djpretzel Posted May 12, 2006 Share Posted May 12, 2006 HI! So I finally finished SRH...which im sure just about everyone in #ocremix knows about Game Title: Quattro Adv. Super Robin Hood Originals Song Title: ....uhmm....track 4 on the nsf?..k System: Nintendo Entertainment System Original Author: Gavin Raeburn according to the nsf uhmmmmm Remix Title: Mix of Thieves Here is the link to my mix Here is the link to the nsf just so larry can add the same thing to his post if he has any part in the judging http://www.zophar.net/nsf/quat-3.zip And since i am bored right now i will add why the hell i mixed this... F4T4L requested for this song to be mixed..i guess he asked other people a long time ago as well, just for it to never happen. So last year he gave me the nsf and said OMFG LISTEN TO TRACK 4!!!!...so i did...and then said i would mix it, which in turn, made him so excited that he pissed himself. So yeaaah... now that the song is finally done, I just want to thank F4T4L for the awesome source tune and everyone else for the more than positive feedback in both #ocremix and the wip boards. yep, thats about it i think, hope you all enjoy it cya -Sadorf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zircon Posted May 12, 2006 Share Posted May 12, 2006 Oh ho ho ho.. finally submitting this! I listened to this in various stages, being a regular denizen of #ocremix. I'm sure this'll be sort of a borderline one for the panel given that it's pretty much sadorf's typical style which there have previously been slight disagreements about. From a production standpoint, this is more or less identical to his Fury of the Medusa mix, pretty much. Simple trance synths and drums that get the job done. However, I liked the usage of pads more in that track than in this one; this mix could use a similar amount of filling out from pads and harmony synths/instruments. In addition, the more I listen, the more I think the lead is probably a little too chorused/stacked. The arrangement is relatively simplistic. It's not terribly repetitive given the genre, and the original itself, which was very short. However, there are definitely variations and new stuff has been added. It's a cute little remix that is right around the border.. but in my opinion, it's got JUST enough 'oomph' to pass. YES Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrayLightning Posted May 12, 2006 Share Posted May 12, 2006 F4T4L pissed on himself? No wonder he keeps losing at poker. I must say I didn't enjoy this one at first blush at all, but after going back and forth with the source file I appreciated this one a lot more. I think you had some good ideas brought to the able, but I still think overall it's a simple arrangement as even noted by zircon. I actually thought your last submission was stronger than this one. This just sounds vanilla to me. The synths, synth design, processing, automation and production just sound generic. I'd have loved to have heard this with further work done on that aspect, as well as more work done on the composition and arrangement side of things. I also thought the drumwork lent itself to the mix sounding more repetitive, even due to the genre restrictions and style you're going for. For me there's no hook in this mix, no escalation, no evolution. It's not a bad mix by any means, but run of the mill comes to mind. I know you're a lot better than this personally. I've heard some good material out of you and have seen how you've improved some of SirNuts' mixes to a great degree, but this just comes off as basic to me. It's a NO I'm afraid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liontamer Posted May 12, 2006 Share Posted May 12, 2006 http://www.zophar.net/nsf/quat-3.zip - Track 4 Word, thanks a lot for the source link, Allen. The stuff in place is ok, but I wasn't impressed with this as is and don't understand a YES. The groove is so plain and uninteresting, both in the sounds/synths chosen and the ho-hum beat patterns. Everything sounds pretty vanilla and also cookie-cutter for Allen's style. 1:11-1:39 rehashes the arrangement with some overly mechanical piano underneath. Finally something different with the lead synths at 1:39 to change up the feel, at least a little bit. Very phat & beefy "BOOM" transition at 1:56 though to the next section. Lead and supporting instrumentation shifts focus briefly from 2:05-2:43 before going back into the more saw-style lead until 3:34, and then heading for the finish. Bleh. Dynamics barely ever changed the entire time. The arrangement had a decent degree of variation, but with the saw-type lead and looped percussion patterns being used most of the way and never changing, everything dragged and sounded too samey over the long haul. Even on the arrangement side, some iterations of the stuff could either be cut out or you could have worked to change the tone of the synths you were using to provide some style changes. If you're going to keep the structure intact, then at least change up the instrumentation style so that this doesn't get boring. For that matter, work on something more sophisticated than these overly simplistic, and ultimately boring grooves. You've got good stuff in place, bro, and this sounds like you can work further on it to get it to that higher level. NO (resubmit) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarkeSword Posted May 12, 2006 Share Posted May 12, 2006 Gray and Larry pretty much summed it up. Everything sounds really plain and basic. The drumbeat is like something I would write; that's why I don't write dance/techno mixes anymore. The melody comes off as really boring. It's just going through the motions; there's no expression at all. Follow the advice Gray and Larry gave you. NO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JJT Posted May 14, 2006 Share Posted May 14, 2006 Wow, I never thought I'd find myself leaning towards YES on a borderline techno mix, but here we are. There's nothing spectacular about the production, arrangement, or sequencing in this remix, but there's nothing really bad about these things either. Simple? Yes, but there's variety. This is definetly borderline, and it could be improved (especially the dynamic shape of the song). Still, I think this is over the bar, if just barely. YES Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liontamer Posted May 15, 2006 Share Posted May 15, 2006 I subscribe to the Vigilante doctrine. If patently unremarkable, then that's not a pass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Orichalcon Posted May 15, 2006 Share Posted May 15, 2006 This is far from spectacular. However, it's very well produced for a Sadorf mix, or for any mix in this genre. Despite using the very basic patterns right the way through for most of the rhythm synths, they meld together very nicely to create an enjoyable sound. The beat is deliberate and pacing, there's nothing shocking there, but that's to be expected. I'd like to see it break free of the basic patterns with maybe an interesting breakbeat or breakdown in sections, but it's all right as long as it keeps the beat. I hate the fakey piano, that's a pet peeve of mine. The arrangement is pretty good, a nice shift of the melody to a proper dance beat from the groovy beat of the source. This is over the line, if not by far. YES Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vig Posted May 15, 2006 Share Posted May 15, 2006 I subscribe to the Vigilante doctrine. If patently unremarkable, then that's not a pass. Yeah...there's nothing wrong with this other than the fact that it's straighforward, "vanilla" as Gray put it, not terribly creative...eh...i listen to a fair deal of electronica in various subgernes I am unqualified to name. People see our votes against electronic remixes and think I dont like electronic music. It's not true. But electronic music I consider "good" is like...creative and unique, which unfortunately this is not. "Vigilante Doctrine." I like that. NO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts