Emunator Posted March 27, 2022 Share Posted March 27, 2022 (edited) Remixer Name - Black Ace Real Name - Alexey Bakhmetyev E-Mail - Website - https://vk.com/cjblackace UserID - 34929 Name of Game - Shin Megami Tensei (Super Famicom) Name of arrangement - Digital Devil Puzzle Name of song - Kichijoji Theme Game info - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shin_Megami_Tensei_(video_game) Original track - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7gRaomMrMR0 Release Date - 18 Jul 2021 Edited April 14, 2023 by Liontamer closed decision Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emunator Posted March 27, 2022 Author Share Posted March 27, 2022 The production and source adaptation is flawless, per usual, but for a 6 minute long arrangement, there's quite a bit of repetition going on, so I'm hoping some of our judges with an appetite for pasta can take a closer listen to this! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liontamer Posted March 27, 2022 Share Posted March 27, 2022 The source tune's the epitome of basic, which allows a LOT of flexibility and additive composition to supplement the source tune here. Loads of dynamic contrast here within a higher energy approach, and the source melody and/or backing chords are practically always in play. The vocal sampling was pretty simple; one could argue it needed more variation, but as a non-lyrical sample, it added some character to the piece. At 4:52 & 5:25, the arrangement was noticeably retreading some things; nothing that was hugely harming this as an overall listening experience, but it could have used some additional ideas or variations to stay fresh. Sure, you can go after cut-and-paste stuff here, but I wasn't bothered by it enough to timestamp when the overall approach is so expansive, personalized, and substantial. Man, nothing but a textbook example of making a barebones original into your own. Nice work, Alexey! YES Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prophetik music Posted March 31, 2022 Share Posted March 31, 2022 real basic source. recognizable source content at the beginning thanks to the chord progression being fairly easy to hear. there's a lot of really fun synth work throughout - the squelchy bass arp, the added percussive elements to fill out the drumloop, the bass drops. around 2:45 i was starting to get tired of the loop plus the bass being pretty repetitive too, and just in time a drop arrive to break it up a bit. i'd have preferred to hear a shift in the synths here so the lead, pad, and squelchy arp weren't still the same after that - it's essentially a retread of the earlier section for another minute before we get the choppy vox (which in itself is kind of a repetitive section). and then we get two more minutes of the same stuff with extremely minimal changes. this is just too much repeated stuff - no synth changes, the same drum fills, the same vox samples used the same way, and super simple changes (like a single piano chord every two bars) to differentiate it. it's four minutes of music (arguably about 3.25) spread over six minutes of bread...something's gotta give. there's a really catchy, fun idea here that i love the idea of - but it's completely played out at the end rather than making me want to listen to it again. i'd need this to be much shorter before i pass it. NO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MindWanderer Posted April 5, 2022 Share Posted April 5, 2022 It's true that there aren't a whole lot of different ideas here. But there's also very little copy-pasta, either. There are a few short sections that are repeated verbatim, but mostly things do get changed around at least somewhat. This is definitely too static for my personal tastes, but it's a valid representation of the genre. The name of this specific subgenre of EDM is slipping my mind at the moment, but I've heard plenty of it. and these long tracks with slight permutations of retreaded themes are common. Production, source usage, yadda yadda, all clearly above the bar. It would certainly be more engaging to more people with some more variety, but this succeeds for what it is. I can't see rejecting it on any sort of objective standard. YES Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarkSim Posted April 7, 2022 Share Posted April 7, 2022 This is a real tough one for me, because I love it for 2 minutes, and then the repetitiveness starts nagging at me, and I want something more. Genre-wise, I'm reminded of mid-90s electronica such as Chemical Brothers or Propellerheads. Those bands have plenty of similar-length tracks, however even with the longer tracks, the progression is clearer and the variation more engaging than simply adding and subtracting elements that have been heard before. To be clear, I have absolutely no problems with anything production wise - it's the arrangement that pulls this one down in my book. I dived a little deeper with some timestamping and colour-coding on repeated segments(!): I made it 83 seconds of repeated material - although not exactly verbatim, as there were some subtle backing/fill differences. That said, the differences were not unique to that particular section, so I treated it as a repeat. That works out to about 23% of the track. I took a 7-minute long track from the Propellerheads to compare the repetition there. Spybreak! was famously used in the Matrix's 'Lobby' scene. I clocked 2:15 of repeated material, or roughly one third of the track, in the original. The Propellerheads also released a short version which trimmed almost 3 minutes off, and honestly you don't miss it. 23% repetition is pretty borderline for my taste, however it does feel like a lot more is repeated, because a lot of the same segments are used in different permutations. I really liked the vocal chopping around 4:04-4:17, as it brought something new to the table. The final minute or so was a bit anticlimactic, as nothing new was added. I'd say take a leaf out of the Propellerheads' book on this one. Either trim a couple of minutes out of it, or rework it to add some more unique parts. I'm a huge fan of this genre, and I really do appreciate the fantastic work you've done here already. I'd love to hear this one back again with a tighter focus, and an arrangement that leaves me wanting to hit the repeat button! NO (resubmit) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chimpazilla Posted April 20, 2022 Share Posted April 20, 2022 Track is loud. LOUD. LOOOOOUUUUDDDD did ya hear me say it, it's LOWD. Cubase tells me it's contained at -0.5db peak but SPAN is telling me it's clipping all through the track. Maybe just dial the master back a hair? Other than that, production here is absolutely ace. This is a super fun, energetic track, I think it would fit nicely into an action movie. I love all the elements and writing. There are small unique elements added in each section (piano writing, soft plucks, various screamy/squelchy things), but they are small additions/variations that are buried under a tsunami of the same writing, instrumentation and arrangement over and over. I'm gonna toss this back for an arrangement trim, I think two minutes could be deleted without losing anything. As it stands it's just too repetitive. NO (but please resubmit) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emunator Posted May 18, 2022 Author Share Posted May 18, 2022 I think DarkSim did a tremendous job of breaking down the use of repetition and correctly identifying that, although there's very little wholesale repetition, the soundscape is too static to justify this length. I feel like 4 minutes would be plenty of time to say what you need to say without dragging on unnecessarily. Should be quite an easy fix, but it's not ready in its current form, in my opinion. NO (resubmit!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XPRTNovice Posted April 14, 2023 Share Posted April 14, 2023 Some real guts taking on a source that's essentially four notes repeated over 45 seconds, haha! Intro's got some real power and groove, it put me in the mood right away, and the first drop at :45 was satisfying. Mix overall is top knotch; really kept all this power on a tight leash without letting it get out of control, which is impressive. Great job there. By 2:30, I'm starting to experience some ear fatigue. I feel like I've been listening to a lot of the same. We get our first sort of break at 3:00, but we fall right back into it pretty quickly and I feel like I'm back at the beginning of the piece. I'm going to concede here and say that the piece is great, the mixing is great, overall there is so much great stuff going on here, but it needs a haircut. If you're going to keep it this length (which I don't think anyone recommends) you're going to need to inject some serious innovation into it and really mix up the arrangement. But, I would save yourself the trouble and find the repetitive spots, cut them out, and I bet this piece will sit very nicely at about 4:00. And I might revisit the ending; rather than have it just sort of drop out, you might take the suggestions here about innovating on the source and some up with something creative and interesting. Throw the source out the window for 20 seconds and really blow it out. NO (resubmit!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts