Jump to content

anosou

Members
  • Posts

    3,378
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by anosou

  1. It's not "most likely", it IS the opening of the source. If it's helpful for me to point out, then let me clarify that both the Zelda theme in question AND this source use the same progression. It's a minor chord where the 5th interval walks up and back down two half steps. Pretty simple.

    The difference being that the source isn't chords but a very strong arpeggio. It might be the same notes as the chords but it's not as obvious as a connection. Let me give an example... Say Prelude. It's basically an arpeggio, a major chord with the second note in the scale added. If I make chords from these notes, play it at a different key, different tempo and not with the actualy "melody", how is that "pretty simple" and "IS the opening of the source"? It certainly isn't straight source.

    Here the question becomes "are chords really ok?". We've had similar discussions (Hot Pink of Blues to name one) and it's a hard question. When there IS in-your-face, recognizable melodic content in the source but it's not recognizable in the arrangement I have a hard time seeing that as something else than really liberal.

    Prelude example: http://anosou.com/preludeexample.mp3

    First is prelude, straight source. Then is a part derived from that, using the same "chords" and no other notes. In my opinion that's a bit too liberal, you can't really hear that it's prelude if you're not really familiar with the source and even then it's just similar. Finally is just the prelude and some beats added on top, for great justice.

    Just clarifying that even though it might share chords I think the intro is quite liberal. I'm still on the edge if I should count it or not.

    (remove upon vote - link removed)

    Good stuff. Some small thoughts on your breakdown:

    0:37-0:40 in your breakdown is padding

    1:04-1:07 is also padding

    1:07-> is more okay with me since it keeps the rhythm of the source intro and eventually adds the arpeggio

    1:53 same issue as intro

    2:09-2:28 definitely too liberal

    2:38-2:44 is too liberal imo, only the first few notes are connected enough

    2:57 is same as above

    3:13 same issue as intro

    3:32 is too liberal

    3:52 I don't think anyone didn't count this as prelude...?

    4:22 is padding

    4:36-4:43 is too liberal, I just don't hear it. Seems to be more rooted in the chords and even then quite altered.

    4:51-5:32 same as above but with hints of prelude

    5:33-> same issue as intro since it doesn't share the melody/arpeggios

    In the real track that's quite a lot of very liberal/non-source passages. This is what I got, being quite nice with the timestamps:

    0:00-0:14 - 14 seconds

    0:20-0:26 - 6 seconds

    0:35-0:40 - 5 seconds

    1:14-2:17 - 63 seconds

    2:46-3:09 - 23 seconds

    3:13-4:19 - 66 seconds

    That's 177 of non-source according to my count (that includes leaning no on most of the supposedly intro-source material), more than half the track. We'll have to discuss what qualifies as source usage with this one, really.

  2. Yes!!!! Finally...some Digital Devil Saga and Baten Kaitos love. Those are two of my favorite soundtracks. And Soundscape taking DDS? Man...I can't wait.

    I'm seeing some unique soundtrack picks. Nice idea there, Bahamut. Good luck, everyone. I wish I can help...but I have no talent. :P

    Both those tracks were my suggestions too :3 I'm a huge fan of Megura and Baten Kaitos is the only listenable soundtrack by Sakuraba. Man, this is gonna be fun on a bun!

  3. you know we're serious, right?

    No :tomatoface:

    but if you are, things are most certainly looking up. Checked prices and they were WAY lower than expected. Brush and Wes and Level 99 have all offered some lodging and similar (might be hitting NYC meetup too).. we'll see what happens :o

  4. The so-called "Zelda 2 motif" is most likely a slowed down take on the opening of the source. This is more prominent in the official Piano Collections arrangement and I'm guessing he's listened to that and gotten some ideas. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HyVLhYJeMKI&fmt=18 - 0:00-0:09. However, this doesn't make it more source since it isn't really recognizable from the ORIGINAL source.

    Sadly, a big part of the track was built around this motif which brought down the source usage a lot. The playing is good (though it was a bit sloppy sometimes, first part especially) and you've got great arrangement ideas. Even the production is good although slightly muddy. The key issue is the arrangement and if you can't point out something we completely missed, it's a no-go. I'd love to see a reworked resubmission of this with some more source in it, it would definitely be a good addition to OCR.

    NO(resubmit)

  5. I felt the leads sounded out of place, both in terms of mixing and 80's sound. Too modern and dry. The mixing overall was good but left a little to be desired in terms of balance and clarity. For example the drums could've been a little more in the back, especially considering it's a drum machine-style sound that's quite repetitive.

    Arrangement was tight but felt slightly uninspired. No shame in that but if you feel this is easy for you, you might want to take some more time on tracks to really make them shine in all areas. As it stands though, this IS in fact solid so here's another

    YES

  6. Can't do much else than agree with my fellow judges. The drums are on auto-pilot (and obviously a loop), the piece lacks some personalization and evolution within the track. Furthermore I think the drums and guitars, while good in their own right, sounds like they're from two completely different tracks. The guitars were more in the back and a bit muddy compared to the crisp, reverbed drum loop.

    You did set a good mood for the piece, I really liked the sitar-like drones, but we need some more interpretation considering the sheer length of the track. Vary up your stuff, trim the fat and try to carefully balance original ideas with recognizable source, straight or arrangement. You definitely show some promise.

    NO(resubmit)

  7. You're welcome :) It actually looks kind of crappy to me now that I examine it closer, but if you're satisfied then I won't worry about it for now. If for some reason it doesn't meet the quality standards, just shoot me a PM and I'll try it again.

    If you've got time to polish it, just go ahead. I won't blame ya! :tomatoface:

  8. fVf3E.gif

    Good enough for ya? :P

    EDIT: I think this one looks better. I'll leave 'em both up for you to compare: OvaZU.gif

    Yeah second one is better, thanks a bunch! <3

    Larry: avatar2.gif (self-hosted)

    I want it as my sexclusive please :3

×
×
  • Create New...