Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Israfel

  1. This is an automatic reject, unfortunately. The encode is of extremely low quality, there's no reason for it to be 22 kHz. Very tinny quality to the sound. NO
  2. As was mentioned, the piano and percussion in particular have a rather mechanical feel to them. And I question the use of a string sample with such a slow attack for some of the more "active" phrases. That being said, for me anyway, this is a piece where the quality of arrangement transcends the somewhat poor sample quality. Despite the variety of thematic material, there's a commendable amount of consistency to the arrangement and the transitions between themes strike me as very fluid and well-handled. But more to the point, I have to say that I feel that this is just better composed than a good number of the mixes that I hear- even if the "performance" of the composition is nothing particularly special. There aren't flashy samples here, but the writing is simply too well executed to overlook. Reminds me of some of the sampled electronic music of the early 90's actually. YES
  3. Gee, sounds like Streets of Rage. I hate voting on electronic dance tracks, it's just not a genre I'm too familiar with, but nonetheless, here we go. There's been some complaints in regards to form and development, but I'm not really hearing it with this piece. The form seems rather like a straightforward ABA affair and all the musical ideas presented are adequately explored, in my opinion, and as such I feel that the short length is justified. And I agree with some of the others in regards to the overall high quality of the mixing and production. It's not really my sort of thing, but it seems to me like a well-made and above-average mix, so: YES
  4. Nice idea with the original soundtrack playing a role. To me the main problem with this is that for mix that relies so heavily on the piano, the piano sequencing isn't too convincing,it's a bit too loud and rather mechanical sounding. And I agree with the others that during the middle the piece seems to wander around aimlessly. And there's enough material here to justify a longer duration. Not too bad, but still needs work. NO
  5. This strikes me as the sort of music that might be perfectly at home in a club setting, but when it comes to a close listening, simply fails to hold the listener's interest. Quite repetitive and the short orchestral section 3 or so minutes in is entirely inexplicable. The main purpose of the music on this site is to be listened to, rather than danced to, and so I feel this should get a NO
  6. I'm pretty much with Darkesword. First of all, I'm a little confused about how the orchestra stuff is supposed to fit into the mix- you have a 3:35 piece with a 20 second "orchestral" section- that just doesn't make any formal sense. And given that the section doesn't add anything to the piece (IMO) it sticks out as an idea that may have sounded neat at the time, but doesn't quite work. Guitar performance seems a bit hesitant at times (particularly during the acoustic section) and would likely have benefitted from a few more takes. Some of the phrases aren't cleanly played (such as the slur at :22) and you have a tendency to rush things. Plus the performance isn't very smooth- for example at :41 where you cut off the note too quickly. Now, this is clearly an amateur performance, but then, this is an amateur music community so it's not *that* big of a deal. I do feel that this had the potential to be a much better performance with more takes and a bit more attention to detail, but I'm not of the opinion that the guitar is in and of itself a dealbreaker. I do however agree with the others that the electric section is mixed too loud. This is a difficult mix for me to say yea or nay to- but in the end I feel that while a good number of listeners would likely enjoy it, I just don't think the pros outweigh the cons. a lukewarm NO
  7. Wow- I've been mentioned three times in this thread and I haven't even voted yet. First of all, I do feel that the work is too short and would have benefitted greatly from having more time to develop. The layering of ideas that you have for the first 1:30 is very nicely done, and had you continued layering and then gradually removing the layers until the end of the piece I feel the form would have been much more satisfying. As it is, the work feels torn between process music and a more sectional approach with neither idea being seen through to completion. The ending is quite weak as well, but this likely a result of the confused and underdeveloped form more than anything else. Everything else seems quite strong to me, but in this current state the work feels too incomplete to pass. a reluctant NO
  8. Mark my words, provided he stays in the community, Shnabubula will eventually be considered one of the greats. This guy is the real deal, folks; a true talent, in my opinion. An absolutely marvelous mix- fantastic work.
  9. Fun stuff. Better than average guitar sound and I really dig the energy that you have here. But like Larry mentioned, this is really a cover rather than a rearrangement. It's an enjoyable cover, but it doesn't fit in with the site's standards. NO
  10. Excellent orchestration and your use of counterpoint and harmony shows a great deal of maturity. Those wondering why I keep harping on about form in some of my other comments would do well to listen to this mix- there are a limited number of musical ideas here and each is fully developed to give the piece a very satisfying and "complete" feel. Great all the way through and the section from 4:15 to the end in particular is very well done, in my opinion. Fantastic work. YES
  11. The biggest problem that I have with this mix is that the ideas are never allowed to be adequately developed and as a result the mix simply feels unfinished. The piece seems to be building up to something big and the unsatisfying, abrupt ending fails to live to the promise offered by the dramatic opening. And I'm a bit confused about how the section at 2:00 is supposed to logically fit into the overall form of the work- the piece is already so short that introducing a new theme and then promptly leaving it makes no sense. Unfortunately, it feels like it was added just to take up space and the time spent introducing that new theme could have been better used developing the source material. And I agree that the section at 3:17 is a bit too cluttered at the moment. Right now, it seems like the layout of the piece simply wasn't very well thought-out. This is quite salvageable but you need to sit down and do some planning. Figure out exactly what musical ideas you're trying to develop in this mix and get a general outline of how you're going to go about doing it- then try to avoid casually adding new themes and ideas once you get to the actual composition phase. The main reason I'm voting no on this one is because it simply doesn't sound finished; it's like it ends mid-sentence. But there are some nice sounds and some good ideas in this mix and if you go back and approach the form of the work with a bit more forethought, I think you may end up with a very satisfying piece of music. NO
  12. The vocal track by itself manages to disqualify this one, unfortunately. There are massive intonation problems, and the it doesn't sit well in the mix- sounds like the vocalist is singing right into your ear...and the backing band is in an entirely different room. Keep working at it, man. NO
  13. Those expecting a convincing, live guitar sound will be sorely disappointed, but if you just accept the sounds for what they are I think there's a lot to like here. Love the energy throughout this one, and there's a enough variety in textures to keep things from getting too monotonous. And unlike most mixes that I hear these days, there's actually a satisfying form going on. The opening (dig that organ) and the changeup at about 3:05 in particular are really wonderful, in my opinion. Percussion track isn't the most interesting thing in the world, and the mix isn't perfect by any means. I'm pretty borderline on this one, but lean towards giving it a thumbs up. YES
  14. I have to say that I really enjoyed this one, and didn't hear many of the problems that Larry described. But hey, nothing wrong with differing opinions. Actually, the only thing that kinda bothered me was the piano figure from about 2:11 to 2:14 and then again at 2:24. The rhythms seem to be a tad too jerky at those points. I know that you're playing syncopations, but nonetheless it just seems a little off to me. But that's a minor problem (and it might just be me hearing things...wouldn't be the first time)- otherwise I thought this was a fun little mix that's pretty darn well-done. I love the slightly off-kilter instrumentation and the way that the mood alternates between laid-back and just a bit quirky. Good stuff. YES
  15. At first I didn't really know what the other guys' problems were. Groovy little asymmetric rhythm is the piano to start things off, and while I was iffy on the the organ, I was willing to go along with it. But, the way that dissonance is used in this mix just seems inexplicable. I'm normally quite tolerant about dissonance, but there needs to be some sort of logic behind how it fits into the piece. As most of the mix is largely consonant, the more strident harmonies that appear periodically seem quite out of place- moreso since the dissonances aren't convincingly resolved but rather handled in a way that's somewhat more characteristic of a serialist or aleatoric piece, despite the fact that most of the mix is clearly not pan-tonal. NO
  16. The sound is perhaps a bit muddy at times, but like some of the others I don't feel that it's a deal-breaker. The unusually good sequencing and excellent arrangement trumps any problems I have with the reverb. YES
  17. Very good work here. Great style and just a joy to listen to. Your use of vocals samples adds a wonderful atmosphere and is subtle enough to not overpower the mix or sound gimmicky. Excellent, understated percussion (love the tabla), very effective. I'm assuming that a great deal the sounds (namely the percussion, guitar and of course the vocals) used were performace samples, and some may consider that a lazy and easy way to compose. Personally, I feel that while the usage of performance samples limits the versatility of what you're able to do in a piece, it is nonetheless a perfectly valid method of composition. Quite an uplifting piece, definitely a keeper in my book. However, I'm not sure if this has enough arrangement to qualify for the site. I've listened to the original many times, and it seems to me that large portions of the mix are entirely original. Now, to be honest, I rather want to pass this one, I feel it's a stylish and well-done mix, but I just can't find enough of the original theme here. And I've really tried to find it, replaying the mix and the original over and over; I really *wanted* to find it. Maybe it's simply a failing on my part, but while I could find parts of the mix that I could trace back to the source theme, the overwhelming majority seemed original as far as I was able to discern. Such a shame, I really enjoyed this one. NO
  18. What's here sounds pretty good, but at the moment it's a bit incomplete. If you go back and work on further developing the ideas that you have here this could have decent chance of getting posted. NO
  19. There's nothing I really have to add to the other comments. It simply isn't an effective piece of ambient music for the reasons already stated. NO
  20. The mix here features the flute quite prominently, however the sample isn't quite up to the task. There's a distracting amount of vibrato, and things become shrill when you try to write 2-part flute harmonies. When writing electronic music(particularly when you're limited to free samples) you have to write with specific samples in mind, taking into account their strengths and weaknesses. While the music as written might sound perfectly fine if it were played by a real flute, it simply doesn't work with the sample you have. When the bass comes in at around 1:11, the texture begins to get a bit muddy. Particularly at passages like at 1:29, the bass notes aren't very distinct. Perhaps the whole piece could be transposed up to avoid this. A more interesting and melodic bassline would likely help as well. Also, given how exposed the flute is, you really need to spend some time with humanization. For instance, dynamic contrast is severely lacking with the mix. NO
  21. As with other recent submissions, sound quality is a fairly large issue here. The percussion and many of the synths have a distinct "Fruity Loops preset" sound to them. Aside from suffering from weak samples, the percussion never quite manages to raise above the banal and remains uninspiring throughout; more variety and more energy are desperately needed in the drum track. And on a sidenote perhaps related to sample quality, there's a faint, yet nonetheless distracting, ringing sound that can be heard during quieter sections- 1:39 for example. On the plus side however, I will say that the brief section beginning at 1:22 is pretty interesting and shows a decent amount of creativity. Good job there. NO
  22. Unfortunately, the first thing that one notices about this mix is that it is simply a general MIDI file that has been recorded as an MP3. There are a wide variety of high quality samples that can be downloaded for free and this sort of sound quality just isn't acceptable anymore. That being said, the arrangement isn't too bad, if perhaps a bit straightforward- a few nice harmony change-ups, decent form and overall a rather pleasant composition. However, I would like to see more attention paid toward humanization- try adding dynamic contrast or even more subtle additions like vibrato (by way of small, quick pitch bends). This *might* be passable with better samples. I would recommend submitting to vgmusic.com, though. NO
  23. The atmosphere created by the opening moments remains, in my mind, as the strongest element of this mix. The street ambience coupled with some light synth dabblings creates a playful, yet at the same time a somewhat gritty, mood that works well to set up the piece. When the piece proper comes in however, the promise of the intro isn't quite fulfiled. The bass notes that enter have a muffled quality- almost as if they were recorded underwater. This becomes less bothersome as more elements of the mix make their appearance and the bass in turn loses its prominence. The organ sound is overly cheesy and is grossly out of place with the rest of the mix, and while no great sin was committed with the percussion, it adds little to the overall sound and the snare in particular is perhaps a bit anemic. With the rapping element we get to something which I'm not entirely comfortable commenting on, it being a type of music that I don't listen to regularly. So if these observations are useful, all the better, otherwise don't hesitate to disregard them. It seems that at times you want to rush the rhythms of the rap, particularly when there is a long string of words. More rhythmic clarity might also give the mix more energy and "punch" which I feel is lacking from the rap section. There are instances as well where the words are spoken so quickly and run together such as to make them entirely uncomprehensible - 1:10 for example. In its current state, I feel that the mix has some promise, and is certainly not a lost cause, but at this time I don't think that I can give it a pass. NO
  24. Shrill is really the word of choice here. Unfortunately, this mix has been eq'd in such a way as to make it extremely cluttered and actually a bit painful to listen to. Try to re-EQ it for a warmer sound- and maybe you could cut back some on the distortion as well. NO
  25. My only complaint is that the recorder doesn't seem to sit in the mix very well - it sounds a bit separate from everything else, sort of like the effect you get with a karaoke machine...if that makes any sense. But otherwise, this is a fun, great little mix. Definitely should have been longer, though. YES man...I wish I could play the recorder.
  • Create New...