Emunator

*NO* Donkey Kong Country: Tropical Freeze 'Into the Unknown'

Recommended Posts

My Producer Name(Remixer) Slick Amvdeus

Darrell Howard Jr
 
Donkey Kong County: Tropical Freeze -Aquatic Ambience
The name of my arrangement: Into The Unknown
 
 It's set to private 
 
Well, I was in the middle of making a project, and I wanted to explore uncommon ground. I love ambient/drone/atmospheric/minimal type of music. I planned on making a video game OST for OC in the near future. You can kinda say that this is a single in a sense. 
Thanks for the this opportunity.

 

 

Edited by Liontamer
closed decision

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gorgeous textures and production on this one, I have been itching to remix Aquatic Ambiance into a modern Drake/Future-esque trap beat like this but you beat me to the punch :) Your bass is mixed great with the beats, you nailed that modern production sound, and the ambiance floats beautifully around that foundation. (The producer tag feels hella cheesy and tacked on, though. I know it's standard practice these days but my two cents is that it feels very extraneous.)

I'd have loved for the rolling hi-hats to do a little bit more - they change up rhythms quite a bit but they sound completely unprocessed and ultimately feel lifeless. I don't think I would mind if there was some sort of vocal or lead element to this track, but when it's just the beat, I think the detail work needs to be dialed up a bit more for this to work as a standalone piece.

For a 5 minute track, you need about 150 seconds of source to hit the 50% bar... I'm only hearing 15 second bursts of direct source usage a few times throughout the track:

:09 - :27

1:56 - 1:14

3:44 - 4:00

4:18 - 4:35

What am I missing here? This feels much more like a heavily-inspired-by track than something actually remixing Donkey Kong Country. 

I really like the overall concept here and the vibes are top-notch, but the lack of source coupled with the overall repetitive nature of the track that doesn't have a strong melodic/vocal hook to give it variation makes it hard to stand alone as an OCReMix submission. It was an enjoyable listen either way, though!

NO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting take on a very familiar source. I can hear what you're going for on this, and it's an impressive attempt at it, to boot - you're referencing the textural elements of the source, like the piano octave you sprinkler throughout like at 0:29, or the pulsing texture throughout that sounds like the instrument that comes in at 0:46 in the source link. Throughout the track you also reference your rendition of the source throughout (same instrument arpeggiating in a similar manner as it does when it's referencing the source), which is excellent in making a track cohesive, but it's not quite as effective in using it as reference to the source. Emunator lists correctly the sections that make a clear reference to the source, and I'd say there's an argument for at least a little bit more source that's used in it (the aforementioned piano texture, for example), but it's still a pretty liberal arrangement that doesn't utilize very much of the source.

Overall, while the production is excellent, the arrangement itself seems to be repetitive. It sounds like it repeats itself with little variation three times, then has a fade-out ending attached. Honestly, due to this it sounds like an incomplete arrangement, like there's supposed to be a lead instrument or singer playing above this backing. It would be perfect used as the backing for something, but as a stand alone track it feels like there's something missing.

As it stands, I don't see this one passing. However, if you were to either make the track less repetitive, or get a lead over the top of the track that takes the focus away from the repetitive nature of the track, that would help considerably. Also, while the textural references are recognized, the track would need to make some more obvious references to the source - 50% of the arrangement making clear reference to the source is a solid heuristic to follow in this case.

NO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hmm I have to disagree with Wes on source usage, if you listen carefully there are derivations and variations of the original melodies and harmonies going on in the background most of the time.  However the main problem with this song is that, most of the melodies seem in the background, while drums, bass and pads take precedence.  I can even hear melodies in the background that could serve as lead with the proper instrument (i.e. the instrument around 1:28) .  I also found the artist's name plug at the start cheesy and out of place for the feel of this track.

Overall I personally enjoyed this one and I'm actually borderline on it.  If one listen closely there's not that much repetition and the background keeps changing constantly, though I agree the track could be shortened by a fair amount and we wouldn't lose much.  I think asking for a recognizable lead instrument on top of the track is asking for limitations on freedom of interpretation and genre adaptation.  In an ambient track like this one you don't really need a lead cutting through the mix and asking for that would compromise genre authenticity, but I do think that something could be done to bring attention to your melodies and the source material, which is what we want in a remix.

In my opinion, shorten the duration to present your ideas concisely, and find a way to make your melodies take precedence over your drums and bass without compromising your ambient approach, and you'll be on the right path.  I did enjoy this personally but needs adjustments to get a pass for the site.

NO (borderline/resubmit)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/7/2016 at 8:36 AM, Sir_NutS said:

hmm I have to disagree with Wes on source usage, if you listen carefully there are derivations and variations of the original melodies and harmonies going on in the background most of the time.

I disagreed with this, so I wanted to chime in given the markedly different opinions on source usage. To me, the parts of the track that didn't explicitly use the melody merely had a similar/inspired by feel to the source composition, but weren't overtly arranged from any of those parts. I'm always willing to be shown when I'm wrong, but I know the theme well and agreed with Gario's breakdown. The other sections flowed very naturally, but aren't directly arranging "Aquatic Ambiance."

I agreed with the others on too many elements coasting, but the overall change in the mood of the song and the subtle textural changes personalized the approach well. IMO, this would just need more usage of the source tune throughout the track (it can be writing that's not the source's melody) in a way that was creative and not too repetitive.

Cool stuff, Darrell, I hope we hear more submissions from you, because your style is smooth, and the track's solidly produced.

NO (resubmit)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.