Liontamer Posted November 16, 2008 Share Posted November 16, 2008 Form lettered last time, some improvement this time around - LT Hello OC Remix! I am resubmitting this after taking the advice you gave me last month and working on it some more. I think I'll go with "Reflections" as the song title. Here is the song link: Contact Information * Your ReMixer name: KaijaLea * Your real name: Kaija Thorson * Your email address: kaija@pixlberry.com * Your website: http://www.pixlberry.com/living8bit * Your userid: 25528 Submission Information * Name of game(s) arranged: Super Mario 64 * Name of individual song(s) arranged: Dire Dire Docks * Your own comments about the mix, for example the inspiration behind it, how it was made, etc: I think Koji Kondo is my greatest inspiration when it comes to video game music. Everything he writes is amazing; plus, he makes it seem so easy! I especially enjoy Dire Dire Docks because of the atmosphere it sets when you're exploring the depths of the sea. As for the composition, I basically started from scratch in Garage Band and used my USB midi keyboard to play the notes; the counter-melodies and flow of the composition just came naturally once I picked the instruments and tempo. My biggest challenge at the moment is making midi instruments sound realistic and believeable. This is my first piece EVER, and I know I can improve with lots of practice. However, I have a lot of great inspiration from this site, so I am excited to create more! Thanks so much for your consideration, (again), Kaija Thorson kaija@pixlberry.com -------------------------------------------------------------- http://www.zophar.net/download_file/12246 - 09 "Dire, Dire Docks" Definitely an improvement over the first version you sent in. I liked the presence of the water SFX. The piano articulations were substantially improved vs. last time, but could still use some work so that the timing doesn't sound so rigid. The piano tone was also very thin and the synthetic-ness of the sample felt exposed. Arrangement-wise, the approach was very conservative overall, with some personalized embellishments and original countermelodic writing to add some personalized touches. 1:31-2:49 was a good example of a mostly original section in the style of the source tune, albeit with some slightly aimless patches. Still, when in play, the source's melody and countermelody could have used more direct interpretation as well, or at least more interplay with the original sections you had in place. You don't necessarily have to keep tweaking this piece, because I'm not sure you can get it to a passable state at your current skill level. But use our forums (if you aren't doing so already) to ask questions, get critique and add to your knowledge. Good stuff so far; compared to the first version, the sound quality showed some good improvement, and you're generally going in the right idea with the interpretation. Whether it's with this piece or your future works, continue working out the kinks when it comes to fleshing out the sounds and getting things to sound fuller and more realistic, and you'll be in great shape over time. NO (resubmit) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Palpable Posted November 21, 2008 Share Posted November 21, 2008 I really like this one. It starts and ends very conservatively, but the vast middle section has a lot of skillful changes to the classic theme. Slight melody changes and chord augmentations sneak in first, followed by some higher octave flourishes (are you three-handed?). By the middle of the song practically every element is changed, while keeping the same basic structure. Every now and then, you went a little off the rails melodically, but I thought those moments were ambitious and usually the dissonance created interesting tension, rather than just being unmusical. Probably wouldn't have hurt to vary the beginning and end more, but I think the arrangement is fine the way it is. There is a slight rigidness to the piano playing, and the tone is not as good as it could be. I also found the water sounds to be a little distracting at times; maybe a softer volume and using EQ to separate it from the piano would have worked better there. But I don't think there's really a lot to complain about. You can hear every part well-enough, there's good dynamics. I'm gonna go ahead and say this one is good enough, though it could benefit from a little production work. Good work, Kaija! YES Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
big giant circles Posted November 22, 2008 Share Posted November 22, 2008 Not a bad submission. I agree with Larry and Vinnie that the piano does seem a bit rigid and mechanical. I think that actually might be the result of not so much the sequencing/performance, but more of the instrument patch itself. See, it's by default a very bright patch and it has a very strong attack. If you can find a little more realistic patch and merely replace it, I think that would solve a lot of the problem. If there's more velocity layers in the patch, then the quieter notes won't be as bold and choppy. That really loud attack is fine when you're actually hammering away during the more intense parts of the track. Anyway, moving on, there's a few note flubs here and there where it sounds like theres a degree of discord that doesn't belong in there (like :28, :46, :53, etc). Maybe go back and tweak those out, might be a good idea. The volume overall was too quiet, and while I don't mind the ocean waves sfx, it seemed a bit too loud considering the piano had plenty of room to be brought out. Also, there could actually stand to be a bit more reverb (or lengthen the decay and release of the piano) so the tails have some time to resonate a bit before shutting off. Not a bad submission, and like Larry said, if you feel inclined to simply move forward, you don't need to feel obligated to spend so much time on this one track. Keep practicing, as is the case with all submitters, we'd love to get a remix of yours up on the front page sometime, so keep at it! Totally off topic, I checked out your website. My wife loves that sort of stuff. I bet you two would get along well NO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vig Posted November 26, 2008 Share Posted November 26, 2008 One major issue: The sequencing is very mechanical. Velocity and timing are rigid, and the performance does not seem particularly likely. It's fine to write piano parts that wouldn't be played by a pianist, but the tune seems to call for a more natural part. Humanize! You've also got a bunch of questionable notes, but my main concern is that there seem to be too many hands involved on this one piano. I'd say you're heading in a good direction, though. NO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anosou Posted November 29, 2008 Share Posted November 29, 2008 I'm with Jesse on this one. The piano is very rigid. Some notes seem odd and could probably be changed (or at least not accented as much while playing/sequencing) to make it sound better overall. You have to work on humanizing this some more. The production wasn't bad. Piano was a bit clicky but not the worst sample I've heard. The ocean FX are too loud compared to the quiet piano and having them go during almost all the track is probably a bad move since they take a lot of attention from the piano. Arrangement is fairly conservative but you've got some good ideas. The odd note choices, as I mentioned, could definitely be re-written but overall you seem to have the right idea. You just have to get the execution up to par. NO(resubmit) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts