OCR02530 - *YES* Mega Man 10 & Mega Man 7 'Solarcoil'

[OceansAndrew]

previous:

http://ocremix.org/forums/showthread.php?t=37314

* Your ReMixer name: Draconiator

* Your real name: Justin Landry

* Your website: http://www.youtube.com/draconiator

* Your userid: 20634

Submission Information

* Title of Mix: Resub of "Solarcoil"

* Name of game(s) arranged: Mega Man 7, Mega Man 10

* Name of individual song(s) arranged:

Solar Man's Stage (

)

Spring Man's Stage (

)

[OceansAndrew]

I think the level of detail that has been added to this is pretty remarkable, and the song feels a lot more interesting. There is a lot of new variation, some additional instruments, and some new harmony. The beats feel a lot more dynamic, and the transitions are solid. Each time the melody returns, there is a slight variation on it, keeping it feeling fresh. Pretty solid resub, nice work!

Yes

[DragonAvenger]

Andrew hit it. This is a definite improvement, and really makes me glad we sent it back to Dustin. Super groovy, way more variation. Nice work, dude!

YES

[Liontamer]

Copied from my review in the WIP area:

Compared to the first version, the new lead at :45 has a less default-type sound, but the way the note changes slur so heavily undermines the melody.

At 1:17, this could stand some sort of switchup for the lead sound in order to keep things fresh. Or keep 1:17 the same and change the :45 lead. I'm gonna keep saying it until something else comes along, but that same main lead going for pretty much all the 4+ minutes got old. It's old. Get away from it. Maybe alternate between the current lead and a lead more like what you had in v1, only somewhat more more expressive. At least then you could have some actual sonic variation with these leads.

The new stuff added at 2:01 compared to the last version doesn't work. The orch stabs were super tacky and didn't have any synergy with your other sounds. IMO, I don't think they work at all, but if you really must have them in there, experiment with pushing them a lot more in the background rather than upfront, to accent the more important foreground writing.

The structure (basically A-B-A-B-C- was still pretty repetitive without creative enough dynamic contrast, so I have the same criticism as last time. It just seems like after 2:01, you have the exact same textures, the exact same lead, the exact same groove, exact same arrangement of the source material being repeated wholesale. But now there's needless orch stabs, lead doubling and tons of grace notes being added to create differences for the sake of verse 2 not being exactly the same, yet it doesn't have any flow. IMO, this just overcomplicated things without actually improving it, and it's something a lot of developing artists are guilty of when they feel locked into a certain structure.

Not feeling the key change at 3:33 either, and the chorus at 3:48 basically gets the same crits as 2:01 (just added notes & effects over basically the same groove, same instruments, same arrangement ideas being repeated a third time.)

I still really like the core ideas here, so I hate to come out and seem like "EVERYTHING IS WRONG" when this base sounds pretty cool. I love the bassline, and the opening 45 seconds sounds cool as hell. I love the crystalline countermelody at 1:15 as I've said before and the bubbly support notes (e.g. most audible at 3:48). I like the arrangement ideas, they just end up sounding too repetitive in the long run because it's the same sounds, tempo, beats, writing with little real evolution past 2:01. Structurally, you could probably just go buildup-A-B-C-B-wind down and cut some of the fat out of this instead of letting it drag for the 5 minutes.

But you need more variation with your lead sounds and the core groove. Instead of slapping new coats of paint on the same ol' leads and melody via effects, doubling and grace notes, change the actual lead itself and think of other new melodic variations or integrate other areas of the source.

If it's just too frustrating and the constant tinkering makes you feel like this track is getting away from what you want it to be, Justin, then forget about working on it further. But if you think you can actually develop this more, then move away from this v3 and start back at square two. I think you can, otherwise I wouldn't have spent half an hour of my limited time to listen to this. I still like the potential here.

There's a lot going for it, though I still think the Spring Man connections end up sounding tenuous because they're based more on rhythmic similarities instead of the actual melody.

Justin seemed to be willing to give my structural suggestion a go (which doesn't factor into my vote either way), so I hope he keeps at it on this one. Cutting the fat on this would help significantly.

NO (resub)

[Emunator]

Larry, I totally get what you're saying and I'm glad we got a very critical opinion that pointed out exactly what was right and wrong with the mix for Justin to get the kind of detailed feedback he's been seeking. I don't disagree with anything you've said, but at the end of the day I feel like this has reached a point of polish that it's above the bar, even if there's some parts of it that are fundamentally weak. I know for a fact we've passed weaker mixes that weren't as enjoyable or solidly produced as this.

Compared to a lot of Justin's previous work, I think this demonstrates a lot of creativity and originality. The lead is very unconventional and I can see how people might not like it, but on the flipside it's just as likely that people will enjoy the unique choice. The bassline is super-groovy, and I think there's more than plenty of changeups and little personalizations throughout the whole arrangement to compensate for the fact that the lead doesn't really change up much (though I'm inclined to argue that when the lead switches octaves, that alone is enough to give it a completely different feel.)

It's not without its faults, and whether or not this passes I hope you listen to what Larry's saying because all of his advice WOULD make this song better. I just feel like it's good enough as-is and there's no flaws that inhibit my enjoyment of the song so much that it would warrant rejecting it. Good luck, however this turns out.

YES

[Vig]

Hmm. I feel like either the formant lead thing is either a bit too loud or those bell countermelodies are too quiet. sounds like the bells are whispering and the lead is shouting.

The biggest problem with the mix is that there are a ton of parts in the lower registers, leading to too much low-mid information. The tambourine fills up the top end, but it might be good if some of the parts were brought up to a higher voicing.

These issues are pretty small, the track sounds pretty smooth, but since the arrangement is awfully straightforward, it's not really putting it over the top. I'd like to hear those fixes.

NO

[Palpable]

I didn't like the formant lead at first, especially on those slides, but started to like it more as it added notes in higher octaves. I didn't agree with Larry that the added stabs and lead notes broke up the flow. Sounded totally natural to me and was a fine way to develop the mix. Not to mention, even though the patterns you use there have been used prior, that combination has not been used before - the first verse is a lot sparser. In all, I thought this was good stuff, pretty easy to pass.

YES

[halc]

everyone's already said so much about this, so I'll keep it short. felt generally the same way as Vinnie, the lead was definitely more pleasant in the upper octave. overall the sounds and arrangement clicked for me despite being a bit straightforward as others mentioned, and the production didn't have any glaring flaws. I'm cool with this.

YES