DragonAvenger Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 Original Decision: http://ocremix.org/forums/showthread.php?t=34408&highlight=knight_of_the_round Title: The Power of Cornelia Game: Final Fantasy Song: Cornelia Castle Original Composer: Nobuo Uematsu Remixer: Knight_of_the_Round Real name: Justin Taylor Link to submission: PROJECT TRACK! Here if my re-submission for my Cornelia Castle remix for Brandon Strader's Final Fantasy: Random Encounter album. I basically re-mixed the entire song and added more source to the solo and I removed as much "non-source" as I could, and I think it sounds a LOT better. Hopefully you guys do too. The song is done in the style of power metal with a few poly-rhythms thrown in for good measure. All guitars were recorded with an Agile 8 string into a ENGL Fireball head through a VHT Fatbottom cabinet. Bass was recorded direct through Line6 PODFarm. Drums were programmed via SD 2.0 through Sony Acid, then the snare and kick were replaced with Steven Slate Trigger. Enjoy! ----------- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cBLwMvfkG9s Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OceansAndrew Posted August 18, 2011 Share Posted August 18, 2011 This is feeling much better; while there still isn't much headroom, everything is sounding really clear and crisp, and there is a lot of power. Great chops as well! The arrangement definitely felt closer to the source, and there was still a lot of personalization. Nice improvements all around, I dig it. Yes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DragonAvenger Posted September 9, 2011 Author Share Posted September 9, 2011 Not much to add to what Andrew's already laid out. The playing overall is good, and you did a good job of keeping things clear despite the usually issues with the style. Nice rework. YES Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vig Posted November 19, 2011 Share Posted November 19, 2011 "Not a lot of headroom" is pretty much par for the course for this type of music. Balls to the wall. My main criticism is that it makes me want to drill a hole in my skull, but that's probably a desirable characteristic. It's pretty atonal and monochromatic at times, which is more jarring on the occasions when the melody comes in and sounds out of place. I'm struggling to decide whether this style of music can support such an uplifting melody. I find myself liking the more brutal sections more which have nothing to do with the original. Ultimately I feel like this ought to be an original. NO nice track though. Brutal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emunator Posted December 6, 2011 Share Posted December 6, 2011 "Not a lot of headroom" is pretty much par for the course for this type of music. Balls to the wall. My main criticism is that it makes me want to drill a hole in my skull, but that's probably a desirable characteristic. It's pretty atonal and monochromatic at times, which is more jarring on the occasions when the melody comes in and sounds out of place. I'm struggling to decide whether this style of music can support such an uplifting melody. I find myself liking the more brutal sections more which have nothing to do with the original. Ultimately I feel like this ought to be an original. Normally I hate to vote on things that boil down to a matter of personal taste, but I found myself agreeing with this vote almost entirely. I think the problem for me is that the rhythm guitars are tuned so low and playing such low notes that, at a lot of times, they just don't work with any sort of traditional melody at all, let alone such an uplifting one. I don't want to say this style can't work, period, but I've deliberated on this track a LOT (probably more than anything else on the panel) and I just have to go with my gut at the end of the day, since the melody and the rhythm guitars aren't gelling with me. It just feels unpleasantly atonal. Sorry Justin, it's nothing against you or your style personally, but I'm not feeling this one. Good luck with the rest of the vote. NO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Palpable Posted December 7, 2011 Share Posted December 7, 2011 Hmm, what a song to judge. I can see why Jesse and Wes went NO on it: the juxtaposition of the largely atonal guitars and the happy melody is hard to get my head around. It's similar to another track of Justin's that I just judged, but I felt like there was a little more cohesiveness to that one. This is more like the melody slapped on top of a totally original track. (I also agree with Jesse that my favorite parts were the brutal original sections - the source-inspired stuff was a little obvious.) There were one section that used the source chords along with original melodies (1:06) and I would have liked to see more of that. Totally understand a YES vote on this, but I'd like to see a little more cohesiveness to the arrangement. I know that can be a vague criticism, but it really feels to me like the source is not well incorporated into the larger track. NO (resubmit) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liontamer Posted December 29, 2011 Share Posted December 29, 2011 Source usage-wise, the track was 220.5 long and needed 110.25 seconds of source use for the usage to be dominant and for me to pass it. :03-:25 (original riffing paired with loud arranged backing lines direct from the source, smart stuff), :36-1:00, 1:56-2:04.25, 2:07-2:11, 2:12.5-2:16.75, 2:18-2:52, 3:26.5-3:38.5 = 108.5 seconds The choruses from :58-1:22 & 1:34-1:56 was loosely inspired by the source with some rhythmic similarities, but sounded too liberal (and atonal) for me to count as source usage from Cornelia Castle. If I'm missing something else obvious there, like another theme reference or an upgraded soundtrack version that used this writing (PlayStation, WonderSwan, etc), please let me know. Otherwise, it's close, but not overtly using the source material quite enough, from what I can tell. My opinion on the previous version was: [10:43] On a technical level, fine, but I'd NO this just for taking all the character out of the melodies; if there was a contest for taking out the melodiousness of a source tune, this would win[10:43] So, bleh on that one Flippant, yes. Unfortunately, that criticism still stands with this version. And let me make it clear, you didn't commit sacrilege for "daring" to modify the mood of the source tune. I always HATE when people complain about that. But what's in place with the melody is atonal and ends up clashing with your backing writing too drastically, and that ended up killing this off. The first bars of the verse were great from :36 to :47, then everything after was atonal when paired with the backing, ESPECIALLY the choruses from 1:00-1:19 & 1:34-1:53. Notes matter. Modify your leads or your backing instrumentation, but one of 'em needs to be tweaked for this to make sense musically. Brief but baller stuff from 1:56-2:06. The energy's good and the performances are pretty solid. It's really too bad all these atonal sections were there when the core of the arrangement and performance was sweet. No hate Justin, it's a good track in a vacuum, and it takes nothing away from your skills, but the clashing sections are too extensive to let slide. If you want to touch this up, great, but either way I look forward to hearing more from you. NO (refine/resubmit) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
halc Posted December 30, 2011 Share Posted December 30, 2011 not much to add to what everybody has already said about this mix. I agree with most of the criticisms the other NO's left, in regards to the backing track feeling 'atonal' and the melody out of place. definitely an odd arrangement, however the production is above the bar. can't sign off on this one, though. NO(resub) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts