djpretzel Posted February 27, 2006 Share Posted February 27, 2006 ReMixer name: Fatty Acid Game remixed: Chrono Cross Title: Fluff of Legends An exploration of combining 8-bit chip synths with modern sounds for a hi-low sound, much like wearing jeans with a suit jacket! Hence, the primitive synth enjoys the simplest melody possible, while the roaring synths in the breakdown are mod-wheeled into pure oblivion. The "Da Da Da"-esque starting beat joins with a richer (but still minimal) beat when the strings join in. Also, I couldn't live with myself if I didn't try tweaking some of the harmonies. Hence, the II6-IV-iii progression in the beginning that comes out of nowhere (I have unexplainable bad habit of thinking of minor tonics as vi). In the end, I wouldn't have it any other way. Thanks for listening. -Fatty -- Joseph Liao MIT 2006, Biology e: jliao@mit.edu Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liontamer Posted March 16, 2006 Share Posted March 16, 2006 Chrono Cross Original Soundtrack - 101 Chrono Cross ~Time's Scar~ Had this on my show way back on VGF51; kind of surprised to see this now. When you don't hear of a song for a year, you certainly don't expect to see it sitting here. Nonetheless I'm glad to see another sub from Joseph. Decent idea for the retro synth opening, which half of us here hate. Panned too much to the right and, if I'm noticing that, it's gotta be drastic as my hearing is worse in that ear. Moved over into the simple beats at :18 and I'm interested to see where it'll go. 8-bit synth comes in at :34, soon doubled along with some very light pizz string type support. Followed by the arranged melody on 8-bit lead at :51. The thick beat at 1:10 was way too simplistic and felt tacked on; didn't create a good texture for the piece when it was in play IMO, but I may be alone on that. I liked things much better when you brought in the synth strings at 1:39 to add a bit more depth to the arrangement. Decent breakdown from 2:03-2:21 before really upping the strings for a nice, more noticeable harmonization from 2:21-2:38. Wish the arrangement had more to say from 2:38 until 3:16/the end as opposed to basically retreading the already existing arrangement ideas. The minimalistic atmosphere here is ok, but I think it's shortchanging the track. Aside from the thicker beats, the subtleties in the countermelodic writing and other support instrumentation were often so quiet and understated that it made the arrangement seem too simple and not fleshed out. After 1:26 except for the brief breakdown, one could argue that they've heard all the melodic arrangement you have to offer and that the supporting instrumentation doesn't seem like enough of a presence to make up for that level of repetition. I feel bad, as I'd like to see something like this on the site, but need to have the writing under the melody have more presence so it sounds more contributory and integrated with the melody, plus the arranged melody itself could use some further variation from iteration to iteration to keep things fresh. Sorry, man. It's certainly not for a lack of appreciation for what you've done with this, but it needs to have (and subsequently show off) more substance IMO. Best of luck on the rest of the vote. NO (rework/resubmit) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vig Posted March 16, 2006 Share Posted March 16, 2006 larry is right that the strings in the left channel are far too quiet. i didnt notice them until my second listen. While this track is clearly not a chiptune, it makes use of NES quality synths without sacrificing the overall sound of the track. In fact, this is the first track out of the three recent submissions to use NES quality instruments that does so without sounding cheap. Like the rest of Fatty Acid's stuff, this is concise, relatively straightforward, but also sharply put-together and enjoyable. YES Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Orichalcon Posted March 16, 2006 Share Posted March 16, 2006 The panning in this piece can be odd at times, I'm willing to give that a pass-over though, since a lot of songs in this style make heavywork of panning. I'm with Vig on this one. The piece is nice and smooth, everything seems to be balanced perfectly. It's not simply a tacked together piece from NES sounds. Clearly, precise and careful attention has been payed to each detail in the mix, what with the accompanying grungey sounds and fleeting background synths. My one gripe with the piece is that it's so short. It builds up a nice, dare I say it, chill-out atmosphere which could go on for 5 minutes or so, but stops at just over 3:16. Felt way too short to me. However, not enough of a problem to stop me from passing this. YES Edit: After a couple more listens. I'd be stronger on that yes if the panning of the synth was more centralised, or at least balanced a little better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zircon Posted March 22, 2006 Share Posted March 22, 2006 The initial harder panning of that opening synth is quite obvious when it's by itself. You might consider centering it until later when you have more instruments in the texture. While I do enjoy Fatty Acid's stuff, I voted NO on his last submission that I voted on as well. This I believe suffers from the same problems to a greater extent. The sounds are very simplistic and the beat is very basic with little variation. The arrangement isn't bad but it's on the more cautious side, and the fact that the percussion never changes and few new instruments are introduced makes it seem a little more repetitive than it should. The vinyl effect is also a little overdone at times, such as towards the end, where there are audible pops and clicks that could almost sound like clipping. This is just really basic. Simple sine waves comprise several of the synths, an overall panning bias to the right for no apparent reason, no changeups with the beat (basically just two separate loops), no standout solos or original sections.. I would say that this is without question below our bar. Your other mixes have been better, I dunno what's up with this one. NO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrayLightning Posted March 22, 2006 Share Posted March 22, 2006 I agree with Vig that this is well put-together. That is one thing that I've consistently enjoyed with Fatty's mixes. But Zircon's view pretty much echoes my vote here, as well as my issues with FA's previous mix. The arrangement in my opinion is too straightforward. Plus mixing perhaps one of the greatest source tunes in all of game history is a heavy burden in my opinion. I think the result here is a mixed bag personally. I'd like to hear more variation and liberties taken, especially with some expansion in the melody at least here and there. But more so, as with his previous mix, I think this is on the very simplistic side. There's a pervading sparse problem here. I think some more middle frequency pads could help balance things out. Also I felt the mix was a little stilted to the right side of the stereo field. Synth design in general is extremely basic ( I'm surprised Liontamer did not fawn over that aspect as he usually does with others. ahem. ) Basic, loopish drums as well. I think the overall package is fine, but I don't see it as being above the bar either. There's nothing wrong here per se, but nothing that stands out for me either in arrangement/production/synth design or beatwork, the latter two elements of which are paramount in this style in my opinion. Also where's the typical Fatty Acid cool processing we've come to expect of you? Like cool gating, etc or automation? It's a NO, I'm afraid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liontamer Posted March 22, 2006 Share Posted March 22, 2006 Synth design in general is extremely basic ( I'm surprised Liontamer did not fawn over that aspect as he usually does with others. ahem. ) Bitch, plz. Voting auto-YES on retro sounds is just as stupid as you voting auto-NO (which you do). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrayLightning Posted March 22, 2006 Share Posted March 22, 2006 Synth design in general is extremely basic ( I'm surprised Liontamer did not fawn over that aspect as he usually does with others. ahem. ) Bitch, plz. Voting auto-YES on retro sounds is just as stupid as you voting auto-NO (which you do). Wrong. I explained when retro sounds can be used well. There's a difference between good retro sounds, and bad retro sounds. Some of my favorite game soundtracks and general music stems from 80s. There is one problem by some judges here who have not used retro synths/or who have lived through that time frame - the inability to make distinctions between retro sounds done by say a roland roland jx10, korg m1 or say oberheim or some crud from radio shack. These differences manifest themselves in today's software arena as well - even if they are trying to emulate retro sounds. You make it sound like all retro synths sound the same. They clearly do not. There are distinctions. Not all synths sound the same, period. There's a difference to how synths sounded with even 80s synths. There are reasons why people paid $400 vs $3000 even back then, it wasn't all about feature sets either, but also sound quality/synth quality. That is the distinction I make. Sound/synth quality is what it is, no matter how you slice it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JJT Posted March 25, 2006 Share Posted March 25, 2006 I don't normally like to let production dictate my votes, but the panning and the sparseness that Gray refers to are really distracting. Everytime I've listened to this I've had my attention taken off the musical aspect of the mix and I find myself thinking "isn't there a better way to present these ideas?" My gut feeling on this mix has always been no. so, NO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts