Liontamer Posted February 23, 2008 Share Posted February 23, 2008 -RoeTaKa- -'Xenogears'- -"The Treasure Which Cannot Be Stolen"- Xenogears, I've never played this game and I really must give it a try some day. Mitsuda's work and style has become very familiar to me recently. This request, as requested by 'Arek the Absolute', to create a love song style of the song "The Treasure Which Cannot Be Stolen" was great to do. So alot of credit goes to him for the inspiration and concept. The piece revolves around orchestral elements that mainly focus on the strings, winds and harp. Since the piece has a fantasy quality to it, I was keen to induce acoustic guitar and rhodes piano to keep the spirit of the peice uplifted and sweet. Unusual of myself, I opted to ignore percussion elements to keep a certain suspension to the piece. The original song felt like an unintended love song, which Arek clearly pointed out aswell, so in places I chose to keep the source material unaltered but to improve the mood. I've been busy lately with original material and haven't been in the remixing game for a while. If you're familiar with DragonArmy, please continue to support us with whatever were doing http://www.arnoldascher.com/dragonarmyinc.html haha I am not even sure myself. Currently I am doing the soundtrack for a fan sequel to Chrono Trigger, http://www.chrono-crisis.com/ it's a huge project and is shaping up really well. So please support that if you're dead set on some sort of Chrono sequel. If this mix gets posted, by that time we might even have nearly finished a good amount of the game. Cheers! ----------------------------------------------------------- http://tzone.org/~llin/psf/packs2/Xenogears_psf.rar - 116 "The Treasure Which Cannot Be Stolen" The soundfield was somewhat muddy, and some of the sequencing seemed a bit rigidly timed to start, but it quickly seemed better as things picked up. The piece had some fairly solid dynamics. The guitar or whatever acoustic string instrument that was, sounded a bit rigid with the sequencing as well, covered up better during some parts, but somewhat exposed in others. Pretty obvious flub at 2:54 with one of the string velocities that should be fixed up IMO. At 1:07 & 3:31, it also sounded unrealistic how loud the strings became compared to the previous note. I thought there was a lack of polish in the execution on this one that has me a little shaky, but I thought the arrangement and overall presentation was solid enough to get by. I really liked the approach on this one, and the result was pretty genteel. Still, could be some NOs, as this could be tightened up a bit. Good luck with the rest of the vote, Alex. If this doesn't make it, it shouldn't be far off. YES (borderline) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Palpable Posted March 4, 2008 Share Posted March 4, 2008 Liked the arrangement. It's a lot more powerful than the original, and though the instrumentation is similar, it's used in a completely different way. I liked how the strings took the lead for most of the piece. Great dynamics, though I thought the end was too much off a drop-off. That's very minor. Soundfield could have used a lot more clarity, for sure. The strings cover up a lot of the character of the other instruments. I understand those parts are mostly used to support the strings, and the important ranges of those instruments shine through, but I would have liked to see something cleaner and more natural. Rigidity also an issue at times, but much less of one. However, the overall sound is balanced pretty well, and you hear the important stuff. It's close, but I'm willing to say this one is good enough. I'll probably give it a listen on my monitors and might revisit my decision. YES Edit (3/9): Listened on monitors. Sounds fine. Staying with YES. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zircon Posted May 27, 2008 Share Posted May 27, 2008 Lots of reverb here, and I agree that it sounds kind of muddy. This could really be cut back or low/low-mid EQ could be used to slim things down. The mixing is not really very good either. Harmony is often louder than melody. Throw in the very mechanical sequencing with basically 0 humanization at all and this sounds more like something you might hear on the original PSF. I hear the velocities were edited, and the guitar was nice, but you need to use more automation to do smooth changes in parts. That string lead is just so choppy with no sort of legato between the notes at all. In terms of arrangement I actually thought the original was more interesting. The remix doesn't add a great amount of power or energy in my opinion because the rhythms and tempo are basically the same, and the texture isn't noticeably denser. In fact I think the original has more dynamics because the texture is not as static - instruments come in and out, and the balance is not just a wash. There are prominent leads and the harmony sits under them perfectly. The interpretation factor in terms of the notes themselves is here, even though I don't think the stylistic shift is very drastic. The main issues are the weak sequencing, muddy EQ/reverb, and distracting mixing (eg. harmony parts too loud, melody too soft.) I would have liked to hear some percussion too to differentiate this from the original more, but that's just personal preference. NO, resub Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarkeSword Posted June 8, 2008 Share Posted June 8, 2008 Gotta agree with Andy here. I feel like important parts are getting lost in the reverb, namely some of the guitar stuff, and the lead instruments aren't really as defined as they could be. I don't think the strings are working as a good lead; you might be better served with a flute or clarinet; something with the potential to be a little more lyrical in its approach to the melody. The strings at the end especially lose their natural quality, playing far too high for the sample to handle well. Not really a bad piece; it's pleasant sounding, for the most part, but I think you should revisit it and try to tighten up the soundscape and define things a little more. NO, resub Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CHz Posted July 12, 2008 Share Posted July 12, 2008 Okay, so right off the bat, the production needs some work. Too much reverb and the balance is way off as the other J's have said. Pretty much everything could be clearer, and the leads needs to stand out more from the accompaniment. Sample usage and sequencing aren't too bad for the most part; biggest offenders for me are that part at 2:54 Larry mentioned and the strings at the end that DS mentioned that are really straining to hit those high notes. The writing seems, I dunno, a bit underwhelming. It's interpretive, but it feels like it should be building into something more than it actually does. The texture is pretty much the same from start to finish, and the climax sounds pretty weak because of the mixing and samples. The production pulling the track down is a part of that, and just fixing that might actually be good enough to give it some definition. DS's suggestion of another lead instrument could also help. Really, though, production is the biggest problem, as I'm sure you've gleaned from the other votes by now. NO (resubmit) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zykO Posted July 21, 2008 Share Posted July 21, 2008 the intro slapped me in the face with how bright it is. it buzzes in my ear almost throughout. zircon said it best: harmony is often much louder than the melody in this track, giving it a very uneasy sound to it. the idea is stellar... it's far more emotive than i expected it to be (for being such a statically performed piece) and if it weren't for the terrible mixing and general lack of dynamic, this could be top notch. please do something about that soundfield... it's a mess right now. the lack of percussion is accentuated by how mechanical some of the instruments are, they're essentially the "percussive" elements here and it's drawing attention to the sample dynamics... worse yet, some of the strings are so loud and pitched, that they're exposed as well... sometimes, the trick to using samples is playing a sleight of hand of sorts balance out your orchestration, tone some of your instruments down so they don't attack the listener, and soak up some of that reverb so your piece isn't swimming in it. furthermore, an interesting point has been brought up... the original is tad more emotive than this because it is actually more dynamic... remember that when something is emotive, it is because it sounds relevant to us in a very human way... which means it has to sound at least somewhat human - i can certainly relate to a person but not likely to a computer. do that and this thing WINS. NOresub. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
big giant circles Posted July 24, 2008 Share Posted July 24, 2008 I like the initial instrumentation, but after about 30 seconds, I was waiting (in vain it seems) for the sound to really open up and fill out. I'm now at 1:30 and I've still not heard "the drop". That's a little disappointing, because as beautiful as the source is, and the seeming direction that you're going ends up leaving the whole intro as just a big tease of something that never really happens. I like the guitar around 2:15. Adds nice texture to the mix. The strings seem a little thin throughout - there's not much harmony in the string writing. It's mainly just a monophonic ensemble, and not the most convincing patch. Yeah, there is absolutely no bottom end to speak of in this mix. The lower instruments that are present are heavily undermixed. Coupled with the reverb throughout, it is a bit muddy. The other thing that really makes this one feel incomplete, is that is has virtually no percussion (or swells). I mean, like, NONE. If this were say, a live symphony (which this arrangement could almost fit very nicely) it's like, the entire perc section just said eff it and walked out. Boo. That's a definite reason the entire song has such an underwhelming feel to me. There's some beautiful instrumentation, and as far as I can tell, the extent to which the source has been arranged is fine, but I'd still call this incomplete. Not incomplete like, I'm telling you you haven't finished your piece, but incomplete in the sense that the reasons I've stated definitely make it feel like there's critical elements that are just missing entirely. Anyway. Sorry this has sat on the panel as long as it has. And yeah, it's just us being lazy and not making time. It has nothing to do with the DA thing. Rework/Resub Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anosou Posted July 24, 2008 Share Posted July 24, 2008 Going to be a lot of echoing in this post because a lot has been said.. The introduction is mixed very bright and covered in reverb and that makes it hard to focus on the main melody. As other Js pointed out, the main melody is not really the 'main' thing and this really hurts the track. The overall mixing suffers some too much reverb and muddiness, zircon's advice here were spot on. As BGC pointed out, the lack of low-end is also hurting this track. It could be much more dynamic with some low strings, low brass or such. Percussion would also help the general static feel. It IS a good arrangement, not the most daring but we don't require that either. It works and is up to our guidelines, that's enough for me. I, as many others, enjoyed the guitar and also the laid back vibe. I still feel you could've done more, I know you're talanted. Yeah, sorry for the hold-up. Def not for DA, I was on DA too. We've just been lazy/busy. So please, keep submitting songs Alex. You have talent. NO(resubmit) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts