Palpable Posted September 30, 2009 Share Posted September 30, 2009 "Count the Hours" Name of game(s) arranged FreeSpace 2 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FreeSpace_2) Comments: Inspired by the Sins of a Solar Empire remix, I decided to get back to this wip which had been sitting somewhere in my wip folder for quite a while. Like Beyond Velocity, this was a try at using synths only, and as it turned out only one sampled instrument (a sampled synth) was used. Dunno what my initial idea was, but I ended up with a kind'a calm remix with synth mallets, synth pads, and synth percussion. And before anyone asks, yep, my fake shaker is in there too. Would have been great if it had gone big and epic and aggressive and stuff, but that just wasn't where it wanted to go. btw, FreeSpace 2 is awesome. I've finished the game several times, both on my old laptop and on my new 24'' iMac with shiny new updated graphics. I warmly recommend it. -rozo ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sounded liberal - someone want to do the dirty work? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
big giant circles Posted October 25, 2009 Share Posted October 25, 2009 Well I like it. Roz's mix is far less sloppy and cluttered than the source is... Man what a mess that was. Also, I realize 7/8 is a pretty unnatural time signature for most people, but man, that source made it phenomenally hard to distinguish that's what it was in. (And even as I say this, I guess I still might be wrong ) Anyway. I'm tired of feeling compelled to count seconds so I'm just not going to do it. I think the main riff of the source is pretty obvious, but beyond that, it just has some softer pads walking around in different directions. I jumped back and forth quite a few times, and I THINK I heard Roz doing a decent job of referencing them, so I'm just going to go ahead and write that off as a *pass*. It's not exactly dominant, but I'd say it is at least identifiable. I don't think I'm giving unfair slack to this mix, because once again, it's source tune is a mess and kind of requires a fair amount of analysis even without trying to compare it to a remix. Props on the textures as well, and that's pretty nifty that it was all a sampled synth, right? Cool cool. Points are given. PASS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Palpable Posted October 25, 2009 Author Share Posted October 25, 2009 I e-mailed Rozo for a source breakdown, which is what I should have done a while ago. It's unfair to him for us to hold this for so long without voting on it (Jimmy aside). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
big giant circles Posted October 25, 2009 Share Posted October 25, 2009 True. Again though, lately I've just adopted more of the "going by my gut" approach. It's easier (and probably faster for the remixer) for me to be wrong and have it pointed out later than it is for these tough calls to simply grow stagnant simply because it's tough to analyze and no one wants to take possibly an hour or more out of their day just to draw bridges. Besides, we can always put it back on the panel and prioritize if we reject a song that has legitimate and dominant source usage. This is really how I feel like the panel should operate lately. Swiftly, and by the gut. There will be more mistakes, but it's like, would the community rather us make a wrong call that we can fix later? Or take months and months and months to make the *right* call? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Palpable Posted October 26, 2009 Author Share Posted October 26, 2009 True. Again though, lately I've just adopted more of the "going by my gut" approach. It's easier (and probably faster for the remixer) for me to be wrong and have it pointed out later than it is for these tough calls to simply grow stagnant simply because it's tough to analyze and no one wants to take possibly an hour or more out of their day just to draw bridges.Besides, we can always put it back on the panel and prioritize if we reject a song that has legitimate and dominant source usage. This is really how I feel like the panel should operate lately. Swiftly, and by the gut. There will be more mistakes, but it's like, would the community rather us make a wrong call that we can fix later? Or take months and months and months to make the *right* call? I've started operating more and more like that, quick, from the gut decisions on close calls. The volume of subs just keeps getting higher, something has to give. And I feel like anything on the border is not a mistake to pass. And I'm all about taking a second look later if I feel we missed something too. Anyhow, I'm getting off track. Ask and ye shall receive: I basically used only three melodies from the fs2 source, the four-note recurring melody thing at 0:00, the slower melody/note progression at 0:21-41 (used at least four times in source), and the variation to the first melody at 1:50, we'll call it "melody 3".0:00-0:07 melody 1 0:20 melody 1 on xylophone over chord 0:40-3:20 melody 2, continues incorporated into chords 1:00 some melody 1 derived stuff on top 1:20 melody 1 derivation legato lead 1:40 melody 1 derived stuff and little insert phrases 2:00-2:40 some inserts based on melody 1 or 3 2:40-3:00 inserts of melody 1 (and the underlying chords) 3:20-4:25 variations of melody 1 and 3, primarily 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
big giant circles Posted October 26, 2009 Share Posted October 26, 2009 The volume of subs just keeps getting higher, something has to give. Well said. And just to clarify to the folks who might read this, it doesn't mean, "Eh, we're crunched for time so we'll just pass stuff when we're in a hurry to get voting done", because obviously, that would be both unfair and inconsistent. What we're saying is that we're trying to get AWAY from dissecting the dagnabbit out of a track and simply go by the feel. If it feels too liberal after a few back and forth comparisons, or listens in general, it probably is. And hey, if we ever reject something that should be passed, then hey, someone bring it to our attention, and we'll throw it back on the panel and do a priority revote on it. It's happened before, no big deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OceansAndrew Posted October 29, 2009 Share Posted October 29, 2009 I was really digging the original actually, and it was pretty easy to discern the 7/8 feel, as it's blatantly spelled out in the french horn. It'd be a totally great metal track, that's for sure. Anyways, the remix sounds like it's in 6, so there's some arrangement there. It makes it a little more difficult to do direct comparison, but the riffs are certainly there, though not really dominant at all times, though I think some of that is due to the driving nature of the original, and the more laid back synth selection of the remix. Arrangement checks out with Rozo's breakdown, and the production is fine, but honestly I find this remix to be pretty boring. It feels really meandering and has none of the focus that makes the original track cool. No disrespect for Rozo, because I think he is a cool guy and talented, but I really didn't think this was an especially good remix, despite falling under the guidelines for the site. Sorry Rozo, if I am seeming harsh, but you still get the yes, despite my personal opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
big giant circles Posted October 29, 2009 Share Posted October 29, 2009 and it was pretty easy to discern the 7/8 feel oiseehowitisthen. Well excuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuse me for being a total time noob. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Palpable Posted October 30, 2009 Author Share Posted October 30, 2009 What makes the 7/8 feel weird is the hi-hat, which doesn't follow a strict pattern. That actually threw me off the first time I was listening to this. Trying to ignore that makes this a little easier hehe. Now that Ad has given us his breakdown, I'm gonna throw a big old NO on this. Yep, seriously. I didn't hear the four-note melody used that often, and that was just about all I heard of the source. Definitely wasn't hearing the slower melody incorporated into the chords - if it was, that was too subtle for me. Towards the end, I hear the rhythm of the original melodies referenced a little, but not the notes. It felt far too loose, and the source was never dominant even if present, IMO. I did like the subtle, relaxy-ness of the arrangement a lot, actually. I just wanted to hear more of the source in there, something more obvious. Sorry! NO (resubmit) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zircon Posted November 2, 2009 Share Posted November 2, 2009 Wow, I really didn't find that original very interesting. This remix certainly does a good job adding some much-needed interest and depth. The pads and atmosphere here are really nice, but one thing I noticed even before 60 seconds in was the unbalanced mixing. The bass pad is too loud/resonant while the other elements (and in fact the overall volume) were too low. I loved the spacey vibe of the section around 1:35, but the overwhelming bass pad detracted from that. While we're talking about this section, I would suggest adding a bit of vibrato to some of those long lead notes to make them more interesting. While I would have voted YES conditional even these things considered, I felt there really wasn't a clear enough link to the source here either. This occurred to me even before reading the opinions of the other judges so I'm more confident now that it's the right call. Adding some more obvious links would really help... at the very least some simple sequences bringing in the original bassline! NO, resub Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vig Posted November 3, 2009 Share Posted November 3, 2009 I'm not sure the source material is really conducive to a fully developed remix. The original is essentially a 3-note line cliche with only its meter making it distinct. This submission is cool and I like it, but it's really no more a freespace remix than it is a remix of the escape theme from Super Metroid. I think you should call it an original and see if you can't make some dough off it. NO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anosou Posted November 3, 2009 Share Posted November 3, 2009 Sorry man, I can't sign off to this. Like Vig pointed out the only thing really making the source pattern unique is the time signature and you've changed that to 6/8, taking away a simple connection. The way you use the source is also just hinting to the source, it's hard to do variations on three notes without it being three other notes. Production was overall cool but the song lacks energy and direction. I usually don't see this as a problem but I thought it was worth pointing out. I liked all sounds used though even though I would've appreciated some more changes to the beatwork. Again, sorry but I can't let this through. The connection to the source just isn't clear enough and to be fair, I think it's very hard to make a clear connection. NO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CHz Posted November 7, 2009 Share Posted November 7, 2009 I'm rather liking this track. Granted, not a whole lot of direction, but it didn't really drag anywhere for me thanks to the textural work. Pretty cool for a track to chill out to. I do unfortunately have to join the majority here re. the arrangement. The mallet stuff from 3:25 to the end was easily recognizable as that bit in the source starting at 1:50, but the rest of it was way iffy and not really connectable with the source save for a few fleeting moments. NO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Palpable Posted November 7, 2009 Author Share Posted November 7, 2009 Rozo told me he has a version of this that references the original source more clearly. Assuming it has significant changes from this version, I'll try to get it up here as soon as I can. EDIT (11/18 ): My bad, he had a version that solos the source usage. It doesn't change the fact that the link to the source is not clear enough, so I'm closing this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts