pixelseph Judges ⚖️
-
Posts
224 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
11
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
8Tracks
Events
Blogs
Posts posted by pixelseph
-
-
YOU HAVE UUUUUUNOOOOO I mean hell yeah I’ll sub one for this
-
3 minutes ago, CosmicBartender said:
I'm a specialist in one particular field but if that speciality is needed I'd be happy to provide.
Absolutely it will be needed ❤️
-
I’m in! Happy to be on either team 🤘🤘🤘
-
This is a solid start! Too much repetition across the runtime, and not enough personalization by far, to meet our criteria, though. proph hit all the same points I was going to make; there's plenty of room for more exploration in here - changing the backing under the solo, adding an original bridge to tie some sections together - that would help make up ground.
Seconded on the #workshop channel feedback (direct link to the OCR discord) - it's invaluable for getting ears on your track and feedback making any adjustments you'd like! I'd be happy to give this another listen if it comes back on the panel with some fresh changes, but unfortunately it's going to be a
NO (resubmit)
-
No reason to hold this one in suspense more, my fellow Js have identified exactly my thoughts. I don't think the instruments in and of themselves are bad choices, but I do think something is missing that would make them shine more - whether that's with saturation or other effects would be up to Matt. The arrangement overall works, but individual sections feel plain and last too long; as an example, :42 - 1:25 feels like it's said all it needed to say by :53, such that by the time the pitch ramp comes @ 1:14, I'm pretty fatigued by the repetition instead of enjoying the transition. 2:36 - 3:30 is another example - the section has changes inside it, but nothing in those changes feels like a compelling reason to have the section run as long as it does. The big pay-off at 3:30 loses all its steam for me since I was expecting something like it 30 seconds prior.
This isn't too far from passing, it just feels like it's stuck between being a sketch and being fully realized. A tighter focus on managing the low-end and mids as Chimpa suggested, as well as tightening up the arrangement, would get this over the line for me.
NO (resubmit)
-
Two sources that don't have a lot of melodic content - can definitely see why this is presenting source problems with my fellow judges. The piece isn't doing itself any favors by saving the most straightforward quotes of the source until the very end of the piece (the bassline rhythmic structure from Howling Gears being used only on the outro, for example).
In times where a source has too simplistic a melody, or its defining features are in other facets of the piece (rhythmic structure, sound design, etc), it becomes much harder to nail down the tie between the remix and the source. And the spirit of Rule 3, as jnWake outlined above, is to make that distinction as clear as possible for the audience. On the panel, we're then tasked to ask, "when I listen to this section, am I making a connection to the source somehow?"
Anyway, that's my preamble, onto the vote.
It's a rare (and welcome!) vote on a VQ track where I don't have qualms with the production. There is some mud in the low-mids when all the layers start to coalesce (1:51 - 2:30, 3:50 - 4:25, 5:11 - 6:00), but it's not pulling me out of enjoying the track, so I'll live. I also agree with jnWake that the arrangement flows nicely - it certainly takes its time with basically a 2-minute slow burn intro, but the transitions between sections are excellent and the writing straddles the line between enough variance to feel developed and enough repetition to feel cohesive.
The biggest problem the track has is source usage, as my fellow Js have noted. Both source tracks have a similar challenge to overcome from a remixing perspective, in that their actual melodic content is sparse to my ear. Howling Gears A has a single actual melodic phrase that I can pinpoint - the diminished leap in the synth. VQ's changed the interval to be something more palatable in the soundscape, but in doing so, I think it changes the character of the phrase enough that it's no longer easy to connect it back to Howling Gears. The arpeggiated runs in Howling Gears B are more clearly delineable, and they're woven in better. That leaves basically the rhythmic structure (the groove), not the notes, of the bassline, guitars, and drums to draw from in Howling Gears. Nidavellir's Shout has the portamento synth line as a melodic figure, as well as the even more melodic melody @ :26 in the source and B section melody @ :48.
To my ear, the first 2:30 minutes of the piece is Howling Gears B (the modified arpeggio is the biggest tie, and even that feels tenuous to me), with the guitar coming in with the altered Howling Gears A melody around 1:12. If I am really listening for it, I can hear the Latin groove of the source's bassline at 1:50, but again, it's tenuous. 2:50 - 3:09 is much easier to identify as Nidavellir's Shout from the melody; I can't count the ostinato as the chord it outlines is not unique enough to Nidavellir's Shout. 3:10 - 4:27 comes back to Howling Gears B with the melody front and center in the guitar, and 4:32 - 5:11 returns us back to that modified Howling Gears A. 5:12 - 5:50 has no connective tissue that I can identify, and then we get the groove of the source bassline in the bass from 5:50 - 6:10.
Timestamping gives me 233 seconds out of 376, or ~62% source if I include the tenuous spots, ~51% source if I don't (194 seconds out of 376).
What it's coming down to, for me, is that I have to strain to hear the sources in this piece when our standards ask for very clear and identifiable - dominant, even! - source use. I think this is arranged and produced well, but all of the connective tissue just doesn't come through enough for me to pass this one. I would need to hear more clearly defined ties to the source, preferably early on in the track (within the first minute or so).
NO (resubmit)
-
As much as I'd like to see the human involvement in this piece or the other submissions by Craig, it is overshadowed by the audacity of submitting an entire album's worth of generative AI slop and lying about how large a role generative AI played in it. I have no pithy comments to make - my fellow judges summed up my feelings pretty well, and there's no need to belabor the point.
NO. DO NOT resubmit anything using Suno or other such tools again and lie about it.
-
As much as I'd like to see the human involvement in this piece or the other submissions by Craig, it is overshadowed by the audacity of submitting an entire album's worth of generative AI slop and lying about how large a role generative AI played in it. I have no pithy comments to make - my fellow judges summed up my feelings pretty well, and there's no need to belabor the point.
NO. DO NOT resubmit anything using Suno or other such tools again and lie about it.
-
As much as I'd like to see the human involvement in this piece or the other submissions by Craig, it is overshadowed by the audacity of submitting an entire album's worth of generative AI slop and lying about how large a role generative AI played in it. I have no pithy comments to make - my fellow judges summed up my feelings pretty well, and there's no need to belabor the point.
NO. DO NOT resubmit anything using Suno or other such tools again and lie about it.
-
As much as I'd like to see the human involvement in this piece or the other submissions by Craig, it is overshadowed by the audacity of submitting an entire album's worth of generative AI slop and lying about how large a role generative AI played in it. I have no pithy comments to make - my fellow judges summed up my feelings pretty well, and there's no need to belabor the point.
NO. DO NOT resubmit anything using Suno or other such tools again and lie about it.
-
As much as I'd like to see the human involvement in this piece or the other submissions by Craig, it is overshadowed by the audacity of submitting an entire album's worth of generative AI slop and lying about how large a role generative AI played in it. I have no pithy comments to make - my fellow judges summed up my feelings pretty well, and there's no need to belabor the point.
NO. DO NOT resubmit anything using Suno or other such tools again and lie about it.
-
As much as I'd like to see the human involvement in this piece or the other submissions by Craig, it is overshadowed by the audacity of submitting an entire album's worth of generative AI slop and lying about how large a role generative AI played in it. I have no pithy comments to make - my fellow judges summed up my feelings pretty well, and there's no need to belabor the point.
NO. DO NOT resubmit anything using Suno or other such tools again and lie about it.
-
As much as I'd like to see the human involvement in this piece or the other submissions by Craig, it is overshadowed by the audacity of submitting an entire album's worth of generative AI slop and lying about how large a role generative AI played in it. I have no pithy comments to make - my fellow judges summed up my feelings pretty well, and there's no need to belabor the point.
NO. DO NOT resubmit anything using Suno or other such tools again and lie about it.
-
As much as I'd like to see the human involvement in this piece or the other submissions by Craig, it is overshadowed by the audacity of submitting an entire album's worth of generative AI slop and lying about how large a role generative AI played in it. I have no pithy comments to make - my fellow judges summed up my feelings pretty well, and there's no need to belabor the point.
NO. DO NOT resubmit anything using Suno or other such tools again and lie about it.
-
As much as I'd like to see the human involvement in this piece or the other submissions by Craig, it is overshadowed by the audacity of submitting an entire album's worth of generative AI slop and lying about how large a role generative AI played in it. I have no pithy comments to make - my fellow judges summed up my feelings pretty well, and there's no need to belabor the point.
NO. DO NOT resubmit anything using Suno or other such tools again and lie about it.
-
As much as I'd like to see the human involvement in this piece or the other submissions by Craig, it is overshadowed by the audacity of submitting an entire album's worth of generative AI slop and lying about how large a role generative AI played in it. I have no pithy comments to make - my fellow judges summed up my feelings pretty well, and there's no need to belabor the point.
NO. DO NOT resubmit anything using Suno or other such tools again and lie about it.
-
As much as I'd like to see the human involvement in this piece or the other submissions by Craig, it is overshadowed by the audacity of submitting an entire album's worth of generative AI slop and lying about how large a role generative AI played in it. I have no pithy comments to make - my fellow judges summed up my feelings pretty well, and there's no need to belabor the point.
NO. DO NOT resubmit anything using Suno or other such tools again and lie about it.
-
As much as I'd like to see the human involvement in this piece or the other submissions by Craig, it is overshadowed by the audacity of submitting an entire album's worth of generative AI slop and lying about how large a role generative AI played in it. I have no pithy comments to make - my fellow judges summed up my feelings pretty well, and there's no need to belabor the point.
NO. DO NOT resubmit anything using Suno or other such tools again and lie about it.
-
This one feels like a sketch with potential, not a fully-realized track. The drum programming lacks variation in velocities right from the start, particularly the hats - if the hats are present after the :05 mark, it's impossible to hear them through the fizziness on the reverb from the lead and the phaser on the harmony pad. I also can't hear anything in this track that isn't a 1:1 execution of the source with sample changes and a kick drum pattern added.
There are definitely avenues available to build this into something special! I'm going to echo proph that Section 4.2 of the submission standards outlines the bar we're asking this to be above, as well as the Workshop forums on the site and the #workshop Discord channel to get direct feedback from peers - whether it's ways to improve the arrangement, the composition, the production, or even collaborate!
I'd be happy to give this one another listen if it comes back to the queue, and I'd be looking specifically for:
- adjustments to the composition, whether that's a rearrangement of the source's sections or adding moments of original writing;
- adjustments to the mix, specifically reducing the reverb on both the lead instruments and pad to make room for the rest of the instruments; and
- adjustments to the programming across the board - adding variations to the velocities, durations, and humanization of notes
NO (resubmit)
-
This remix is exactly the kind of thing I love about the VGM community: taking a source and reshaping it without losing its identity. Morphing the 9/8 piano arpeggio into something 4/4 and danceable is the biggest achievement here - any time the remix shifts the source's rhythmic structure, it gets much harder to track the source. As a fellow remixer who toes the line of stretching sources in strange ways, mad respect to Argle for this one!
Using the melody as a hub to return to after trading solos between the instruments works well, though I do agree with proph that there are weak phrases in the piano lead. Specifically, the phrasing on 1:34 and 1:38 sounds awkward given the chord harmony, like the piano and the band aren't in agreement about where the voicings are; 1:29, by contrast, feels natural and smooth.
We don't look for perfect, nor do we judge by potential; what's here is enough above the bar that lead-writing qualms can't bring it down. Can't wait to see this on the front page!
YES
-
Signing off on this one on the same side as my fellow Js here. Leads feel a touch dull across the board, like there's a lack of excitement in the upper-mids, but I also think that what's presented is good enough to get across the bar. Love the varied use of portamento on the harmony synths, especially the intro (:00 - :28) and re-intro (1:09 - 1:23). Doesn't overstay its welcome, either - 2:39 goes a lot faster than I expected on first listen, though it's really more like 2:30 if I discount the fade-out. Still enough for our purposes!
YES
-
It's me, the judge who mentioned the artifacting! The vibrato itself was not what I was referring to, just that you can hear the artifacting clearer during the vibrato compared to the other articulations. That's on me for not being clearer myself! The "digital artifacting" I was referring to was the metallicy, swishy sample-stretching sound that I hear mostly from time-stretched samples in a DAW. It's less grating in this latest mix!
I was a NO on the previous vote for not enough expressive articulations on the lead instruments (flute and horn). This latest mix definitely addressed those concerns, particularly in the latter half of the piece, starting @ 1:44. The blend between horns and flute here is much richer and dynamic. The choir sounds more like a windbed and is more subdued, which works better in this context. I can't tell if that's the celeste @ 2:13 or a harpsichord, but it works great for providing the counterpoint line with the flute and horn.
I'm so glad this came back to the panel, it's definitely better for the 3rd pass on it! Happy to sign off on it, and hopefully see it on the front page soon!
YES
-
This one is a tough vote for me - I also hate this style! :D
Production-wise, I do hear what my fellow Js are saying about everything washed in verb, but I'm going to side with Emu on this being a feature and not a bug. It gets the vibe right where it's supposed to be for the style.
Arrangement-wise, this does a fantastic job of flipping the source into this style; no qualms about that. I have to side with Chimpa on the plodding nature of the piece, specifically because of the hat pattern on the drums. The way they establish the vibe @ :15 is great, bass entering with the slide @ :32 is also great! Bass drops out @ :49, and by the time we get to 1:05 with the guitar solo, I'm already sick of the hat pattern even with the drop. @ 2:10 not dropping the hats here with the rest of the kit is a missed opportunity to break that monotony.
So the question is, is the drum writing here a nitpick, or is it sinking the whole ship? I think it sinks the ship, even though it wouldn't take much to bring it back afloat. I'm not saying y'all need to wildly alter the feel, but it's worth exploring more options inside this vibe - ride cymbal, shaker, tambourine, just something doing a different pattern with a different timbre for some of the piece.
NO
-
It's probably heresy to say this - I'm not super familiar with any Sonic game after Sonic 3, so this source is a wild and catchy newness to me! Some of the backing elements in the source are unpleasantly cronchy to my ear, which I don't hear in this remix - that's a plus from me!
Proph nailed the main points - this mixdown is quiet, and there's a big lack of mixing done on the instruments, even though there's been plenty done on the arrangement and composition side of things. I'm not against reusing the intro as the outro in concept, though I would advocate doing something with the line if it's going to be repeated. Same goes with the repeated use of the radio transition: the first time is reminiscent of the source, the next 4 times it comes off as a lazy copy-paste transition, even though I can hear there's some filter changes to it in subsequent repeats.
For me to sign off on this one, I'd need to hear:
-
a better balance of the drums in the mix - partickuarly audible kick and cymbals (or overhead mics if you have them as a channel)
- the snare I think is fine as it is, having the other pieces brought out would give it better context
- fewer wholesale repeats of the radiowave transition
NO
-
a better balance of the drums in the mix - partickuarly audible kick and cymbals (or overhead mics if you have them as a channel)
*NO* Kirby: Squeak Squad "this is not home resonance"
in Judges Decisions
Posted
Gonna keep this short and sweet. Very interesting treatment of the source, and it's got Lucas's style all over it. I am going to side with my fellow NO judges on this one, unfortunately, even though I think this isn't very far from passable.
I do think there's dissonance in this track that could be cleaned up by not making the detuning so heavy, but the crackling is the biggest offender here. The section starting 1:42 is the biggest offender, and you'll probably find the earlier spot around :50 cleans up when you fix it. I also agree with proph that, as a nitpick, the way the ride cymbal is mixed makes it feel separate from the kit in a bad way - it feels exposed and dry even though it's definitely got verb on it.
Clean that master up when you get a chance and send this right back here!
NO (resubmit)