DragonAvenger Posted December 5, 2010 Share Posted December 5, 2010 this is a remix of pokey pipes from dkc3, for the dkc3 project. it is called intoxica which i dont think is a word. yes i cribbed the strings from moby ): Intoxica ----------------------------------- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OceansAndrew Posted December 9, 2010 Share Posted December 9, 2010 Overall I am really feeling this, but I think the source use itself isn't dominant enough in a very recognizable form. There are definitely parts I can tell without question is the source, but combining the all new backing parts with allusions to the melody isn't quite cutting it for over 50% of dominant source use. The production is cool and well thought out, and there are a lot of really good details, but the use of a commercial snippet hurts this one slightly, and combined with a lot-super-apparent use of source, It edges this into resub territory. I strongly encourage you to refine this slightly to have more dominant source use, and try to minimize the strings used. Otherwise, it's great; sorry I have to No, please resubmit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DragonAvenger Posted December 9, 2010 Author Share Posted December 9, 2010 Going to have to agree with Andrew on this one. Honestly an enjoyable song to listen to, but without the source really showing through, I'm going to have to pass on this for now. I hope you relook at this and add that bit to put it over the edge here! Vote changed below Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Palpable Posted January 11, 2011 Share Posted January 11, 2011 I am happy to say I totally disagree with the previous votes. I reckon this song will split along the lines of Breathe Deep, because the trick is pretty similar. It takes one snippet of the original (0:01-0:04) and makes that the basis for a mostly new track, except here the song harkens back to the source more than that song did (0:44-1:07, 1:07-1:30, and others). Not sure if DA and OA want to revisit their vote given how Breathe Deep went, but this was pretty much the same thing and had more connection to the source IMO. By the way, I don't think Alex is using a sample of here, I think he means he cribbed the same trick of filtering the strings and making them cut off before the end of the measure. It didn't sound like a direct sample to me, anyway; not sure I'm bothered even if it is.How gorgeous is that 1:07 section? Kisses to Alex, whether he wants them or not. YES Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DragonAvenger Posted February 18, 2011 Author Share Posted February 18, 2011 Now that I've compared a good breakdown that showed me a couple parts I didn't quite pick up on, I am comfortable changing my vote on this. Glad to do so, actually, since this track is pretty slick, and everyone makes mistakes. YES Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OceansAndrew Posted February 18, 2011 Share Posted February 18, 2011 sure, why not. YES Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anosou Posted March 31, 2011 Share Posted March 31, 2011 That's one nice groove right there. GROOVE BIAS! Like Vinnie so eloquently put it, there's source. It's not my favorite kind of arrangement when you heavily use one small part with a lot of original elements on it but I can't deny that it works and in this case there's a bit more that makes it comfortable for me to pass it. The production part of the track was really cool even though I wish the kalimba (?) pattern would be a bit louder since it's the main source hook. The drums sounded really crisp and balanced but were a bit upfront for my tastes. Again, that's highly personal, overall the mix was great. Cool track, here's a YES Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts