DragonAvenger Posted June 5, 2011 Share Posted June 5, 2011 ReMixer name - The n00b real name- Max V. Kravchenko email address- corp8@mail.ru userid - 32137 Submission Information: Seiken Densetsu 3 Project(if it matters:D) Title - "Dry Heart" link to remix - attached to letter Name of game arranged - Seiken Densetsu 3 System: SNES Name of individual song arranged - Harvest November Link to the original soundtrack - Hello! This remix has a long story.. Again.. In october-november 2010, I joined to this project. First wip was kinda KickAss metall, as Rozo said. And actually was suck. I made 3 or 4 way different remixes to this source and step by step, with giantic feedback help from The best Boss ever Rozovian, this remix was finished! Actually this one was an accident. I just sit down to my comp and wrote it. I never played piano or something, I have no keybord, that is why I love this remix more then any of mine. Once again.. Everything I learnd, improve or whatever, just because of Seiken Densetsu 3 Project and it's Boss Rozovian! Also special thanks to Meteo Xavier for advice about piano paning and to all ppl who helped me by feedback. Thank You! P.S. Sorry for my english, if I said something weird) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OceansAndrew Posted June 13, 2011 Share Posted June 13, 2011 Pretty interesting soundscape. Some of the levels were a little rough, once the guitars and drums came in, but overall i thought there was a cool Trans-Siberian Orchestra vibe to parts of this. The drums were a little too dirty sounding, and a bit too much distortion on the lead guitar, but the different levels of intensity helped keep it interesting. Some of the piano sequencing in the middle felt a bit mechanical, while other parts were much more natural. While I don't think this is pristine by any means, it has a lot of good stuff going for it, and while I do think it's near the edge, i'm inclined to pass this based on the strength of the arrangement. Keep working on improving your production though! Yes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DragonAvenger Posted August 12, 2011 Author Share Posted August 12, 2011 It took me a long time to hear some parts of the arrangement that were source. Now that I think I'm hearing everything, I have to admit that the arrangement itself is pretty clever and interesting, and my appreciation for the track overall is much higher than the first few times when I was thinking there was little source overall. That being said, I will agree with Andrew that there are some issues in terms of production. The instruments aren't quite at the levels they should be, and the mechanical piano parts pull this down a bit. I'd say the arrangement tops the flaws, but there's plenty for you to work on for you next songs! YES Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nutritious Posted October 14, 2011 Share Posted October 14, 2011 Really love this source. I really felt like the SD3 soundtrack was a let down compared to its predecessor, SoM, but this track is one of the exceptions. Nice personalization work here with melodic variations on the original piece. I also had a bit of trouble pulling out some of the source usage on first blush, but I'm hearing more on repeated listens. For example, clever source use in the low pizz strings around 2:50 with other instruments following. That said, I have a nagging concern on how much source is actually in there - if someone has a chance I'd really appreciate a stopwatch. My biggest beef with this track is that the piano feels mechanical and repetative enough to really be a detriment to the track. The left hand has a lot of repeating patterns and keeps the same eighth note (or 16th, w/e) cadence for a long time. On the flip side, the right hand parts have some sudden velocity jumps on notes (see :33, :36, 1:04, 2:58-left hand) which makes it feel a bit unrealistic. Backing instruments (sustained horns mainly) felt pretty static and plodding behind the piano in the first third of the track. Try bringing some life to them with volume dynamics. Not digging that violin lead here. It's got a pretty dull tone and really unnatural sounding vibrato. This is most apparent when its exposed later in the track Rock sections were more solid than the lower energy portions IMO. I agree with Andrew that the levels didn't quite sound right with these sections though. For one, snare sounded several db too loud. Kick had the thud without the click - try bringing up some of the higher EQ levels on it. By the was 4:05 had a VERY cool feel to it, it's just crowded with so much going on. Try to work on your levels here to get orchestra and rock playing nice together. You've got a ton going for this track, it just needs some more production lovin' IMO. Good luck with the rest of the vote man. No, resubmit please Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Palpable Posted October 24, 2011 Share Posted October 24, 2011 I definitely like the harmonic changes going on underneath this song, it's a very different feel. I have to agree with Justin about the shortcomings though. The piano sections get very tiring to listen to because of how even the playing is. If the piano writing is to stay as is, the left-hand should be pushed back more so that the focus is on the melody, but I think some rewriting would be in order. A better sample might help too. The rock sections were a lot more interesting to listen to, and I felt like things were mostly working there. The drums sounded kind of harrowing (which is cool), but as a result, they also sound a little sloppy. The toms sound strangely out of place, maybe panned too far. I also feel like there's some noise of distortion there that doesn't sound that great. Hard to put my finger on it. Long story short, the production has got to match the strength of the arrangement. NO (resubmit) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OceansAndrew Posted October 24, 2011 Share Posted October 24, 2011 i've contacted him, and will be receiving an updated track. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OceansAndrew Posted October 25, 2011 Share Posted October 25, 2011 Updated track Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emunator Posted November 17, 2011 Share Posted November 17, 2011 Right off the bat, the piano strikes me as very mechanical, even in the revised version. There's no flow to the performance, it sounds more like a series of notes exactly the same length being played in succession with some changes in velocity... You're on the right track, but it's way too mechanical. Listen to the timing in particular and see if you can't modify it to get a more flowing, humanized performance out of that sample. Similar humanization issues are also present in your pizzacato strings. The metal work is pretty solid for the most part and perhaps the most engaging part of the track, but it kind of comes and goes out of nowhere without much transition the first time. The second time you lead into the metal section it works much better Really cool guitar soloing/speed-picking at the end. I'm with Justin on the lead violin, it's definitely not bad and the articulation is nice, but it still has a very tinny quality. 3:04 brings a very noticeable cutoff where the different sections of the track don't flow quite right. Polish that up if you can. Random nitpick: at around :35 and then again for much of the song, what's the deal with the gated/phased white noise in the right ear? See if you can find out what this is and This is a killer arrangement dude, but it's not quite doing it for me yet on the production side of things. I'd like to hear a full-blown revamp of some of the robotic melody lines and touchups on some of the other elements of the song before this passes. NO (resubmit!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liontamer Posted November 17, 2011 Share Posted November 17, 2011 I'm listening to the revised version, just noting. The backing piano sequencing for the first section & 3:04 was so mechanical, I can't think of any circumstance where this would be OK as is. When that finally went away in favor of the rock section, I finally understood the upside of this arrangement. The snare at 3:34 was extremely flimsy. I'd also need a source usage breakdown, so I'll have to come back to that. But the piano sequencing ALONE kills this dead. Do everything the others NOs said to get your parts working together more effectively and sounding more humanized & consistent. I hope to be able to add more substantial thoughts later, but this is an obvious NO-go, unfortunately. It has some promise though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DragonAvenger Posted November 18, 2011 Author Share Posted November 18, 2011 Revisiting some old votes. Relistening (to the revised version) and reading some of the crits, I'm going to be agreeing with what the others have said, and I think that this would be pretty awesome if you were to work this one up a bit more. Sorry to change up on you, but hopefully we get a more awesome result! NO (resubmit) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts