Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Gario

*NO* Chrono Cross 'Ancient Reverie'

4 posts in this topic

Posted (edited)

RebeccaETripp
Rebecca Tripp

http://www.crystalechosound.com/
ID: 48262

Game(s): Chrono Cross
Song Title: Ancient Reverie
Songs Remixed: Dragon’s Wish/Dragon’s Prayer
Comments: 
 
Edited by Liontamer
closed decision

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Man, I've been sitting on this one for quite some time, here. On first listen, I thought it was amazing - the orchestration is tasteful, the instruments are humanized very effectively (minor complaint about the cello lead's attack envelop in the beginning aside), and the structure makes sense. Then I listened to the source to compare, and... well, it's hard for me to call this a "ReMix". The source is well orchestrated using virtually the same instruments, and the source structure is solid (which outside of drawing out the ending this arrangement follows to the note).

I could see an argument saying this is a varied enough arrangement based on some of the backing woodwinds, a few trills on the piano and harp here and there, and the ending being a different variation of the source. For me, though, the textures mirror the source's instrumentation, the style is virtually identical, the themes share the same instruments, the pacing is the same... I'm thinking this is cover territory.

My first impression still stands - it's STILL a gorgeous piece in it's own right - but going based on OCR's standards I'm afraid I've got to turn this one down. Thanks for sending it our way, though, as I still got a kick out of it.

NO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The first half is certainly a very close orchestration to the original, and if that were all there was to this remix I think it would hard to justify.  However, at about 2:12 it does branch off into more creative territory.  It's not quite half of the arrangement, but it's close.  Historically, remixes that are half very close covers and half more original do have the potential to pass overall.

That being said, the original content here doesn't go very far.  2:25-3:28 consists entirely of variations on the same simple 8-note progression, and the next and final 30 seconds are wind-down.  So what we have is a first half that's arranged too conservatively and a second half that's arranged too simply and repetitively.  Either way, there's a lack of the creative interpretation we look for.  Production and composition are strong, but I think for our purposes this has to be a

NO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On a small note, I have to admit I went "eww" on the flat, plunky piano that was briefly there at 2:19; it was in and out briefly, so it wasn't a big deal, but it did come back a few times in that second half. Try to better humanize that sound; while you may get by on sound quality with the higher piano notes, the lack of realism's very exposed for the lower notes.

I didn't like MindWanderer saying that the 2:25-3:28 section was too simple in terms of the arrangement treatment; it did build off of a short, core idea, but I thought there was clear effort given to evolve the textures around the source reference with the original writing and changing instrumentation. If that second half had been part of an arrangement that was more interpretive overall, I don't think this section would/should have been viewed as problematic relative to the Standards here, so I don't want the artist to take away the wrong conclusion from that point.

That said, I agreed with MW and Gario that while this was a great listen in a vacuum, nearly the whole the first half being so structurally and instrumentally close to the source tune was a dealbreaker as far as the level of interpretation. It's just not a fit for OCR on that level, but that doesn't mean it isn't still an enjoyable cover. If you were ever interested in revisiting this one, Rebecca, I know you could reinstrument this or otherwise add in more of your own personal flair and ideas into the first half to more substantially differentiate it from the original piece. I look forward to your submissions as always; keep 'em coming!

NO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0