Jump to content

*NO* Ico 'Because I Have Horns'


DragonAvenger
 Share

Recommended Posts

Hey guys, I thought you might like this remix, seeing that it doesn't really contain any "normal" elements of electronic music, and veers more towards an ethnic sound.

Contact information

ReMixer Name: Vlantis

Real name: Joseph Jacobs

Submission information

Name of game arranged: ICO

Name of arrangement: Because I have Horns

Name of song arranged: Heal

This song started off as a pretty straightforward remix, but it quickly escalated into something much bigger. It's a bit long at 7:37, but there's enough change-ups in there to keep things interesting. It starts off slow, but it gets pretty frantic before the end.

Thanks for listening!

Joe

--------------

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Really unique approach here. Love that it's very percussion-heavy, and the variation in the percussion is very strong. I will agree that this is a bit on the longer side, but I personally didn't have a problem with the length, and even the somewhat repetitious feel. I could see this going either way, but I dig it quite a bit.

YES

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

i love this source, and though this is on the longer side, it develops very well, When the piano comes in, it's a bit hard, and some of the notes used around 5:25 sound comical due to the overly loud velocity, I think using a softer touch would be better for the piano, and if you wanted more intensity, a different instrument would be better served there, The snare is a touch muffled, but in the context, it works. Overall this is interesting and unique as a mix, and very well planned out, with a proper ending. I do think some additional dynamics in the ending stabs would have made it a lot more effective, but I think as is, this clears the bar.

Yes

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Did a quick arrangement breakdown, since there were several extended sections that seemingly didn't use the source:

A 7:37-long arrangement needs 228.5 seconds of source usage for more than 50% of the track the source material to be dominant.

:20-:46.25 (background drum pattern), :47.5-2:10.25, 2:48-4:30.5, 6:35-7:07.75 = 245.25 seconds or 53.67%

The arrangement did a passable job going the expansive route, basically keeping the source material intact, but with a different sound and with lots of writing built around it. There were some weaker sections in terms of the execution, but the overall structure and dynamics got the job done, even if I wasn't as enthusiastic as the others. The main issue though was the production.

Not sure what supporting instrumentation was going on from 3:14-4:30. The sequencing sounded too stiff (particularly the drums), and everything was competing for space; it could have been pizz strings or a dog barking, I don't know. :lol: The soundscape was cluttered, a problem that stood out more during fuller sections like that one. Same with 5:37's section with the faster tempo and crazy drumming.

The drumkit being more prominent at 4:42 was pretty suspect, IMO. The rigid timing made it an awkward fit within the rest of the instrumentation. Not a huge deal in the big picture, but there were moments where things didn't lock together as well as they should have.

A very underwhelming interplay of the source tune with the original writing at 6:35. Compositionally and conceptually, it's good stuff. However, it just muds together too indistinctly, obscuring BOTH lines.

Once the mixing is cleaned up a little and the drums have some more punch, we're good to go, because the arrangement is strong enough, but the mixing was a weak point. It's definitely got merit, and this will probably pass (no problem here), but there's some polish this could use on the sequencing and mixing to sound meaningfully stronger.

NO (borderline/refine/resubmit)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gonna agree with Larry that the extended sections at 3:14 & 5:37 were pretty problematic. You're trying to cram a lot of elements in here, which can work, but only if you have things balanced pretty carefully (not an easy thing to do). I don't think it would be as big of an issue if these weren't pretty sizeable chunks of the track.

At 6:35, there's too much melodically going on between the repeating patterns and the melody, so it comes off as jumbled & clashing.

On the plus side, this is a very creative take on a source that, while pretty, is also repetative without a ton of material to work with. Very interesting mix of ethnic instrumentation as well.

Close for sure; good luck with the rest of the vote.

No, resubmit please

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

This is a fantastic concept for an arrangement, pretty unique as far as what we get, and I didn't mind the length much at all. The quieter sections are simple but well-done, with just enough writing to keep pushing things forward. So I really enjoyed how this started, but once it got to the busier sections the execution wasn't matching the ideas. The rigid sequencing felt unnatural on most of the instruments, although it almost felt so chaotic that it wasn't striving for realism. It's close, but it bothered me enough that I too have to ask for another version of this. Please keep at this one, I would love to hear a really polished version of it.

NO (resubmit)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think there are individual sections of this that work great and some that don't. You probably could have gone all out vangelis on the first 2:30 and called it a day and it would have been pretty sweet, but it ended up a bloated by the extended sections that didn't work so well.

This is one of those cases where a great concept has been taken a bit too far and not quite panned out. Kudos for the creative effort but less is possibly more in this case.

NO

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

I'm absolutely loving the first minute of this, the textures are very exotic and unique, it reminds me of something I'd see on a BBC nature documentary soundtrack for this first part. This is all pretty good as far as I'm concerned.

I'm feeling what you're doing with the slow-build, but by about the 1:45 mark I feel like you could probably be doing more with the soundscape. When the more aggressive drums/bass come in, I'm a little underwhelmed by the overall mixing - the chromatic percussion still sounds fantastic, but the drums are starting to sound noticeably hollow. A more dominant bass drum to fill out those low frequencies would be very nice here.

By 3:14 though, you're starting to lose me. The concept is EXCELLENT but as the other judges have said things start to get too cramped and busy. I know what you're going for with the piano but it sounds too dissonant and loud, and ultimately ends up being more of a distracting element in those sections.

As I listen to this, I'm finding SO much that I like about it, and honestly I want to pass it just because of the sheer uniqueness of what you've done. The instrument choices suits my tastes perfectly, but ultimately I find myself agreeing with the naysayers here that this is just a little bit too ambitious at times, and ends up missing the mark on several points. You're 90% of the way there, but I think you need to ease up on the instrumentation in some of the busier sections, trim down the length a bit to omit or fix some of the problematic sections that have been mentioned by myself and other judges, and I think you'll have a really damn memorable mix here.

I will be very sad if this one doesn't come back to the panel in the future :-P

NO (PLEASE resubmit!)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...