM, Emunator said:
I agree with this take 100%. Rests and space between notes are still an integral part of how a source melody can be transformed and presented in a unique way.
Another angle I like to look at source usage from, when we're so close to the 50% mark, is how it is distributed throughout the arrangement. If there was 100% source usage for the first half of the arrangement and absolutely none in the second half, I would judge that more harshly than what I see here, which is a recognizable motif that is used frequently throughout the remix. Although the source is not strictly present at any given moment, you revisit it frequently enough that I never forget that I'm listening to a TMNT remix.
Not trying to skirt around the standards here, but in my book this is so close to that 50% mark that it really does come down to a gut feel, so this is my attempt to explain what goes on in my head in a scenario like this. In this arrangement's case, I think you come out on the winning side of the debate.
Source usage aside, this is a bangin' track with a rich soundscape, meaty bassline & drums, and a satisfying dynamic curve to keep things from growing stagnant. I dig it!
YES
Quote Vote ™. Wes nailed it, I agree totally. I do this same thing in my intros and I'd hate for it to be chopped into such small pieces and given a NO for that reason. As I listen through this remix I never have a moment when I'm not sure what source I'm hearing remixed. It's a well-produced fun track. It's LOWD (-7.3db RMS) but I hear no compression issues. Let's do this.
YES
-
This is quite a unique approach to this source, and I love it. (is it sung in Polish?) I agree with the other two Js on the production side, however. The vocals are way too loud. I hear a few pitchy notes but they aren't dealbreakers for me. The vocals don't sound as dry to me as they do to the other Js, but I suspect the extra-loud volume of the vocals is giving them a dryer feel. The volume of the vocals just has to come down. Still, a bit of additional reverb added to the vocals (making sure to cut lows out of the reverb to avoid mud) would get them to sit better in the mix. I also agree that this track has a huge dynamic range which could benefit from some better overall compression and/or volume automation to make the listening experience a bit more consistent. These should be pretty easy fixes. I can't wait to hear this back again and get it on the front page because I really like this remix!
NO (resubmit please)
-
I remember mastering this one, I hadn't heard it since then so clicking on it now was a nice surprise. I adored this remix as I was working with it and it still sounds amazing to me. I admit when I master, I'm focused almost entirely on production so I don't consider the source too closely. Now that I'm really comparing, it's tricky because the source is in 3/4 and in another key, and the connections are quite a bit looser than I'd like. I want to pass this track, but I'm hoping that someone who's stronger in source comparison than I am will perhaps kindly do a breakdown. (*cough cough Rexy*) Gosh I still love this track.
NOT SURE YET DUE TO SOURCE
-
I hear what the other Js are saying about repetition, and I think the continuous same baseline is what causes that for me, but I agree with Larry that there is more than enough variation in the track to overcome the repetition. I like the double-time section and I really like the new lead I hear there. I don't care for fadeouts, but this one doesn't detract from the overall vibe of the track. I love this source in synthwave style. This one works for me.
YES
-
Interesting track! The guitar work is excellent, and the organ is giving me some Deep Purple vibes, although I agree with Larry that the whole-note emphasis in the organ line is disappointing. The vocals are well performed and entertaining. Thanks to Rexy for the source breakdown. I don't disagree with many of the production crits others have mentioned, but I don't find anything dealbreaker-worthy in the production. Feels like a solid, enjoyable track to me. Let's get it posted!
YES
-
This mix was done SO LONG AGO. But it still holds up! I hear the love and creativity that went into it, and how well Timaeus and I worked together on it. We had a blast making it!
-
You guys, am I just missing something here? I totally get not thinking the mixing is sufficient, but I am really not getting the rejection on grounds of it being a cover. I'm not sure why I'm the only one who feels this way and I'm legit confused. Perhaps @Liontamer could shed some light on this? Larry if you think this is truly a cover, I will relent. Thanks!
-
Ooooooooooo I love this intro, you've set up a spooky vibe immediately with those crushed bass swells. It takes awhile to build to the theme but it's a great ride. I love the stylistic crushing of some elements, while leaving the lead bell sound clean. Changing time signatures here... it seems like the mix goes from 4/4 with triplets to 3/4 at 3:09, either that or it's just written entirely in triplets from that point out, but it's seamless and I love it. The clock ticking is a great bit of ear candy. This arrangement is interesting, changing timbres as it moves along while still feeling totally cohesive. You captured a creepy vibe that I'm really digging. The mixing is good; it's a loud master though, peaking at 0.9db and hitting -6.8db RMS, but it's clean. Really liking this remix! Ok I just listened seven times.
YES
-
WOW this waveform is a sausage, ok let's see what's up. Those toms in the intro are awesome, and the guitar tone is great right away. Oh my this is so loud, peaking at 0.5db and hitting -6.7db RMS, but dang it sounds so huge. There are some elements I think could be mixed more prominently, the chugs are drowning out almost everything else and there are some lovely details getting lost. It's a very busy and dense mix, and as Joel pointed out that is tricky unless you mix things just right, making sure all lows are removed from every element that isn't meant to play low. So the mixing isn't perfect, but this is a really well done arrangement, it's super exciting and I love it, let's do this.
YES
-
Holy cow this is lovely and what a HUGE soundscape. I love the delayed piano that plays throughout, it mirrors the source well while being unique. I would prefer that the reverb/delay would have some of the lows cut out of them though, as low reverb tends to create mud. I'm not sure what the instrument at 0:26 is, is it a brass instrument, if so it sounds quite fake. The choir patch is nice though, and the strings sound realistic. When the drums come in at 1:21, the soundscape opens up beautifully. My only complaints are that the arrangement is on the short side, and that there is a bit of low-mid mud in the mixing from the reverb/delay on the piano. But I love this anyway.
YES
-
This is beautiful and luscious! The mix starts out extremely conservative to source, but it transitions seamlessly into some beautiful originality while still being identifiable. I am loving the instrumentation here. I would love to get a version that is mastered just a bit louder, there is almost 6db of headroom and that's a super quiet master. I agree with Wes that we need a clean ending fadeout, so perhaps you could take care of both things at the same time.
YES (conditional on clean ending fadeout and slightly louder master)
-
Oh do you mean this whistle?
Yeah that's pretty piercy! And this mix is a waveform is a sausage, clocking in at -6.2db RMS which is in EDM range. It's a loud mix. The instrument that comes in at 0:20 and again at 0:46 (is than an accordion?) is so rigid and fake, and it is totally exposed in the short breakdown at 0:57, oof. I do like the arrangement generally, and this mix is full of energy. I think my problem with this mix is the same as Joel's, and that is that it gets into one gear and stays there the entire time (with 2 second breaks) and at full-speed like this, it is exhausting. I don't think there are enough unique ideas presented to warrant the length of the track. The lower energy section at 2:30 is welcomed but takes too long to get to it, and goes quickly back to full-speed-ahead mode. This one's not quite there for me.
NO
-
What a great arrangement and I love the instrumentation! The vox sound so nifty, and then as Wes said, here comes the absolutely kickass guitar solo. The mixing works well enough (although I agree with Wes about the overly-sizzly crash), but as my fellows have mentioned something is wrong in the master, as you are hitting -9db RMS which is fine but your ceiling is -1.2db which is unnecessarily low and is causing the mix to have a brickwalled feel to it (and the waveform is an absolute sausage). Regardless, that is a nitpick in this case and does not affect the postability of this mix to OCR's front page! Cool track.
YES
-
Wow this is huge! I agree with my fellow Js that this arrangement doesn't move too far from the original, but the stylistic flares added are wonderful. Really well performed. Wow that's a big snare! The vox are great. I know nothing about this game so I look forward to Dave's writeup on this, but the mix itself is good to go.
YES
-
What an exciting direction to take this source, very energetic. I love the soft breakdown with the harpsicord. The lead guitar is mixed on the quiet side, which doesn't help this mix since the lead is clearly sequenced and a bit weak, but you've done quite a good job with it. I agree with Wes the drums are fabulous and I love that buzz transition too. Good stuff, gotta go with it!
YES
-
I know what you mean, how hard it is to make sequenced solo piano sound real! I have undertaken the same challenge and I was told that for the most part it sounded natural. On this mix, I think it sounds lovely and natural enough, until the faster bass notes start up at 1:42. They are almost tolerable until 2:02 when they just become too much. It sounds like someone is hammering away at the keys. I think it would be incredibly hard to make writing such as that sound non-sequenced. In the second half of this arrangement, the illusion of it being a real piano is unfortunately ruined. I love the variations on the motif, and I feel like the right hand of this arrangement works very well. Perhaps you could look into substituting another lower instrument for the ferocious keyboarding that takes place from 1:42 onward? I would love to see this posted in some form! But it's not quite there yet.
NO (please resubmit)
-
Wow, what an interesting take on this source! I love this concept. I love the change from the 4/4 original to such an upbeat 6/8. The mixing is the weak point here, with elements not sounding very clear, and the drums could be louder. As it stands now the mixing is very flat and lifeless. The sample quality isn't the best, with the brass being particularly dry and fake-sounding, and the strings aren't too strong either. I'm not to sure about the vocal sample. The overall master is very quiet, but even so I hear there are points where the compression is almost too strong. I feel like most of these issues (including sample quality) could be fixed with cleaner mixing, most importantly clearing the lows out of everything that's not bass, low brass or bass drums. The ending is on the weak side. But the creativity of this arrangement wins the day for me. It feels like it really fits in Kokiri Forest! This is going to get some NOs due to the lifeless mixing and fake samples, and I may change my mind, but for now I have to go with it.
YES
-
I'm sorry but I can't let this get rejected purely on being a cover. First of all, the complete genre change over from chiptune to rock/metal is a major personalization to these sources. Secondly, there are LOTS of bits of writing variation here. There are TWO sources being integrated into one cohesive arrangement. As my fellow Js have pointed out, the performances and mixing are great, no issues there. I am enjoying this track! The mix is very conservative, but to call it a straight-up cover seems wrong to me. I do hear that the ending got cut off, but that would be a quick fix to fade it out properly before we post it. I like it!
YES
-
I like this mix a lot. It is quite conservative, but does have enough personalization to set it apart from the source tune. I agree with Larry about the fake sounding articulations, especially at 1:12 as he mentioned. I hope you will take these criticisms to heart for future mixes, but I don't think these issues are enough to hold this lovely piece back. The mastering is still quiet and conservative, but it's getting closer to what I would look for in a piece like this.
YES
-
This is a well crafted track. For the first half of my listen, I was planning to say NO because it is a straight cover. Rad organ solo and vocals for the win. The brass sounds quite good. I wish the first half had more personalization, but the second half seals the deal. I wish the drums didn't sound so rigid and quantized. The drums and the bass are verbatim to the source material, which is disappointing. Still, let's do this.
YES
-
I must agree with my fellow Js entirely. What you've got here sounds great! But it's too sparse and slow/dreamy with not enough interest or development to support a five minute arrangement. The drum groove never changes, neither do the background chords, and the bell motif is super simple. I'd love to hear this again with the drums having some variance and maybe some fills, and some countermelodic elements or arps or other elements of interest added as the arrangement moves along. This is a great start but not enough substance to stand as an OCR remix.
NO (resubmit)
-
I absolutely adore Michael's other experimental or "musique concrete" submissions, but this one, I just don't know. Maybe I'm just not getting what's being done here, but it sounds very messy to me and not in a good way. The timbres sound very vanilla and the heavy compression/distortion just makes them sound crushed and broken rather than stylistic. I'm also having trouble hearing enough source; I would need to do a timestamp to make sure there's enough. But my impression of this is that it is jarring rather than entertaining. I'll be very interested to see what other judges think.
NO
-
I agree with Joel that, compared to the rich soundscape of the intro, the soundscape becomes almost jarringly thin when the first metal section arrives. But wow, I really like the meshing of the various styles. I disagree that this makes the mix non-cohesive; the theme continues seamlessly throughout the track and the style changes are welcome surprises. While I wish the mixing was a little more consistent throughout, I don't find it to be a dealbreaker. There is so much here to like and I'd like to see it on the front page.
YES
*NO* Donkey Kong Country 2 & Donkey Kong 64 "Bavarian Kackle"
in Judges Decisions
Posted · Edited by Chimpazilla
Oh... gosh. Can we argue that there IS in fact enough polka in the world? Regardless, what an interesting and creative way to approach a remix, it's cute and upbeat. The arrangement is quite well crafted. The instruments sound incredibly dry and fake, which considering the silliness of this arrangement, may actually be ok. The drums are super simple and robotic, which I find distracting. Source is a problem for me. This remix might be lousy with source and I'm just not hearing it clearly (other than the obvious five-note patterns and flourishes) due to the change from minor to major. That change is massive and for me eliminates all connection to the source tune, even if the writing has been preserved almost verbatim (which I'm not sure of). I'm leaning towards a NO primarily for the overly-dry/fake instrumentation and robotic drums. I won't judge based on source until I see a couple other Js chime in.
edit 11-2-21: I'm revisiting this many months later. I still find this mix incredibly charming and silly. Reading through the other votes, I agree that the drums are on the loud side, as well as being simple and static as I previously mentioned, but the loudness does not seem like an issue to me. The simple, static drum groove does in fact go with this style. This track may not be everyone's cup of tea, as this split vote indicates, but I'm feeling like "it is what it is" and the creativity is winning the day for me. I didn't expect this to be my ultimate vote, but here it is:
YES