Liontamer Posted June 2, 2023 Share Posted June 2, 2023 (edited) Your ReMixer name: Pixel Pirates Your real name: Tobaunta Torkelsson & Fredrik Vinterstjärna Your email address: Your website: pixelpirates.nu Your userid: 37469 Name of game(s) arranged: Metal Gear Solid 2 Name of arrangement: Solid Dancing Gear Name of individual song(s) arranged: Main Theme Edited July 12, 2023 by Liontamer closed decision Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MindWanderer Posted June 9, 2023 Share Posted June 9, 2023 Opens with some really loud, piercing synths. I can tell in the first few seconds I'm not going to be able to listen to this more than a couple of times. The ending also just sort of stops, with no resolution. It seemed a bit source-light to me, but I'm not going to be able to stopwatch it. Even after 2 listens, I need to let my ears recover a bit. Hopefully other judges will be able to provide more detailed feedback on the rest of the mix. But that one synth is enough for me to give it an immediate NO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prophetik music Posted July 12, 2023 Share Posted July 12, 2023 this is another sausage, and that initial synth is just grossly over-loud. that's probably enough for me to auto-reject it right there. it doesn't get quieter either - there's just a ton of limiter slam later that prevents it from clipping. the parts outside of the lead synth have some interesting ideas - the plectral/drops synth at about 1:11 is a neat idea, and the subdued bass that's used outside of the big synth parts sounds nice. however the full band elements (at 0:43 and 1:52) are just totally crushed by the lead synth. and then it ends at the end of a loop without even a downbeat. the rest of the arrangement is...fine? i guess? the melody's adapted well to the style, it's just always exactly the same with no changes from that adaptation. this is another one that just doesn't sound like it's more than a work in progress. this is becoming a theme =( i'll again stress the importance of getting others to listen to your tracks - the workshop channel on discord is active and anyone there would tell you that the lead needs to be turned down by half before you can even start balancing anything. NO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liontamer Posted July 12, 2023 Author Share Posted July 12, 2023 Though the source tune's in play most of the time, since MindWanderer said he couldn't time out the source usage due to ear slammage, I'll do it. The track was 2:36-long, so the source tune needed to be heard at least 78 seconds for the source material to be dominant in the arrangement. Not even remotely an issue there, just noting it was asked and answered. :00-:02.5, :06-:27.5, :28.75-1:15, 1:37.5-2:21 = 113.75 seconds The saws were abrasive to start, yet actually didn't seem like a big deal. Buuuut, once those notes held for longer starting at :29, it was a lot to handle. For the intro up to :29, I did like the mixing though; loud, but I could hear the parts well. When the beats arrived at :42, they seemed to have effects on them that muddied the soundscape. prophetik mentioned "the full band elements (at 0:43 and 1:52) are just totally crushed by the lead synth", and, boy, he's on the money there. Anything you can do to let those supporting parts be better heard would be nice. It was recommended that you figure out how to not let the soundscape be slammed; I'd also say consider tweaking the lead's sound at :29 to not be so aggressive, or at least vary the lead of these verses somewhere to create more contrast. Things sounded sharp/clean again with the drop at 1:09, and I love the original writing here. The chip lead at 1:37 also sounded needlessly distant, but that may only be a personal taste thing. I hear how it's meant to provide contrast with the cleaner sections, like from 1:51-2:18 when it's joined by the beats. No matter what, great job changing the lead there at 1:37; it was only a few seconds, and I'd argue it could have continued with that sound at 1:51. I didn't mind the ending section at 2:18, but can understand -- especially given how short the track is -- how it can seem like an underwhelming resolution. To me, it's fine, and was given enough time to be digested. It's short, but to me the arrangement's already solid and substantive like this. Yes, it could be developed and varied more (which I'd appreciate), but this is sufficiently transformative, and I don't want to lose sight of that. There's a genre change, it's got a different groove, there's varied textures and dynamic contrast, there's good original writing both integrated with and trading off with the arranged source tune. I'm fine with this arrangement passing as is, and my suggestions about the lead fatigue are more in the nice-to-have category. Great base here, Tobaunta & Fredrik! If you can also rein in the production, count me in. NO (resubmit) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts