Sign in to follow this  
DragonAvenger

OCR02490 - *YES* Shadowrun 'Running the Cyberpunks'

Recommended Posts

Your ReMixer name FFmusic Dj

Your real name Haroon Piracha

Your website http://soundcloud.com/ffmusicdj/

Your userid 129

Game name: Shadowrun (Super Nintendo)

Arrangement: Running The Shadows (FFmusic Dj Mix)

Original song: Running The Shadows

Game Composer: Marshall Parker

Comments: Song inspired by the the most overlooked game of all time, Shadowrun for the SNES. I actually made this song as a gift for a friend who is a fan of the game. The song was composed on Reason/Record and is mixed in the style of Hard Trance. As traditions with trance songs, the song consists of a lengthy intro and outro filling 32 bars so the song could be spun if necessary. It's bpm is 128 and it's in the key of Cm. I was just trying to have fun, the bass was too much fun to play around with. I like how it turned out. This is my first submission in almost 8 years. Happy to be submitting again.

---------------

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice source here, it's a good choice for a trance style. I'm feeling that while there are some neat ideas you have going on here, this becomes pretty repetitive, even inside the confines of the style. I was really looking for something new to bring my attention back to the song after a while. I think there's more you can do with the arrangement itself, or through the use of adding a new section or instruments. Altering the drums would also help add another layer of change that would be useful as well.

The production overall is ok, but everything feels dated and a bit generic to me. Similar to the repetitiveness, having some updated sounds would add some new flavor to the piece and give you some expanded tools to work with.

Gonna have to send this one back as is. The repetitiveness is where I'm really having an issue, but I'd like to see the production spruced up as well. Hopefully the other judges have some more advice.

NO (resubmit)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is almost like half trance, half house, with a somewhat empty soundscape for trance, but using a lot of the sounds associated with it. I will agree that it feels like the arrangement is way long, but it is constantly progressing and building new elements. I think the main issue is that this is definitely a DJ style cut, and OCR needs to have a radio edit, where things build and break a lot faster. I thought once it got to the super fast arps it was pretty sweet, but it took awhile to get there, and then sortof played them into the ground, only because the arrangement was so spread out.

The production seemed fine to me, with the exception of it being empty in a lot of spots, but that's more the OCR format than anything; this type of soundscape would be perfect in a club.

My suggestion is to boil down the arrangement to the essence and resubmit. I like what you have, but it needs to be more succinct.

No, please resubmit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this is a great trance piece. It repeats, but it's not really repetitive, meaning, things are constantly changing and evolving. It's kind of straightforward in an old school kind of way, but it still has a the variation that's needed. I love those rolling arpeggios.

The issue in my mind is length. I know we've rejected longer tracks in the past, but in light of our new file size standards, I think the prevailing thoughts on lengthier trance pieces might deserve a reexamination. Long intros and outros over a chord progression are a staple of the genre, in the same way something like improv soloing over a chord progression is a staple of more jazz oriented genres. By the same token, long intros and outros are primarily utilitarian, in that they exist for the benefit of the DJ who would be blending between two tracks in something like a live set, and not necessarily for the average listener. There's about 1:45 of what could be considered "non-source" intro/outro material, and in a 7:37 remix, I don't find that particularly egregious, especially since the rest of the piece sticks pretty close to the source, and it's not as though the 1:45 of intro/outro exists solely to showcase any kind of original melodic writing.

I like this piece, so I'm going to say YES, if only to see what other Js have to say about lengthier trance pieces. If other Js express that we should continue with our current stance on longer electronica pieces, I'll change my vote so that this doesn't sit in the queue for too long.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think this is a great trance piece. It repeats, but it's not really repetitive, meaning, things are constantly changing and evolving. It's kind of straightforward in an old school kind of way, but it still has a the variation that's needed. I love those rolling arpeggios.

The issue in my mind is length. I know we've rejected longer tracks in the past, but in light of our new file size standards, I think the prevailing thoughts on lengthier trance pieces might deserve a reexamination. Long intros and outros over a chord progression are a staple of the genre, in the same way something like improv soloing over a chord progression is a staple of more jazz oriented genres. By the same token, long intros and outros are primarily utilitarian, in that they exist for the benefit of the DJ who would be blending between two tracks in something like a live set, and not necessarily for the average listener. There's about 1:45 of what could be considered "non-source" intro/outro material, and in a 7:37 remix, I don't find that particularly egregious, especially since the rest of the piece sticks pretty close to the source, and it's not as though the 1:45 of intro/outro exists solely to showcase any kind of original melodic writing.

I like this piece, so I'm going to say YES, if only to see what other Js have to say about lengthier trance pieces. If other Js express that we should continue with our current stance on longer electronica pieces, I'll change my vote so that this doesn't sit in the queue for too long.

Co-signed with this except for one point:

it's not as though the 1:45 of intro/outro exists solely to showcase any kind of original melodic writing.

If the source material dominates the arrangement, the amount of original material shouldn't have any bearing on any decision. For example, if someone else made an 7 1/2 minute mix with 90 second original intro and outro, and the middle 4 1/2 minutes was all source arrangement, that's fine, IMO. As long as everything (source usage + original ideas) pieces together logically and thematically, artists should be free to do whatever else they want. One's personal mileage may vary, but I don't feel anyone should vote against tracks like that.

I agreed with the criticisms about the soundscape being on the thin side, as well as the core repetition being issues, but they're just not dealbreaker issues for me in the big picture. While the structure is straightforward, I'm more with DS that the arrangement and soundscape were personalized from the start, and evolved more than adequately. The ending's a bit bland and cheesy (extended dropoff + cymbal crash finish!) out of context, but oh well.

Solid stuff from Haroon. The soundscape could have used further fleshing out, and more melodic interpretation would have been nice as well, but what's here is enough to get over the line, IMO. Count it.

YES

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have had problem with songs in the past that switch between original sections and very conservative ones, because it feels like there's not much arrangement going on. But the problem there isn't with the original sections, it's more with how the source is used. This song was NOT like that, because the sections that used the source were not very conservative and the original sections blended into that well.

However. I didn't think there was enough substance here to justify a song of this length. By the five-minute mark I was tired of the same patterns getting used and I wanted a more substantial change. Even the intro/outro felt a little bland compared to a lot of popular trance. Sometimes songs like this can get away with a repetitive nature if the production is flawless, but there were issues on the production side with the soundscape getting thin at times, and the drums and synths sounding kind of simple. The bass especially sounded cheesy and out-of-place. Sorry, not feeling this one for the front page.

NO (resubmit)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If the source material dominates the arrangement, the amount of original material shouldn't have any bearing on any decision. For example, if someone else made an 7 1/2 minute mix with 90 second original intro and outro, and the middle 4 1/2 minutes was all source arrangement, that's fine, IMO. As long as everything (source usage + original ideas) pieces together logically and thematically, artists should be free to do whatever else they want. One's personal mileage may vary, but I don't feel anyone should vote against tracks like that.

My point was that the "non-source" stuff wasn't something like completely unrelated original chord progressions + original melodies tacked onto the arrangement solely for the purpose of showcasing original writing. Just clarifying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

definitely agreeing with pretty much everything in Larry's vote here, and also feeling some of the NO's criticisms with the soundscape and arrangement being a bit sparse, however I wasn't lost on the repetition, and despite the lack of melodic variation there was a ton of nice automation and movement in the textures. very danceable stuff. :)

ah and I must admit, the ending fadeout/crash cymbal is super lame and amateur sounding. it's not gonna hold back my yes, but it's worth mentioning. ;)

YES

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be honest, I've avoided voting on this one up until this point. Basically I can see both sides of the issue here, so it becomes a matter of opinion whether the repetition issue (and, to a lesser extent, other production problems like soundscape, ending) should hold this back from passing.

Interesting to note that the KEY issue here isn't REALLY about source arrangement or production quality, but about musicality. Personally, I view arrangement and production as being the primary drivers of my evaluations, with musicality being secondary to those. With that in mind, I'm inclined to sign off with a Yes.

Yes, borderline (repetition)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Love the bass; I think it could use an even more aggressive filter envelope on the attack. Really make that shit bite.

I think the synth riff that comes out front is too forward. A track like this needs to keep that bass right up front in a sense. As it is, the elements aren't blending so well some of the time.

Man on the whole, you could tighten up the arrangement a bit and have ideas introduced and fade out more seamlessly, but it's a pretty damn good track. My other major advice is to do more playing around with the bass on a sonic level. You occasionally have it do runs and stuff, but to keep interest in this genre, you should do rhythmic stops, stutter edits, and you can't just repeat riffs.

Close, but

YES

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As much as I'd like to YES this, since it definitely has a lot of merit as a track, there's certain aspects of it that, for lack of a better word, irritate me as a listener and I just can't get over it :\ The repetitive structure is just stretched out too far past my personal limit. I don't claim to speak for OCR's overall opinion on extended "club-style" mixes like this, but personally I feel like you're trying to push the very minimal number of patterns that aren't always conducive to repetition (like that slide riff on the bass) and by about halfway through I feel like it's just not going anywhere with the arrangement.

I struggled for a long time with this vote because the production is great and your sound choices all work really well, but the arrangement would need to be trimmed down, or some of the later section filled out with additional instrumentation in order to win me over on this.

NO (resubmit!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gotta say, I like the drums. Hard hitting. Samples feel ever so slightly generic to me, but there is some neat sound design going on. I feel like the arrangement drags on way too long here. There is development of sorts, but its too slow, and the additive structure doesn't lend well to reducing melodic repetition for the most part. This could work if the track was cut down. There is little in the means of variation, which there could have easily been more of at this length. If I was you, i'd cut down the fat of this arrangement, add some more variation to the theme, and then maybe you'd have a better chance of getting posted. Also, the mastering didn't seem to quite jell with me, it lacked a high end crispness that is needed for this sort of track, which made things feel murky.

Its good attempt but I can't sign off on it due to arrangement concerns. Keep working at it!

NO (resub)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TIEBREAKER

So I had a little read through the other comments and really the only issue that would lead me in any direction but a YES is the length of the arrangement. The intro and outro are obviously club-style build ups, and I don't really have too much of a problem with that, given that they do build in the layers of the arrangement. It's not like they are just random unrelated stuff.

I mean hell, my aire tam break remix has 55 seconds of random before it kicks in. The little melody hook and bassline come in at more or less exactly the same time for this mix so it's not as if it's more then we've accepted before. With that in mind it's kind of hard for me to give it anything less then a YES. It is on the long side but I'd say just on the right side of the fence in relation to other mixes.

HYES

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this