Gario Posted March 23, 2017 Share Posted March 23, 2017 (And Happy New Year!!) It's been quite a while! I'm not hailing this as a masterpiece by any means, but I just finished it and it came out pretty nifty, so I wanted to send it along in case you guys wanted to feature it on the site. I was originally going to wait till I had something more grand and impressive to submit as the first track under my new handle, but my new direction is more about going on a creative journey than any grand, cohesive, artistic vision. I'm admittedly quite rusty at remixing, and I learned a lot of new LIVE techniques from working on this piece, but putting it together (though at times frustrating!) was still a blast. I was going to put it on my YouTube and SC but I figured I would send it here first in case you guys wanted to post it prior to that. If there are any issues with it please let me know and I will try to address them ASAP. Thanks guys!! Hope you enjoy! MkVaff Michael Vafeas (no website yet, but my youtube account is active): https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC2ddyT0OGK6bIWQc19BC0xQ User ID is 6 (I think) Earthworm Jim New Junk City (original song) Launch the Cow (remix name) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MindWanderer Posted March 23, 2017 Share Posted March 23, 2017 There are some nice ideas here, but this is a very static arrangement. The percussion and pads are on auto-pilot for long periods of time, and the general pacing and energy level are unchanged throughout the whole thing. There's no precise repetition, but there are several sections that vary from each other in only small ways (e.g. 0:31 and 2:04, 1:02 and 2:43). I think this needs more variety in terms of pacing and approach to hold interest for its duration. NO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gario Posted April 15, 2017 Author Share Posted April 15, 2017 Hmm... This is closer than I thought it would be, especially considering it's McVaffe/McVaff. I like this, but stepping back and listening to it with a fresh pair of ears I can hear MindWanderer's concerns about this being static. For me, the instruments very often carry the same role throughout the entirety of the track, which even for a 3:15 track makes them get pretty boring. Variety of material seems to be there, though; the drums change up enough, even to the point of having a meatier, more interesting set halfway through the arrangement, and the patterns never combine in the same manner twice throughout the arrangement. The energy level doesn't change very much, but the content certainly does. The static overall energy level and stale usage of the instruments does bring this down a bit, but with clean production values and a decent handling of the source (not TOO reinterpretive, but definitely has some neat layering and subtractive arrangement in there) I think it would still work out well on the front page, though again it's a close one for me. Nice to see you around here again, McVaff! YES Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DragonAvenger Posted May 17, 2017 Share Posted May 17, 2017 I can see what the guys are saying, and I agree this ends up being closer than I'd have expected. That being said, I'm siding with Gario here, that I think this has just enough variety to get by. Curious what the other judges think! YES (borderline) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir_NutS Posted June 6, 2017 Share Posted June 6, 2017 I remember listening to this when McVaffe released it, I thought it was pretty nifty but also, as the other Js have noted, quite static. The arrangement itself evolves slightly over time and the writing of the parts is not a straight copy paste of sections, there is variation in the performances, but it does feels like this mix glides through with a very linear, constant energy level and it gets a bit boring by the end, which is a bit of a letdown since older MV's remixes were simple but fun to listen to repeatedly. I feel that the different parts that make up this arrangement feel repetitive at times and are reused too much, although never reused in the same exact way. On the production side things are clean and punchy, and I have no issue with the sound palette here. Overall, I say MV's production is up to date and his arrangement skills are still good, but this mix isn't as fun to listen to as what I was accustomed to. Fun may be subjective though, as this mix is technically sound, I still I think it inches over the bar due to the pros outweighing the cons. YES (borderline) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liontamer Posted July 10, 2017 Share Posted July 10, 2017 Production-wise, the low-end felt like it added some clutter, but it wasn't a huge deal, and the listen was relatively clean/clear overall. If the lead sound had been changed or varied at 2:05, I think that would have made things more interesting in that final minute. I also thought the core beat writing should have varied more as well, since I agree with all of the other Js that the writing of it definitely plodded after a while despite the subtle changes to the beat's tone every few measures. That said, the rhythmic variations to the source tune right from the get-go and the textural variations with the instrumentation over time were both crucial in providing substantial enough interpretation. Regardless of the name attached to it, this could have been more -- and all of us including MkVaff agree -- but IMO it does get it done. Keep 'em coming, Mike! YES (borderline) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts