Sir_NutS

Contributors
  • Content Count

    3,072
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    9

Everything posted by Sir_NutS

  1. wow, I know this song by heart but I couldn't recognize it at all in your mix at first. After I checked what the source was, it's pretty clear the source is there in the first half. It's transformed but it's very clearly the original melody there so no source usage issues for me. The performance here is pretty lovely, and I have no issues with the production, so this is a short vote from me but I highly recommend this one if anyone wants to hear a very different adaptation of this theme, it will catch you off-guard at first but believe me, it's very clever in how it uses the theme. A lot of interesting movement here with the melodies too. Overall, pretty clever piece. YES
  2. Hey, I think I've heard this OST before. I think you have some very neat ideas here with the transformations, structure changes and adaptation. 0:40 and 3:10 are interesting ways in which you transformed the original melodies, as an example. I think you're good on the arrangement front here, but you also need to cut down on repetition. More on that later. There are a few aspects holding back this one for me: the mix balance can be off at times, when you have an instrument panned to one side but nothing on the other side, it makes things feel lopsided. There's also the original melody used maybe one too many times. I would shorten this track to around 3 minutes to make it short and sweet and cut down on needless repetition. The mix can get very crowded and over compressed in sections like 1:47 and 3:10. Relax your master compression and let me mix breathe, it will be for the better. I would love to hear a refined version of this one, so hit us up again. NO (Resubmit)
  3. Hey, thanks for the invite, but I don't think I can get into another project at the moment. I do think the idea for a JSR album is solid though, lots of fans and the music is already great. Good luck!.
  4. This is not bad, but it has some pretty evident issues, mainly in the mix and performances. The production feels pretty lopsided here, some sections feel like they lead is getting buried and nothing is taking precedence, except for the drums which are very upfront. There is some very heavy and obvious ducking on the guitar parts and the mix as a whole around 1:32, and in the second guitar section the balance seems off regarding the lead guitar vs everything else. The mix feels very bottom-mid heavy, which causes the rhythm guitars to get lost most of the time. Due to the subdued mix the climaxes don't hit very hard and fizzle out. Regarding the performances, it doesn't feel like there's a lot of detailing done in the sequencing of the orchestral instruments, they feel pretty robotic overall. That's not necessarily a dealbreaker in an arrangement where the orchestral elements are used as a backdrop for the guitars and the rock arrangement, but in this one they're pretty upfront and exposed a lot of the time due to the inadequate mix, and as such the failings are made evident. I feel like if this was mixed well I could consider giving the instrumentation a pass, but I think some work in that front would be appreciated either way. NO (resubmit)
  5. This arrangement feels kinda messy. Like the structure doesn't get the listener anywhere, it just feels too consistent throughout. The drums are just kinda there doing their thing and don't communicate well with the rest of the parts. Some sections feel like too much is going on and that the instruments are just doing their own thing (~1:20). Not sure about the accordion cutting out so suddenly at 1:35. I think this needs some changes arrangement-wise, to bring everything together cohesively, it doesn't sound literally random but it does lack direction. The production also could use a second pass to separate everything better frequency-wise. The performances were alright, it just needs more refinement. NO (resubmit)
  6. The arrangement is good enough but the mix is not. Feels very pedestrian in its execution, some tracks sound dry, and even though the song is very loud, the soundscape ends up feeling very thin and lacking warmth. It feels very raw for some reason. Also a lot of of ducking due to compression, noticeably in the synth solo. The drums have too much presence IMO. I think this needs a second production pass, relaxing the mastering and bringing some warmth to it while bringing the different instruments/tracks together cohesively. NO (resubmit)
  7. Wow, what a fresh take on this classic tune. Never thought I'd hear it performed and transformed this way, so you're already getting tons of points for originality here. The performances are great, albeit a bit loose at some spots, like when the guitar is contrasted against the banjo, it can seem a bit out of time. I like the inclusion of the electric guitar for the small flourishes. Some sections in this feel pretty intimate, such as the solo/expansion around 3:20. Overall excellent arrangement and quality performances. The production seems clean and without glaring issues. It feels like it has a lot of open space which fits the mood. The vocal chorus sections are probably my biggest issue with the production as they seem a bit too exposed for my taste and some sections (i.e. starting at 3:20) drag their usage for too long and feel too static. I don't think this drags the piece down too much though. The added sfx work well with this piece as well, together with the ambient pads. I really enjoyed this. Super original and with a great delivery, one of Reuben's best for sure in all aspects. YES
  8. I didn't listen to the old version, but this sounds good to me. Production is fairly clean if a bit muddy at places. 1:45 for example, the guitar lead get obscured by the background and all the other elements, and in general I think the low-mids could be cleaner and have more separation but overall, pretty good. The arrangement is solid and the performances are some of the best I've heard from Ryan so far. Lots of energy and it didn't get bored at any point, with well-placed breaks. Minor issue I would've liked changed is that the song starts way too soon after the Capcom logo jingle, kinda messes up what I think the idea for the intro was, that this song is what plays as an intro to the actual game. Anyways, minor complain there. Solid stuff. YES
  9. I have to disagree with some of the production critiques here. The soundscape is thin but that's absolutely fine for Trap. Some Trap tracks are very minimal, and not having layered synths and a big soundscape that fills the entire frequency spectrum is absolutely fine for the genre. I do think the synths instruments lack punch, which is an entirely different thing. You can make a trap track with just your 808 drums, a sine bass and a lead, but everything needs to be punchy to have some impact, and I think the synths here are too weak to carry the arrangement. Also, the "hey" samples were kinda out of place in this arrangement, I would try something else. I also think the arrangement is fine, sufficiently interpretative and the adaptation is interesting. But I don't think it's ready for the front page without working more on the mix to make your synths stand out, as they're kinda weak and vanilla sounding. The amount of instruments and synth lines used is fine, just make them richer and punchier. NO
  10. Simple but beautiful. The original is well represented here and expanded properly. While the original song had an adventurous vibe to it, this remix is more on the exotic/sublime side due to the instruments and adaptation. I think it's very impressive that you managed to pull this off with a minimal set of instruments yet everything sounds pretty well detailed and humanized. The main melody is repeated quite a bit, but most of the work of the interpretation is carried by the harmonies, background elements and structure. My only complain is that, again, this song has a ton of unused headroom and I had to turn my volume up. It's less noticeable in this song because there's a reduced dynamic range compared to other remixes from Rebecca but it's still an issue. Nothing like a dealbreaker tho, just something I'd like to see addressed in the future. YES
  11. Pretty much my thoughts here. The strings were a sticking point for me here, the attack and decay curves didn't sound too natural, very obvious. I think both the strings and choir can work if used with less presence but they come to the forefront a lot in this piece and makes the humanization issues too obvious. I don't have a gripe with the rest of the arrangement, it's pretty sweet and to the point. Also I won't go onto another rant about how this track is mastered too low and there's a lot of wasted headroom and how this is a recurring issue... oh wait I just started again. Yeah, we don't want it to be limited to the max EDM banger style but, a little bump is all we ask so there's not a huge difference between Rebecca's tracks and the rest of the mixes on the site. NO
  12. Simple and straightforward but it has charm. I think this is a clear cut case of not enough interpretation from the artist to really make this remix his own. If this was an adaptation to a different genre/vibe, I think I could overlook the lack of development a bit more but this retains sorta the same style. Again, pretty charming but I think you can make this track more of your own expression than what we have here. Also nothing against the artist or this remix, but ProJared is scum (also, his voice in this is kinda distorted/loud, could be toned down a bit). NO
  13. As for my vote, I like this one. It's sorta synthwave-influenced, and keeps things conservative for the most part. The sound design is alright, albeit feeling like an upgrade over the original instruments instead of a completely new adaptation. I think this track shining point is the merging of the two themes seamlessly and in a non-medley way, really really well done in that front. Overall solid track which managed to fuse these two extremely popular songs into a coherent and enjoyable arrangement. YES
  14. I've updated the thread with a new link. The artist contacted me with the following: @Liontamer and @Gario feel free to do a quick check to see if the last version has the fixes and it's not messed up.
  15. Wow, what a ride!. This starts pretty atmospheric and chill, but evolves into some pretty hard-hitting progressive metal over time. I could nitpick this track here and there but I think the only valid concern for me is the repetition. The original isn't that long, and this remix extends for almost 10 minutes, so repetition is bound to happen but I think enough was done on the arrangement's side to keep this from feeling on autopilot. It's almost 10 minutes but it really didn't feel like that, you took a lot of care in the slow buildup, building the motifs block by block until the (extended) climax at around 4:03. Great performances and clean production complete the package. YES
  16. Just for the record, this isn't my arrangement @Liontamer. It would have way more 80s synth brasses if it was mine.
  17. The mix here is very inconsistent, the intro arpeggio is quite loud, but ducks away the moment the song starts in full, it's a bit of a big contrast here because the arpeggio is bright, loud and high-frequency rich but when the song kicks in everything sounds very muffled. There's a distortion effect first appearing around 0:29 that sounds like some type of digital distortion applied to a sample, possibly downsampling, and I'm not sure it fits or contributes to the betterment of the mix... but then again this could also be the sound effect of Bowser's fireballs too. I'm not sure but either way I don't think it's very good. The arrangement is very repetitive and outside of the adaptation I'm not hearing a lot of contributions to the interpretation. There may be some different harmonies involved but they're very hard to make out due to the messy mix. I get you went for an intentional noisy approach here, but you can have a noisy "clean" mix. Bands like Tool or The Glitch Mob, use noise and droning, uncomfortable textures a lot but it's all very cohesive within the mix. Not asking for uber professional quality mix but I feel this could be brought up to our bar which is much lower than that. The file we got also has several seconds of silence at the end that should be cut. Not a bad idea here but needs work on the mix balance and expansion of the original. NO
  18. Alright time to chime in on this one. I've put this off for a while, giving this one occasional listens and while I don't think this is a clear and cut case here, I believe I'm at the point where listening more won't do much for me. First, two sticking points that seem to bother a lot of people here are the tambourines and accordion. While I believe they are a bit overpowering, I don't think they drown the mix, and I don't think the tambourine is piercing or resonant to my ears. They could be toned down to achieve a better mix, but they don't detract from my enjoyment of the track OR from me being able to hear the different elements throughout. There's a good use of panning to keep the space open and to make the instruments easily identifiable. I don't think there's any drowning of instruments in the mix here. Some aspects in here are lovely, I'm a big fan of the guitar performance, and the call-and-response arrangement choices done to expand on the source. I'm not a fan of the flute when it's used to play short notes but it's a minor nitpick. The transitions aren't what one would call smooth but they aren't jarring either. A lot of the heavy load of the interpretation is done in the harmonies and backing lines here, it's worth singling those out while listening to enjoy the little details. This is a remix that has an imperfect mix, but boast a pretty good arrangement and adaptation. Since I don't find any of the production issues detracting or super offensive, I'm ok with this going up, though I'll admit it's pretty close. YES (borderline)
  19. Re: source usage, I can hear the source in this pretty well. The rhythmic arpeggio in the remix is a modified version of the arpeggio in the original, and the lead melodies in the remix are taken from the lead flute right at the start of the song, and expanded a little throughout the arrangement. The original evolves into something different after the first minute or so and I don't hear any of that in this remix, so that might throw some people off. Discarding a lot of the original material is not really an issue if it helps make the remix sound as a coherent standalone song. I've done some of that myself, and I think that's the case here. The performances are loose, but not too loose to make this seem too sloppy, it's more of a cozy and intimate performance here. There are some audible breathing and ambient noises that I'm not sure if I would like them removed or not because they do add to the intimate atmosphere, but I'm inclined to think that the song would be better off with a cleaner recording. The main arpeggio probably needs a re-recording though. The notes are left suspended and sometimes they resonate a bit too much as to make it unpleasant, and it also kinda blurs the notes together. Honestly, I'm torn about this one. I like it very much, and I think this accomplishes a lot with so very little. I went and read your write-up and I think you managed to infuse the arrangement with your feelings at the time, as this left me feeling a bit melancholic. But I also think the recording could be cleaned up and the rhythmic parts re-recorded with a better performance. This is very close, and I think I'm leaning towards a resubmit for this one. I've already listened to this many times, but I think I'll hold on to my vote for a few days and give it a re-listen later. EDIT (8/21): Listening again with fresh ears, I have the same feeling of this being very close but not quite there. I think with a bit more polish this can make it, but for now I'll ask for a revision. NO (resubmit)
  20. Hello, I made an experimental orchestral arrangement of the Figaro theme from Final Fantasy 6 (composed by Nobuo Uematsu) using a theme from the anime Re:Zero (composed by Kenichiro Suehiro) as a basis/template. I thought the end result turned out pretty interesting since the two pieces work so well together. You can hear the Re:Zero track here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fXsq_H0Uw_o My remixer and real name are Jeremy Robson. The game arranged is Final Fantasy 6, and the theme comes from Edgar & Sabin's Theme and Coin of Fate. I decided to call it Re:Figaro
  21. Pretty clean mix overall, with good synthwork and decent guitar performances. The sidechaining was dialed a bit too heavily on the instruments, and it's notable with the guitar mixing. The drums are simple but they have enough power to carry the energy throughout the track. The intro is great, and set me in the mood for some space-faring adventuring. I think this arrangement is very conservative but there are some new sections, solos, backing harmonies and the like. It's not overly apparent but I think that overall the arrangement is well executed and brings just enough to the table, though others might disagree due to how repetitive the sections are. The drum sequencing is pretty simple. I don't think they are necessarily on auto-pilot, as the beat does change from syncopated to four-on-the-floor, and the hats pattern changes to double time and back between sections. I do think the snare is the big issue here, as it's the only constant and never changes or goes away. It does change for the fills, but the pattern is otherwise relentless on hitting that 2nd and 4th every time. I think having an extended break from it at some point would've helped, not necessarily changing the patter itself, as it does serve as a driving element for the song, keeping the energy going. Overall, I'm not decided yet on this one. I think the arrangement is enough and production is over the bar, but the repetition and that constant and upfront snare do take away from the enjoyment. I'll mull on this one for some more time and come back later with my vote, and I'll leave this here in the meantime for the other j's consideration. EDIT: 07/18/19 : Giving this one a couple more listens now. My takeaways: The Sidechaining is a bit on the hard side, and I don't like it but it is not grounds for rejection in my opinion. A lot of modern productions dial the sidechaining this heavily, and even more. I can cite many OCRemixes from artists like blind, chimpazilla, flexstyle, Ben Briggs, and others that have heavier pumping than here. In my opinion, you can reduce the release slightly for the instruments bus (if you are using one) as well as the compression ratio and achieve about the same clarity for your drums, while also not bothering people who dislike the heavy pumping. The artifacts at 0:52, 2:22 and 2:39, I believe this is some inter-sampling peaking going on here. Check if the crackles happen inside your DAW or in your exported Wav file. If they don't, it means you're limiting the track too close to 0 db and it's causing artifacts in the mp3 conversion. If this is the case, it's solved easily by lowering your limiter ceiling to a safer range, say about -0.5/-0.7. If you still hear these crackles inside your daw or in your raw Wav file, it means you're actually clipping and probably not using a limiter. For this one there are many ways to approach fixing your mastering, and for the sake of brevity I'm not going to go over those here but if you struggle with that, feel free to PM me and I'll try to help out. The snare is still my biggest issue, and fresh ears haven't changed my opinion on the matter. I think we needed a break from the constant snare pattern than the 3 seconds we got at 2:34. My final take on this one is that we need to send this back for fixes. Give the listeners' ears an extended break from that upfront snare and fix the artifacts. Reducing the sidechaining pump would be welcomed, but not necessary for my decision. NO (resubmit)
  22. This is a pretty solid progressive track. It is a bit hard to make the connections for I'll say around 30% of the track but for the most part it's recognizable. I found the track a bit muddy in the low-mids but nothing egregious or that would make me consider rejecting this. The instruments do start to get lost between each other in the fuller sections i.e. around 2:03 and 2:26, thankfully it's also not a huge issue. Solid performances all around. I dig 3:43 and its subsequent destruction. YES
  23. A progressive arrangement that explores and transforms the original in several different ways while keeping cohesiveness. There's not much to say about the arrangement other than it's excellent and every part does something that caught my attention and impressed me. The production is clean for the most part, and the only nitpick I could have with this is how the reverb seemed inconsistent from instrument to instrument, so that made some elements feel a bit disconnected from the mix, but other than that, solid stuff. YES
  24. Let's address the source sampling first: I counted around 56 seconds of direct source sampling, which amounts to around 21% of this track. 1/5th of the track being straight up sampled, with nothing on top is pushing it, and I don't think we have a metric for how much is too much, but this certainly feels very close to a direct reject based on too much sampling. Let's set aside the issue of sampling for a while, assume this is not a problem, and dive into the track: First let's go over the arrangement. After the first source quoting, it basically runs through part 2 of the source twice, with really not much of a change arrangement-wise before sampling the source again. What follows is a very long and static section where the bassline follows the original progression while the leads does some soloing variation on top. It is very cool in the first few phrases but after that it drags on and becomes less and less interesting. There's not much going on elsewhere either, no new harmonies or variations on the drums or bass. No introduction of new instruments, or anything that would make this less static. After this, we go back to the first section, which is basically a copy-paste of 0:22. The track ends abruptly and in an unsatisfactory fashion. I don't think the arrangement here is up to par. The production is clean otherwise, with bright, chirpy pulse waves, a couple of simple but interesting fills, and a driving bassline. The drums pack a punch but are also very static and lacking in sequencing detailing and depth. The main lead has a tremolo that seems to activate on a strict legato timer, which makes what would be a nicely articulated lead pretty boring after a while. I wish those tremolos were used with purpose and not only seemingly activating after the note is sustained for x amount of time, all the time. The production overall, is ok but not without faults. I don't think this is over the bar due to the arrangement, which is way too static and relies too much on quoting the original verbatim, while also copy-pasting sections around. If that middle section was shortened and more detailed, and the last section was reworked to bring at least a few notable differences from the first, I probably would be onboard. It's a fun track to listen to nonetheless. NO
  25. First let's go over the arrangement. It sufficiently expanded over the original while keeping it recognizable, so no qualms there. I'm not sure about the interpretative bits though, they sound kinda noodly and a bit random, I'm not feeling anything from those parts. The contrast between the Gothic intro and the dance-y body of the song is not as jarring as one would think, but I still think a smoother transition probably would've worked better. I think the section where these two aspects merge (1:44) sounds cool though. The ending is very abrupt and didn't make sense to me, it sounds incomplete, with no lead up to it and a sudden stop. Production-wise things don't look as solid. The intro instruments for the Gothic section have sufficient quality for what is a hybrid genre track, but still there's room for improvement in the articulations and performances. Not a deal-breaker there, but something to keep in mind. I think your mix is clean and crisp, with all the parts easily identifiable, however the soundscape sounds very thin at the same time, and I'm hearing a panning imbalance in the fuller sections, specially towards the end. The first bass synth has a very nasal tone that sticks out like a sore thumb in some places such as 1:42. Honestly, it sounds pretty awful in that section. The second bass (around 1:54) is definitely more pleasant than the first, but I feel it's getting lost in the mix in the fuller sections. Your drums feel a bit thin and the sequencing feels repetitive. I felt the last lead sound was ok, with some interesting modulation but it was also pretty loud and could be toned down slightly. It's not meshing well with the soundscape either, sounding very separate from the mix. I feel like this needed some work in the mastering overall, tying all the elements together in a single soundspace. Maybe some mix-wide subtle compression or reverb, emphasis on subtle, can help the mix get that feeling of everything being together in the same place and space. Your supersaw sample is fine, but also sounds thin (a theme with most of the instruments here), and feels exposed against an empty soundscape, it just doesn't feel as full as it should. Adding a harmony layer behind it, or two, could help, although it's a balancing act if you want to keep your mix as clean as it sounds now. I also don't feel the supersaw sample is well suited for a soloing part such as around 2:44, but that might be personal preference. Overall this has a lot of issues that might be small but start adding up. Big sticking points for me are the thin soundscape and production, and vanilla (and sometimes annoying-sounding) instruments. Some changes could be done on the arrangement side to make the soloing more emotive and less random, but we can't really guide anyone's hand on that. This wasn't bad by any means, just not there yet for our bar, and I feel like I think this is actually closer to making it than the other Js. Keep learning, and show us what you got next. NO