Sign in to follow this  
Liontamer

OCR01789 - *YES* Tales of Destiny 'Pretension'

Recommended Posts

This is a remix to Tale Of Destiny's Title theme. I've learned from my mistakes from my last submission. The feedback from the judges have helped to realize my strengths and weaknesses. In my last submission Liontamer pointed out that i have the skills necessary and that I just need to develop them. Thank your for your time.

* ReMixer name: Jewbei

* Real name: James Joyner

* Email address: jjoyner17@yahoo.com

* Website: http://www.myspace.com/Jewbeii

Here's the link to the song.

----------------------------------------------------------------

Nearly 6 minutes, eh? It'll be interesting to see if you can stretch out such a brief source. Definitely liking the source though; nice choice.

Tales of Destiny Soundtrack - (102) "Tales of Destiny"

Pretty liberal treatment, but I could make the A-to-B connections. I needed 169.5 seconds' worth of source usage. Let's go for a breakdown:

:56-:58, 1:02-1:04, 1:09-1:11, 1:16-1:18, 1:23-1:25, 1:30-1:32, 3:34-3:36, 3:40-3:42, 3:47-3:49, 4:56-4:58, 5:03-5:05, 5:09-5:11, 5:16-5:18, 5:23-5:25, 5:30-5:32 - all based from the melody in the first two seconds of the source

1:37-3:28 - main melody (:00 of source, with rhythmic arrangement/interpretation), and countermelody (:21 of source)

3:54-4:22 - interpretation of countermelody (:21 of source)

4:35-4:49 - main melody (:00 of source, with rhythmic arrangement/interpretation)

That's about 183 seconds worth. Even rounding down those 2 second usages down to 1 second, it's still good.

The synth choices felt a little cookie-cutter, but the production was fairly solid nonetheless, with some solid beatwork, textures and effects to make up for the other shortcomings. The arrangement itself was an interesting take on such a minimal source.

A very rhythmically liberal take on the source finally showed up at :29 in the buildup (not counting it), before an interpretation of the source's opening melody eventually arrived at :56, all in a larger buildup to the overtly arranged melody at 1:37. When things picked up and got fuller at 1:51, the soundscape became cluttered, more of a problem from 2:05-2:32. There was also some sort of consistent popping/crackling noise tied to one of the supporting parts that was in rhythm with the electrosynth added in at 1:51. Nice touch at 2:05 though, using the string countermelody from :21 of the source.

Solid dynamic contrast for the genre, moving into the most beat-driven, melody-focused section yet at 2:32, bringing back the source's countermelody at 2:59.

Nice dropoff at 3:27, before interpreting the source's countermelody from 3:54-4:22. Definitely a nice idea to keep things fresh while retaining the same sounds. I didn't recognize the additional writing after 4:22, but the arranged melody returned from 4:35-4:49 before going for the finish.

All in all, pretty solid. The arrangement was able to do a lot with a little and get interpretive without going off the rails; pretty intelligent stuff. I think the production could use some touchups to get rid of that one audio deformation issue at 1:51 and better separate the parts, but otherwise, I'm good to go on this. Good luck on the rest of the vote, James! Even if this didn't make it somehow, you're definitely on track to get something posted here. I enjoyed this!

YES (conditional)

EDIT (8/2): New version fixes the clipping and tones down the mud. I'm all set on it for the full YES.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wasn't feeling this quite as much as Larry, I'm afraid. While I think the treatment of the source was cool, the arrangement felt lacking in a few places. The first 1:37 didn't have enough variation to sustain interest. I understand trance is... trance, but it felt like a lot of the instruments were static, just stuck in loops rather than rising and falling? I think some filter sweeping stuff might have added more variation along the lines I'm looking for, maybe some slight change-ups in the drums too. Also, in the breakdown, the instruments coming in at 1:51 really clashed with the melody and I thought it only started to gel again at 2:05. From there till the end of the song, it worked pretty well though, and the return of the chorus was especially strong, particularly the use of the countermelody to back it up.

The production also had one problem area, which was the clarity of your parts. Up until 1:51, it sounds alright, but at that point, there's too much going on and it's hard to hear things. 2:46 had even more going on, and the backing instruments start to get lost underneath the GIANT TRANCE LEAD TM. The lead sounds like it's on the verge of clipping much of the time, and I think you need to make use of EQ to carve out space for all your parts.

It's definitely close for me, but I feel like putting all the problems together makes this a NO. Maybe I'm being too hard on this, and the rest of the vote will swing your way. If not, I encourage you to revisit it, James.

NO (resubmit)

EDIT (8/2): With the clipping and clarity problems gone, this is stronger. I still feel like there are some arrangement problems, but I'm ok calling this a pass.

YES

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BIG TRANCE.

this thing is a beast because it is epic and maybe that is why it will be so hit and miss. for me, it was certainly a hit. basically when you drop it like that at 2.32, you're going to either impress a person or completely smother them to death. and then maybe impress them

for one, it's in motion... it grooves very well and is done with an intent for the audience to dance. secondly, it's a moving, deep trance piece with texture and a strong emotive lead. so as a piece of music, it does what it's supposed to do and more.

the music is there.

on the more technical side of things, the mixing is very POWERFUL and almost too powerful in the buildups and areas of heavy traffic... it sounds like it's going the mass approach where you're bringing a whole herd of instruments through the transition so it becomes a giant bottleneck stampede. that's why it has that offputting LOUD almost-clipping sort of sound. it should be brought down just a bit... maybe clear up some of the busy parts to give more singular instruments a bigger burden to carry... i've always found that doing that enables an instrument to shine.

this is ridiculously close.

YEScond.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is reminiscent of Siamey's style of trance, which is somewhat "harder" than most subs we get. I like the creative soundfield: it has a decent amount of standard trance sounds, but some other interesting tones on the side. Before I forget, the saw wave panned to the right was a little distracting. I would center that or at least pan it back and forth so it's not JUST slightly to one ear.

Production is nice overall. The bass sound seemed a little on the muddy side, and some of the synths had too much high end which caused a sort of buzzy treble, but these issues are fairly minor. Overall volume and mastering is ggenerally solid.. but it sounds like there's some distortion overall, which I think could be rectified by using slightly less limiting/maximizing at the end (the kick/bass are what cause it.) I'd like to see that fixed before we post this.

I'm liking the arrangement, which has a good balance between original writing & source material. The variations on the simple source arpeggio are well-executed. I was hoping to hear more of the chord progression from the original, but this is not a big issue.

Good job, Jewbei! :) Just fix up the mastering.

YES (conditional)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

agreed, it sounds a lot less cluttered. more impressively, i don't think it is any less cluttered haha the instrumentation is still all there... very nice.

sounds much better, doesn't clip and is good to go.

YES

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fixed version sounds good. Maybe a little dry now, but definitely not a big enough problem to hold it back now.

YES

Share this post


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