Liontamer Posted August 24, 2006 Share Posted August 24, 2006 Game Info -------------------------------------------------------- Game: Super Mario World Platform: Super Nintendo Entertainment System Song: Castle ------------------------------------------------------- Remix Info ------------------------------------------------------- Remix: Crashing Castle Length: 4'13" Link: ------------------------------------------------------- Remixer Info ------------------------------------------------------- Name: Electric Concerto (AKA DJ E-Concerto) Forum Username: electric concerto E-Mail: Website: http://www.e-concerto.net ------------------------------------------------------- Comments ------------------------------------------------------- Been working on this project for a while, finally happy with the final result. Few details about the song: - I wanted a techno based song, but with the creepy feel that the Castle theme in SMW is meant to produce. I used lead synths with fine pitch bending to help give them that creepy sound. - My favorite part of the song is after the climax in the middle, it drops down to a mellow trans. The e-piano makes it work. - The orchestral instruments used were used because it's my style. I love dumping all kinds of orchestral instruments in all my songs, so I feel it brings more personality into the remix. -- ~DJ Econcerto ------------------------------------------------------ http://snesmusic.org/v2/download.php?spcNow=smw - "Sub Castle BGM" (smw-15.spc) Weird string sequencing during the intro; it tires to sound realistic, but was merely awkward and not very fluid. Some overbearing beats joined in at :15. Use of the melody (and countermelody) at :38 was pretty conservative, and relied on the other parts to carry the track, which they weren't able to do. Decent genre adaptation but you have to roll with something more interpretive. Back to the jerky strings and loud beats at 1:08, with another subtler iteration of the source at 1:24 that faded up at 1:32. Varied up the synth at 1:40 to change the feel for a bit, which was good. The overall groove gets too static after a while; some more varied beat patterns would help. Randomly click anywhere you have beats going on in the track, and they're basically the same. The original being such a sparse track is something you can work to your advantage by writing more creative, evolving parts to fill in the gaps. Some more noticeable interpretation via the woodwind at 2:25 on top of the conservative melody, but the soundfield was really cluttered up until 2:48. The lead synth and woodwind are basically buried under the beats while also competing with whatever pad you had going on there. You really gotta reassess the sound balance. More of the same writing (and clutter) from 3:19-3:42. WAY too jarring of a transition at 2:48 as half the sounds cut out abruptly in one moment; make things smoother. Nonetheless, good original writing based off the progression of the source from 2:48-3:19. What the hell? I complained about a lack of more interpretive arrangement, then you wheel out the ending section at 3:42? Where was this type of creative stuff before, where you really play around with the theme? You need to explore more along this interpretive route with your composition; don't tease the potential like that. Very weak resolution with that crappy string sample at 4:05. Anyway, this has some promising stuff, but you gotta get better with your sound balance, whittle down the more "conservative melody + b33tz" sections in favor of more substantive interpretation, and press on with the more interpretive ideas you had later on. Good potential. NO (rework/resubmit) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zykO Posted September 21, 2006 Share Posted September 21, 2006 ok so there are a lot of good ideas here. i just am not sure what's missing because nothing is. this does some really good things with the lead synth that actually sounds a lot like the original snes "creepy ghost" lead. and then the original work later on especially around 2.00 - 2.30 is all so very good. i think the only weakness of the track is the lack of dynamic. i don't think it is worthy of sinking a ship that is otherwise lurking in the shadows of some eerie midnight cove. but i had to mention it you succeed at conjuring an image of a haunted castle. the ending is killer. it leaves you hanging on a thread of misplaced hope. the fact that the track starts off conservatively then ventures out seems to bother others but to me seems like a very practical and intelligent way to interpret something... gradual development... its very momentous and it gives it command. that trait is far underappreciated along with the ability to conjure images in your head but not on my watch. i'm not going to hesitate on this one. YES Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malcos Posted September 21, 2006 Share Posted September 21, 2006 The strings sound quite awkward, and there are very off key parts like at 0.27 and 0.49 - the mix at times is very cluttered indeed, and notes clash quite badly, creating some off-key moments. The drum beats are very repetitive and could do with some variation, the dynamics are also quite lacking. The source has been integrated well with this new direction overall, however the production is not up to OC standard imo. NO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
big giant circles Posted September 24, 2006 Share Posted September 24, 2006 I didn't really dig the strings in the intro--I don't think they blended particularly well with the rest of the instruments. They were a little too piercing IMO, and they were just too stand-offish to fit well. There's a lot of clutter in the bottom-end here. Not much clarity in the mixing/mastering process. The synth at 1:40 is hella sharp. Almost sounds completely off-key at times. The interpretation is pretty good in this piece. Nothing drastically innovative, but well enough executed to hit the desired style effectively enough. I have minor reserves about the instrumentation--the strings primarily. They might not sound so off if you added another shelf, just like you did from 3:43 onward. My primary beef is with the mixing. That muddy, cluttered, bass-tripping-over-kick-tripping-over-everything else is making it very difficult for me to enjoy this mix as well as I might otherwise. With a decent arrangement, I think you coherently grasp the concept of OCR quality along those terms. You just need to fix the sounds I've mentioned. Bring this one back after some necessary tweaking, and we'll give it another go. Cool? NO God potential wow, that may be just a little too optimistic, wouldn't you say? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Orichalcon Posted September 25, 2006 Share Posted September 25, 2006 This is sort of borderlining between having a great soundscape and a really awful one. At times it sounds like you've set up an almost perfect balance of sound and the mix is going to really shine, but then things get really cluttered or spacey and the balance is ruined. As Malcos mentioned, the drums are repetitive. You have a great tone set up there, but stop the loops and set up the variation so the good-sound doesn't wear off on us before the end of the song. I'm not too keen on the reliance of that sharp string staccato sample + delay. It fits, but it sounds tacked on, rather than artistically laid out. Maybe consider mixing it with a long-note soundfont sample at times. NO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts