Jump to content

OCR02873 - *YES* Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past 'A Link to Zelda'


Recommended Posts

* Your ReMixer name: T1lTED

* Your real name: Gary Burrell

* Your website

* Your userid: 51011

* Name of game(s) arranged: The Legend of Zelda - A Link to the Past

* Name of arrangement: A Link to Zelda

* Name of individual song(s) arranged: "The Legend of Zelda Theme" (Overworld Theme)

Edited by djpretzel
Link to post
Share on other sites

Not my thing personally, and the biggest drawback was that the beats should have been more varied and interesting. That and the repetition at the end made this feel paint-by-numbers than it should have.

That said, this had some melodically and rhythmically interpretive things while also personalizing the sounds during the more cover-ish verses. I would have liked to have heard more melodic interpretation and variation, but that didn't end up being the approach here.

Decent dropoff at 2:10, though I would have liked to have heard something more melodically different from the opening at :00.

Perhaps I'm being too lenient, as I'm admittedly underwhelmed, but on the substance it gets by. From a creative standpoint, this is merely OK, but it could have been great. The final third not really evolving much (and having a bland finish) ended up being a disappointment, IMO, but this does still get by on a solid overall level of expansion and interpretation. Gary shows off some good potential for the future.

YES (borderline)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

Pretty much in agreement with Larry here. The coverish parts were overall pretty close to the source, and while there's some interpretation here, it wasn't anything that stands out particularly strongly. I don't think there's anything wrong with it, just that it feels a bit like "been there, done that." That being said, the more interpretive parts are pretty sweet, and the energy level overall is pretty high. I'd have loved a bit more variation overall, both in the coverish sections by changing around the melody, and your more interpretive areas. I think this skims the bar, but I am OK giving it a pass. Good luck on the rest of the vote.

YES (Borderline)

Link to post
Share on other sites

EDIT: So, compression wasn't nearly as big of an issue as I thought it was due to a (super annoying!) setting on this computer. There still is a bit of distortion at places like 1:29 where the compressor is working overtime. Also, the leads are on the bright side for sure. The thing is, when I listened previously this stuff was accentuated to a much higher degree. Overall, though, production is much less an issue than when I first listened.

While the arrangement execution is pretty straight-forward, the mixer brings some nice creativity - especially in the B section of the source. Good energy to this piece as well. I agree with the crits on repetativeness and the ending for sure, but I did personally enjoy the mix for what's here!

I agree this is riding the edge on both the arrangement and production sides, but I'm OK with what we've got.

YES

Edited by Nutritious
Link to post
Share on other sites
Am I hearing the same mix as you guys? Maybe I'm crazy, but I'm hearing a ton of instrument crowding and distortion from overcompression starting at :07.

While the arrangement execution is pretty straight-forward, the mixer brings some nice creativity - especially in the B section of the source.

But yeah, I need to hear a much cleaner mix before I can sign off on this one.

Justin asked me to check this one again. I wasn't bothered as much as you, Justin, but you definitely didn't make an invalid point. I could see saying compression was an issue; I didn't get that vibe as much, but the lead synths (e.g. :06-:40, 1:08-1:42, 2:23-2:37) are pretty grating/abrasive, and the supporting writing does get smothered a bit. I'm still borderline on going with it, but your ears ain't broke, and I could change my call on this given your concerns. The leads could use a touch-ups at least, but the arrangement was solid ENOUGH. I'm thinking about it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Justin asked me to check this one again. I wasn't bothered as much as you, Justin, but you definitely didn't make an invalid point. I could see saying compression was an issue; I didn't get that vibe as much, but the lead synths (e.g. :06-:40, 1:08-1:42, 2:23-2:37) are pretty grating/abrasive, and the supporting writing does get smothered a bit. I'm still borderline on going with it, but your ears ain't broke, and I could change my call on this given your concerns. The leads could use a touch-ups at least, but the arrangement was solid ENOUGH. I'm thinking about it.

FYI, as discussed with Larry in IRC, I'm on a new setup here and found an issue with a windows setting that was putting artificial compression on playback. I'm amending my vote above.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not really feeling the arrangement here. There's about 1 minute of material that's just looped for 3 minutes. It's literally copy-paste stuff going on here. There isn't even any kind of breakdown in the middle to change things up.

Energy level stays the same throughout the piece. I'm not really feeling any dynamics. Things get worn out really fast.

NO, resub

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

Hey this is pretty cool! Nice personalisations on the source. Variation throughout is more of a problem as Darkesword noted tho, as while this starts out very promising, when a section is repeated, its pretty much a copy paste job, even down to some of the harder to hear embellishments. I don't think this needs much, but some more variation, which I know you can do based on this, can go a LONG way to getting this the pass for me.

NO (resub)

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is pretty cookie-cutter in terms of the arrangement. The production is alright, i'm just really not feeling there's much here that's creative or compelling. Sorry to be glib, but there's nothing else I can say at the moment. Study some contemporary electronic arrangements and see how they keep it interesting.

NO

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm listening again, and while the overall sound is still grating from a personal taste standpoint, I thought this came out fine. There was some copy-pasta action with :41 repeating at 1:42, but the last verse at 2:37 at least had some differences in the leads. I thought the personalization of the verse arrangement was substantial enough to mitigate that negative. I'm not OMG YES, but at the same time, the arrangement substance was there, even if the sound design wasn't particularly impressive. That's gotta count for something, so I'm sticking to mah (borderline) guns. That said, addressing the crits of the NOs would solidly put this on track.

Edited by Liontamer
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah not OMG yes either, but this was well put-together. Lots of cool moments going on to keep me interested, a good genre choice for the source material. I did hear some repetition, but I never thought it was too noticeable. Would have been nice to hear this go the extra mile but what's here works.

YES

Link to post
Share on other sites

TIEBREAKER!

While I'm not overly impressed with the copy paste repeats, it's not like there's no place for them. It's just more obvious when the changes that have been made are as complicated as they are. Whilst the sound is overall a little cookie and the arrangement is a bit on the OCD side, I think the production is executed well enough.

I'm gonna let this pass, but next time I'd like to hear less straight copy-pastage and more subtle variation please.

YES

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...