Jump to content

*NO* Chrono Cross 'Under Cerulean Skies' *RESUB*


DragonAvenger
 Share

Recommended Posts

original decision

Link to the remix:

Your ReMixer name: Ivan Hakštok

Your e-mail address:

Your userid: 43292

Name of game(s) arranged: Chrono Cross

Name of arrangement: Under Cerulean Skies

Name of individual song(s) arranged: Another Termina

Link to the original soundtrack:

Your own comments about the mix: This is the resubmission of my mix that was rejected a month ago (http://ocremix.org/forums/showthread.php?t=42476).

I've recorded live bass instead of using a sampled one, so I guess that fixed the bass issue. I've also changed most of the drum samples, and added some more source in the part after 2:15. I would've resubmitted this sooner but I did so many songs during the last few weeks that I just couldn't decide which one to submit first xD (I guess you can expect lots of submissions from me in the following months :P)

Since I didn't include the source breakdown in my original submission, I could do it now:

0:00 - 0:46 = based on the intro to the source

0:47 - 1:33 = based on the first part of the source

1:34 - 2:15 = based on the second part of the source

2:16 - 2:38 = intro chords, the third part of the source is played at 2:27

2:39 - 3:38 = again based on the second part of the source

Hope you enjoy it!

Edited by Liontamer
closed decision
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Thank you, Ivan, for matching up the song to the source sections that inspired them. That said, OA pointed out this potentially felt too liberal the first time around, so I checked into this one. I needed at least 109 seconds of source usage in the arrangement for the source material to be dominant.

:49-:51, :55-57, 1:01-1:03, 1:07-1:47, 2:00-2:14, 2:16-2:39, 2:51-3:18

brief part of background bassline following intro chords: 1:49-1:50.75, 1:55-1:56.75, 2:40.75-2:42.5, 2:46-2:47.75, 3:26-3:27.75

113.75 seconds or 52.2% overt source usage

Onto the full vote... Interesting vibe for the intro, reminiscent of something WillRock would create. The guitars at :23 seemingly lacked some hi-end, but no big deal.

From :00-:46, I didn't hear any overt source tune connection even though I hear what you're attempting to do as far as arranging it. :47-1:10 sounded very loosely connected. :46-:49 sounds like a simplified version of :11-:16 in the source video, and I see what you were going for again, but the notes were totally different. But :49-:51 more closely matched with :16-:20 from the source.

:46-1:34 was a little cluttered/muddy as well. Not sure what happened with the mixing there to cause that (seems like part of the reason may be the drums), but that could use some EQ adjustments to tighten that up.

That build then moved into the main melody finally showing up overtly from 1:10-1:33, followed by a solid chorus from 1:33-1:47. Once you moved onto 1:38 and some elements dropped out, the soundscape gained more clarity. Then we had a stripped down section following the chord progression (I don't count that as source use, it's too simplified) until 2:00 brought back the chrous on guitars until 2:14.

2:16 definitely had the most subtle source usage, relying on bass chords explicitly used in the back of the source intro to fill the same role here while you had some original writing on top including some ultra liberal soloing. Creative stuff there.

2:40 shifted to some overly simplified/liberal chord progressions of the chorus before the chorus itself came back from 2:51-3:18 before finishing up solidly. The final fadeout was too fast, which was sloppy, but wasn't a huge deal.

The instrumentation and energy sounds a lot like something OA would have sent in back in his more formative years. While the performance sounded excellent, I felt the mixing could benefit another pass to brighten the leads and declutter the foreground, but I'll leave that up to other Js to co-sign on or not.

But in the bigger picture, I think the strong arrangement and performances overcome some lesser weaknesses in the mixing that ultimately didn't detract in a big enough way to hold it back.

Nice work and good energy, Ivan; keep 'em coming!

YES (borderline)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Woah what's going on at 1:35? Seriously bad notes, I think they are just harmonics in your bell sound, but it ain't right. gonna have to swap that out.

Aside from that I don't have much to complain about. The mix is a bit boomy at times, but It's not a dealbreaker. Gotta fix that bell though.

NO

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

Mix is very bassy with the drums not really cutting through. I'm not sure I agree with the other judges that it's on the passable side - it sounded pretty unbalanced to me. I also have to second that the 1:35 section just sounds plain bad. The harmonic overtones there really don't work. Arrangement was good but I think it doesn't account for the mixing problems and the one short but troublesome section.

NO (resubmit)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Oof at 1:35. I am tempted to say that that might even be a dealbreaker on it's own, but I think Vinnie is pretty correct here that there's a loot of boomy-ness out of the bass and it's overpowering a lot of the other elements. I think this is a pretty good candidate for fixing up that one more time to adjust the notes in the bells and work out the balance just right. The arrangement is strong and fun, I enjoyed it quite a bit.

One more!

NO (resubmit, please)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...