Palpable Posted October 28, 2009 Share Posted October 28, 2009 Artist name: Flexstyle Real name: Mike Birch Website: http://flexstylemusic.com Userid: 22246 Game remixed: Golden Sun Song remixed: Venus Lighthouse This remix came about as a submission to the People's Remix Competition 124, almost exactly a year ago as I write this. I heard the original song and decided that I simply must remix the song, even though I'd never played the game. It's quite an epic song, and I thought it fit perfectly into the trance genre. This is a slightly modified version of the PRC submission (tried to shorten it a bit), and has actually been featured on the Aftershock Promotions (www.aspromos.com) Downloader Volume 6 mixtape, a freely available download full of music from great independent artists around the globe. I never got around to submitting it to OCR previously, but better late than never, eh? Thanks for listening! -Mike (Flexstyle) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Admittedly, it was hard to hear the lead against the UNTS at times, and the piano section was a weak point, but I thought the arrangement was nice and the beat bangin'. A good deal of automation and dynamic changes to keep it interesting, I never felt like this got repetitive. Heck, sometimes I'm just glad to see trance use more than one melody line from a source song. If the lead had been more clear and the piano more humanized without the delay competing for attention, this would be a no-brainer, but as is, I think it's good enough to pass. Let's see more from you, Mike! YES Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OceansAndrew Posted November 6, 2009 Share Posted November 6, 2009 Good crisp production and a decent arrangement too, this is pretty good stuff. Nice rhythmic breakdowns to keep it unique, and it's a good way to present the melody. I'm totally cool with this. yes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CHz Posted November 18, 2009 Share Posted November 18, 2009 The melody is fairly unchanged from the original, and there wasn't really a whole lot done besides moving it to a trance setting with an original intro and outro, but the leads and accompaniment do change, so that's something. Production side, why is the lead so soft through a lot of this? 0:35-1:03 is kind of soft but alright, 1:59-2:55 is okay when it's not competing with the pads and drums, and 2:55-3:23 is really hard to make out, with the piano handling of the melody immediately after not much better. The piano is not particularly great in general either. I'm not going to be a stickler for emotive sequencing in a dance track, but it's front and center for forty seconds starting at 1:17 and just doesn't sound all that good, especially with all that delay. I dunno, maybe I'm being too hard on this, but I don't think it's all the way there. The arrangement could be more interpretive, and there are some not exactly major but not exactly minor either production flaws. NO (resubmit) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vig Posted November 21, 2009 Share Posted November 21, 2009 Gotta say I wish the 2mix weren't so squashed. I can audibly hear the mix ducking to make room for the kick. eh. It's really a bit much for me. Also, the mix at times is both bright and washy, somehow. It's pretty harsh, and the reverb on the all the saws you have in there just make it a mess. I realize most judges may not find this to be enough to reject the mix, but I think the mix is a little too slammed and washy in spots. NO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
big giant circles Posted November 22, 2009 Share Posted November 22, 2009 Gotta say I wish the 2mix weren't so squashed. I can audibly hear the mix ducking to make room for the kick. eh. It's really a bit much for me. Also, the mix at times is both bright and washy, somehow. It's pretty harsh, and the reverb on the all the saws you have in there just make it a mess. I realize most judges may not find this to be enough to reject the mix, but I think the mix is a little too slammed and washy in spots. Eh, I think I'd have to disagree with you simply because that's how most trance I hear is. Notable ducking is common in like 95% of most trance I've heard, so I don't see how it's fair to reject a mixed based on that alone. As for it being too slammed, I felt the same way about that Langrisser II mix, and you seemed fine with the volume there, so I can't help but be a bit puzzled by your decision. I feel the strongest points perhaps worth rejecting this mix would be the conservative arrangement and/or the quietness of the lead instrumentation. Personally, I'm ok with both, but the remixer should be aware that they definitely ARE too far back and need to be a bit more frontal in the mix. Otherwise, I'll second OA that the mix sounds reasonably crisp, and I enjoyed it all the same. YES Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vig Posted November 22, 2009 Share Posted November 22, 2009 Sorry for puzzling you. Sometimes a mix can be squashed and it doesn't bother me, if it's done well (as defined by my own subjective tastes). In this case it does. All 2mix compressors are not created equal. Perhaps if the kick were lower in the mix before the bus compressor, it wouldn't sound as bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anosou Posted December 11, 2009 Share Posted December 11, 2009 Let's get one thing clear, this mix isn't an easy pass or an easy rejection. The arrangement is fairly conservative BUT the adaptation to trance is well handled and there's proper variation and an overall dynamic arrangement. The production is washy, piano's a bit clanky and the lead instrumentation is too far back BUT the overall package packs some nice sounds and good energy. Basically it comes down to if the good parts outweigh the bad here. I must say I think this would be in MUCH better shape after just another stab at the mastering. Sure, if you varied up the leads a bit more and made the piano sound better that's cool but just the mastering would be enough for me. I just can't sign off to this yet. It's very VERY close but it needs that final nudge to get over the bar. Sorry man, good luck with the rest of the vote! NO(resubmit) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liontamer Posted December 26, 2009 Share Posted December 26, 2009 The melody is fairly unchanged from the original, and there wasn't really a whole lot done besides moving it to a trance setting with an original intro and outro, but the leads and accompaniment do change, so that's something.Production side, why is the lead so soft through a lot of this? 0:35-1:03 is kind of soft but alright, 1:59-2:55 is okay when it's not competing with the pads and drums, and 2:55-3:23 is really hard to make out, with the piano handling of the melody immediately after not much better. The piano is not particularly great in general either. I'm not going to be a stickler for emotive sequencing in a dance track, but it's front and center for forty seconds starting at 1:17 and just doesn't sound all that good, especially with all that delay. I dunno, maybe I'm being too hard on this, but I don't think it's all the way there. The arrangement could be more interpretive, and there are some not exactly major but not exactly minor either production flaws. That's why I like 'Ili, I read the votes after I listened to this, and I basically shared his opinion on both levels. The melodic interpretation was decent, and the genre adaptation was pretty solid overall, but I also thought there could have been more melodic interpretation. I'd prefer to see more melodic variation, but if the arrangement stayed as is, I thought this was a case of a strong genre adaptation and I could actually live with it being untouched. What really pushed it down to NO for me was the leads being too buried in mud. CHz really broke that down well. You definitely need to make the lead more prominent while still allowing it to be enveloped by the pads and beats. As is, the lead was oftentimes buried. I also thought the piano sequencing at 1:17 was a weak point as well; I could understand it being given some slack in this setting, so it's not terrible, but the mechanical timing did stand out as a negative. Adjust the balance between the lead and the other sounds and I think you'd be in solid shape, and see what could be done about the other more minor issues. Definitely don't reinvent the wheel trying to tweak this piece. I don't think it needs anything drastic done with it to pass, it just needs a bit of refinement. This is cool so far, Mike, now touch it up so we can have you join the club. NO (resubmit) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarkeSword Posted December 31, 2009 Share Posted December 31, 2009 I think it's solid. The genre adaptation is very good; there's a very dreamy feel here and I think a lot of attempted trance subs we get lack that. HOWEVER! The melody really does get lost in the last third of the mix at times. I wish it could be brought out more. NO, resub Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts