analoq Posted May 5, 2003 Share Posted May 5, 2003 as promised, here's a mix from S|r Nuts. he's been waiting 8 weeks. the FTP does work, has good bandwidth, but is kinda laggy. Ok, here's the info regarding my submission: This is a mix I made for one of the imc's. Got second place, lotsa people liked and, I love it, and it's one of the best mixes I've made IMHO. That's why I wanted to submit it, I think it has a chance. The original theme is the xiaoyu song from tekken tag 2. I don't know where you can find the source because all that was provided in that contest was the mp3 (I think). This mix has some rithyms that gives a house feel, but with trance patterns and synths. As always, made with fruity 3, fruity generators(no defaults, I dunno why some judges thought they were defaults in my last submission) such as 3xosc( I just love it =p), tst404, and maybe some other vsti's, along with some samples for the beat. Maybe it wasn't noticeable for some people, but maybe you'll notice that a lot of programming went into this(well maybe not as much as in my sonic mix, but there's a lot of programming in here) and lots of changes in the original melody. I hope that you, and ocr listeners enjoy this. get it at: or, if link doesn't works, go to and look for it. thanks for your time, and keep up the good work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m68030 Posted May 5, 2003 Share Posted May 5, 2003 I really hate juding music in this style because I'm really not a fan of a good deal of it. The synths used are pretty neat (save for that chord stab, it feels out of place to me), and it's cool to hear some Tekken 2 loving, but my real complaint is that the whole mix seems to hurting for a real midrange to fill it out. Plenty of crisp highs and all, but it's like there's no meat in the middle. I want my meaty goodness Just something to consider in future compositions, but that's purely my taste in sonic texture speaking. Neat stuff. YES Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malcos Posted May 10, 2003 Share Posted May 10, 2003 This is minimalist, but done well IMO. Effects and reverb keep the texture from being too thin, and filters and sweeps keep the listeners interest. There are some really groovy beats in here as well. Lots of mixing up of the original bassline, although this could have been even better if some orginal notes had been added. YES Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disco Dan Posted May 14, 2003 Share Posted May 14, 2003 Ok I had to think about this one for a couple of days, but I finally realized that the cons outweighed the pros. 1) The original. The original is really quite a marvelous piece of work, and so I'm having trouble listening to this and separating it from the original. If it had been originally an NES tune, this would be quite an improvement, but at it is, it doesn't seem that way. 2) The synths. Lots of them. All very similar. That bugs the hell out of me. 3) 2:54 - 4:08. Almost no harmony here. Just the melody, over and over again, and the bass is pretty much in unison with it. The beat is jittery and annoying (that's my opinion anyway) through this section. Even the chords that ARE put in this section don't fit well with the melody. I guess it's like when a teacher asks if 5 is divisible by 2. The answer, technically is yes, but not if you want a whole number. Dissonance is kind of like that. We had this debate with that last Gray Lightning song, which had this awful out of key harp in it. Let me elaborate. Pure consonance is like 4 divided by 2. It equals exactly 2. There is no remainder, no decimal. It's pure and it sounds "right" but it can be boring after a while. Good dissonance is like 5 divided by 2. It's 2.5. Not a whole number, but not so bad that it has a billion decimal places. Bad dissonance is more like 206 divided by 23. The answer is 8.95652173913 etc. It's not pretty. It's not a whole number, and it's not even a fun decimal to work with. It's the best analogy I can come up with at this juncture but I hope that explains what I mean. If not, tough shit, and NO D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vig Posted May 20, 2003 Share Posted May 20, 2003 "when dotted quarter notes attack..." "AAAAAAH!" first off i agree with CotMM that its not meaty enough in the midrange. but what really bothers me is that the rythms are all the same, and the rolling delay at the end of the bassline. in fact much of the delay in this song really bothers me. allright. the rythms in this mix dont fit the genre, i feel, and the delay is seizure inducing in many instances. i understand that these are two limitations of the genre, but i think that it wouldnt take too much effort to make some changes and make this otherwise well-done song more listenable. so for now, NO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Protricity Posted June 5, 2003 Share Posted June 5, 2003 Yes, the original is quite impressive. Unfortunately, this is about 5:24 of repeating melody with a bit of variation. Definately nothing new going on since the original. With an original of such high caliber, I would think something rather impressive should take place here. Yea, it just keeps repeating. and repeating. NO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Israfel Posted June 7, 2003 Share Posted June 7, 2003 Repetitive- but that's just the nature of beast. However, this does do what good trance/minimalism/etc. should do and that's provide *slight* variations throughout- part of the joy is hearing the gradual alterations and mutations that the theme undergoes. Some really interesting harmonies give this piece some added depth as well. I know dissonances of this nature are somewhat controversial with valid opinions on both sides of the issue- but for me they really work in this mix and add a unique and positive sound. This just seems to have more compositional depth than most of the minimalist electronic mixes that I've heard- and as such I'm going to give it a YES Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vig Posted June 7, 2003 Share Posted June 7, 2003 i'd just like to concur with prot that this song isnt that bad objectively, but the fact is, it offers very little if anything over the OST. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Protricity Posted June 7, 2003 Share Posted June 7, 2003 I would point out that any compliments on notation should be going out to the original because this song is pretty much exactly the same notation wise. That is the reason I voted no. I agree that the original is pretty well done with no real problems. I just think this is one song where the judges should hear the original for considertion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Israfel Posted June 7, 2003 Share Posted June 7, 2003 It's subtle manipulations of the main theme are what make this standout for me however. The original, which had more of a j-pop sound going, has been rather successfully (imo) melded into a minimalist piece in which rhythms, harmonies and melodies are constantly evolving and flowing into each other. And some of the harmonic changes of this mix are entirely unique- so this isn't just a note for note midi rip or anything quite that extreme. There's also an amazing amount of rhythmic consistency and development that is not in the original. 16th note rhythmic motives are developed in a way that the original never even attempts- honestly, I feel this mix actually has more depth than the original. I understand the concerns that have expressed, but I'm going to have to stick with my vote for now. But this is definitely one where if you've voted without having heard the original you might want hunt down an mp3 or something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Digital Coma Posted June 9, 2003 Share Posted June 9, 2003 This is a tough case of dealing with a pretty decent mix doing some neat tricks that's based off of a superbly immaculate track. Let's put aside the original for a moment and focus on what's done here: Standard house synths and saws flying along some interesting harmonic lines and sweet programmed beats. The delay effect is a bit overused, but quite cool while it's fresh and not stand-alone (2:54). Blatant repetition of the key progression while the neat bits are happening all around it; pretty obviously stylistic in this genre, though it suggests a lack of imagination. I wouldn't say the dissonance is disagreeable at all, but I do think it would have been better served with more dramatic dichotomy between the melodic lead and the bassline and a tighter hook in the lower frequencies. You can't be penalized simply for attempting a mix of a great original, but you can be for not taking it in a different direction far and high enough. Many of these synths really are all too alike, which contributes to the bad vibes one can get in the more dissonant areas. And the real key word is (as clichéd as it's beginning to sound) variation. There's just not enough of it, especially noticeable when derived from a sonically HQ song. All too often I see mixes with a lot of potential that are passed off as "minimalist" simply because they are made with FL and manage to stick to basic, generic sounds and a simple progression that never seems to leave square one. Coincidence or not, that's your call, but my advice is to break out your comfort zone by varying your soundset and letting loose with some wild musicality, which I believe you are capable of. NO for now, I encourage a resubmit with all of our ideas taken into consideration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts