*NO* Journey to Silius 'Final Journey' *RESUB*

[Liontamer]

Original Decision

 

Contact Information

RJ remixes
Jonathan Lemethy and Richard Földhazi

https://soundcloud.com/rjremixes
51359

Submission Information

Journey to silius
Final Journey
Journey to Silius Stage 2 (Underground Concourse)

Original Composers:

Naoki Kodaka
Nobuyuki Hara
Shinichi Seya
Naohisa Morota

We did this remix becouse we always do trance and upbeat tracks this time we aimed for a diffrent approach, our main objective was to keep the mystical feeling from the original track


We hope you like it! we sended it with sendspace aswell so u should be able to download it! see link below

 

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

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QXCEbzjmKmc

Edited May 12, 2015 by Liontamer
closed decision

[Liontamer]

I never heard the previous version, so I'm coming in with a fresh listen on this. I'm offering more play-by-play than usual, because I think this track has subtle dynamics and interpretation that can be overlooked.

The cheering SFX seemed short & looped. Normally this isn't a big deal, but every time you use it (:00, :47, 1:43, 2:56), the same loop of cheering becomes too obvious. It's the instances of faint whistling that give it away.

After the intro, track opened up with an chippy yet ethereal play on the source melody. Also note how the backing beat writing is simple but completely different from anything in the original, so that new material should be noted, as far as the level of interpretion. As far as the texture, the beats & kicks fill things out nicely; this was a solid sound.

Changeup at :47, and back to the synths, pads, and low-quality crowd SFX. Textures thinned out some at 1:03 going back into the chip parts, synth, and kicks. Nice doubling of the melody with the individual & sustaining chip notes. Again, using the crowd SFX around 1:38, which is weird hearing the same loop again.

On the plus side, note the padding to thicken up the soundscape before going into the chorus at 1:51. Good way to subtly raise the energy within this deliberate tempo. Also for the chorus at 1:51, note the different synth doubling the chip lead, which was a good change. Bad sampled electric guitar lick from 2:05-2:07 & 2:38-2:40; super stiff timing that exposed the sample, but very short.

2:56-3:12 brought back the crowd cheering SFX yet again. You need to find different cheering SFX and use different segments of it instead of re-using the same exact clips.

3:12-3:44 with some minor variation and expansion on the source melody, but a welcome addition.

3:46-5:06 (transition at 3:46, chorus from 4:00-5:06) sounds like a pure cut-and-paste of 1:36-2:56 until 5:04 drops all the main stuff for a beat-driven finish.

The track unceremoniously cut off at 5:20, so that needs to be fixed to have a proper fade down after the final bar.

The crowd SFX has got to be replaced with 4 different samples of crowd noise that also blend into the soundscape better. Otherwise, I think the production quality is solid enough, and whatever issue on sample quality were there for the first version didn't seem like a huge deal here.

On the arrangement/writing side, it's OK to have the tempo like this, when there are subtle but observable changes in the density of the track that provide dynamic contrast, which this has. But it's easy to view this as plodding because there are some large components that sound repetitive. For example, 1:03-1:36, 1:51-2:23, 3:12-3:43, and 3:59-5:03 had the same beat patterns in the background; consider some ways you can offer subtle variations in the instrumentation, timing, or stressed beats for those patterns. For example, the added cymbals from 2:23-2:55 were a good idea to subtly alter the texture.

That said, this could use more instrumental/textural changes if you're going to go at a slow and steady tempo for a 5:20-long track, otherwise, it feels too long and somewhat underdeveloped. IMO, this is actually well in the right direction. It's maybe 85% of the way there, IMO.

There's so much promise here, so don't give up on this one, and sorry for the long wait to hear back on this resubmission. If you do resubmit this again, we will evaluate it as soon as possible, which is the supposed to be the typical priority for resubmissions.

NO (resubmit)

[Clem]

Sup Larry. Gotta disagree with you man. This track is simple and well executed. A concise beat soundscape focused on basic synth patches with subtle ornamentations reminding me of classic ocr. The production has satisfying presence. The crowd sound doesn’t bother me. As a textural element I think it’s pretty legit and it’s cut© nature is keeping with the track’s theme of relaxed simplicity. Looking forward to more, RJ!

 

YES

[Palpable]

Very classic OCR feel to this. Melodies are pretty conservative, with some subtle changes. Most of the changes are in the style and backing instrumentation. Love the chilling, synthy instrument set. I can even see a YES on this, but I felt like it stayed in the same gear for too long. My main criticism is what Larry said, that the track is underdeveloped. Not by much - I think if you chopped it down to four minutes, I'd give you the YES. To keep a five-minute length, this would need something more drastically new.

 

One thing I did disagree with Larry on is the crowd noise. It was pretty subtle and in the context of an electronic track that is not necessarily going for realism, I think it's not a problem. I didn't notice it at all until I read his vote, but even hearing the loop, it sounds more like a triggered sample for texture, rather than something realistic. 

 

NO (resubmit)

[Jivemaster]

Very old school vibe to this one. Quite a minimalistic approach with the instrumentation, which is not a bad thing provided those limited parts keep things interesting...

 

Arrangement moves along fairly well for the first couple of minutes, but after that I feel the track starts falling into the trap of reusing ideas a bit too much to sustain its length. I'm hearing fairly similar drums across the mix for example. It's a good beat, and it's clear, but it's a bit too loopy for a track of this length. The other elements also seem to fall into this trap - after the first few minutes, we're reintroduced to the same licks again, the same sounds, nothing really evolves.

 

Production wise, the track could make better use of the available stereo space, as most parts are mixed dead centre. Otherwise I don't have a major problem with the production - things are clear and each element has its own space.

 

I think the main problem with this track really is the arrangement. It needs to be developed more to sustain the length. A breakdown or solo would go a long way in varying the track up a bit. I would like you to explore the source more and build on your existing ideas here to strengthen the arrangement.

 

NO (resub)

[zykO]

this is actually a very tough call

 

it is most certainly intentionally sparse, intentionally thin and intentionally minimal. like others have said, it's basically (whether this is intentional or not) a homage to old school scene offerings. this reminds me of my first few stumbling steps into the world of ocremix so many moons ago. in that respect, this is on point.

 

where this fails to deliver is in compositional energy; it just doesn't do enough beyond a fairly straightforward interpretation of the source. the phenomenon others call repetitiveness lol

i can look past its production as it really works as a throwback fan-made remix the likes of which we haven't heard in over a decade. does that mean it fits within 2015 OCR guidelines? tough to say. the track doesn't utilize much of the soundfield, has very simplistic instruments that play the same thing relatively over and over again, and the ending is either noobish or trollish. and isn't that what made this whole remixing thing fun to begin with??

like i said, it's a really tough call for me. i like it enough to call it a resub and lean on the panel and their expertise to guide this thing home to where it meets what is expected of submissions.

RESUB