zircon
-
Posts
8,297 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
17
Content Type
Articles
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by zircon
-
-
I have to agree with Larry here on the arrangement - EXCELLENT job, though I think it may have been a little too soft generally. The production overall could have been a little better too - encoding higher with VBR, for instance, and judiciously altering levels to make it more audible at points would have helped. But really, nothing was blaringly wrong in that department, and the arrangement MORE than makes up for it.
YES
-
Ergh, So Deep is one of the hardest songs on that game, so I'm very familiar with it. Unfortunately, this mix has a lot of problems, most of them being technical in nature. The sound is basically near-clipping the entire time, with unbelievable overcompression. Terribly muddy the whole way through, way too much reverb, etc. EVERYTHING, without exception is really cluttered and messy. Please go back and completely remaster/remix this. The actual sounds used aren't too bad - the percussion, while generic, sounds decent, and the synth patches are nice. However, the production values otherwise are just abysmal, and I can't pass it based on that.
The arrangement, in surprising contrast to the execution, is pretty good. So Deep is not a long song, but this mix managed to extend it without resorting to traditional dance/trance bridges every time. I like what was done in this department.
So, good arrangement, bad production. It could be worse; the other way around is usually much harder to fix. Check the remixing forum for some help on mastering.
NO
-
Larry had asked me to listen to this a few nights ago, and I definitely agree with him and Vig. I listened to both the remix and the original over and over, but I really only heard a tenuous connection at best. That's the only problem I have with the mix, though.
NO
-
On my headphones, I am definitely hearing some clipping at a few points: 1:00 and 1:02 for instance, as well as around 1:50-2:00. I can list more times too, though it's particularly noticeable at those. It did stick out at me, and detracts from the song. In terms of other production values, things sound good to me. Just drop the volume on your samples or don't compress/normalize at the end.
(edit: I actually thought this was live when I wrote the below paragraph, but even though it isn't, I think that the following comments still would apply)
The performance is passable here, but I think it could be a lot better. In the 'intro' of the arrangement, I was hoping to hear a lot of dynamics in volume/articulation/tempo, but there isn't that much of that in the piece. What makes really great piano pieces and performances so great is that they are FILLED with dramatic swells, tempo changes, modulation, etc. If you plan on re-recording this, DON'T be afraid to exaggerate. If you have to do a huge swell from pp to ff and slow down the tempo drastically, do it! You'll rarely hear a memorable or emotional piano performance where the piano player doesn't change his or her touch at any point. At the very least, work on a more resolute ending. Rather than just repeating the motif and hastily hitting one last chord, really build into it. Maybe have a ritard and decrescendo right before the last few measures, then go nuts and really make us HEAR that the piece is over. Have fun with it!
From a purely arrangement perspective, this is good. You expand on the original theme while using some of your own material. A more complex left hand arrangement wouldn't have hurt, and maybe a few bridge sections to ease the tension, but arrangement is secondary to me in this mix compared to the performance.
NO for now. Fix the clipping, tweak the arrangement, resequence or get a live recording, then resubmit. I like what I hear so far.
-
Definitely a mixed bag. One thing that annoyed me right off the bat was the right-panned pulse synth. I'm sure it's not so bad on speakers, but on headphones, it's very annoying - sounds like it's almost clipping, in fact, maybe because of all the resonance. Please ditch that. Anyway, it picks up once the drums come in, which are REALLY groovy - reminiscent of tefnek's drumlines, except with more of a house feel. The rhodes/string parts do also kick a lot of ass, as DS mentioned, and I'd love to see more of them. I don't know why there is so much repetition of the groove, though. At least throw in some variations of the synthlines or put some rhodes/string stuff in the background rather than just repeat the pulse/drums/bass over and over. Transition to item room is pretty abrupt too - smoothing that out with a reverse cymbal or a breakdown would help. During the rest of the item room section, I would, again, prefer more interesting stuff than just repetition of similar drum/synth lines.
A few more positives: the production values, such as the synth design, electro-drum breaks, and automated processing are all outstanding. A lot of what you have now doesn't need to be changed, timbre-wise, except for the pulse (but that might just be me).
The arrangement really sort of just burns out at the end. Why? There are some truly excellent parts earlier on, such as the processing breakdowns and the 70s style rhodes/strings sections, but in the end, it doesn't even go anywhere. At least a repetition of that combo pattern you used several times would have done. This is pretty cool stuff that I would like to see slightly reworked, polished, and tweaked. The main issues: excessive repetition of the simplistic passages (rather than the interesting ones at least), the right-panned pulse, the unfulfilling ending.
NO - resubmit!
-
I don't have much to add on what Larry said. Arrangement is pretty weak overall, though it was a good first attempt. The syncopation of the guitar for the first part of the mix also sounds very strange, though the problem is fixed later. Harmony and melody notes seem to clash at various points too, oof. In terms of execution, the samples and synths are all sub-par. Hit the remixing forum and start looking around for some better sounds there - you'll also find several threads that will help you with your synth work. The percussion isn't as bad as the other parts, but it's fairly dry. Process it more with effects such as reverb, and use the equalizer (sparingly) to make hihats/shakers brighter or bass drums deeper. As it is, the different sounds become muddy when played together.
NO - keep practicing.
-
Wow. This vocal performance is easily on par with ones I've heard on Broadway. Flawless, as far as I'm concerned - though I think I hear just a little bit of clipping at times. However, I don't think they carry the whole mix, the rest of which is not so good. Having just listened to the source tune several times, I can confidently say that this arrangement is way too close. In fact, unfortunately, this mix even takes AWAY from the arrangement of the original, removing the sweeping string parts that make it emotional and dramatic. As it stands, it's simply a more minimal version of the original (though of course the vocals are outstanding), with Aeris' theme tossed in for no reason. Execution could be way better too: I would advise that you go to hammersound.net and pick up more soundfonts and make use of layering/high end EQ in order to give your samples, mainly the strings, a brighter and more realistic sound. The woodwinds, horns, and percussion aren't all that hot either, but they get the job done. I think maybe having some original vocals or at least some soft "oohs" or "ahhs" in the bare instrumental sections might have helped. But even if you did have the best Gigasamples in the world, it wouldn't help given your current arrangement and structure.
To recap: the vocals are AMAZING. No changes needed there. Everything else needs a lot of work. The arrangement is really not much more than a simplistic version of the original played with lo-fi samples (and there ARE lots of ways to get free stuff to sound better). No structure, no interepretation..
NO
-
SpaceDrake: give the arrangement another shot. I initially agreed wtih you, expecting a big finale - but I've come to really enjoy what Ty did with structure of the mix. It's very original.
-
http://www.zophar.net/gym/sitdark.rar - "Dangeon BGM 1"
I'm liking the arrangement here - good variations (particularly the rhythmic ones, like on the melody), solid original/improv stuff. I have no problem with that part. The overall performance (eg. the playing) sounds good to me, but I'm not sure about the production. The guitar might be mixed just a little bit too loud, because you can't hear that much else going on - also, the rapidfire bass drum hits reveal some ridiculous compression going on. Some of the percussive samples, like the opening tambourines, are kinda lofi or at least they don't sound as sharp as the guitar.
I'm a little borderline on this one because I think some of the production values could be better - also, something about the guitar recording just sounds kind of weird compared to the quality of the rest of the mix. It's a bit disconcerting, to be honest, but I can't quite place my finger on what's causing it.
On the other hand, all things considered, this is a fun remix that has a more interpretive arrangement than most guitar remixes we get. I couldn't ask for much more in terms of performance either, and outside of the production issues I noted, the overall execution is good too. So..
YES
-
oof, yes. Please, focus on really giving the piece your own interpretation and unique arrangement. There's a lot of great material to use. As it stands (which is not surprising based on what you said), it's quite plain and boring. Low quality samples, no real structural focus, poor processing, bad EQing/mixing.. just keep trying.
NO
-
Yeah, this is unnecessarily quiet. I'll agree with Vig that the tempo sync at the beginning of the song is sloppy, but it doesn't throw off the whole song. What I do think hurts right from the beginning is the mechanical piano sequencing. The sample itself doesn't sound too bad, but the way it is sequenced makes it sound obviously fake. The same goes for some of the other instruments (such as the flute), but the bells, vibes, and sax sound good. Try messing with velocities more, sample layering, and reverb/delay to make the instruments more realistic. I think volume levels could be tweaked too - often times, the melody is the same volume as everything else, when it should be taking the front stage. Finally, the drums could be better too - the patterns are generally good, but the drums themselves sound pretty GM-ish, though that might be because of the lack of humanization/processing.
Arrangement is great, no question about that, but more work on the production and execution is needed.
NO
-
Ouch. Ultra low-fidelity sounds here.. very mechanical, no groove at all. Synths are not dynamic, nor is the percussion. Everything sounds very electronic and deliberate, and not in a good way either. Not to mention the arrangement, which is extremely close to the original in both notation and style/structure. If you're going to approach a simple source tune in this fashion, I would suggest focusing more of your time on designing interesting synth sounds and solid drum grooves. Add in automation for different effects - filtering, phasing, flanging, distortion, even panning. Add drum fills, add more harmony, add more variation and original material to fill up the 'empty space' in the mix. Provided you have a VST compatible sequencer (which you can now get for free.. see the "Free Traktion Liscence" thread in the Remixing forum), you can visit kvr-vst.com to begin beefing up your sounds.
NO
-
note: I haven't heard the original version, nor have I read the thread (I will after I finish my vote, though).
I'm really liking the mood here. There's a distinct Elfman style going on, reminiscent of the type of orchestral work Tyler Heath (Unknown) does. Really, GREAT job on the instrumentation and production here. There is a very clean and clear sound throughout with top-notch mixing, well-processed drums, and great samples. Good work on the drum variations, the automated effects, etc. Excellent sequencing, nice subtle harmony stuff too. I seriously can't emphasize this part enough: this is very cool!
Unfortunately, and it KILLS me to say this, the arrangement itself needs a little more work. If you could just expand the mix (maybe add about a minute more of material total) by adding some original sections, more variations on the initial theme, maybe extending the buildup to the fantastic climax and extending the climax itself, this would very easily earn a yes from me. Please resubmit - this is extremely good stuff, one of the most enjoyable and unique mixes I've heard for a long time, and I'd love to see it on this site!!
NO
-
Ok.. when this ended, I was left thinking, "where's the rest of the mix?" There's a LOT of buildup going on up until 1:20, but even that semi-dramatic section becomes calm again at 1:42. Afterwords, there is more buildup followed by an abrupt dying-down of the sound into a completely unfulfilling ending. It seems like you know a thing or two about the structure of an orchestral mix, so why did you stop? Not to mention there is not all that much rearrangement going on in what you have now, which is not good at all considering the length of the piece. The source tune may not be complex, but based on what I've heard of your other material, I'm confident you can do better.
There are some problems production-wise too. Like Vig said, WAY too much reverb. Tone that down, particularly for the lower-register instruments, where it tends to muck up the sound more. Also, the panning of the strings is distractingly random, zipping from ear to ear for no apparently reason. Finally, the dynamic levels of the different instruments are messy - the choir is almost inaudible, as is the flute, but the bass strings are extremely loud. The booming timpani is always present, but when the horns have the melody midway through the piece, they're not given much attention. What's up with that? Refine and resubmit.
NO
-
Sounds like there are some interesting ideas here, but I'm with Larry in terms of the structure of the mix. I expected the mix to progress more in terms of overall dynamics, or at least change tempo or key. Though what you have now isn't bad, it needs something to keep the listener interested; some sort of climax or motif. Instead, the same group of instruments play with eachother throughout and no others are introduced. This is not so much of an arrangement issue than a structural issue, again: I think you have a good handle on what it means to make your own interpretation of a theme. Now, try building on what you have by adding other instruments, creating bigger chords, implementing swells in volume, changing tempo/key/rhythms, adding percussion, etc.
To quickly touch on production, it seems like you are using free samples, which are by no means easy to work with if you want to make a purely orchestral ReMix. From my own experiences, I would suggest making use of constant velocity changes, volume automation, layering (ie. two violin soundfonts playing the same notes to create a new, richer texture) and less quantized sequencing - eg. making the solo instruments sound more realistic by slightly offsetting the rhythms of the different notes.
There's definitely some potential here. Keep at it!
NO
-
I'm liking the acoustic guitar here, but that initial piano sample.. oof. Some reverb/delay to give the "dream piano" effect would really help - same with the background choir, which sounds fairly dry as well. However, the panning piano-style sample that comes in is much better. Once the electric guitar section begins, the mix really picks up. Drums sound good to me, and the guitar recording/playing is clean. Great variation and improv work. I'll agree with Dan that the transition to the metal section isn't that fluid, but I think the other aspects of the rest of the mix make up for it.
It would be nice to have a version with more spatial processing on the opening piano, choir, and maybe the drums, as well as tighter transitions, but I believe this passes our guidelines. YES
-
-
One thing I'd like to comment on first: try encoding with VBR next time. This IS a long song, but with the latest LAME and the right VBR setup, you should be able to conserve space without sacrificing a lot of sound quality.
Anyway, this is a pretty liberal arrangement. I didn't recognize it at all until 1:14, and even then, it's not that recognizable (sounds more 'inspired by' the source). In fact, it's only at 2:17 that you can start to be sure its an arrangement and not an original piece. I do like some of the individual ideas used - such as the panning synths, the atmospheric pads, and the ethnic percussion. However, production is a big issue here. It might be just the poor encoding, but everything sounds VERY lo-fi. Nearly half of the frequency spectrum is completely inactive on my Winamp equalizer for the first half of the song! I can hear some cool sounds being used, but they're too muffled to be enjoyable. Please try to remedy this somehow. While you're at it, you might want to decrease the volume of that FM bass-ish synth, because as it is, its very muddy.
About halfway through, when the percussion picks up with the guitar-ish synth, things get a lot better. There is more of a 'flow' or groove, and the original sections and variations make a lot more sense. Though, the big booming drum hits near the end sort of take away from the ambiance, and the very dry, mechanical piano doesn't help either. Check the remixing forum and see if you can't pick up some better piano samples (and string samples too, actually).
Overall, I have mixed feelings on this one. The first half is lackluster and without focus, bearing little resemblance to the source tune, and introducing no interesting ideas. Also, the mixing in the first half isn't so hot either. However, the second half is a vast improvement, with a more engaging and exciting arrangement. With some polish on the production end of things (better encoding, tweaked volume levels, a few sample upgrades) and a revised arrangement for the first half of the mix, I would YES this. Until then-
NO, but please resubmit.
-
I like the vocal work here. The clean recording and processing is what impressed me most, but the texture of the vocals and their rhythm are also good. The overall production isn't quite as good - the piano sample is REALLY poor, for instance. Please find a better sample, there are definitely free ones far better than the one you are using! The whistle instrument playing Protoman's theme could probably be brought out a little bit more too, or at least changed to something else to be more interesting. The drum sequencing is good, and I like the rhythm; not a big fan of the phasing stuff though, nor the low-pitch snare.
However, production is not the problem here. I think the arrangement is simply not interpretive enough. There's not much going on at all besides the vocals and drums: additional layering, changes in instrumentation, tempo changes, or key changes would certainly spice things up. If that's not your particular style, that's cool too. Aside from a few technical issues, I think this is a good rap mix. Nonetheless, you need to go that extra step with arrangement for this site.
NO
-
Unfortunately, I don't have much more to say here. Great recording, great production, excellent technique, but sticks too close to the source tune for our guidelines. Nonetheless, cool stuff which I'll be keeping.
NO
-
Arkanoid mixes are always hard to pull off, mainly because the original is so simplistic. However, I think Infamous did a better-than-average job with this one. I like the overall production values: mastering, effects, volume levels, drumwork, and so forth. A few of the synths, particularly the one playing the arpeggio pattern, do get a little old after awhile, but that's not a big deal. My main problem here is that there is not much of a 'focus' in the arrangement. It's clearly an Arkanoid mix, and it's got improvisation and variations, but I feel like it isn't going anywhere. There is no strong melody line anywhere - eg. all the parts seem to blend together with no emphasis on any one pattern. According to Larry, there was an older version of this where this problem was not as bad (or not a problem at all), so perhaps resubmitting with that might be a good idea.
It IS an enjoyable mix, and I think it's very close to passing our guidelines, but my vote is a NO for now.
-
I'm with Larry here that there is nothing too special about this mix. Drums, instruments, and synths all get the job done, but aren't really engaging in any way. The arrangement is solid, of course (I would hope it would be considering the simplicity of the original). Though the synthwork becomes more interesting later with automation and various subtle effects, the drums continue to be fairly low-fi and poorly sequenced (aside from the drills, which are always fun). I'd say this is really close, but it needs just a little more tweaking: mess around with the melody instruments and synths more to make them more interesting and prominent, introduce some of your arrangement ideas earlier on (as up until 1:14 the mix is relatively boring), and change the drumline so its more of a groove.
NO, but please resubmit. Just a few changes would get a yes from me.
-
Interesting.. I didn't think a remix could be created out of such a small amount of source material. But right off the bat, that synth/instrument has way too much resonance. It's sort of piercing. As it goes on, I think some of the harmony notes are off in the background, and the synth/instrument textures are quite dull - for instance, the panning synth at 1:14. Phasing/flanging is irritating in this case. The drums are also pretty boring for the most part. I think if you want to go for a breakbeat style, you need to be more creative with the drum sequencing, and use more processing - throw in some filter stuff, ring modulation, auto-filtering, etc.
There ARE variations and original sections here, but they aren't all that interesting. They don't feel "connected" to the original - not that you can't do that, but generally it's a good idea to, especially when there is very little source material to go off of. There's not much structure to speak of either, with parts coming in and out at various times. Basically, this mix just needs more work in every area - but start with beefing up your sounds, particularly the guitar and drums.
NO
-
Well, the simple way to "play" a synth or generator backwards would just be to write the note or pattern you want, export that as a WAV, and import it back to the project and reverse it.
*NO* Final Fantasy 'Prelude' (aka I didn't name my mix)
in Judges Decisions
Posted
Offhand, ouch @ that mechanized piano. It sounds really unnatural, but what makes it worse is that it's by itself for awhile, revealing how minimal the mix is. The other parts simply come in without warning, with no effort towards a transition. Sounds are bordering on GM quality.. there are easily better free soundfonts out there, so there's no excuse. The loud acoustic drums playing a downtempo rock pattern doesn't work for me either. If you're going for a Kaijin-style ballad (which this sort of reminds me of), you probably don't want drums that are louder than everything else, and that don't sound all that great to begin with. Finally, there's a cop-out, poorly-done ending. Put more effort into your arrangement and improve your sounds (Remixing forum for more info), and you'll be heading in the right direction.
NO