Liontamer Posted August 14, 2012 Share Posted August 14, 2012 Pulled back from a DP nomination due to the lack of realism of the piano; Both djp & I would like a panel vote - LT Link: Remixer Name: Derek Huelsman Real Name: Derek Huelsman Email Address: Website: N/A Userid: 38924 Name of games arranged: Chrono Cross, The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time Name of arrangement: Dream of the Storm Name of individual songs arranged: On the Banks of a Dream: Another World (aka Dream of the Shore Near Another World) from Chrono Cross Windmill Hut (aka Song of Storms) from Ocarina of Time Comments: I started writing this song five or six years ago and actually posted it in the WIP forum under the pseudonym Sasqua Mox in 2007 (http://ocremix.org/forums/showthread.php?t=10099). There's also an earlier version of the song that was posted on Youtube by a friend of mine (), and it received a lot of positive feedback, but for some reason I never got around to submitting it to ocremix.org. The title of the piece is clearly adapted from the names of the two source songs, but I chose it because I feel it matches the feel and flow of the song exceptionally well. ------------------------------------------------------ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zMEb6XXXi08 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liontamer Posted August 14, 2012 Author Share Posted August 14, 2012 The track started out well enough. During the more intimate parts the piano doesn't sound bad at all. As soon as it ramped up at :26, it was over. That is one mega fakey piano. The sound is so mechanical that the faster and fuller writing all sounds unrealistic and exposed. 1:51's transition was also another low point. The arrangement quality is there, no question. With a better, more expressive piano sample, this would probably be fine. This one's old, but we'll have to see if Derek can snag a better piano sample from DarkeSword's freebie recommendations that are out there, or Vinnie or another J could take a look a re-rendering it with a better piano sample. Otherwise, cool arrangement, but the sample quality kills this dead on production. NO (resubmit) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Palpable Posted August 15, 2012 Share Posted August 15, 2012 Not sure if a piano sample switch is necessarily what's needed here. I actually thought the piano sample would have been passable, but the song sounds overcompressed (or the sequencing is too static) and too dry as well during the faster parts. When you take those together, there's a definite lack of realism. I also thought the song ended up being too heavy on the left channel acoustically, and some left/right balancing should have been done. I agree that the arrangement and performance are quite nice, and production is what's holding this back (and even then, I think it's close). Derek, feel free to PM me if you need some help with this track, but I suspect you can probably fix this on your own with free tools. NO (resubmit) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarkeSword Posted August 21, 2012 Share Posted August 21, 2012 I think Vinnie's got the right of it. Piano sample is probably okay but there's not a lot of dynamic range here. The piece never actually sounds louder or softer, just busier and calmer. Probably just overcompressed. Arrangement is lovely though; good integration of both themes, great transitions and tempo changes. Needs a litter fixer-upper. Would like to see this on OCR soon. NO, resub Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Palpable Posted October 14, 2012 Share Posted October 14, 2012 Derek sent me the WAV and I tried to work some magic on it to make the volume louder and widen it a bit. Please revote on it. Also, check for clipping cause I have a tendency to miss that kind of thing. I don't think it's too arrogant to change my vote to a YES? YES Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emunator Posted October 16, 2012 Share Posted October 16, 2012 I think Palpable's production treatment definitely helped out the sound quality here compared to the old version, and let me reiterate: there's some really fantastic parts of this arrangement that I just love, and overall it's a pretty intelligent fusion of the two source tunes that's enjoyable to listen to. However, I still feel like the quality of the sequencing is holding this back. There's something about the performance/writing on the right hand melodies that feels very mechanical at times, regardless of the production fixes. There's stretches of the song where everything sounds cool, like :27-:37 or 2:04-2:17, but then you get to points like :55-:59, 1:33-1:51, or 4:16-4:18 where the realism just breaks for me as a listener. I can't tell if it's purely a sequencing issue (I'm taking a guess here, honestly, since you never mention whether this is a live performance or a sequenced piece, but I'm reasonably confident in my assessment here...) or if the rhythms on the left and right hands aren't lining up exactly, but at points like that, I can tell something doesn't sound right. There's some really complex melodies and rhythms going on that, for lack of a better word, just sound clunky. This next part isn't a dealbreaker, per se, but I thought it was worth pointing out because nobody else has really mentioned it... I thought that, at over 5 minutes, the arrangement was stretched pretty far and there was a lack of direction overall. Each of the individual melodic ideas you touch on are solid, but the overall flow of the piece feels somewhat random. I think the lack of expression in the piano sample used doesn't help this, either. I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that, based on the previous votes, I'm probably in the minority here, but I don't feel like this piece is totally clicking, even with the revisions. I love a lot of the ideas here, but compared to most of the recent piano mixes posted to the site, this still feels deficient in a couple of ways. Your track shows a lot of competence and merit overall, so good luck with the vote either way! It's just not up to my bar yet, personally. NO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DragonAvenger Posted October 27, 2012 Share Posted October 27, 2012 Still a YES for me. I've had this song as a WIP on my ipod for ages, and have always loved the arrangement. I think the arrangement is somewhat long, but there's plenty of strong references throughout that bring up the melody, and I also felt like it never got repetitive. Hope this one passes, as I've always wanted to see it on the front page. YES Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OceansAndrew Posted November 9, 2012 Share Posted November 9, 2012 Definitely a step up in sound quality - I feel that the left hand overall is a bit too aggressive with the volume and toning the velocities down there would feel a lot more natural. It's closer, but I think some smoothing of the sequencing would take this over for me. The arrangement is very good. No, please resubmit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liontamer Posted November 9, 2012 Author Share Posted November 9, 2012 There's a light pop at 1:14, just noting. Yeah, the depth Vinnie was able to give to the soundscape was a significant step up as far as the sound quality. I wouldn't be angry if this version passed. That said, I'm with Emu that the most unrealistically sequenced areas still stick out like a sore thumb. It's still below the bar of realism should make it as far as sequenced piano, as anything with speed or forcefulness here is immediately sounds very fake. I hate to be the bad guy on a direct post candidate that was pulled back, but the touchups on the WAV can't fix significant problems with the sequencing and lack of realism. We don't need million dollar samples OR grand piano recordings, but this still needs a step up. Still a NO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vig Posted November 9, 2012 Share Posted November 9, 2012 It's so tough to do a piano remix that isn't gimmicky and somewhat unoriginal. I dig the arrangement here, though some of the transitions were jarring. For the most part I feel this track tells a cohesive story. I'm not thrilled about the sonics; it gets really washy and muddy when you've got too much going on in the left hand. I'm pretty close to the border on this one; I think i'm going to have to go no for now because I'm not so enthusiastic about the arrangement hat I'm willing to overlook the gripes that have been mentioned. NO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarkeSword Posted November 10, 2012 Share Posted November 10, 2012 Listening again I can hear the sequencing issues you guys are talking about. My previous vote didn't mention them, so my bad, but while Vinnie's fix helps with the dynamics, there are issues with the left-hand sequencing. Also there's some embellishment at 2:54 featuring some very out of place blue notes. Really jarring. Great arrangement but still needs work on the technical side. Might be worth collaborating with a pianist. NO, resub Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liontamer Posted November 14, 2012 Author Share Posted November 14, 2012 What's the gameplan now, i.e. would anyone like to help lift this up further or can get the actual source files to this from Derek? Vinnie, you wanna try to spice this up further? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Palpable Posted November 14, 2012 Share Posted November 14, 2012 I think we should go ahead and close it. Derek only has a WAV file (it was recorded, not sequenced) and I did as much as I could to fix the issues but it sounds like it wasn't enough for the panel. I should mention that djp thought my version of it sounded like a pass IIRC, but he wanted the panel to vote on it so probably makes sense to close. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liontamer Posted November 14, 2012 Author Share Posted November 14, 2012 I think we should go ahead and close it. Derek only has a WAV file (it was recorded, not sequenced) and I did as much as I could to fix the issues but it sounds like it wasn't enough for the panel. I should mention that djp thought my version of it sounded like a pass IIRC, but he wanted the panel to vote on it so probably makes sense to close. Alright, Vinnie, that sounds like the right call. You definitively gave it a good go with the WAV, but if there's no sequencing/source files to work with, it just limited what you could do to spruce it up. Derek, especially nowadays, it's not often we pull back a direct post nomination, so we're sorry the outcome changed. We do include a disclaimer when direct post nominations are sent out, but we still don't mean to wrongly get anyone's hopes up or piss anyone off through a retraction. As the panel's collectively said, the arrangement quality is clearly there, but the lack of realism in the sound really undermines that arrangement quality and we're looking for reasonable execution on both the arrangement and production levels. Seriously, do consider what other avenues you may have to turn out a fuller, more realistic-sounding performance of this piece, including asking for help in the Music Composition & Production or Recruit & Collaborate forums, as it's a great arrangement that just needs another level of TLC. If someone reads this thread, and realizes this arrangement is clearly a pass, they may be more inclined to offer their help. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts