Mega Man X Chill Penguin WIP

[Rozovian]

Old info:

Mentioned in another thread that I was working on a remix of the Chill Penguin stage in MMX. Here it is. While I don't mind any type of feedback, I'm mostly interested in ideas on what to do after the 1:36 mark. Haven't done that much EQ work or anything, there's still lots of production stuff to do, so rant all you want about those, I'm probably aware of them already. So... ideas?

While you're at it, make sure to head over to KaltNacht's wip of the same track. At the time of writing, it's something of a midi rip/genre adaptation, but give him some quality feedback once he updates the wip.

Two versions, can't decide which one I should focus on. Any particular issues that stand out in them. Comments on either of them?

Pretty much done by now. Now what do I do?

New 2009 update.

Version SO

Version ES

Old wip

Here's the first wip

Source

Youtube source link:

[Tex]

(would have looked better if it was a link and not an embedded video)

I hosted for you a better quality version in mp3 format.

http://www.fileupyours.com/view/215432/Mega%20Man%20X%20-%20Chill%20Penguin%20Stage.mp3

[Chickenwarlord]

Good separation between sound ranges all around. The drum hits sound kinda dry. Might want to do a little more fine tuning with the pitchbending, it occasionally gets a little wild.

Ideas wise:

Turn the background arp into a demi-melody and harmonize that.

Original section based on a retrograde of the main melody.

Play around with octave registers: place that arpeggio in the bass whilst the higher part gets the original bassline.

Keep the harmonic structure but go completely nuts on new melody writing.

Just a few ideas you might or might not want to use.

[Rozovian]

Update:

WIP

Source

Thanks for the suggestions (they did help) and source upload. The arrangement is, I think, pretty much done ('cept it has no ending yet), tho I'll probably tweak melodies and chords and stuff. Production still hasn't been touched much.

Comment on whatever you like.

[Sengin]

Slowdown is pretty nice, like the water sounds. Before the slowdown, which was welcome, it was a bit repetitive and predictable. I like the arrangement after the slowdown much more than before; there's a lot going on with an interesting melody. Before it seems a bit...boring. Of course, this could just be my opinion, but there's nothing really keeping me listening until the slowdown. Perhaps throwing in some notes a little off the beaten path would help.

I like what you've got, but at least for my personal taste, up to the slowdown needs more to keep me interested. Good stuff, though.

[Kasperl]

This is actually quite nice.

[Dunusoor]

This is really nice.

You know what I just realized?

Parts of it sound very similar to Starcraft, but not in a bad way.

Can't wait for this to be finished.

[Rozovian]

Hasn't been any activity on the wip board for 8 hours, so I'm gonna throw in an update on my track.

Version SO

Version ES

Source in first post

At the moment, I've been working on the SO version, and I can't really decide which one I should sub when the times comes. Maybe both. If they're different enough in arrangement. I'm aware of some issues in both, but let me know what stands out to you, I'm biased.

It surprises me that you find it Starcraft-like. I've been playing Starcraft recently, but either I didn't pay enough attention to the music or the music you're associating it to is in the Protoss campaign.

[Dunusoor]

Honestly, they both sound fine too me, though I know I don't have the greatest ear for music. I think they might have enough variety to sub both, but it would probably be pushing it. What do SO and ES stand for, btw?

And it's not really the music, but the reverb and the note range that sounds like the basic in-game music. I could be totally wrong though, as I haven't played in about a month, it just reminds me of it is all.

[BlackPhantom]

First off, great improvement from what I heard last time. Personally, I like the ES version, but that's a matter of taste, really. I'm not good with the technical stuff, but something about the claps in that version don't seem to be that great. Maybe a different sample, or just replace it with some other beat.

I rather like where it's going though.

[Rozovian]

Apparently, I should do the ES version. Stands for ES2, the name of a synth I'm using. Named it so when I took a backup and started screwing with the synth to see what other sounds would work. SO stands for soft.

I asked 1makes2 to mess with the lead and one of the backing tracks, we'll see what becomes of that. Thanks folks for your feedback, it's much appreciated.

No update.

[Psychog13]

Well, im surprised you were able to do anything remotly decent with such a terrible source, man this tune sucks...

checked out both es2b7 and os2b3 - prefered OS personally on first impression so the following is about that...

The start was excellent i loved the way it came in, at 53 the synth was beauitful. Some awsome little sound effects that follow were just sweet. I thought that when the 2nd layer came in at about 1:07 though sounded a little weak, could of used a sweeping noise or something maybe to give it a little more atmosphere I thought. after that there is this over used short bass noise sounds like a 'ziiip' or 'whoop' that got annoying

Really liked the way it came back in at 2:56 although i was a little bored just before it it seemed a bit empty

that damn ziiipy whoopy noise again at 3:30... by this point I hate that noise all together

There is allot that I love about this track though, It is awsome... makes my work look inferiour I like more changes though this is very straight forward and liniar with very relaxed drums - but they work.

I think the weakest bit is 2:12 till when it kicks back in again, it feels empty for a long moment which im so not fond of in its current state, i mean even for trance/techno I feel like it lacks ambience like its missing a layer or something

Well those were the passing thoughts I had as i gave it a few listens, not sure that i even got the latest version though whoops... Like i said though its pretty awsome sounding reguardless I dont even think it needs changing this is just what I would do to it...

[uranai]

This is not really my style but i like your remix. When i first heard the source i was expecting some Liquid Tension-esque duels of guitars and synths.

I like the spacey feeling ( i totally love the drops in the background). The production is superb too. Great use of eq and separation in 3 axis. It's a really fine job.

However, I think it is a bit plain, I was waiting for it to explode at some time, to get heavier drums. Again, maybe i'm thinking in another style.

Nice one.

[Rozovian]

Psych, you're probably talking about the reverse bass drum. The effect I wanted with it is kind'a buried, unfortunately. I'll see what I can do about that, I like reverse stuff. ...dude, you consistently misspelled SO version.

Uranai, your feedback isn't helpful unless I know which version you're talking about: SO or ES? (I'm assuming SO, but can't be sure) btw, those drops are actually pitch-modulated woodblock hits. Might be preset, might have come from just screwing with the settings, but they're there because I like 'em too.

[uranai]

I'm sorry, I forgot to mention. I listen to mmxbraincoolerv9so2b3.mp3.

It's amazing that what sounds like water drops is just a woodblock...

[Rozovian]

Cool, ain't it? It amazes me too. Probably a combination of how drops behaves when they hit water, and the amount of reverb we associate with the sound. Whatever, it's serendipitous.

[jintoreedwine]

I have been meaning to write down some thoughts here for a week or two now. I listened to both SO and ES versions. My preference is toward the ES and I especially the like the section from 1:09 - 1:15 . There is just something about the phrase that makes it stand out to me. It may also help that I particularly enjoy the style of the remix in general (lots of synth).

At first I wasn't sure how I felt about the section from 2:15 - 3:04 because it seems like the song wants to end in one of two spots, specifically, at 2:25 and 2:57. I like a lot of what is in there though, especially that water droplet effect! Also, maybe that is what you were shooting for, I don't want to inject my own tastes into your remix .

In any case I really like the way this mix is sounding!

[z130]

I'd definitely go with the ES version, simply because seems to have more energy, and the break at about 2:15 captures the smooth feel of the SO version, giving it the best of both worlds.

Overall a very solid track.

[Gario]

Well, Rozovian, I like it. Good interpretation, yet the source is easy to hear, as well. I can't say much about the mix that will help, as your better at mixing than I, but I think it sounds great.

However, some of the counterpoint within the harmonies sounds... off. In music like this, good counterpoint is very helpful. Moving from a 5th interval to another 5th interval hurts the music. In the melody, there is only one example of this (1:15 - 1:17), but that short span makes me cringe. If you need to double, please do it at the 3rd or 6th, or counter the melody instead.

The pad in the harmonies is the general culprit of parallel 5th's. I suspect that it is a part of the synth, itself. If it is, change the settings so the pad doesn't automatically play a fifth above (or below) the line, then re-insert the 5th's and other intervals where you feel is needed. If you wrote the 5th's yourself, then change the motion from one 5th to another into similar, oblique or counter motion, or at least not from one 5th to another.

Perhaps this sounds personal, but there are very important structural reasons that I say this. In the melody, the fifth implies different chords than those that are playing, which messes up my hearing of the song (in a bad way). In the harmony, 5th's sound clunky, as they are the most stable interval (next to the 8th). It may sound 'Okay' as is, but there is almost always something else that sounds much, much better, and will help move the music along at the same time.

As I said above, though, I dig this. Finish it and submit it. MMX doesn't get enough love here (relative to how badass the soundtrack is, of course). Don't leave the penguin hangin' for much longer

[Darthfett]

Considering I'm a huge Mega Man X fan, I have a little bias myself.

The SO soundtrack seemed to be a bit random in its nature, and all seemed to be centered around the same slow-moving and peaceful type sound.

It was really good, but I felt it could use a little more variation, like the ES soundtrack had.

The ES soundtrack was awesome! In the very beginning, the guitar intro kept me interested, and the transitions were great. A lot of memorable places in this one, while the SO just seemed a bit static.

Although they are different interpretations, I really liked the ES one better. The SO wasn't bad, but it didn't move around much.

Great job on both of them, they are spectacular!

[Rozovian]

Haven't done much on the wip board lately. Kind'a miss it, but school has to come first.

Anyway, update.

I went with the ES version, which is now the SOL version after a prospective collab partner dropped off the face of the... uh, net.

Haven't done anything about the 5ths you had a problem with, Gario, but I did check the pad and found it doesn't add a 5th. Also, you might want to be even more specific, I suck at music theory. I'm also lazy, and will not use wikipedia or google to figure it out.

[Gario]

Ok, I'll lay down what I'm talking about as neat as I can (and hopefully you'll agree with me )

By the way, before I get hit with flak, I'm not talking about open fifths in general, just when they move together.

The two leads you use at 1:13 is a very clear example of the parallel fifths I'm talking about. A parallel fifth is when two voices move from one fifth interval to another different fifth interval without any intervening intervals. For example, at 1:13 you slide from Eb/Bb to F/C, F/C to D/A, then finally D/A to Bb/F. The problems it causes actually varies from use to use, but there is always a problem, believe me. For example, the Eb & Bb implies a different key (Eb Major/Minor... can't tell without the third, of course). Open 5ths create ambiguity within the music because of their open quality... (Actually, I really can't tell what chord you want there - you've outlined Eb-Bb with the bass and F-C in the melody, creating Eb-Bb-F-C in this part).

Also, you can always make a piece of music sound better at the parts with the parallel fifth by either changing the motion to counter motion, using 3rds and 6ths instead of fifths, alternating 5ths and another interval (like 3rds and 6ths ), moving one voice and not another, using a single voice, etc. Really, this is the biggest problem for me with parallel 5ths - there's always something that can be done that doesn't involve 5ths that just sounds better. I'd actually give some recommendations as to what, except the bass implies a different chord from the melody...

It's really not too prevailant throughout the piece, just at that area in the melody... As for the harmonies... I can't hear the 5ths right now - either my ears are tired, you took them out without knowing or they were overtones that I heard and not actually in the music. I'm gonna give this a more critical listen tomorrow, compare it to you older versions, etc... I'm a bit tired, and I just thought I'd clear up my inane ranting about parallel fifths by ranting some more

Really, I want to compare the two and give you actual feedback, but I gotta do it tomorrow!

[Hemophiliac]

Ok, I'll lay down what I'm talking about as neat as I can (and hopefully you'll agree with me )

By the way, before I get hit with flak, I'm not talking about open fifths in general, just when they move together.

The two leads you use at 1:13 is a very clear example of the parallel fifths I'm talking about. A parallel fifth is when two voices move from one fifth interval to another different fifth interval without any intervening intervals. For example, at 1:13 you slide from Eb/Bb to F/C, F/C to D/A, then finally D/A to Bb/F. The problems it causes actually varies from use to use, but there is always a problem, believe me. For example, the Eb & Bb implies a different key (Eb Major/Minor... can't tell without the third, of course). Open 5ths create ambiguity within the music because of their open quality... (Actually, I really can't tell what chord you want there - you've outlined Eb-Bb with the bass and F-C in the melody, creating Eb-Bb-F-C in this part).

Also, you can always make a piece of music sound better at the parts with the parallel fifth by either changing the motion to counter motion, using 3rds and 6ths instead of fifths, alternating 5ths and another interval (like 3rds and 6ths ), moving one voice and not another, using a single voice, etc. Really, this is the biggest problem for me with parallel 5ths - there's always something that can be done that doesn't involve 5ths that just sounds better. I'd actually give some recommendations as to what, except the bass implies a different chord from the melody...

It's really not too prevailant throughout the piece, just at that area in the melody... As for the harmonies... I can't hear the 5ths right now - either my ears are tired, you took them out without knowing or they were overtones that I heard and not actually in the music. I'm gonna give this a more critical listen tomorrow, compare it to you older versions, etc... I'm a bit tired, and I just thought I'd clear up my inane ranting about parallel fifths by ranting some more

Really, I want to compare the two and give you actual feedback, but I gotta do it tomorrow!

I'm going to say you shouldn't take Gario's statements to heart on this.

If Rozovian wants to write in parallel fifths there's nothing wrong with it. And there is nothing "always" wrong with it, nor does contrary motion make anything "always" sound better.

Take this to heart though: If it sounds good, it doesn't matter what it's doing.

Also the ambiguity that Gario speaks of is pointless, tonality isn't completely necessary in this type of music, nor does open fifths imply other keys/tonalities.

None of the parts in this bothered me on a dissonance level either.

Gario, try some twentieth century music...rather then common practice stuff ;P the kind of thinking you're getting at really doesn't fit in with this type of music...he's not writing something that's immitating Bach or Palestrina here.

Back on topic: nice wip, production doesn't feel bad, and i'm digging the arrangement. my advice would be add more stuff to the melody that you're not going to find in the original, not just rhythmic riffs on the original melody.

[Rozovian]

Not sure I intend on changing it, but I want to understand why Gario's saying what he's saying. This isn't the only kind of music I make.

That's good newb advice, btw: Learn to hear/understand _why_ ppl give you the crits they give.

[Gario]

Hah! I was waiting for someone to give me the 'P5ths isn't that bad' thing for some time now, so thank you Hemophiliac for opening this discussion up

...there is nothing "always" wrong with it...

True, true; it's not 'always' wrong to use a P5th - however, in the context of tonal music, there is... If you find a P5th anywhere in tonal music (that spans, by the way, ~1550 - 1915, not just Palestrina, Zarlino, etc., but also Beethoven, Brahms, early Schoenberg, etc.), I assure you that it most certainly either isn't structural or is an illusion (e.g. Grieg's 'Church Bells' seems to have P5ths littering the entire thing - however, you find upon closer analysis that the 5ths are really completely seperate voices so there isn't anything wrong with it ).

The big problem with parallel fifths, to be more accurate than my last post, is that, in fact, it has such a strong static effect on a chord that the listener's ear (well, listeners of the past, with 'power chords' being so common, perhaps not as much today ) catches the moment to be 'static' rather than in motion; thus, if one moves from one static moment to another without anything intervening, the music will certainly sound 'clunky'. That's why contrapuntalists so firmly and strictly teach against the use of P5ths, and rightly so. Sorry for being ambiguous with this earlier - I didn't want to fill up this forum with the answer (which I'm probably doing now ).

Also the ambiguity that Gario speaks of is pointless, tonality isn't completely necessary in this type of music, nor does open fifths imply other keys/tonalities.

What type of music? Tonal music? Music that uses polyphony, monophony or homophony? Music that uses melody/harmony? If your going to use a key signature, then the ambiguity most certainly is going to be relevant, and unless your trying to achieve a neo-classical sound (such as mid-life Stravinsky), it's gonna inevitably be a bad thing! Why would you follow a key or use a key signature unless you plan on having a key center in the first place?

Also, for the most part, open fifths do not 'imply' chords/keys, generally. They say in a bold statement 'IT IS THIS KEY/CHORD!!!' so dominantly that there isn't any way around it. I actually didn't mean that P5ths do this - if I said that I was wrong - I was refering to the specific instance in Rozovian's music. In quartal music (such as a lot of Ives and early/mid Schoenberg), the 'chord' Eb/Bb/F/C is quite pleasant. In anything using a key signature, though, unless your using it as a double suspension (which isn't the case in Rozovian's music), then it implies 3 key centers - Eb, Bb or F - which throws me as a listener off. Eb/Bb strongly implies Eb, Bb/F equally strongly implies Bb, and F/C equally represents F as your chord/key. Think about it - if you use open fifths, the overtone series that we hear over it (always there, just got to listen for it) completes the chord whether we want it to or not. With multiple and different 5ths playing, multiple overtones are completing different chords, so if there isn't a third to disambiguate what is really playing then the listener is, to put it frankly, screwed. (Interesting bit of trivia - before Schoenberg moved on to 12 tone music, he relied heavily on fifths and fourths to purposely throw the listener off of what key the piece was in, as he didn't want the listener to be in any key by the end!)

Gario, try some twentieth century music...

Don't worry, I've been listening critically to it for the past 6 years of my life, and off hand for more like 8-10 years. I know what your getting at (and why I've expected your type of post for some time), and it is correct, to an extent. However, are people here writing post tonal music? I'm not finding anyone writing any pre- or post- 12 tone atonal music, nor do I find very much quartal music. Post-modern music is almost out of the question, too... I do find some minimalism, but, strangely enough, minimalism actually uses counterpoint much the same way as they did in the past, so proper counterpoint is still relevant (it was the composer's way to react against the post-Webern style - which was horrible, by the way). Counterpoint is most certainly relevant in these WIP's, so I'm going to make mention of it if I hear anything off with it (mostly P5ths, though).

...he's not writing something that's immitating Bach or Palestrina here.

I agree completely! Thank god for that, as we have enough Bach to last a lifetime!! Palestrina's got enough stuff, as well. Personally, if composers had the tools back then that we have now, I'd say he's closer to writing late/neo romantic music (which is, in general, what the people listen to and enjoy today), and what you'll probably be doing if your posting in the WIP forums (and certainly if you've been posted on OC - I can't see them putting up any 'modern' mixes ). Romantic music did everything possible to stretch the rules of harmony to it's limits, oddly enough, often using older contrapuntal techniques!

And there is nothing "always" wrong with [P5ths], nor does contrary motion make anything "always" sound better.

Hopefully, up at the top of this post will clear up why P5ths are, in fact, 'always' wrong.

Of course, contrary motion doesn't always fix the problems...

Also, you can always make a piece of music sound better at the parts with the parallel fifth by either changing the motion to counter motion, using 3rds and 6ths instead of fifths, alternating 5ths and another interval (like 3rds and 6ths ), moving one voice and not another, using a single voice, etc.

... so I made quite a few suggestions, there. No, contrary motion isn't always the best idea, but it's often the easiest. Other techniques will work, but they may take some more fiddling, depending on what type of music your writing...

None of the parts in this bothered me on a dissonance level either.

You, too? I don't hear much dissonance either (except in passing at, like I said before, 1:13 - Eb/Bb/F/C involves 9ths and 13ths that clash with the Eb/Bb... but due to ambiguity, no one can really tell what is clashing with what!). The problem I hear is something that occurs horizantally, not vertically. It is the motion that is off, for me, not the harmonies...

By the way, don't take this as a 'OMFG! YOU AREN"TZ AGREE WIT ME?!? STFU!!' post; I actually enjoyed writing it . I just wanted you to understand completely what I was saying, and hope that you can sympathize with me on the subject a little better after reading the mountain of text. If you still don't agree, then at least you know my side of the story

Rozovian, start reading here if your not interested in any of that junk...

Sorry, Rozovian, I actually came back to compare the two mixes and tell you what I thought of them (I said that on the last post, right?), but I wanted to clear that mess up (I talk about P5ths a lot when I critique music, so going in depth with the subject is sometimes necessary...). On the bright side, now you don't have to go to Wikipedia to find all this junk out !

Okay, the mix is now wet to start with, then oddly enough drys out very quickly (in contrast to having a similar reverb throughout). I like that sound, it both cleans up the mix and adds depth at the same time. Nice.

NOW I hear the P5ths that I talked about in the harmonies earlier ... it's in the pad at 1:28 - 1:55 (as well as other similar areas). I see what your going for, there, so could I make a suggestion? Build to the fifth at 1:32 using intervals that aren't 5ths, then hold the top note of the pads while the bottom moves like it does (when I say hold, restriking the same note works, too). You'll get a richer sound in the harmonies this way (it's a sound you get throughout your mix, anyhow, so it also is consistant with the rest of your remix).

At 3:43, I hear more P5ths between an accompanying melody and the lead melody. It's hard to hear, so I don't know if it's groundbreaking... Sorry, I wouldn't be pointing out every one, except I just gave a rant on them . Also, it's building to a key change here, but it isn't working for me at the moment. Try to make the key change more convincing either by not building to it at all (the sudden contrast can make this change effective) or making the build more... subtle. Because it is a step above the original key, the subtle approach is very difficult to achieve, so I'd recommend the more 'abrupt' change, there.

The mixing is much better than it was before. I'm surprised you could do that - I'm sure I could a lot about production by listening to your stuff (it's my bane, right now).

Really, you know that I like this piece, so my comments are gonna be nitpicky, now. I want this to be as close to perfection as possible - that's why I even mention P5ths and the like. It's really good, right now, but I want it to be perfect!

Learn to hear/understand _why_ ppl give you the crits they give

That's some good advice. I'm just trying to help, here, with the rant up above

Good luck with this!