*NO* Diablo 'Shaitan'

[Chimpazilla]

ReMixer name: Villainizer

Real Name: Robbie Abinader

E-mail Address: 

Website: www.villainizer.com

I do not have a user ID on your forum

 

Name of game arranged: Diablo

Name of arrangement: Shaitan

Name of song arranged: Tristram

 

Info about the game: You already have

Original sound clip: You already have

 

Comments about this arrangement: My band was releasing our final album, and I decided I wanted to do a Black Metal cover of the first video game I played. We didn't really care about the legal issues (as we split up after the release), and we wanted to create a version that payed homage to the Tristram music, while still holding the essence of Canadian Black Metal.

 

I hope you enjoy

 

P.S. Shaitan is Arabic for Satan/The Devil/Diablo

 

 

Edited August 22, 2016 by Liontamer
closed decision

[Chimpazilla]

Starts out really suddenly.  What the heck is that whapping sound?  Is that the snare?  It doesn't sound timed right in the intro or again at 1:39.  When I can hear the snare clearly, I absolutely hate this snare sound.  The kick is barely audible especially during the rolls.  Kick and snare are too quiet, the rest of the percussion is fine.  The guitar work is good.  The mixing is ok, not awesome.  I'm not sure on this one.  Arrangement is good, plenty of source.  Fadeout ending, blarg.

[Gario]

Very in-your-face, and certainly is a good example of black metal. I love Diablo music, and Tristram is the best of the lot. I'm coming into this with the understanding that, since the band isn't together anymore, this is a take-it-or-leave-it sort of deal.

First and foremost, damn that intro is a slug in the gut, but not in a bad way. It catches you off guard with just how intense it gets right away, and I like that. The snare, though, sounds like the snare on it needed to be tightened a little bit, as at the speeds it starts off with it almost sounds like a tom. Later in the song it sounds just fine, but it doesn't hold well when it's going at blast speeds. The bass is pretty quiet, overall, but neither of these are deal breakers, in my book.

I think the performances are pretty solid, especially that drumwork. The mixing is acceptable, though I feel the bass gets drown out from time to time. The production values are not bad in this, but I admit the mixing could be stronger overall.

As far as source usage is concerned, it's a bit of a tough call. Half of the 0:00 - 0:45 references the first two chords that are played in the source (though not exactly - the source uses much richer, more complex chords, which gives it that ethereal sound), but the other half (like at 0:11 - 0:22) uses chords I'm not connecting with the source on. 0:45 - 1:19 isn't ringing the source up for me, either. 1:19 - 1:36 uses chords that are under the most recognizable part of the source (video is loading slowly, I'll fill in the blank when I get home), capping off with an easy to recognize lick at 1:33 - 1:36. 1:36 - 2:01 uses a different variety of chords, which again I'm having difficulty linking with the source. 2:07 - 2:24 has the source clearly playing in the bass. We have more chords later on in the song, which may or may not be connected (again, video is loading slowly).

I don't think I can call this enough source for this one. While I hate to send this off knowing it won't be resubmit, I don't think we can take this one due to how liberal it is. I'm going to go back and double check the source usage again when I get home, but I'm suspecting there isn't enough to get this to pass.

EDIT: This is what I've got. I'm sure there's something that I'm missing, but it's very tough to parse out what's actual source reference and what is mere chord usage (the chords are VERY rich and complex in the source - transforming them into their more stripped down versions like in this song is debate-ably source).

0:00 - 0:11     - Chords from introduction of Source
0:11 - 0:22     - No source
0:22 - 0:33     - Chords from introduction of Source
0:33 - 0:45     - No source
0:45 - 0:57    - No source
0:57 - 1:08    - No source
1:08 - 1:19    - No source
1:19 - 1:33    - Chords from major part of source
1:33 - 1:36(8) - Riff is easy source reference
1:39 - 2:01    - No source
2:02 - 2:04    - Filler
2:05 - 2:08    - A variation off of 0:31 - 0:37 flute part
2:08 - 2:27(4) - Source clearly in bass & chords
2:27 - 2:38    - A variation off of 0:31 - 0:37 flute part
2:38 - 2:50    - A variation off of 0:31 - 0:37 flute part
(repeat til' end at 3:32)

~125 / 212
~59% Source

Please correct me if you're hearing more than that, but I wasn't catching it. The lions share of that is from the repeating ending (which is a third of this arrangement), so I'm feeling like it's cheating a little bit, but I'll stick to raw numbers here and say it has enough (though I'm still weary of calling parts like 0:00 - 0:11 source due to it being strictly chords, and not even the exact same chords, to boot).

Giving it some more time to settle in my ear, that fading repeat at the end takes up a third of the track, which really feels like a lot of padding for length, there. I don't think the mixing and production issues are dealbreaking, here (it's pretty consistent with Black Metal, from what I gather), but that ending does break it for me. I think it's a no-go, from me.

NO

[Jivemaster]

Definitely starts a little too suddenly. During the first assault in the intro (and later at 1:40) I find the snare looses a lot sonically, sounding almost like a flapping fish due to the frequency of it being hit and only the high end being audible. It also feels slightly off time to the other parts in this section. When things slow down, parts are much more audible and the arrangement really shines. I thought source usage was pretty solid, but I did not do the math.

Unfortunately even in the slower sections, there are mixing issues here - with a lot of low end choking the mix, which makes the individual parts difficult to make out. Bass guitar is a bit boomy which I believe may be the main contributor to this problem. Cymbals are easily heard but a little wavey due to the crowded dynamics across the mix. Guitars are the least affected by the copious amounts of low end, and are quite tight for the majority of the track, but could do with a HPF to leave breathing room for the bass and kick. The fade-out outro felt cheap and uninspiring considering the other arrangement detail exhibited for the rest of the track.

I feel the mixing problems here are deal breaker for me, as well as the drums during the faster sections which at their current levels, become lost.

NO

[Sir_NutS]

I will quote-vote Jivemaster here as he summed up my feelings on this track.  For the record, I hear this type of snare sound a lot in black/death metal, it's very characteristic of the genres so I don't have that big of an issue with it, but I will agree with the others in that the drums as a whole are a bit muffled.  The mix though is problematic...  I could compare this to a lot of underground releases and it isn't that far off really, but one key element missing here are the vocals, which usually take the main stage in a track of this genre along with the guitars, without them, the unbalanced mix grabs too much attention.  I don't have an issue with the sudden start, again, I hear this a lot in many Black/Death metal tracks, but the fadeout is an issue for me, as I feel something more interesting than that could be in place.

Overall although I recognize the faults in the mix this isn't really far off the bar taking the genre into consideration, and also that we don't require professionally-mixed tracks.  The arrangement is good, and tbh everything here falls pretty close to what I expect out of the genre.  example here.  I do think some extra polishing is required to bring it up a notch; i.e. making the drums a bit more solid, perhaps trying out a different ending so we don't have a boring fadeout, and balancing the overall mix better.

NO (borderline, resubmit)