Jump to content

*NO* Jurassic Park (NES) 'Enter the Park'


Liontamer
 Share

Recommended Posts

Hi, I'm Following the steps for submit my remix.

Information:

ReMixer name: EdKr VGM

Real name: Diego German

Email address:

Website:http://edkr.blogspot.com

UserID: 52994

Submission Information

Name of game(s) arranged: Jurassic Park NES

Name of arrangement: Enter the park (Level 1)

Name of individual song(s) arranged: Enter the park

Thanks!

EdKr

http://edkr.blogspot.com

-----------------------

Edited by Liontamer
closed decision
Link to comment
Share on other sites

FYI: :42-1:36 of the source are taken from the C64 game Comic Bakery, and is a legendary song in the C64 scene, so I noted those sections as CB in my breakdown.

The track was 3:51-long, so I needed at least 115.5 seconds of overt source usage to have the VGM be dominant in the arrangement.

:51-1:05, 1:14.5-1:33 (CB), 1:36.75-1:55.5 (CB), 2:28.5-2:48 (CB), 3:23.75-3:36.5

(direct NES audio sampling :00.5-:22.75 - 3:38.5-3:51)

83.5 (+34.75 sampling) = 118.25 seconds or 51.19% source usage.

Starts off sampling the original song before transitioning into the rock at :21. It's a pretty cool rock cover.

The percussion writing had some good changeups and fills, though the writing felt kind of vanilla in the big picture. Not sure why the high-end seems cut, but it makes the track sound needlessly lossy.

The treatment of the source tune was personalized some, though there's a lot of cut and paste going on with the main melodic sections (:51 vs. 3:23 & 1:36 vs. 2:28).

The arrangement's straightforward but personalized with the live guitar, so it's promising despite the repetition.

That said, I'm going to lean to NO on this due to the 30+ seconds of direct sampling of the original NES audio, which was the only thing that pushed this track into having the source material be dominant in the arrangement. Without the direct sampling, some of sections kind of followed the chord progression of the Comic Bakery source, but were original writing, so I didn't count those.

Unfortunately, I think a combination of the issues:

1. the cut-and-paste repetition of the melodic sections

2. the lack of high-end clarity (more minor)

3. leaning on the direct sampling of the original audio to make the source tune usage dominant

...all added up to a NO. It's a cool piece that could use a more development of the arrangement, and less sampling of the NES audio. Really, if the only thing addressed were #1, this would have a much better shot. It's well in the right direction, and a fun track, but it needs more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

This is a good sounding mix and I like the approach, the guitar work sounds very good, the drums sound good as well.

Larry has done an amazingly detailed job here, I'm pretty much just verifying his research. He's spot on in every aspect so I'm going to mainly co-sign with him.

Those cut and paste sections he mentioned are exact duplicates, I layered them to be sure:

0:51-1:15 is identical to 3:23-3:40

1:36-1:55 is identical to 2:28-2:47

This is really a no-go for OCR, gotta vary it at least a little bit.

It does seem that you've lowpassed the track pretty steeply at around 17KHz so you've lost some "air." You could still control the highs using a high shelf instead, and keep some of that air there. This isn't a dealbreaker but a little more highs would round out the soundscape a little better.

And yeah, the sources are pretty obscured apart from the direct sampling. That's a big bummer. So these issues add up to a NO in my mind as well.

NO (resubmit)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After a few listens, I'm quite a fan of this track. You have quite a few sections in here - I particularly enjoyed the solo section at 2:00 and the soft breakdown at 2:50 which break things away from the main feel of the song. And while things come off as a bit coverish, it all works well for the most part.

The copy/paste stuff didn't concern me as much as the others, however I think it's enough of a concern to revisit the sections which are directly copied from previous sections and vary them a teeny bit. IMO you have everything sounding nice enough production wise for this to pass. If you add that little bit of variation we're golden.

NO (please resub)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...