Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Israfel

  1. It's pleasant, but there are a few things that hold it back. For one thing, it's rather monotonous; the percussion and texture never really changes all that much and it begins to become tiresome a bit quickly. And there's really way more reverb than there needs to be. The basic structure of the mix is pretty good I think, it just needs to be better realized. NO
  2. Not a lot to add to the other's comments. Rather poorly mastered and there's just not much to the composition. Groove + movie samples is unfortunately a good way of describing this. And those guitar harmonies (2:09) don't seem to mesh with your bassline very well. This really needs a lot more work. NO
  3. Well, unlike the other two, I'm pretty familiar with black metal, and while the arrangement isn't too bad, those synth guitars really ain't cutting it. And the vocals (which seem more like industrial than metal too me, anyway) really don't add much are a perhaps a bit overused. And unfortunately this thing is rather underdeveloped and needs to be substantially longer. There's just something about metal with synthetic guitars and drums that just doesn't work very well. I mean, it *can* work, but this mix misses the mark. NO
  4. On the whole, an enjoyable mix, but there are a few problems. Your piano lead instrument was a bit weak , I felt, but even so it fares much better than the rather GMIDI-ish sounding drums. The sample and sequencing on that percussion part could certainly be improved upon. I agree that the rhythm guitar is repetitive, but then, that's how it is in the original. Which brings us to another problem; this mix is really rather similar to the original. You did add a few minor accompaniment tracks, and a quick guitar solo, but for the most part this is a reinstrumented version of the original. Now, it's not so close to the original that it makes for an easy and automatic no, but it's close enough that, given my initial reservations, I don't think I can pass this. NO
  5. When I first heard this I was pretty impressed and didn't really understand why there were 3 no's already. Unfortunately, after taking a listen to the source material I can see where the other judges are coming from. Aside from the ending being a bit of cop-out, this is remarkably similar to the original. It sounds great, and fans of the game will love it no doubt, but it doesn't really fit in with what we do on this site. NO
  6. Sounds like an attempt at a standard techno track, except unusally sparse. While it manages to not be terribly offensive, there's really not anything all that interesting going on here, unfortunately. Much too empty and anemic sounding overall. NO
  7. Nice. If there was a bit more rearrangement here I think this one would have a good shot at passing. NO
  8. You rang? I'm pretty much with Larry on this one. It's a bit too conservative in its arrangement and I don't think that the additions, such as 1:00, are strong enough to make up the difference. And it doesn't really sound like any renaissance piece I've heard, but that's not such a big deal. I would have however suggest ditching the cheer samples. While I understand why they're there, they become a bit tiresome after repeated listenings. NO
  9. Fairly similar to the original, I suppose, but it's really hard not to like this one. And there are enough additions to qualify for the site, in my opinion. Cool stuff. YES
  10. I quite enjoyed this on the whole. I rather doubt it will get passed though, for while there's quite a bit to like here I believe, I can also see many people not caring for this one bit and generally finding the whole thing boring and overly drawn out. But I enjoyed the empty, subdued nature of arrangement. I feel that you did a good job developing the theme in a logical and satisfying way. And its length is justified and aptly handled, in my opinion. Some of the samples distract from the mood a bit, but otherwise I think this is some nice work. YES
  11. A popular observation. This isn't the first time that people have compared my music to the soundtrack in World of Warcraft. Which is mildly interesting insofar as I have honestly never played it or heard the soundtrack. No, seriously.
  12. Opening is a bit Philip Glass-ish- cool. But man, the other's weren't kidding about the production, this thing has waaaay too much reverb and there are numerous balance issues. The production makes this a no-go right from the get-go, unfortunately. NO
  13. hm...tricky. No one else has mentioned it, so this might just be me, but I felt that the drums were overcompressed and far too loud- they really started to hurt my ears after awhile. The ending is completely non-existent and it really is too short; you need to flesh out this piece more. But, on the plus side, there's a lot of energy here and some nice synth work. At the end of the day though, this mix smacks of unfulfilled promise. NO
  14. Rather uninspiring GMidi-ish sounds here. Now, I believe that it's possible to get passed with poor samples, but it really needs to be a standout arrangement. And unfortunately that isn't really the case here. The arrangement isn't horrible but it certainly doesn't transcend the cheesy samples. I'd highly recommend looking into upgrading your sounds, you can get much better quality than this without having to spend any money. NO
  15. This was actually fairly enjoyable I thought, but I never felt that the piece was going anywhere. Now, I don't mean that you need a big dynamic buildup, as that would likely ruin the feel of the mix, but you need some sort of climax to be working towards so that there is a satisfying sense of form. That climax might be achieved rhythmically, harmonically, timbrally etc., but there needs to be some sort of development of ideas to create tension and resolution. As it is, the piece is a bit emotionally flatlined. And this particular mix would likely benefit from a significantly increased length. NO
  16. Fun stuff, but it's only a remix in the loosest sense of the word. Find a way to include more of the source tune and this would have decent shot at passing. NO
  17. It's a nice arrangement overall, I think. But it's just so darn mechanical sounding. You did some work with the dynamics, but it's going to either quite a bit more humanization or a live performance to get a pass. Still, the writing seems fairly good, although I think you should changeup the accompaniment at some point. Maybe you could have a more homorhythmic or chorale-style "b" section to serve as contrast to the nonstop arpeggios in the left hand. NO
  18. Nice, somewhat gothic arrangement here. The samples don't always do the writing justice, but for the most part they get the job done. The arrangement is quite strong in my opinion, though, and so this gets an easy 'yes' from me. YES
  19. Yeah, my submission email wasn't exactly very detailed. The main theme (which Larry's post above links to) was used as the basis for several arrangements within the game. So sometimes it was played slowly, sometimes quickly, with backing material, or sometimes solo. My own take of the melody takes it at a more leisurely pace. As far as the samples go- the ethnic samples are from Quantum Leap's Rare Instruments collection, the piano is the one that comes bundled with GigaStudio, the percussion is from Sonic Implants and everything else was freely downloaded. Oh, and the original soundtrack was composed by Guy Whitmore. Here's the Gamespot page for the game http://www.gamespot.com/pc/adventure/shivers/index.html?q=Shivers This probably isn't necessary, but just to help you out I'll quickly run down how the theme appears in the mix. At :25 the piano plays the first 6 notes of the theme [1 b6 5, 1 4 5], but ornamented a little. At the :39 the rest of the melody is played. The fiddle at 1:16 plays only the opening six notes before diverging. At 1:44 the pad synth plays the full melody. Then you have a few repeats until the whole theme is played through twice starting at 3:50
  20. Quite repetitive unfortunately, and the mixing is a bit subpar, particularly in the low end. The samples have a definite Genreal MIDI/Fruityloops preset sound to them and simply fail to inspire throughout. This one needs more work, I'm afraid. NO
  21. My main criticism has already been mentioned. While you add drums and the like, almost nothing is actually done with the original theme- if anything the original has been simplified and relegated to a background role. It's enjoyable in its way, and some will likely really dig it. But it doesn't quite fit in with the site. NO
  22. This should be listened to multiple times. Not because it's difficult to "get" or anything, but because there are some great compositional details that one might miss on one or two distracted listenings. I really enjoy the way that Gray deals with rhythm for adding development and cohesion to the piece. For instance, the triplet rhythm of the main theme (at :11 etc.) is used as the basis for the beautiful crescendo at :28. And another great little addition to this section is the accented upbeats that start at :32 giving the impression that the meter has changed- very nicely done. It's strange, despite the "liberal interpretation" I think you'd be hard pressed to find more than 20 seconds of music here that isn't in some way developing the original. No, it's not perfect and not everyone will like it. But I do think that this mix is a bit more inspired and thought-out than some people are giving it credit for.
  23. Huge chunks of this are just the original played with different samples, and the additions that come in eventually are quite minor. There's just not enough here to give it a pass. NO
  24. One problem (and this may just be me) that I hear is the opening progression. This i-VII movement is unfortunately rather cliche, but you seem enamored with it such that it is repeated throughout- gives the piece a somewhat derivative feel. But originality is a bit overrated anyway, so I'll try to overlook it. However, when that progression returns at about 3:40, the oboe solo part being played over it seems almost entirely random- it sounds like you were just trying to find notes that fit with the harmony rather than writing an effective melody. And this is one of the few mixes where I think that a focused, shorter length would result in a more satisfying form. This piece tended to drag on a bit without any real forward momentum. While a valiant effort with no tremendously serious problems, it never really manages to rise above a competent mediocrity- nothing horribly bad, but nothing particularly good either. As such, I'm siding with a somewhat borderline NO
  25. Basically a pleasant, if generic, mix. The only substantial technical problem I hear is the overpowering drums which don't really fit into the mix very well. Otherwise, the composition suffers from a sparsity of ideas. You rarely have more than two melodic instruments playing, and while that isn't inherently bad, in this particular work it contributes to a thinness of texture and an undesireable simplicity. There just isn't enough here to keep my interest. NO
  • Create New...