Palpable Posted September 20, 2009 Share Posted September 20, 2009 Link to remix; Remix Title raMble and Mess ---------------------------------------------------------------- CONTACT INFORMATION ReMixer name Justin Tense Email address y_3_j@hotmail.com jtense@tpg.com.au Userid 29021 ---------------------------------------------------------------- SUBMISSION INFORMATION Name of game(s) arranged Marble Madness (NES) Name of individual song(s) arranged Practice Level (Level 1) Additional information about game including composer, system, etc. Original Composers: Brad Fuller, Dave Wise, Hal Canon System: NES Publisher: Rare Link to Original Chiptune: http://www.zophar.net/download_file/14286 I grew up with the NES and the music of it’s gaming era as well as that of it’s big brother the SNES helped shaped my mindset into loving electronic music as much as I do today. I wanted to remix a track that was originally produced by the one man that has influenced me the most in my electronic music productions, David Wise. I wanted to stay faithful to the original production as its simplistic yet hypnotic tune will be forever remembered as one of the tracks to the soundtrack of my youth. ----------------------------------------------------------------- This reminded me of %20-%20Track%201%3Cbr%20/%3E%0A%3Cbr%20/%3E%0AI%20took%20a%20very%20similar%20approach%20to%20my own Marble Madness mix, stretching out a short source tune to several minutes by way of subtle layers of new melody, dynamic changes, and synth automations. On my first listen to this I thought it was awesome and almost thought about DPing, but I listened to it again and the repetition of the 16th notes really started to wear on me. They are present nearly the entire song and I think it would have been wise to drop them out sometime or do something different with them. Production was great, this was a head-bopping, hypnotic track. I may change my mind on this, but I'm going with borderline YES. Apart from the overuse of the 16th notes, I really liked the approach here and I think it's one of those songs that wears out its welcome quickly, but is welcome initially. YES (borderline) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OceansAndrew Posted September 25, 2009 Share Posted September 25, 2009 I agree pretty much completely. Great production, some nice arrangement ideas, but those 16th notes... each listen beyond the first gets more and more grating. I'm really torn on this, but I think as a service to the song, you should either change up the rhythm in some part, or drop out the 16ths for a section to give things a chance to breathe. Besides the 16ths, it's fantastic. no, please resub Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarkeSword Posted September 28, 2009 Share Posted September 28, 2009 Source is pretty simple, so I figure this will primarily be a groovy-oriented mix. Ah, pretty cool old-school sound. I don't mind the 16-notes that much; they go just far enough and change just in time before things get annoying. Pretty good job with the variation, considering the source. YES Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
big giant circles Posted October 25, 2009 Share Posted October 25, 2009 Aight, let's see what can be done with an 8 second loop Gotta admit, despite my skepticism I'm leaning on the same side as Shariq on this one. I'm a minute and a half into it, and Justin's actually done a pretty good job varying it up so far. Changing up the groove and the textures, which is pretty critical with such a ridiculously short source tune. Mix is almost over, and I am feeling kind of sympathetic here. Production seems fine. Really I'd say the only actual gripe I have here is that the main "plucked" synth probably could have been changed out for something notably different just to change things up a little more. However, I love the tone of this one; it's very compelling in spite of its simplicity. I'm feeling sympathetic here. Nothing wrong with a minimalistic, groove track on our site fellas. As long as it's done well. YES *edit* Also, I just now noticed, that is quite a clever title Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OceansAndrew Posted October 28, 2009 Share Posted October 28, 2009 Since it's a 3Y-1N with me being the sole dissenting voice, i'm listening again. Though those 16th notes get very repetitive, but it doesn't kill the song completely, just reduces the replay value, and I do dig the old school vibe. Jimmy makes a good point that this is done well, and me keeping my vote as a NO just to hold this back seems needlessly selfish. I can live with the 16ths. yes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liontamer Posted December 28, 2009 Share Posted December 28, 2009 The percussion was a weak point here. It sounded too distant and flimsy, and really needed more power behind it. One smaller part that bothered me was the 6 note beeping countermelody (first used at :33) being constantly repeated. Geez, do something else with it, even just changing the beeping sound. Along with the source melody and pad-like stuff, there was practically no variation. Obviously you had parts dropping in and out, and the instrumentation of the lead changed as well, so I'm not discounting that. But notwithstanding the instrumental changes, the writing of both the source melody and pad countermelody was basically verbatim with 0 deviation. Yeah, there's a groove here with subtle dynamics, but some rhythmic or melodic variations would have been more substantive interpretation. I know there's only 8 seconds of source to work with, but this arrangement didn't feel expansive enough or different enough from the basic structure of the original. It's not a bad piece of music, but as a substantive enough arrangement, I can't co-sign on it. NO (resubmit) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts