*NO* Equinox 'Altena's End'

[Liontamer]

Contact Info

Your ReMixer name: Abadoss

Your real name: Kenneth Edward Keyn

Your email address: Abadoss@yahoo.com

Your website: http://www.abadoss.net

Your userid (number, not name) on our forums: 1901

ReMix Info

Name of game(s) ReMixed: Equinox

Name of individual song(s) ReMixed: Game Over / Atlenta

Additional information:

When Larry approached me about the Dirge for the Follin, I didn't really know anything about Tim Follin. I wasn't sure what I would ReMix, but I couldn't turn down an invitation from Larry. So, I downloaded the OSTs for as many as I could find and began looking through the various tracks. Two pieces stuck out immediately for me: "Game Over" and "Atlenta" from Equinox. The soundtrack from Equinox is rather unusual in that each track has so many soundscapes packed inside. I found a primarily flute-y/oboe-based theme in "Atlenta" that I liked enough to build the core of my ReMix off of. "Game Over" was short enough that it could be used in whole at the beginning and the end of the piece.

It should be mentioned that the way that "Game Over" is represented at the beginning of the piece was actually accidental at first. Finale has a plugin - which comes with the program - that allows a composer to change the rhythm of a piece by intervals. I had initially written out the music in mostly whole and half notes, felt it was a little clunky in notation, and decided to cut it in half. What I wasn't expecting was that, while the rhythm was cut in half, the entrances remained in their old locations. This created a rather interesting effect that I built upon and used as a transition into the Atlenta section.

Also, the spelling for "Atlenta" proved to be particularly problematic, as in the OST it's listed as "Atlena". Being rather dislexic, I had a tendancy to type it as "Altena". Up until this final version, I continued to use "Altena's End" as the title - which I still think sounds better.

This piece is arranged for a woodwind quintet, harp, and strings. It was composed using Finale 2007 and Garritan Personal Orchestra.

[DarkeSword]

Abadoss, you really can't get away with just using Finale and GPO. This composition is fine, but like your previous works, it's not a production. You have to make this sound like a performance. It's terribly flat and mechanical. There's little to no humanization going on in the sequencing. It's also dry and the soundscape has no depth. Just notating the piece and letting the computer play it back for you isn't enough. This needs some actual production.

I don't think Finale is cutting it for you. You have to step it up to an actual DAW, not a notation program. I'm not that familiar with Finale, but I don't really think it has the humanization and production tools you need to take your music to the next level. I use FLStudio, but that doesn't use staff notation. Maybe another judge can recommend something more up your alley. Until then, NO(resub)

[Liontamer]

[22:57] <Abadoss> Hello.

[23:49] <Liontamer> sup

[23:50] <Liontamer> so far, got a 1N on there for lack of realism with the comment that the arrangement is more than bueno, but have been pushing for more comments for a while

[00:07] <Abadoss> Lack of realism?

[00:08] <Abadoss> I'm not sure that's particular fair...

[00:08] <Liontamer> "This composition is fine, but like your previous works, it's not a production. You have to make this sound like a performance. It's terribly flat and mechanical. There's little to no humanization going on in the sequencing. It's also dry and the soundscape has no depth."

[00:09] <Liontamer> feel free to respond to that; I can ask for it to be qualified more

[00:10] <Abadoss> Well... I'm mostly just frustrated that two of my previous works can be accepted while everything afterward gets denied because it isn't better than the first two.

[00:11] <Abadoss> I'm using the same tools as I was before.

[00:11] <Liontamer> I don't think the bar is particularly higher now than in 2006; just my POV

[00:12] <Liontamer> I'm sure it's a little higher, but not drastically

[00:12] <Liontamer> personally I thought what was in place sounded pretty reasonable, but I'm holding off

[00:15] <Abadoss> It's hard not to think that my first two mixes were conditionally passed assuming the quality of the production could only get better. I've never claimed production as a strength of mine.

[00:15] <Abadoss> Or even a focus, really.

[00:15] <Abadoss> (This is just venting at the moment, by the way, nothing directed at you.)

[00:16] <Liontamer> we use conditional YESs as in "improve this and then we'll post it", but either a song makes it or doesn't

[00:17] <Liontamer> so there's nothing conditional about the fact that your two mixes passed; if they were below bar, there's no exception made "as long as you get better"

[00:17] <Abadoss> Yeah, I know. It just feels that way. I differenciate between what I feel and what I know.

[00:18] <Abadoss> It just seems weird to me that the production quality hasn't changed much from those mixes to now. Actually, it has in fact gotten better. Yet, wall.

[00:19] <Abadoss> I am starting to get discouraged from submitting, to be honest.

[00:20] <Liontamer> Well, you know, we obviously don't want that, but that's never gonna factor either way on a decision, not that you're thinking about it that way

[00:21] <Liontamer> I'll see what I can do about the comments potentially being more helpful, as in "well, try this", but that's more like a bonus

[00:23] <Abadoss> That wasn't my intension to sway the vote, just venting...

[00:24] <Liontamer> yeah, np

[00:24] <Liontamer> vent away

[00:24] <Liontamer> I'll ask the J to try and hook up some specifics/suggestions

[00:24] <Liontamer> there's some broad stuff, but I'll ask for something more pointed to the track

[00:25] <Abadoss> Thanks. I definitely appreciate your help.

[00:28] <Liontamer> nah, no thanks; we'll see how it goes

Shariq, can you expand some more with some specifics on how to improve the piece? No problem if not (for those of you playing the home game, we give specifics and advice when we want to, and we generally try to, but it's not a requirement since our only official role is to evaluate).

[DarkeSword]

No real specifics, Larry. My complaint is basically an overall critique on the approach. I didn't vote on Ken's posted remixes, and while they are good compositions, I personally feel they suffer from the same issues (although I am only one judge). I also pointed out these issues in Ken's last submission as well.

Ken, let me be very clear about one thing in particular: you're a good arranger, and very few people on OCR can approach an arrangement with the kind of classical/chamber-music sensibilities like you can. My frustration comes from the fact that you're essentially sending us what amounts to MIDI files run through GPO with little to no attention given to humanization and sound design. OCR isn't a sheet music site; it's not a MIDI site. It's a site for produced music. You're writing chamber music; I have a reasonable expectation that it should sound like people playing it. There needs to be expression in the performance. Only you can bring that to the music; GPO won't add that for you.

A lot of your sustained strings and very flat, dynamically speaking. The only change in dynamics I can even recall is the decrescendo at the very end of the song. Everything has this sort of "wall-of-sound" quality; big blocks of sustained chords that don't do much. That might sound fine when you have an actual group of real people playing the song because they can bring a degree of expression to even sustained notes through dynamics, accenting, vibrato, and all that other nice stuff, but your computer won't do that until you actually take the time to use your samples to create a performance.

Humanization is so important when it comes to the kind of music you're writing. You can't get away with this kind of thing when you write with a classical approach. It just sounds fake.

[anosou]

I'm with Shariq on this one. Also, regarding the complaint about your previous mixes getting posted, the standards are in fact constantly changing (although not by much to be sure) and new judges are voting. I've never voted on any of your mixes before so I'm just going to vote exactly like I would at any other submission.

Because it's a pure-orchestra/chamber piece you need to go the extra mile when it comes to production! Equalization, reverb and humanization are all part of the production. Right now the strings are the worst, the longer notes pretty much keeps the exact same looping timbre and volume. It sounds very fake. This is especially obvious in places with advanced harmonies with notes that lie really close to eachother where the strings seem to clash a bit.

The arrangement is great. No complaint here, but the production just takes away so much of the enjoyement of listening to this piece. With some proper humanization, depth and dynamic this would be so much more than just a good arrangement.

My tip is investing in some serious orchestra libraries (East West comes to mind). Then take time to export your Finale MIDI into a DAW, work with humanizing the midis and use different articulations from the library. At the same time you should take your time to carefully add equalization and reverb where needed. You're obviously serious about your compositions (I've seen your going rates at your website, compared to my rates as a beginner in the world of VGM composition they're through the roof ;P). Kicking your production up a notch would make you much more attractive to pretty much any client looking for an orchestral score. I'm sorry but I don't think what you have now is cutting it for OCR.

NO(resubmit)

[Palpable]

I liked the arrangement, but I thought for such a similar mood and set of instruments more could have been done when handling the source material. There were differences in those source sections, but they were subtle ones. Nevertheless, the new sections you added to connect things together were good.

Production was iffy, as noted. There are weak moments like the string trills that stick out badly, but the rest of it was serviceable and I think good enough for our standards. Certainly better than MIDI - the sample quality is good, just not the articulations. A more humanized production would definitely improve the piece, and actually, would set it apart from the original more. Both the original and your arrangement are a little mechanical; with more humanized playing, better dynamics, etc., it would stand apart.

If I was really solid on the arrangement, I wouldn't hesitate to YES, despite so-so production. As it stands, I think you barely squeak over the line. I'd highly suggest getting accustomed to a DAW, picking up some good orchestral software, and working on articulations. You could do a lot more with this piece.

YES (borderline)

[big giant circles]

Gonna have to disagree with Vinnie and agree with DS and AnSo.

Vinnie did you hear the trombone at :19? It's not only flat and mechanical, but there doesn't seem to be any ambiance of any kind on it, no reverb, no tweaking of the ASDR values, nada

And oh, woe is me, the flute trill at 1:05. It gets a double :(

So choppy.

I like Ken a lot, and hope he doesn't take any of our criticisms as personal hate or anything. He really seems like a good guy, and I hate that his votes tend to go this way. Looking on the bright side, I have no doubt that this would sound phenomenal if the London Philharmonic played this or something. The world needs good orchestrators as well as it needs producers. So production isn't your thing, it's not the end of the world. There's always time to practice and learn. It might not be a bad thing to perhaps start trying to collab with people who you know are decent in that regard. A little hands on learning.

I realize Larry wants us to provide insight on how to make something better, but honestly, learning to achieve more realistic qualities out of VSTs is just not something that can be taught in a single vote. Like many things in life, it's an ability that some people have naturally, some people have to work a little at, some people have to work a LOT at, and some people might never have. I highly doubt you'll never have it, but you obviously just need to work a little more. Just keep practicing.

On the flip side, I'm not much of a notation arranger by any stretch. I'm not sure I'd be able to notate stuff with half the quality that you do, so again, that abilities thing goes both ways.

Anyway, back to the vote, arrangement is decent, but the production requires attention.

RESUB

[Liontamer]

http://snesmusic.org/v2/download.php?spcNow=eq - "Atlena" (eq-06.spc)

Having first heard this and also encouraged Kenneth's revisions, I initially felt this piece was passable despite its issues. I thought the arrangement was relatively conservative but personalized well with the new counterpoint writing and expansive instrumentation.

But having read through the NO votes and keeping those crits in mind on a fresh listen, I'm afraid I also have to say it's not ready from primetime for pretty much the same reasons everyone else gave.

But for anyone to say Finale isn't cutting it I think is a disservice to the strength of Ken's other passed mixes. I believe more mixes at the production level of "At the End of All Things" and "Epona's Pastorale" would likely pass, but didn't think this was at the same level of production quality.

I thought the main difference with those compared to this one, Ken, was that you effectively used reverb/delay to give your sampled instruments more body and natural-sounding resonance, and this piece didn't have that. For example, the layering of the bowed strings throughout did create some density, but the strings were so dry that the textures still felt thin. The brass first used at :19 was a sore spot. I dunno if there were 0 effects on it, but it sounded thin and flat; it definitely had 0 meat behind it and was too exposed.

In this piece, the samples were a lot drier, and the articulations were a lot more exposed and unrealistic sounding. So when DarkeSword mentioned that the feel of the soundscape didn't sound like a live performance, I agreed. That doesn't mean you need ultra high-end samples, just the the soundscape lacks that performance ambiance to make what you have sound more natural. Ultimately, I think that was the dealbreaker on the production side, not because Finale and GPO samples weren't cutting it.

It sounds like it could be difficult to create an effective room ambiance with this piece given that the bowed strings seem to take up so much space, but you handled it well in "At the End of All Things", so I think it could be done here if you wanted to tweak it further. That said, I know you've been touching this up for a while, so there's no harm in calling it a done deal. Personally, I think it makes a solid addition to Dirge for the Follin, or I wouldn't have OK'ed it for the album.

I completely understand Palpable's b-YES on this, because I've wavered on that line myself in judging it. However, I think the sum total of the issues with the dry sound and exposed, mechanical articulations holds it back enough to go NO. Either keep the textures dry but refine the articulations OR make the soundscape wetter using more delay/reverb on the parts to better mask the shortcomings of the articulations. Very sorry to drag this out, Kenneth, but understand we all want this to realize its potential and sound its best, as well as encourage your continued growth as an artist.

NO (borderline/refine/resubmit)