prophetik music

Contributors
  • Content Count

    7,706
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    30

Everything posted by prophetik music

  1. this is a notably mechanically inconsistent track from you, rebecca. your strength has always been creating a really nice, lush, rich soundscape, and you do none of that here. the strings are robotic from the get-go, the brass are poorly balanced and awkwardly implemented, and the entire arrangement goes essentially nowhere. there's some clever turns of phrase and repetition to make it not straight in time with the original, but there's nowhere near enough to carry the low sample quality. this isn't good enough in this state, unfortunately. NO
  2. oh, fantastic! google drive, dropbox, or box would work for me, but really wherever is fine.
  3. i agree with rexy's edit that the xylophone part MW is describing does not correlate to the chords in the opening section. in the OST, the chords go between open fifths (C/G) with a fourth thrown in for color, another open fifth (C/G), another C chord of some kind, and then the V in that key (G/D, with more G major in the run). the initial chord progression in the opening sequence is reminiscent in style and articulation, but is a wholly different set of chords (at least at first), initially based in Bb major - Cm (ii), Gm (vi), F (V), Eb (IV). key aside, this went from a minor i-V progression to a standard ii-vi-V-VI progression, so, no, i don't think it counts as OST usage. it's just a harp part. there's not enough correlation. so, this one's DOA unfortunately for not enough source. in terms of song analysis, i agree with MW that the 'intro' goes on for way too long, to the point it's essentially a (really pretty boring) A part to the more upbeat B section. i also agree with the other judges that the last part is turbo-compressed and it really hurts the product as a result. reinforce the source usage, take out some of the compression, dress up the percussion, and give us something else to listen to besides the bass and lead, and there's going to be a much more solid track here. NO
  4. hey all, looking for anyone who might have Global-Trance's old Unmod Sessions or Public Address sets. i somehow lost them after getting them back in 2007.
  5. agreed that it's got some really weird stereo separation - like, the left side is maybe at the 50% left mark, and the right is like 75% right. it's like i'm listening to a set of speakers with my head partially turned. the pumping is really evident on the crash but it's through the whole track. i also agree that it's super similar throughout - normally i'd be for it, but i was tired of the snare before halfway through the track, and it never goes away or changes. i found the different ways you tried to play with the melodies interesting, but ultimately the mastering issues and the lack of textural variation really pull the track down i don't think this is really there yet. NO
  6. just rubber-stamping this one. it's a great, fun track that i want to listen to, but it just doesn't have enough source. i actually like the length, and just feel it needs more source, rather than paring it down to bring up the percentage of wario. it's also really loud, peaking at +1.6db during the sausage section that starts at 3:45. some clipping is ok in this style but that's pretty hard to hear. ultimately, the lack of source usage sinks a fun track. NO
  7. i wanted to review this without caring about timestamps because i feel that there's more like 65% source here, but i think that rexy's listed timestamps are really, really loose, and when it's this close that matters. here's what i got on a more exact listen (let it be known that i went into this trying to find more time, not less). bolded numbers are changed (albeit minimally), and as a whole are exclusively melodically focused: 0:54-1:04 - The blippy synths at the 1:29 section. - 11 seconds 1:12-1:17 - A syncopated piano from Phendrana Drifts. <- this is so quiet, and so minimal, that i think we can't count it. 1:27-1:29, 1:33-1:35 - The sine wave as heard in Torvus Bog. - 6 seconds 1:41-1:55 - The blippy synths at the 1:47 section. - 15 seconds 1:56-2:28 - The constant sine wave throughout the source. - 33 seconds 2:28-2:42 - The blippy synths at 1:47, with the sine wave in the background. - 15 seconds 3:15-3:30 - The blippy synths at 1:47. - 16 seconds 3:40-4:02 - The constant sine wave throughout the source. - 23 seconds that is, 244 seconds total (i trimmed the end a touch), and i have source in 119 (that's including start AND end seconds, not missing the last second), or 48.8%. so that's under the hard timestamp bar. that said, there's some really weird shit going on here, and i feel the best way to approach this is how the panel approached our first non-melodic remix (doug's CT mix that was all percussive instruments), which eschewed melodic focus for a rhythmic focus. i went this direction because the remixer chose as well to eschew melodic (and, frankly, tonal) technique in favor of creating a work that reflects the original. metroid prime 2 was a game that featured a really dark, distorted landscape in many of the areas, and this is clearly reflected throughout with how the composer used a lot of really random bleeps and blurps in the original track. in turn, the remixer reflected this throughout with their choice of instrumentation and tonal center. i agree that essentially half of the first minute is just intro, but the there's a ton more of the sine wave in this work than the composer credits themselves with. for instance, the entire time from 1:17 through maybe 1:24 feels like it's from the original from a rhythmic standpoint, and that pops up in many other places (the opening circa 0:39, 2:44, etc). in other words, i'd argue that the consistent use of that bass instrument's rhythm qualifies it enough to count for more than the time listed, which would put it over the bar, and in turn into evaluation of arrangement quality. that is a lot easier - if we're saying this has enough content, then yeah, the arrangement's great! it's wandering and distorted and occasionally maudlin, but it's a great representation of both the original track and also the underlying theme the remixer's going for. i don't mind the instrumentation and the volume issues rexy mentioned are noticeable but not hindering the experience (i won't say 'enjoyment') of the track. so, i guess it comes down to whether others agree with my interpretation of the bass instrument. if so, then it's got enough, and in turn has a yes from me. if it's not consistent with past judging, then it's below the timestamp threshold, and that's a no as a result. hooray, another question mark! edit: after i talked it over with a few other judges, i think we need to go with explicit source usage vs. the rhythmic focus i theorized above. based on that, there's not enough source, and that's that =( unfortunate since this was a fun piece that really got me thinking, but them's the rules. adding a touch more clear source usage would be totally doable i think, if you feel like retouching this, but i understand if your catharsis from this work is done and you don't want to go back. NO
  8. they sure used to! i don't know as much about more recently. the trailer looks very interesting. i'm definitely interested in the game to the point of being willing to buy the console if it doesn't go cross-platform (at least eventually, likely not right away).
  9. what a delightful approach to this (for real, no sarcasm here). i'm no stranger to arrangements that break the boundaries - i think when we talked about this right after i became a judge, i pointed out that my animal counterpoint track from the Link's Awakening project was just as much an artpiece as this. personally i love it when people really break down the walls. at least part of that's my background in classical music, where pushing the boundaries is an expectation rather than extranormative. while i know where the lines are as a judge, from a personal standpoint i've always wanted there to be more of a focus on the technical side of arrangement and composition, and less about if it sounds like the original. i can't wait for the first time i hear a track submitted where the original melody is entirely inverted or something and the production doesn't sound like someone's garbage disposal. i'll mash that like button so hard people will think i'm watching youtube. i found this work to be so, so, so interesting, and i loved it (although like others have said i'd have preferred it to be without the processing). the continued attention to using cadential movement to push the work forward in spite of the tempo was really well done. fantastic job. stick to your guns and keep making your music, for you. even if you wrote a thing that everyone hated but did what you wanted it to do, that's growth and a positive thing.
  10. ooh, a fun concept on this one. the intro chiptune bits going into the first big swell at 0:22 are really nice, and it builds great to the first drop at 1:00. there's a lot of fun use of space throughout this entire first part, and i really appreciate the contrast between those rhythmic saws and pads, the very simple on-beat drums, and the sustained tones used in the melody at 1:24 onward. the entire breakdown is really nicely paced and stays with the melody just enough to keep it connected to the more vibrant parts. i agree with rexy that the clarinet wasn't quite as realistic as it could have been. the lack of attack played into that (that verb is really wet!), as well as the lack of breathing room. there's also what i think is actually an incorrect chord at 2:27 - is that supposed to be a b6 in first inversion used as predominant to the G following it? Ab7/C? that's what the strings sound like they're implying with a diminished C chord and a Eb in the melody that moves stepwise in Ab for a bar before landing on a D, but it's hard to tell. either way, the E natural in the piano bites at that Eb in a bad way, and it makes what would be a really fun turn of phrase into just a sour note. it happened again at 2:51, so that's why i think it's a mechanical issue vs. a misplaced note. the last section, from 3:48 onward, is real loud compared to the rest of the piece. the saw sections have been big the entire time, but the focus on it here makes it stand out more. there's another sour note or two at 4:09 (sounds like a flat 7 against a root-position I chord, which is always going to sound funky despite being in the key's pentatonic scale), and like MW said the kick pumps a bit here too. theory nerd nitpicks aside, this is a fun arrangement that is interesting and sounds great. this is definitely good enough for the front page. YES
  11. i started in fl studio 4.1, went to reason 3 for a while, then stayed with FL6 through current. during that time, i went through five OS installations over fifteen years. most of my VSTs and samplesets required installation to have the proper registry keys. if i don't have that particular version, or installer (elastik comes to mind, you can't get elastik 1.x anymore and the later versions don't load consistently on my pc), i can't access my old tracks anymore. so even though i have the project files for everything going back to my last external hard drive mishap (so, ~2008), i can't access most of it without significant work rebuilding the original file with new versions of old synths.
  12. this is just beautiful. this style - light winds, plectral instruments, and pitched percussion - is something you do so well, rebecca, and i'd encourage you to continue to develop this style more by doing more with this kind of timbral arrangement - that is, using instrumental timbres to carry the melodic interest as much as the actual notes being played. it's quite conservative overall, but the nuance in how you move it around the different instruments is great. 2:35's tempo change was a great shift to keep things interesting. i found the EP usage here to be unexpected as well - you'd done so much with acoustic instruments that the addition of more electronic instruments was a bit jarring. that's more a personal preference than anything. alternatively, the stereo echos at 3:55 were a really nice touch. right around 4:10 or so i was starting to get tired of what was going on, and you did your thing at 4:25 to carry me through to the end. it was a nice little swell that gave the track the energy it needed to finish. as a whole, a beautiful and appropriate rendition of a difficult source. nice work. YES
  13. this is only looking at the new version. this is a great original track that adapted really well to the style chosen here. i enjoy the background work and the implementation of the drums and synths. if i'm going to complain about anything, it's that it sounds a bit muffled, and the lead guitar doesn't speak as much in the forefront as i'd like. none of that is nearly important enough to affect the outcome of this vote. the arrangement is fine and the performance is excellent. this is an easy stamp for me. YES
  14. wow, this is a really high-energy mix! what a fun take on a great piece of vgm. i'm going to approach this primarily from a production and execution standpoint, because i felt that the arrangement was solid. i didn't feel that it was too repetitive, nor did i find it to be tiresome or too esoteric. overall, i think it sounds loud, in a bad way. the guitar is not doubled or panned wide, and as a result everything sounds like it's coming from right in front of me. this is exacerbated because the drums do sound panned, so there's a ton more stereo separation in the drums compared to the other instruments. i'd encourage you to listen to other synth-driven rock tracks that have similar instrumentation. i think you'l find that they regularly are doubling every guitar part, which gives the guitar more body and allows it to set the soundscape like a pad does in less energetic styles. additionally, once you do this, you won't need the guitar to be nearly as much in the forefront, which will allow you to turn it down (so you can hear other instruments clearer), and then reduce the compression so it doesn't pump so hard. i don't want to make it sound like i hate it. this is a fun track with a ton of energy and an interesting approach, complete with a great solo and good implementation of synth work within the style. the lack of doubling/stereo separation in the guitar combined with the really overblown mastering kills this one for me. NO
  15. oh man, i played so much of this game back in the day! easily more than the actual trading card game irl =) this spends a lot of time being more of a cover than an arrangement, but it's got enough new stuff between the instrumentation and the key change to mix it enough that i think it's ok. not much else to say about the arrangement other than i think it's a fun take on the theme. from a performance perspective, i don't hear the stilted timing of the accordion at all. i actually thought that the timing was loose in a good way - like a jazz soloist playing in the drummer's pocket - and thought it was a great example of nuance. i have no issues with the accordion's playing at all, and as a whole thought that the performance of the live instruments was fine. the mastering is what's holding this back. it sounds very mid-heavy, and there's a lot of pumping. i think this needs to get stripped back to the bolts and done over, rather than a quick pass like what MW says. the bass is right in the kick's range, the drums feel very pitch-heavy and don't have much pop at all, and the guitars don't have any high-end to balance out how mid-heavy they are. spending time with each individual instrument and getting each to sparkle will help this track immensely, and move it from feeling like you just layered the parts on top of one another to feeling like you crafted each part to fit with one another. re-EQ the instruments, get rid of the pumping compression, and you've got an easy pass from me. the mastering's holding this back a lot right now. NO
  16. another tripp track that's at more than -2db for a max, and has a long tail. need to stop seeing this. i went into this preparing to fight on rebecca's side about the articulations and humanization mentioned by rexy and LT, but the more i listened to this track, the more i realized that i agree with them. there's such nuance in the opening section - i loved the initial attack, and the spacing provided by the various percussion and specifically the malleted vibes at :20 was beautiful. i thought the flute was well-articulated as well, albeit a lot louder than the rest of the background, but it's an attractive and entrancing soundscape through 1:20 or so. while the strings and choir were in the background, they were great, but as soon as they came to the forefront their low-quality attacks (for the strings, notably 1:29's lack of release/attack coming out of the first phrase) and releases (for the choir, the blurbs at 1:57 are...really poorly handled, honestly) became obvious and really pulled me out of where i'd been earlier. from a mastering perspective, the track could use a volumization pass to tone down the upper men's choir and the string leads, but that's a minor issue compared to how poorly they're being used in the track. there's some real beautiful music here, but the wheels fall off the farther into the track you get. a better ensemble string sample and more attention to the men's choir when it's in the forefront will do a lot of good towards making this a passable track. NO
  17. i love this concept so much. it's so very quirky - like, bongos and uke and a bass clarinet? such an interesting combination to approach this track with, and i love the way that the arrangement is adapted as well. i agree with MW that there's no real need to stopwatch the arrangement - between the arpeggio and the clear restatement of melodic content as rexy mentioned above, it's way over half the track. i found the recording technique, as a whole, to be somewhat lacking. the booming in the wind recording comes from air pressure on the diaphragm of the mic, @Rexy, and i believe that the remixer simply didn't apply any post-processing to what they heard. it is certainly distracting. there's also some breathing at 2:25 and several points after that (or it's noise from moving your hands on the string?), and there's no real room noise here either. uke is an instrument with little sustain thanks to the design of the neck, and while you really need to get a mic in close to hear the initial pizz, it benefits immensely from a room mic to get you the resonance of the body. i think that's part of why the upper uke sounds so lacking in body - beyond the effects laid on it. continuing the theme of boxes not quite checked, there's silence to start and end the track which needs to be trimmed. as a whole, i love the concept, and i love the backstory on why the remixer went this way. i think it just doesn't sound polished enough to be on the site yet. NO
  18. this is peppy and entertaining. i liked the whistle lead choice bringing in the melody, and i didn't mind the synths used to represent the opening section through :51. i also appreciated the dynamics used to bring in that leadup. the claps didn't bother me much initially, but once we moved into 1:17, the first real full statement of the melody with everything cooking, the low-poly feel of the whole thing took over and i really noticed how not-great the claps and hats sounded, how grating the saw was, and how basic and lacking in character the bass was. essentially, i really liked the arrangement and the energy you brought, but i disliked the instrument choices you used for that section. i really enjoyed the breakdown at 1:42. the sweeping filters and and the downtempo version of the melody lead was real fun, and the nuance in articulation in that lead was appreciated. i also didn't mind the length of this low-energy middle section - even though it's easily a third of the arrangement, it's well-paced and fun. the last major section, starting at 3:12, really bothered me. the drums are hard to listen to - the cymbals are just constant and irritating, and whatever the hats are doing is not congruent with what the rest of the background is doing. i honestly laughed out loud at the 3:25 machine-gun part. it's so confusing, because 3:44 shows that you know what you want to do, and you just aren't achieving it with these synths. if that saw is less detuned and doesn't grate against the background so badly, and you improve the quality of the hat and claps (and tone them down a touch), this is the best part of the track. it's so fun and energetic. from an overarching perspective, one of the things that stands out to me is your consistent use of dynamics to emphasize the breakdowns and breaks/fills, and i like that. as a whole though it isn't loud enough, and if anything i'd prefer that the dynamic range is less, rather than more. it's almost choppy in how far the levels change between sections, and i think that condensing the dynamic range will help to reduce that feel. in short - you've got some great arrangement here, and some great choices in instruments (the whistle lead, the comping pads, the sfx, the plectral instrument in the middle breakdown) that are harshly contrasted by really lofi/poor choices (the claps, hats, the simplistic bass, that lead saw). another pass on the mastering to close up the dynamic range and reduce the headroom, combined with some attention to your instrumentation, and this is a front pager for sure. NO
  19. i don't have a lot to say that hasn't already said. i actually enjoyed the vibe you were creating (especially at first!), but there's simply not enough source to really call this one. while we have said that unique or memorable chord structures are enough for arrangement, this isn't either of those, and really needs more melody content to tie it to the source. i will say that the clipping is bad and needs to be fixed, and rexy nailed the sonic space issue when she talked about the shelf filter. once you've applied those (fairly straightforward) fixes, though, i think there's a good framework here. some creative attention to making connections to the source beyond the chord structure that don't mess with the vibe and feel you've got going will do wonders to the vote on a resub. NO
  20. what a great performance this is. as others have mentioned, the timestamping is very helpful. i particularly liked the part at 2:07 - moving it from dorian to aeolian was an inspired choice that really emphasizes the melodic movement within the chord structure you gave the track. regarding rexy's note of the first two minutes - i was personally fine with his development of that opening motif, and feel it's enough to 'count' the entire first section. we've stated before that a chord progression that is defined and recognizable is acceptable, and this is more than that. if you want to be picky, the point where he deviates from the original's chord structure (E dorian - C - D) without focus on the motif exclusively is at 1m 10s. you lose about 8 seconds every time that happens, which between 1:10 and 2:07 is only three times. this is overlooking that the motif is being represented in the left hand the entire time, but either way, you lose 24 seconds there - which comes out to 51%, actually. so i don't see any issue with the amount of source usage presented. this is a really interesting and dynamic performance that captures a wholly new mood for the track. this is an easy vote in my book. YES
  21. there is some really expressive ambiance in the beginning of this track. i was so digging the vibe and energy that you built, and then suddenly you've got 1:55 which is so well handled. what an incredible transition. all of these transitions are so well done. i'm normally super leery of medleys with a ton of tracks because they usually don't lend themselves to real exploration, but you found ways to subvert my expectations of each theme's usage. i particularly liked the consistent usage of 'corrupted' versions of the themes to keep my ears active in a track featuring many varied styles. bravo. this is an easy vote for me. YES
  22. i like how light and airy this track is. it's simple, and it conveys a free feel that is attractive. i also didn't mind the intro/outro. they don't represent enough of the total track for me to worry about them comprising too much of the mix (although a fifteen-second inaudible tail fading out is way too long!). from an arrangement perspective, there's nowhere near enough development to consider this more than a cover/medley. rexy and LT did the yeoman's work timestamping what's going on, and there's simply way too little that's actually anything new. keeping the instrumentation so similar to the original really emphasizes how similar this is to the original, as well. while i agree that the instruments do help keep that nice vibe you've got going, there needs to be some updates to both the instrumentation and the part writing to make this more unique. from a mastering side, most of the track is below -3db, and the middle section is around -9db. way too quiet. projared's voice is really loud compared to the rest of the track and is what's preventing the whole thing from being brought up to a normal volume. i felt the instruments were fairly balanced, though, and the instruments all speak comfortably in their own places without shouting over each other. the arrangement simply doesn't have enough arrangement on this one. applying some creativity to the part writing and instrumentation, and fix the volume of PJ's voice, and you've got something that's probably got a place on this site. NO
  23. https://kotaku.com/a-beautiful-musical-celebration-of-20-years-of-chrono-c-1833417147 apparently kotaku published an article the next day after release! just saw it now.
  24. ooh, this one is fun! the shanties in this game are all pretty easily recognizable and singable, so it makes sense that an arrangement would come easily to you. i'm going to start with negatives, because there aren't many! there's a few weird notes here and there (these shanties are almost all in harmonic minor, not natural - so, G natural, never G flat like at 2:30 for example), but there's nowhere near enough to draw me out of the style. i liked the cinematic opening, but then you didn't use those (super fun) strings until the very end. i'd have loved to see them used more throughout than just a fiddle lead for a bit. MW hit on the fiddle getting lost when it's playing with everything else, and i agree that it could use adjustment there. that said, those are nitpicks at best. this is a great, fun, energetic arrangement that features some clever ideas both in the ending and in some of the exploration, and it's well-realized in recording and mastering. easy vote for me! YES!
  25. i realize that we essentially have enough YESes for this one already, but i wanted to chime in. i found this track to be such a refreshing departure from the original. there's a ton of great and creative instrument choices used - specifically in the percussion - and i love the overall lo-fi feel of the piece. i know gario called out using that dark string pad from Omnisphere, but i thought it gave the track a cozy vibe that a more realistic patch would have not achieved. i also appreciate the remixer's willingness to really go after the middle section. it provides a nice cream filling to the cookies on each side, and i appreciate that there's just as much attention paid to that section's unique feel as to the other areas where the melody is presented. the short part starting at 4:33 is delightful, and going back to the string pad after that is a nice way to get back towards a recap. YES