[Liontamer]

Name = Prasa U. (prasakodees[AT]gmail.cOm)
Game remixed = Syberia : PC game, Microids (Music by Dimitri Bodiansky, Nicolas Varley)

Hello,

As Syberia is not the most popular game in existence, I've included two clips from the original tunes. Most of the original material in the piece are derived from the original themes or chord progressions.
The first part of this orchestral arrangement revolves around the main theme & variations of the main theme, the middle is based the second "explore" theme, and then the end is a return the beginning ideas.
Starts in C major, modulates to Am, goes to D for the restatement, then modulates to the dominant to finish. My purpose with this mix was to exhibit the subdued wonder, awe, and serenity in the game. The volume is a bit low because I needed to prevent clipping in the louder dynamic sections. The link to the mix may remain if it doesn't make it.

[Malcos]

Thanks to the remixer for providing the source tune. I really enjoy the harmonies in this mix, and the reverb seems just right. Around the 3 minute mark there was a little mushiness with the string section and the brass, but that is a minor point. Everything is here - dynamics, rearrangement, good production. The arrangement is particularly engaging here. The full source tunes are not here for complete comparison, but from what I have to go on here, a very strong

YES

[Liontamer]

In the future, be aware that providing the entire source tune is much better than a clip. You can always highlight what portion of the sources provided most of the ideas for the arrangement if necessary. Providing whole tracks just makes it easier to verify that the tracks are indeed from the game.

Thanks to CHz, as usual, for the obscure soundtrack hookup. There are thankfully only 5 tracks, so I got lucky. I was just commenting to 'Ili that the game synopsis for Syberia was one of the strangest I'd heard of. Interesting premise, and certainly an interesting game choice to arrange.

Syberia (Game Rip) - music0 & music3

The samples here pale in comparison to the organic originals, but they're ok and there's some good ideas within the piece for making it more grandiose.

I agreed with Malcos in that there are some mushy souding parts, but felt like there were more affected areas. :53-1:13, 2:41-3:19, 3:27-3:33 & 4:39 felt pretty lossy and seemed like there were some light areas of distortion or crowding. Could have to do with some of the lower-sounding instruments, I wouldn't know for sure, but if any other J has some tips to mitigate those issues, we can pass those along and request a re-encoding.

In any case, solid stuff on the arrangement side to give this a different, more dynamic feel than the original while remaining in the same genre, always a difficult task. The sample quality is a little on the bleh side as I've heard these sounds so many times, but they're used capably enough to put things enough on the affirmative side of the bar. Cool game choice, Prasa, and good luck with the rest of the vote. If passed, we'd need a refined version to fix those buzziness problems.

YES

EDIT (7/26): Listening to this a few more times, my production issues were valid, but I don't think they were impactful enough where we'd need a tweaked version. I'm ok with it going up as is.

[pixietricks]

A few gripes to start off with:

1. Introducing the mix with a cello solo... Hmm, good idea, but the sample (w/ cheesy vibrato) sounds too exposed.
2. Harp is too loud for a realistic orchestral setting.
3. The 2:28 transition into major was a little abrupt.
4. Brass samples are thin, as has already been pointed out.

All that being said, the main problem I find here is in the arrangement itself. While you've changed some things here and there, it all sounds much too similar to the source in terms of key, instrumentation, and mood. I have no trouble believing this piece as performable in the real world, but I just don't take anything *new* away from this in the end. I'd like to hear a much more personal interpretation, especially considering the samples were a bit of a downgrade from the source.

NO

[zircon]

I wouldn't say the samples in the originals were really "organic"... they sounded rather unimpressive to me. While this mix sounds marginally better (IMO) it still sounds a little on the fake side. pixietricks pointed out some of the issues I had. The swell at 3:09 is really nice, but for most of the mix things sound kind of flat to me. However, nothing is egregiously bad or fakey, and we have certainly passed mixes sounding less realistic than this. In short, I don't think there are any major production issues. Looking at some of those muddier areas that Larry pointed out would be wise though. The low volume thing you noted is no big deal.

The orchestration was solid on the whole. One thing I did notice though was was the reliance on crashes to transition between sections. Sure, it's a good way to segue from one part to another, and I've even done it in my own mixes, but it felt like that was the main vehicle of changing from one part to the other for the entire song, and it was executed in a similar way every time. It's not really a major problem, looking at the big picture, but it's something that jumped out at me even on my first casual listen.

The arrangement of the originals was, in my opinion, a little too close for comfort. The execution was very similar, and the general mood and style from the two sources was not changed. While there was actual variation and the addition of new material, it felt more like an upgrade to the source tunes, smoothing them both together, rather than an entirely new interpretation. When I jump around in the first source, for example, and then do the same in the remix, it REALLY feels very similar across the board. This doesn't sit well with me. I think in order for this to be at or above our bar, you should consider more drastic changes from the original in terms of tempo, instrumentation, rhythms, and overall mood. Until then;

NO

[big giant circles]

As far as I can hear by comparison, despite the style being extremely similar in the ReMix to what the original's are, I still get the impression that the ReMix is more like a separate movement on it's own, and there's some lovely partwriting and composition otherwise.

Samples could be better, but they're certainly nothing to sneer at, and I tend to be picky when it comes to samples.

I'd say this is well enough above the bar.

YES

[The Orichalcon]

The thicker sections sound all right on my new headphones (which are great btw.) I think if anything, the mids could be dropped just the tiniest fraction to thin the crowding, but it's really nothing worth doing. The arrangement is the key to this track being enjoyable, but I do admit it is very damn similar to the source from the game, which is a damn cool track.

I'm hesitant to pass something that references the source so closely in both arrangement AND genre. I'm finding myself agreeing strongly with zircon's final paragraph. Maybe take this one back and try out some more unique rearrangement ideas.

NO

[zyko]

i took notice of this mix on two distinct angles: the first is in terms of purpose, mood. it definetly is very expressive as a orchestral poem... it tells a story and is versatile in doing so by using a lot of different instruments and dynamic elements. from this angle, the track looks fantastic.

the mix does not look so fantastic from the angle of its execution. you managed to stuff a lot of things right smack in the middle of the spectrum and it gets really mushy in there. you also left some instruments bare and exposed that you probably shouldn't have... like the cello at the front. like zircon mentioned, you use crashes as your transitions too often. i'm not saying that it isn't stylistically great... i'm just saying that beating us to death with the crash cymbal is an awfully tinny way to die. vary it up a bit... it makes your piece sound cookie cutter when it isn't.

this is definetly in need of a resubmit. clean it up a bit and send it our way, again

NOresubmit

[Liontamer]

In terms of the NO votes centering on arrangement value (pixie/zircon/TO), I can't glean how substantially you guys actually managed to familiarize yourselves with the originals, but I'll be upfront and hazard that it wasn't substantially enough.

I understand how these pieces, the 2 originals & the arrangement, sound similar on a very basic level. But the arrangement is nuanced enough where structural changes and more pronounced dynamic shifts are definitely there to be found, especially in the latter half.

While I'd like to give y'all the benefit of the doubt, in particular I definitely don't understand how 3:03-onward arranging "music3" comes across as too similar in terms of instrumentation and mood.

I can understand the criticisms more for the first half of the mix seeming similar to the mood of the original, "music0", in terms of a more initial-level response, but even then I don't agree at all when actually comparing the structures of the original and the arrangement side-by-side.

Just strange reading such a dichotomy of votes regarding arrangement. Given how strong those NOs were on the arrangement, and how serious a concern that is, I felt it was important to go relisten to this one and give it a fair shake. At the end of the day though, I've gotta reaffirm that I had no issues with the arrangement, only with the production/sample usage. No qualms at all standing behind it as a more dynamic and very viable arrangement in the same genre as the originals.

[JJT]

I hear plenty on the arrangement side. lots of substantive supporting parts, interpreting the main theme (rendering it in a minor key, for example), and some new segments that compliment the original nicely.

I also think there is an upgrade in sound quality (though not by a large amount).

My only issues are where the production gets muddy, but that's not enough to sway my vote.

YES