djpretzel Posted November 21, 2004 Share Posted November 21, 2004 included submission info again, if you needed... Contact Info: remixer name: Hemophiliac real name: Chris Roman email: romantaker@yahoo.com website: http://www.onehemophiliac.deviantart.com Remix Info: game: Donkey Kong Country song: Simian Segue file can be found here: Note: this is not the same version that is found on Kong in Concert, this is a remaster/reedit of that song. When i finished that song, i did not feel it was up to OCR standard so i played around with it some more, and came up with this. I am more pleased with this version then KiC's version. thanks, Chris Roman aka Hemophiliac Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liontamer Posted November 25, 2004 Share Posted November 25, 2004 http://www.zophar.net/zsnes/spc/dkc1ost.rar - "Simian Segue" (dkc 02 simian segue.spc) The beginning's kind of awkward, but the timing gets more comfortable at :10 and you can see where this is going. The pace is deliberately slow, almost plodding, so some people are gonna be turned off by this. Despite how I like the reverb filling the space up, there are some brief points where the mix feels a little too empty (:40-:43, :46-:49, 1:20-1:24). At :38, and especially :48 when you punched it up, the organ used as backup has some odd notes that don't really fit to me. Ohhhhh, at 1:35 you retread verbatim. BAH! I literally went "Why?!?" at my screen at 1:58 as you hit the opening melody again. Kind of ironic, since I asked you yesterday "Is it still repetitive?" and you said yeah. So 1:35-2:31 just copies what you had in place before. Some embellishments or added instruments wouldn't have hurt to show at least some development over the course of the track, especially since the tempo is never gonna change in order to stick with the genre here. I did like the trombone slides you were telling me about that you put in from 2:31-2:41, but they would have functioned better if they had been louder. Sweet idea, Chris, but too subtly applied. The abrupt cutoff + fade-in technique at 2:56 is very poorly done compared to the old version. The old version didn't have as noticeable a hiccup. Whatever effects you were using to fill out the sound made things louder and affected how jarring the cutoff sounded. It sounds like the file broke. The music also literally cuts out as it winds down at 3:22 (along with some really low cymbal tap at 3:24 for no apparent reason). Gotta clean these little bits up, especially since they negatively affect the finish. I don't wanna look as if I'm bagging on this. The groove established is nice and laid back, the bassline is good and the samples here are used pretty well, but I primarily need to see some development occur from 1:35-2:31 with the use of more or different instruments as well as have some of the other minor issues looked at. This'll make a good genre piece here, but this needs some additional arrangement substance to push it over the bar, not just the well-done production refinement that you have here. Sorry, bro. NO (revise & resubmit) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malcos Posted November 26, 2004 Share Posted November 26, 2004 This has a strange vibe to it, like it's stuck in time. It doesn't feel like it's going anywhere, there's no progression. Production is pretty nice, reverb is effective in filling up the space; although I found the congas stuck out like a sore thumb. That drop off at 2.57 was weird, and then that little bit of piano before fading off again - that didn't work for me at all, it was way too abrupt. This just doesn't feel complete yet. NO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danny B Posted November 27, 2004 Share Posted November 27, 2004 Alright, we've got a pretty decent arrangement effort here, but other than some real simple modifications, it's not that different from the original. Add to that the fact that it's a very flat mix dynamically and there's no kind of variation throughout the piece. I'm actually pretty hip to the percussion, the little that there is, even though it's mixed way too low to be effective. The ride cymbal alone is mixed higher than the rest of the kit. Weird. There seems to be little, if any velocity changes in any of the parts, and the whole mix sounds a bit mechanical because of it. The whole drop-out-fade-in thing isn't working for me, either. If you're going to use realistic instrumentation, it's going to need realistic dynamics. There are good things about this mix, most notably the instrumentation. Nice use of backing organ and piano. I just need to hear a much more solid work in the all-around SQ department before I can pass this one. NO -D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarkeSword Posted November 28, 2004 Share Posted November 28, 2004 Sax is sequenced pretty poorly. That's the sample I got off of DJ Orange; it can sound pretty decent if you sequence it right, however there's no attention paid to velocities at all. Everything sounds really unexpressive and flatline. The arrangement itself doesn't go anywhere either; it's pretty boring and reiterative. Not much substance; drums sound empty as well; all of the parts sound separate from eachother, and the piano drops out from the groove for a while. This is a 'jazz' piece, right? You've got to think of everyone as live players who are INTERACTING with eachother. Parts like piano, bass, and percussion; that's your rhythm section. Those cats need to lock together and establish a tight groove that take the song places. Right now it feels like all the guys got together, played their own thing in separate rooms, and then spliced them all together later. There's no interaction there, and that's why the piece comes off as VERY fake sounding. Sequencing jazzy music is hard, because there's a whole 'nother level of realism that you have to attain. This piece just doesn't seem to pull that off very well. Unexpressive, boring, repetitive. NO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts