GrayLightning Posted January 6, 2004 Share Posted January 6, 2004 Russell wants to use a fallthrough on this mix. Since not much is going on in the panel right now, I thought this might be an ok time to do it? Song: The Temple of the Magi Handle: Russell Cox Game: The Magic of Scheherazade URL: **removed** Comments: "This is an arrangement of the temple theme from the Magic of Scheherazade. It's Baroque with string orchestra, solo viola, and a spinet (not harpsichord, though it sounds similar). This is my most "classical" sounding piece so far and one of my personal bests. 85% of this song is original due to the amount of counterpoint and work that had to go into it to make it sound "authentic" (i.e. the three parts sound fluid and not jerky, not as though two composers supplied the material). The only thing untouched is the line in the violins for the first eight bars (and whenever it returns in the song). It's in standard Rondo form (for those of you theorists out there) and follows ABACABA. I didn't want a lot of reverb (and this is still too much) as it's supposed to represent a chamber feel, but since the sections of the strings I have are too large I just had to make due -- so if it's too 'dry' for your tastes you'll just have to deal with it. Yes, I know the violas are further back than everything else -- that's the way I intended it to be." Edit: Russ got back to me and confirmed it was track 21 of the nsf file. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Protricity Posted January 6, 2004 Share Posted January 6, 2004 The original is Magic of Scheherazade (Track 21/31) on the nsf 'magic.nsf' http://www.zophar.net/nsf/magic.zip Main thing that bothers me about this piece is not that the first 17 seconds is exact with the original, but that everything following and between the original choruses’s is very original material. Its one thing to make a piece your own with considerable originality, but complete originality is something different altogether. Second thing is the length. With 3 repeats it is still only 2 minutes and 35 seconds long. I've had this problem with a portion of submissions on ocr; a song being under 3 minutes really needs to come with a good reason to be that short. Usually the genre provides all the reason required - Heavy metal typically is not very long lest it begins to get annoying etc etc. Baroque style orchestra, however, is a genre that is built upon length and variation. This song has the variation where it counts, and in some places where it does not, but as for length, there is really no good reason this song isn't say.. 6 minutes long. It kinda just begins repeats and ends. Third thing is the production quality. It sounds very much like a fake orchestra. Ordinarily the quality of Russell in the past has shown some rather realistic mastering. The release and sustain of the strings is not considered too closely as the strings tend to meld into each other on the fast sections. The best example of this is right at 9 seconds left where the strings become excessively ugly. Less release probably could have helped this, but such a move really requires a different string sample. These sounded like sustain strings to me and just cant pull something like that off. Another issue would be the viola at 1:09. Its attack is simply too low to make a move like that sound good. Orchestra songs have as much relevance and requirement in the mastering process as any other genre. Please make this longer, perhaps twice as long, look into mastering and sample set a bit, and resubmit. NO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malcos Posted January 7, 2004 Share Posted January 7, 2004 This does sound pretty good, but... (Can't help noticing that Protricity's judgement has covered even more than I was gonna say, even though I don't usually say much). I do think that Russell Cox can give us a more convincing Baroque. The main issue for me is the lack of variation given the style. NO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disco Dan Posted January 13, 2004 Share Posted January 13, 2004 I'm gonna have to side with 'bad dissonance' here. Except for the transitional bit at the beginning which repeats three more times throughout the song (and sounds nice), the rest seems rather um... messy. Melodically and harmonically. I've heard some amazing stuff from Russell and so I'm a bit surprised at this one, as the quality of the instruments is another weird bit. The runs especially sound awkward given the attack of the strings. There are a few parts with the harmony structure that maketh me to cringe a bit. Tonally this has some issues. Sounds like some awkward open fifths in motion and other bits that don't quite jive, considering the very baroque feel of the intro. That, and the quality of the instruments is kind of below that which we've come to expect from Russ. That said, I'm gonna say: NO D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Israfel Posted January 13, 2004 Share Posted January 13, 2004 I have to say that I'm with Dan a bit on this one. The opening section and its repeats sound quite nice. The "C" section works fairly well compositionally, but I feel it suffers from idiomatic writing in the solo instrument that doesn't translate well to samples. The real trouble for me though is the "B" sections. The counterpoint here seems to lose its sense of forward momentum and just doesn't work in my opinion. Any sort of logical harmonic progression is either heavily obscured or entirely absent. It also sounds completely alien to the style being attempted. And unless I'm hearing this wrong, you end the piece on a 2nd inversion chord - particularly in this style, 2nd inversions never function as tonic chords but rather as dominant suspensions, and as a result the ending feels incomplete. But this is tricky- on the one hand I feel that the mix is flawed and pales in comparison to your earlier mixes. On the other hand, this mix is attempting something much more ambitious than the average work we see here and should perhaps be given some leeway because of that. I've heard this mix numerous times since it was first released on vgmix, and I've been unable to come to a strong opinion on it. As such, I'll keep it alive with a yes and see what the others think. YES Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Disco Dan Posted January 13, 2004 Share Posted January 13, 2004 While I see what you're saying about it being a daunting attempt, I think the attempt came off overall less impressively than it could. And by that same logic, everyone who submits a remix probably has good intentions with the music, but sometimes they just can't pull it off. Also you pretty much hit the nail on the head. The A section that repeats is fine and dandy. It fits the style, sounds good and doesn't offend the ear. The other section though, is both tonally bizarre and inappropriate for the designated style. And I took a year of counterpoint, in which time we spent tedious hours creating patterns and melodies that followed strict 18th century counterpoint rules, and the stuff in this song does NOT come close to that, with the exception, of course, of the A section. And that A section I don't think is enough to redeem the mix. It just needs some major rethinking in the other section, and I think we'd have a winner. But we don't usually let other stuff through for the "good effort" clause, so I'm not sure why this should be different. D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrayLightning Posted January 16, 2004 Author Share Posted January 16, 2004 But this is tricky- on the one hand I feel that the mix is flawed and pales in comparison to your earlier mixes. On the other hand, this mix is attempting something much more ambitious than the average work we see here and should perhaps be given some leeway because of that. I've been pondering on this one for a long time as well. I'm very borderline on this, on some days I think this mix is below the line, and on other days above. My first impression of this months ago was that it was good, more inspired compared to his previous works but lacking the normal polish we've seen from Russell. My opinions have swayed a bit back and forth since then. After requiring weeks of deliberation I agree with the ambitious display here. I am not giving bonus points for it just because it is different or an attempt at something grand. But on the other hand a fairly solid mix, especially with all the arrangement work done here, deserves recognition when something out of the norm of this nature is attempted. The solo string work is also one of the most thoughtful and flowing I think I've heard from anyone in our community. It doesn't amaze, but it is enough for me at the end of the day. So I'm going to keep the ball rolling. YES Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Digital Coma Posted January 17, 2004 Share Posted January 17, 2004 I just spent some time going through each track from the nsf, 31 total. Each is almost completely different from the other. Intricate and stylistic stuff, not easily rearrangeable. The song mixed here has some cool counterpoint and countermelody going on, and while I'm no indoctrinated theorist, I don't think the 'artistic liberty' taken in regard to their strength was appropriate. I hear the tonal issues Daniel and Israfel outline; however, these are not the only culprits of this rejection. I'm having problems with the repetitious spinet, dissimilarity to the original, and ugly strings. The spinet plays mostly the same progression throughout the mix and sounds decidedly insoluble. Past the A section, most of what follows other than brief reprises has little to do with the original and comes across as solely meant to impress. On the audio engineering side, the orchestra suffers from lack of believability, especially in the quick release and short sustain of the strings as Ari says, creating a jumbled jigsaw performance. And then you go and crash winamp. I commend you for attempting this style as there aren't exactly many Baroque arrangements on this site, but I'm afraid that alone can't tip the scale in favor of this imperfect mix. Pay most attention to the others' analysis of compositional and harmonic matters, and exercise more caution in production. NO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts