Palpable Posted January 1, 2013 Share Posted January 1, 2013 Strad_37 Kory McMaster http://soundcloud.com/korymcmaster u=50044 Mass Effect Farewell Shepard Mass Effect Theme *Mass Effect is already linked and available on the site The inspiration of this track came from playing Mass Effect 3. On the soundtrack, Clint Mansell and Sam Hulick composed a track entitled "An End, Once and For All" that serves as the final track you hear from the composition team in game. While I think the track is beautiful and that it worked wonderfully with how the game ended, I always wanted to hear them do a tragic arrangement of the original theme with a full orchestration rather than just piano. So, I wrote this arrangement as my way of saying farewell to the Mass Effect universe, the amazing composers who worked on it, and of course, Commander Shepard. The track was composed in Logic Pro using East West sound libraries. Hope you like it and thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Kory McMaster ps This is my first submission to ocremix so sorry if I missed anything above! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DragonAvenger Posted January 27, 2013 Share Posted January 27, 2013 The source is a very pretty theme, and I think your approach is very nice. I'm concerned that, for our standards, this is too close to the original. I'd love for you to expand on the theme more and add some more original writing and harmonies into this. It's a great base for an arrangement, though. The sounds are also not super great. I think they are workable, but lacking a touch of realism and humanism that would add a lot more emotion to this. I'd look at adjusting the timings on attacks and adding some vibrato on parts to make things more emotive. I think you've got a good start here, but definitely need to expand more on the arrangement with some of your own ideas. Some production adjustments are needed as well. Check out our WIP forums to get some more feedback and advice! NO (resubmit) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OceansAndrew Posted January 30, 2013 Share Posted January 30, 2013 I have to agree with Deia here, between the somewhat conservative arrangement (more on this later) and the stiffness of the string articulations, it's not quite meeting the bar. The samples themselves seem to pass muster, but you will need to really dig in and humanize things. The fact that you are taking the same basic instrumentation is totally fine, but reducing the elements and making them that much more exposed is causing the stiff sequencing to be extra pronounced. One issue with using the same instrumentation is also that your decent-but-not-astounding samples pale in comparison to a real orchestra. I suggest adding a few additional instruments to help mask direct comparisons. Maybe a nylon string guitar or a live lead instrument would help. The concept of your mix is really nice, and it definitely feels like a poetic and tragic goodbye, and with some polish, will really shine. Adding more pronounced dynamics to it will also help it breathe a lot more. I think taking this to the WIP forums and getting more advice on revisions would be a great idea; I hope to hear this updated! No, please resubmit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fishy Posted January 31, 2013 Share Posted January 31, 2013 Just echo'ing the above really. If you're doing something thats already orchestral, you kind of have to do it in a different way, or it will just come across as a bit of a cover. OCR likes arrangements that add to or change from the original, this just seems to have stripped layers away. I would just add that this never really goes up to 11. There's a couple of times where you do the cymbal and timp roll, but the bits before aren't really quiet enough for it to have the effect of it leading into a loud section. The volume of the strings at 2:17 are exactly the same volume as when they enter around 1:00 and throughout. You need to get more dynamics into the sections. The original is a great example of this. NO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liontamer Posted February 1, 2013 Share Posted February 1, 2013 If you're doing something thats already orchestral, you kind of have to do it in a different way, or it will just come across as a bit of a cover. OCR likes arrangements that add to or change from the original, this just seems to have stripped layers away. I'm pulling from 2004 stuff from just before I got started on the panel, but it's worth pointing out: Keep in mind that reinstrumentation, subtraction (instead of addition), and modifications in tempo ARE *aspects* of what we think of as arrangement. I don't think this arrangement was particularly subtractive as much as different, but subtraction (in conjunction with other things of course), is a valid form of arrangement. I also disagreed with: The volume of the strings at 2:17 are exactly the same volume as when they enter around 1:00 and throughout. No, it's not exactly the same, the strings at 2:17 are definitely louder. The strings at 1:00 kind of peaked in around 1:11, but still, the later stuff was notably louder than that. Moving onto the big picture, honestly, I think it primarily boils down to needing better humanization. Some further melodic interpretation wouldn't hurt either, but what's there was solid enough. I'm not quite getting the rationale of the NOs basically saying the overall feel was too close to the original. On that level, I thought Kory personalized his approach more than well enough. The concept is actually pretty sweet. It's orchestral, but it's a distinctly softer, mellower mood than the source, which was more of militaristic electronic-orchestral hybrid. Short and sweet, if the articulations were more on point so this sounded more expressive, this arrangement style could easily hang, IMO. It certainly shouldn't be short-changed. The whole of the arrangement deals with 1:10-on of the source and basically ignores the rest, and it's just two iterations of that part of the source, so that's why the arrangement could seemingly come across as somewhat repetitive and underdeveloped. The opening seemed OK. Right from the beginning, this was a bit dynamically flat, on account of the samples needing better humanization, but I appreciated the slower approach. Once the music swelled at 1:44, the string articulations not quite sounding realistic enough was more apparent. The string articulations in particular sound flatter than the inherent energy in the writing, undermining some of the more touching sections like 2:16-2:47. you will need to really dig in and humanize things. The fact that you are taking the same basic instrumentation is totally fine, but reducing the elements and making them that much more exposed is causing the stiff sequencing to be extra pronounced. Yep. Also, I can hear a lot of original writing ideas in the background, but they're pretty quiet, and, for all intents and purposes, are buried or muddied under the leads, so you can't really appreciate any of the detail work in the background. The mixing isn't horrible by any means, but something's obscruing your supporting writing. The piano's basically a non-factor from 1:10-on, and brass sounds good, but bleeds into the strings a good deal. Again, the textures already sound pretty good, but could shine with a bit of EQ love to separate the parts a bit. OA was right in that respect. The concept of your mix is really nice, and it definitely feels like a poetic and tragic goodbye, and with some polish, will really shine. Adding more pronounced dynamics to it will also help it breathe a lot more. Definitely. The source is a very pretty theme, and I think your approach is very nice. I'm concerned that, for our standards, this is too close to the original. I'd love for you to expand on the theme more and add some more original writing and harmonies into this. It's a great base for an arrangement, though. Well, as far as the usage of the source material goes, I disagree. Kory's already firmly in the right direction of making it his own. I think because the mixing makes it a bit harder to appreciate the original/additive writing, one basically walks away hearing 2 iterations of the 1:10 section of the source tune, one softer, then one louder right at the halfway point, and it seems too simple. So I think the combination of a relatively straightforward, somewhat repetitive structure and the obscruing of some detail work made it seem like the arrangement could be underdeveloped. But if you ask me, what's there is substantial enough and interpretive enough. The instrumentation, dynamics, and tempo coupled with the new supporting writing were enought to satisfy the arrangement criteria for me; it's substantial enough when you pay attention to the details. I think you could maintain this structure, Kory, but improve the mixing and sample articulations so that you fully realize the potential here. Right now, the arrangement is good, but the sound is not quite realistic and expressive enough, even though it's maybe 80% there, in my opinion. Just as important, the mixing needs to be cleaned up a bit as well. Give those parts room to breathe and shine. Also, just noting that if you do resubmit this, there's no waiting period for it to be posted to the panel to be rejudged. NO (refine/resubmit) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts