Gario Posted March 6, 2017 Share Posted March 6, 2017 (edited) Note: Although a prior version was submit that I could've paneled, since AJ had made a speedy mixing change before with his Bramble Blaster mix I decided to give him an opportunity to do so again with this track, which resulted in the version here. Just a quick FYI. - Gario AJ DiSpirito (ReMixer and real name are the same) http://youtube.com/ajdispirito userid: 33841 Fire Emblem Fates Road To Victory Road Taken (Calm) Original Track Edited May 17, 2017 by Liontamer closed decision Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gario Posted March 6, 2017 Author Share Posted March 6, 2017 Ah, I like AJ's style, and coming pretty fresh from this game I enjoyed the source selection quite a bit. Nice and chill, but it does have some nice, chuggy metal where it counts. The production is pretty clean, to boot, which is always a good thing. The mixing is acceptable, though it's not perfect. Even with the improvements from the first version he sent, due to how wet the arrangement is, with the pads and resonant acoustic guitar in the background, the background mix tends to sound like a wash of sound. The instruments shine where it matters most (the lead punches right through), but it's difficult to hear what is actually going in behind the lead. I mean, there's a whole piano part in the background that I couldn't even hear the first few times listening - it's that tricky to parse the parts in the backing instrumentation. There is a wrong note in the lead at 1:24, which is pretty poignant due to being held in the lead guitar. That note is a half step higher than it should be, as it clashes with the harmony below as it stands. It's not perfect, with the wrong note and wet background, but I think it hits it dead on where it counts - the production is good, the arrangement is great, and it's a great representative of a newer soundtrack. I'm all for giving it some front page love. YES Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MindWanderer Posted March 6, 2017 Share Posted March 6, 2017 I was totally in agreement with Gario on all points until 1:59-2:32, which is significantly louder than the rest, and overcompressed to boot. That section is really hard to listen to, and I feel that, combined with the severe wetness Gario mentioned, it's enough to push this over into a NO (resubmit) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DragonAvenger Posted May 3, 2017 Share Posted May 3, 2017 I think this is really close. The arrangement is really great, great adaption to the source, and the playing is very good. In the end I think I'm in agreement with MW here that the wetness of the background (which only needs to be toned down a little), the overcompression in the middle, and the one passage that has the flub is just pulling this below the bar. I really hope that this gets sent back though, great source and the mix sounds good, just needs a little spit polish! NO (resubmit) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir_NutS Posted May 17, 2017 Share Posted May 17, 2017 I really enjoyed the wetness in the backing guitars and pads at first, it sounds really sweet for the first couple minutes, but after that, it just devolves into a very muddy mess. I think the arrangement is great and doesn't need changing at all, but the mix needs some extra work to get some clarity into the busiest sections. Perhaps turning down the reverb, or taking a closer look at the eqing of your backing elements to make sure they're not crowding the mid-lows, or checking you're not compressing too much on the busiest sections. Either way, something needs to be done to make those sections clear-sounding. The performances are on point, and I think this could be brilliant if the mix is executed properly, but that aspect drags it down just below the bar for me. Definitely close, but not quite there yet. I do want to see this on the front page so please consider a revision.NO (Resubmit) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liontamer Posted May 17, 2017 Share Posted May 17, 2017 (edited) The production criticisms aren't wrong, but I fully agreed with Gario and was OK with this version as is. The wrong note should be fixed, the mixing wasn't clean enough with some parts getting lost, and the final dense section was cluttered. That said, I could distinguish the part-writing well enough, so these weren't dealbreakers, just issues that would be nice to have improvements on. No issue with rejecting it, as AJ's been effective with production revisions in the past, but to me, the arrangement's a solid rock approach, and the production was serviceable. Let's go. YES (borderline) EDIT (5/17): In order to expedite a revision, I will flip my vote to NO (resubmit) so that AJ can see the feedback and (hopefully) proceed with a revision. Let's go, bro! Edited May 17, 2017 by Liontamer changed vote to NO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chimpazilla Posted May 17, 2017 Share Posted May 17, 2017 Wow I really like this source, and I love the remix approach. I hear the criticisms about the mix being awash with reverb and release tails, but it doesn't bother me too much until 1:25. That wonky lead note at 1:25 does bother me, and the backing harmonies from 1:25 to 1:52 sound dissonant and harmonically muddy, possibly due to the long release tails but also possibly due to some wrong chord note choices throughout that section. The volume jump at 2:00 is startling and causes me to have to lower the volume. Wow I'm really on the fence here because this is so good, and I could flip to YES if that is the consensus but I'd prefer to see some issues addressed first. NO (borderline, resubmit please) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts