Garpocalypse Posted January 20, 2014 Share Posted January 20, 2014 (edited) Hey everyone, It's been awhile since I've put anything on the forums and since I can't submit this for a few more weeks I'd thought i'd let everyone take a few swings at it. This is an updated version of the remix I did for the WCRG 2013 Rivals round. It uses both Shademan and Ballade themes. Sources: Shademan BalladeRemix: https://soundcloud.com/garpocalypse/mega-man-7-the-underwater Putting it up for mod review because the remix is done outside of whatever suggested tweaking it might need. Edited January 22, 2014 by Garpocalypse Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gario Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 MOD REVIEW Oh, very soft approach to take, here. Kind of reminds me of Narada Decade - mellow and pleasant. Let's see how it holds up over the long run, though. Production is pretty good on this one. I feel that synth choir is just a touch loud throughout, but that's a pretty easy fix (just turn it down a decible or two). The sources are there, so I don't think you'll get into any trouble on that front. One thing that does bug me is that the harmonic pattern is very, very repetitive, and it gives the song a very droning feel. I know you do different things in the song with the melody and instrumentation, but the harmony is virtually the same throughout the piece. The synth choir is also a little too prevelant throughout the song, as well - it contributes to the overall same-ness that I hear throughout the song. The fade-out ending does not do you any favors in this track. A complete ending would help bookend the track, and it might give you somewhere to guide your song to, ultimately. I like the textures, and the use of the sources is neat, but the arrangement drones on without much definite direction, the harmony stays doing the same thing throughout and there's a fade out ending. The production has little to no issue, and the mixing is good, so you do have a lot going for you. I believe the arrangement issues would bring this one down to a NO, though - I recommend giving the arrangement a good hard look and see if there's anything you can do with the repetitive nature of the harmony. Best of luck, Garpocalypse! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Garpocalypse Posted January 22, 2014 Author Share Posted January 22, 2014 thanks for the review gar-io! I'll try to change up a few things in the harmony before i submit it. Part of the repetition comes from me not being a fast writer and only having a week to finish it with the WCRG. I know some are really against fadeouts but I thought it worked well for the remix. I'll take another look at it once I fix some of the other issues and see if it works. Thanks again! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timaeus222 Posted January 24, 2014 Share Posted January 24, 2014 (edited) I agree with Gario on each point, and I would place the harmony repetition at the highest priority here as well. There's room for improvement, but ultimately it's not bad. Things that could be improved on though, some of which would help significantly: - The piano in the intro is acting as the lead, and it's actually a little bit too distant. It seems like your intention for a distant piano there, but I feel like it's pushed a tiny bit too far back. - At 0:46, bells cover up the piano a little bit, but at the same time, expose that its high end isn't super prevalent in the original sample. You may need a better sample. Here are some free ones that I personally like. You'll need reverb, but otherwise, they're actually quite good, for free soundfonts! - At 1:29, the piano feels narrow in comparison to the pads. Some minor stereo widening on the piano could enhance the expansiveness of that section overall. - At 2:12, the piano is a little bit mechanical in its note lengths. It seems like each note ends approximately where the next note starts, while in real life a pianist's previous note overlaps with the next note for a few milliseconds. It may also help, if you haven't done so already, to vary the note's "start-time"---when the note starts relative to the quantization grid. Since humans don't play rigidly, that adds a human, random element. - At 2:55, the piano is quite buried, and it's playing the melody. This is where the overly loud choir is most detrimental to the source usage. - At 3:37, the woodwind is a bit buried, but not as much as the piano was earlier. - At 4:19, the piano is buried to a similar extent as at 2:55. - The fade-out ending didn't bother me that much. It's not helpful to the arrangement, but ultimately it isn't enough basis for a rejection by itself. I feel like any sort of NO (resubmit) would come mostly from the piano's mixing and sequencing, as well as the chord progression overall. Edited January 24, 2014 by timaeus222 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Garpocalypse Posted January 24, 2014 Author Share Posted January 24, 2014 Thanks tim! I share some of your concerns about the sound of the piano. DimensionPro patches don't sound very bright and I was thinking about going with my Korg M1 but I thought it kinda fits the underwater vibe I was going for as it is though i was never really 100% satisfied with it. For the record the piano was played live and certain sections were fixed for time. I'll take a look at your other tips but the flute at 3:37 gradually getting buried was intentional. Just not pulled off too well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.