DragonAvenger Posted July 1, 2016 Share Posted July 1, 2016 (edited) I have 2 others tracks too Street Fighter 2 - Guile Theme: ----------------------- Edited February 17, 2017 by Liontamer closed decision Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DragonAvenger Posted July 1, 2016 Author Share Posted July 1, 2016 Soundscape has a lot going on, but the lead sits on top nicely and is clear. I enjoyed that there was a lot of small but noticeable change-ups in the instrumentation to keep things interesting, and also a lot of structure changes of the melodic lines. I did feel like some of the backing pads were a bit strong at times, but to me it didnt work out to be a deal breaker. Similarly, the ending sound effect before "Perfect" felt strange, but not a huge deal in the end (see what I did there?). I'm likin' it! YES Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gario Posted July 1, 2016 Share Posted July 1, 2016 More Guile! The one track it's impossible to have too much of. This arrangement takes a pretty conservative take on it, but the track knows when to pull back on the energy, and when to shift things around to spice it up (like at the second half of the track). The arrangement is fun, and it works. The bass has a pretty heavy stereo spread. I once heard a rule of thumb that one should lean toward spreading the upper mids to the highs for space, and keep the bass centered, and I think I can hear why in this - the bass takes up a LOT of acoustic space, and the overall effect is disorienting. I've spread the bass in a few songs, to make the music sound "warmer", but you need to be careful not to spread it more than necessary. The mix is pretty cluttered - it's really hard to pull some of the cool background elements from the supersaw pad you have through a good deal of the track. I disagree on the leads, too - they don't quite rise above everything enough when they're at their strongest, and there are enough moments like 1:56 where the lead gets completely drown in the mix. Making the mix cleaner will be difficult before you fix that bass, but there's another element that's putting heat on your production - your limiter on the master. That's causing quite a bit of heat throughout the track. You'll need to turn that thing off and mix your elements so they sound good together first, then use the limiter to give the track a little boost in overall volume. It shouldn't be used to mask clipping, as it seems to here. It's a start, but I'm not feeling this one. The mixing, bass spread and limiter are giving you a much less-than-ideal production of the track. I can see the arrangement working alright, but before we can pass it you'll need to focus on addressing these issues, which would improve the production considerably. NO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir_NutS Posted July 4, 2016 Share Posted July 4, 2016 I would've liked to hear more from the artist than just "I have 2 other tracks too", but I guess he lets the music speak for itself. And this one does a very good discourse in its favor. The arrangement is super conservative, but there are some sections where you take the time to give your own spin to things. The pacing is pretty well handled here and the production is clean, the drums sure are punchy and fat, although the sequencing is pretty simple in general. I had no issues with the mix balance at all, the track is hot but it's not unpleasantly hot, it's pretty par for the course of modern edm productions. My main issue with this song is its conservative nature, there's a lot that I like here but how much you stuck to the original melody is not one of those things. The structure is pretty similar to the original as well with a few changes here and there. Overall, I'm very borderline on this one and I can see how this can go either way for the other judges. Usually I lean in favor of arrangement, but the more I listen to this one the more I feel like what was done in the interpretative sections and with the harmonies and changeups is enough. I think I can pass this but it's VERY borderline, and I wouldn't be surprised if other Js think otherwise. (Or if they manage to sway my vote to a NO later)YES (borderline) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chimpazilla Posted July 5, 2016 Share Posted July 5, 2016 Nice arrangement and cool sounds! The arrangement is conservative but never gets boring, lots of nice little variations. A little more sonic variation (extra/different timbres) would have been nice, though. "Perfect" at the end is SUUUUPER cheesy. The track is mastered good and loud, I don't hear any overcompression. I will agree with Gario that the bass is too wide, which causes it to lose impact and the low end sounds sort of indistinct. I can barely hear what melody the bass is playing. The wide/quiet bass will cause the rest of the track to master too loudly by comparison, and I see a reading of -6.9db RMS so it's quite loud. If this were my track, I'd mono the bass below 200Hz and boost the volume a bit so we can hear the bass highs better too, and low-cut any pads/synths that may be competing at 200Hz and below, then master the track again with a slightly lower limiter gain. This is a nitpick though, and just some advice for next time. Cool track. YES Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liontamer Posted July 8, 2016 Share Posted July 8, 2016 About :45 in, I felt this piece was missing something, IMO. Texturally, it felt light, mainly because the beats/kicks were too simple and sparse. The lead instrumentation and textures change up a decent amount, so I see the positives in it, but at 1:43 for the final verse, it felt like the arrangement was stagnant. This shouldn't feel so repetitive when there were actually some small changes going on. 2:07 was a pure cut-and-paste of :34's section for about 30 seconds (of a mere 2:36-long track) before the quick finish without much of a resolution. This felt like a work-in-progress that was maybe 65-70% of the way there and was still looking for more ideas and energy. It's got stuff going for it, but it's short and there's a lack of sophistication in the writing that other Js would be better than me at articulating. This needs more polish and creativity with the beat-writing first, and even more dynamic contrast second.NO (resubmit) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nutritious Posted July 29, 2016 Share Posted July 29, 2016 I'm liking the approach here. Synth choices felt solid and some good writing ideas on display. Definitely mastered on the loud side here, which takes away a bit of the impact percussion and other elements could be having if things were backed off a bit allowing more clarity in the mix. The writing on the drums felt a bit stilted and repetitive. I think it's party the kick pattern that's throwing me as it doesn't really compliment the rhythm of the other elements. Also, some more subtle changes being the occasional fill would be welcome. Pretty conservative take on the theme throughout the first half. The bridge change-up was a nice change, though, and drew me more into the arrangement. This is followed-up by another by the book rendition of the main melody. I feel like if it was just a conservative arrangement with the production fully clicking or vice versa I'd be down with this. The combination of repetition in such a short track plus mastering/clarity/writing issues puts it JUST below the bar for me. I don't think the artist would have too much trouble tightening it up a bit and would love to hear it hit it's potential. NO resubmit (borderline) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jivemaster Posted October 6, 2016 Share Posted October 6, 2016 Short and sweet mix. Enjoyable intro. Quite like the sounds you have going on here. While the rhythm of the original is changed here, the arrangement plays things incredibly safe with not a lot of original content apart from the bridge section. As far as mixing goes, most things are passable for me, but there are a couple things needed attention. The drums in particular could do with more clarity - they are a bit clouded which make them feel weak. At 1:36 the break feels a bit dry/empty, I would've loved to hear everything with a large reverb tail here which is cut before things drop back in. I don't mind what you have here - the mix has a nice feel to it. I enjoyed the parts you did add and you left me wanting more. I wish there was more you in this mix. NO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaMonz Posted October 17, 2016 Share Posted October 17, 2016 First off, I disagree that the mixing is a problem here. It's hard to hear a few things that seem to be happening in the lows from time to time, but overall most of the foreground is clear. I like the punch of the kick and snare, works very well for me. I like the large soundscape provided by the big pads and the super wet arpeggios, although maybe all that reverb and delay is contributing to the cluttered lows. You might want to look into that, make sure that your reverb patches for the pads, leads and arps have their lows heavily EQ'd out, I'm pretty sure you don't want those frequencies in there messing with your bass and kick. The arrangement also works fine for me. The copy-pasta at the end didn't bother me. The structure is good, the breakdown is very satisfying, the subtle melodic and harmonic embellishments, combined with the genre adaptation, are plenty for me to believe there is enough interpretation in there. Personally, I'd have messed around much more with the melody in those last 30 seconds to make a bigger climax, but hey this isn't my track, it's Paul's. Fun, groovy stuff. Works for me! YES Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MindWanderer Posted January 5, 2017 Share Posted January 5, 2017 This is definitely a case of a remix that's mostly there, but has a whole lot of niggling issues. There are indeed some brief sections where one or two instruments are almost completely buried; the bass is usually the victim here, which is unfortunate because when I can hear it, there's some interesting bass writing going on. The 22-second section that gets repeated is perhaps the weakest section, with no interpretation to speak of. I definitely see where Jive is coming from about the break being a little empty. There's also a sour note at 1:03-1:05 that no one else has mentioned yet. While I don't think it would be bad if this passed, I do think this could be worlds better with the touchups that everyone's mentioned so far. Despite the vanilla synths, there's a lot of creative arrangement work that would really shine if you could just bring it out a little more. Please go through all the advice above and send this back to us! NO (borderline, please resubmit) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarkeSword Posted February 17, 2017 Share Posted February 17, 2017 Nobody mentioned the sour note at 1:03-1:05 because there's no sour note. I'm with the dissenting Judges. Nothing stands out as particularly egregious to me, but there are a couple of little things. The main saw lead is VERY splashy and I think it could be tightened up a little. Your kick and snare are front and center, but you've got your hat sitting WAY in the back and totally panned right. There could be a lot more going on with that percussion track. For such a short song it's pretty repetitive. Don't get me wrong, I like what I hear, but this could be a lot better. Let's fix it up. NO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts