Jump to content

Israfel

Members
  • Posts

    418
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Israfel

  1. Fairly unconvincing orchestration, which is a bit of a killer for a piece that's attempting to capture an orchestral sound. Shnabubula is right in pointing out that big chunks of this are presented in simple two-part voicings; and in general, the possibilites inherent in orchestral writing are greatly unexplored.

    This combined with a somewhat vanilla arrangement make for a hard piece to pass.

    NO

  2. Fun, understated stuff. I tend to be more forgiving of the sparseness of the arrangement and if wasn't for the general dearth of interpretation I might lean towards passing this. But unfortunately, the majority of this mix is essentially a cover of the original with drums and some effects; the new melodic interlude is nice, but it's not enough for this to be an acceptable mix. You've got a lot of ideas to play around with here- you could really expand on the original more and make this one longer.

    NO

  3. Aside from an overly conservative arrangement, this mix suffers from acute beginneritis, to use the technical term. Now, this isn't necessarily a bad thing; everyone starts as a beginner. But the best thing to do here is to consider this mix good practice, get feedback from the WIP forums, and keep working.

    NO

  4. This *really* needs to be longer. The short length combined with the sudden texture contrasts creates a schizophrenic, unsatisfying arrangement. You never give any particular idea enough time to truly develop, and you either need to get rid of the section at 1:46, or figure out a way to better incorporate it into the piece.

    The arrangement feels incomplete at this point, and the other elements aren't strong enough to make up for it.

    NO

  5. I really hate to not pass this one, as on the whole I think this is pretty good, but the main problem that Larry mentioned is both too distracting and too easy to fix to let slide. That problem of course being that the rhythm guitars almost entirely drown out the main theme for the majority of mix. Otherwise, this is fun, if fairly conservative, piece- it just needs a little tweaking.

    NO

  6. It's really a shame that with all the materials you had to work with more time wasn't spent on the arrangement. It's pretty, the sounds are nice, but this is a only small hop away from being a sound-upgrade to the original theme.

    It's fairly easy to create pleasant music when you have nice samples, but I'm going to need a better arrangement to pass this.

    NO

  7. Some pretty low quality samples and production here, unfortunately. You'd need one hell of an arrangement for something like this pass and this one just isn't up to the challenge. It's rather short, many of the sections are too close to the original, and the samples, aside from being low quality, are poorly used throughout.

    NO

  8. Well here's a theme I'm rather familiar with, having toyed with it quite a bit myself.

    The arrangement is much more conservative than the weird effects and chipmunk voices might make you think; that is, there are next to no changes to the theme aside from instrumentation. If it wasn't for the percussive additions, this would be only a small step up from a cover.

    Seems a tad gimmicky and there's not enough actual arrangement of the theme to warrant a pass, in my opinion.

    NO

  9. A bit on the repetitive side and fairly conservative as well. The synth and drum work, while not completely horrible or anything, simply don't meet the standards of the site. Bit of a weak ending as well.

    You just need more practice working with synths and I'm sure you'll start to hear some better results. Just keep working at it, man.

    NO

  10. You sure this is a fugue, dude?

    As Larry mentioned, there is a decent amount of crackling throughout. This may actually be the sample itself; I seem to recall a few organ samples with problems like that. And the lowend presents another problem with the sample- it's far too muddy; when the pedals have the melody the whole mix deteriorates into a mass of indistinct sound.

    And given the short length of this mix, there are too many sections of all original material. Particularly as the style you were attempting to emulate lends itself to endless variations, there's simply no reason to introduce all new material (unless you were to make the piece longer).

    And, like Larry, I found the sustained pedal near the end to be largely unsatisfying and a bit of a compositional copout.

    This isn't a horrible piece or anything, but it doesn't really live up to its potential.

    NO

  11. The samples are the only major problem here, in my opinion. That's not to say that they're bad, but just that sometimes their flaws are a bit too exposed. The guitar in particular seemed to work better when it was hidden a bit.

    But otherwise, I rather enjoyed this. The arrangement drifts pleasantly along, builds nicely, and is just overall a joy to listen to.

    Nothing too flashy, but this is nice.

    YES

  12. I tend to lean a bit in favor in passing this one. I agree that the sounds are nothing special, and while they could be better, they really didn't harm the listening experience at all for me. What can I say, I just flat out enjoyed this. The arrangement is quite impressive, full of energy, and a joy to listen to from start to finish. Excellent use of dynamic contrast throughout and the way you managed to develop and expand such a simple little theme is rather commendable.

    The only thing that truly bugs me about this (and it *really* bugs me) is the audio glitch at the end. But I won't reject the whole mix for that.

    YES

  13. Nice. There's a good amount of variation and development on the theme and you've added a tasteful amount of original material (plus, a nice reference to the main Mario theme). Synths and drums, while perhaps nothing special, seem decently pulled off to me.

    An above-average and largely enjoyable mix.

    YES

  14. Gee, you've got a lot of distortion on the guitar. Given the style of music, it seems to me that a tone with a less distortion and more clarity would have made more sense. There's also a muffled, "distant" quality to the recording of the guitar. It simply doesn't sit well in the rest of the mix. And the drums are basically acting like a metronome; they really need to be spiced up a bit.

    Combine that with an arrangement that isn't particularly interpretive and only a stone's throw away from "cover" and I have to side with a

    NO

  15. Despite how much I sucked at it, I always liked Solstice and was interested in doing a mix of it myself.

    I actually rather like the subdued nature of this mix, but there is very little expansion on the original theme; and the piece in general is more repetitive than there's really any reason for it to be.

    Plus, you *really* can't have audio glitches like the one at :27.

    This is pretty close to getting a yes from me, but I'd need more development of the theme (and fix the glitch, of course).

    NO

  16. It's neat that an orchestra performed this for you, but while the arrangement has its moments, I don't think it makes up for the performance and recording. There are little flubs throughout the work and tuning is a real bugaboo. This simply feels a bit under-rehearsed. Plus, in what I suppose is an effort to get this under 6mb, the encoding is rather low quality.

    NO

    Still, congrats on getting it performed.

  17. Generally, I feel that the possibilities of writing for four pianos were never fully explored. Each line seems fairly simplistic and I imagine that this could be redone as a two piano or even a four-handed piece with little to no editing. The four pianos bit just seems a bit gimmicky and isn't used effectively, in my opinion.

    The low end is rather indistinct and you have some timing issues where the multiple piano parts are too loose rhythmically.

    And unlike some of the others, I don't feel the arrangement is much of a selling point (particularly, I felt the writing for the bass voices was unimaginative and too repetitive). I have to go with a no, here.

    NO

×
×
  • Create New...