Liontamer Posted November 3, 2007 Share Posted November 3, 2007 Could have given the form letter, but I let it slide; maybe y'all can offer some advice - LT Hi, I would like to submit the following remix for consideration: Remixer name: Notofficial Real name: Gareth M Williams Email Address: Gazz@Notofficial.co.uk Website: http://www.notofficial.co.uk OCRemix User ID: 22260 Name of Game arranged: R-Type (Commodore 64) Name of Individual Song Arranged: Title Theme Name of Original Composer: Chris Hülsbeck Name of System: Commodore 64 Link to Original: http://hafnium.prg.dtu.dk/~theis/stil/html/text/Huelsbeck_Chris.htm Comments: I know I am not the only person to have fallen in love with the visceral electro hook of the title music, only found on the c64 version of R-Type; although some remixes already exist for this track, none of them seem to capture the visceral energy of the original. This remix attempts to deliver the power of the original track whilst staying largely faithful to the arrangement and thematic content. Kind regards, Notofficial --------------------------------------------------------------- Pretty cool source tune choice. It's about 2 minutes long, and full of SID-groove bias. "This remix attempts to deliver the power of the original track whilst staying largely faithful to the arrangement and thematic content." I've seen both good and bad mixes of that description. http://www.exotica.org.uk/tunes/archive/C64Music/MUSICIANS/H/Huelsbeck_Chris/R-Type.sid - Subtune 1 Cool voice sample opening. Opens with the direct sampled SID at :07 with some channels dropped and some new beats added at :11. Not boding well at the outset, but things changed up. Moved over into some drumloops and some cheap-sounding piano sequencing from :26-:42 before awkwardly transitioning back to the sampled SID at :46. Cool sweeps first used at :52 & 1:00. So far, literally nothing but the sampled SID being used with some new beats until 1:32, so definitely over 1/4th of the track. Then even MORE drumloops at 1:39 and the cheap-sounding piano sequencing again from 1:47-2:02, before transitioning FINALLY to some real arrangement of the SID at 2:06. The treatment of the melody was interesting with the processing, but the other sounds and beats used were flimsy and didn't adequately fill out the texture enough. Back to the direct sampled SID with (good) muffled effects from 2:37-2:50, then dropping it in the background at 2:53-3:23 in a purely supplementary role that was ok. Just a weak transition at 3:23, the sections have no flow to them in this track. The crappy sequenced piano and drumloops AGAIN at 3:31 & 3:38. Why do you keep going back to those rubbish loops? Back to direct sampling the SIDtune at 4:02 to close out the track. There's just way too much direct sampling of the original game audio and way too much loop usage, both of which are heavily discouraged here and simply not what we're about if you read our Submission Standards for arrangement. That's not "staying faithful" to the original, just direct-sampling the SIDtune. Aside from some minor production variations, the arrangement was repetitive. The structure of the track wasn't cohesive at all, and the R-Type melody's given no meaningful interpretation or expansion. This would be more at home at Remix.Kwed.Org, but even there I can't imagine it getting beyond average marks. NO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zircon Posted November 21, 2007 Share Posted November 21, 2007 The amount of direct sampling from the source here is definitely a bit too much, even though I like how the kick sidechains it. Plus, The production level is here is pretty nice. The piano/drumloops that come in when the main big beat isn't playing aren't that great, though. The piano is really mechanical and lo-fi, while the drumloop doesn't have much energy. Then from :46 or so to 1:30 its just total repetition, no melody or anything. 1:30 itself is sort of just repeating the earlier piano/drumloop break from before. At 2:01 there's finally some new stuff, and it's actually melodic, but it's really bare and spare with just the simple beat underneath and a bit of other harmony material. This tends to rely on the beat to drive it, and while the beat is good, it's not strong enough to propel the entire arrangement, considering all the direct sampling. While there are some creative ideas with synths, voice sample chopping, and some of the backing pads, nothing is really developed. It tends to default on the same small handful of ideas over the course of the mix. You really need more arrangement of the source tune, varying it up and also layering more instruments into your mix. If you don't want to add any more layers, then at least you should remove the direct sampling and replace it with your own original synths that should hopefully personalize the aspects of the source that you like. There's a lot of melody in the source that could have been used here, but wasn't. There are definitely opportunities to make your remix more developed and expanded, especially considering it seemed like you had a number of creative ideas. Hope you keep at it and submit more. NO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarkeSword Posted November 21, 2007 Share Posted November 21, 2007 This mix feels like a lot of initial statements without further developemen. "Here's an idea. Okay here's another one. Try this one." There are a lot of interesting ideas here, but they don't get the attention or development the deserve. The piano in particular really disappoints me; you comes in with that, you could really layer in a nice non-gating bassline, something funky to fit with the percussion and syncopation of the chords. It's so lo-fi, and it builds and stutters out nicely, but it really feels like it could come in NOT lo-fi along with some other accompniment. This could take on a house feel. There's a sparseness that pervades this mix. So many sections are just lacking in a meaty bassline. The arrangement is also kind of repetitive; you could have utilized more of the source. Not a bad sub, but a NO nonetheless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts