DragonAvenger Posted December 5, 2010 Share Posted December 5, 2010 ReMixer name: Jewbei Real name: James Joyner Website: http://www.myspace.com/Jewbeii When halc came to me about the project i wasnt sure i had what it take to remix the Final Zone track but i gave it all i had and as it turned out this mix came out pretty good. Also i would like to point out that i used Zircon's and Arksun's zebra soundbank to make this remix if anyone owns Zebra i encourage you to buy these sounds you wont regret it. Till next time guys im out! P.S. Shout out to Jade for giving me the idea of the title of this mix and for telling me that this style is Progressive Trance Source: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OceansAndrew Posted December 9, 2010 Share Posted December 9, 2010 You don't need me to tell you that your production has gotten really solid over the last year or so, and all of the aspects of this are airtight in that respect, but a common issue that happens to your stuff is that there's just not enough dominant source material due to the natural components of the trance genres. It sounds awesome to have a slow build of instruments adding one after another and then blow up into the main theme, but the theme really needs to be at least present during the build itself as well, even if it was more subdued. I think this track is sick, and really well done, but it needs more dominant source for me to yes. Sorry man. No, please resubmit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DragonAvenger Posted December 10, 2010 Author Share Posted December 10, 2010 I think Andrew's pretty much got this. There's a lot of good stuff going on here, but the source is just a little too sparse for it to really stick with me. There were a few times where you were able to really pull the source in in nice ways, and more of that would push it over the edge for me. NO (resubmit) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Palpable Posted January 13, 2011 Share Posted January 13, 2011 Man, Jewbei, why you gotta do this to us? This song is tight, but you gotta work the source in there more. From 1:41-3:23, the source is there the whole time, but the intro and outro, nothing. Even some hints at the melodies at those sections might be enough to push my vote to a YES. As is we're looking at a 65% original song. EDIT (1/26): Reopening this because halc pointed out some usage that I had missed. The arpeggios from 0:43-1:12 in Jewbei's track, while not 1-to-1 with the source, sound very similar and I would count that source usage. Not sure why I missed this the first time, as I remember looking into that arp. It pushes this just below 50% which is ok by me. halc also thought there was some melody usage starting at 0:30 in the arrangement, arranging something at 0:03 of the source, but that seemed too loose. Just wanted to see if you guys agreed with me. No worries if not. YES Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DragonAvenger Posted January 29, 2011 Author Share Posted January 29, 2011 Good point out there, I'm sorry we ended up missing this. I'm willing to change my vote over it. YES Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OceansAndrew Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 hey dudes, how about posting the source link if you want me to revote? Sheesh. I'm not completely sold on the arp as direct source usage, but it is *very* close. Close enough to believe it was a specific choice, which is pretty good. Source use is definitely closer for me, though I do think slicing up the melody and throwing it into your intros would help for OCR-specific source use. Maybe have a twinkling piano play a half-speed fragment of the melody while the song ramps up. It's a good tease for when the melody comes in full, and gives the stopwatch a little bit more sway in your favor. Regardless, I do think that with the arpeggios added it's enough, but to make it easier on us, I do encourage a little bit more melody. Yes (borderline) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CHz Posted April 13, 2011 Share Posted April 13, 2011 halc also thought there was some melody usage starting at 0:30 in the arrangement, arranging something at 0:03 of the source, but that seemed too loose. The first six notes of those phrases are a pretty direct use of that background fanfare thing happening at 0:03 in the source. The arpeggio is a little looser, but I connected it right away, so I'd count it too. It's definitely pretty loose with the source until 1:41. I'm just not really feeling the arrangement overall. When the melody finally hits at 1:41, it's played straight three times, and the only changes are that more source parts are added without much modification (fanfare thing second time, descending countermelody third time). Next is a break with an original melody and the modified arpeggio. Then at 2:54 is the melody played straight through again with more accompaniment, and then that's it for source: we wind down with more than a minute of original stuff. There are long stretches of loose/original material, and the treatment isn't very interpretive when the melody's front and center. Some nice untz, though. NO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anosou Posted April 14, 2011 Share Posted April 14, 2011 I usually agree with CHz because he's my biggest love on the internet but not today! While the source usage varies from super loose to straight-up source I think the combination of those two and the solid production, backing and overall pleasant track weighs up for it. This is balancing the edge a bit but the overall package is just good enough to pass in my opinion. YES(borderline) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts