*NO* Space Harrier "Main BGM CFX"

[Emunator]

Your ReMixer name: Cosmonal
Your real name: Eric Fraga
Your email address: 
Your website(s): http://cosmonal.wordpress.com
Your userid (number, not name): 38073

Name of game(s) arranged: Space Harrier
Name of arrangement: Main BGM CFX
Name of individual song(s) arranged: "Main Theme"
Your own comments about the mix, for example the inspiration behind it, how it was made, etc.

This is my humble homage to a video game music close to my heart since I was a little kid. I first heard the music on Master System Space Harrier 3D, which has many other BGMs but the main one from Hiro is there too. From there, the 32x arcade conversion... and the rest is history! Hope you guys like it! It's sequenced on PowerTracks Pro, my main instrument is my beloved Korg Triton Classic since 2002. I'm using some instruments from my personal AWE32 soundfonts collection.

Edited July 17, 2023 by Liontamer
closed decision

[MindWanderer]

Opens with a massive wash of reverb, a little off-putting as an opening. 0:50-1:40 is looped exactly at 1:40-2:30; 50 seconds of the first two and a half minutes — a full third of the arrangement at this point, and also a pretty conservative cover  — is also an early deterrent.

However, after that point, it picks up. Nice riffs on the theme, and the soundscape is a pretty solid example of synthwave with chiptunes. The piano breakdown is a particular highlight. The ending is a bit of a letdown, though; 4:45 and 5:00 were both more natural endings, and it just kept going until it sounds like you ran out of ideas.

Production-wise, it's a little mid-heavy, but I can hear most everything clearly. The pad conflicts a little more than I like, but I can live with it.

Overall, there's a bunch of things that could be improved, but they're not huge and I don't think they add up to a rejection. I'm happy to go with a

YES

[prophetik music]

i think this probably needs a new name. also, the music sounds more like a credits theme than a main theme, i think. or maybe that's just me?

intro is indeed verby - the noise on that swooshy pad that's used a lot doesn't help either. we don't really get the initial melodic material until probably 0:50 or so, but the rest of the intro is interesting enough that i didn't mind. the auto-panning lead used for the initial melodic material is a little offputting for me, and the hard-panned synths in the left ear at 1:24 are both pretty loud and conflict directly with the head at that point as well. this entire melodic section feels very much like the original, with only a little that's not in the original. i agree that there's a direct copypasta in here as well which isn't a great look when it's also not really perfect.

there's a nice break at about 2:30 that is well-deserved after all that pasta. the glide leads are neat and a fun idea. the more rhythmic approach here also serves to make for a more unique soundscape to the more generic vibe of the first two minutes. the synth solo here is fine. there's another, bigger break at 3:32 which is an even more significant vibe check, and sounds great. the rhythmic piano and half-time drums here together sound great, and it's nice hearing the bass do something other than octaves as well. the panning is pretty significant again, but it's not a huge issue.

there's a big hit at 4:36, and it feels like it's heading to an ending. stylistically, though, i get why you did a further outro, but i think it probably was done at 4:59 and the rest is kind of a waste of what could have been used earlier in the track. it works, though, i certainly don't mind it as much as it seems MW did.

overall, your synth selection was good, the feel of the track is good despite being hand-played, and the overall approach sounds solid. i have no issues around arrangement or mastering. this is a fun track.

 

 

YES

[Liontamer]

Very tepid beat at :12. By :25, the flimsiness of the beats was wearing thin already. I like the arrangement concepts, but the instrumentation's very underwhelming, and it doesn't ever turn the corner, IMO. This would have been a pass in the early days of the site for sure, but the bar for sound quality's risen since then.

The bassline from :50-1:14 seems out of tune at points (most audibly from 1:00-1:02), and it's a really thin sample. And by a minute in, it's clear the snare shots are in metronome territory, so this, in tandem with the basic bassline, really plods. There's more activity and creativity in the hat writing, but it's mixed so quietly that it barely registers.

I'm surprised at these YESs; this isn't anywhere near what I'd pass re: sound quality. This sounds like a WIP where the foundation is in place and the production polish will come next. The sound design needs that extra level of polish, instead of leaving dry and exposed parts like the keys at 2:32 & 3:44. I liked the airy line from 2:48-2:55, nice touch, and the transition into 3:44 section sounded more well-rounded before the keys arrived.

Whatever can be done to humanize and bolster the instrumentation, Eric, would be welcome. The arrangement's fun, but the drum writing's too simplistic and there's a clear quality disparity between the arrangement and the production due to all of the thin & exposed samples.

NO (resubmit)

[DarkSim]

Feels very cover-like for the first 3 minutes, as the instrumentation is similar, and the brassy synth lead you've got is super thin. The combo of that with the high bass notes does sound a little odd to my ear, but I wouldn't say out of tune. Is there some kind of effect on the bass sample that doesn't transpose too well at those frequencies? Some kind of pitchbend or vibrato artifact from the pluck?

Regardless, there's very little original material in the first 3 minutes, and it seems like a decent cover, albeit without a significant sound palette upgrade. There's some soloing and riffing on the source breakdown from 3:08, then things get much more interesting after 3:34. The retro brass-synth lead with the reverb sounds great by itself here, then the big snare hits and piano build up the sound, and when the bass comes back in at 4:10 it's perfectly implemented. Then we get a big blow, and a couple of false endings, before a bit of an experimental actual ending. I am getting a little crackly echo in my left ear from those snare hits during the build (3:47 onwards), is that intentional?

I think the track sounds really cohesive as a whole, in terms of instrumentation, although there are definite question marks over the initial lead. Additionally, does the overall cohesiveness outweigh any reservations about the sounds themselves? I think for the most part, the sounds used are absolutely fine. The brassy lead from 0:50-2:30 is my biggest issue - it's so exposed and just doesn't have enough going for it to carry the lead. The square wave at 2:55 is just that, and is pretty thin itself, but does have some nice attention to vibrato, and it's in a break section with some nice pads and stabs backing it up. It's OK for a solo instrument, but I wouldn't mind something with more meat to it.

Tough one to call for me. I'm normally happy with tracks that stick close to the source for the first half and then do their own thing in the second, but the second half of this is so much better than the first, I'd be inclined to say have another crack at the first half of this. Chop out some unnecessary repetition, upgrade that brass lead, and sort out some of those high bass notes that sound a bit strange. In addition, maybe reconsider the ending - would the part from 5:00 work as an intro, even?

It's a very close call, and I did enjoy this one a lot. Hopefully you can make a few adjustments and send it back over, as I'd love to hear it again.

NO (resubmit)

[DarkeSword]

This general MIDI crystal + saw sound you're using for the lead is killing me. It's so splashy and distracting.

I agree with Larry, the sound quality on this feels very 15-years-ago OCR. I can't quite put my finger on it but there's a weird thinness to this piece. The percussion is written well with a lot of detail but it sounds thin. The lead bouncing back and forth in the stereo field is distracting. The bassline is an octave too high. Everything has this sheen of default General MIDI soundfont to it.

I like the breakdown around 3:30, but that saw lead comes back a minute later and takes me right out.

Not a fan of the extra endings. The keys get super exposed there and they don't sound good.

NO

[Chimpazilla]

Mix starts out with promise, although the sounds are dated and underwhelming.  At 1:00-1:02 and again at 1:13-1:15 and 1:50-1:52 and 2:03-2:05 there are wrong/awkward chords.   Actually, there are disharmonious chords here and there throughout the piece.  The instrumentation sounds rather weak and dated, and I agree with Larry about the weak beats.  The drum samples are weak and the writing is simplistic.  I agree with MW that the production is mid-heavy, lacking low-end strength.  The bass is very weak.  The piano sounds robotic.  The arrangement feels very long and repetitive, despite good writing variation and detail, due to the soundscape being the same all throughout the piece with nothing added or removed and the energy of the piece is rather static all the way through. I agree with Darke about the extra endings, they feels superfluous.  More work to be done here for sure, although the concept is solid.

NO

[XPRTNovice]

Man this has such a cool 80s vibe. It's happy and spunky with sparkle with the right amount of lo-fi stuff going on. I personally have no beef with the general midi/old OCR sound; I think the throwback is intentional and you made a choice. 

 0:57 though, what's going on with that organ or piano in the back? It sounds like it's like...out of tune? If there's some kind of pitch warble on there in the FX chain, I would turn that off or pick a sample that doesn't do it. It's the right timbre, but it actually sounds disonnant, which does not jive with this piece. It actually might be the bass. It could be a mix of both? It's hard to immediately tell, but something is happening with the bass and that piano that makes it sound not right. 

Drums are generally rinse and repeat for the entire song until that breakdown at 2:35 

3:15, I'm not sure what I'm supposed to be listening to - the lead is buried WAAAAY back in the mix, almost like it's a karaoke piece. If you're making a saw lead statement, make it. Make sure we're hearing the story we're supposed to be hearing.

Piano at 3:45 is too harsh and in the front, and that harshness continues through 4:20 and buries what is otherwise an underwhelming wolf-howl of a lead that fatigued my ears by the time it was done.

The piano outro is great, though there's some mud going on at about 400hz. To me though, the song was over at about 5:04, and the rest of the arrangement threw me off. It feels like it ends for 30 seconds or so, and it would have made more sense in context to just kill the piece there after the piano thing.

There's so much good going on here, but it needs better attention to detail in the mixing before it's passable. 

NO (resubmit)