DragonAvenger Posted December 12, 2010 Share Posted December 12, 2010 Contact Information Your ReMixer name: pu_freak Your real name: Pieter van Os Your email address: pu_freak@hotmail.com Your userid: 12491 Submission Information Name of game(s) arranged: Pokémon Red/Blue/Yellow, Gold/Silver (I guess it's been in every pokémon gameboy game, it's the theme of the pokémon stadium games and it's been in Super Smash Bros games) Name of individual song(s) arranged: Gym Link to the original soundtrack: Your own comments about the mix: This mix is part of the Pokémon album, The Missingno Tracks. I really wanted this theme to be on the album, because it's been in nearly every pokémon game and everybody knows this theme. The theme just before you challenge the gym leader, wondering if you're strong enough to be able to defeat the gym leader or perhaps if you should've trained some more. When you're challenged by all of the gym's 'normal' trainers when you can already see the gym leader standing in the distance. But, instead of trying to create an epic, heroic version of the theme, I wanted to create an empty, creepy version of it. Like you came back to the gym twenty years later, only discovering that it has been abandoned for several years. It's all in decay now, you see (and hear) things you seem to recognize, but it's all more distorted than it was in your memory. I tried to use this by having a very empty lead most of the time, backed up by choirs and strings and of course, by using mainly minor chords instead of the usual major ones. At the end, I give a small hint of the original theme with a music box, but then end with a minor chord. ReMix Name of the ReMix: Abandoned Battlefield --------------------------- Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Orichalcon Posted December 16, 2010 Share Posted December 16, 2010 Nice intro, creepery! The piano towards the middle starts getting really muddy due to all those low notes. I feel like things are a bit muddy and muffled for most of the track. The actual tune is arranged splendidly, with a good level of emotion. The ending is just beautiful, converting it to a minor key makes it sound so much more tragic. I'm not really sure about this one. Quality issues are my only concern. I'll say YES on the condition that the quality is touched up, if other judges have the same issues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DragonAvenger Posted December 16, 2010 Author Share Posted December 16, 2010 Lee is right, the arrangement of this is fantastic, as per usually for you, Mr. Freak. He is also correct that right now things are just a tad muddy, and clearing that up would help this track out. I'd say overall this is borderline on that aspect, and I am willing to give this a nod, but if the other judges are more strict on the quality, I could call this conditional, as well. Love the arrangement, though. YES (borderline) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OceansAndrew Posted December 19, 2010 Share Posted December 19, 2010 The piano and choir on this was really nice, and gave me a strong feeling of a lot of the kingdom hearts music. The choir sample wasn't awesome, but worked, but I do think this is lacking a little in the high end, and the pan flute at the beginning sounded awfully mechanical. Great arrangement, creative and classy. This should be an easy fix, but i'll give it a conditional for now. I am really looking forward to hearing this touched up. Yes (conditional opn pan flute and some eq work on the low mids of the piano) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fishy Posted December 21, 2010 Share Posted December 21, 2010 Arrangement is fine. Got a fair bit of mud happening here. This is probably in need a of not trivial touch-up, giggity. I think everything has been hit on already and I agree, but I'm struggling between a conditional vote and a resub as I think the production issues are quite hindering to my enjoyment of the arrangement indeed. I guess given the 2 already conditional votes I can also go conditional but making it clear that it needs a a fair bit of cleaning up. I suggest trying out some EQ and maybe using a less mid-focused reverb? Try a few things out. Could be brighter also. And maybe even a bit louder too. Just looking at the waveform, a tiny bit of compression could make normalizing this a fair few dB louder. Just that one annoying peak keeping the whole thing 3dBs down. YES, conditional on mixing, optional volume bump Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Palpable Posted December 21, 2010 Share Posted December 21, 2010 Let's send this back to him rather than wait on more votes. E-mailed him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liontamer Posted April 22, 2011 Share Posted April 22, 2011 Let's send this back to him rather than wait on more votes. E-mailed him. What's the status at this stage? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Palpable Posted April 22, 2011 Share Posted April 22, 2011 Lit a fire under his butt (I asked him for the status). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Palpable Posted May 14, 2011 Share Posted May 14, 2011 Been nearly a month without a response from Pieter. I think we should just vote on this as is. He can always resub if need be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Orichalcon Posted May 15, 2011 Share Posted May 15, 2011 Reread my vote and I seemed to be happy enough for it to pass, so YES from me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vig Posted May 16, 2011 Share Posted May 16, 2011 I do think the piano should be a bit brighter. Maybe carve down some of the low mids to make more room for the choir. As for the volume, L2 that shit. Arrangement is great. I didn't even recognize the source till I went back and listened to the crappy original. I'd love for this to be a quick resub. NO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CHz Posted May 18, 2011 Share Posted May 18, 2011 I like what you did with this. Pretty touching, but not overwrought. I feel that the clarity issues are holding this one back: touching up the low end in particular I think would do wonders. Otherwise not too bad. I wouldn't say no to a volume bump, but that's not a killer. NO (resubmit) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Palpable Posted May 24, 2011 Share Posted May 24, 2011 Excellent arrangement. This has a perfect balance of source and original material, sadness and sprightliness, minimalism and weight. If this arrangement wasn't so good, I'd be pushing for another version because the low-end is a little crowded, the piano could be brighter, and the overall volume should be bumped. As is, none of these are major issues that really stop the emotion from getting across. I'm cool with this going up on the front page. YES Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nutritious Posted May 25, 2011 Share Posted May 25, 2011 I think Vinnie hit the nail on the head here. Yes, there's some muddiness that could be cleaned up, and some moderate compression would bring out some of the more quiet sections (especially the intro). However, the arrangement is fantastic and brings a lot of emotion to the piece. I loved the switchover around 2:00 from the more upbeat first half, to the more brooding, melancholy second half. Music box was a very nice touch at the end. Overall, arrangement outweighs production gripes IMO Yes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OceansAndrew Posted May 25, 2011 Share Posted May 25, 2011 Since it's being presented as is, and I think its strong arrangement-wise, I am fine moving my conditional yes to a solid yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
halc Posted May 25, 2011 Share Posted May 25, 2011 felt really thin and quiet, and the constant static was annoying, especially during the quieter sections. the string and choir samples were kinda weak, but the playing/sequencing was all great, and the arrangement is just crazy interpretive. the production makes this a fairly borderline call but I think it squeaks by on a killer arrangement and good performance. nice work here. YES Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liontamer Posted May 26, 2011 Share Posted May 26, 2011 First thing that stuck out was how quiet this was. The woodwind sequencing wasn't great, but serviceable. Same with the vox (though I hated 2:13-2:19). The sequencing on both was somewhat mechanical though not the worst I've heard. The left-hand sequencing was OK enough as well. The right-hand piano work sounded much better in comparison. Good mood, and surprisingly novel use of the bells, even if they could have sounded richer. The string work at 2:50 was positioned nicely as well, and while that tremolo won't fake out a super close listen, it definitely sounded solid and added a lot of character. Pretty genteel atmosphere, but with some solid dynamic range. Arrangement-wise, this got pretty liberal, and I'm not overly familiar with the source tune. I needed 129.5 seconds of overt source usage for at least 50%. Here's what I made out: :37.5-46.25, :55-1:42, 1:46.75-1:49.5, (1.49.5-1:55?,) 2:19.5-2:36, 2:39.5-2:54, 2:59.5-3:30, 3:57.5-4:05 So I had about 118.5 seconds or 45.56% overt source use. I gave some credit to some pretty liberal sections (e.g. 3:09-3:19.5) that seemed derived from the very beginning of the theme as well, so I'm trying here. Can anyone give me some A-to-B comparisons on something I may have missed? I like the arrangement & interpretation from what I can make out of it, but I can't get behind anything where the source material use doesn't make up the majority of the arrangement. I'm particularly interested in what's used from :00-:37 and 1:49-2:19. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts