Sign in to follow this  

OCR02312 - *YES* Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past 'Dancing Leaves'

Recommended Posts

Dear Judges,

I am submitting for your consideration the following remix...

Remixer name: Doc Nano

Real name: Alex Johnson-Buck

userid: 36369

Game arranged: The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past

Songs arranged: 1. Lost Woods

2. Title Theme

(minor influence, mainly at the end)

This is an impressionist piano piece, heavily influenced by works of Debussy and Ravel (especially Jeux d'Eau), some of my favorite piano music of all time. There are some playing mistakes, but this is the best I can do at present.

The mix is meant to conjure up images of being lost in an eerie, enchanted forest. Around every turn there are leaves fluttering in the distance, constantly moving behind a pall of bluish mist, playing tricks on your eyes and ears. If you listen carefully, they almost seem to be laughing at you...

I am not sure whether it meets OCR's standards of source usage, but here is a tally of what I feel to be source references in the piece. I understand your opinions of clear source usage may be different. :-)







1:19-1:25 (harmony only)


1:39-1:44 (harmony only)



2:14-2:22 (harmony only)


Total: 81/163 seconds=49.7% (harmony only parts excluded)

100/163 seconds=61.3% (harmony only parts included)

Thanks for considering my mix,

Alex (Doc Nano)


Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Despite being a low (by Larry's standards) on source usage, I am really liking the arrangement to this a lot. The Debussy influence is very obvious, and it's great to hear the sources taken in this style. Playing is very fluid as well.

Oh look, it's not teh technoez!


Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

It definitely is just barely squeaking by on source usage, but it was a really compelling piece for me. Piano sound and performance were both really nice, and though the arrangement was really close, I think this kind of classy interpretation is very good.


Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's a very warm piano sound, a little bit too muted. I get that this is a hushed (and very nice!) piece, but the highs only peek out on some of the highest octave notes. I guess I'm ok with it based on the strength of the arrangement, but probably not everyone will like it and might get some NO votes. As far as source usage, wasn't much of a concern to me on this song. On top of counting the short harmony sections, there were some points were the melody deviated but the left-hand kept the chords, and I was fine with counting that too. In all, probably just over the bar - but excellent arrangement.


Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

ah, I remember breaking this one down in a mod review.. it pushes the boundaries in terms of source use, hovering around that 50% mark but I'm totally down with this. sophisticated arrangement, excellent playing, and a nice clean, warm sound, although I agree that it is slightly on the quiet side overall, but it's no biggie. I'll happily pass this. :)


Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

I certainly enjoyed the breakdown from Alex, which was helpful. For the most part, his timestamps were dead on, so he clearly knows how he put this together. Personally, I wouldn't even give this the nod at over 50% overt source usage. It's a beautiful, well-performed piece, and any errors Alex mentioned didn't even merit a comment.

* :00-:07.5 (resemblance)

* :13-:20 (resemblance)

* :21-:28 (resemblance)

* :40.75-:51 (overt)

* :59-:1:06 (overt)

* 1:09-1:12 (overt)

* 1:13-1:15.75 (overt)

* 1:19-1:25 (resemblance)

* 1:29-1:35 (too liberal)

* 1:39-1:44 (resemblance)

* 1:47-1:58 (overt)

* 2:04-2:13 (resemblance, leaning to too liberal)

* 2:14-2:22 (resemblance)

* 2:28-2:38 (resemblance)

I didn't really need to do a breakdown to form my judgement. There wasn't any question there, but I felt I'd just put out there how strongly I felt the A-to-B connections were as far as the stated source usage.

Arrangement-wise, I basically heard everything Alex was going for when he timestamped his own work. That said, the way the source material was treated was so heavily based on chord progressions and subtractive usage of the theme that I couldn't get behind it as not being too liberal. The resemblances were there with this interpretation, but I felt the the source usage wasn't overtly identifiable enough.

I love the piece in a vacuum, but when it comes to using the Forest theme, you could pass much off this writing off as merely inspired by it on account of over-simplifying the theme just down to chord progressions with a smatter of overt usage. Enjoyable or not, definitely a NO from me, but still a lovely piece and I sincerely do look forward to hearing more submissions from Alex.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this