Liontamer Posted July 8, 2009 Share Posted July 8, 2009 Original Decision: http://www.ocremix.org/forums/showthread.php?t=4164 Contact Information * ReMixer name : Khemael * Real Name : Colin Brigato * Colinbrigato440@msn.com * UserID : 16988 Submission Information * Arrangement From Final Fantasy VI * Arrangement From The Decisive Battle * Arrangement Name A World Of Decisions ( - Piano Solo ) Hi. Be Aware I'm French, so please excuse any english mistake I might do here. It's been a long long time I was wondering "How could be something new in remixing Final Fantasy VI ?". The challenge there was to not obtain another "Oh no, another Vanilla FFVI Remix", and I think, after feedbacks and feedbacks of OC-Remix members around there, I finally got something. The Decisive Battle Score is simple. Repetitive. The Difficulty was to not obtain another "This World of decision was over just when it started", which was what was said at the very beginning of my work. Creating a new Piano Piece of Decisive Battle, with a real taste of novelty was something which took hours and hours of editing, re-editing, refinement and real...decisions. Because the score of Decisive Battle is so simple that it was a real challenge not to over-work the score with too much weird chords and harmonics. Anyway, I'm quite happy with the actual 4-Part style of the overall piece. It start smooth, become fast, staccato, and ends as smooth as it started. There really are Four Worlds here, four Worlds Of Decisions. Have Fun Hearing the piece. Best Regards, Colin Brigato aka. Khemael --------------------------------------------------------------- http://snesmusic.org/v2/download.php?spcNow=ff6 - "The Decisive Battle" (ff6-124.spc) Reading through the WIP thread for this, a bunch of the comments completely missed the boat on the arrangement, including Rozovian who said the source usage sounded fine. The performance was definitely excellent, but the source usage was not enough, IMO. For a 4:13-long arrangement, I needed more than 126.5 of overt source usage for a YES. :14.5-:16, :18-:20, :26.25-:37.5, :40.5-:1:00, 1:03.5-1:07.5, 1:27-1:28, 2:17-2:39 ("The Prelude), 2:39-2:46, 2:55-3:07 (minor key of :20.5-:21.5 of the source), 3:13-3:25 (minor key), 3:30.5-3:36 (minor key) That was about 95.75 seconds or 37.84% source usage if I added correctly. The lengthy minor key stuff in the last few minutes was definitely pushing it as far as something recognizably like the source, but I ultimately included it to show how little source I could really make out. We're talking whiffs of it. All the more unfortunately given that the beginning didn't make me think using the source enough would have ended up an issue. Maybe someone really knows the source inside and out and can pick out more of the source being used, but I think this arrangement swung the other way compared to the first conservative sub and overcompensated with something way too liberal. I loved the performance and writing in a vacuum, but as far as the standards go, it can't be at the expense of the source material. Sorry, man. NO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Palpable Posted July 8, 2009 Share Posted July 8, 2009 I'm finding it hard to decide on this one because of the possible liberalness, so I'll just point out some things and wait for some other votes on this. I have no idea what Larry's talking about with minor key version of 1 second of the source? I didn't hear anything there, maybe someone can explain that to me. The opening is a dead ringer for the castle music of Zelda 2 (pretty much just the last couple notes are different). That motif is altered a little at 3:45-3:56 and the falling arpeggios are a match for the opening of the source. I'd probably count that section. I also thought the staccato playing was a little weak at times, and the clarity got lost on the lowest notes. Probably not a deciding factor in my vote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OceansAndrew Posted July 21, 2009 Share Posted July 21, 2009 I am totally hearing the zelda 2 motif all over this; if it was intentional, let us know, please! It would certainly fit thematically, so hopefully that was your intent. I love the performance, you are a very expressive player. Sourcewise, unless you were also including the zelda 2 bit ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NIb2GxXHduM&feature=related ), there is definitely not enough source. I'd like to hear back from the mixer on this, but as of right now, it is definitely too weak on source. no Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anosou Posted August 14, 2009 Share Posted August 14, 2009 The so-called "Zelda 2 motif" is most likely a slowed down take on the opening of the source. This is more prominent in the official Piano Collections arrangement and I'm guessing he's listened to that and gotten some ideas. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HyVLhYJeMKI&fmt=18 - 0:00-0:09. However, this doesn't make it more source since it isn't really recognizable from the ORIGINAL source. Sadly, a big part of the track was built around this motif which brought down the source usage a lot. The playing is good (though it was a bit sloppy sometimes, first part especially) and you've got great arrangement ideas. Even the production is good although slightly muddy. The key issue is the arrangement and if you can't point out something we completely missed, it's a no-go. I'd love to see a reworked resubmission of this with some more source in it, it would definitely be a good addition to OCR. NO(resubmit) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
big giant circles Posted August 23, 2009 Share Posted August 23, 2009 Hang on, Colin, I'm coming to your rescue Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
big giant circles Posted August 23, 2009 Share Posted August 23, 2009 I'd like to add source tunes "3-16 - Prelude" and "1-15 - The Fantom Forest" to the list. The so-called "Zelda 2 motif" is most likely a slowed down take on the opening of the source. It's not "most likely", it IS the opening of the source. If it's helpful for me to point out, then let me clarify that both the Zelda theme in question AND this source use the same progression. It's a minor chord where the 5th interval walks up and back down two half steps. Pretty simple. What I recommend is taking Colin's track and loading it up into your DAWs and pitching it up 200 cents to match the key of the source. It might be a little easier to hear that way. And I'm not sure I can relate at all with "can't hear enough source usage" here. Unless we have a rule that a remixer is required to remix a specific minimum percentage of the source tune, then I don't see what the foul is here. I mean, do I have to remind you guys that someone remixed a 5 second riff? Also, the same riff is repeated in FF6 track 1-15 - "The Fantom Forest", so you really can't hold that against him. ********************** Anyway, it's been an hour since I started typing this. I decided I'd go ahead and do the legwork for y'all here, maybe it'll help redeem my extreme panel neglect lately. (Plus, I figured it'd be easier than trying to timestamp EVERYTHING and then count it up with the stopwatch). So I've matched the pitch of the source and the remix. You guys can CLEARLY hear the connections. Larry, sorry to say man, your breakdown left out a LOT man. One of the standout brilliant things that Colin did here was at 2:17 where he somehow managed to successfully (and impressively) fuse the Prelude riff with the initial motif/progression of Decisive Battle. Very nice man. It may have slipped past these dudes, but not me All these NO votes remind me of my own dissenting vote for Skryp's Mario RPG remix from a while ago. For some reason, I just could not hear the source until Skryp provide a most obvious (and embarrassing) breakdown, similar to what I've done. Boy, I felt like a putz But naturally, we all make mistakes sometimes and it's all good as long as we can recognize that we goofed up and fix it. Without further delay, let me link this thang. (remove upon vote - link removed) Now then. Let me mention the criticisms. The performance is realy solid, I have no qualms there. The overall volume is a bit too quiet. You have plenty of headroom throughout the track, so the very least you could have done would be to normalize it. I wouldn't call it a deal-breaker since it's a performed piano piece, but if we can get a slightly louder version, that'd be great. Also, I would have preferred that the track just ended at 3:45 with the epic feel. I thought the final quiet parts dragged it out a bit, but again, no deal-breaker. It did give the song more dynamic value, I suppose. Anyway, I give this one a WTF GUYS? YES (I'm gonna be pissed if this one doesn't pass) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anosou Posted August 23, 2009 Share Posted August 23, 2009 It's not "most likely", it IS the opening of the source. If it's helpful for me to point out, then let me clarify that both the Zelda theme in question AND this source use the same progression. It's a minor chord where the 5th interval walks up and back down two half steps. Pretty simple. The difference being that the source isn't chords but a very strong arpeggio. It might be the same notes as the chords but it's not as obvious as a connection. Let me give an example... Say Prelude. It's basically an arpeggio, a major chord with the second note in the scale added. If I make chords from these notes, play it at a different key, different tempo and not with the actualy "melody", how is that "pretty simple" and "IS the opening of the source"? It certainly isn't straight source. Here the question becomes "are chords really ok?". We've had similar discussions (Hot Pink of Blues to name one) and it's a hard question. When there IS in-your-face, recognizable melodic content in the source but it's not recognizable in the arrangement I have a hard time seeing that as something else than really liberal. Prelude example: http://anosou.com/preludeexample.mp3 First is prelude, straight source. Then is a part derived from that, using the same "chords" and no other notes. In my opinion that's a bit too liberal, you can't really hear that it's prelude if you're not really familiar with the source and even then it's just similar. Finally is just the prelude and some beats added on top, for great justice. Just clarifying that even though it might share chords I think the intro is quite liberal. I'm still on the edge if I should count it or not. (remove upon vote - link removed) Good stuff. Some small thoughts on your breakdown: 0:37-0:40 in your breakdown is padding 1:04-1:07 is also padding 1:07-> is more okay with me since it keeps the rhythm of the source intro and eventually adds the arpeggio 1:53 same issue as intro 2:09-2:28 definitely too liberal 2:38-2:44 is too liberal imo, only the first few notes are connected enough 2:57 is same as above 3:13 same issue as intro 3:32 is too liberal 3:52 I don't think anyone didn't count this as prelude...? 4:22 is padding 4:36-4:43 is too liberal, I just don't hear it. Seems to be more rooted in the chords and even then quite altered. 4:51-5:32 same as above but with hints of prelude 5:33-> same issue as intro since it doesn't share the melody/arpeggios In the real track that's quite a lot of very liberal/non-source passages. This is what I got, being quite nice with the timestamps: 0:00-0:14 - 14 seconds 0:20-0:26 - 6 seconds 0:35-0:40 - 5 seconds 1:14-2:17 - 63 seconds 2:46-3:09 - 23 seconds 3:13-4:19 - 66 seconds That's 177 of non-source according to my count (that includes leaning no on most of the supposedly intro-source material), more than half the track. We'll have to discuss what qualifies as source usage with this one, really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liontamer Posted August 24, 2009 Author Share Posted August 24, 2009 I'll be glad to recheck this one, but as always the onus is on the submitting artist to actually state everything being arranged. Since he only gave 1 source tune and that's all I recognized, that's what I was looking for. We can't possibly know every source tune, which is why it's important that you state everything you're using in the sub letter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
big giant circles Posted August 24, 2009 Share Posted August 24, 2009 Fair enough, and perhaps we should ask him. I'm just pointing out the riff to the guys who immediately made the connection to Zelda (probably because more people know it from there) and that it's in other places in the FF6 OST as well. And I'm fairly certain that one section at 2:17 was intentionally patterned after the Prelude. Also, I figured since source-usage was a big factor here, it could only help point out the connection to other places in the OST, since that helps his arrangement be recognized as not entirely original/too-liberal since it's a (slight) mashup of other tunes in the same OST. I did the same thing with 3 of my FFA remixes. Just sayin' is all. Also: Prelude example: http://anosou.com/preludeexample.mp3First is prelude, straight source. Then is a part derived from that, using the same "chords" and no other notes. In my opinion that's a bit too liberal, you can't really hear that it's prelude if you're not really familiar with the source and even then it's just similar. I thought the track was awesome But even the diddy at :17 I thought would have been acceptable. And I'm not sure I find it practical to throw the if you're not really familiar with the source perspective into the equation. First of all, we all have different levels of familiarity when it comes to this music anyway. Many of these remixes I'm not familiar with at all, but it wouldn't be fair to judge them that way. That's why we all make it a point to listen to the source tunes. The idea (for me) is to become well-enough acquainted that we can make the proper connections in a ReMix. Some ideas are blatant (like that Sonic "cover" we just closed out), and others are far more subtle, but most likely very deliberate, and in some cases, admirably pulled off. In this case, Colin shows a keen knack for musicianship by changing the key (or even if transposed via MIDI I stand by this) and showing the ability to adeptly interpret a simple riff/motif in different techniques/articulations/rhythms. I never said his arrangment wasn't liberal, but I remain stubbornly immovable in my claim that listening to the back-and-forth render I've provided, one cannot deny that his performance is an arrangement of the source. Tag, you're it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anosou Posted August 25, 2009 Share Posted August 25, 2009 I thought the track was awesome But even the diddy at :17 I thought would have been acceptable. And I'm not sure I find it practical to throw the if you're not really familiar with the source perspective into the equation. First of all, we all have different levels of familiarity when it comes to this music anyway. Many of these remixes I'm not familiar with at all, but it wouldn't be fair to judge them that way. That's why we all make it a point to listen to the source tunes. The idea (for me) is to become well-enough acquainted that we can make the proper connections in a ReMix. Some ideas are blatant (like that Sonic "cover" we just closed out), and others are far more subtle, but most likely very deliberate, and in some cases, admirably pulled off. In this case, Colin shows a keen knack for musicianship by changing the key (or even if transposed via MIDI I stand by this) and showing the ability to adeptly interpret a simple riff/motif in different techniques/articulations/rhythms. I never said his arrangment wasn't liberal, but I remain stubbornly immovable in my claim that listening to the back-and-forth render I've provided, one cannot deny that his performance is an arrangement of the source. Tag, you're it It was obviously awesome, I made it in 4 minutes! Anyway, that's where we disagree. I'm not doubting it is in fact an arrangement of the source, it makes sense since this is a submitted FFVI ReMix, but I don't think it's clear enough. I think we need to sit down, have some tea and really TALK about where the line is when it comes to source usage.. I thought that particular was too liberal, it wasn't identifiable ENOUGH, that's all I'm saying. Also, I know the source like the back of my hand.. I love the living shit out of the track, I'm just comparing to other subs I've thought were too liberal. If this was some obscure track from Virtual-ON I don't think this discussion would exist :/ Tag, you're it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Palpable Posted August 25, 2009 Share Posted August 25, 2009 Thanks for going above and beyond on this one, Jimmy. Also, the first time the source came in in your MP3, I LOLed, so thanks for that too. I feel ready to make a vote on this. Here's my breakdown: 0:00-0:24 chords 0:26-0:36 0:40-1:00 1:03-1:07 1:16-1:27 chords 1:59-2:09 chords 2:17-2:46 2:55-3:09 chords (one chord removed) 3:14-3:36 chords (one chord removed) 3:45-3:57 chords The parts which I think are indisputed don't add up to enough, clearly. I'm not sure if I've just heard this enough times now, but I feel like the sections I've marked as chords all sound enough like the source to me that I'm willing to count them. 2:55-3:09 and 3:14-3:36 were sections I missed when I heard this the first time, but the chord connection there seems strong enough. Wouldn't blame anyone going NO, chords are tenuous and I don't think there should be a hard and fast rule about counting them or not. I should mention I did think the arrangement was quite nice so that my vote isn't just one big analysis. YES Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarkeSword Posted September 28, 2009 Share Posted September 28, 2009 Very nicely plays with a lot of elements of decisive battle. I really enjoy your expressive playing. The progression and evolution of this track is really very nice. It's liberal, but I think it works. YES Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zircon Posted October 12, 2009 Share Posted October 12, 2009 Reading through the WIP thread for this, a bunch of the comments completely missed the boat on the arrangement, including Rozovian who said the source usage sounded fine. The performance was definitely excellent, but the source usage was not enough, IMO. For a 4:13-long arrangement, I needed more than 126.5 of overt source usage for a YES.:14.5-:16, :18-:20, :26.25-:37.5, :40.5-:1:00, 1:03.5-1:07.5, 1:27-1:28, 2:17-2:39 ("The Prelude), 2:39-2:46, 2:55-3:07 (minor key of :20.5-:21.5 of the source), 3:13-3:25 (minor key), 3:30.5-3:36 (minor key) I think your source counting is off. First of all, the very beginning parallels the very beginning of the source. Same chords and voicings - it's just slowed down, but the source is definitely there. So that's 0:00 through 0:16. :16 to :18 is source (0:11-0:13 in the source) except with extra embellishments added, OR you could look at it as the prelude. Either way, it's definitely interpreted source material. At spots like 1:00 to 1:03 you're being extremely picky for no good reason. That is just an inversion of the source melody he just played. Are we only counting literal interpretation of the source as arrangement now? It's a clear connection, and a creative one. 1:07 through 1:14 can be viewed as either an arrangement of the prelude, or an arpeggio based on the beginning progression of Decisive Battle. 1:16 through 1:27 is straight-up source, how did you miss that? Same exact progression and voicing, just like the beginning of the remix. The section following 1:28 uses the same progression from the source repeatedly as well as the rhythmic motifs and often borrows from the melody in short spots. At least a few seconds of this can be considered source, but with the way you're breaking it down, it's unreasonable to say second X is source and Y isn't, when you have to look at the entire phrase in context. 2:00 is obvious though, again it's the beginning of the source used quite clearly. It's not JUST the same chords, it's the same voicings and timing too, which places the source melody note at the top. 2:08 is original, I guess. 2:17 to 2:39 could be called prelude but once again he IS referencing the beginning of Decisive Battle. 3:07 is a drawn out version of :39 in the source. 3:45 is the beginning of the source, same as the other times it was used in the remix. Clearly more than 50% usage here - the arrangement is very creative and well-done, interpretation is certainly there in spades, production/performance is fine. YES Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fishy Posted October 14, 2009 Share Posted October 14, 2009 What a fitting title for this decision thread. Sorry for latesness; I did have a look at this before, I was waiting on the discussion about the breakdown to pan out. I agree with jimmy/andy on this. I think some of the breakdowns are a little harsh on what is/isn't arrangement. It flows very well between fairly identifiable motifs. Listening to it, the first time I could hear something I would take as being not related/interpretive padding at all was at 1:30 or so. It gets a a bit more liberal, but there's plenty of preludey treatment etc. I think it's a lot more related then credit is given. My housemate was listening through the hall and he picked up on what it was easily (also he said heard a bit of something from FF4 but I'm not sure I agreed). Production is fine obviously. Bon. YES Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vig Posted October 17, 2009 Share Posted October 17, 2009 I'd like to start by congratulating you all on a truly...spectacular discussion. Somewhere out there there's a guy sitting at a workbench making stopwatches, and you guys are putting his kids through college. Love the arrangement, and your piano sample has a nice wide stereo field. I could go on, but on a submission where the only point of debate is whether the arrangement is a little bit too liberal, is it really any mystery where I'm going to land? YES Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
big giant circles Posted October 17, 2009 Share Posted October 17, 2009 Aight, that's 6 YES's. Even if 'Illi votes No, we're not going to drag this one out to death needlessly waiting for Dave to chime in when he doesn't need to Congrats, Colin! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts