*NO* Metroid "Kraid's Brew"

[Liontamer]

 (with more variations added)

Greetings!

 

I've always wanted to remix Kraid's theme from Metroid.  It's mega-spooky in its composition and just reeks of genius.   Watch for the drop, it's pretty wicked.   

 

Jordan

bLiNd

Edited March 11 by Liontamer
closed decision

[Liontamer]

Alright, from 1:08-1:49, it's just too loud, that's wild that the volume would spike that high. Yeezus. Alright, so the volume's making me go back to the all-important question: If the source files were lost, and the track couldn't be revised, would I still turn this down. The answer's no, so I'd YES if the arrangement side was on point. 1:56 repeats :13's section with a cut-and-paste; I didn't even mind it that much, but the the build-up to the chorus at 2:37 was still a wholesale repeat, it made the track feel underdeveloped. There were at least some differences with the SFX from 3:05-3:18.

Great base here, Jordan! Loads of strong, punchy sound design, even if my old man ears got battered. Love the interpretation and personalization of the theme, but after 1:56, there's almost no further development. More variation of any sort in the second half to move it up from being a 95% rinse-and-repeat will seal the deal!

NO (resubmit)

EDIT (10/10): More could still be done to have the second iteration of the verse stand apart from the first, but I'm on board with the edits and the sum total of what's there given the expansive treatment.

YES

Edited October 10, 2023 by Liontamer
changed vote from NO (resubmit) to YES

[prophetik music]

some mega sausage in the waveform.

intro is super spiky, i like that. the initial beat is funky too which is fun. the beat drops out at 0:41, and there's an extended build into the first mega hit at 1:08. it's really loud there! totally slammed approach. i can hear everything, at least.

there's a dropback after that and it goes back to the same thing as the intro for a few minutes. i don't get why you'd want to repeat the exact same thing wholesale - why not mix it up at least a little? there's some variation at 3:05 like LT said but it's still the same as before. if i wanted to listen to the same track again, i'd just repeat it. OCR used to allow for a lot of repetition in tracks, but that was like fifteen years ago. what's here isn't acceptable based on our current bar =/

unfortunately, i have to evaluate this as being a track that's under two minutes long, since that's all that's here, with the other 50% being copypasta. with that two minutes, what you have is really neat and i think it's a great listen. there's several distinct sections, you've got some fun synth and sfx work going on, the initial beat is really great. i think the part starting at 1:08 is too loud, but at least it's all audible. it's too bad then that half the track is repeated, because if it was another 30s longer with some other content - even original - i'd probably pass it.

 

 

NO

edit 10/11: so 1:56 is the pivot point to the second section. the initial part with the strings is the same, as is the initial filtered element after it. starting at about 2:37, the build is much different, and then the beat under the main synth at 2:51 is different with new breaks and sfx. the following section and outro is the same and it still doesn't really have an ending. i am leaning towards this still not being enough different - if this wasn't jordan, would we be passing it?  - so i'm switching to a ?.

 

UNSURE

edit 1/8: if this wasn't jordan, i wouldn't be unsure. i'd say no. so i need to say no here.

NO

Edited January 8 by prophetik music

[Chimpazilla]

I just talked to Jordan, he asked about this and I told him the vote was going south due to the repetitiveness.  He is going to make changes to it right away and resub before this even gets closed out.  Hold further votes until then please.

Edit:  He made the changes already and the OP has been updated with a new link.

Edited October 9, 2023 by Chimpazilla

[MindWanderer]

Wow, this is crazy loud. Right off the bat I had to cut the volume to 3/4 of my normal listening level, and at 1:08 I had to cut it down to 2/3. And then it drops so low at 2:23-2:50 that I could barely hear it. There's nowhere I can set my volume where it doesn't either blow out my eardrums or be too quiet to make out. That alone is enough of an issue for me to vote for sending this back.

As for the repetitiveness, yeah, it's still two loops. There are some differences in the percussion, in the rise, and in the FX, and that does help a lot. I'd consider 2:37-3:19 to be different enough from 0:54-1:35, though not by a ton.  But that still leaves 64 seconds of the loop that I'd consider effectively copy-pasta, which is 29% of the total length. Too much. I'll add Clementine's temperature visualizer for emphasis:

The loop is really obvious when you see it like that. Again, I give credit for audible differences that are too subtle for that visualizer to pick up, but it still gives you an idea of the problem.

NO

[Emunator]

It's... fine? Yeah, I feel like I'm coming to the same conclusion on all of Jordan's submissions lately. The underlying production quality is absolutely undeniable, and the adaptation of the source material is brimming with creativity at its core, but the arrangement is phoned in. It's very obvious when making comparisons to his older tracks, where the arrangements were much more unpredictable and high-effort. I'd love to see a return to that, but all that said, there's a lot of greatness here that can't be ignored. I'm also a lot softer on repetition than some of the other judges, so at the end of the day, it passes the vibe check. Barely!

YES (borderline)

[Flexstyle]

Ahhhh Jordan, you're better than this. Gimme some kind of variation that isn't just a bass patch swap at the end -- do something with the lead melody notes to make it spicier, play the melody on a different instrument halfway through the drop, drop into a different bass-heavy genre the second time around, or SOMETHING. You can follow an EDM playbook and still get something interesting if you just do those things. It'd be even better if you were to take that melody and really do some variation: swap instruments, iterate on where it's going, whatever. This song is copy-paste from one half to the other with just a couple loops swapped out or added, and you use the same lead instrument throughout the entirety of both drops -- something I'd bust a newbie's chops for, let alone a veteran! Plus, that first drop's bass sounds are just grating. Second drop's bass tones are better and less piercing.

So, here's what I'd LOVE to see, and this is gonna be hella specific to exactly what I know you're able to do: take your bass loops from the second drop and replace the ones in the first drop with them. Use a different instrument for the lead (and make a variation of your arpeggio of the source tune) halfway through that first drop. Get rid of your second half of the song, and rebuild it: do something similar enough to what you did already for the build, but then modulate to a new key (?) and drop into a psytrance (or trap or something) drop that then integrates the source in a fresh way. Let the instruments from the first drop make a cameo part way, but don't rely on them. End the song from there. It would be SO SICK. 

C'mon, I know you've got it in you!

NO (resubmit)

(in case anyone reading this in the decisions forum doesn't know: bLiNd and I have collaborated a LOT over the years, and I consider him a good friend and an inspiration over the course of decades -- this isn't me just bullying someone!)

[XPRTNovice]

Love the drop at 1:19, very satisfying. That like...trash can lid thing hitting in the back starting at 1:25 ish is realllly overwhelming though, like threw me right out of that nice part of the piece. 

I have to say though - are we judging pieces based on who submits them, or on the piece itself? Regardless of whether or not we might expect better or different from Jordan, you cannot deny that this piece, if submitted by a first-timer, would sail over the bar and we'd all be saying "Man this guy is good." Yes, it's a little repetitive, sure, but there's no denying the quality of production and the source usage.

 

YES

[Flexstyle]

On 2/12/2024 at 9:30 AM, XPRTNovice said:

I have to say though - are we judging pieces based on who submits them, or on the piece itself? Regardless of whether or not we might expect better or different from Jordan, you cannot deny that this piece, if submitted by a first-timer, would sail over the bar and we'd all be saying "Man this guy is good." Yes, it's a little repetitive, sure, but there's no denying the quality of production and the source usage.

TBH I'd still NO-RESUB anything that was this blatant of a copy-paste. Gotta show some effort for arrangement, can't just make half a song and then double it up!

[prophetik music]

On 2/12/2024 at 11:30 AM, XPRTNovice said:

Love the drop at 1:19, very satisfying. That like...trash can lid thing hitting in the back starting at 1:25 ish is realllly overwhelming though, like threw me right out of that nice part of the piece. 

I have to say though - are we judging pieces based on who submits them, or on the piece itself? Regardless of whether or not we might expect better or different from Jordan, you cannot deny that this piece, if submitted by a first-timer, would sail over the bar and we'd all be saying "Man this guy is good." Yes, it's a little repetitive, sure, but there's no denying the quality of production and the source usage.

 

YES

agree with Flex. this isn't "a little repetitive", it's half a track. if anything, it being jordan is why i gave it a ? at first when he resubbed the second version.

[Chimpazilla]

Alright, I have been putting off voting on this, because.  But if I must vote, it has to be a NO.  The layout of this song is:  intro, build, drop, same build, same drop (no outro).  I find this disappointing because the track is very cool and the production is top notch.  Jordan reached out to me about the voting on the track, and I let him know that he needed to make some changes to get rid of the repetition, and what he did (in 15 minutes) is:

2:37-2:51 different buildup drum loop and added white noise sweep used over the same buildup

2:51-3:18 different neuro-bass loops over the same drop (loops sound extremely similar even though they are literally different loops)

There are no other changes made anywhere in the track.  I just laid the sections together and carefully A/B'd to be sure.  I love Jordan's works of course, but this one does not meet OCR's arrangement standards.  I would love to hear this again with more creativity in the arrangement.  A drumless breakdown with some melodic or rhythmic surprises would be so great, followed by a second drop that is different in significant ways from the first drop, then a real outro.  I agree with Flexstyle, I know Jordan can do this (and Flex had some wicked arrangement suggestions!).

NO (resubmit)

[DarkSim]

Hearing this for the first time, and I'm in agreement with Joe here. It's a pretty uninspired arrangement, but there are differences in the choruses, the build to the second drop is better, and production is excellent. It's loud, but everything is crystal clear. Source is all over it.

It's hard not to be swayed by the greatness we've come to expect from bLiNd, but even an off-form track from Jordan is still above our standards. Like Joe said, if this was a newcomer we'd all be in awe of the skills on show. Regardless of how much better it could be from the artist, it's gotta be a pass.

YES

[Gario]

It's bLiNd, so the production is about as good as I can expect - pretty much without blemish - and I like the central ideas and build-up that the track is based upon. I can't ignore that 0:14 - 0:55 is the same as 1:56 - 2:37, as is 1:43 - 1:56 the same as 3:25 - 3:38, with other sections having relatively subtle changes that are tricky to distinguish unless you listen to them side by side. I'm with Flexstyle, I've sent back less repetition in the past, this isn't going above and beyond the standards to ask that there my less direct repetition; there's plenty in here to build off of to make a great track, which unfortunately sounds like half of a track that got sent on repeat at the moment.

NO

[Rexy]

Way to make me feel split for weeks, Jordan. As usual, your production quality is top-notch, with amazing bass and distortion effects, smooth string articulations befitting the tone, juicy effects, and a strong balance that packs a wallop. There's just not much to say about this one other than you know what you're doing regarding the sound design.

But then we've got the arrangement, which is a considerable debate. On the first listen, I heard the structure being two loops with slight variations, which isn't too much of a concern on the surface. I have seen the arguments about there being not enough differences, but here's what I've been able to figure out.

Comparing 0:13-0:40 and 1:56-2:23, I hear a swung sizzling hi-hat on top of the previously established groove, which didn't change otherwise. Comparing 0:40-1:08 and 2:23-2:51, the build to the drop differs, as is the inclusion of low-passed drums for the first half. Then we got the drops at 1:08-1:35 and 2:51-3:18, and both used different LFO effects. The only identical segments are your loop endings, and considering that's how the track also ends, it does leave us with the impact of a wet sponge.

So, there are more tweaks than some of the naysayers have said. However, they are primarily percussive and additive, not so much on source notation. Flexstyle has the right ideas for changing things and keeping the tone as an EDM / dubstep track. Yet, I'm all for seeing more melodic textural changes rather than going for elaborate key modulations or sudden genre changes. I'm talking about sections where we may have more pads and the melody on a piano-like instrument, or having a dubstep bass wub through the A-section melody line, or even a vast dramatic polysynth takeover.

Honestly, it was difficult to see where this stands, primarily because I was asking, "Are percussive tweaks enough to make a difference?" - to which I have concluded that this track needs more than that. I'd love to see another version with tweaks done with melodic texture variation on that second loop, which I am confident is achievable.

NO (resubmit)