Liontamer Posted December 9, 2007 Share Posted December 9, 2007 Remix Title: Neo-Rushica Link to Remix: pixietricks edit: Link to fixed version, with no cutting off at the end: ReMixer name: tycho real name: Craig Hardgrove email address: chardgro@utk.edu website: http://www.eigenhat.com/marathon Name of game(s) arranged: Marathon Name of individual song(s) arranged: Rushing Link to the original song: Comments: Thank you for listening and evaluating --Craig Hardgrove Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarkeSword Posted December 9, 2007 Share Posted December 9, 2007 Oh man! The beats in this are pretty hot, and I love all the funky keyboard stuff. Great groove with a lot of variation for such a short mix. Speaking of which, only 1:50?! BOO. Anyway I like this. I think it's a nice take on the source, if a little short. YES Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jillian Aversa Posted December 10, 2007 Share Posted December 10, 2007 Looking forward to judging this one, but I have to ask... Is 1:51 actually the correct length? It sounds like it's cutting off at the end to me. EDIT: Ran this by Shariq, and he notices it now too. Everything drops out except the piano riff at the end, and it doesn't repeat like usual. I emailed Craig about it, so I'll post as soon as I hear back from him. EDIT #2: Okay, Craig got back to me with the fixed version; there was an error in the file host. Just as a heads up, they're basically identical in terms of length, only this one allows time for a natural decay of the sound instead of cutting off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jillian Aversa Posted December 11, 2007 Share Posted December 11, 2007 Alrighty, now that we have the fixed ending... This is good work from tycho. A rather brief, but quality arrangement. I really like the interesting percussion, bassline, and original keyboard additions -- very creative! Especially digging the little ethnic bit. ^_~ The instruments all sound well balanced; you have a nice ear for levels and panning. I guess if I could complain about one thing, it would be the obvious length of the mix. You had a lot of great things going, so I felt a little cheated when it ended so soon. Moreover, the piano riff got a little annoying after a while. It might have been nice to see you take it out from time to time and give us an entirely new section. I still think it's a good mix, though, so... YES Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liontamer Posted December 11, 2007 Author Share Posted December 11, 2007 Thanks very much for providing the source. Much like many old 8-bit themes, the simplicity of the original allows a lot of interpretation through expansion. Marathon (Game Rip) - "Rushing" The piano sequencing was lackluster, sounding mechanical on account of rigid timing as well as velocities feeling too similar. When the timing's this tight, some more pronounced performance dynamics there would have been good, e.g. the ending from 1:43-1:52/end, where the piano's the most exposed. Some more freestylish stuff from :44-:58 interpreting the source melody well, though exposing the piano again, followed by a quirky original break from :58-1:06. Surprised to not see any comments on the production. It wasn't terrible by any means but could have been more polished. 1:28-1:43 was pretty cramped, a bit surprising given that the textures weren't particularly complex. I never heard the original ending or its issues. The cutoff wasn't so bad here, but the final fadeout still wasn't complete. Overall, the arrangement is in the right direction, and does evolve decently for the 1:52 length. Given the simplicity/repetition of the original, I would have felt more comfortable though if one of the more verbatim-style iterations of the melody had been interpreted in some way; rhythms, grace notes. That did happen at some points, but could have been used just a little more, again something that sticks out more given the brevity of the arrangement. I feel like it needs to not feel repetitive in any way at this length. For something this brief, I need things to be firing on all cylinders. I'd like to see a touch more interpretation for some of the source melody usage. The ending also needs to trail off properly. This fix is serviceable, but not preferable. Those are more personal level criticisms that aren't dealbreaker issues. But I'd feel more comfortable if the realism of the piano sample was increased via more judicious post-production, as well as having the 1:28-1:43 section given better separation through EQing. It can be loud without being that cluttered, with parts tripping over each other for space. Combined with the other issues mentioned previously, and I'd rather see this refined to be at its best. To me, there were a lot of smaller issues adding up, exacerbated by how short the arrangement was. Nice work so far, Craig, just touch it up for the strong finish. NO (refine/resubmit) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CHz Posted December 11, 2007 Share Posted December 11, 2007 I've had this mix since you submitted it to VGMix. You've been on my radar since I heard your absolutely wonderful New Pacific (Reprise) mix, and I like this one a lot too. I'm not going to go too deeply into the production issues, because Larry hit, well, everything. The ending is a little better, but it still cuts off. Piano could use more work, but it's by no means the worst I've ever heard. 1:28-1:43 is really cluttered; in comparison to the rest of the track, it sticks out like a sore thumb, and not in a good way at all. Overall, these aren't really major gripes, and I can't point to a single one of them and say, "this is definitely holding the track back." What is holding it back is a combination of all of those factors and the shortness and closeness of the arrangement. I'm not trying to discount your arrangement, because in addition to all the additive stuff, there are some other touches, like 0:44-0:58 and the original break immediately thereafter. However, even for something this short, I still feel there's room for more interpretation of the source, even if it's just mixing up the piano riff more. Three or four problem areas in a two minute mix are much more noticeable than they would be spread over three or four minutes. Things don't necessarily have to be perfect for a mix this short, but the package has to be put together pretty tightly, and I just see too much room for improvement with this one. If this doesn't pass the rest of the panel, please revisit it, because I know you have the goods to get it on OCR in some form. A few production and arrangement tweaks would easily get this over my bar. NO (resubmit) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Palpable Posted December 12, 2007 Share Posted December 12, 2007 I waffled back and forth on this call, but decided I'm going with Larry and 'Ili. The mix is very short, and I think for such a mix to pass, it really has to be close to perfect. I too thought 1:28-1:43 was very cramped (even for this busy a mix). The ending, which repeats the piano figure for the umpteenth time seemed like an abrupt, unfitting way to end the song. The notes should at least decrescendo or slow down, if they don't change. In fact, throughout the song, slight volume changes and grace notes would help that figure not sound so repetitive. They don't need to be big changes. I think with basically everything else you've got, it's sounding great. I love the way the song kicks into action from note 1, and the sheer variety of segments. There's a lot of action for 2 minutes of song. Production is tight, groove excellent. I'd love to say yes to this one, but I think there's just a couple things holding it back. NO (resubmit) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zykO Posted January 3, 2008 Share Posted January 3, 2008 to borrow palp's waffle notion, i'm waffling more than belgium right now. this grooves nicely and i dig it but the track needs a little more changeups than it has now and it definitely needs a better ending. there shouldn't be such a solid movement throughout the piece and then suddenly, peace. it doesn't even make sense stylistically and i reach pretty far in terms of style... on other points, it also feels cramped at points and while it doesn't detract so much on its own, i think what Chz said was spot on; it is more or less a combination of all these things that makes it hard to pass. the piano also really does stay the same throughout the track as though on loop. it is close and it just needs a little more attention. NO resubmit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zircon Posted January 10, 2008 Share Posted January 10, 2008 This reminds me of TO's style - heavily groove-based, with a structure that tends to progress by layering new sounds. However, I don't feel like it is quite polished enough. By :29, I think the soundfield is just a little too cramped. I like layers as much as the next guy, but the execution comes across as messy. Lots of low to midrange stuff with not a lot in the high range. The piano really contributes negatively in this regard, as it plays mostly lower-range chords. I do like the organ material at 1:00 as well as the glitchy organ style sounds that follow, and in fact overall I think the production is good in terms of samples and sound design. The mastering works too, I just think that the actual amount of sounds used and how they are voiced is what causes the muddiness and squashed sound. The instruments dropping out at 1:43 is really abrupt; same goes for the actual ending of the song less than 10 seconds later. There's a distinct lack of transitions throughout, just layers being added or dropped, and that hurts the mix as a whole. The arrangement has some good material, but is too short. It's hard to get all your ideas into just 1:52; if you expanded this to 3:00 and developed some of the sections more, perhaps it would feel less crowded and the ending would be less abrupt. Additionally, more variations on the melody would be appreciated; what you have is good, but you just keep repeating it rather than trying new things. This remix isn't quite at our bar yet, but it's going in the right direction. Looking forward to hearing more from you, Craig. NO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts