Liontamer Posted November 9, 2014 Share Posted November 9, 2014 (edited) Will need a more unique title if this passes; it's just the location name. -LT Contact Information ReMixer name: AceMan Real name: Jakub Szeląg Website: http://www.JuicyCube.net Submission Information Link: Name of game(s) arranged: Pokémon Gold/Silver/Crystal Name of arrangement: Goldenrod Game Corner (Remix) Name of individual song(s) arranged: Game Corner Additional information: Original composer is Go Ichinose (without Junichi Masuda). ---------------------------- Edited December 3, 2014 by Liontamer closed decision Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liontamer Posted November 9, 2014 Author Share Posted November 9, 2014 Catchy source tune. Sounded a little lossy to start, but I'm interested in where this is going. Track started at :42 and the mixing feels pretty hot in terms of the levels. It's because that kick is majorly sizzling in the high-end; it drops out at 1:22, but as soon as it's back at 1:38, the volume of it is just insane; it really doesn't need to be that loud. Sound design is a little vanilla for the genre, but it's OK. At 2:18, some dynamic contrast would have helped. Everything stays pretty loud/intense without any sort of break. Ah, there's a dropoff finally at 2:46; that definitely could have been the transition 30 seconds ago instead of now. Back into a rebuild at 3:13 to the main part of the theme, and the arrangement is sounding very samey compared to the intro. It's basically a copy-paste of :16, including the addition of the organ-ish part from :29 at 3:27 during the build. There was just a minor phasing effect at 3:41, and then a verbatim repeat of the theme at 3:43-4:10, which was a disappointment. However, 4:10 dropped out some of the parts to begin a gradual subtractive ending before bookending with the arcade ambiance at 4:50. There's some production/mixing issues, and it's not the most dynamic treatment of the source in terms of the level of interpretation, but it's solid all around, with good energy and an interpretive enough approach. Some further dynamic contrast and variation in the arrangement would have better realized the potential here, but there's a lot more that works than doesn't. Good work and good energy, Jakub! YES Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chimpazilla Posted November 10, 2014 Share Posted November 10, 2014 I really don't hear anything lossy, Larry. It is a bit sizzly, mix could use a rolloff above 15-16KHz, it's bright but not painful. Mixing is lively and well separated, but it begs the question: WHERE'S THE BASS??? There is nothing happening below 90Hz in this track and the kick is the lowest sound, hitting right at 90. There is a huge missed opportunity from 30-90Hz where some enormous bass could reside. There are wubs here that I only hear the tops of. There's some good bass writing and nice sidechaining that I'm straining to hear. This makes me sadface. I would request a resub mainly for that reason if nothing else bothered me in this song. The addition of the 30-90Hz range will most likely tame the perception of brightness of the whole track (but you still might want to do a high end rolloff anyway). The wide-panned phasey percussion at 1:25 is awesome. The dubby section that follows is dynamite (but where's the bass). Synth work beginning at 2:19 rocks the house. The bridge at 2:46 is a nice change that provides some much needed relief from the relentless source buildups and motifs. Larry is right, this track is really solid. But wow, by the time I get to the end, I've heard that source buildup and motif soooo many times. I feel like each of the sections that contains four identical bars could be cut in half, or better, some bit of variation could be written in. A bigger issue is the duplication of the two biggest sections: 3:14-4:22 is nearly a verbatim repeat of 0:15-1:24, and the outro of 4:22-4:50 continues the same exact patterns with the only difference being that the drums are dropping out. *sigh* I hate to do this, because there is so much good going on in this track, but the lack of low end and the extreme repetition are pushing me towards NO (resubmit please) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OceansAndrew Posted November 10, 2014 Share Posted November 10, 2014 I could pretty much copy-paste Chimpazilla's post and you'd hear my opinion exactly. but I don't get paid the big bucks to do that, so you get a rehash of what she said in my words. 1. Add some bass. It is super washed out sounding, and has no low end to speak of at all. 2. Add some variation to the motif, as the same rhythmic backing repeats for the duration, with parts coming and going, but no proper song structure holding it up to maintain interest. There are a few change ups in the beat and such, but the grand majority of the track is a repeating 4 bar riff with elements that come and go, but the core remains the same. No Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarkeSword Posted December 3, 2014 Share Posted December 3, 2014 A really nice energetic take on the source. Love the groovy drums and the overall sound design, except for one big chunk that's missing. There's practically no significant bassline to speak of. You need something meaty to give this piece some foundation. Repetition doesn't bother me as much, but even when recapping what you have in the first half in the second half, you need to ramp up the energy levels to really sell it. The back half of this track feels like it's just going through the motions. Needs more variation and some BASS. NO, resub Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
djpretzel Posted December 3, 2014 Share Posted December 3, 2014 Lack of bass didn't bother me, actually.... BUT... I do think it could make things better Shariq's comment above regarding repetition holds true - it starts hitting up against that threshold where it's getting noticeably repetitive without anything else changing to differentiate. Another close call; I think this mix ultimately belongs on OCR with a few minor tweaks and perhaps even a reduction in length, if there aren't any other ways to give the repeating sections a bit more life. I think there should be though, and I hope the artist explores all the options! NO (RESUB) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nutritious Posted December 3, 2014 Share Posted December 3, 2014 Good source connections right off the bat here. Sounded like some bass notes/effect that sound like they may be conflicting with the rest of the chord. It's slightly noticeable in the intro, but much more so once things kick in at :43. It's the resolving note that hits in the second measure from :43 to 1:24. Actually, it might be that wobble bass that you hear much more clearly once everything drops off at 1:24. It sounds weird in the previous section because it's pretty quiet and only hits every 4 measures. Speaking of bass, I'm in total agreement on the lack of low end here as has been mentioned. Quite a critical element for this genre. It's not completely missing, but in general, the mix is pretty top-heavy. Again, agreement on the repetition issues mentioned as well. Once the rebuild at 3:10ish came and the melody set in again, I felt like we've already been down this road before. More energy or content to contrast from the rest of the mix would help. Good stuff! Tighten it up and bring it back NO resubmit, please Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts