Liontamer Posted November 16, 2006 Share Posted November 16, 2006 Hello Guys and Gals. It's been a while since I submitted anything, but here we are again. I haven't submitted anything lately because frankly it took me a while to get used to Reason after all that time using fruityloops and the stuff I have been doing wasn't really filling my expectations. Now I feel more confident and I'm getting more out of the software and out of my music. So about this mix, it's a remix of Bubble Bobble's title theme for C64. My intention was to make a dreamy kind of song, but that could boast some energetic sections while staying away from my traditional trancy stuff. Admittedly I was inspired by djp's Revival Day Impoetus for this mix, because instead of going for catchy melodies and boxed structures I kinda let loose a bit and made the melody go off by itself in some places, not concentrating on a definite theme while also not going too overboard and keeping that sweet mood. I might also add that I made this mix for PRC79. So anyways, hope you enjoy this mix. As pointed out before, made in Reason 3, with my own made-from-scratch presets and combi patches, some free refills and my trusty wav samples for the drumming. The remix can be found here: And the original song can be found here: If you need extra info, you can always pm me on the boards. Hasta pronto! Sir_NutS ----------------------------------------------------- http://www.exotica.org.uk/tunes/archive/C64Music/Clarke_Peter/Bubble_Bobble.sid - SIDtune 8/12 Intro was cool, based off the 2-second intro of the C64 version of the source. (The Amiga version uses a similar intro, but faster and with different sound). And you managed to make that intro the supporting writing within the bigger picture; nice idea. I see Mike hasn't forgotten about making things extra loud. Them beats at :32 were snapping all up in my face, followed by that bassline at :47. Didn't like the balance issues here. I know Mike is going for lots of energy here, but the supporting instrumentation and beats being so loud just causes a lot of clutter and obscured the lead writing. 1:04 refers to about 10 seconds into the source, but the wait until the actual melodic portion's pretty long. E-piano at 1:36 references the source melody, albeit liberally. Definitely bleh on the piano sound from 2:23-2:56; really cheap and mechanical-sounding, plus the tone is weak and it screams fake. Shouldn't have been brought back again at 3:45, which only weakened the dual piano interplay. The ending was also pretty weak; I dunno what the point of the last 3 notes at 4:15 was. I'm gonna sound like a hater, as this isn't a poorly-made track. But, as a standalone piece of writing, there was something disappointing about the whole thing, IMO. It's supposed to have a lot of energy, thanks to the needlessly overbearing beats. But, to me, the melodic writing seemed relatively simple and aimless overall, the dynamics didn't feel like they changed much despite the lead changing several times, and the beats carried the track too much. The lead writing should be more complex and engaging, the beatwork should be scaled back so the soundfield isn't so cluttered, that one bleh piano soundfont needs to go, and the ending needs to be stronger. Mike is already good with Reason, but I'm just not feeling the end result here. To me, it's bland despite the obvious effort to make it anything but. NO (resubmit) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zircon Posted December 4, 2006 Share Posted December 4, 2006 I do dig the arrangement here, but I kind of agree with Larry. Something here is not quite clicking. I think the beats are off a little, in some way... they don't have a good groove to them, and they're really electronic-sounding compared to everything else. Maybe doing more with 16th notes in the drums would help. Also, decreasing the volume and high end on some of the pads would help. Perhaps double the melody instrument(s) with some sustained synth pads so it's more audible and cuts through more? Just spend a little more time here tweaking levels & effects and I think you'll be in good stead. Structurally, I do kind of feel like this isn't quite varied enough. I guess the word is "meandering". The beats change, the instruments change, but I don't think it really goes anywhere. More dynamics would be cool. Maybe some kind of breakdown or significant instrumental change. This is pretty close to the bar, but I feel like it needs a little reworking before I can pass it. Please resub. NO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
big giant circles Posted December 11, 2006 Share Posted December 11, 2006 Wow, what a cool idea for the intro. Never would have thought to develop that melodically, props, bro. Waaaaaaay too much high end on the drums. The dulcimer(?) at 1:05 seemed a little dry, and a little close to center, I kind of wish you'd panned that one wide and toggled it. Man, this is a pretty song. I had to turn my phones down halfway through, because the high end was borderline ear-piercing. And I consider my self to have a fairly high tolerance to higher frequencies. You gotta tweak that, boss. Aside from the EQ, the production seemed adequately executed. Stylistically, this kind of reminds me of the Blue (Shooting Star Mix) (definitely worth checking out, if you haven't already). Ya know, really, the EQ is my only bother. The arrangement is fairly conservative, but I have no qualms considering the quality of the source, and the fact that it's nowhere close to rip-territory. Anyway, back to the EQ, I think it's far enough off that it warrants a NO, but that's all I got. Bring those levels down a notch, tweak some random other mastering quirks as you feel so inspired otherwise, and I'll be happy to slide a YES your way. NO tweak and resubmit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts