Emunator Posted February 27, 2016 Share Posted February 27, 2016 (edited) Contact info Remixer name: Hyde209 Real name: Thomas Myrberg Email adress: Website: https://www.youtube.com/user/Hyde209 User ID: http://ocremix.org/community/user/22774-hyde209/ Submission info Name of game: Kid Icarus Name of arrangment: Angels of Disco Name of individual song: Overworld Theme Comments: The main inspiration for this remix comes from the Disco hit's of the 70's with bands like Bee Gees, K. C. and the Sunshine Band etc. However, I'm also a great deal influenced by the progresseive rock sound of the 70's with bands like, Happy the Man, Camel and so on. Source: Edited March 11, 2016 by Liontamer closed decision Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emunator Posted February 27, 2016 Author Share Posted February 27, 2016 Interesting choice to start off with bagpipes, but alright! I love this style and was really excited to hear how you chose to adapt it. In general, I think your adaptation works really well. There's plenty of personality throughout, great instrument selection... I'm actually really digging this. Does anyone feel like the bass and guitar that are panned far left/right are suffering from sloppy performance timing though? I'm having a hard time nailing it down, and it's not so egregious that I can definitely call it an issue, but for example, :18 just feels sloppy and cluttered to my ear. My gut's also telling me that the arrangement might be running a bit long and erring on the side of repetitive or aimless, like the components of the track were just stitched together without much thought to arrangement or flow. Anyone else want to chime in on those thoughts? ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir_NutS Posted February 27, 2016 Share Posted February 27, 2016 Hah. This remix is fun. The intro is a bit out of place when taken in context with the rest of the track, but it's not a big deal. The usage of the source is full of personality. I have to agree with Emunator, the panned guitar and bass are sloppy and off time, but not all the time, the timing just falls for a second or so at a time that's why its hard to pinpoint. This is distracting but not enough to take away from my enjoyment of the mix. Mix levels are balanced, every instrument has its own place and production is clear. Drums have variation but also know when to stick to a groove to keep that disco feel in place. Some may feel like the breakdowns at 3:09 and 3:22 are out of place but this wasn't uncommon in classic progressive rock and I find it works in this song. Overall I think this song is walking on a tight rope most of the time. It tries to throw you off balance with odd timing, odd breakdowns and questionable lenght but it never goes off balance enough to completely go awry. Plus, when it clicks, it REALLY clicks. I love the reinterpretation, the adaptation, how true it represents its influences, and how its breathing new life into the original. New funky, groovy life.YES Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liontamer Posted March 9, 2016 Share Posted March 9, 2016 For the intro, the bass pattern derived from the Kid Icarus source was marginalized in the background in a way I wasn't quite feeling, but it was still audible if you were looking for it. Around 1:31 in particular, the looseness of the timing felt off. Some of the electrosynths used here weren't anything to write home about, and the dropoff at 1:49 felt so empty until 1:58. The performance arguably plods, and the timing won't be for everyone. On the whole though, the production sounded fine, and the various elements were distinctly heard. My main issue is on the repetitive, static nature of the arrangement. I didn't like how the guitar work from 2:24-2:41 & 3:47-4:05 was a cut-and-paste of :17-:39 with the chromatic percussion or bwomp chicka on top, followed by the pair of disco strings cameos, always the same exact intensity. I had the same cut-and-paste criticisms with 1:49-1:58 vs. 2:59-3:08 and more importantly 1:58-2:23 vs. 3:21-3:47 (then :57-1:14 vs. 4:05-4:17 is slightly different); some more meaningful variations there would have sounded like more development was done and made the structure seem like less of a formula. Everything's got such a distinct sound and energy level that the copy-pasta layout of the arrangement seem more lazy and obvious; it flattens the energy level and drags down interest. At 2:42, I feel like I've already heard all this coast at the same basic energy level and style, so there's not much going on afterward that isn't a rinse-and-repeat with some light additions on top for a bare minimum of variation. As far as the genre, Thomas, the interpretation is cool on that level, but there needs to be more extensive development of this concept. Right now, it's just attaching sections one after the other like they're Legos; maybe it technically gets the job done as far as song construction, but it lacks natural-sounding performance variations. NO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chimpazilla Posted March 9, 2016 Share Posted March 9, 2016 I agree with Wes, the bass and guitar performances are loose, and this sticks out against the perfectly timed drums, strings and synths. If everything were performed live, the looseness would be more cool and charming, here it doesn't quite work due to the contrast. I do like the disco feel of the track though, awesome concept. The bagpipes in the intro feel tacked on, however. The writing throughout the piece is relatively simple and the synth choices are generic. The energy of the track doesn't change much once it's established. The big dealbreaker though, as Larry pointed out, is the repetition and copy pasta of sections, as Larry was kind enough to timestamp. I'll add that the transitions between sections are very plain and minimal, nothing exciting to shift between the sections. The ending is abrupt and anticlimactic as well. Sorry to come down so hard on this, I think the concept is solid, and the mixing sounds clean enough, but the arrangement is too repetitive for me. NO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emunator Posted March 10, 2016 Author Share Posted March 10, 2016 3 hours ago, Liontamer said: As far as the genre, Thomas, the interpretation is cool on that level, but there needs to be more extensive development of this concept. Right now, it's just attaching sections one after the other like they're Legos; maybe it technically gets the job done as far as song construction, but it lacks natural-sounding performance variations. This sums up my opinion better than I was able to express myself when I first listened to this track. I actually think this is pretty close - if you could clean up the timing near the intro and massage your arrangement into a more deliberate flow, I think you'd have a winner here. As it stands though, I think Larry/Kris helped solidify my gut impression here. NO (resubmit!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nutritious Posted March 11, 2016 Share Posted March 11, 2016 Much agreement with the above, I have. Such a cool concept with the disco-ey feel. Really liking the instrumentation and ideas put forth here. The source melody at 1:35 felt buried between other, much louder elements. Would've liked to hear better balance here. Timing didn't bother me as much as the others, sounds like. Mix feels schizophrenic in a way with somewhat abrupt transitions from heavily contrasting sections. Would've liked the song flow to be more smoothed out as well as a logical connection between these sections. Agreeing also with the copy-pasta remarks. Not that much of an ending to speak of here, so a bit of missed potential as well. I think that last statement is a good sum up of my feelings. Very cool base here and there's a ton of potential in the track. Would love to hear this one again with a bit more refinement. NO resubmit, please Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts