Chimpazilla Posted August 20, 2015 Share Posted August 20, 2015 (edited) Contact Info: Name - C-Curt Forum ID - 54075 (all other info remains same) Submission Info: Arranged Game - Front Mission 3 Name Of Arrangement - Not All PDAs (Edit) Name Of Source Track - Network Game Info - Orig. Pub. 1999, Sys. PS1, Pub. Squaresoft, Composers Koji Hayama, Hayato Matsuo (lazily written down from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Front_Mission_3 Source - (Original Song: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yg8JrreGQrA ; Full OST: http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLDf5rbhJzPT2zpJg-SuytuDoYYL3ginI_ ) Comments: The deeper shades of house music have been become pretty popular lately. For my second OC submission, (after I forgot about my first one) I decided to try to make a song to appease both the club kids and the OCR fans. The result is a storming but atmospheric house number. It isn't really a specific subgenre, so let's be trendy and call it "Vibe House." Not All PDAs was approached a bit different than A Brief Winter Trek was. I wanted to keep the feel of the original track, so I stuck to strict old school style synths and effects. Although the track has potential to rock an opening set or after party, it still retains "dem vibez" for listeners at home. This submission is an edit for OC; this edit shortens the song and reworks the "DJ-friendly" intro and outro for listener convenience. I'll probably host the extended mix privately. Once again, Dead Robot (https://soundcloud.com/deadrobotmusic) (who recently has been working for producers such as Pixl and Candyland) helped with quality control and mastering. As requested, he toned down the master compressor a tiny bit, but no loudness was harmed in the making. --------------------------------- Edited October 4, 2015 by Liontamer closed decision Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chimpazilla Posted August 20, 2015 Author Share Posted August 20, 2015 This is some absolutely amazing production. I have zero to criticize. The only reason I am paneling this instead of DP is because it is... repetitive. The source is repetitive, so there's that... but this arrangement just... repeats the same phrase so many times. There are really only two backing chords in the whole mix and I wish there were more. It's a club mix, I get that. The mix does have good structure, breakdowns etc. The lead melody starts late (2:10) but it's the same in the source. There is no variation on this melody at all. So yeah, repetitive. That said, it sounds GREAT. I'm calling this "atmo house." YES Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flexstyle Posted August 21, 2015 Share Posted August 21, 2015 Getting serious early-stages BT vibes from this one. Production is great, soundset is great, and I'd use this in a DJ set in a heartbeat. Unfortunately, I'm not seeing that it makes any substantial arrangement changes from the original. It's practically the same structure, there's no variation on the melody, and even the sounds chosen are all very similar. I'd love to see this get a little more interesting with how you interpret the original song, rather than just giving it a facelift for 2014/2015. Do some riffing on the melodic themes that happen throughout, and I'm on board. I'm probably one of the very biggest EDM advocates here on the site, so please don't take this as a knock against anything you've done--I just think that for it to fit with the site's arrangement requirements, you'll need to do some more work. NO (please resub!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zykO Posted August 30, 2015 Share Posted August 30, 2015 not much to say here that hasn't already been said. mike is spot on with the early BT vibe and the production quality is intensely good. i'm diggin on the intro and outro you've written into this to make it an effective stand-a-lone tune versus the extended mix version you'd normally roll out in the set. this is very good. the love other j's are doling out is well-deserved... ... however, their criticisms are also well-deserved. the arrangement feels too conservative (granted you chose to make it so in order to preserve the feel of the original source) and that might conflict with how we apply the site guidelines. it's repetitive due to its conservative arrangement; the original is a repetitive, straightforward tune so while you've updated it with contemporary phrasing and aesthetics (as well as instrumentally and with top notch production), it may not be enough.I'm gonna go with a YES (pending other J's feels on arrangement creativity) because I think this is good enough to be on the site but only if we, as a group, agree that it is bold enough in its interpretation to belong. otherwise, we'll have to wait for a more robust arrangement.YES (pending) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DragonAvenger Posted September 23, 2015 Share Posted September 23, 2015 Yeah, this is really a tough decision here. It's all based on the arrangement and whether it's personalized enough and varies enough. I'd really like to pass it, but I really feel like more could have been done in both areas to differentiate your mix from the original. Even some subtle changes would do the trick here. Really want to hear this again! Please send it back if it doesn't pass! No (resubmit please!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jivemaster Posted September 30, 2015 Share Posted September 30, 2015 Nice production work, the intro builds up well, and everything is clear. However as the song goes on, not a lot changes. I do feel the track is relying on layered patterns a bit too much and could do with some more work on the arrangement side. As it stands, the mix is very textbook in its execution, where layers are peeled back and re-added, and the content of the layers doesn't really change. Some additional elements are added later, but they really just sit on top of the existing layers and to me are not strong enough to keep the mix going for the duration. This is a shame because everything else is well done. All this really needs is some more original interpretation of the source tune, to change up the arrangement as the song progresses. NO (please resub) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clem Posted October 3, 2015 Share Posted October 3, 2015 A skillfully made dance track. Appeasing in execution and concept, even got that standard highpass transition in there. The arrangement doesn’t alter much from the original. The form is different, but both the style and content are nearly identical. I’m looking for more uniqueness. Variation on the rhythm, variation on the meldies or harmonies. If the original piece wasn’t also a four on the floor synth jam I would probably feel differently. As a well produced classic style edm track this succeeds, but on the basis of limited rearrangement I say NO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liontamer Posted October 4, 2015 Share Posted October 4, 2015 I didn't think this was well-produced, in terms of the mixing. I thought the soundscape was pretty quickly cluttered, starting at :34, and especially by 1:06 as more and more parts gradually added in and the soundscape became muddier and more indistinct. If you turn down the volume, it's less of a problem, but I'm listening to it at the same full volume I listen to other tracks at. The writing and atmosphere were good though. Lead synth at 2:10 had overly tight timing, IMO, but it wasn't a huge deal. That said, it had a tough time cutting through as the lead, which was more of a problem. IMO, the melodic interpretation wasn't much, sure, but the soundscape and instrumentation were personalized well, and I thought the gradual build of this song showed enough development to where I disagreed with the criticisms of calling this too repetitive. The core groove does go on, absolutely, but the elements in front of the groove subtly changed and evolved throughout most of the piece. If you're still interested in revising this piece, feel free to also include some other types of variations on the source theme, including instrumentation, rhythmic or melodic (or groove in this case) changes. IMO, it wouldn't need to be drastic stuff, just some more elements of interpretation to push it over the top for other Js concerned about that. I see where the NOs on arrangement are coming from, but I think the subtlety of the build here's ultimately lost on them or just wasn't compelling enough. For me, the arrangement was perfectly fine and a pass, but the cluttered mixing was what pushed it down to NO for me. Sorry to be such an outlier, Curt. I'm sure you and Dead Robot worked hard on the production, but IMO there are a lot of parts mudding together in the same frequency range, and it undermines an otherwise strong track. Maybe the folks judging on monitors missed it, I don't know, but when comparing it with my control track -- djp's "Consent (Make Me Dance)" -- the difference is night and day in terms of the clarity. I'm sure there are some more electronic/dance-oriented pieces on the site or elsewhere that would also make good comparisons. If you haven't done so already, consider another pass at the mixing. It doesn't need to be squeaky clean pristine, just adequately de-cluttered. NO (resubmit) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts