Liontamer Posted December 9, 2007 Share Posted December 9, 2007 * Your ReMixer name: Kautzman * Your real name: Michael D. Kautzman * Your email address: MKautzm@gmail.com * Your website: N/A * Your userid: 22695 * Name of game(s) arranged: N64 - Super Mario 64 * Name of individual song(s) arranged: Dire Dire Docks. * Your own comments about the mix, for example the inspiration behind it, how it was made, etc.: I've been doing Piano Arrangements for quite some time and finally received the resources to break out of that barrier and do more with music. This song started out as me experimenting with Reason and as I added more to it, the more I decided I could turn it into something. This is the final result of my experimentation. At it's core, it's nothing "in your face" special. It's not supposed to be. It's fairly simple and stays true to the original arrangement and is designed to be a song you just listen to for the purpose of relaxation. I didn't want to do anything to outlandish on my first song. Nothing overly exciting happens until about 1:50. Up until then, it's all setup, progression, and smooth melodies. The second half the song is based heavily on counter melodies with a variety of instruments and exist to really spice up the mix a bit. The chord progression, for the most part, remains intact. It's a very progressive song in that it builds on itself for the entire song and climaxes at 3:00~ before dieing into a soft outro at the very end. As I said before, it's simple, but elegant and I hope you enjoy it. Regardless of acceptance or rejection, if you have time, I would enjoy feedback, criticisms and suggestions from your team if you have time. The name, as per request of my sister, is "Underwater Wonderland." Thanks~ Micheal Kautzman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarkeSword Posted December 9, 2007 Share Posted December 9, 2007 Percussion is really repetitive throughout, and is lacking in any kind of strong kick element. I think that's really important in the case of a beat like you have here. 1:54 note choices are really bad. I see what you tried to do with moving outside the major key scale, but you've layered it over the melody and notes just clash. You're lacking in bass instruments too; your strings and pads are for the most part mid-range stuff, along with your piano melody, and you haven't really found a balance in the sound. Synths further crowd the soundscape as the piece progresses and you really start to lose focus around the 3:00 mark and then just continue repeating over and over again until the song ends. I think you got caught up in the layering approach, but didn't really give a lot of consideration as to how the layers actually interacted with each other. As the composer, it's very easy for you to filter out the layers that were introduced early in the arrangement because you understand what you're listening for, but the listener isn't part of your composing process; they just hear the end product with all of the layers mashed on top of each other. You have to keep that and mind and try to strike a balance; lock things together rhythmically and don't crowd the soundscape. NO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CHz Posted December 10, 2007 Share Posted December 10, 2007 I like the intro. Starts off very similar to the original, in terms of melody and instrumentation. A minute in and everything's occupying pretty much the same space; the piano, strings, and pads are all mushing into each other. Nothing really holding the track down, either. Percussion is pretty weak and there's no bass. Ugly at 1:54. The extra piano line stacked on top of the loop just sounds messy in the track. More synths come in playing original lines at 2:21 and 2:44, also taking up the same space. Everything is now pretty much indistinct at this point. And this amorphous blob of sound just repeats for a whole minute until 3:52. Give your instruments space to breathe. The arrangement sticks pretty close to the original in the beginning. There's definitely some interpretation, but the structure and sound are nearly the same. However, after 1:54, there's nothing new in source usage except for a nice little flare at 2:14-2:16; everything else after that point is additive. There's nothing wrong with additive material, but there's not really a whole lot of that either when you get down to it. I'd like to see more interpretation. NO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jillian Aversa Posted December 11, 2007 Share Posted December 11, 2007 I think you're off to a pretty good start here, Kautzman. You have most of the basic elements in place in terms of your backing, and there's nothing wrong with additive structure as long as it's done right. What you have to remember in this kind of approach, though, is that it's particularly tempting to just loop material and go on cruise-control. The main flaws I see with production here are: 1) Your lack of bass instruments to round out the sound 2) The very loud, very repetitive percussion - particularly the cheesy claps 3) Balancing of parts. DarkeSword put it nicely: "I think you got caught up in the layering approach, but didn't really give a lot of consideration as to how the layers actually interacted with each other." The main flaws with arrangement are: 1) Repetition 2) Conservativeness with the source material. You could do a lot more to add your own interpretation to the remix, with creative soloing and perhaps even an entirely original section featuring a new chord progression -- as long as it flows well with everything else. I'm a big fan of New Age and relaxation music, so don't think that you're being turned down initially because we believe every song has to go somewhere crazy and dramatic. These critiques apply regardless of genre. NO RESUB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liontamer Posted December 11, 2007 Author Share Posted December 11, 2007 http://www.zophar.net/usf/sm64usf.rar - 09 "Dire, Dire Docks" Agreed with the criticisms laid down on the production. Some parts were around the same frequencies leading to a lack of balance, making the track quality seem more lossy than it should have. I thought the opening e-piano sounded to mechanical with the note movement, and the clap groove was extremely weak. It just sounded cheap and flimsy. Even though the claps were layered, they just sounded too loud and lo-fi, interfering with the melody. Melody stayed fairly close to the source, with you taking more of the focus on changing the background elements instead. Only thing going on with the melody was some grace notes; that's moving in the right direction, sure, but it's not substantive enough all things considered, mainly because the overall atmosphere here was so stylistically similar to the original. Tempo is basically the same, melody is basically the same. Man, gotta agree with that clashing piano at 1:54. You've gotta put more thought into how stuff harmonizes. A couple of somewhat grating synths were added at 2:22 to add another dimension to the piece. The countermelody at 2:44 wasn't a bad idea, though I wasn't feeling the sound choice for it. By 3:14, especially because it's in the foreground, you end up running the melody of it into the ground through sheer repetition. Just keeps going until the very end. Keep it in more of background role to not let it get so tired, but also do something more with it. Also gonna come down on how this corny clap groove never changed substantially even once throughout the track. It just makes the whole thing composition seem static and running in place. You need to vary things up to give the track some good dynamics. You did it once at 3:52, now think of other ways you can do that. Keep at it bro. You've got some ideas that show you have the right idea regarding your arrangements, but you're not developing or evolving the concepts as much as you should be. Keep practicing. NO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts