Jump to content

Israfel

Members
  • Content Count

    418
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Israfel

  1. I have to admit, I'm a bit confused by the chromaticism, mostly because it only prominently appears for about 20 seconds (:38-:58 ), and then it largely (although, not entirely) goes away. You can pretty much do whatever you want in music provided you're at least consistent, but getting all atonal for a few seconds in an otherwise fairly conservative mix just isn't very effective. But otherwise I have no real problems with this; the chromaticism is iffy, but not enough for me to give a no. YES
  2. Beef up the drums (and spruce up the sequencing), eq up the highs and lows, and perhaps play around with the original theme more (this isn't a cover, but I'd still really like to see more interpretation), and this would be an easy pass, I think. Just needs a bit more work. NO
  3. The vocals by themselves kill this. I don't want to be unnecessarily harsh here, but here we go: You can't sing. Now, I can't sing either, so don't feel too bad. But I would strongly recommend taking voice lessons before attempting another vocal mix. NO
  4. Neat. But honestly, I don't see how anyone would be able to hear this as a remix of the source tune. You need to be a bit more faithful to the original theme in your mixes. NO
  5. For what seems to be going for orchestral, this is an awfully empty sounding mix. Like the others were saying, it really seems like you were trying to go for a dramatic, driving piece, but the whole thing feels a bit lifeless- which may be caused by the muddy lowend and a timpani that doesn't really have the needed "oomf" to get this thing going. But more than that- there is zero flow to this mix. The styles of the different pieces in the medley have next to nothing to do with each and there was no attention paid to transitions between the themes. NO
  6. Rather simplistic throughout and there are some rather...adventurous transitions. The mix has a bit of an identity crisis. Most of the piece is too simplistic to work as anything but a dance track, but the section at 2:10 would be a bit tricky to groove to. Go back to the drawing board and figure out what you're trying to do with this mix. NO
  7. Hey, great stuff. Wonderful execution and production. The only problem I have is that the rap is really the lead of this piece such that the source theme takes a back seat. But still, nice job. YES
  8. The guitar sort of has a karaoke feel to it, by which I mean it doesn't mesh terribly well with the other sounds; I like the idea of having the guitar, but I don't feel it was mixed in with the rest of the "ensemble" very fluidly. Plus, there's a good deal of clipping and the ending was quite a letdown. I actually kind of enjoyed this, but there are just too many little problems for it to pass. NO
  9. Perhaps it's not the genre per se, but rather that this is a "standard" example of it; that is, this really has a paint-by-numbers feel to it. Quite repetitive and never manages to do anything standout, in my opinion. And then you've got problems like balance (the added synth at 2:33, for example). NO
  10. It's decently enjoyable, but only a tad bit over a straight-cover in terms of arrangement. You really ought to expand this out and develop the source theme more, particularly as the mix is pretty short in its current form; it feels a bit incomplete as is. NO
  11. Really manages to pull off that "mix played in a cave" feel (which by the way, isn't a good thing), and is far too simplistic to pass. Cut down on the reverb and work on incorporating more ideas into the music. NO
  12. There are primarily two problems I have with this mix. First of all, I don't believe it incorporates the original theme well enough. Only a part of the original is even used here and it seems to serve more as a background element, with most of the melodic material being improv-like solos. Secondly, this strikes as being a bit on the simplistic side; what with sections (2:12 to 3:06 for instance) consisting only of bass and lead and numerous others sections which only add a repeating fragment of the source theme to the bass/lead combo. There's just not enough meat on the bones, here. A good p
  13. This is about a good an execution as one can reasonably hope for in an amateur community, and so the question is whether or not this has enough arrangement to qualify for the site. Now, it's clearly not a straight-cover, and so this is just going to come down to a rather subjective judgement on whether the ratio of new to original material is acceptable- and for my part, I think it is. YES
  14. Given how short this is, the source is only minimally present and developed; and so I really don't think this is suitable for the site. If you were to more prominently incorporate the theme however, this might have the potential to pass. Fun stuff, though. NO
  15. Production is the main killer here. In particular, the recording quality is quite poor- there's a distant, overly-reverbed quality to many of the sounds that give the impression this is being played in a cave or something; plus, there is a persistant background hiss throughout the work. The arrangement itself isn't too bad; although, given the amount of material presented here, this really ought to be longer. NO
  16. For me, the greatest problem here is that the source theme isn't developed very much and feels somewhat tacked on; that is, perhaps the majority of the mix is spent exploring new material; and when you do use the source it just plays through exactly as the original with no additions or developments. I'm an advocate of having all thematic material come in some way from the source melody, and while you may not want to go that far, you definitely need to find ways to integrate the game theme more prominently into your work. NO
  17. Let's see, the source tune is just Do-Re-Me-Fa repeated over and over again. There may be ways to turn that into an acceptable remix, but basically writing an original piece that uses a sample from the game isn't one of those ways. Oh, and you included those singing hamsters. How nice. NO
  18. No matter what your intentions were, the section from 1:53 to 1:58 will almost certainly be heard as a mistake by most people; the "odd notes," as you put it, only occur during that one section, and so it sticks out in relation to the rest of the piece. It is possible to get away with note choices like that, but keep in mind that a "mistake" that occurs once is mere novelty, while a "mistake" that occurs many times is a style. But otherwise, this sounds pretty good. YES
  19. Yeah, I'm pretty much with Dan. Just as a matter of personal preference, this may not appeal to everyone (I admit it does little for me); but one can hardly deny that this is a well-executed mix. YES
  20. This only minimally arranges the original theme; most of the mix focuses on the beats to the exclusion of the source material. The source really needs to be center stage. There's just not enough arrangement for this to pass. NO
  21. The sequencing on the piano is mechanical throughout and this brings the whole mix down, in my opinion. Given that this is essentially a solo piano piece, much more attention should have been paid to humanization. NO
  22. I'm a big fan of Wizardry, I really like the title theme, and this is a nice, enjoyable cover. But, it's a cover, and while there are some nice additions, I don't feel there's enough new material to qualify for this site. NO
  23. Whatever strengths that the composition may have aren't allowed to come through with this realization. Pretty much no attention was paid toward dynamics or articulation, and as a result this mix feels pretty "dead" throughout- particularly noticeable when the percussion enters at around 4:00; I'm assuming you're going for a dance feel there, but that has to be one of the most emotionally constrained dances I've ever heard. You just need to go back and spend more time on the sequencing. NO
  24. I don't think this is as bad as DC and Larry imply, but it is true that once things get going this is little more than the original with a drumbeat. Still, on the whole it was decently enjoyable and had a good amount of energy. NO
  25. As an aesthestic preference, I don't much care for the stutters; they don't seem stylistically appropriate; that is, the stutters are shoe-horned into an otherwise conventional mix such that they are neither convincing nor musicially satisfying. It is in essence a consistency problem, in my opinion. Given the straightforward nature of the rest of the mix, the stutters serve no real purpose beyond their own novelty. It also seems to me that the theme itself is only minimally and simplistically used thoughout, with the bulk of the mix's length devoted to developing other ideas. NO
×
×
  • Create New...