Rexy
-
Posts
3,550 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
10
Content Type
Articles
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Rexy
-
-
I second Larry's statement on the quietness - it doesn't peak above -7dB. I understand that below -6 is often a requirement for albums, but mixposts here expect you to do the mastering part yourself. Please keep that in mind for the future.
Looking at the arrangement, it's generally straightforward with 3 theme variations and some improvs. However, the range restriction of Josh's saxophone allowed for subtle pitch changes and some simple playing around in the later two theme variations. The setup of just bass, drums, saxophone and Furorezu's rhythm parts fit the surf rock style to a tee, and that makes it a unique take on the original.
However, the execution does have some problematic flaws. Firstly, Josh's saxophone lost its direction during both the improvisations and the third rendition of the theme. I heard timing fell out of place in the first improv and the notation feeling too random in the ending. And then there's the third improv, where 1:47 sounded like he forgot to change his octave in the seconds leading up to it. Tal Tal is not easy to perform on a limited instrument, but it does help to plan the variations ahead of time to minimize slip-ups like this. I feel all 3 of these sections can benefit from a re-record if the original recording can't be spliced up.
Secondly, the saxophone is not only quit in the mix, but its lower frequencies also bleed into the rhythm guitars and detract from its presence. Consider boosting its volume first, then figuring out any EQ changes if necessary.
Breaking away from the saxophone and the low volume, the energy from the drums and rhythm guitars feel static despite the clear rhythmic changeups. Commercial Surf Rock records had used varying techniques to break up this kind of monotony, including drum solos, additional leads (typically organs) and other different rhythm lines. I understand this genre is Furorezu's thing, so it'll be great for him to keep listening to surf rock and watch out for new inspiring ideas.
As it stands, my most significant issues with this submission are with the saxophone's execution and the quiet volume levels. Arrangement-wise, it's an enjoyable idea, but I do encourage Lucas to revisit the mixdown and potentially revisit the backing, and for Josh to go over his saxophone part. If you're up for returning to this track, then I'll be very excited over the direction taken.
NO (resubmit) -
In light of three conditionals, I got in touch with Lucas earlier this week and brought up the piercing frequency. As it turned out, it was on the theremin and he took action on it very quickly. I edited the song link with the new WAV above - not only did he made the EQ cut but he also transposed the theremin down by 2 octaves.
Indeed, the track still sounds gorgeous, no other glaring issues are present, and I'm so glad he co-operated with us. Consider my vote to be full of confidence now!
YES -
I don't need to timestamp this one. If I didn't hear a variation on the source, I heard usage of the Starfox 64 theme or that cheeky 3-second Star Wars cameo.
And variations are indeed aplenty! It starts simple with one variant played straight and another with reliance on sustain, then 0:28 has the first few notes as a transition into the first use of the SF64 theme. 0:49 brought the mood and dynamics in a more beauty-driven direction and set the scene for a victorious feel at 1:15. The ominous tone at 1:43 also broke up the major key prowess in favor of adding tension in the build-up to the right-hand arpeggio and Star Wars cameo. 2:25 reprises the first two variants while setting up for a dynamic finish based on the SF64 theme. It's a meaty sonata, it takes advantage of the 12-second loop, and the differing presentations demonstrate your understanding of the source along with your creative ideas.
Even the piano itself sounds lovely! I'm assuming right now that it's the same piano sample used in your posted Undertale track from last year. If so, then I can see how you worked with it to get the dynamic sound, tone and ambient space in your favor. I'm not too crazy about the mild compression in the louder sections, though. Usually organic instruments are best heard when the input doesn't quite touch the ceiling. Luckily it didn't do any harm to the tone, so I'm not going to fret about it too much.
Still, it's a fantastic arrangement and performance that leaves no BGM note unturned. Nice going there, David - I hope to hear future interpretive ideas as impactful as this one!
YES -
Interestingly, I had a different source breakdown in comparison to Larry:
0:04-0:34 - Clear source representation up until 0:19, and when the string melody dies down the bass from the source continues and the clavinet continues to do the familiar piano part from the A section of the source.
0:42-1:16 - coverage for source's B section. 0:57 has melody pitches being played around while keeping the rhythm. Deducted 4 seconds where the source is absent (the flute trills).
1:16-1:23 - Piano references C section of the source.
1:31-1:46 - Clavinet references C section of the BGM, leading into the e-piano doing the same thing.
2:02-2:05 - Strings reference C section briefly.
2:39-2:41 - Strings reference B section briefly.
2:47-2:51 - Strings reference B section briefly.
3:07-3:29 - The call-and-response between string melodies and flute flourishes return. 3:22 has the e-piano and flute referencing the C section. Again, I deducted 4 seconds of absent BGM.
3:33-3:41 - C section covered straight.Unlike Larry, I couldn't detect anything past the 4-minute mark. I still ended up source-short as well, with 125 seconds (45%). I did consider the bass initially, but that was before I realized the notation is too drastic to consider as straight source use.
Elsewhere, you've got this lovely choice of instruments that all aimed for a playful journey through your unfamiliar genre trek. The improvs are smart, the framework is a clear A-B-A structure despite the musical free-for-all, and the instrumentation is cohesively balanced and full of expression. I also don't hear the same flute shrillness or pop issues. All I saw of the flute in my spectrum analyzer was its tone, and I couldn't hear the pop anyway.
Nevertheless, lightness on the source is the track's biggest problem. Often I recommend artists to look at their original sections and see if they can add more source references. But Larry's idea of covering the bass straight is equally just as neat. Whatever you do to fix the problem, I can get behind this idea.
NO (resubmit) -
It's not often that I hear Nuts add crazy solos to his work as his style is usually a lot more texture-driven. But in a synthwave arrangement like that, it felt like they were a necessity to maintain the high-octane momentum. Combined with his usual great production skills and an excellent choice of synth timbres, it's a well-produced fake-retro track that profoundly demonstrates his presentation chops.
The arrangement relies more on the intro section of the source, but it's the most riff-driven and fitting for the genre. The solos at 0:43 and 2:50 are well expressed and both climax with brisker notation just before switching back to the source melody. The only rendition of the core part of the source is at 1:35, and even then the melody had been playing around with while still maintaining tonal familiarity with the original BGM. It's like a source melody that sounds like an original solo to the untrained ear - it's clever stuff.
Again, no problems with Nuts's work here. Let's see it on the front page ASAP.
YES -
First of all, here's my take on source use. There's an interpretation of the A and B melodies at 0:48-1:29, and again at 1:51-2:55 with some further personalizations. If I deduct 10 seconds of nothing but bongoes, it barely bubbles under 50% source use - but its means of use doesn't affect the quota too much.
It's also an intriguing artistic direction to have a more minimalist soundscape like this. You aimed to capture a more melancholic feel with just having two live instruments and a wind effect. It's a risky decision, but the parts all sound clean and don't have overlapping frequencies. Timings are loose, but they're mostly not so loose that it becomes distracting.
Some things add up to not entirely pushing it over the bar, though. Firstly, I am with Gario and Nuts regarding the performance of the rhythm part and how some notes overlap with each other. It doesn't feel clean or intentional, so consider re-recording it and minimizing this error.
Secondly, I'm okay with the wind effects, but why is there so much boom on them? It feels more like it's rubbing into the microphone, which gives out an unpleasant feeling. Recorded ambiance like this can benefit a lot from a high pass, rolling out the bass frequencies and adding clarity to your outdoor folk feel.
And this thought is more of a personal taste thing, but I also feel the soundscape can get thickened up without compromising your minimal vision. I can see one idea where there are either multiple takes of the same instrument or some use of delay to get the feeling of a fuller sound. I can also see another idea where there's subtle stereo reverb on both of those instruments for a sense of larger performance space. I can see both of these ideas lifting the track's soundscape, but it's up to you in deciding whether they go against your vision or not.
Nevertheless, I'm all for a re-recording on that rhythm part for added clarity. The other production issue(s) are a close second, and any potential new source additions are a non-issue or distant third depending on how you look at it. It's a unique take, and you should be proud of it, but I feel it needs more polish before it gets posted. Please revise it and send it back.
NO (resubmit) -
You got a solid and nice-sounding groove with some smart envelope work on your dubstep bass. Not a lot of sounds are present outside of the sampled VGM, but nothing's clashing with anything, so it doesn't matter.
However, this track was close to a No Override decision - but there is some non-sampled interpretation that saved it. There's melody presence in the dubstep bass (1:12-1:31, 2:57-3:16) and in the backing synth at 3:35-3:58, where the melody went into double-time as the track's tempo dipped. Despite all this, there's less than 25% of non-sampled source and by far marks the biggest dealbreaker.
Still, it'll be cool if you send over any future works with a more substantial arrangement. You have the potential to do a dubstep track that doesn't have sampling at all or at least keeps it to a minimum. Please, keep at it.
NO -
You know you've done well with the production when it made me get up and dance! The focus on sibilance is an interesting stylistic choice as EDM tracks aren't usually treble-heavy, but I can hear all the parts cleanly. The backing is merely the bass and some effects, but the synth melody layering sounded like they took the purpose of a pad or rhythm part and went full ham. I also sensed gates, pitch shifts, subtle use of LFOs, delicate sweeps, and bit-crushing in the background - all used tastefully to create an engaging soundscape.
The arrangement is also fun - focusing heavier on subtractive writing with plenty of changeups throughout. The A section at 0:35 got adapted to these trance chord progressions with the melody turning straight at 0:57, so I don't see the melody's use here as outstaying its welcome. There are other sections like 1:32, 1:47 and 2:31 that also played around with the rhythm of the melody while still keeping the tone. In combination with the smart production and well-paced framework, it adds to a potent composition throughout. I too also noticed the sloppy placement of the E section at 2:15, when the execution was much tighter at 4:04. It's the only dampener of the arrangement, but not so rough it would dampen my vote.
And I must also say the Game Over jingle at the end is a cute idea. Are you telling me the stage is brutally tricky even for seasoned retro gamers?
I enjoyed this submission a lot - fun take on a more complicated source, and that soundscape is impressive. The little timing hiccup and my questioning on the sibilance-heavy mixdown are way too minor for me to see it as anything but a lively, personalized arrangement. Great going, Jari!
YES -
Well, this track certainly surprised me. Going by the length, I almost thought this would be a straight cover - but the original writing at 0:56 caught me off-guard! Your synth lead has subtle uses of glides and modulation, the bit-crushed sweep at 2:03 is a nice touch, and the source is dominant despite it only being in the bookends.
But some issues are holding it back and here's what stood out for me.
First and foremost, the source sections (0:00-0:56, 2:07-2:49) are way too straightforward and follow the A and C sections note-for-note. There's nothing wrong with conservative arranging, but when there's nothing new underneath them, it makes them a tough sell. New parts can come in the form of a countermelody, new rhythm sounds, and any new pads if you're bold enough. Even your pre-existing backing can get changed up while still leaving the melody and chord structure intact.
Secondly, the soundscape feels thin - especially when the source is present. In those sections, the frequencies here mostly occupy the low-mid range with only higher-pitch percussion filling any frequency higher than 1kHz. It does improve during your big original part at 0:56 with the synth solo and the choice of pads, but it's not even around for more than half of the entire track. Nevertheless, picking instrumentation to fill out these empty spaces also goes hand-in-hand with the subtractive arranging changes I mentioned earlier.
Going over the master as well, it feels too quiet. Technically it does peak close to 0dB, but if you mute the kicks, this value won't go any higher than -6dB. To make the kick sound more consistent with the rest of the instrumentation, I can see a few ways of remedying it. One idea is to apply a sidechain and let the kick soften up the piano and pads when triggered. Another approach is to find the kick's tonal frequency and place an EQ cut on the bass at that value. Even something as straightforward as applying a high-pass onto your non-bass instruments can roll off any unwanted boom. Consider looking into these techniques and seeing how you can use them into your work going forward.
Also, the white noise at 0:42 sounds like it doesn't belong here. I'm not sure why it's there despite no live instruments. If it ever pops up in a future track, either re-render it or apply high-frequency EQ cuts on the offending part.
It's not a bad idea, and you got the grasp of the arrangement part. If this ever gets reworked and sent back to the inbox, I'd like to hear it with a more refined source interpretation and resolutions to the production flaws. I'm assuming this is your first sub, so well done on making it to the Judges. Let's see you (hopefully) take it one step further next time around.
NO -
Oh, sweet; I was there at the MAGFest 2018 live panel that planted the seeds for this mix! It's so awesome to hear it in a finished form!
Excitement over, the production immediately strikes out as well defined. I sensed crispy drums, clever side-chaining, a balance focusing more on wetness, a meaty synth palette swapping and changing whenever, and many different filters and gates. They all work well together and add a large amount of fun to the overall experience.
The arrangement starts straightforward with one rendition of the theme, but the breakdown at 2:00 with the new rhythm polysynths adds a side of energy that wasn't even present in the original. The bass writing throughout had given it a substantial lift as well and made it feel like the track went through multiple EDM sub-genre changes in the space of its nearly-4-minute length. Of course, I wasn't too keen on the abrupt ending - it just ended right at the end of the second run-through, with no other fanfare. It isn't a dealbreaker as it hit a lot of right notes elsewhere.
If I based my assessment on the initially submitted track, I would've also gone conditional based on the ending's abrupt cut-off. However, Andrew co-operated and sent over a new render that fixed the issue. Combined with the production chops and subtle care to a subtractive arrangement, I feel confident in seeing this on the front page for sure!
YES
-
That choice of instruments makes me think more in the direction of George Harrison rather than The Doors, but I can still identify the chill 60s vibe here. That source is present from start to finish, going beyond being played straight with a smart interpretation typical of the style. It's been played at half-time during the intro, demonstrated a funk-like swagger at 1:07, and appeared on the bass in a modified form (most evident from 2:00). Even the framework is robust, with the fleshed-out section B segments at 0:40 and 2:53 anchoring it with your Asian instrumentation. I have no faults with interpretation - it's there and tastefully done.
The production, for the most part, sounds great too. Stemage and ImAFutureGuitarHero did a fantastic job with recording those live parts, the balance is near-flawless, and the sitar/tabla both feel authentic even though they're VSTs. But I am however in MindWanderer's frame of mind regarding that odd high-pitched sound that crept around the track. Is it a synth sweep? Is it a pulsing synth string? I'm not too sure what it is, but it overpowered the high-frequency band (10k onwards) to the point of piercing the soundscape. If it's on an instrument that otherwise has body below the 10k mark, consider adding a low pass to filter it out. Otherwise, I feel it'll be more comfortable to listen to if the instrument gets muted altogether.
I don't see any issues otherwise, so looking into this odd choice of frequency would only take 5 minutes at best to fix. The arrangement is chill, the performers are on point, and the production values are serviceable otherwise. I see no reason as to why it can't make it onto the front page after the problem's resolution.
YES (conditional on removing distracting high frequency)
-
As always Pieter, your improvisations are beautiful. You have a way of making your original writing work well with the source interpretation, and despite the fixed tempo, you kept your performance as tight and human-like as possible. I can never take anything like that or your trademark piano patch's tone way from you.
I had to think carefully regarding source use, though - particularly in the first 2 minutes. On the one hand, you have the source's rhythm on the left hand, as highlighted in the timestamps. On the other hand, the right hand's original motifs de-emphasize the source presence since its introduction at 0:52. The rest of the timestamp remains on point, and I find it interesting that the melody A section of the source at 4:33 is more faithful to the melody rather than the rhythm.
However, if I cut the BGM presence in the intro down to 52 seconds rather than the stated 127, I see the source content at 40% rather than your estimated 45%. Seriously, I love your improvisational skills, but it's one of those cases where source use needed more emphasis or playing around via the melody lines. One way you can fix this in a resub or future tracks is to add more BGM content into your improvs. Another way is to cut down the length of your improv sections, letting BGM content elsewhere stand out more. You've nailed that balance before, and I know you can do it again.
That makes my production critique rather minor in comparison. I honestly thought the track is okay enough as a piano solo, rather than adding subtle strings and hand percussion. Both instruments appear at 0:26, but the strings disappear at 0:51 and re-surfaces at 3:44 for nearly 30 seconds, meanwhile the hand percussion leaves after the 3-minute mark. I honestly don't think they add to the larger picture, but I also don't believe they are dealbreakers in comparison to the arrangement.
Again, I am very grateful that you sent a timestamp with your submission, Pieter - it's enlightening to hear your intent. As it stands though, I don't think you emphasized source use enough - and I'd like to see this track back in the inbox with this issue fixed. You did the bravest part already with the initial submission, so I do hope revising the arrangement will be a cakewalk for you.
NO (resubmit) -
You know, I'm with MindWander on this one. For the past few years, I've seen you as the guy who is more keen to experiment with different types of electronic music, not necessarily synthwave. This track is no different - it crosses the thin line between the mellower material of Kraftwerk and the overall bounce that has been a staple of your music. The lo-fi effects and subtle pitch-shifts are intriguing, the parts all have their own unique identity, and the textures here feel thick and loaded - even when the gas is eased off at 1:41. Consider yourself proud of the presentation - it's no small feat!
Even the source material got handled very tastefully. Structure-wise, it's one run-through of the source but with a whole bunch of modifications. The backing melody's irregular syncopation from 0:48, the little melody flourishes in the first half (0:36, 1:46, the sine pluck at 1:58) and the source arpeggio changed into a filter-heavy sequence (1:06) all stuck out. The additional synth solo in the 1:23 section also added some much-needed warmth in the lower end. And the square legato synth at 2:50 is all original despite having a similar tone and rhythm to a left-panned synth later on in the source. It's a sign that you knew the BGM inside and out and achieved a compelling arrangement while still respecting the qualities of Ben Prunty's composition.
Seriously, I got nothing else to say - great job, hey ho, front page, let's go.
YES -
Your voice tone works so well with the pop ballad style here. It felt keen to break out the energy and meaning behind the lyrics, and along with the choice of sound palette and attention to balancing the instrumentation, it's a strong foundation going forward.
However, "foundation" is also the buzz word to describe the track as a whole. I know you said you spent time tuning your vocals, but in a pop environment, the amount of pitch correction/autotune for a vocal performance is relentless. There are plenty of free auto-tuners on the web that you can experiment with, so have a play around with them and see what you can reap. If a sung word is too difficult to tune effectively, or there's a rough consonant in the way, it'll also be handy to re-record that line before processing.
And then there's the next issue - source use. The sections marked as the source are evident through the sung melody and the e-piano using the original's harp. But it's still less than 45% source use, and therefore is my biggest dealbreaker out of the lot. Consider going through your original parts and adding some backing writing that references either the source or other PMD BGM. I would suggest the latter as there's not a lot else in the primary source to work with, but I can also be pleasantly surprised if treated uniquely.
I'm also not a fan of the snare drum being so in my face. Larry thought it was a problem since the final verse, but for me, this issue was present since 1:07. Introducing an organic timbre after a non-organic intro is an unusual move despite the right intention. For me, it'll feel more natural if only the third downbeats got emphasized and the other notes get softened up - turning them into ghost notes.
It's a solid base, but source use and vocal presentation are by far the most significant issues that have let this down for me. See if you can fit in more VGM, refine your vocals, and go over your drum patterns. Your tone pleasantly surprised me though, so I see potential in you getting a vocal track onto the front page if you keep at it.
NO (resubmit) -
This arrangement is a lot of fun! I wasn't feeling the left-panned lead at first, but when the rest of the instruments started fleshing out at 0:12, it became way less of a problem. The half-time pace at 0:52 used dynamics well, and the slow interpretation 2:08 was a pleasant touch. Even the breakdown at 1:42 had some effective use of filters on the pads, plus the bass writing as a whole adds a happy and bouncy feel.
However, the production values feel thin - and that goes beyond the 128kbps submission. Larry said something about the claps being thin-sounding, but I believe the snare needs work as well. You got the right idea at 3:44 with the snare and clap working in unison - layering different percussion sounds can make a difference to how strong the kit feels. With your snares, layering one or two complementary sounds underneath it can also add more snap. They can be other snare sounds and/or any other claps - but make sure you still emphasize the snare sound you want rather than its support.
The low-bitrate submission also exposed the tone of the hi-hats, made difficult to digest at 1:16 with the run of robotic 16th notes. They have a piercing presence to them, which is usually okay for this type of tone; but there's too much of it, so it's best to turn them down. It also goes hand in hand with Larry's comment about the quiet bass as well. Said instruments usually the second thing you mix down when balancing your parts (the first being all of your percussion). It'll be a good idea to revisit the mixdown and get their volume levels re-adjusted.
Also, it'll be a good idea to go over your melody lines and see if you can do EQ separation away from the pads. The shadiest offender for me is at 0:52, where the pads themselves completely buried the plucked synth. Whether it'll be better for you to revise the instruments' EQ, transpose the lead up an octave, add an extra lead layer or a combination of the three is all up to you.
I know I went all out on this submission, but be proud of your arrangement - it's a cheerful and thorough interpretation of a very well known Zelda BGM. But it'll need a balance / EQ revision and potentially a bunch of additional layers to get the production values to stand tall as well. It'll be great if you can revise it and send it back to us.
NO (resubmit) -
The use of the source here is visible with the change of instrumentation to a bell-driven landscape and the different key adding to an underwater feel, and yet it treads the line between straight-forward and interpretive writing. The first repetition does its job with identifying the source, and 1:23 moved on with a delicate switch between additional writing and playing around with various motifs. Then there's the rest of the track starting at 2:35, where the focus balanced between subtractive interpretation and playing around with the chords to add a unique character not present beforehand. In other words, a surprising amount of coverage is going on for its length and pacing, and it's beautiful to take in.
The production values also feel pleasant. The bells and pitched percussion are lovely and delicate, there are well-balanced instruments to match this underwater feel, and the use of reverb also dodged the risk of overpowering mud. But there is the usual problem with the quiet mixdown, with the peak at -3.6dB. It's one of those tracks that I felt the dynamics would benefit more from a normalization of the master render, adding more to the bells leading the track's direction.
As it is, it's a lovely piece of work that does a hefty amount of exploration despite the minimalist source. In an intriguing twist, this isn't one of Rebecca's best productions, but the arrangement shines through much more. I'm all for front-page treatment, as well as relaxing to this at night.
YES -
This arrangement is meaty and jumped around the mix doing three different ideas. It explored the source as it is (like with the chiptune intro), played around with the foundations and adding new melodies over the top (like at 1:00), or added something brand new (like the piano intro at the end). Even the piano-into-ensemble-into-chiptune breakdown at 1:48 explores all three ideas at once. I also felt the lower chip harmony at 2:51 didn't sound harmonically pleasing with the backing, but it's a minor gripe in an elegant set of writing otherwise.
The sound palette's mixture of chiptune and modern synths also felt intriguing and fit the arrangement's goal. They're all mixed in well, the synths' manipulation is engaging, and even the piano sounded realistic and adapted to the stereo space. The only thing that sticks out for me though is the clarinet at 2:12. I understand it acting as the bridge between the piano and chiptune melodies, but to me, it sounded like it was performing all of these legato notes without any room to inhale. You can remedy it in future works by merely adding a moment for it to rest.
Putting these little nitpicks aside, it's a varied arrangement that jumped between handling the source and doing its own thing. And it's all with a lovely presentation that crosses the line between retro and present day. Ben, I wouldn't have guessed that you took two years off before working on this - because there's no sign of rusted chops here. Nice work!
YES -
I can identify that summer feel, going for 909-sounding drums and some engaging low pass filter sweep at the start. Source presence is there, though not entirely note for note thanks to two beats of additional writing at both 1:16 and 1:24. The section at 1:41 sounded fun, bringing the countermelody in for some rhythmic changeups and added harmonies.
Despite this, the interpretation of the source tune itself is minimal at best. In all three parts that the source is present, there's just the bass, melody and countermelody. While the bass has a summer dance vibe rather than the source's gallops, there needed to be more subtractive arrangement if sections like that are to stick around. Talking of which, if you're going to copy-paste the 0:46 variant at 3:24, the duplicate would need more new layers and/or further interpretation so that it could stand out.
The instruments themselves all sound clear and well presented, but despite all the subtle effects in play, the synth timbres themselves outstay their welcome too soon. There are no new textures after that first main theme variant, and when matched up with the minimal arrangement and sparse soundscape, it all contributes to a stale sounding track. Consider going over your synth patches (or generate new ones) and layering some on top of one another. It'll be nice to hear something more unique.
Glenn, it's a promising and enjoyable tune, so thank you for sharing it with us. As of right now, the bland soundscape and barebones arrangement are holding it back, and it'll be nice to hear another version with these problems addressed.
NO (resubmit) -
I undoubtedly see it as a more unusual Timaeus arrangement. There's more of a focus on subtractive arranging with additional instrument layers under the primary source, which even goes as far as keeping the 6/8 time signature and general atmospheric feel. I also like the impressive tricks with the integration of other Tangledeep BGM (and the occasional riff from Dungonmans), as well as adjusting the source to a Persian scale on a couple of occasions. It matched the goal of a more calming mix that evolves as time goes on.
The production is also very charming. All the instruments are well mixed, the percussion sounds gorgeous, and the pitched percussion (harp, bells, piano, etc.) had proper attention paid to dynamics. And as an added bonus, the synth leads combining with the soundfonts generate a unique timbre that respects the pseudo-SNES nature of the source material. The stated extra time spent mixing the track to this meticulous detail paid off, that's for sure.
It's an easy decision here - it's a lovely crafted arrangement and an equally thorough presentation. That means a spot on the front page - great work as usual!
YES -
Yeah, Youtube links aren't a great place to host submissions for us. I'll give the benefit of the doubt, but please host it in a cloud drive or attach to your email in the future.
Anyway, the source treatment is mostly safe and conservative, but there's plenty of subtractive interpretation that makes it stand out. And there's so many I'll need to dish out the bullet points again!
* The intro and first run-through use the source's elements straight with the drum and bass grooves controlling the pace, varying slightly as the rack goes on.
* The pitch-bending harmonies during the second run-through (2:52) are expressive and caught me off guard.
*The slow chugging guitars at 4:18 added a more ominous tone to lead out of the track's first half.
* The section at 4:35 had a cool use of time signatures alternating 2 bars of 4/4 and a single bar of 7/4.
* 5:40 added a dramatic rising choir that gets revisited at 7:49.
* 6:07 has the stereo-shifting guitars on the upbeats forming an effective countermelody against the piano.
* The 7:09 section revisited ideas from the first and second iterations of the source along with the latter's harmonies.
* And 7:49 also had moments where the rhythm guitars would go into triplets and occasionally have an engaging gate effect at the same pace.As heard, these ideas all come and go with one or two getting revisited. With the source's familiar framework, it all ties in with enough ideas to fit this track's prog-rock feel.
Even the production doesn't pull any punches. The instruments are easy to pick out, the guitars had so many tones they didn't outstay their welcome, and the performances are all clean and tight. I do agree with Larry regarding the lead guitar's sloppy introduction at 0:57, but it corrected itself quickly, so I don't see it as a dealbreaker. And I do sense inconsistent writing - notably in the first half - with the drums going back and forth between working with the other instruments and working independently. But at the same time, it doesn't grow stale and adds to the arrangement's engaging nature.
Overall, this track pleasantly surprised me despite its insane length. The performances are on point, there's plenty of interpretation to justify the framework, and the presentation is both clean and matches this vision of loneliness. Impressive stuff, Andy!
YES -
This arrangement is fantastic! I had fun listening along with the timestamps and hearing the different elements in place, so thank you for that.
It's especially amazing to hear points where one source worked alongside another. They contributed to an arrangement that never tires out and retains familiarity almost all the way through - almost as if it's rhapsodic. I felt especially floored at 1:55, where the Zelda theme got adapted to fit the more ominous minor key shifts and set the scene leading up to the groove's introduction. It's a visible sign that the sources were used, played with, and retained a consistent vision.
The production values are also potent as well. This sound design feels like a fitting homage to the Metroid Prime trilogy's overall score and the early work of Jean-Michael Jarre. Everything's well balanced, clear to pick out, used reverb effectively to create ambiance, and even experiments with different timbres to pull the listener into the immersion of deep space.
All in all, I don't see any reason why it shouldn't be on the front page. There's excellent playing around with themes to simulate the vision of an epic duel, the presentation is meticulously crafted, and a result like that can also mean great teamwork. Amazing job!
YES -
Right off the bat, I saw that you've gone for a louder production than what I have previously heard from you. Have you been practicing, or did Gabriel help out with the render again? Still, it's a pleasant surprise.
The instruments are not only mixed well, but there are subtle articulations on the early woodwinds, and the rest of the instrumentation has some lovely dynamic variance. I didn't mind the quiet robotic drone as much, though. It only jumped out rarely outside the beginning and ending, and even then it added to the rest of the percussive feel.
The arrangement is also in a more unexpected direction than what I usually associate with you as well - way less conservative, with an engaging framework. It uses the B section's piano arpeggio as a rhythm part and treats the source's C section as a chorus at 1:45 and 3:36, but these halves also stood out from each other. The first half played around with the A section's second half through the strings, and the second half had the first half's A section on the panpipes before further interpretation. It's a lovely hint of attention to detail and shows an understanding of how to interpret the source while still making it recognizable.
It's a more unusual Rebecca production that I've heard, and for me, it ticks all the right boxes. The only bit of homework I have for the future is to experiment with articulating the strings as well to match the attention on the woodwinds - because quite frankly, the production as a whole stands out as well. I'm in favor of hearing this on the front page!
YES
UPDATE 8/14/2018: I listened to the track again after seeing Larry's vote below. Using a visualizer as a guide, I sensed the piano overlapping some of the instrumentation at 1:02-2:02, 2:38-2:53 and 3:36-end. I also must admit the low drone's tone slightly de-emphasized some of the other lower-range instrumentation. However, the minimalist setup prevents these flubs from over-exposure and therefore reduces any negative impact to the soundscape. My Yes vote will still stand. -
This semi-baroque feel sounds like an exciting direction to take a minimal source. With the moments where the harpsichord would take more center-stage and where the strings would become a lot more forward, the characterization feels refreshing and well interpreted.
However, there is some robotic sequencing going on here. I appreciate the change in velocities, but you also need to think about what a performer would do in a live setting. If you look at your strings and woodwinds, they have this constant use of sustain and identical attack. You can remedy it by experimenting with attack/release envelopes or looking at the VST's key switches to more realistically articulate them.
Another issue I had was the dominance of low-mid instrumentation and their contributions to a muddy mix. There's nothing wrong with having cellos in most of your string section in the loud parts (1:04, 3:53), but their notation made the bassoon and harpsichord troublesome to pick out. If I were in this situation, I'd transpose the strings up an octave to let the bassoon and harpsichord breathe and fill in a void in the mids, just like you did at 2:58. But let's say you do want to keep the pitches as they are. If so, you'll need a considerable amount of EQ separation between those three instruments alone to give them their own space.
It's lovely to hear an arrangement that's more classically inspired and will be great to hear on the front page. As of right now, it needs more care with string/woodwind humanization and making louder areas cleaner whether by shifting pitches or doing another mixing pass. Please keep at it - arrangement-wise it's a pleasant listen, and I hope a second version will push the production values up there as well.
NO (resubmit) -
I can't deny the quality of those orchestral sounds. They all fit well in this soundscape, sound gorgeously realistic, and even the brass has a lovely and expressive release to it. I get that the entire section from 0:43 onwards is majestic, but I would've preferred the master volume to get brought down, not letting the instruments touch the ceiling. It's still just a desirable thing rather than a significant flaw.
And of course, there's the arrangement. Yes, it's barely 2 minutes long, and it covers just one loop of the source material. But the new instrumentation added onto the source's bones makes up for it. The slowly building strings at 0:14, the brass playing the melody at 0:43 and adding its own little flourishes, a fuller orchestra at that same section, the complete change of chords at 1:07, and that gentle plucked string backing at 1:26 are all potent examples of expanding the source's foundation. It's short, it's sweet, and the treatment is sublime.
Excellent work, Jason - with the arrangement and production working well, your challenge paid off!
YES
*NO* Breath of Fire 4 'Reality and Fiction'
in Judges Decisions
Posted
It's mostly a conservative arrangement, but the first minute has a subtle use of pedal with a simple run-through of the core motif and some playing around via the harp. Getting into the theme proper, I appreciate you doubling the pan flute with the harpsichord from 1:01-1:19 - a smart way to cut back on the former's exposure. Changing to different leads throughout and adding different padded layers also helped give it a lift, as well as the occasional countermelody, the call-and-response at 2:09 and some subtle flourishes on your woodwinds. These are small things that all add up to a welcoming and subtractive arrangement.
However, it's also one of those tracks where the issue of humanization and lack thereof stands out. Larry rightfully pointed out the problem with the male choir, but I honestly think the string articulations (1:22-1:44, 2:29-2:51) feel stiff as well. All notes are playing with the same slow attack, with hardly any decay in preparation for the next one.
In fact, decay seems to be a running issue. Whenever the woodwinds are left alone (panpipes at 0:28 and oboe at 3:17 to give some examples), the attacks and flourishes sound great, but some of the trail-offs leading into following notes are non-existant. With so many instruments all sharing that same robotic flaw, it all adds up to one big dealbreaker I'm afraid.
For what it's worth though, the instruments are coherently balanced, and when combined with the arrangement it adds up to a sweet-sounding base. But Rebecca, for this track to pass, I'd like you to go over the more problematic instruments and see if you can work on their articulation. Keyswitches and envelopes immediately come to mind, though it all comes down to what you feel is more effective for your workflow. I do hope you revisit this sometime.
NO (resubmit)