*NO* Mega Man 3 "The Spark Is Gone"

[Emunator]

ReMixer name: Neon X
EMail: 
Website: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCV8NwzoUa9I9HD1YXRIXp3g
UserID: 37046

Name of game: Mega Man 3
Name of arrangement: The Spark Is Gone
Name of song: Spark Man stage theme
Original composer: Yasuaki Fujita
Link to original song: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6J5cN87c2yM

For clarification:
Name of remix: The Spark Is Gone
Name of original song: Spark Man stage theme

 

Edited May 29, 2022 by Liontamer
closed decision

[MindWanderer]

A fun remix of a classic favorite!  Energetic and fun, for sure.  I like the creative riffs on the theme, although they're brief.  But there are some things holding it back.

The whole first minute includes a deep bass pad that sounds detuned to the point of being off-key for me.  It sounds extremely dissonant to me, to the point where it's unpleasant to listen to.  At 1:35 there's an arp that also sounds like it's off-key, or at least it's dissonant with something else playing during that section.

The outro starts at 1:52, and re-introduces that dissonant pad, and ends with a fade-out.  Fade-out endings are always a bummer, but usually not a dealbreaker, however, the fact that the fade-out ending begins before the 2-minute mark and goes on for 30 seconds is a big deal.

The rest of the piece, that isn't intro or outro, is solid, but it's also very conservative.  Most of it is a MIDI rip, though there are extra parts added.  The only really original part is from 1:30-1:39---fun, but too brief!

I don't normally come down this hard on one dissonant synth and a fade-out ending.  In most remixes that would be worthy of criticism but not a NO vote.  But in this case, that pad is so loud and runs for so much of the mix (about 1:30 out of 2:30), and the fade-out ending comprises so much of the total length of the piece, that it's too much for me.

I'd also recommend having more fun with the main body of the arrangement.  Those 9 seconds of originality are the best part, and I want more of that.  The arrangement as a whole can stand to be much longer, and more of that sort of thing is how you get there.

NO

[Chimpazilla]

MW pretty much nailed it in his writeup.  I love the idea for this mix, and what's here sounds so promising.  The instrumentation is dreamy.  I hear what he's saying about the intro pad.  It doesn't bother me as much as it bothers him, because I don't think it's trying to be bass.  When the bassline enters it is clear, but the bass is very quiet though, it could be louder.  At 1:26, the writing changes totally, and the previous writing's delay is still playing, making for a few seconds of horrendous clashing.  The first part with the delay playing should stop abruptly (render it out and cut it if necessary so no delay plays) as the next bit is starting up (right at 1:24 with those intro notes to the next section).  Overall, this arrangement is just too short.  I would love to hear a proper soft breakdown where you now have the outro starting up, followed by a second lively section with unique writing, solos or variations on the theme, different instrumentation or drum patterns or other elements to differentiate it from the first playthrough, and then the outro.  I'm in agreement with MW also that fadeouts, while not an OCR dealbreaker, are such a disappointment.  I'd much rather hear some thoughtful resolution on the track to wind things up.

NO

[Liontamer]

Yeah, this would have been gold back in ye olden days of OCR, 15-20 years ago.

I hear how the padding MindWanderer pointed out didn't click, but it was a quiet background component and didn't register as clashing for me. Same with Chimpa's problem with the intro build still fading out after the melody took over; that didn't clash to my ear or bother me either.

Solid extended build with the piano and into the melody finally arriving at :32, but the mixing wasn't sharp. Loved the transition stuff from :57-1:00; great signal of a change in the energy level. The core drumbeat plodded after 1:00 and sounded like it was far away and stapled underneath (as opposed to souunding like it shared the same soundscape as everything else). The melody was also super conservatively handled from 1:00-1:51, which was a more significant negative when the overall arrangement was so short.

Dayum, a 20-second fadeout within a 40-second outro? I liked these final bars, but they still repeated for too long (1:51-2:32), even with a fade out for the last 20 seconds, IMO. It's not shocking that the others feel the overall arragement needs more development.

I think the substance of the arrangement's being shortchanged, but I can see where the others are coming from, as the middle section's very melodically conservative, while the final outro's very repetitive. I'm more hung up about the mixing needlessly sounding lossy and hope there's a way to brighten this up, but I do hope you're willing to add some more substance and/or variation to the second and third sections, especially if you had no interest in adding any length to this arrangement (which isn't necesary, IMO). Really strong foundation here, Neon! You're talented enough that I think you could revisit this and push it over the line here.

NO (borderline/resubmit)