djpretzel Posted August 2, 2005 Share Posted August 2, 2005 "Wicked Child" is also the name of the source; need to contact the artist for a more unique mix name - LT All instruments and synths done by Sixto using FL Studio, Cubase SX, and Creative Pro E-MU hardware. Guitars recorded using PODxt Pro. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liontamer Posted August 2, 2005 Share Posted August 2, 2005 OCR Hosted NSF - Track 4 ("Wicked Child") Aight, we've got a live one. The track was a bit too loud and could have been pulled back a bit. Not overly interpretive for the first half or so, but there was good trade-off and interplay between various instruments and synths during each verse and chorus, and of course the expansiveness of this compared to the NES original was apparent. The drums could have used more variation, but didn't really get on me for essentially performing just a time-keeper role. Oooh, now we get into the goods at 2:44 with some good rearrangement featuring an organ synth. Notes were too fast to be realistic, but it was reasonably well sequenced. Then the SOLO is where it's at 3:20. The sound was too loud and there was a measurable degree of clutter most of the way through, but I think the overall package was solid and those issues weren't TOO detrimental in terms of listenability. If any Js wanna NO on production issues, I have no problem with that, and can agree on some level. Dizzamn, why haven't I heard of Sixto before though? Nice work. YES Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sam Ascher-Weiss Posted August 2, 2005 Share Posted August 2, 2005 2:45 is what it's all about! So is the solo, especially when it's joined by the second guitar for those jelly harmonies. Drums are but humble timekeepers, which is cool because they don't try to front like they're anything else. This song is good lovin' featuring material that makes my dopemine levels rapidly increase, like the breakdown and subsequent solo. YeS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zircon Posted August 5, 2005 Share Posted August 5, 2005 This is sort of a straightforward mix a lot of the time.. and given the simplicity of the original, that's not necessarily a good thing. The progression was basically kept the same, and the melody is played at the same general tempo with the same rhythms. The organ -> guitar solo are where this gets more interesting. THAT kind of stuff is what I like to hear. But, in my opinion, it doesn't last long enough - in fact, looking at the big picture, I don't feel that there's very much interpretive material. It sounds more like an extended version of the original with a solo and more repetition. The production values are a mixed bag - recording is good, the bassdrum and bass are overcompressed to the point where it seems like they are hard limited to not clip. Panning, EQing, and reverb (etc) are all fine. The addition of the synth was a welcome one.. I would have liked to hear more of that (go fm7!). But I guess that's personal preference. On a technical level this is above the bar. I'm pretty borderline because this is a well-presented mix with some good arrangement points. But I don't think I can pass it until there's a little more of a unique interpretive factor. Please resubmit with more stuff done with the source melody/progression or more original material that mixes well with the source tune. NO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarkeSword Posted August 5, 2005 Share Posted August 5, 2005 I think the production is clean enough. There's no glaring rough spots in the soundscape. The guitar and other instruments are played well, and everything is mixed together at the right levels. Percussion serves its purpose, but it's nothing remarkable. Nice guitar solo! The interpretation is conservative, but it's still an interpretation, rather than a cover. I like it. YES Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vig Posted August 8, 2005 Share Posted August 8, 2005 the arrangement is somewhat straightforward, but the instrumentation is very cleverly thought-out, making it sound like more than a cover. would be on the line due to the conservative arrangement if not for the solos, which push it over the edge. what can i say? those solos werent in the original. YES Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liontamer Posted August 8, 2005 Share Posted August 8, 2005 I contact Sixto about renaming the mix and offered "Wicked Six" as a suggestion. Sixto hit me right back with a PM: Sure, Wicked Six works for me. I've always been bad with coming up with names for songs. Nah, nothin' to be sheepish about. Glad my suggestion worked for ya though, and I hope the people dig your quality OCR debut. I've seen your name a lot of time posting stuff in the WIP forum, so I hope at least one of those projects leads to a great follow-up mix, Sixto! Keep it up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The wingless Posted August 22, 2005 Share Posted August 22, 2005 Onward and upwards then, I don't mind the straightforward set up, as that is what it is, a set up for the goodies in the middle, like the plain yellow element of the twinkie, belying [sic] the sweet creamy nectar within. Or that ugly 300-pounder that knows how to bump-'n-grind on the dance floor. Objectification of fatties notwithstanding, there *is* a lot of good interpretive stuff in the middle. It's clean, it's competent, there are some great lead ins and outs, and the intro is vampire-licious. YES DIE, STUPID 6-VOTE COUNT! YOU DON"T BELONG IN THIS WORLD! EDIT: PEOPLE VOTING *NO* HAVE PWNT MY PREVIOUS STATEMENT! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harmony Posted August 22, 2005 Share Posted August 22, 2005 Wow, I’m going to have to hold this one up even longer. I agree with Zircon that the interpretation just doesn’t cut it. I hear a well-produced, skillfully executed, guitar-driven cover until 1:54. Immediately following this, 1:54-2:56 is a near-exact copy of the cover from 0:00-1:54. The last 30 seconds are another near-exact replica of 2:29-2:44. Apart from the cover-ish nature of much of this mix, the repetition in this mix doesn’t sit well with me either. Mucho props for the organ solo. Realistic or not, it rocked the house and is only outdone by the amazing guitar work that follows it. 2:56-3:44 is great, creative stuff. Unfortunately it’s only 48 seconds of a 4 minute mix. Although there are bunches of synths, layered guitar work and a more full percussion track than the original, none of these additions really do anything that the source doesn’t do; on some level they are simply sound upgrades. This is a great song on its own and I know that whether this passes or not, tons of people out there are going to love it. Great work Sixto but for me to pass this I’m going to need a more creative interpretation of the original during the 3 minutes that I currently see as a cover. NO (please rework/resubmit) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zykO Posted August 22, 2005 Share Posted August 22, 2005 i liked this but there's no way we're going to say that other "covers" were not allowed and this is. Like Harmony pointed out, the cover section of this repeats itself unassumingly. Solos do not an interpretation make. I'm sorry but anybody can solo over a chord progression and while you do it well, it isn't enough to separate this from any metal interpretation of Castlevania... consider Dracula Battle Perfect 1 and 2, even that said, i really did like this a lot cuz it rocks; i recognize the drums, the guitar tone is solid and the playing is fantastic but you're gonna have to do a little more than this to meet OCR guidelines. NO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
analoq Posted August 30, 2005 Share Posted August 30, 2005 you know, i really don't want to reject this. i openly admit i could not have done this better given the style. but what kills this for me is how the original is so well known, and yet this offers little in the interpretation department. what i'm saying is: there are very few surprises here. i've heard this theme so many times that i get bored quickly of the theme and the way it repeats here without any changes just makes things worse. in the places where the theme repeats, i need to hear more variation. this isn't bad or anything, a lot of people would love this -- i'm just not one of them. no Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrayLightning Posted September 4, 2005 Share Posted September 4, 2005 I love the sound of this and really hate that we're in the position as we are here, because this is a conservative mix (if you can call it that, perhaps cover). It's a debeatable point. In my view the creative factor here is limited and while I would personally find it uncomfortable to say this is just a cover, by the same token I can not say this arranged enough for OCR standards. There's a lot of nice subtle additions here that make this beyond a cover to me, but as pointed out when this mix is covering source material this is so often covered, we're looking for something new brought to the table. I really like this, but there's not enough alterations/interpretations or expansions in my view beyond the solos and subtle additions. I'd like to see more conceptual ideas brought to the table, whether it be structural changes, or harmonic and/or melodic expansion. Great performance too. I really want to yes this, but this too borderline and doubtful for me to pass. At such a conclusion, I can only go with NO with a strong suggestion of a resubmit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Orichalcon Posted September 11, 2005 Share Posted September 11, 2005 The production in this mix is clear. The drums are quite powerful, and while some people would find them over-bearing, they fit the style of the mix well enough. the crash-cymbal that comes in every now and then to accompany the ride on every beat sounds a little too loud, but nothing too serious. Everything else fits together nicely. The guitar is very well played, much to Larry's horror I feel it could've been a tad louder in proportion to the rest of the piece, which is reminiscent of music by The Black Mages. The rock organ is a lovely partner for the guitar and ensures the mix stays interesting while allowing the lead guitar to break and keep the mix fresh. The major problem here as pointed out, is that the piece sounds like a cover of the original. However, I feel there's enough here to warrant this as more than just a cover. A little more interpretation on both the organ and the guitar the second time through the general source theme would've been welcome (From about 1:55) to save the mix from the speculation of this just being a cover and running through the same patterns as the nsf. The fact that the theme repeats itself flawlessly before the section from 2:45 doesn't help it out there. The music from 2:45 on is a welcome break and also adds something original to the theme, however it keeps the theme of both the game and the mix in tact with that creepy horror-flick style organ playing. The guitar solo from 3:20 is very well played, and a welcome addition. I do wish it had lasted a bit longer, instead of simply reverting back into the same used guitarlines from earlier in the mix. This is simply nitpicking though. I'm really torn on this one, it's clearly a well produced mix for its genre. I'm willing to say that there is enough here to warrant this having a place on OCR. While it does sound like a cover of the original, there are sections where the artist has added to the theme. Also since the original was an nsf, creating such a powerful rock piece out of it is quite an achievement. This is a YES from me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
djpretzel Posted September 15, 2005 Author Share Posted September 15, 2005 Yeah, aight. This is what I would call the minimum passing level of arrangement; I'm glad half the panel called it like they saw it, and indeed, for such a well known song, it would have been preferable to pair such admirable production and technique up with a more creative interpretation. However, our evaluative system is supposed to be equal parts production and arrangement, and we've passed mixes with excellent arrangement and marginal production. I'd consider this the inverse. Is the arrangement really "marginal", and should that be good enough? Tough question. The structure is very similar, tempo similar, etc. There's no wild deviation, soloing, or other breakout section to point to as reconciling the similarity. Nevertheless, the underlying rhythm guitar *has* been restructured to work better with an actual guitar, the drums have been rewritten and improved, etc. - it's not a lot, but it's something. Add to that very competent, professional production, and I'd say we have a mix that appeals to half of the spirit of OCR's standards - the sonic half - while doing the bare minimum to keep the arrangement factor from dooming it. It's a tough call, and it sets a precedent for what I would refer to as "Near covers" being accepted, but when the production and instrumentation are spot on, and you can find SOMETHING, in this case a couple somethings, to point to as arrangement, I'd lean personally towards passing. Decisions like these ultimately come down to each judge's barometer of how much arrangement can compensate for production, or vice versa, and similar mixes in the future, depending on the smallest of variables, may not be approved. But in this case, given a potential tie to split, I'll go with the slim majority; I have no major beef with it being on the site, and it's very enjoyable, and thus my vote is Yes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts