Gario Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 Prior evaluation Remixer Name: Tonalysis User ID: 31683 Name of game: Mega Man 2 Name of arrangement: Shredding the Air (original title was "Air Guitar", but changed OCR reviewers informed me of another track by that name) Name of original song: Air Man Theme Composers: Takashi Tateishi, Manami Matsumae Link to original: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bu3sCv-VUYc Comments: The original is, of course, a classic from the golden age of consoles. I have fond memories of Mega Man 2 on the NES, and even occasionally grab an emulator and play it with my brother for old times' sake. This is a fun remix of the Air Man theme in a driving rock style. EDIT: This is a resubmission based on reviewer feedback. Thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liontamer Posted January 12, 2017 Share Posted January 12, 2017 Just noting that I never heard the first version, so I'm going into this one fresh. I wish the melody was more interpretive during the first iteration at :13, but there were other creative ideas later that made the conservative opening not that huge of an issue. Opening saws were pretty vanilla, and the attacks seemed basically the same for every note; same with the electric guitar synth from 1:32-2:25, which sounded very exposed as unrealistic. I liked the bass writing in the background, even if that also sounded mechanically timed. I'd have to say the drumwork, particularly the cymbals, sounded the best here. At :14, the overall texture seemed empty; despite the overall volume, it felt like there wasn't much going on with this instrumentation; a musician J could better articulate why the texture sounds empty, but part of it for me was how the backing electric guitar chugs were very understated. There's some effort given to varying the textures, but because nothing was ever humanized or full-sounding, it's harder to notice that amidst the production/sample quality issues.NO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gario Posted January 16, 2017 Author Share Posted January 16, 2017 Well, this is certainly an improvement from the prior submission, as far as production quality goes. The bass is far better balanced, and everything is mixed in a way where it's easy to hear things. I do agree with Larry that the saw is pretty vanilla, and the handling of that instrument is rather basic and bland, but I don't think the soundscape is too empty. As I stated in my other review, the arrangement is pretty standard fare, but there IS some pretty slick solo'ing in the middle that helps keep things interesting. It's a nice touch to change the drums when the saw lead comes back in a bit to keep things fresh, too; the arrangement doesn't get repetitive, as things are a bit different as you retread the first section to close. The guitar sounds like it's under a low pass of sorts. It's not a big deal, but when compared to the rest of the instruments the difference in sound makes it sound like a recording to a different song being slapped on top of the rest of the arrangement. It's a little strange having that low passed when the rest of the track has pretty balanced EQ levels across the board. While I definitely agree the saw lead is too vanilla, I don't see too much else to bring this down. It's tame, but it does what it set out to do. Nice work! YES Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MindWanderer Posted January 17, 2017 Share Posted January 17, 2017 It's a pretty standard choice of instrumentation, but there's still some creative fun with it. The solo in the middle is a lot of fun, and despite the many Air Man arrangements I've heard, most of them for electric guitar, you managed to do some clever riffing on it in the last section that I'd never heard anything quite like before. I don't think the electric guitar sounds quite as artificial as Larry suggests; it's perfectly reasonable to me. I agree with Gario's comment about the low pass on it, though; it sounds oddly muffled because of it. I think you overcompensated a little bit on making the bass less loud, as it's a tad quiet now, but it's adequate. You do have some fun arrangement in that bass, which I had to listen a couple of times to catch. It was an odd choice to change keys for the transitions at 1:15 and 3:22, and I found it quite jarring. That's just a stylistic thing, though. So, other than being a little vanilla in both arrangement and synth choice up until 1:22 or so, I enjoyed the rest of this a lot, and I don't think any of the production issues are enough to knock this under the bar. YES Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir_NutS Posted February 3, 2017 Share Posted February 3, 2017 Alright I voted on the previous version, but I already forgot what it sounded like, so I'm basically going in clean again. Reading my previous vote, I had issues with the bass balance, but I'm not hearing any of that in this version, the bass is audible and even stands out with some flairs in a few places so nice work there. Regarding my previous comments about the lead synth, I think they still stand. Using the same sound for the first part of the song, and reproducing the original melody verbatim makes this first section feel really vanilla. That plus the lack of humanization on the lead synth, it feels programmed rather than played by a keyboardist. The addition of tremolo in the longer legato notes helps, but it needs a bit more than that. I agree with all of Larry's vote basically, as it's not only the synth but the whole mix that feels very vanilla in nature. Now, I think Larry is really onto something with the rhythm guitars. I think it would benefit the mix immensely if the rhythm guitars were double-tracked and panned. Their presence right now is unnoticeable and I think THAT is the missing part that will take this mix up a notch. I wouldn't mind if other elements were added in the background either, but just a good, chunky rhythm guitar to drive the song along would help a ton. I think this remix has become my go-to example for people trying to do the whole synth-rock thing (including myself!). If you listen to sections like 0:29, or 0:41 in that remix, you'll see there's not that many elements going on, not very different from your own remix indeed! what makes the difference is the double-tracking of the rhythm guitars having a great deal of presence and filling all that mid frequency and harmonic space. Finally I'll add my concerns about the brightness of the guitar lead, that was also mentioned by the other judges. I think this arrangement can work, but it needs another production pass to take it from vanilla and empty sounding to front-page material. NO (resubmit) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jivemaster Posted February 22, 2017 Share Posted February 22, 2017 Agree with the main synth is very very plain and could really do with some tweaks to give it more character. The most noticeable thing production wise is most of your parts are panned close to centre, with only percussion heading further out to the left and right sides. You could've made use of the stereo spectrum more instead of having everything sitting on top of each other. As some of the other's have suggested, double tracking the rhythm guitars would've given some width and sounded great here. Your bass is also a little too quiet. Production is otherwise not bad here. The instrumentation here is quite stiff and mechanical, the guitar lead for example (although great sounding) feels heavily quantised, as do the percussive elements. Arrangement is not bad but a little on the repetitive side with some parts feeling like they're lifted from prior sections without much change. I don't mind the track you have here, I feel the biggest issues are the mechanical nature of your parts - loosen things up a bit to make the track more human, the blandness of your lead synth - tweak this patch to liven things up. production - everything too much to centre, bass a little too quiet. Taking a little more time on this track to consider these improvements would strengthen the track greatly. NO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DragonAvenger Posted March 1, 2017 Share Posted March 1, 2017 Pretty much agreeing with the NO votes here: the saw synth is pretty vanilla, and being close to the source melody isn't helping the situation. Adding some changes in the melody and playing around with the lead will help set it apart more and overall will feel way more interpretive. The bass is a pretty awesome sound, but I agree that it is a tad low (apparently a little too far from the first sub!) and could be brought up just a bit. Lastly I'm going to agree that the soundscape feels a bit empty at times, and the rhythm guitars do seem like the issue there. All that being said, the solos and a lot of the drumwork really is pretty unique and fun, and I enjoyed what you did to the arrangement in general to make it your own. I think you can (and should!) take some more creative liberties like you've got here in future works. Look forward to hearing from you again! NO (resubmit) TheChargingRhino and djpretzel 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
djpretzel Posted March 1, 2017 Share Posted March 1, 2017 Agreeing with @DragonAvenger and @Jivemaster... arrangement has some nice elements, good drum work and solos as Deia notes, but it's static at times, repeats a bit, and has portions that feel like they're treading water before the next melodic motif enters. Part of this is definitely related to production; this is a genre that really leans on the presence and energy of its elements, and both the sounds themselves and their mixing/mastering leaves things feeling somewhat vanilla & lacking oomph. Kick should have more punch, cymbals more sizzle, guitars more warmth, synths more movement, etc., and the aggregate effect of these elements each being a little flat is that the overall mix feels thin. Some promising ideas, but execution still has a ways to go, and I'd focus on the production side of things more explicitly. NO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts