djpretzel Posted June 26, 2016 Share Posted June 26, 2016 Picks up nicely, production pretty clean... will sink or swim based on arrangement perhaps being too conservative? -djp --- --- Your ReMixer name : NiCkeD Your real name: Nick Basis Your website: www.iamretro.gr, https://soundcloud.com/nicked-431734196, https://www.facebook.com/nick.positive Your userid (number, not name): 21129 Submission Details Name of game(s) arranged: DOOM II Name of arrangement: The Demon's Head Name of individual song(s) arranged: The Demon's Dead Additional information about game: DOOM II from iD Software, Composer: Robert Prince Link to the original soundtrack: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ffl2ShaWyGM Your own comments about the mix: I love DOOM and i think the game's music is a huge part of the original atmosphere. I wanted to make a new arrangement of this track using only real instumrents (including the drums) and at the same time try to add funky-rock feel. I hope i made it! I made the first try to re arrange this song in 2011. Now i decided to use re record the drums and make a better mix. Thanks for listening! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gario Posted July 14, 2016 Share Posted July 14, 2016 Man, this is really good. It does a great job driving that theme home, and it does it in different ways throughout. Nice, clean acoustic guitar in the beginning, funkifying it up later, breaks it up with some synth-y stuff, then ends it with some straight up heavy goodness. I hear the concern that this could be conservative (and it is), but I think more than enough personality went into how it does quite a few different styles and soundscapes throughout the performance. The performances were pretty good. The acoustic guitar is a bit loose on the performance, though. It would improve greatly with a tighter performance. The chords used at 1:53 (and similar parts) seems a little bit off - making that chord major introduces an augmented chord that doesn't sound right in that context. It's not a big deal, but it is worth mentioning. The synth strings that play in the background of 2:11 - 2:51 are pretty plain and uninteresting. Some reverb, perhaps another effect (like distortion) could've made that more complex, as right now it doesn't sound like it fits with the rest of the song. Otherwise, I think this is awesome. Do keep sending us more awesome music. YES Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir_NutS Posted July 18, 2016 Share Posted July 18, 2016 Production is excellent, kinda surprised those left panned guitar licks on the first section worked in this slow tempo with such a deliberate pace and dark atmosphere, but they do! and that's kinda cool. Drums are really punchy and clear, the balance on the guitars is pretty good as well. The acoustic guitar was slightly sloppy but with the deliberate pace it's bound to happen, it's something I don't think that detracts from the arrangement at all. I'm having a few issues with the arrangement though. It's very conservative, and also repetitive. It's a very short source so it's understandable but I can't help but feel like more could've been done on the interpretation side of things. The break in the middle was a good change of pace but that section ends up being pretty boring, as it's just some very vanilla sounding string chords, though I did like the thin sine lead, it adds a bit of an eerie flavor to the section. The second section after this is basically the first without the left-panned guitar hook. The drum work is detailed on this section though. Overall I wasn't feeling the arrangement too much but the production is great for the most part, and I can't deny that there's variation and interpretation, however it's very minimal with a couple of same-y sections that aren't exactly copied and pasted but feel like it, and how good the original stuff added actually is falls on rather subjective territories. I'll go with a lukewarm pass as I feel the potential in the arrangement wasn't completely explored, but it's solid nonetheless.-- Edited Below 12/23 -- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liontamer Posted July 21, 2016 Share Posted July 21, 2016 I'm on the other side of the fence on this. I'm OK with some arrangements that have repetitive melodies as long as the surrounding elements are sufficiently varied and developed. This went in the right direction, but I thought not far enough. There were different styles of backing instrumentation & textures during the source verses, but because the melody was performed so similarly & repetitively and the overall dynamic curve was relatively flat/consistent, I thought the arrangement dragged on. Noticeable quality disparity with the string synths first used at 2:09, particularly the articulations/note changes, which were very mechanical. Other than that glaring negative, the sound design for the 2:09-2:53 section was creative and well-executed. 2:53's section returning back to the source melody was a chance to do something different; it wasn't until 3:28 that the drum rhythms changed, which would have been welcome earlier. There's definitely some arrangement substance here when examining the changes in the original backing instrumentation, so I won't have a problem if this passed as is; I just think the arrangement needs some additional variation with the melody, as well as improving the string sequencing of the 2:09-2:53 dropoff section. Good luck with the rest of the vote, Nick; if this doesn't make it in this form, definitely polish it up a bit more and resubmit it; this definitely has a place here in some form! NO (resubmit) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chimpazilla Posted August 4, 2016 Share Posted August 4, 2016 The production here is quite good, other than the string pad which sounds really dry and vanilla in contrast to the rest of the track. The arrangement though is really simple and repetitive, and the middle breakdown doesn't fit with the rest of the track at all, it feels tacked on and it breaks the flow totally for me. The playing and sequencing are much too simple, repetitive, rigid and grid-snapped for my liking. I'm afraid I'm in complete agreement with Larry's vote on this one. NO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jivemaster Posted August 10, 2016 Share Posted August 10, 2016 The overall soundscape of this track is strong - you have a lot of elements which complement each other as the track progresses, nice panning work, drums are strong and audible. Playing is relatively decent. Arrangement wise I believe things could be stronger. From the onset we're hit with different instruments playing the main riff, and because this part is short, things get repetitive quickly. Biggest problem for me on this one is things really only change up substantially at 2:10, and by then we've hit over half duration. The spacey section while appreciated, doesn't quite transition back into the main theme as well as it enters. The outro is much of the same stuff we heard earlier in the mix. I think more interpretation of the source is needed here - you have everything else pretty much on point, except that things are highly conservative, and the backing parts IMO don't provide enough variation away from the original to detract from this. NO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DragonAvenger Posted December 23, 2016 Share Posted December 23, 2016 Definitely a close one here overall. I think that the ideas presented are great, but are played too much and become stale as a result. I think that either done more variation in the rhythms our backing parts would make a pretty big difference, and/or shortening the overall length. NO (resubmit) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir_NutS Posted December 23, 2016 Share Posted December 23, 2016 Listened to this one once again. Since my first listen I agreed on the things my fellow judges are having issues with, but gave it a lukewarm pass. Re-listening again my opinion hasn't changed much, but I do think the track would be much stronger if some of the staleness of the arrangement was replaced with fresh ideas. I think 2:52 is primed for an excellent climax with perhaps some soloing instead of the same motif repeated again. I think this section is set up to hit me really hard but rather arrives with a whimper, I think that's a great place to start if you want to rework this one a bit. This song is pretty borderline, but on a second listen I will submit to the wisdom of my fellow judges and ask for a Resub. This is definitely close, but I agree things could be much stronger on the arrangement side of things. NO (Resubmit) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts