Jump to content

CHz

Contributors
  • Posts

    518
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by CHz

  1. Wait, hold up, I just listened to the piece. Pretty simple track, but the melody's well arranged with some nice new parts, and the textures are great and full. Guess I should pass this after all. YES
  2. Milestone soundtracks suck, so this surely can't be any good. NO
  3. Possibly worth noting: the linked source from FF3DS omits the intro from the original NES tune (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eXLrC0SblMc), which is also used in the mix intro (first thirty seconds). The tune is separated into three parts on the remake OST, so that video just has the track containing the main loop. No one's complained about the arrangement, but I thought I'd point it out. The arrangement through the first 1:45 or so is actually really close to the original. The melody is played straight through, and the bassline is the same too in a few parts. Most of the personalization is through the effects and beats, although there are some new parts here and there, and changing the accelerando in the intro to a decelerando was a nice touch. After 1:45, the arrangement gets a lot better with that build, the guitar break, the off-kilter section at 2:59 in a different signature, etc. Overall it's passable, but I think it'd be better off with more interpretation in the first half. Okay, the production. First and foremost, the compression is murder. 1:36-2:21 should be this HUGE, BADASS BUILD, but instead it's actually boring because there's zero dynamic change. All the instruments are also mashed together by the compression. I don't mind a little dirtiness in something like this, but the mixing is definitely bringing this down. The sequencing & samples weren't great, but aside from the flute at the beginning, nothing really hurts this too much. It's the compression that does this one in. NO (resubmit)
  4. Yeah, the lower register is pretty thrashed. I'm with z, even with a stellar arrangement, that would have to be cleaned up for a pass. The arrangement stuck too close to the sources too, but there was some nice personalization here and there and the performance was pretty good. Work on that production and try to be more interpretive with the original tunes. NO
  5. I liked the melodic variations more than everyone else did, it looks like. Kept things interesting through what otherwise is a very straightforward dance mix. Overall production is not bad, but could definitely be cleaner, so that the lead stands out a bit more and sections like 3:15 are less cluttered. Also yeah, those beats in the intro are a bit distracting. Nothing's really pulling me strongly in either direction, but I'm a little more on the NO side than the YES side. NO (resubmit)
  6. A lot of arrangement ideas here used to flesh out the original, which is good because the source has a whole lot of nothing happening in it. Nice work. The piece as a whole really wanders around a whole lot with no clear direction, though. There's evolution, and there's new things just kind of happening whenever, and this falls into the latter category as much as the former. After about the three minute mark or so things get on track for a while, building up and then winding down into the noise, but then all of a sudden at 4:59 there's piano, which messes around for twenty seconds before abruptly ending as quickly as it came in. There are a few moments like that earlier in the track too. The production is on the rough side, too. The sequencing is pretty mechanical all around. The piano is especially noticeable, but the clarinet in the beginning and the choir suffer too. And that snare sample, I don't really want to beat a dead horse here, but it doesn't fit well with anything else in the track. NO
  7. Adorable track. The Eyes on Me melody works in the style, the writing is pretty good, and the production is nice and clean. I was tapping my toes, fun stuff. I'm with the NO voters, though, this strays too far for too long. The source adaptation was good while it lasted, though. NO
  8. Pop cheese factor is through the roof, wonderful. The source is in the background, and it's pretty soft, so I think it would be better if it were more prominent. It's still generally pretty audible, and it's interpreted in different ways, so I'm fine with this on arrangement. Production is definitely over the bar. I thought the male vocals were a bit overpowered in the section from 2:42 to 3:05 and could've been brought up a little bit, but that's a minor complaint. YES
  9. The writing and interpretation in the first half are really simple, just adding more loops on top of what's there. The writing changes a little later, but it's hard to tell because none of the instruments are balanced well, so they all blend into each other into a bit of a mess. The change to the uptempo second half was a good idea, and helps keep things from getting too stagnant, but the writing is even simpler than the first half's. The glitch effects do help a little bit. Overall, there just really isn't a whole lot of development. I'd like to see more interpretation of the source than just repeating the same loops ad infinitum, with an occasional change. The strings could definitely be humanized more, but my biggest complaint is definitely in the mixing. The guitar in the first half and drone in the second half in particular eat up a ton of space. The arrangement concept is interesting; just work on the execution. NO
  10. Nice one. The source doesn't really have a whole lot going for it, but you did a pretty rockin' job expanding on it by using it in different ways and adding original material. I liked that moment at 1:32 when the source riff switches guitars, completely different feel. Production is pretty clean in general. The synths tend to get lost in the rhythm guitar and percussion, and I wish they they were a bit more prominent, especially the solo at 2:05, but other than that, good job. Easy call, enjoy your YES
  11. I agree with most of this (not so much the drum stuff), but even taken all together, I don't think they add up to a no. Excellent, well-developed arrangement and good production besides the little hangups. I say contact him and see if he'll touch it up, but this is more than good enough for the site as is. YES
  12. Guess I'll slide in a quick vote, because that's all I have to add here. NO (resubmit) It's the combination of arrangement (very long, conservative Magus intro) and production (exposed samples, poor balancing in the busier parts). Not a bad start, just keep working on it.
  13. The arrangement is alright, but it is a bit repetitive. Palp mentioned the intro, which does feel a bit long, but the break from 1:28 to 1:58 is also repeated with a few more elements on top, and the section after the solos from 2:58 to 3:26 is repeated almost verbatim. You did do a pretty good job of exploring the source, though, even though I think there's room for more variety in the writing. The balancing could definitely use some work: as Palp mentioned, instruments get crowded out, despite room in the midrange. As far as the piano, yeah, this is electronica, so I'm not going to rage. That said, I think a lighter piano sample would help, because the current one is on the heavier side, and that makes the runs sound especially ridiculous. Not too bad, but this one isn't all the way there quite yet. NO (resubmit)
  14. The balancing in the louder sections is off-kilter, with the percussion distractingly in front of everything else and the melody often obscured. It really makes those passages seem less powerful than they should be. I'd love to see the perc pushed back and the melody brought to the front. Agreed with OA/DA on the sequencing. The interpretation of the source is pretty decent, but the arrangement does start treading water after a while. You didn't touch the whole second half of the source, so you could use that to fill out the arrangement. Promising start here, I'd like to see you revisit it. NO (resubmit)
  15. What a silly arrangement. Could be a whole lot more daring, but the generally new accompaniment gives a few different feels to the melody, and the slowed down section is alright. The production sounded fine to me overall, no problem with the guitars. The synths were kind of weird, but I think that may be more them being far too cute for this type of track than anything else. I'm square on the fence about this one. I'd love it if the arrangement were expanded, but I can't really think of any reason to NO this. YES
  16. Pretty simple stuff, but I dig the melodic alterations and embellishments and chord changes. I don't think the lack of complexity is a super big deal here given the style, although I did feel at times that it could be a bit more interesting. The slight veers into retread territory don't really help things on that account. There's some variety in how things are handled, but I think a bit more in the accompaniment and phrases would be great. I agree with the comments on the harmonies; the simplicity of the piece only makes it that much more noticeable. This is really close, but it could use just a bit more to push it over the edge. The performance is nice and expressive, so just clean it up a bit and work in a bit more. NO (resubmit)
  17. fanks bromigos I'm not going to respond to everyone because I am exceptionally lazy so if you don't get a personal reply then just assume that I gave you a big sloppy lick. Mattias "Another Soundscape" Häggström Gerdt: Man, when I was you are, I had. I had. You don't even know. Schwaltzvald: Dobu Usagi's latest towhows, eh? I'm not really a super big fan of the guy, but he's alright. I liked U 4 R off that album a lot. suzy: Still the best piece of music I ever wrote.
  18. The production is very rough, as I don't really need to say at this point. The unrealistic sequencing is a big turnoff, as is the balancing, which gets really crowded when multiple instruments are going at it. The piano in particular is muffled, and the brass in the ending section in double particular sounds like it's in the next room, with the door closed. Also, the track abruptly cuts off. The percussion is pretty repetitive, and mixing it up would go a long way to making the arrangement more interesting in a few places where it drags a bit, like 1:02-2:04. I liked the direction you took the source, and there are some interesting ideas there, but it is a bit repetitive at times, like the section I mentioned last sentence. This was a little harsh but it sounds like you have an ear for arrangement; just keep working on your music. NO
  19. I've never really understood how the Genesis could handle playing Red Zone's soundtrack without the console exploding with enough force to bring about the end of the planet. Rather fantastic, brutal stuff. The source riffs and melodies used aren't modified all that much, but these are some massive source tunes, so here's what I heard for everyone else's benefit: 0:20-0:30 - guitar playing intro riff of Titlemusic 0:42-0:52 - synth playing same 0:58-1:18 - rhythm guitars playing 0:33 bass riff of Titlemusic 1:28-1:38 - lead guitar playing 1:41 melody of Titlemusic 1:58-2:28 - same synth from earlier returns, it's almost inaudible from 2:08 on though 2:18-2:23 - lead guitar playing intro riff of Titlemusic 2:29-2:34 - rhythm guitar playing the intro riff of Night Mission (the rhythm of it only) 2:34-3:04 - lead guitar playing 0:04-0:33 melody of Night Mission 3:04-3:24 - lead guitar playing 3:28 melody of Night Mission 3:29-3:39 - guitars playing intro riff of Night Mission 3:45-3:57 - guitar playing 2:44 melodic riff of Night Mission I probably missed some, but that's already at 60% without even counting the fifteen seconds in 2:08-2:28 when the synth is playing but barely audible and there's no other overt source usage, so I'm not going to scrub the sources. The arrangement was pretty decent. The METULization of the title theme was real nice. The Night Mission portion felt a little awkward to me in places, especially when the melody suddenly comes in suddenly at 2:34, but not too shabby overall. The guitar performance could be tightened up a bit; 1:43-1:48 in particular slips noticeably. Production is by far the biggest problem area. The balancing especially needs some work, as the rhythm guitars have a tendency to drown out everything else. The machine gunning in the snare drum rolls at 0:37 etc. doesn't sound that great. Very nice for a first mix, but I think it needs a little bit more sprucing up before it's ready for prime time. NO (resubmit)
  20. I'm with the illustrious Mr. Prabhu on this one. Really close to the original, but there's some nice stuff done, especially in the second half. The piano sounds great, but some of the accompanying elements and the balancing could use a bit of work. Fairly close call, but I think there's too much holding this back at the moment. NO (resubmit)
  21. I'd feel better about the bookended source use thing if more were done to the source in the ending section. I mean, among other things, there's the key change and the organ grooving the hell out in the background, but it does feel like kind of an afterthought. Pretty slick track, though. The original section is pretty well integrated, and the take on the source is creative and fun. I've tossed this one back and forth a few times, and I think it's well-executed enough for a pass. YES
  22. Well, I can't really say that any better than that. NO Some of the original writing on top of the sound upgrade is pretty interesting, but for the most part this is an additional melodic line on top of the original, recreated with better sounds. Being more interpretive with the source base by changing some of the melodic and accompanying parts would get this more in line with our arrangement standards. Production is alright, although the synths you chose blend into each other a bit. Nothing too bad, but it is noticeable, especially in the fuller sections.
  23. Not bad, not bad. The additions to the first half of the melody and different modifications to the second half are pretty good. Arrangement could have been more adventurous, but this is interpretive enough. Production is clean, and I like the synth choices. More drum variation would definitely have been nice, but the mix switches between sections enough that I didn't think it was a major problem. COOL
  24. Well, it's conservative in that, when the melody's there, it's not particularly modified, but yeah, original material left and right. It's decently incorporated with the source; some of the transitions to original stuff seemed a bit jarring, but that's probably just because I have this soundtrack memorized, so I'm used to the original's phrasing. The more pressing issue is that there's too much original stuff here. I didn't hear anything the ludicrously detailed breakdown in the post above this one didn't list. There's a huge chunk of original material starting at 2:10, where the only significant connection is that occasional accompaniment riff. More direct source usage would be a very big plus. No major production complaints from me. I agree about the clutter and the drumkit during the electronic parts, but nothing was super bad. There are some fairly cool ideas here, but the liberal arrangement is making me pass for now. NO (resubmit)
  25. Definitely more than just a dance conversion, simply by virtue of the minute long original section in the middle, but most of the source usage is pretty conservative. 0:00-0:31, 1:19-2:07, and 3:20-4:07 are for the most part just slightly modified melody + bass from the source (really the only distinctive parts of the original) with some original percussion and occasional effects. The section at 0:31-1:19 that starts off with just the bass and does a little melodic riffing on it is good, easily the most interpretive part of the mix, but overall this could be doing a lot more with the source. Altering the melody and bass more, especially after 3:20, which is just a rehash of older stuff, would be a step in the right direction. Mixing up the accompaniment more would also go a long way to making the arrangement more interesting. 1:19-1:35 was a good start. Production is alright. There isn't a whole lot going on at any particular time, though it's usually pretty clear. The bass becomes a bit indistinct in the fuller sections, but not terribly so. Not a bad effort at all, dudes. NO (resubmit)
×
×
  • Create New...