Sign in to follow this  
DragonAvenger

*NO* Dr. Robotnik's Mean Bean Machine 'Friendly Competition'

9 posts in this topic

DJ H0us3C0rP3

  •  
  • Dr Robotnik's Mean Bean Machine
  • Friendly Competition (Mean Bean Machine Remix)
  • 2 Player Versus Theme
  • Genesis and Gamegear 
  • https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZjEyI6Pqnfk
  • Made in Fl Studios with Nexus and  Massive 
  • The energy and vibe from this song is so intense and remember all the close wins i had with my younger siblings when we played against each other. This game was my first introduction to a real 2 player style game and puzzle games in general (S3&K was my first game i ever had). I wanted to break the song up into three diffent parts: 1. The initial challenge 2. Recover from a lose 3. the Rematch. This song was is one of my favorite songs from the genesis days and I just had to do a DNB remix of it.
  • Thank you for your time!

 

 

Edited by Liontamer
closed decision

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very high energy stuff.  Kinda basic sound design at some points, but the production is clear.  I liked the changeups you inserted at some points before transitions to keep things interesting.  I wasn't a huge fan of the break in the middle, it was too long and barebones, The second section feels like a repeat of the first, though you did add some extra details such as the quarter-note gating , which was pretty cool.

Overall I think this has a few repetition issues, and the synth design isn't stellar.  I think the track lenght could've been cut down by about a minute and not much would've been lost.  But what's here is good, the production is clean, and there are some fun ideas to be found here that can catch you off-guard, and the arrangement as a whole is very catchy and energetic.

YES (Borderline)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are definitely some sections that could be trimmed down, overall the length runs a little long for the number of ideas presented here. That being said, I agree with Gario that there are some pretty nice parts that add a lot of bounce to the track. I would have liked more details like those throughout and more change ups sooner. I do also agree that the soundscape is very clear and its easy to hear all of what's going on, nice work there.

This is close overall, and I do think the overall ideas and energy just bring this over the bar for me. I also wouldn't mind some of the fat being trimmed from some of the longer sections such as the slower middle. Good luck on the rest of the vote.

YES (borderline)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, DragonAvenger said:

I agree with Gario that...

HEY, Deia, how'd YOU know what I think 'bout this track?

;)

Anyway, as far as this goes the sound design, while basic works well enough. The arrangement is clever, and it does a nice job keeping things fresh throughout. I'm not sure I agree that the production on this is up to snuff - the leads often sound like they're pushing everything else down when they get loud (like at 1:21, for example), which makes the overall production quality suffer. Even worse is when everything is fighting for that space, like at 3:20 and 3:42; Bring the wubs out and suppress the leads if you want to give wub love, suppress the wubs if you want the leads to shine, but don't try to put both on center stage, there.

I think I agree with the other upsides & downsides that Sir_nutS provided, but the less than stellar production pushes my vote just to the opposite side of his. Lots of great things in this, but I think the leads need to be better balanced against the rest of the arrangement so they don't pierce so much and squish the track, and I'll need some mixing adjustment at the busiest sections so the instruments don't fight one another so much before I can pass it.

NO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's definitely a lot of cool stuff going on here, and I enjoyed much of it.  I do think the sound design is... not necessarily weak, but inconsistent.  There are some very simple synths juxtaposed with some nice new age sounds, and they don't blend well together.

Likewise, I don't think the balance is inadequate per se, but I do think there are sections where different parts are fighting for attention. Sometimes this is because the melodic emphasis and the percussion and wubs don't line up (e.g. 1:20-1:30), sometimes it's because the accompaniment is an autopilot and doesn't continue to jive with the melody (e.g. 2:10-2:32).  Mostly I can hear everything clearly, but it's confusing.  I think it's more an arrangement issue than a production issue.

Between the meandering structure and the strange combinations of sounds and patterns, I think this is below the bar for me.  Where it works, it works really well, but too much of it doesn't.

NO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Grindy noise stuff to start us off. Snare is a bit weak. The next section with the solo synth shows promise. Things fall apart when the drop hits - drums become lost, bass overwhelms other parts, and a low end muffle becomes present. 1:37 brings us back to the synth lead playing alone, with some percussive elements and accompanying synths are introduced. The parts here while right in some ways, don't feel like they fit together in the melodies they're playing. At this point the main arp theme has repeated with change for some time. 3:20 again introduces us to the wubs. Some nice sound design here, better than the first round. Muffle is still present but not as much. The balance is off a bit with the wubs being quite heavy but mostly occupying one stereo channel over the other. Otherwise the section while chaotic worked ok. We then fade out with more grindy noise.

I appreciate the work that has gone into trying to paint the melody in a different light over the course of the duration. I think the mix would've done a lot better if some changes to the main arp melody were made over time, or at the very least, the synths playing it were tweaked over time in some way. Sadly, most times where these sections are playing things are fairly static. Conversely the chorus sections are quite busy with a number of changes happening each bar (almost too much in some circumstances).

Ultimately I think the mixing on this one holds this back - when many instruments are playing things sound crowded and lack breathing room, and the drums while trying to be impactful are very weak due to being drowned out by the layers taking their sonic space. I feel there are parts playing in the busy sections that could at the very least have their low end dialled back so the growls have space to wub in. This would bring much needed clarity to the piece.

NO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good start, but I felt the drum writing was too basic, and the samples used for the beats/kicks were very flimsy. Anything with denser textures just felt extremely thin and empty, e.g. 3:19, which undercut the dynamic contrast you were going for. Just addressing those two things could be enough to lift this up, because the arrangement was creative otherwise. I agreed with other NOs about the soundscape being muffled as well, and the sound design was pretty basic as well, so there are lots of areas for further refinement and creativity in terms of the instrumentation. No hate on this, but the YESs were too forgiving of some pretty standout issues. Keep working on this; good base.

NO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is so much to love about this remix, it's so creative!  It needs a few fixes though.  Dubstep drums have got to be on point.  I think the drum writing is fine, but the sounds need to improve. The kick is not a proper dubstep kick, the snare isn't heavy/loud enough, and the hats are kind of lost mixed in the center.  Regarding wubs and leads playing at the same time, it works fine as long as everything has its place in the soundscape.  Starting at 0:47 (and again at 3:19), there is too much going on in the same frequency range (and a lot of it is in the center) and it's too hectic, it is better at 0:58 because there's less going on (and the backing sounds wider) but the panning of the wub so far left feels unbalanced.   I think this will work well if you widen the wubs/backing quite a bit leaving the lead to occupy the center (as you have it now).   The lead timbres do feel quite vanilla, but the writing makes up for it I think.  1:48 really exposes the drum issues I mentioned.  The solo writing starting at 2:10 feels very random and doesn't follow a contour well.  If this were my track, I'd consider cutting out 1:37-2:32 entirely, that part seems unnecessary and doesn't flow well.

TL;DR - Change the kick to a solid dubstep sample, make the snare louder/more impactful, give the hats a little stereo image, widen your wubs/backing with no hard-left panning, and either re-write the solo lead so it makes more melodic sense or chop 1:37-2:32 out of the mix entirely, and this will be a yes from me.  This is very cool and I'd love to see it on the front page.

NO (please resubmit)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this