Chimpazilla Posted June 22, 2015 Share Posted June 22, 2015 (edited) previous decision ReMixer name: Deedubs Real name: Mike DeWeese Email address: User ID#: 52934 Game arranged: The Legend of Zelda: Link's Awakening Arrangement name: Home is Where the Hearts Are Song arranged: House Source: The general consensus on my original submission was that the arrangement sounded far too robotic. It was funny to open the project again after 10 months and see just how lazy I was with the quantization. I went through the entire track and did my best to make the quantization much less rigid using the randomize function of Cubase, as well as manually changing the timing and/or velocity of just about every note. I also put much more automation on the tempo. Hopefully everything sounds much more humanized, and hopefully I didn't overdo it and make it sound clunky. There were also some comments about the sound of the piano being too muffled, and understandably so. I've learned MUCH more about mixing since the original submission, so I stuck with Cinesamples Piano in Blue and replaced the reverb with a much subtler one, changed the mic positions a little, and did some EQing. As I continue to work on my ear, hopefully these changes achieved a much more even tone. Finally, there's a slight melody change at 2:21. Thanks again! Edited August 7, 2015 by Liontamer closed decision Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chimpazilla Posted June 22, 2015 Author Share Posted June 22, 2015 It still sounds like sequenced piano, but this is MUCH better. The sample sounds improved, even if it's the same sample as before. I still dig this arrangement! The note volumes are much better now, the timing is still a bit stiff, but I think it's getting the job done well enough now. There's just a bit of resonance in the sample when you listen to it loudly, but it seems that most piano samples have this issue, at least I'm finding that to be the case. I'm not sure what can be done about this, does any other judge know? The jump in volume at 1:53 feels awkward and fake, like I can tell it was automated up and that bugs me a little bit. Anyway, I'm going to vote yes this time, and here are my words of praise from the previous vote: Well I am loving this arrangement! I love that you started off in 4/4 and then at 1:38 you switch to 3/4. Ah, I just love mixed time signature tracks. You really did justice to this little source. The transitions are smooth, and the interpreted sections are really lovely. The writing gets almost a bit too original sometimes, but always comes back to identifiable source. At 3:02 it's back to 4/4, smooth as buttah. NICE. YES Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jivemaster Posted June 23, 2015 Share Posted June 23, 2015 Nice piano track, enjoy what you've done here. I haven't heard your original, so I can only go off what I'm hearing here. This is a pretty solid piano take of the original, even if it does sound robotic in spots. The main thing that hit me was I thought the reverb was a little on the dry side. Looking at your comments you have stated you were asked to ease off on it. I feel like this could do with a little more, but it's nothing to knock you back on. Interesting all the way through with a lot of changes, nice job. YES Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liontamer Posted June 23, 2015 Share Posted June 23, 2015 This is definitely a huge improvement. That said, I'm still not on board yet, even though it's close. There were some badly exposed spots with the sample tone sounding thin & fake when the performance was meant to sound forceful, e.g. :38:-40, 2:04-2:16, 3:39-3:45. Mainly though, this is still too rigidly timed despite the improvements; 1:05-1:09, 1:25-1:38 sounded too rigid in particular, but really most of the timing still feels too stilted & robotic (when the piano doesn't have a super delicate sound that mitigates the issue). It's close, and I won't have a problem with it passing, but IMO this needs one more pass to humanize the timing even more. Right now, it lingers too much in the uncanny valley. NO (resubmit) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarkeSword Posted July 6, 2015 Share Posted July 6, 2015 I think this sounded pretty good, but the danger of trying to sequence solo piano is that you're going to run into the problem of having your one instrument completely exposed. You can't rely on percussion or accompanying instruments to mask the sequenced quality of your work. I feel like Larry's right here; it's sitting in that uncanny valley. My suggestion? Export MIDI data to sheet music and collaborate with a pianist. Maybe I'm being nitpicky, but a solo piano piece needs to absolutely nail the performance. NO, resub Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liontamer Posted July 6, 2015 Share Posted July 6, 2015 My suggestion? Export MIDI data to sheet music and collaborate with a pianist. Palpable has helped polish up some sequenced piano pieces in the past. He may not be available to do any of that while he's in Vietnam, but he may have some advice or suggestions that Mike can apply. I don't want to imply that a live performer is the main or only way this can get posted; it ain't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
djpretzel Posted July 16, 2015 Share Posted July 16, 2015 This is definitely a huge improvement. That said, I'm still not on board yet, even though it's close. There were some badly exposed spots with the sample tone sounding thin & fake when the performance was meant to sound forceful, e.g. :38:-40, 2:04-2:16, 3:39-3:45. Mainly though, this is still too rigidly timed despite the improvements; 1:05-1:09, 1:25-1:38 sounded too rigid in particular, but really most of the timing still feels too stilted & robotic (when the piano doesn't have a super delicate sound that mitigates the issue). It's close, and I won't have a problem with it passing, but IMO this needs one more pass to humanize the timing even more. Right now, it lingers too much in the uncanny valley. NO (resubmit) I agree with everything Larry wrote. This is actually pretty rare! Nothing to add beyond what he wrote. NO (resubmit) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Palpable Posted July 29, 2015 Share Posted July 29, 2015 Palpable has helped polish up some sequenced piano pieces in the past. He may not be available to do any of that while he's in Vietnam, but he may have some advice or suggestions that Mike can apply. I don't want to imply that a live performer is the main or only way this can get posted; it ain't. Actually, I helped polish up some performed piano pieces for the site, so everything I did was at the mastering stage. Unfortunately, I don't have a ton of suggestions for sequenced solo piano but I do have a couple. That is apart from getting a pianist to play it. If you have a MIDI controller, play in some of the more troublesome sections yourself, even if you're not a pianist. I HAVE done that before in short spurts and it can really help when you're not sure how to click it in but know how it should sound. Yeah, it sucks when you can't do it in one take because you're not a piano player, but I can usually get the barebones of the realistic quality I want in 10 takes, which I can then polish with the mouse. Truth be told, I didn't think the sequencing was awful - probably a borderline NO for me. There's a few runs in a row where the timing is too rigid and staccato, and of course the runs all being in a row really makes it stand out as fake. I think note lengths and damper use would really help those parts, it should sound more connected and have more of a rise and fall. Some of that comes down to personal taste, but if we're all hearing it as fake, something is off. Best of luck to you, I really enjoyed the arrangement. NO (resubmit) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clem Posted August 1, 2015 Share Posted August 1, 2015 Nice take on a great tune. A modern inflected baroque style that transitions well into blurry arpeggios, romanticism reminiscent of Chopin. I agree with the NOs that a live performance is almost always preferable for a solo piece, but the arrangement is strong and I think a lot of people will dig this. Being midi sequenced, there is naturally some stiffness, but the mixer kept it smooth with subtle note velocity & timing tweaks. YES Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nutritious Posted August 4, 2015 Share Posted August 4, 2015 Still feeling some rigidness in the sequencing here, especially on faster note runs or when there is a series of eighth notes all in a row. The song feels a bit lopsided in this regard, actually, because there are sections which sound much more on point with humanization (3:10 - 3:39, for example), while other whole sections are too stiff or even-toned (1:54-2:16). I think Larry nailed it here. This one's really close, but I definitely think you can get there with a bit more polish on the sequencing. A tad more reverb could help as well (don't go overboard, though). NO resubmit, please Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DragonAvenger Posted August 7, 2015 Share Posted August 7, 2015 Going with what most of the guys said here: the arrangement is really great with a lot of harmonic variations and adaptions. It feels almost like a theme and variations, which is a nice touch. I'm pretty borderline on the sound quality here, and I think Larry is right in the end that it needs a bit more polish to smooth out some of the sections that are still feeling too stiff. Please get this one back to us!No DragonAvenger 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts