OCR02826 - *YES* Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time 'Requiem for a Damaged Spirit'

[DragonAvenger]

ReMixer info:

chimpazilla

Kristina Scheps - 45254

http://soundcloud.com/chimpazilla

http://ocremix.org/forums/showthread.php?t=41252

192kbps mp3 attached

Submission information:

Game arranged: Legend of Zelda, Ocarina of Time

ReMix name: "Requiem for a Damaged Spirit"

Songs arranged: "Requiem of Spirit"

Composer: Koji Kondo

Comments:

Hi Judges!

I apologize in advance if this is long… it seems I have a bit to say about this mix!

I didn't start this song with the intention of making a Requiem of Spirit remix, or any remix for that matter. It began as an experiment, using my favorite new playtoys (Omnisphere and my Damage drum library), to see if I could create an enormous soundscape (after having been inspired by Theophany’s huge soundscapes). I came up with a drum and bass groove that I liked one evening, and the next morning I awoke with the six notes of Requiem playing over it in my head in a rather unique way. So I sat down at the computer and this just flowed out.

Requiem of Spirit leads Link to the Desert Colossus in OoT. It was only after my mix was complete that I realized that all that industrial clanking in the first half is an excellent reference to the Lanayru Desert in Skyward Sword. So, that's cool.

This song makes me feel emotional... it is haunting and even a bit disturbing when I listen to it. It starts out fairly badass and electronic, then morphs into something softer and more orchestral, then soft and badass join forces… with the Damage drums bridging the sections. The song could tell the story of someone who has made some bad decisions in life, but as time goes on he realizes his mistakes… but he wonders if it is too late to change his ways...

I’ve been told in my WIP forum thread that this song is too liberal, source-wise. This surprised me initially, as I wrote every single section starting with the six notes of Requiem. I thought the song was obnoxiously repetitive with source… but apparently I managed to bury the source too deeply! So I’ve altered the writing where possible to bring the source out more audibly. Also, I’ve included a complete source breakdown (below) showing my intentions throughout the writing process. If this song does not pass the panel for lack of source usage, I will of course be disappointed… but I am still VERY pleased with this song, I learned tons from the process of creating it, made some new friends, and it is my best writing and production effort so far.

I’d like to thank everyone who chimed into my WIP forum thread with comments, they were all tremendously helpful and inspiring. Special thanks to anterroir for his precious friendship and for suggesting (and then contributing) the awesome brass and timpani in the final passage.

Source Breakdown:

(song is 4:00, source total is 2:35 or 59%)

Intro:

0:36 – 0:55: flourishes using five of the six notes (I won’t count this)

First lead (70 seconds):

0:55 – 1:03: slow version

1:03 – 1:11: fast version

1:11 – 1:20: slow version

1:20 – 1:25: fast version

Second lead (9 seconds):

1:32 – 1:37: interpretive

1:41 – 1:45: more interpretive

Flute solo (all interpretive) (22 seconds):

2:05 – 2:11

2:14 – 2:20

2:23 – 2:28

2:31 – 2:36

Climax (21 seconds):

wild solo based on source (I won’t count this)

2:52 – 2:57 interpretive

3:01 – 3:06 very interpretive

3:09 – 3:15 blatant

3:18 – 3:23 blatant

Outro (19 seconds):

3:26 – 3:45 blatant

Edited January 27, 2014 by djpretzel

[Vig]

Hey very nice job interpreting a very short source. Very creative.

The problem with this track partly comes from the shortness of the source. It doesn't really feel like it has any direction. It feels like a 4-minute vamp. There's no clear structure. There's a lot of noodling going on, an I'm waiting for a strong melody and a B section, neither of which ever happen.

NO

[DragonAvenger]

I'm going to disagree with Jesse on this one; I feel like all the variations of the source you presented were well-thought out and provided a strong arrangement as a whole. It's definitely a structure we aren't used to hearing as much on something so short, but I personally never really felt like the track was treading water. I do think that Vig's reasoning is valid, though, and I can see this getting a NO on those grounds, but I was cool with it.

If it does end up getting a NO, I would suggest maybe adding a B section from another source (Stone Temple from MM would probably fit quite well, as only one suggestion). Good luck to you!

YES

[DarkeSword]

I agree with Vig. I think you have a killer soundscape here, but it really feels like the whole arrangement sort of just dances around the Requiem. I think working in a B-section with a strongly stated melodic line from another source would really help anchor the piece.

NO, but definitely resub. Need this on OCR.

[Palpable]

I was pretty impressed how well this built and transitioned, staying on that same key phrase. You did a lot to stretch it out and I wasn't bored at any point. The 0:55-1:25 section was especially interesting, the way the gaps in the phrase gave it some variety. I don't blame anyone for hearing this as noodly, but it totally worked for me. Production was solid, I liked the collection of instruments and mood. Nice work Kristina!

YES

[Liontamer]

The music part of the track was 3:43.5-long, so I needed 111.75 seconds of overt source usage for it to be dominant in the arrangement.

I get the similarity to the theme from :29-:31, but the notes and rhythms of that pattern aren't the same and it's not something I'd say sounds directly enough like the source, not that the case was even being made.

Thanks for the guide. I never referred to it until after I made my own breakdown. Aside from a lot of the end that had areas I didn't get/count, it was relatively on point.

:36-:38.25, :41.25-:44, :45-:51.5, :53.5-1:10.5, 1:11.5-1:25, 1:27.5-1:31.5, 1:32.5-1:52, 2:06-2:11.5, 2:14.75-2:20, 2:23-2:28, 2:31-2:36, 2:52.5-2:56.5, 3:01-3:06, 3:09-3:15.5, 3:17.75-3:21, 3:26-3:32, 3:34.5-3:40.5 = 114 seconds or 51%

Wow, super subtle variation of the source from 1:32.5-1:52 by the backing vox that I didn't pick up on until I was hunting for more source usage. Liberal, but that slowed down rhythm to it was distinct.

In any case, the question seems to be did this noodle too much or whatever, and that all comes across as very subjective. So it gets a little busy at times, but that doesn't mean there's no clear direction. IMO, the arrangement clicked the whole way, had excellent shifts in the dynamics & instrumentation, never lacked focus, and did a great job getting mileage out of these theme "Requiem" variations. It cuts things close, but it doesn't merely "dance around" anything as far as the source usage.

Excellent, sophisticated work by Kristina, IMO. Count it.

YES

[Fishy]

Incredibly borderline on source use. I'm gonna give you the benefit of the doubt.

Production is badass and you should be proud of it for sure even if it doesn't make it.

YES

[Nutritious]

Hey, nice use of various percussion sounds here. To me, this mix is an great example of getting lots of mileage of what may not be super-high priced samples.

Source was really streching it for me here, so I really focused in on connections. The source breakdown was definitely helpful here. Second half was much stronger than the first, connection wise IMO.

I didn't have the sample impression that this was lacking direction/focus. There's good use of dynamics and variation throughout. Despite it being such a short source, Chimp has gotten super creative with the source treatment, so kudos there.

YES