Liontamer Posted October 24, 2008 Share Posted October 24, 2008 Sup. Let's see if this time I make it, eh? -Xenon Odyssey -Bobby Keller -xenonodyssey@hotmail.com -http://xenonodyssey.googlepages.com/ -http://www.ocremix.org/forums/member.php?u=6142 -Sonic & Knuckles -Lava Reef Zone Act 2/Hidden Palace Zone -You guys got it all covered -" " -Well, back in June I was playing around in C minor, and I happened to just accidently play the melody of Hidden Palace. I thought it went well with the major VI 9th chord I was playing going into the leading tone (2:25 - 2:37). Thus, I made an arrangement out of it. Darke said in #ocrwip that it's a bit too liberal for his tastes, which I understand completely, so even if it didn't make it onto the site, I won't go and make yet another shyjdgfgt thread on you guys ;P LINKAGE: It's a goog thing I re-read the submissions, since you guys don't like to have mis-labeled OCR tags on songs, but I didn't take out the album art that I use for OCRemixes, so I hope you guys don't mind. Also, zircon said at the Philly meet-up back in June that I really liked Sonic...hopefully a future submission will truly convey how correct that statement is -B. Kel. ------------------------------------------------------------- To clarify for the judgefgts that don't know this soundtrack, there's only one source tune. http://project2612.org/download.php?id=61 - "Lava Reef Zone (Act 2)" Yeah, so I like the piece and everything clicks on the writing, but I'm in the "too liberal column". For a 4:43-long piece, this needed 141.5 seconds of source usage to pass. The breakdown (STOPWATCH!): :14.5-:20, :28-:32, 1:19-1:20, 1:22-1:24, 1:26-1:31, 1:33-1:38, 1:40-1:42, 2:10-2:36, 3:03-3:38, 3:39.5-3:55, 4:11-4:16 So I've got about 106 seconds in there, or about 37.5% source usage. There possibly could be more that could be counted, but I listened to the source countermelodies and basslines and wasn't picking up anything else overtly. Now, I'm open to other POVs, but finding another half-minute's worth of connection is a stretch for a fairly straightforward source, so I'm pretty sure of my vote. Still, I'm definitely down with this piece regardless of the standards, so I'm looking forward to a revision of this or another more strongly connected arrangement from you in the future, Bobby! NO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malcos Posted October 26, 2008 Share Posted October 26, 2008 This sounds fantastic, but I feel that it is much too liberal - only after 2.30 can I say that I heard clear links to the source. Everything else about this is OCR material, this was played beautifully. I hate to have to no this, but I must. NO (resub please) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Palpable Posted October 26, 2008 Share Posted October 26, 2008 I really like this one, Bobby. The piano playing is very nice, and I love the parts you added to the song. The whole song flows very well, as if your additions were part of the original song. But they're not, and there's too many of them. Larry's breakdown matches with my own, it sounds like it's about 40% source and 60% your own thing. If you can shift that balance and make it more reminiscent of the original, I could easily see this passing. One last word: the overall volume seemed a little soft and I wouldn't mind seeing a little bump there via compression. I'd be happy if you send this one back to us after a revision, but no worries if you feel it's done. NO (resubmit) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts