Liontamer
-
Posts
13,920 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
132
Content Type
Articles
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Liontamer
-
-
Love the style of the source tune; pure Road Rash vibes.
Nice performance. I liked how the 13-second intro had a similar feel to both Chuck Rock and "La Grange" but was original writing that then integrated behind the source melody starting at :14 and stayed pretty much the whole way through. I'm more permissive on the performance side, but this sounded fluid and capable enough, no issues there. I think mixing the bassline to not sit so, so far back would have helped the writing of that part overtly contribute to having this presentation feel more interpretive; right now, it's way too quiet and might as well not even be there, so I'd love to hear that dialed up. Small thing, but I loved hearing the cymbal work from 1:42-1:57, where it stood out just a bit more than other sections. The slowdown into the ending at 2:10 was a nice finish.
It's melodically conservative, sure, but I thought the presentation was transformative enough, so I'm kind of surprised to see the differences in the tone, tempo, genre, instrumentation, and structure noted by the other Js, but then saying it's not quite transformative enough... but I'm not entirely surprised. At only 2:25-long, I can understand wanting to hear more melodic interpretation or less falling back to main melody presented in a similar way each time. (That's not helped by the bassline getting invisibilized by how it was mixed even though it's different under the melody every time.)
In any case, I'd say the differences noted along with the original introduction's line serving as a foundational background part of the arrangement are enough to put this over the top. The concept could have been extended & developed more, so if it doesn't make it, then it's an easy candidate for adding some more substance and resubmitted. But it's sufficiently personalized for me when you acknowledge all the smaller aspects of arrangement (some of them easier to overlook than others) adding up on the whole. There's lots of low-key redeeming traits; wouldn't it be more fun to be on the YES side?
I dig it, Mike. On a dinosaur, we ride.
YES
-
What did you think? Post your opinion of this ReMix.
-
Yeah, opens VERY conservatively, so we’ll have to see where this goes. 4:44’s enough room to play with, but that transformative pivot better come through.
1:22 finally has some additive string work/orchestration join in, finally having some arrangement and interaction with the main lead at 1:49. Brief but beautiful string lead at 2:30, followed by nice drums at 2:45, and this is where things take off more in terms of a different intensity and energy from the source, leading to the peak at 4:03.
Some people are gonna criticize the fade-out ending, but I’m not one of them, it’s fine.
You had me in the first half, not gonna lie, but you came through with substantial expansion and personalized this treatment well after 2:45 (and of course led into that gradually starting at 1:22).
Sometimes additional part-writing is the key distinguishing aspect of an arrangement, and that’s cool. There was enough of that together with that part-writing referencing the source and occasionally doubling the melody that the sum total is transformative with the overall composition. Nice work, Alex!
YES
-
Main melody at :38 came in sounding underwhelming despite being doubled, partly because the volume felt too low, and it was being swallowed into the soundscape. Drums are too loud relative to the other stuff, but had a good sound.
Nice change in the instrumentation at 1:05; that was unexpected. Some off-key supporting writing from 1:43-1:45 that was pretty quiet but still stood out for me. Cool textures, albeit crowded/muddy. Good drop at 1:52 for some dynamic contrast, then had the guitars get more aggressive at 2:17. Things were particularly cluttered and messy from 2:29-3:20 (really picking up the most from 2:42-on). Varying the articulartions of the string lines from 3:10-3:19 would have been nice; felt cut-and-pasted from 2:51, so don't forget to humamize the performance dynamics.
Yipes, 3:33-4:26 was a mixing nightmare. I was borderline on board with this despite the mixing issues... until that section hit. "No, sir, I don't like it." [/Mr. Horse] Perhaps it's not as muddled on monitors, but it sounds poor on headphones, beyond what I'd call my mere personal taste.
The mixing's a muddy mess for too long, so I'd love to hear another pass at that. But the personalized arrangement is strong from the bros, Seph and Josh. Let's tighten up the mixing here, give these parts more room to breathe while still retaining this strong intensity.
NO (resubmit)
-
OK, grabbed my attention with an original intro that wasn't connected to the source; since the source has such a signature opening, I was expecting it, so just noting it was a pleasent surprise. Warbling synth sounded generic, but the overall opening texture had power, even if it was missing clarity/sharpness, and it was a solid groove to start. Nice touch of original writing at :12 before bringing in the source melody.
Arranged melody arrived at :15 with some basic but effective tweaks to the notes, buuuut the soundscape's muddy and lacks clarity/higher frequencies. There's a background synth that functions kind of like a pad, but I could barely hear it; would it be impossible to allow that to come through more?
That main snap to the beat right at the start that plays at every measure, you've gotta vary the timing of that sound, because it's making the core of this sound plodding and basic. It's fine for the intro, but once you move into the meat of the track, even just altering that snap on the 3rd and/or 4th beat, or 1st and 3rd beat, would lend some variety. Right now, it undercuts the groove you're aiming to establish with the rest of the writing.
The synth starting the chorus from :29-:35 was bland and could be changed to have more contrast with the tone of the lead part before it. I did enjoy the changes in the lead at :35 and :39; cool tradeoff idea. IMO, the beats have basic writing with a solid sound, but they're too loud compared to everything else.
Another different lead at :49 that I didn't like, paired with some bass wobbles. Better lead choices at 1:03 and 1:17. There's a bassline/countermelody that was pulled back from 1:17-1:30, which was too much and made the track feel empty.
The groove from 1:03-1:30, including the bass writing, feels longer and more plodding than it should; because the timing feels very locked to grid, the writing needs to be more varied and sophisticated to retain interest, otherwise, the loop quickly gets bland and tiring.
Nice dropoff at 1:30. Damn, same groove back again at 1:37, but then some niiiiiiiiiiiice synth soloing from 1:44-1:58. Man... where was this kind of stuff ANYWHERE else? THAT was fresh as hell, and had a live/played-in feel instead of feeling locked to grid. Yet it didn't even last 15 seconds. If you can get your sequencing to sound more organic and flowing like that, you'd be absolutely killing it.
It'll sound like I'm saying you're not capable of meeting today's standard. Having been a fan here since 2002, this track, as is, would have been accepted here in 2000-2002 when the bar was lower, and it would have been looked at very fondly. When I say that, there's transformation and creativity behind the arrangement, and the production isn't the best, but it's also not bad; despite my criticisms about parts plodding or feeling rigid/locked to grid, it does have a lot of character to it, so you're moving well in the right direction.
That said, sometimes prophetik drops lines that are just so quoteable and so on point: "many of the synths sound like drop-in options - that is, there's little manipulation to the envelope or to what they're playing to make them sound like your synths, vs. just default sounds." Bingo.
Personalize the production of the default-y sounds however you can, spice up the core beat pattern, restore the missing higher freqs, and get some more organic sounding timing involved as well.
Really promising stuff, Eric. I'm unsure if you can spruce up this specific piece past the bar, but as long as you continue your journey and stay curious as you make more music, you'll get to where you want to be in time.
NO (resubmit)
-
Once things got going with the melody at :15, I was certainly intrigued given how different the instrumentation is from the original.
Oooh no, at :42, the textures here were super empty, despite the kick sounding so (needlessly) loud. I like the stabby accents that start at :30, but as part of the bigger texture at :42, they sounded anemic & flat in tone and should have sustained longer to help fill things out.
:56 changed the textures some, but if this track's going to be empty/hollow like this most of the rest of the way, it's already a dealbreaker. There's amost no synergy with these parts yet.
The guitar lead's been an interesting instrument though; it resides in the uncanny valley, but it's got a decent tone, and sounds best during the choruses, e.g. 1:09-1:24. I dug the metal clanging SFX a lot as well, those were effective accents.
Robo-vox first used from 1:52-2:05 sounded so out of place, maybe because they were mixed too loudly. Brass samples doubling the melody from 2:07-2:34 were also too flimsy. Warbling/double-timing the faux-guitar strumming from 1:24-1:51 & 3:02-3:16 exposed the sample more, so I wouldn't use that technique so much.
[/reads MindWanderer's vote] Oh shit, there was a bassline? Good catch! It was completely buried and might as well not have been there; poor placement, almost 0 presence. No wonder this feels so empty overall. Needs other padding as well, not just bass presence.
I agreed with the others that this has some nice and interesting ideas, Roland; I really like how distinct your version is compared to the source tune. More variations of the arrangement would help instead of doing rinse-and-repeat stuff, but you'll have to continue experimenting with how to choose more complimentary & cohesive instrumentation. You may not be at the level yet to be able to revise this into a passable state, yet you clearly show good potential, and it's still worth the journey of seeing what else you could do with this. Definitely take this to the Workshop forum or #workshop Discord channel for more feedback!
NO (resubmit)
-
I'm surprised a track by Ly's at 2 NOs, but maybe there's some work needed.
Good source tune choice. No need to timestamp source tune usage for this one, it's straightforward. Seems to have a lovely, intimate sound to start. Good choice to stick with just the first part of the source's A section.
Strings enter at :25 and are in the uncanny valley but sound solid. Laughing a little bit, because the instrumentation and tone felt like I was watching a viral video on perseverance, motivation, or grind, at least until the change-up at :42. Really enjoyed the tension introduced with the transition at :42, including the vocals added at :50.
String timing at :59 sounded slightly lagging behind the beats until 1:07; not a big deal. Around 1:16, I started noticing the panning here seemed strange. It sounds imbalanced towards the right side, but I'm not sure what happened; rewinding the track to the beginning confirms it's ongoing. I had to put on a control track to make sure my setup wasn't messed up and my headphones weren't fritzing. Though not a dealbreaker or disorienting, the panning's still too wide, so it would be good if it could be tweaked; we'll see if a musician J can better explain what I heard there.
Dulcimer brought in at 1:37, and I'm always game there. Choir also brought in was adding mud, so the mixing was indistinct to some extent, but it creates a decent texture, so I'll live. Regardless, I like the instrumentation ideas. Good escalation of the energy at 2:11 in repeating 1:37 & 1:54's melody; each iteration sounded texturally different, changing from dulcimer to lower strings to higher strings. I really enjoyed those instrumentation changes to create dynamic contrast and keep the presentation fresh all the way from :59 when that section of the source was first used. Then 2:31 repeated the intro as a bookend.
I appreciate MindWanderer citing some timing and articulations as "too precise and consistent", which exposes the samples and ostensibly makes things sound more like a mock-up and less organic/humanized. He's not wrong at what he heard, but I disagreed with how negatively those issues shape up relative to our bar. I didn't notice these issues at all until they were pointed out, and the samples are used reasonably well enough that I didn't mind the criticism. I didn't care that the pair of drops, which are more in the background anyway, sounded the same.
When you side-by-side this with the source, the arrangement's already majorly transformative and sufficiently developed, presented with more speed and a cinematic palette. The samples sound organic enough that majorly dinging this for not varying already solid-sounding articulations is too far gone for me; as long as the overall structure isn't repetitive, I don't care if various elements occasionally repeat, so the intro/outro, the drops, the drums, none of that's undermining the overall strong dynamics of the arrangement; there's no lengthy wholesale cut-and-paste.
The arrangement carries it, and I didn't hear anything about the samples, writing, or mixing that made this feel questionable relative to our bar. It could be tightened up, but this is good enough stuff, no reservations, let's go!
YES
-
What did you think? Post your opinion of this ReMix.
-
Though the source tune's in play most of the time, since MindWanderer said he couldn't time out the source usage due to ear slammage, I'll do it.
The track was 2:36-long, so the source tune needed to be heard at least 78 seconds for the source material to be dominant in the arrangement. Not even remotely an issue there, just noting it was asked and answered.
:00-:02.5, :06-:27.5, :28.75-1:15, 1:37.5-2:21 = 113.75 seconds
The saws were abrasive to start, yet actually didn't seem like a big deal. Buuuut, once those notes held for longer starting at :29, it was a lot to handle.
For the intro up to :29, I did like the mixing though; loud, but I could hear the parts well.
When the beats arrived at :42, they seemed to have effects on them that muddied the soundscape. prophetik mentioned "the full band elements (at 0:43 and 1:52) are just totally crushed by the lead synth", and, boy, he's on the money there. Anything you can do to let those supporting parts be better heard would be nice.
It was recommended that you figure out how to not let the soundscape be slammed; I'd also say consider tweaking the lead's sound at :29 to not be so aggressive, or at least vary the lead of these verses somewhere to create more contrast.
Things sounded sharp/clean again with the drop at 1:09, and I love the original writing here. The chip lead at 1:37 also sounded needlessly distant, but that may only be a personal taste thing. I hear how it's meant to provide contrast with the cleaner sections, like from 1:51-2:18 when it's joined by the beats. No matter what, great job changing the lead there at 1:37; it was only a few seconds, and I'd argue it could have continued with that sound at 1:51.
I didn't mind the ending section at 2:18, but can understand -- especially given how short the track is -- how it can seem like an underwhelming resolution. To me, it's fine, and was given enough time to be digested.
It's short, but to me the arrangement's already solid and substantive like this. Yes, it could be developed and varied more (which I'd appreciate), but this is sufficiently transformative, and I don't want to lose sight of that. There's a genre change, it's got a different groove, there's varied textures and dynamic contrast, there's good original writing both integrated with and trading off with the arranged source tune. I'm fine with this arrangement passing as is, and my suggestions about the lead fatigue are more in the nice-to-have category. Great base here, Tobaunta & Fredrik! If you can also rein in the production, count me in.
NO (resubmit)
-
THANK YOU! I just needed another J to say "Yeah, the theme's there enough." HOW it's executed is of course another thing entirely, and we can do this rodeo again if it comes back. I just didn't wanna be alone in the room saying "Yeah, there's the theme!" and seemingly being told "Nah, it's not" when it IS!
-
2 hours ago, DarkeSword said:
Well here's the thing. You can stop-watch and splice all you like to indicate that this meets a 50% source usage standard, but I'm not going to sit here and stop-watch this track, because let's be very clear: the 50% guideline was established primarily because we got a Chrono Trigger submission many years ago where the entire latter half was almost entirely original, and a majority of judges (myself included) were just deaf to this because of how good the former half was. Prot pointed it out and we had a pretty lengthy discussion that ended up establishing a 50% guideline for judges to informally follow. And let's also be clear about another thing because over the years I have seen this guideline turned into a hard-and-fast rule that's been applied in a lot of judgements: 50% source usage is not in our Submission Standards.
That was a good discussion that shaped the "identifiable and dominant" wording of the Standards that came later. This is easy enough to address by actually adding something there that says how it's used as a guidepost (so I'll take it to the discussion forum), for example:
3. The source material must be identifiable and dominant.
* While interpretation and original additions are encouraged, arrangement must not modify the source material beyond recognition.
* The amount of arranged source material must be substantial enough to be recognized. We strongly recommend referencing the video game music source material for more than 50% of the duration of the track.
* Anything less may be viewed as the source music not being "dominant" within the arrangement.
* Sampling original game audio & sound effects, though allowed, is typically not considered arrangement.2 hours ago, DarkeSword said:One last thing, Larry: you're calling the performance issues here "low-hanging" as if they are easily fixed by taking things back to the DAW and just doing a little production work.
That's not the context I used that for; when I said "low-hanging fruit", I didn't mean ease of addressing the issue by the artist. I meant we judges would be drawn to the performance problems as the biggest & brightest issue, and thus overlook or ignore the arrangement discussion. In this case, even if the performance is lacking, we do have to make it clear to the artist whether or not the concept itself can pass or whether you're saying they shouldn't bother with a resubmission.
2 hours ago, MindWanderer said:A good chunk of this goes back to our long-standing debate over whether something counts as source if you can sit down and map out how it's derived from the source, even if it's hard to hear on a subjective level. And that "subjective" part means we won't all agree on whether we can hear it or not. That's fine; that's why we have multiple people vote. If Larry can hear where each part comes from, just by listening to it and not analyzing it, then I'm not going to knock him for a YES vote on those grounds. I will knock a YES vote where that's not the case, and more importantly I will knock an effort to strong-arm people into changing their votes on the grounds that they should be able to hear it and if they can't it's their fault.
I've got a reputation for being the least charitable, or at least most granular, with the timestamping. I don't mind not agreeing with others on how they count rests/silence (for me, any gap larger than a second, I don't count, and anything less than a second, I count). Especially not knowing any music theory, I'm the last person who could badger people to vote against their will, which is dumb in the first place and not how we operate. But sometimes we miss things or see things differently, so it's useful to point it out and discuss.
Again, these note sustains weren't a wildly abstract transformation, and the theme's not altered rhythmically or with its time sig, it's just slowed down some, so I'm not out of bounds with counting what I timestamped. What I'm bringing up and working to avoid is just saying "Well, the performance is no good, and the concept's weird... [/throws hands up] I don't hear the source tune enough." I'm saying you'll have to work at it then; there's only 2 instruments to listen to. And if anyone doesn't want to because of the performance being such a larger issue, then the source ID is a potential problem that would come up a second time on a resub.
This weirdo concept should -- with a tight, expressive performance -- have a place here, and the source tune being used in the majority of the arrangement isn't a question for me. If we imply that a strong performance of this has no place here due to lack of observable source usage, then that's a mistake.
There's always subjectivity with "identifiable and dominant" because different lines are mixed a certain way or are competing to be heard, so I don't mind Shariq making his case that those factors influence it, but I had to push for that clarification. I do wish we weren't sending conflicting messages to Lucas and TSori because we can't agree on that aspect. All I can do is explain where I heard the theme and stand by that.
Re: the performance, I didn't mind being the outlier there, but you guys are right, especially on headphones. I fired it up again and just paid attention to the sax. TSori's half is carrying it, and I clearly have a lower, more permissive performance bar. When Lucas and Logan double their lines from :48-1:33, the sax is less of an issue and the parts blend alright (again, I do have a lower bar for it). But much of the time, you definitely hear loads of unsteadiness and wavering in the sax from a lack of control, so I'll bite the bullet and go HOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONK for NO.
-
I hadn't heard the first version, so when I saw this large list of sources, I was worried about a medley-itis structure that lacked flow. Listening through, no cause for medley-itis concerns; smooth, logical transitions and flow between the themes for the most part, so this is fun.
Beyond :29, the bass performance almost never cuts through, which is unfortunate. We'll need lyrics for the choir part at 3:37; the choir started off very quiet, and I was wondering if it would ever have a more commanding presense, then we had some growling lyrics at 4:17. At this point, while waiting to see if the choir would start booming (which it didn't), I realized the drums were positioned louder than all of the vocals (choir and metal), which made no sense. The vocal levels are pulled back so much, it's almost as if everyone was singing & growling softly into their mics, careful not to wake a sleeping baby.
Same with the guitar soloing at 5:32; it's mixed so quietly relative to the drumming and brass; meanwhile the brass, which has epic writing, doesn't punch through, nor did the overall levels rise for what's clearly the track's crescendo. Compare this area to, say, 3:25; the later section's denser and faster, but no louder, which, again, doesn't make sense. Go back and listen to the rest of this track, and the drums (which are performed well and have good energy) are the main event in terms of how this is mixed.
The transition back into "Wilderness" at 6:09 was abrupt, but it was the only theme change that felt so sudden, so it's not a big deal.
If the first version had a muddier sound, that's not a problem now, and that's what counts. The mixing of this is not how I would have it, and there's loads of unrealized potential as a result, but the elements (aside from the bass) are distinguishable enough. The arrangement's a load of fun, and though the mixing's not ideal and should hit harder, it's certainly solid enough to me. Let's go!
YES
-
On 7/5/2023 at 8:25 AM, prophetik music said:
i feel that this implementation loses a lot of the fanciful, dancing quality of most implementations i've heard before. [...] i agree that while technically there are notes in this arrangement that go in directions that are similar to what's in the original, it's tough mapping the original to this track by ear. it's certainly not required that every track feature a clear representation of the source end to end, but since results matter as much as intent, it matters that there's little to tie this back to an iconic theme outside a few very clear references.
An arrangement of "Terra" doesn't need to have any "fanciful, dancing quality" to be accepted, and I know you're not claiming it has to. Saying that this "lost" something the original had without clarifying it's not part of the grounds for rejection creates a great opportunity for you (and the Standards) to be misinterpreted.
At best, I'm taking this above to mean that even though the source usage may be there, it doesn't have enough of the same energy/feeling as the iconic source for you, and it's a smaller part of the reason you're rejecting this. That would be in stark contrast to other transformative arrangements we've posted, including ones by you. So I'm pushing back because I don't believe that's what you're intending to say, yet I think most would interpret it that way.
4 hours ago, prophetik music said:context matters. the rest of my comments around arrangement in the post do not say anything about there not being enough source.
it ultimately doesn't matter. the saxophone performance is a non-starter.
This is going to sound testy and confrontational when instead I'm curious, because my tone can't be conveyed in text. Do you recognize the source usage as being dominant here or not? Not knowing yet because the performances didn't justify checking it closely is understandable, but it has to be acknowledged if it's the case.
On 7/5/2023 at 8:25 AM, prophetik music said:it would have been difficult at best for the arrangement to carry this past the performance, and i don't feel that it's transcendent enough to warrant that.
This is sidestepping the source recognition issue because the performance isn't up to par. As said, that would be understandable, but I also don't want to repeat the resub scenario of "The Little Girl and the Star" -- low-hanging production issues in the first vote stopping the more important convo about the arrangement/source dominance. The same dynamic is now happening with this track -- low-hanging performance issues stopping the more important convo about source recognition & transformation.
If this were resubbed, the arrangement likely wouldn't change, only the performance. Even if you're saying you yourself recognize the source, it's a problem two judges appear to be saying they don't recognize the source when it's used plain as day.
It needs to be discussed now so that, if this is rejected, Lucas understands if he's being told this concept -- even redone with impeccable performances -- would be rejected on source recognition grounds.
-
Brass lead at :12 sounded too muffly, but I'll live. Good interplay with the woodwind at :28, followed by the arriving percussion at :39. The arrangement structure's conservative, but the performance is nicely personalized. Nice textural shift around 1:34; love the way the drumming and its timing lent movement and verve to the piece until 2:27 (and again at 2:39). Sweet finish at 3:09 as well, where the ending felt like it resolved and then resolved two more times with what felt like the final note or flourish.
Though I chuckled at the quasi-fakeouts, there was nothing wrong with it. Wonderful job by Bluelighter, Bowlerhat, Dewey & Ian in bringing this to life! Super easy call.
YES
-
On 6/27/2023 at 3:31 PM, MindWanderer said:
Subjectively, this felt really source-light to me. Going through it, a lot of what Larry counted didn't sound like the source tune to me at all. Some of it is snips of only a few seconds long, spliced together in a weird way with long sustains.
On 7/5/2023 at 8:25 AM, prophetik music said:i agree that while technically there are notes in this arrangement that go in directions that are similar to what's in the original, it's tough mapping the original to this track by ear. it's certainly not required that every track feature a clear representation of the source end to end, but since results matter as much as intent, it matters that there's little to tie this back to an iconic theme outside a few very clear references.
On 7/5/2023 at 3:10 PM, DarkeSword said:I'm just not hearing enough source connection.
Criticize the performances, that's fine. The source tune being in play enough isn't in question though. There's only two instruments going on, the tempo's slow, and when the melody's referenced, it's very straightforward segments of the source's intro, verse, or chorus.
(Also, the sustained notes for the melody are about 3 to 4 seconds when they happen, which isn't that long at this tempo, so MW's POV that you wouldn't count sustained notes within a melody doesn't make sense to me.)
I clipped the track (attached) to just the sections invoking Terra's theme. I didn't think it was difficult to make out, but it you hear something that doesn't sound like "Terra", focus on the other instrument. -
On 6/4/2023 at 3:12 PM, XPRTNovice said:
*crashes through the wall*
Literal LOL at that one. You WOULD do that.
Thanks for the source breakdown! I'm not hot on lots of key clacking, but it's not a huge deal. Solid performances, with good variations in terms of presenting the different sections on multiple occasions. Let's go!
YES
-
The track was 3:12-long, so I needed to overtly hear the source in play for at least 96 seconds for it to be dominant in the arrangement.
:12.25-:33, :34.75-:38.5, :40.5-:49.25, :51.5-:55.75, :57-1:15, 2:16-2:20, 2:22-2:26, 2:27.75-2:31, 2:33-2:42, 2:44.5-3:08 = 99.25 seconds or 51.69% overt source usage
Thanks a lot to Trevor for the "2-steps-removed-from-a-shitpost" explainer video! I didn't count some of the most liberal moments in my breakdown, but I wanted to stick with what stood out in a plain check first and would then dig around more if I needed to find more time after a first pass of what was more obvious. It all sounds good and with the mixing cleaned up, we're definitely in business!
YES
-
Good fluidity, this was fun!
-
What did you think? Post your opinion of this ReMix here.
-
Arrangement-wise, it's melodically conservative and stays with a chiptune style, but beats and other surrounding instrumentation are plenty expansive enough, so it's a solid sound upgrade and golden on that front.
The clashing notes thing MW mentioned from 1:02-1:03 was caused by a sound effect; wasn't a big deal to me just because it was so brief/fleeting, but it indeed clashed.
I see why MW was saying that it's a messier sound; taking :44-1:40 as an example, there's a ton of bouncing around the stereo field, and there's lots of shrill moments with the sounds that should be toned down.
2:07-2:21's another example of how the soundscape's all over the place. There's probably selective EQing of the parts that should be happening to give the instrumentation more breathing room. Unsure if any mixing revisions are still doable given the age of the track, but it sounds like Jari had made some adjustments before submitting this.
I apologize for being unable to give you targeted production advice here, Jari. I'd actually love to hear Gario's take, because he's been very successful with very busy, high-energy arrangements (e.g. Castlevania: Bloodlines "Satanic Spire") that nonetheless don't sound unwieldy like this. The arrangement side is good, now it's just a matter of reining in the mixing.
If you resubmit this, we'll make sure to expedite it, and also be communicative much more quickly to you on any issues if it somehow splits the panel.
NO (resubmit)
-
Opened up with the soundscape sounding needlessly flooded/muddy. The lead at :43 was IMO too quiet, with the supporting warbles and beats being louder than the lead, which wasn't making sense to me, but I've heard it done before in this genre, so I'll get over it.
The beat-writing plodded; it has a thick sound that fills out the texture, though by 3:46 I was definitely tired of it, because it felt like the track wasn't evolving and didn't have enough dynamic contrast. The gradual additions and subtractions are OK, but not enough to retain interest for 5 minutes.
I didn't mind any of the times the parts dropped out; I'm judging on headphones as well; the track never went to 0, and it didn't feel like anything was fritzing. Key changes at 2:02 & 4:04 took place, but it's essentially the same writing and groove aside from the key changes, so I was left wondering when something else would happen on some subtle levels to change the overall sound. Even just changing some of the instrumentation or effects could be a subtle but distinct enough difference to feel more substantive and not overstay the length.
Source usage-wise, this is of course fine, and although I'm taking issue with the groove plodding, there's some grace from me on this, as the treatment of the "Last Wave" theme was expansive with this new part-writing. That said, the mixing should be adjusted to sharpen this up some. I know it's going for a synthwave/'80s aesthetic, and I've heard plenty of modern synthwave from The Midnight and FM-84 achieve a wash to their music that doesn't sound like all the highs got cut. It'll sound like I'm saying our bar is where those acts are; I'd say check out FM-84's "Everything" for an example of the leads competing/washing together with the supporting writing, and coasting on a beat pattern, yet how it's produced with a sharper sound.
I'd say this is 80-85% of the way there and just needs some additional variation and/or sharper mixing (not super sharp, just more highs) to move over the bar. It's a strong base, Ruku!
NO (resubmit)
-
Cool stuff, with the theme everpresent and lots of cool expansion and variations. The mixing of the supporting brass lines from 1:04-2:21 was odd in that it seemed too downplayed, but nothing bothering me in a huge way. Good performances, good energy!
YES
-
:08.5-1:37.25 (:16 of source), 1:55-2:35 (:50 of source), 2:48.75-3:06 (:16 of source)
Source usage was there in spades, I just timed it out (not exhaustively, mind you) to not make assumptions. Interesting choice building original writing on top of the source tune arrangement from 1:02-1:37. The overall flow's a lot like the original in terms of different lines weaving in and out, only, in the case of this track, you have wholly original compositional ideas as well that were part of those weaving parts. It all clicks nicely here while presenting a different, more active flavor; nice work, Peter!
YES
-
What did you think? Post your opinion of this ReMix here.
*NO* Chrono Trigger "OverZealous Drop" *RESUB*
in Judges Decisions
Posted
I'm the only judge from the original vote still here, so it's very cool to hear this again. Really great to hear from you again, Natalie!
If I didn't know any better, this seemed like the same track, just with a time cut rather than any new ideas introduced. I didn't have any qualms at all with this style, and didn't feel that it was too repetitive or samey last time around or this time, so I disagreed with the others. It's produced well and has a clean yet full sound even within this minimalist style, and I appreciate the development and flow of the piece. When the Zeal theme's in play, it's arranged in a creative and transformative way that clearly stands apart from the original, and that helps it bear criticisms of repetition and dynamics without pulling it below our bar, IMO. Still love this in a vacuum, divorced from our Submission Standards.
The track was 4:24-long (not 4:48, there was a bunch of silence that could be trimmed), so I needed to identify the source tune being used for at least 132 seconds to consider the source tune usage dominant in the arrangement.
:56.5-1:00.5, 1:02-1:06, 1:07.5-1:11.75, 1:13.5-1:15, 1:16.5-1:21 (sounded like a piece of CT's main theme), 1:42.25-1:46.25, 1:59-2:03, 2:04.75-2:08.75, 2:10.5-2:14.5, 2:44.5-2:48.5, 2:50-2:54, 2:55.5-3:05.5, 3:06.75-3:11, 3:12.5-3:16.5, 3:18.25-3:28.5, 3:29.5-3:40.25, 3:41.5-3:50.75, 3:52.75-3:57, 4:09-4:17.25 = 103.25 seconds or 39.10% overt source usage
Part 4.3 of the Submission Standards says "The source material must be identifiable and dominant", so to lock in my vote this only needs more overt connection to the source theme, so that the source tune is referenced for at least 50% of the duration of the track, which would have the source tune references dominate the arrangement. even MindWanderer's timestamping didn't identify, but if we're shortchanging you and making a mistake by dismissing some other writing here that does explicity reference the original song, please let us know.
Otherwise, if there's a way you can integrate some other aspect of the source tune theme during the intro or elsewhere without compromising your vision, then let's go for it! C'mon! I like your style... THIS CAN"T BE THE END!
NO (resubmit)