Liontamer Posted September 24, 2008 Share Posted September 24, 2008 Original Decision: http://www.ocremix.org/forums/showthread.php?t=18170 Rozovian ad.rozovian@gmail.com #21613 "Eat Your Own Dust" F-Zero (snes) Red Canyon This was a track I've had on my mind for a while, and had worked out the melodies months before inspiration struck. When it did I pieced the whole thing together in a couple of days. Then it took me a lot of tweaks and exports (mostly exports), and then... NO (resub) x3. And a few days of tweaks alter, here it is. Again. I got some crucial feedback on the #ocrwip channel, Tensei-San deserves a particular mention in the submission letter, as do the Js that either judged it or helped me out beforer I submitted it. For anyone needing help, music critique, or general feedback, use the channel. -rho --------------------------------------------------------------- http://snesmusic.org/v2/download.php?spcNow=fz - "Red Canyon" (fz-03.spc) Now, I can't be around to pre-evaluate everything, but I would have hollered if I were you, because IMO this was resubbed too quickly. The soundscape was less murky, but some elements in the intro still felt like they were stepping on top of one another. That great gated synth at :03 got buried at :48. It was OK that it was no longer as loud, but it didn't sound like it had its own space. I liked that added sound at :35; good touch with that synth choice. I mentioned to scale back the murk, but I think you moved too far the other way and made the lead synth and beats way too dry like your older WIP, which exposed the relatively weak/thin quality of those samples. The beats from 1:37-1:50 were very thin/exposed; 2:05-2:46 had a similar issue, downplayed a bit by the other activity going on. You've still got to find that happy medium where the sounds you have. Nice synth pad first used at 1:36 though playing that single note every few measures. Once the amount of padding picked up at 1:50, the soundscape sounded better. I appreciate the efforts to spice up the electric guitar-like synth. Watch the EQing on the harmonized leads at 3:25; they were very shrill and need to be toned down somehow. The lead at 2:04 a lot less so, but that was also slightly piercing. Would definitely appreciate some second opinions on the production. Really, it's just about tweaking stuff to not leave some of the sounds too dry, because I'm feeling this despite laying out a bunch of criticisms. There was no need to majorly re-critique the arrangement, which was fairly good before and has some added minor embellishments that improved this. I'll go conditional YES, but I just don't think the overall mixing and production is quite ready. Hopefully you can get this sounding its best. YES (conditional) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anosou Posted October 6, 2008 Share Posted October 6, 2008 I think the main issue here is the sheer ammount of bass frequencies. EQ some of that stuff away, even from the main bass. That's what makes the production seem muddy and it really drags the track down. Could probably be fix'd pretty easily with some equalization of the bass-heavy synths layered on top of eachother, give 'em space! The lead sounds quite good but the way it's sequenced makes it sound a bit strange. Short notes are cool but make sure it doesn't sound too out of place with the rest of this really grooving track. The shaker that you filter/pitch up and down is a bit loud when it's panned all the way to the left like that, tone it down a bit. Some of the leads was a tiny bit piercing too, just a bit of eq there. Arrangement wise this is above the bar. Good groove and you handled the source quite well even though I'd love to see some more advanced melodic usage and not only the sequenced 16th note leads. Still, this was absolutely above the bar. I have to go conditional on this like Larry. You need to do some more equalization for everything to really fit. First and foremost you should take away some of the bass frequencies, then focus at the little things. This is really close and you probably don't need many hours to fix this. Just make sure to really listen (preferably on some monitors or mixing headphones) and run it by some people before saying it's done. Otherwise, good work! YES(conditional on EQ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Palpable Posted October 7, 2008 Share Posted October 7, 2008 Third resub I'm judging today. We're two for two on passes - will this be number three?? This one was pretty close last version. Intro sounds better, a lot less muddy, and those opening strings no longer make me reach for the volume knob. Lead is a lot clearer, though like Larry mentioned, it does sound a little dry and disconnected from the rest of the song. I also still wouldn't mind a fatter sound. Overall, the lead is a solid improvement over the last version but there's still some room for tweaking there. Some decent improvisations on the leads after the key change spiced up the repeated section, though a couple of those notes sounded a little too dissonant to me. The one thing I think is definitely worse than the last version is the sound of those leads together at 3:33. It gets shrill and loud, especially on the whistle-like notes towards the very end. Try reducing the EQ at points in the 1K-5K regions to make those sounds less irritating. I think if you can fix that small detail, you're good to go. Congrats! Three for three! YES (conditional on EQ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zircon Posted October 13, 2008 Share Posted October 13, 2008 Revised version posted: http://www.zirconstudios.com/dropbox/fzeatyourowndustvbcf.mp3 Please check. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liontamer Posted October 14, 2008 Author Share Posted October 14, 2008 Revised version posted:Please check. I wouldn't have changed any of the samples or tones, just tweaked EQ and volume to work on the balance. The way the notes blur together with the bassline brought in at :34 sounds bad IMO and marginalizes the source countermelody, though it's corrected at :49. When the synth lead arrived at 1:10, the beats and bassline countermelody were too loud in comparison. The beats being so loud needlessly played up the repetition of the groove, IMO. I also thought the treble was much more exposed at 2:05 (compared to :36) and sounded too hot; that could have been pulled back. Can't sign off on it yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarkeSword Posted October 20, 2008 Share Posted October 20, 2008 The kick and hats are too much; EQ those down a little. Otherwise it's a nice track. Percussion is a little repetitive, but nothing dealbreaking. YES conditional Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anosou Posted October 20, 2008 Share Posted October 20, 2008 Still not quite there. A little less kick/hat and everything Larry mentioned. Sorry to be so blunt but that's pretty much it. (still conditional) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liontamer Posted November 18, 2008 Author Share Posted November 18, 2008 Got a revised cut from Rozo that I'm declaring ready for primetime: [19:38] <Liontamer> hahahaha[19:38] <Liontamer> what happened to the lead? [19:38] <Liontamer> 1:09 [19:38] <Liontamer> it's barely audible [19:39] <Liontamer> did you lower the volume on it by mistake? [19:39] <Rozovian> oh that's intentional [19:39] <Rozovian> comes in strong at 1:25 [19:40] <Liontamer> weird choice; I'd probably still raise the overall volume on it a bit, then perhaps fade it up to full volume by 1:25; as is, it just sounds like you pressed the wrong button, so to speak [19:42] <Rozovian> u sure? it's also more panned than it is at 1:25. it could be like those weird notes that grew on you in beyond velocity [19:43] <Liontamer> nah, it just sounds like a few bars were unintentionally left quiet [19:43] <Liontamer> otherwise, it's sounding strong [19:48] <Liontamer> think you should tweak 1:09-1:25, but if you're good to go, we can roll with this [19:49] <Rozovian> I want something in it that screws with people. "unintentionally left quiet" is fine with me [19:49] <Rozovian> and it's nothing compared to the name beyond velocity "And it is...GO!" [/wrong racing game] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts