djpretzel Posted June 7, 2004 Share Posted June 7, 2004 MY remixer name is KEOHONAUT E-mail address is phetusman@hotmail.com My song is for the game Megaman X for the SNES. The song is from Storm Eagles stage. Its an acoustical jazzy version that i made with my uncle the title is "The Storm at the Eagles nest" thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The wingless Posted June 7, 2004 Share Posted June 7, 2004 Man, I luves this theme. This is lovely. It has the kind of laid-back attitude of a live acoustic version of the previous storm eagle theme we already have on this site. Lovely arrangements, crisp recording, ice-cool atmosphere. It's on the short side, and unfortunately, its a song that's so uniquely cool that I want to hear more. So the short length is a detriment, and I would have been tempted to use my YES OVERRIDE powers to put this to the top, but... I'm a coward. So in the meantime, you get a - YES At the next family getogether, set the studio back up and record some more. I AM A FAN. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrayLightning Posted June 9, 2004 Share Posted June 9, 2004 Wingless you must have missed the recent judge discussion. We decided not to use Yes Override. I agree with wingless this mix. Very cool and unique work. This is made tricky by the short length, but it ultimately works for me. Surprising mix. We don't get these kinds of good mixes too often. Edit: Vote change Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danny B Posted June 10, 2004 Share Posted June 10, 2004 A duet guitar ditty with little actual arrangement, rife with technical errors and meandering, unfocused solo work does not an OCRemix make. Both parts suffer from obvious errors, a couple of flat out WRONG notes, which i'll list later, and a decent, while not in any way impressive mastering job. A basic, innappropriate cathedral-type reverb effect washes over the lead, nearly smothering it, the timing occasionally gets off, and a noticeable hum drones in the background throughout. If this was a similarly arranged piano piece, it would be rejected by now. The fact that it is a guitar track means nothing. The solos simply don't make any real sense to me. The player is running through the original, near verbatim, then using an ascending or descending scale up or down, with slight alterations. I don't mean to say that the guitar player is terrible or a bad person or has any type of venereal disease, as the rhythm often is very precise and crisp. There are great ideas here, that seem like they're only unsatisfactory because it's like this is pretracking for an awesome rock tune. I can hear a Tenacious D style accompaniment. But for that to occur, the length would need to be at least 2 minutes the greater. The errors would need to be removed, and the solos would need to be better defined and phrased in the context of some kind of cohesive arrangement. This is a 2 minute jam session that could have easily been put together in an hour or less. Don't we desire more effort than this? Clean up the playing, give it some type of accompaniment, or at least a form that complements a guitar duet. Then you'll have my blessing. NO Errors - :17 - sloppy triplet pull-off. :17-:21 - tempo problems on lead. :23 - another sloppy triplet. :29 - didn't hold fret hard enough, muted a note that needed to come out. :38-:39 - another sloppy pull-off/hammer on combo. :58 rhythm guitar went to the wrong chord (went to chorus rather than repeat verse) on the first strum, then fixed it. 1:11 - There is a wrong note here. Not abstract or obtuse - WRONG. 1:21 - 1:24 - Major tempo problems with the triplets here. The only reason i'm being so anal is because I've never seen a track with such plentiful technical shortcomings get YESsified as such. I hope my colleagues will agree and/or reconsider their decision. -The D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The wingless Posted June 10, 2004 Share Posted June 10, 2004 NEVER! I'll see you burn for this, Baranowsky, if that is your real name! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vig Posted June 10, 2004 Share Posted June 10, 2004 This sounds like it was recorded on windows audio player with a computer mic. this is just inexcusable. the acoustic guitar sounds terribly flat. dont get me wrong, it is very difficult and generally expensive to record acoustic guitars live and make it sound good. but if you cant do it well, dont do it at all. The electric is simply run in directly probably via 1/8th inch cable, with echos added on. oh yeah, and there's buzz throughout the whole mix! thank you, crappy computer mic. second issue, the arrangement. what arrangement you say? I dont know either. I certainly dont know what you guys were listening to, but this thing is two minutes long, is exactly the same as the original, save a few spotty solos. Some styles of music sound good with a minimum amount of instruments; sometimes a mix can be little more than two guitars and still sound good. however, this is essentially a rock remix by style, and it sounds like a demo that was dropped out in a half an hour. If you do a remix of "satisfaction" with just two guitars, it doesnt become "raw," it becomes "crap." moreover, if one DOES pull off a successful arrangement with nothing but two guitars, the minimalism itself demands that the instruments sound good, which in this case, as we have discussed, they do not. This mix isnt raw or minimalist, it just takes the same style as the original, subtracts everything integral to that particular style, and replays the original in a half-assed, skeletal form. third issue: performance. Like sound quality, the importance of a strong performance is amplified when all you have is two guitars. the performance is sloppy. there are lots of choked notes, bad notes, ugly rhythms, and other flubs. sorry to the remixer, i dont mean for my comments to sound overly negative, but I know that this remix couldnt have taken more than an hour or two to complete, so i doubt you will take them too personally, and they arent intended as such. my frustration is more directed at the judges. Because the mix is completely live doesnt make it a good remix. we shouldnt be so incredibly lenient just because it's live. it's obvious that if the instruments were synthesized, and the quality and performance issues were gone, this mix would get solid nos for length and poor arrangement. It's like that mix with the horribly out of tune violins. Just because it's live doesnt mean it's good. This isnt even a good live recording. NO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrayLightning Posted June 11, 2004 Share Posted June 11, 2004 I relistened to the mix with fresh ears today and with more clarity my vote was too hasty. Ultimately, this is still a very cool mix, and the production problems don't really bother me too much. As before, I think the reverb works well for this mix, but the main issue here for me is I would recommend some more arrangement. Along with the performance and production problems, this is enough to shift my vote to a borderline NO. I still like the mix quite a bit, but it can be improved on with more polish. Please resubmit! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Protricity Posted June 12, 2004 Share Posted June 12, 2004 So yea, this is pretty much just a cover. Two large issues come out right away: under 2 minutes. poor production. Basically this is the kinda song that could be made in about 5-10 minutes of effort. You'll have to do way better than that to get on this site. NO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts