Double Dragon - Title Theme & Mission Screen

[Slimy]

This is for the callout!

Originals:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M77093Txe-c&list=PL918478793D2E4C44&index=1

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5XAvPSS9nTQ&index=2&list=PL918478793D2E4C44

I'm not too familiar with arranging for genre's outside of orchestral, (what genre is this,) so if I'm doing something terrible, your feedback would be appreciated.

Also, how about the title? Am I allowed to use "game" as a verb?

[timaeus222]

The mixing feels weird; it's like you took something that compositionally sounds like an 80s rock song and applied orchestral-style mixing. As a result, there's some substantial low-mids muddiness, mainly from the piano and pad, like at 0:52 - 0:57, for example. The drums also feel buried under the marimba and piano sometimes (like at 0:06 - 0:34), so they could use some careful compression to make them punchier and more exciting. The drum writing can also be more energetic and less stiff.

So, try toning it down on the piano and pad reverb, liven up those drums, and perhaps hone in more on that 80s rock feel that you seem to have accidentally somewhat landed on here.

[WillRock]

First instinct here is that the mixing is a bit off - The drums are completely buried, boost the volume and compress the kick/snare a bit to give them a bit of punch. Sometimes things are too exposed, like that Pulsewave stuff at 1:07. Seems to me like you've got the right idea of where to level things mixing wise because everything that requires the focus is right, its just you've over done it a tad. Also, one or two of the samples aren't great but with better mixing you might be able to make up for some of the sound design flaws. 

Sometimes the arrangement just... stops. I suggest you either remove them or try to edit them in some way cause atm, it just sounds like the track has stopped, then it starts again! It puts you out of the mood a tad. Also, some of the instrumentation isn't quite fitting with your aesthetic in terms of reverb. The pulsewave for example... no reverb at all. It sticks out in a bad way cause the rest of your track isn't as dry. 

A lot of critique there for ya, sorry if I seem a tad harsh, it is a good track but it requires quite a bit of work to get it up to OCR level since thats what you're aiming for. Keep working at it

[AngelCityOutlaw]

I agree with what's been said, but honestly, it doesn't really sound like "80s rock" at all. I'm quite familiar with said genre so maybe I can provide at least one point of useful advice.

- A defining feature of a lot of 80s music, is gated reverb on the drums. Basically, you run the toms and snare through a HUGE reverb, but use a noise gate or similar device to chop off the sound of the reverb just enough so that it doesn't sound messy. Also, see if you can get a hold of some retro drum machine samples. There is a soundfont out there called "ultimate drums", the "power kit" contained within sounds quite 80s.

- Saws - Heavily reverbed chords played by a synth with two detuned saw waves is common. Kinda like what you hear in Van Halen's "Jump"

- Electric guitars with lots of delay and chorus

- Roland Juno-60 was extremely popular for basslines and the Juno-106 had arguably the quintessential synth brass sound of the 80s. Your bass isn't too far off, though. See if you can emulate or find an emulation of those synths.

- Synth bells...synth bells everywhere. Maybe use those in place of the marimba?

A recent VGM track that totally nails it, is this

That is so fucking 80s, l grew a mullet just listening to it.

I think if you follow the others advice and apply some of the concepts like what you hear in this tune to what you already have, you'll be sounding straight out of the "golden age of pornogra-err...music, in no time!

[timaeus222]

1 hour ago, AngelCityOutlaw said:

I agree with what's been said, but honestly, it doesn't really sound like "80s rock" at all. I'm quite familiar with said genre so maybe I can provide at least one point of useful advice.

- A defining feature of a lot of 80s music, is gated reverb on the drums. Basically, you run the toms and snare through a HUGE reverb, but use a noise gate or similar device to chop off the sound of the reverb just enough so that it doesn't sound messy. Also, see if you can get a hold of some retro drum machine samples. There is a soundfont out there called "ultimate drums", the "power kit" contained within sounds quite 80s.

 

I didn't mean in terms of the sound design, but just the compositional aspect / notes.

[AngelCityOutlaw]

3 minutes ago, timaeus222 said:

I didn't mean in terms of the sound design, but just the compositional aspect / notes.

Slimy said he/she isn't familiar with arranging for genres outside of orchestral music and asked what genres this is. You claim it's sort of "80s rock" in composition.

So why not give him/her tips that apply to that genre.

[Slimy]

8 hours ago, timaeus222 said:

The drums also feel buried under the marimba and piano sometimes (like at 0:06 - 0:34), so they could use some careful compression to make them punchier and more exciting. The drum writing can also be more energetic and less stiff.

 

7 hours ago, WillRock said:

First instinct here is that the mixing is a bit off - The drums are completely buried, boost the volume and compress the kick/snare a bit to give them a bit of punch.

I may have been subconsciously worried that mixing the drums too loudly would cause the "fakeyness" to stand out. But if the drums really sound that dire, I guess I could try collaborating with a drummer.

7 hours ago, WillRock said:

Sometimes things are too exposed, like that Pulsewave stuff at 1:07. *snip* Also, some of the instrumentation isn't quite fitting with your aesthetic in terms of reverb. The pulsewave for example... no reverb at all. It sticks out in a bad way cause the rest of your track isn't as dry.

That was supposed to sound just like the 8-bit pulsewave in the original - like it was ripped straight out of the original, albeit in a different key. I like the contrast it brings. But if no one else notices what I was trying to do, I could replace it with a reverb-y saw wave, like AngelCityOutlaw suggested. In fact, I might do that anyways to add some variation.

7 hours ago, WillRock said:

Also, one or two of the samples aren't great but with better mixing you might be able to make up for some of the sound design flaws.

Can you tell me which samples you think aren't great? I might be able to replace them.

7 hours ago, WillRock said:

Sometimes the arrangement just... stops. I suggest you either remove them or try to edit them in some way cause atm, it just sounds like the track has stopped, then it starts again! It puts you out of the mood a tad.

Are there times where you think it's specifically worse than others? At 0:34 and 3:22, I could simply have the drums keep playing. But if you think 2:39 - 2:44 is bad, I'll have to think of something more clever. And if it's 1:39... I sort of like that one.

7 hours ago, AngelCityOutlaw said:

*snip*

I'll try playing with some Roland Juno-60 VSTs to see if I can get a better sound. But I like the general sound the song has currently, especially when the pads come in, (minus the muddiness, I'll fix it!). So I probably won't go "full 80's," but there's definitely room for improvement, so I'll try your suggestions.

Edit: I've already replaced a bit of the baseline with a Juno-60 imitation, added saws, synth bells, and gated reverb to the drums, so your suggestions aren't going to waste!

Thank you all for replying!

[timaeus222]

17 hours ago, AngelCityOutlaw said:

Slimy said he/she isn't familiar with arranging for genres outside of orchestral music and asked what genres this is. You claim it's sort of "80s rock" in composition.

So why not give him/her tips that apply to that genre.

Because that's the one genre I don't produce at all.

[HankTheSpankTankJankerson]

Let me know if you want horns recorded.

[Slimy]

The file in the OP has been replaced!

• Added Synth Bells
• Emphasized 8-bit pulsewave with a reverb-y saw
• Tried to clean up the pads - is it still muddy?
• Changed the piano/rhodes combo a bit to made the countermelody clearer and reduce muddiness
• Removed delay filter on piano
• Added variation to the bassline sound - the "mission select" part of the remix sounds much better
• Added compression and gated reverb to the drums and mixed them louder
• Eliminated the pause at 0:34 and 3:22
• Replaced some of the reverse cymbal sounds

So, assuming the drums are mixed well now, is there any problem with their arrangement?

 

1 hour ago, HankTheSpankTankJankerson said:

Let me know if you want horns recorded.

This song doesn't have any horns in it, but there is this other remix I made with a horn focus, but I want to make sure that arrangement is up to snuff before I start collaborating.

[timaeus222]

Alright, looking at the arrangement and sound design specifically:

0:00 - 0:34 is interesting; I might use a different instrument for the lead, but okay, sure, I'm on board with that.

0:34 - 0:57 sounds like it's supposed to be high energy, but I think the lead you used at 0:47 - 0:50 and 0:51 - 0:56 is too ambient to be carrying the track as the lead like that. It seems disjointed when I compare it to the energetic legato arp at 0:49 - 0:51, so I think you should utilize those notes, but adapt them to a more assertive lead and make the melodic contour more expressive.

1:00 - 1:23 can use a transition leading into it, like a soft cymbal for instance. This section also still seems strange, like Will said, with the upfront (fairly dry) basic chiptune waveform. I can kind of see what you're going for, but at minimum, I think you should incorporate more motion into it to elevate the tonal sophistication of it (as per OCR standards: "Synthesized and sampled elements must be reasonably sophisticated"), because right now it's just sustaining. Maybe through some pulse-width modulation (PWM)? Imagine a square wave, and then apply an LFO to change the wavelength of every other half of each cycle. That's pulse-width modulation. You could also additionally incorporate some vibrato for more expression.

The interjecting harp (?) is pretty cool; it vaguely reminds me of a tropical rain forest.

The transition out of 1:23 doesn't completely leave me satisfied, personally; you do have that reverse cymbal, and that low impact, which are both suitable, but perhaps have a trebly sweep as well? It could also be because 1:23 - 1:39 is pretty bare. All I hear is a simple bass and an e. piano (and a pad that faded out), and this section ends up making me feel like the track stopped (which is perhaps one part that Will was referring to). I think you can fill in the soundscape more, with something like a pad, for instance. Preferably nothing rhythmic, so you don't complicate your tempo change (I know that sometimes tempo changes can be tough for me to get right when a lot of rhythmic elements are playing). A transition out of 1:39 is also something that would help keep the momentum going.

2:04 - 2:38 is almost like an extension of 0:47 - 0:57, so what I said for 0:34 - 0:57 also applies here. For example, at 2:31 - 2:33, the fast marimba is super messy.

2:38 - 2:44 sounds like it stopped, and then suddenly started again. At 2:50 - 2:58, I think it would be interesting to swap out only that part for a new lead that then carries on after the short pause at 2:53, but it's up to you.

3:33 also sounds like it stopped completely, and that could actually be the ending, but you put more after it, so it leaves me confused. Personally, I think you should either take out the e. piano outtro or move the tempo change from just before 3:33 to just before the last note of the e. piano outtro, and connect the two parts a little better at 3:33.

Overall, still a little rough, but I can see what you're going for, and it's becoming a bit clearer what the final version might sound like.

[LongBoxofChocolate]

5 hours ago, Slimy said:

7 hours ago, HankTheSpankTankJankerson said:

Let me know if you want horns recorded.

This song doesn't have any horns in it, but there is this other remix I made with a horn focus, but I want to make sure that arrangement is up to snuff before I start collaborating.

I think Hank was referring to winds in general (for Double Dragon). That being said, I play french horn and would be willing to help out if you like.

[Slimy]

The file in the OP has been replaced again!

• Made the gated reverb on the drums more reverb-y
• Beefed up 0:35, 1:23, and 1:54
• Added white noise sweeps at 0:58, 1:23, 2:16, and 3:20
• Added stronger leads at 0:47 and 2:06
• Made the counter-melodies a bit stronger so they aren't buried under the new lead
• Improved the vibe arpeggios at 2:20 and 2:32
• Changed the instrument playing at the beginning
• Added reverse cymbal at 0:32 and 1:00
• Made 2:39 less awkward - simply by not letting it drag on for so long
• Added reverb and slight vibrato to the pulsewave at 1:01, and changed the wave shape slightly every other note
• Added transition to 1:39
• Changed the lead at 2:48
• Made the transition at 3:32 less awkward

On 1/8/2016 at 5:21 PM, timaeus222 said:

0:00 - 0:34 is interesting; I might use a different instrument for the lead, but okay, sure, I'm on board with that.

Is there anything specifically wrong with the lead? And which part, 0:06 & 0:23, or 0:12? I did change the instrument at the beginning to a synthesized vibraphone though.

On 1/8/2016 at 5:21 PM, timaeus222 said:

3:33 also sounds like it stopped completely, and that could actually be the ending, but you put more after it, so it leaves me confused. Personally, I think you should either take out the e. piano outtro or move the tempo change from just before 3:33 to just before the last note of the e. piano outtro, and connect the two parts a little better at 3:33.

I tried to connect the two parts better. I don't want I remove the rhodes&bass ending if I can help it, because I think it's much better than a simple fadeout.

On 1/8/2016 at 7:31 PM, LongBoxofChocolate said:

I think Hank was referring to winds in general (for Double Dragon). That being said, I play french horn and would be willing to help out if you like.

I think it will fit the style better if I use mostly synths. Thanks for the offer though! The other remix would definitely sound better with real instruments.

[timaeus222]

22 hours ago, Slimy said:

Is there anything specifically wrong with the lead? And which part, 0:06 & 0:23, or 0:12? I did change the instrument at the beginning to a synthesized vibraphone though.

I tried to connect the two parts better. I don't want I remove the rhodes&bass ending if I can help it, because I think it's much better than a simple fadeout.

 

Nah, it was just that I got what you were going for and was just fine with that vibraphone as a lead (0:06 and 0:23). I was just meaning that I typically imagine mallet instruments in less energetic contexts, but it still makes sense as-is, regardless.

Yeah, I'm more on board with that than before. But, what if you fade in the e. piano (say, playing chords) while the lead synth is still fading out?

Quote

The file in the OP has been replaced again!

• Made the gated reverb on the drums more reverb-y
• Beefed up 0:35, 1:23, and 1:54
• Added white noise sweeps at 0:58, 1:23, 2:16, and 3:20
• Added stronger leads at 0:47 and 2:06
• Made the counter-melodies a bit stronger so they aren't buried under the new lead
• Improved the vibe arpeggios at 2:20 and 2:32
• Changed the instrument playing at the beginning
• Added reverse cymbal at 0:32 and 1:00
• Made 2:39 less awkward - simply by not letting it drag on for so long
• Added reverb and slight vibrato to the pulsewave at 1:01, and changed the wave shape slightly every other note
• Added transition to 1:39
• Changed the lead at 2:48
• Made the transition at 3:32 less awkward

Yeah, I'm getting a more energetic sound at 0:35, 1:23, and 1:54. That background moving chordal synth at 0:35 (comes in off the beat) helps land it in the 80s as well as adding more excitement.

Not that it's necessarily a bad thing, but the overall beefed up sections (0:35, 1:23, and 1:54), to me, currently sound like a mixture between energetic music and atmospheric music because of the sustained acoustic piano (atmospheric) and the drums and syncopated moving synth (energetic). It's somewhat pulling me more towards atmospheric than energetic because of the prominence of the piano, but it's not a big deal IMO. It's something I would personally keep working to kind of "shift that equilibrium", but even if you don't, it doesn't really bother me too much.

The extra vibrato expression on the lead at 1:11 definitely helped it draw more attention to itself, which is what a lead ought to do.

Great new noise sweeps throughout; improved this loads! The breakdown at 1:23 also seems fuller than before, not just from the pad, but also from the movement of the bass at 1:35 and what I think are more complex chords in the e. piano (could just be that the harmonies are clearer, idk). I'd be pretty happy with it! The transition at 1:39 works for me, and the one at 1:53 was just about right as well.

Cool bending guitar-like sound at 1:53 - 2:05. At first, the off-beat e. piano here seemed to stand out a bit, and I wasn't sure if there was supposed to be a lead here. To me that section seems like a bunch of chords and a guitar-like texture coming in and out, but for some reason I feel like there should be a lead here; I'm thinking maybe it's because of that syncopated DX7-like e. piano having that particular rhythm and because its tone has that FM glassiness. Maybe play around with this a bit more to see if you can make it sound more purposeful as a lead-less section. It's not really a significant issue, per se, just something that strikes me as slightly odd.

The fast vibe arpeggios at 2:20 and 2:32 sound cleaner to me, and it's really making sense now. The transition at 2:39 has the piano carry on with low chords (dunno if you had it that way earlier), and I'd say that works well like this.

-----

Definite improvement over the previous version! It's much more focused, and I'm getting an even clearer vision of what you're going for. It's making lots more sense than V1, for sure. Anyone else have some thoughts?

[Slimy]

The file in the OP has been replaced for (hopefully) the last time.

• Replaced the instrument at the beginning of the song with a rhodes piano sound - I like this the best
• Changed the bass at 0:35 to be less rhythmic
• Changed the bell chords at 1:54 so that it wouldn't sound like a wannabe lead
• Shortened the length of the white noise sweep at 2:16
• Changed the counter-melody at 2:33
• Added some variations to the drums ~2:16 - 2:38
• Added a pad at 3:02
• Added a gap at 3:08 and made the one at 3:20 more obvious, "because it would sound cool"
• Beefed up 3:09 - 3:20
• Improved the transition at 3:34

On 1/15/2016 at 4:58 PM, timaeus222 said:

Cool bending guitar-like sound at 1:53 - 2:05. At first, the off-beat e. piano here seemed to stand out a bit, and I wasn't sure if there was supposed to be a lead here. To me that section seems like a bunch of chords and a guitar-like texture coming in and out, but for some reason I feel like there should be a lead here; I'm thinking maybe it's because of that syncopated DX7-like e. piano having that particular rhythm and because its tone has that FM glassiness. Maybe play around with this a bit more to see if you can make it sound more purposeful as a lead-less section. It's not really a significant issue, per se, just something that strikes me as slightly odd.

The closest thing to a lead I want there is the fake guitar, so I tried to make those chords stand out less.

On 1/15/2016 at 4:58 PM, timaeus222 said:

The transition at 2:39 has the piano carry on with low chords (dunno if you had it that way earlier), and I'd say that works well like this.

Those low piano chords were there before, but the pads fade out faster now, so I guess there were covering it up before.

[Slimy]

Bump. If no one has any objections, I'll submit this.