DragonAvenger Posted October 17, 2010 Share Posted October 17, 2010 Remixer name: Guifrog Real name: Guilherme Arcoverde Country: Brazil ---- Game arranged: Quackshot (Genesis, 1991) Song arranged: Hideout (Source link: )Remix name: Tangolomango Ribbit! I was pretty concerned on the fact that my last VGM Remix, The Dreamseeker, had very obscure source music. While I'm writing this e-mail, I still haven't got a response on it, but this time I've just finished working on a better known source - that one game starred by Donald Duck -, despite its old nature. You might rarely see me remixing songs from the newest games (I'm not used to playing games in general as I was in the past). Tangolomango, as I know in Brazil, is an expression that translates into something like "mess", "party", "randomness" or similars. I named it like this because the song's actually inspired on the argentine tango =P. You may expect traditional instruments like violins, bandoneon, piano and bass; but I've added stuff like percussion and an acoustic guitar, just to give it more flavor. There's no electronica elements this time, as I wanted it to sound simple and natural, but varied and emotional. Oh, I've had a few problems with volume in this one: if I turned it upper a certain value, there'd appear an odd extra noise; I also couldn't turn it down too much because I need it to be sufficiently proportional to other songs' volumes. Anyway, let's cut it out and go ahead for breakdown. Side note: The main base (or harmony) of the ReMix, led by the piano, consists of an interpretation of the source's second (or, third? If I consider the bass...) melody line. I'm not an expert on music technical words, but you might understand when you make the comparisons. 0:00-0:14 -> Main source melody. 0:16-0:28 -> Same, but includes variations. 0:31-0:46 -> Break, original writing. 0:47-1:00 -> I call it the chorus. Piano plays the part of the source I've described on the side note thingy, while the rest just adds something to it. 1:01-1:08 -> Clarinet soloing, original writing. 1:09-1:15 -> Guitar plays the source, while... 1:16-1:22 -> ...violins add original stuff. 1:23-1:30 -> Again the lil' break, with bandoneon almost direct-playing source's second (...or...third?) melody line. 1:31-1:37 -> Something. Tangolomango, I dunno. 1:38-1:44 -> Percussion comes in and guitar comes again, while... 1:45-1:51 -> ...violins blah bleh blih bloh bluh. 1:53-2:07 -> Chorus. 2:08-2:22 -> Clarinet takes a longer space for the soloing. 2:23-2:30 -> Guitar, while... 2:31-2:37 -> Violins... no, wait. Just one violin, playing part of the source. 2:38-2:50 -> Bandoneon almost direct-plays source's second (y'know what I mean!!) melody line. 2:51-2:54 -> Piano tangolomangoes, the rest comes along and the song finishes. That's it, enjoy! P.S.: Thanks to Nutritious and the other guys who helped me improve this piece on the Workshop forums! It took a bit long to receive the crits, but I think it turned out good enough. ---------------------- As always, the breakdown really helps things. Overall I really like what you've done to the source; it was a very creative expansion on the original into a pretty cool style. I'm noticing a few things that could be a little better, but they aren't such drawbacks to really pull it down for me. For one, things get a little repetitive after a while. The piano playing the tango style goes on for a little too long in a few points, and I would have liked more breaks from it here and there. There is also one section where the piano is soloing that a few notes felt out of place. Generally, though, arrangement is your strong point in this mix (and your others). Some of the samples aren't the greatest, which tends to be your weakspot, but I think you used them pretty effectively here. The guitar is probably the instrument that shows the most. The percussion (tambourine especially) shows through a little bit as well. I'm not too affected by them, however, because they do blend well into the mix. The clarinet and strings do sound pretty good, though, and since they are more forefront in the mix it works out well. Fun mix, and I'm glad you picked a more obscure source! YES Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OceansAndrew Posted October 22, 2010 Share Posted October 22, 2010 The only sample that really seemed weak to me was the guitar, and I think pushing it back into the sound scape slightly would have fixed things. The tambourine sample was fine, but it wasn't humanized. Overall the main issue was a few velocity issues, but the arrangement is strong as usual, and the strings i thought were sounding nice. Some minor issues, but definitely above the bar for me, and you can only get better from here on out. Yes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
djpretzel Posted October 24, 2010 Share Posted October 24, 2010 I'm getting some distortion/clipping on the right side - can anyone confirm, on headphones? If it's just me, then I'll add a pre-emptive Yes, otherwise I think we need that distortion fixed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Palpable Posted November 4, 2010 Share Posted November 4, 2010 I'm getting some distortion/clipping on the right side - can anyone confirm, on headphones?If it's just me, then I'll add a pre-emptive Yes, otherwise I think we need that distortion fixed. When the castanets and piano both enter the picture, sometimes it kind of sounds distorted, though it seemed very minor on my headphones. Otherwise, I wasn't hearing anything... Once Guilherme gets his production ironed out, I think he'll be ready to take over OCR. Love his arrangements, this one included. Great piano run at 1:31 - little details like that make this mix soar. I don't know if I can sign off on this as is though. On the plus side, liked the woodwind (sorry, I can never tell woodwinds apart - clarinet?) and the accordian a lot. But the piano keeps playing the same thing in the same way and has a dull sound, guitar is clearly fake, percussion claps sound like a drum machine. I know what he's going for, I can almost picture people dancing to it, but the production issues keep taking me out of the picture. Yeah sorry, I don't think it's quite there. I guess Dave saying it is means something, but I felt the production needed to be better for an intimate mix like this. On his DKR mix, the not-quite-realistic production wasn't as big a deal with so many elements going on and in an electronic context. Wouldn't be disappointed if it passed, as the arrangement is quite nice. NO (resubmit) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarkeSword Posted November 12, 2010 Share Posted November 12, 2010 YES conditional There is some light clipping/distortion on the right side, need a fix on that. As for the piece, it's a lovely arrangement. A bit synthetic, but quite nice all the same. Great texture, really sounds wonderful. I love the percussion and accordion especially. OCR needs more accordion. Just get us the fixes and I'm good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CHz Posted December 10, 2010 Share Posted December 10, 2010 I dig the arrangement a lot. I get the piano writing complaints, and it could be a bit more interesting, but there are enough breaks, and it's fine as a base. There's definite distortion on the right side from the piano. It's very noticeable at 1:33, but it pops up in a bunch of other places (0:28, 1:42, etc.). Like Palp, I feel like the weak sounds detract from the smaller, ensemble feel of the mix. That combined with the distortion are too much for me to sign off on this as is, but I want to see this back pronto if it doesn't pass. NO (resubmit) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liontamer Posted December 24, 2010 Share Posted December 24, 2010 Thanks a lot for the breakdown on the arrangement, Guilherme, which was definitely needed to appreciate the usage of the the second part of the source melody (:19 of that) in the background of several sections of the arrangement. Everything checked out there, and even my stingy self came up with 106.75 seconds of source usage for a 174 second arrangement. Most of the instrumentation wasn't realistic, but the sequencing was fairly OK unlike what we hear from so many other people using the same sounds. The violin was definitely stronger-sounding and more realistic compared to the piano and guitar. The bandoneón and percussion definitely lifted this up though. While the instrumentation had some big weaknesses, the execution was solid enough, and the arrangement was very creative. I think this is solid enough otherwise, where the sounds should be a bit more polished, but the execution with those samples, as well as the arrangement quality, tilt it to YES. There was some light but noticable distortion at :28, :37 and from :41-:42, 1:33-1:34, 1:42-1:44, and more. The sound balance also could have been tweaked, so the leads didn't seem so overbearing in the soundscape. You have to fix the light distortion issues before we can post this. But do fix it so we can post it. YES (conditional) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts