Emunator Posted February 20, 2015 Share Posted February 20, 2015 (edited) Contact Information: - ReMixer Name: Nynja - Real Name: Kyle Walter - Email Address: - Website: soundcloud.com/nynjamusic - Forum User ID: 52762 Submission Information: - Name Of Game Arranged: Sonic The Hedgehog 2 - Name Of Arrangement: ソニック - Name Of Individual Song Arranged: Chemical Plant Zone Source: Edited March 17, 2015 by Liontamer closed decision Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emunator Posted February 20, 2015 Author Share Posted February 20, 2015 I don't think there's any video game source that's more prone to being covered in one specific style... I've heard at least half a dozen attempts at translating Chemical Plant Zone into a house style, but they always seem pretty fresh regardless. This one is no exception - I found the rhythms and your own personal way of interpreting the source tune to be original enough to set this arrangement apart from the myriad of other remixes in this same vein. I thought it was odd that you took almost a minute and a half into the song before actually getting to the source tune, but fortunately the rest of the track checks out source-wise, so we're good there. I feel that your arrangement is pretty long, but at the same time you do have plenty of breaks and fills so it doesn't end up being too repetitive. Overall this one keeps a pretty steady rhythm but your melodies and beats change up with each repetition, so I actually feel the length was justified in the end. Production is where this track hurts a bit. Those resonant pads and lead synths are super loud and busy, so they start to eat up everything else in the track... it's all pretty audible but I feel you could tame those synths with some minor EQ work and give everything a bit more breathing room without losing the full-bodied sound your track currently has. The bassline is also pretty loud and constantly feels like it's competing with the rest of the track. This track is really growing on me as I listen to it and if the production were tightened up just a bit, I could see myself throwing a YES on this track, but there's some sounds that are dominating the mix too much that need to be reigned in. I'm going to ping Flexstyle and see if he can chime in on this track specifically, he could likely have some more specific feedback on how to improve this. NO (resubmit!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chimpazilla Posted February 20, 2015 Share Posted February 20, 2015 Wow, this is a great arrangement of this source, really nice full sounds used. I have to agree with Wes though on the mixing, it's pretty muddy overall. The pads have way too much midrange content. The track is drowning in reverb and I'd guess that none of the reverbs have been low-cut, so the reverbs are all mudding into each other, blurring the track unnecessarily. If this doesn't pass, I recommend low-cutting all your reverbs so no reverb plays below 500-800ish Hz. Then you should carefully eq each sound so nothing is overlapping too much in frequency, and notch some mids out of your pads. These changes alone would really tighten things up. Regardless of these issues, I find this to be a really nice track. I like the busy bassline, it compliments the long dreamy pad notes well. I'm going to say YES based on the arrangement and writing. YES Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liontamer Posted February 20, 2015 Share Posted February 20, 2015 Interesting simplification of the melody with the backing pad to start things off. :34 picked things up some with the beats as things built gradually. Good stuff at :52 with the added lead synths. Things do sound somewhat indistinct, but nothing that was a dealbreaker. Arrangement-wise, there's some solid personalization even though the treatment is melodically conservative. The thinness of the beats at 1:27 after such a long build was a disappointment; the soundscape was too empty on account of the core beats being fairly flimsy. The pacing was too rigid and the sound design of the lead was plain & generic, making 1:32-2:33 sound very flat and unexpressive. Again at 2:54 and 3:29, the timing of everything was too tightly timed, and the beats plodded. I get that this is meant to sound robotic, but there's a stiffness to this that doesn't click; hopefully another judge can better articulate what's the matter there. This is well in the right direction and just needs some additional TLC to ensure the beats don't plod, the the timing sounds less rigid, and (to a lesser degree) the synths sound less generic. Good base so far, Kyle, this is well on the way to getting there. NO (resubmit) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jivemaster Posted March 16, 2015 Share Posted March 16, 2015 Smooth track, you manage to keep things fairly interesting most of the way through with minimal instrumentation. I enjoyed your use of effects during breakdowns, and your off-beat hits during your fills are woven in nicely. I thought the game SFX were ok but not particularly needed for this track, your interpretation of the source stood fine on its own. Arrangement wise, things are fairly basic, but you seem to have enough changes and slight variations to keep things interesting. Most elements in the track are very much to the grid across your production. This stiffness does take some of the life out of your mix, but it's not a major problem. Your biggest problem IMO is the amount of reverb across the track. Kristina has already mentioned the track could benefit from a HPF across the reverb channel. I would definitely recommend this, if just to bring clarity to the overall production side of things, as you have a bit of clash in the low end frequencies (especially when the song fills out). Also consider side-chaining your reverb (Larry always does this), which is an effective way of making your overall reverb level duck the more elements come into the mix - a useful technique. If these reverb/low-end production points are attended to, the mix is passable to me. NO (please resub) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Palpable Posted March 17, 2015 Share Posted March 17, 2015 Definitely like the arrangement ideas here, especially the chill reductive intro. This had a good groove, some neat detail work, and while the main section won't make anyone's head explode with creativeness, it's solid. All the problems I heard were related to production. Definitely start by taming the reverb. Kris's suggestion to high-pass it is very good. You may also need to EQ some of the synth leads and pads. I agree with Larry that the long intro build didn't lead into an explosive enough main section, so I'd recommend pulling in some of the big guns stuff earlier. I'd love to hear another version of this. I think it's a really promising first version! NO (resubmit) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts