*NO* Donkey Kong Country 2 "Stickerbrush Synthmony"

[Emunator]

Dear OCR,

I'm writing to offer a submission for OCR, which has been attached, as an .mp3 file, with 192kbps as per the guidelines. The necessary details are as follows;

 

ReMixer name: TheJGG

userid: 37426

Game arranged: Donkey Kong Country 2: Diddy Kong's Quest

Name of arrangement: Stickerbrush Synthmony

Name of song arranged: Stickerbrush Symphony

 

It was created entirely from hearing, and arranged without any formal sheet music knowledge. I spent a week creating it, and then altered the pitch and tempo, plus high and low cut.

 

Thank you very much,

 

TheJGG

 

Edited January 19, 2022 by Liontamer
closed decision

[Emunator]

Not a bad effort for recreating this from scratch without any formal training. You did an excellent job capturing the airy, organic essence of the original source tune through some unique sound design and additional rhythmic patterns. The contrast between the gritty distorted textures and filtered percussion, with the smooth pads and chromatic percussion is a strong textural foundation. Overall, I found this to be a pleasant listen!

There's a few things holding this back, however. You mentioned that you "altered the high and low cut" but I think ultimately you went way overboard with these effects. Namely, there's almost no frequencies below 200hz in the entire mix between :20 until around 4:45, when you finally bring in low strings and you realize what's finally been missing from the rest of the arrangement. Selective use of a high-pass filter can add drama and air to your arrangement, but when you leave it engaged without any movement throughout the entire track, it cuts out an essential frequency band and leaves everything sounding incomplete. Not sure if this was a stylistic decision or an arranging/production oversight, but this is the first thing that needs to be addressed.

Aside from that, your arrangement also stays fairly static for the the duration of nearly 5 minutes without any major changes in dynamics outside of the intro/outro. It leaves this arrangement constantly feeling on the precipice of breaking loose and ramping up the energy, but it never comes. The arrangement relies heavily on looped patterns and comes across as very repetitive - without any changeups or significant additions/subtractions throughout the 5 minute runtime, I feel like I've heard everything this has to offer by the 2nd or 3rd minute. 

Lastly, although this was recreated from scratch, the end arrangement is still pretty conservative and sticks very closely to the structure, melody, and presentation of the original source even with the subtle additions you've made. I would argue that, production issues aside, this is still too conservative for OCRemix standards. Adding some original writing or breakdowns could solve this issue and perhaps even help you address some of the other critiques about the dynamics of the arrangement, as well.

You've got a solid start of something here, but there's some fundamental issues from a production and arrangement standpoint keeping this from reaching full potential and meeting OCR's submissions bar. Either way, you've shown some chops and I'd love to see where you can take things from here on future submissions!

NO

[Liontamer]

I definitely enjoyed the different sound palette here, and it's a classic source tune choice; it wouldn't take too much to help this piece break out with something else different going on to then personalize it more. 1:11 was an opportunity for that kind of change; it came and went; at that point, I was already pretty sure this arrangement wasn't going to develop into anything melodically interpretive.

You can really tell at 1:19 that some frequencies are missing entirely as you hear some lines just warble like it was a lossy encoding.

There's a dropoff at 2:00 with some textural changes, but that was brief, and then at 2:20 sections are just being repeated wholesale. I listened through until the end, but there's not much else to comment on since this just loops until 4:00. Then there were finally some changes in the instrumentation that should have came two minutes earlier. This repetition doesn't justify 5 minutes.

It's not a bad exercise, especially just starting out and going by ear, but you've got to introduce more creativity and variation here. Relative to our arrangement standards, this isn't anywhere interpretive enough relative to the original, it's repetitive and undeveloped as a arrangement, it lacks dynamics, and Emunator's spot on with the production issues. If you get to your good variation ideas at 4:00 sooner and employ instrumental variations and added original writing much earlier into the picture, this would begin to justify the length. Promising start though.

NO (resubmit)

[MindWanderer]

I can't argue with any of the above.  The intro to 0:19 was a perfectly good intro.  Then the main melody came in and I thought, okay, this is just a really slow build.  But by 1:29, multiple opportunities for a drop into the main meat of the mix have passed, and I realized this was all I was going to get.  And then, of course, at 2:20 it loops back to 0:20, until there's some more ideas at 4:00; that's 100 seconds of copy-paste out of 298 seconds, almost exactly a third of the arrangement, which is too much (my personal rule of thumb is a maximum of 25% repetition, and that's pushing it).

There are good ideas here, and you have the fundamental concepts of a remix down.  Depth, transformation, and variety are the three big thing you really need to look for.

NO

[Gario]

I like the soundscape of this one, those twangy instruments work pretty well for a Bramble remix. I think the harmonic variance from the source are also interesting, and the textures overall compliment the source pretty well. There's definitely a winning arrangement under the stylistic choices made for this arrangement.

The choice to cut frequencies like this doesn't compliment your music, though. Technically speaking, unnecessary parts of the high or low end in a mix is decreased or cut in order to give the rest of the mix some room increase the overall volume without noticeable loss in quality. Since there can only be so much sound that comes from a sound file before it overloads the file and starts clipping the sound, it's often important to make space wherever available to maximize your sound. The important caveat is to do this "without noticeable loss in quality"; this arrangement cuts most of the bottom end of the arrangement and a considerable amount from the higher EQ range, resulting in a song that sounds like it's coming out the other end of a telephone. Cut back on the EQ high and low pass and allow these frequencies to come through, they're important to making the arrangement sound full.

The mixing of the arrangement isn't terrible, but the drums are almost impossible to hear. Some of this is because of the EQ cuts, but much of this is just mix balancing. Make sure your drums aren't lost in the mix, as they could add some depth to the overall arrangement.

The guitar part in this adds some nice variety to the arrangement - in fact, this mix has a few nice texture changes to give the listener some breathing room from time to time (like at 4:00, for example). The direct repetition 0f 0:20 - 2:00 at 2:20 - 4:00 does make the arrangement drag on without anything new or interesting to grab the listener's attention, though, and while the moments of relief from the static arrangement are welcome, they're too few and far between. Too much of the arrangement sound too similar to the rest of the arrangement, and the direct repetition does little to keep the arrangement interesting. Don't be afraid to cut textures to make them sound fresh when they come back into an arrangement, or introduce new ideas when you feel a repeat of the overall arrangement is warranted. Keep things fresh and interesting throughout.

The instruments sound pretty good, actually, though I do need to note that the guitar sample sticks out like a sore thumb, quality-wise (is it FL Slayer, by chance?). If you don't have a good guitar sample, I would suggest replacing it with a different sample or synth. A poor instrument amid an overall good soundscape can really take a listener out of the experience.

I don't think the arrangement is too conservative, but it is too static, and the repetition does no one any favors, either. The EQ cutting should be decreased significantly or removed, and the mix needs to balance the drums better. Again, I really do believe there is something cool under all of this, but right now I don't think this is a pass. Great work on an early music arrangement; it's not bad for a week of work, it just need some fixes and polish.

NO

Edited November 6, 2021 by Gario

[Chimpazilla]

Right away I feel like the intro is going on way too long.  The siren riser happens too many times.  The intro would be better if it were shorter, with some lows in it (full soundscape), and filtering out the lows as you lead into a drop.  As it stands, this just drags on.  Ok I'm now 2:30 in, and still no drop, instead the same thing I thought was a long intro is repeating verbatim.  Hoo boy, no drop, no development.  I like your sound palette ideas, but this is just a musical sketch and not a complete arrangement.

NO

[prophetik music]

agree with kris that this sounds like a bunch of opening segments in a row, and it never actually hits. the significant lack of bass is confusing too (guessing your headphones have significant bass representation naturally?). 

this sounds like a 30-second sound demo that's just repeated. there's not really any true development going on. to be honest, that 30-second demo would be an absolutely dope intro for a track, but it needs to get to the meat. there's no meat here unfortunately.

 

 

NO

Edited November 19, 2021 by prophetik music

[DarkSim]

Stickerb(r)ush Symphony is one of the most well-known and loved sources in the VGM world, and as such it’s hard to deviate from the arrangement too much when attempting to base a ReMix around it.
On first listen I couldn’t make out much original interpretation, and on subsequent listens I was also unable to identify significant deviation from the source to mark this as interpretive enough to pass the submission guidelines. The couple of bars from 4:03-4:10 begin to expand on the original, but then the source melody returns with the xylophone-type synth, and it falls back into a final repeat.
Aside from the conservative arrangement, there are a couple of serious mixing issues with the track. Firstly, it has no low end! Looking at the spectrum, it looks as if perhaps a 350Hz low-cut filter has been placed on the master track, rolling off at 100Hz, which is a huge production oversight, although an easy fix if that’s the case. If that’s not the case, then I would question the stylistic choice to avoid using any bass at all. This leads into the second problem, which is that the instruments seem to be bunched up together in the same frequency space, causing muddiness. The lead at 0:41 is too quiet in the mix, in particular, and the percussion gets lost without any low-end to anchor it.
I can understand wanting to keep the feel of the source tune, and choosing the instrumentation you have retains the floaty, relaxed atmosphere of the original. I would suggest revisiting the project file and working out the mixing issues first, before potentially looking at an arrangement overhaul to add significant personalisation to make this stand out as your own work. As it is, it’s an enjoyable cover, but would need a significant rework to be featured on OCR.

NO

[jordi]

Hey – thanks for submitting your arrangement! From the start of this, it was sounding quite promising with a nice choice of instrumentation. I thought that the high-pass filter at 0:22 was a peculiar choice as I wondered where it was going, and it was a bit disappointing when the majority of your track (bar the bell/glass sounds it seems) was affected by it continuously. It seems rather arbitrary and makes your mix sound super desaturated; lacking colour and depth. I think that it’s unfortunate because it actually takes a lot away from what could be quite pleasant, and I’m confused as to the purpose or the intention of doing this, as it actually subtracts from the arrangement.

I feel that the arrangement is pretty similar to the source material in substance. Of course, it has instrumental differences and a slightly different feel, but I’d say that it’s not modified enough in order for me to consider it to be sufficiently original. I’d have liked it to be taken even further away from the source material, with some more rhythmic or harmonic variation. When I hear a cover or an arrangement of an existing song, I look for it to have character that also works as a standalone piece.

With a bit more variation and depth, (removal of the high-pass filter and bringing out the lower frequencies in the mix) I think that this would be very chill to listen to as background music or whilst gaming. As it currently stands, I feel that this doesn’t meet the production or arrangement criteria of the submission standards. However, I commend you on using your ear to figure out and re-create the many layers and melodic elements of the source material. You clearly have a strong musical mind, so I encourage you not to give up and to submit something else in the future!

NO

[XPRTNovice]

Thank you for your submission! Unfortunately there is not sufficient modification of the source to pass OCR’s standards for submission. In this case, the source material is indeed “identifiable and dominant” but the arrangement is not “substantial and original.” There are very few, if any, departures from the source material, with the exception of the key. It is approximately the same BPM as the original, and doesn’t change sections or involve any interpretation other than changes in instrumentation. This falls more cleanly into the definition of a “cover” than an “arrangement” or remix, and doesn’t fall into the spirit of what OCR has on the site.

I encourage you to look at the submission guidelines and spend some time reviewing posted remixes alongside their sources, and noticing how vast the interpretations can be while still strongly representing the source. Production-wise, this sounds like a portion of it would be an excellent dreamy intro into an arrangement (adding a sweep filter as it rises into some kind of drop, for example), but with the dramatic amount of frequencies cut out (you mentioned high and low cut in your letter) it comes across like an unfinished piece of music, and lacks any body – I kept expecting a drop to come where the rest of the track comes in, but it never did. I would be interested in hearing what exactly you cut out; you might play with reducing the dramatic EQ bit by bit and also listening to other songs of the same target style at the same time (“reference mixing”) and see if you can’t get the sounds to start to match up. Training your ear takes time, and reference mixing will help you start to understand what happens when you move what lever.

 

NO

Edited January 19, 2022 by XPRTNovice