DragonAvenger Posted May 13, 2012 Share Posted May 13, 2012 Contact Info ReMixer Name: The Joker Real Name: David L. Puga Email: Website: facebook.com/dlpmusic Submission Info Game Title: Kirby Super Star ReMix Title: The Last Dance (OCR Edit) Source Title: King Dedede Theme Original Link: ReMix Link: Comments: Finally decided to submit my track from BadAss. I originally wanted to make a trip hop song, & I wanted to make a song based on Dedede's theme, so that's how I came up with the idea to do the mix. The concept came much later, as I kept wanting to kinda make a song that would be the embodiment of what I thought Dedede's mind was like. Slowly starting to go crazy, becoming more warped even as the world around him became cuter & happier. There had to be a reason for him to become the villain after all. I wanted the song to be dark, gritty, & ominous. With a bit of sadness & despair thrown in, why not. Kept the trip Hop idea for the most part, but I'm not sure it would fall into that genre. Took it in a more industrial direction. Wanted this sort of contrast between bright twinkly sounds & a rough sound scape. Added the delay to the bells so it would sound like they were slowly getting drowned out by the noise of the distortion. Kinda like the goodness still fighting for room amidst the anger & hate, if I may indulge my pomposity for a bit (if not this entire comment... man, when'd I become the douche-y "artist type" ). One of he main problems I've been told this mix had was the amount of source used. Everything about this track is based on something from the original track. I'll try to break it down as simple as I can, as I've never really needed to go this in depth with my remixes. The intro amped cello in the mix that plays from the beginning to 1:15 is the bass that plays from :01-:03. Slowed it down a lot. The amped viola that plays during the same time is a simplified version of the trumpet melody from :29-:40. Slowed it down a whole bunch too. The twinkly bells that come in at :25-1:17 is :06-:11 from the source the main synth that comes in at 1:17-1:55 is also the main theme melody mentioned above. The reintroduced bells at 1:29-2:07 is the break from :40-:52 in the source. The piano from 2:08-2:20+ is the intro in the source again, :01-:03, with some of the main bassline thrown in to flesh it out. The bassline that starts at 2:34 is the bass from the source, albeit with a few modifications to give it a bit more of a progression. The main synth+twinkly bells from 2:47-4:03 play a more robust version of the main melody from the source. There are a few more things that are source, but I think that should be enough to hit the OCR source/original ratio. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DragonAvenger Posted June 21, 2012 Author Share Posted June 21, 2012 I'm a bit torn on this one. In terms of arrangement, I think you accomplish what you set out to do; I'm hearing plenty of source in here, although a lot of it is somewhat hidden. Even with the masking in spots, I think it's definitely clear what source you're using and you can pick out the parts. Production to me just isn't sounding right. A lot of it is the balance of instruments, with the bowed bass being pretty loud compared to everything, and the other instruments feeling pushed back. Having your melody leads being drowned in delay and reverb isn't helping things. I know part of it is what you are going for in terms of the story of your mix, but I think it just doesn't come across well in the song, and instead is making everything blurry. I'd start with toning down the effects, and honestly, consider approaching the 'masking' of the happier source a different way in the mix that leaves other parts more clear. Hopefully some other judges will have some further advice for you. NO (resubmit) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OceansAndrew Posted July 10, 2012 Share Posted July 10, 2012 Yar, dat bass is really overpowering a lot of instruments in the low mid frequencies. It sounds like you added some distortion to it, which makes it sound great, but it strengthens a lot of the overtones and as such needs to be eq'd a bit. Deia mentioned that bringing the rverb down and bringing the main source bits out further would help, and i agree, and maybe a few additional percussive touches would be nice, but really this is very close and just needs some minor tweaks to get my vote to a yes. No, please resubmit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Palpable Posted August 12, 2012 Share Posted August 12, 2012 I think you're giving yourself a lot more credit for source usage than I would, but what I counted still made this acceptable. The bells during 1:29-2:07 and the melody used from 2:47-4:03 put you at 47%, and there were enough reminiscent parts like 2:08-2:20 to nudge that over my bar. I don't know whether that will fly for everyone, but I think it's ok. Certainly an interesting approach to this song and I thought it worked splendidly. I didn't hear the same production problems that Deia and Andrew did, and maybe it's possible we're hearing different versions? I actually thought you did quite a nice job on the production in terms of balance and clarity, and the effects you used were ear candy. The distorted string instruments in particular were really nice, moody sounds. You earned my YES, though at 2:31 it sounds like there's some light unintentional distortion that you may want to fix. YES Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liontamer Posted August 23, 2012 Share Posted August 23, 2012 I heard some clicks/pops around :06 (light), :12, and :25 during the initial build. I'm co-signed with Vinnie on the production. It was kind muddy, but ultimately fine for me. That said, I'm not with him on the arrangement, even though we basically counted the same things. I needed more than 126 seconds of recognizable, overt source usage here for the source tune to be dominant: 1:29-2:07.75 (obscured), 2:46.25-3:37, 3:37-4:02.75 (partially obscured) = 115.25 seconds or 45.73% Simply put, the parts that are slowed down are slowed to the point of being unrecognizable. And the parts that are "simplified" are oversimplified to the point of being unrecognizable. For me, the production was solid enough, so tweaking the arrangement to have more overt source usage is all I think this needs for the win. NO (refine/resubmit) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nutritious Posted August 24, 2012 Share Posted August 24, 2012 Interesting the differing opinions on this one. Personally, I'm on board with most of the production, but I definitely wouldn't discount Deia's suggestions on the lead verb being a bit overpowering. Arrangement-wise, I'm a bit on the fence here. I keep a/bing both the source and remix to verify what's broken out above and if I'm missing anything. I can basically agree with the Vinnie/Larry timestamping and I suppose you could argue over percentages and what's sufficient, but my gut says we need some more overt source connection here. It's a cool track for sure: great overall vibe, good changeups and transitions, etc. Also, I know that sometimes you get a vision for what you want to do with a source and it's not always easy to incorporate a ton of source material into that vision (I'm struggling with the same thing right now). At the same time, it probably shouldn't be this much work to establish what you're trying to pull from the OST . I definitely hope you're willing to take another stab at this one and that we see it back soon. No, Resubmit please Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts