Sign in to follow this  
Gario

*NO* Pokémon Mystery Dungeon: Red Rescue Team "Run Away, Fugitives"

Recommended Posts

 

Contact Information

Submission Information

  • Pokemon Mystery Dungeon: Red Rescue Team
  • Run Away
  • Run Away, Fugitives
 
ReMix: 
 
Timestamps:
First, the whole tune has been moved down (or up) a few tones, so if you would like I could pitch the source and send you guys that, but I feel like I stayed pretty close.
 
The arrangement itself is pretty straightforward: The chorus is the only original part in this song . ("So break me, if you're not gonna save me"). However I do use a source chord progression in these sections.
:00- :46 original
:47- 1:44 source
1:45 - 2:01 original
2:02 - 2:45 source
2:46 - 3:46 original (end)
 
This makes most of the song original (2:06 original vs 1:40 source), but I feel like they are intertwined well enough to give it a pass. Your call. (duh lol)
 
Comments:
 
Alright I'm done sitting on this one. Spent some time tuning the vocals so that they sound good. Yeah I'm singing now. If any singers in the panel could chime in I'd love to hear your thoughts.
 

Lyrics:

Wake me
Pushing out to escape we
Need a reason to live
My minds on the fringe
I'm crying in desperation

So break me
If you're not gonna save me
I'm pushing again
The lives that we spend
You're telling me over and over again


Run away, run away
Maybe I was wrong to stay
Run away, run away
Were these memories made in vein

I'm broken to pieces
So why can't you understand?
Our time is coming to an end


Run away, run away
Maybe I should turn to say
Run away, run away
Were these memories made in vein?

Edited by MindWanderer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting opening; very basic/generic sounds, but we'll see where this goes. At :28, it seemed like you had the perfect opportunity to layer or effect the vocals on some of the parts, like "break me"/"save me"/"again"/"spend", to put some additional depth and contrast into the vocals.

Immediately I can tell the vocals need pitch correction/AutoTune (e.g. the "me" in "wake me" at :10 is flat; the notes in "desperation" at :24; a flattening at :44 during "over and over"; "away" during "run away" at :47 and :49, "stay" at :54). Clearly said "exscape" instead of "escape" at :13, but we'll move on. Less than a minute in with this many issues, and I already know it's a dealbreaker and will further prove that as we go on. Not trying to be demoralizing or short, but I just don't have the cycles to note each & every instance, and you should be more mindful of stuff like this going forward. If you yourself are listening to this and not realizing that it's off-key, we've got significant problems. There's even what's effectively a mouth fart at 1:45 as you say "break". On the plus side, your overall tone of voice is good; it's not like you couldn't develop a strong singing voice, but it's not there right now.

Texturally, this is decent, but you also have moments like 2:07 where you've got relatively thin textures after the drop at 2:02 joined by a super-dry clap lasting until 2:24, and it sounds like a quality disparity between parts. I'd also argue the drum tone at 2:26 and the countermelodic synth line at 2:46 didn't click with the rest of the instrumentation.

I'd argue that you should overtly incorporate more of the source tune into the arrangement, but I honestly didn't investigate that yet because the production's not passable yet.

There's so much raw potential here, but raw's the key word. It's not a polished piece, though you do have a really solid WIP. See if you're able to refurbish this by fleshing out the textures more, replacing some of the more generic/thin parts, and consider re-taking or pitch correcting the vocals. Don't be discouraged, Aaron, this is a good base to build on.

NO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your voice tone works so well with the pop ballad style here.  It felt keen to break out the energy and meaning behind the lyrics, and along with the choice of sound palette and attention to balancing the instrumentation, it's a strong foundation going forward.

However, "foundation" is also the buzz word to describe the track as a whole.  I know you said you spent time tuning your vocals, but in a pop environment, the amount of pitch correction/autotune for a vocal performance is relentless.  There are plenty of free auto-tuners on the web that you can experiment with, so have a play around with them and see what you can reap.  If a sung word is too difficult to tune effectively, or there's a rough consonant in the way, it'll also be handy to re-record that line before processing.

And then there's the next issue - source use.  The sections marked as the source are evident through the sung melody and the e-piano using the original's harp.  But it's still less than 45% source use, and therefore is my biggest dealbreaker out of the lot.  Consider going through your original parts and adding some backing writing that references either the source or other PMD BGM.  I would suggest the latter as there's not a lot else in the primary source to work with, but I can also be pleasantly surprised if treated uniquely.

I'm also not a fan of the snare drum being so in my face.  Larry thought it was a problem since the final verse, but for me, this issue was present since 1:07.  Introducing an organic timbre after a non-organic intro is an unusual move despite the right intention.  For me, it'll feel more natural if only the third downbeats got emphasized and the other notes get softened up - turning them into ghost notes.

It's a solid base, but source use and vocal presentation are by far the most significant issues that have let this down for me.  See if you can fit in more VGM, refine your vocals, and go over your drum patterns.  Your tone pleasantly surprised me though, so I see potential in you getting a vocal track onto the front page if you keep at it.

NO (resubmit)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm a lot closer on this than Rexy and LT, but I also can't argue with any of their points.

Your choruses are so close to being fine, source-wise.  They use the source's chord progression and rhythm, and the backing instrumentation is also reminiscent of the source.  It would take so little tweaking to incorporate the source more directly into the backing there; I'm honestly confused as to why you didn't when you knew that source usage was a concern.

The vocals, too, are so very close.  I love your emotion and tone, and you're on-key more often than not, but enough is off-key that it's a problem.  I'd cut you slack on at least half of the specific moments Larry called you out on--they're not perfect but they're not all that far off, no vocalist is perfect, and I for one appreciate a bit of authenticity over being auto-tuned to pitch-perfection--but there's still plenty that's far enough out that I can't excuse it.

It was overall good enough that I still really enjoyed it, and I'm very glad you submitted it, but I'm hard-pressed to argue that it's ready for prime time in its current form.  I very much want to see a revision back on the panel.

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