Palpable Posted April 13, 2010 Share Posted April 13, 2010 Original decision: http://ocremix.org/forums/showthread.php?t=25421 ReMixer name: Aeternity User ID: http://www.ocremix.org/forums/member.php?u=29058 Game arranged: Final Fantasy Tactics Individual song arranged: Hero's Theme (by Hitoshi Sakimoto) ------------------------------------------------------------------ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Csq5xyotb0E Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DragonAvenger Posted April 15, 2010 Share Posted April 15, 2010 Checking the original vote and comparing it (as best that I can without hearing the original submission), I can see that a lot has been done to this. I like that while the source usage is repetitive, there are subtle changes, like dropping and adding of notes. Personally I still feel that this is repetitive, but seeing as it is a trance adaption, it fits the bill. Same with the percussion, which generally sticks with the same loops within each section, but does change per section. I will agree with what OA said in the original that the "OMG Lazers" section doesn't quite fit where it's at right now. I think it's ok for the track, but right now it feels like the source is just a lead in for that section, whereas that would make a better breakdown later in the track. On one personal note, the repeat of the source at 0:17 feels like there is a beat lost, and it bugs me every time I hear it. I was suspicious of the amount of source usage you've got, so I broke it down: 0:00-0:39, 1:25-2:06 2:51-3:14 = 1:43 of source usage, which is about 42%. Right now you're running a little low. I'd like to see more of the source interspersed throughout the track, because as it stands it's like you have chunks of source, and chunks of original with no crossover. I'm not crazy about having a strict rule of source usage percent, but if you want to pass with a lower amount of usage, you need to have more reminders throughout to keep our minds on track. Production-wise I think everything is pretty good, except the last time the source comes in at 2:51 it is too far back. At that point there is just so much going on that it's hard to figure out what I'm supposed to be focusing on. I feel like you have taken the time to look and adjust your track from the last vote, but this brought up a couple of other issues. Personally, I'm gonna have to throw this back at you again. NO (resubmit) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OceansAndrew Posted April 27, 2010 Share Posted April 27, 2010 I am generally liking the production on this, and it's a good song but I don't think it's there yet. The length is more reasonable now, which is good, but arrangement-wise it still seems like the source is just used for a breakdown for those lazorz. Without a strong downbeat at the first buildup, i got way confused with the offbeat bass as well. When the source is added to the more intense section, it is way too far back, and it really clashes with the other melodies present. Some notes need to be changed for that to fit. Sorry dude, it's clear you have an ear for writing cool trance melodies, but this track still needs more work and more dominant source to get on OCR. no, please resubmit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Palpable Posted May 18, 2010 Author Share Posted May 18, 2010 This is fairly different the last version, shorter and more focused on PEW-PEW. Unfortunately, while you fixed many of the issues from the last version and really stepped up the production (good job with that), this has its own set of problems. The source usage is a little low, and the last usage barely counts as buried as it is. The production also suffers there, there's too much happening. I also wasn't crazy about how repetitive each section was, it felt on autopilot at times. It is a little unusual that the source is used more as a breakdown, but a valid approach. Pretty much I'd like the last section to feature the source more prominently, and for there to be more variation in each section. I think you are up to it, given how you tackled our criticisms last time. NO (resubmit) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts