GrayLightning Posted May 30, 2005 Share Posted May 30, 2005 Larry and I have decided to allow rexy to resub both her resubmissions, so that we can decide on it one way or the other and move the queue along. - Gray Original Decision: http://www.ocremix.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=54343 ReMixer name: Rexy Real name: Bev Wooff Email: bev.wooff@gmail.com OCRemix user ID: 7528 REMIX INFO: Remix title: "Robotnik’s Immortal Presence" Game covered: Sonic the Hedgehog 2 Individual song covered: Robotnik Battle Song link: Source: http://www.zophar.net/gym/sonic2.rar - Boss (Robotnik Theme.gym) --- Alright gentlemen, I’m here to waste your time once more. Thanks for your analysis on the elder version of this track; even though it took a long time to come through (and I feel for you given that *was* the time for exams/finals and all that) I really appreciate the feedback as shown by you all. So yeah, that left me to take your critique in mind - even some of the added commentary from some of you during the revision stage - and tweak the file when appropriate. I felt that upon going through the course of all this I managed to approach much of the problems that make the original stand out. For the record on timings, I did in fact perform the parts live through a keyboard (although for some of the faster parts I had to turn the tempo down to fit them in); it’s still all good at the end of the day though. I pass my extensive thanks towards Gray, Larry and Harmony for their extensive input during the revision stage; hopefully with their thoughts on all this we should have a track that made it much stronger than the initial version. I end this message with a sentence as shown in the old submission - Deem Bristow may be gone (January 15th 2005), but the legacy of Eggman will live on. Peace out, -Rexy- ----------------------------- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liontamer Posted June 1, 2005 Share Posted June 1, 2005 http://www.zophar.net/gym/sonic2.rar - Boss (Robotnik Theme.gym) There was some noted improvement here, so pardon me for focusing in on the negative aspects. Some of the jerkier note movements were effectively smoothed out. Some of the instruments still sounded a bit too synthetic, like that wind instrument at 1:00. The new horn sample at 1:30 was way too loud and muddy. The sound of the sample itself was better though, and much more realistic. At 1:50, you smoothed out the notes a little bit on whatever the lead was there, but the timing was still a bit off. Again at 2:04 the horn was too loud and muddy. Not sure why it sounds so rough now. Moving back into the whatever-dat-is lead at 2:24, the sample sounded too synthetic and thin, creating too thin a texture as well. The quiet vox at 2:50 sounded really robotic, and was particularly exposed in its note-to-note movements. The strings on lead at 3:54-4:05 sounded really fake as well. Most of the problems here were still textural (on account of some thinly used samples) or with humanization (as some of the instruments were fixed up but others were still left sounding robotic). Indeed again, the lead at 4:09 had similar note movement problems. Actually, all of the leads until 4:33 had that problem. Also, the horn layered with your lead at 4:23 that steadily rose in volume ending up being too loud and blaring from 4:30 to 4:35. In particular, everything from 3:54-onward needs to be tightened up substantially. I understand you won't be able to work on this again until you go back to university, Bev, but I still can't pass this I'm afraid. If you end up resubmitting this again, I'd get a ton of outside feedback to make sure things are solid. I realize you were under time constraints, so I don't think you should let a NO dampen your spirits here. NO (resubmit) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The wingless Posted June 2, 2005 Share Posted June 2, 2005 For all the drama that's being insisted upon by you, the artist, the string in the beginning it's really f'n loud and devoid of some dynamic change. I'm not talking about 'omg, get more gigzzsmaplz!', I'm talking about taking the care to suspend our disbelief that, even though this is not a real string, it has the emotional backing of one. There are also really odd and jarring jumps in dynamics. The sound is a bit hollow too, as if you're missing a few key registers and/or a different *something* within the piece to add some movement. The crescendo section near the latter 3rd is also a might sloppy. Just because things get loud don't mean they can't be in formation NO Do what I sez Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zykO Posted June 3, 2005 Share Posted June 3, 2005 here we go again. the intro and outtro reminds me a lot of philip glass and that's a good thing; this section easily makes up my favorite part of the piece... unfortunately, i lose interest during the rest of the main melody. something about the strings just doesn't sit well with me. the hit at around 1:40 ought to hit a lot more credibly than that. i think what is going on here is a case of poor energy. the concept of the arrangement is fine (though i personally don't think the pace of the first half is fitting for the theme being arranged) but its like saying you have a fully functioning body yet no heart. the second half is a very good idea but needs more of a pulse in it since its so upbeat... right now its lacking drive and motion (its as static as the first part and should be distinctly more intense). then it drops back out at 4:50 and the end is again as good as the beginning. honestly, i would have focused on this to base my arrangement around. you do have a lot of good things going on in those sections. but the strings and woodwinds kill whatever was going on. i know i review in a very disorienting, jarring fashion but i also think in this way. i apologize if my analysis jumps around and doesn't serve a more practical purpose but you would do good to take my advice on its lack of dynamic and energy as it would turn this otherwise bland arrangement into a monster. i'd hate to suggest that you have to work on this AGAIN but its either that or NO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harmony Posted June 3, 2005 Share Posted June 3, 2005 A lot of great improvements have been made since the first revision that I heard. Most of the instruments are much more fluid and realistic and the arrangement was always there in good form. The flute arpeggios are very nice now. They don’t overpower the mix and a good sample is used. Unfortunately, there are still a few sticking points and for the most part I agree with the problems that Larry mentioned. The new solo horn is cool but it’s too loud when compared to the string and the piano that get buried behind it. This is especially evident when the horn stops at 2:19 and I feel like I have to strain to hear the now exposed background elements. I don’t have a problem with the vox. I think that they are pretty well covered which is a necessity for synth choirs in my experience. I think the biggest problem with this version however is the “missing register” that the wingless mentioned. The entire piece is mid-heavy which contributes to the muddiness of the lead instruments and generally makes everything sound like a gray rainy day. This wasn’t the case in the first version (compare the sound of the strings when they first enter at 0:28 in the new version with that of the old version and you should hear a big difference), so I suspect that the culprit is either an EQ production mistake or the lower VBR encoding of this version. Fixing this would go a long way towards making this sparkle like I know it can. I really hope you can eventually continue to work on this one because I feel it’s very close to a YES and I think a lot of folks out there, Sonic fans or not, would really enjoy it. Do the community a favor and please resubmit. NO (Please Resubmit) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts